@moe

I agree with you. We should not have a system that allows people to break the law with impunity. Illegal immigrants are taking shortcuts and it isn't fair to legal immigrants who have to wait so long and put so much effort into playing by the rules.

My objection to SB1070 is simply that it is a poorly written law, not what the law is trying to accomplish.

You can really tell who is for and against this. The individuals that are for this call them (immigrants without papers) "undocumented immigrants" and people who are against them (because they are here illegally) call them "illegal immigrants". It's so cut and dry if they didn't apply and go through the process like legal immigrants did then they shouldn't be here. SEND THEM BACK AND MAKE THEM DO IT PROPERLY! It's that simple.

Any of you belleding heart libs have the guts to watch this all the way through? I doubt it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KcwIy_fQuU&feature=player_embedded

@ DoWhatIsRight:

"Yes, it is true that the Federal Government has the power to guard the borders of the U.S. but the states have the authority to guard it borders. When these borders are the same, the state has as much right if not more than the Federal Government to control who comes across its border. "
----

This is an interesting assertion. I have been reading through the Constitution and I see where Congress is granted the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization... throughout the United States". It does not state explicitly "that the Federal Government has the power to guard the borders" thought one must assume that the powers vested in Congress by the Constitution in control of Naturalization are extended to border security.

The Constitution also states that "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal;". Like this passage, the whole rest of Article 1 Section 10 limits the powers of the states in such a way that it is clear the states have no ability to act as independent nations. This should include "border security".

Also the Tenth Amendment states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively" which indicates that since the Congress does have the ability to regulate the borders that the States do not.

I see nowhere in the Constitution where a right of the States to "protect their borders" is enumerated. I believe the fact that there are no border crossing stations between any State and another and that all border crossings between Mexico, Canada and the US are operated by the Federal Government illustrates that the States have no authority in this area.

Your point about SB1070 not being racist or having racial overtones is incorrect. You stated that "The law is the same for Vietnamese, Indian, Arab, Chinese, or any one in Arizona" but this illustrates exactly my point. If you are not Caucasian with an American dialect SB1070's clause of "reasonable suspicion" falls upon you. It singles out people who are different. This means that if you are Asian-American, Indian-American, Hispanic American or any other first or possibly second generation immigrant you need to be concerned about the Police stopping you just to verify your immigration status. This is also separate from your "75 year old Caucasian woman that is searched in the air port" metaphor because that 75 year old Caucasian woman was chosen at random. SB1070 does not stipulate random checking. It stipulates "reasonable suspicion".

I believe SB1070 is also in violation of Article 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment which states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

By forcing some citizens to carry proof of citizenship but not others SB1070 is, in my opinion, clearly in violation of those citizen's rights.

To Dowhatsright:

You have provided no evidence for your statement that undocumented immigrants "cost us way more than they contribute." The evidence I have examined shows otherwise. I cite again the story from Fox Business News, hardly a left-wing source, of studies that show that undocumented immigrants contribute more to state economies than they use in services.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/illegal-immigration-provides-benefits-states-despite-rhetoric/

Law Professor Francine Lipman makes the following argument:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=881584

"Americans believe that undocumented immigrants are exploiting the United States' economy. The widespread belief is that illegal aliens cost more in government services than they contribute to the economy. This belief is undeniably false. Every empirical study of illegals' economic impact demonstrates the opposite: undocumenteds actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services. Moreover, undocumented immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and consumption of goods and services; filling of millions of essential worker positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance programs. Eighty-five percent of eminent economists surveyed have concluded that undocumented immigrants have had a positive (seventy-four percent) or neutral (eleven percent) impact on the U.S. economy."

A 2007 review by the Congressional Budget Office of a wide range of studies of the economic impact of undocumented immigrants on states says the following:

"Most available studies conclude that the unauthorized population pays less in state and local taxes than it costs state and local governments to provide services to that population. However, those estimates have significant limitations; they are not a suitable basis for developing an aggregate national effect across all states."

The CBO report also says the following:

"The amount that state and local governments spend
on services for unauthorized immigrants represents a small percentage of the total amount spent by those governments to provide such services to residents in their jurisdictions."

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8711/12-6-Immigration.pdf

It is difficult to estimate the relative cost of undocumented immigrants to states vs. the contributions that immigrants make to state economies. However, a number of credible studies show that undocumented immigrants provide more in economic benefits to states than they use in services, and other studies show a relatively modest burden to state economies from undocumented immigrants.

You argue that people of Arizona are suddenly threatened by "illegals." But the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has been dropping in recent years, not increasing. According to a report by the Center for Immigration Studies,

"Our best estimate is that the illegal population declined 13.7 percent (1.7 million) from a peak of 12.5 million in the summer of 2007 to 10.8 million in the first quarter of 2009.

"If we compare the first quarter of 2007 to the first quarter of 2009, the implied decline is 1.3 million (10.9 percent). In just the last year the decline was 5.7 percent....

"There is evidence that the number of new illegal immigrants arriving has fallen by about one-third in the last two years compared to earlier in this decade.

"There is also evidence that the number of illegal immigrants returning home has more than doubled in the last two years compared to earlier in this decade."

http://www.cis.org/illegalimmigration-shiftingtide

Anyone can pull up stories of individual crimes and atrocities, and these are indeed horrible. But they are individual stories only. A 2007 study by researchers at Rutgers University revealed that immigrants as a whole committed less crime in California than native-born Americans:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN246261520080226

You have accused me of what is commonly called "confirmation bias," which is looking only at evidence that supports my preconceptions. I do my best to look at all the evidence I can find. I have no personal stake in our national immigration policy. I arrived at my thinking about immigrants by examining a variety of arguments and evidence presented by a variety of researchers. I am open to looking at new evidence or additional evidence. My goal is to find ways to make our immigration policy both humane and practical and certainly fair to everyone.

My examination of the evidence indicates to me that undocumented immigrants have become the targets of people who feel threatened. These folks who are eager to kick out or punish undocumented immigrants probably are threatened, but not by the undocumented immigrants. I think that many people have come to blame undocumented immigrants for economic threats to their well-being that are a result of the decline in the economy. Undocumented immigrants also represent what many Americans perceive to be a cultural threat, because most in recent years have come from Mexico. Finally, undocumented immigrants make easy scapegoats, as they are mostly unable to speak up for themselves in public.

John Adams was indeed a Unitarian and may well have believed in God only being one person, but he would not have been a member of the Universal Unitarian Church today.

The Prof's statement that illegals do contribute is correct, but they cost us way more than they contribute. That is not to say that some are good people and hard workers, but still law breakers when they come into this country illegally. Yes. They have come into this county to work for years, and they can still do it legally, but they choose to do it illegally. That is just one of the objections. Another objection is that people from terrorist countries are being smuggled into this country through Mexico and this must be stopped.

Yes, it is true that the Federal Government has the power to guard the borders of the U.S. but the states have the authority to guard it borders. When these borders are the same, the state has as much right if not more than the Federal Government to control who comes across its border.

It most certainly NOT A MYTH THAT THE ARIZONA PEOPLE ARE THREATENDED BY ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ask the Rancher that was killed by illegals, ask the Police officer that was killed by the illegals, ask the ranchers that have been robed and beaten by illegal when they come across the rancher's land. Ask the rancher that has to guard his live stock, car, tools and personal items so they will not be taken by the illegals as the come over. I personally know a contractor that has to take all tools and equipment with him at the end of the day. In fact, one day as he was loading his truck a bunch of illegals were taking the tools out of his truck and putting them into theirs. He caught them and tried to stop them. There were several of them so, they pushed him away and tried to drive off. However, the people saw what was happening and blocked their escape. They were arrested and found to be illegals that were stealing tools to sell and to use as theirs on day labor jobs.

Also, if you are stopped for reasonable cause, you have to prove your identity. If you can not prove who you are you can be held until the police can identify you in every place in this country. Often you can be held for 72 hours on suspicion alone. Try giving a false identity or lying to a police office and see if you are not charged no matter where you are. So why is it wrong to do it in Arizona, and why should they be called racist? The law is the same for Vietnamese, Indian, Arab, Chinese, or any one in Arizona. The only thing is that there is a close relationship between the local Hispanics and the illegal Mexicans. So the Hispanics complain. Well the 75 year old Caucasian woman that is searched in the air port complains also. Yet she must submit because of terrorist. Now the Hispanic must submit.

The post by Truth Talk is excellent and well done.

As for OhioProf post I think that we need to reform federal immigration law to provide undocumented immigrants with the opportunity to achieve legal status. They do it is called following the rules and entering this country legally and filing for citizenship.

Your post that the illegals do the work that we do not want to do is correct, but like so many of your other posts you do not tell the entire story. They also take jobs from people that have been doing their trade for years and have homes and debts based on their earnings. They have lost their job and their homes and families because illegals work for way less.

I think the most thinking you have ever done was in picking you name, because all your arguments have been based on just part of the finding, and that has been a problem with real Ohio Professors for a long time. They choose only that finding that support their position and ignore the rest. This post is getting too long but there is so much misinformation that it could continue for several more pages

To Shagbark: It is not appropriate for you to level personal attacks at me for a program I worked on as an employee, a program that has nothing to do with the issue of immigration. Attacking me is NOT addressing the issues we have been discussing. Attacking my employer is NOT addressing the issues. I think you are probably better than this and that you can show integrity and engage in civil discussion that does not involve personal attacks.

If you have a problem with or questions about my employer's dissertation fellowship, you can write to them, and I am sure the academic dean will explain to you that the fellowship is open to anyone who applies regardless of race or ethnic background. Our search committee accepted and evaluated all applications for the fellowship. FYI, I did not write this or any job ad, as this is not my role.

You really should stop with your efforts at character assassination and focus on answering questions about or making arguments about the issues we discuss. I would never try to disparage your character because of work that you did as part of your job. You should be more gracious to others and refrain from pointless and unfounded personal attacks.

In response to OhioProf post 56:

"I served as chair of that search committee as part of my job. The dissertation fellow position is open to candidates of all races who meet the qualifications."

This is double speak...

From the job announcement:

"Candidates must be citizens of the United States, and members of one of the following minority groups: Alaska Natives; Black/African Americans; Native American Indians; Native Pacific Islanders; Hispanic."

Reads like discrimination to me since the job is not open to all candidates.

Since your employer receives Federal Grants, they are subject to Federal EEO laws. To quote from Federal EEO laws prohibiting Job Discrimination:

"National Origin Discrimination - It is illegal to discriminate against an individual because of birthplace, ancestry, culture, or linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group."

It is a direct contradiction to your statement as your "qualification statement" based on National Origin is quite discriminatory.

As head of the search committee, you either wrote the announcement or had significant input to it.
I have been there and done that. To say it was just part of your job is quite unrealistic, and frankly an overused excuse for not being held accountable for personal actions.

Are you a "useful idiot?" (look up the term - has specific meaning in political arena)

This is a solid example of this entire discussion of double speak.

@ ualani1271

Your summary of my argument is very flawed. I never said that coming to this country illegally was a right. I stated that there are dynamics in place that cause illegal immigration which are not being addressed by either the Federal Government nor the Arizona SB 1070. My stance is that the Federal Government should be doing something to curb illegal immigration since border security is within the purview of the Federal Government. I have serious doubts about the constitutionality of the Arizonan law as it is written. I am not concerned about the law impinging the rights of illegals, but of legal citizens.

Hopefully this has cleared up your fallacious summary of my argument in such a way that your straw-man no longer stands.

I think its funny how people who don't even live in Arizona are telling them how or how not to do things.

You can spin how ever you want whether your for it or against it.