Let’s get real, there’s a supply because there’s a demand. The only way to eliminate supply is to eliminate demand. Not by harassing honest laborers desperate to make a living for their families.
When I spent a month hanging out in Germany with a friend of mine, he and I were discussing it and I was told that if I stayed there more than a certain time, I would have to be registered to an address with the government. He also let me know that if the police did stop me on the street, unlike the US, I would have to show ID paperwork [as a tourist, my passport]
Those numbers are per capita, not absolute. Are you telling me that Arizona would be the safest state in the Union if not for those pesky illegals? The reason I mentioned Delaware is because I think of it as a “safe” state. I’m not sure how people who actually live there view it.
Arizona’s population density is, like its crime rates, pretty much in the middle of the table (though toward the lower end), at 33rd; slightly higher than Iowa and Arkansas, and slightly lower than Mississippi and Minnesota.
Nevada’s population density is much lower - less than half, in fact - and yet it has more crime of every stripe.
Well, it would help, but it’s not an overnight cure. Even if we legalized cannabis tomorrow, we’d still have to worry about cocaine and heroin, neither of which is likely to be legalized in our lifetimes.
Immigrants to the US are technically required to apprise USCIS of their address at all times. I haven’t ever really bothered, especially since I can be contacted at the address still on file (it’s a business we own) but the legal authority is there.
I agree, I think if they can scrape up the money to get their asses to our borders, we should let them in. In fact, we have a lot of empty farmland in the middle of the country complete with small towns sitting mostly empty. Instead of them popping into the nearest city, load them onto a train and drop them onto an empty farm, with the proviso that they farm it for a certain amount of time, they get the farm. There are a lot of agricultural types that would love that type of opportunity. Give them some basic tools, farm animals [chickens, goats, cows,] and appropriate seeds, and an agricultural extension office to give them advice on how we do things in the US if they need the help, and let them work.
We had basque shepherds, balkan farmers, scandanavian fishermen, italian farmers show up and we made room for them 100 years ago, and it didn’t kill our country then, I dont think a bunch of hispanic or steppes people will kill us now.
It’s not, though. The Declaration, as you say, advances the idea that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights endowed to men by their Creator. The Constitution, in contrast, says that Congress shall not establiish a religion. The Constitution says, at least according to our caselaw, some very specific things, like how a party may challenge the exclusion of jurors of one race in his jury pool, and where the burden of proof for those challenges lies.
But I don’t regard that as a universal right for all humanity.
So, you don’t believe that the civil rights that are a part of American culture are applicable to non-Americans? Free press, freedom of/from religion, etc.? I mean, philosophically, now, not legally.
Some are, some aren’t. Freedom from religion? Some countries have state religions. I don’t believe that violates any innate human rights in and of itself.
If the United States became an Islamic state and abolished, legally, the relevant parts of the law that made this a problem, you wouldn’t feel any of your innate rights had been violated?
I wonder what percentage of AZ bill opponents are this far out of the mainstream. From the anti-bill side I hear a lot of cries of “racists!” and “police state!” - tribal responses with low argumentation value. If the argument became associated with open-borders advocacy, as you frame it, I bet the American public, already massively in favor of the bill, will be even more so.
(For the record, I am for the bill but also for increased legal immigration, especially skilled immigration, from a diverse group of countries without a single country dominating as a point of origin the way Mexico does today. I am appalled by the provision in Obama’s TARP bill limiting hiring of skilled immigrants. That said I think assimilation is something to strive for and there is a theoretical limit to the feasible rate of immigration.)
Well, I’ve been to England, which has an established state religion (the Church of England), but also has freedom of religion (so, e.g., Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc., are free to build their mosques and temples, and worship there according to their beliefs). I don’t think that breaks any fundamental human rights.
If you had an Islamic state which the practice of Christianity was limited (as you do in Saudi Arabia), that would be a breach of human rights.
We’re on the same page here - I am not an opponent of this bill.
I am for this legislation, but only because illegal immigration poses a threat to my safety (through potential terror acts) and my health (no one is checking these people for disease).
If we can get those things covered, I see no reason why we can’t metaphorically throw open the borders.
Another “what if” scenario. I have bad news for you. Your government can do everything in your paragraph of doom already because of the patriot act. All they need is probable cause. Feel better now?
Reading your post gave me a headache. Do you honestly feel that the people of Arizona just want to go around harassing brown people? really?
I stated up-thread that the corporations that exploit the labor pool should be dealt with. That’s a big part of the problem. So we agree on that issue. So if we take that away, do the illegals stay home?
I don’t want these people exploited for cheap labor. You use a broad brush to paint everyone with when it suits you.