to be honest, i think that's an impossibility. the criminal justice system is still run by people, who have their own personal biases. and it apprehends people who have their own personal biases.

SB1070 was poorly written, however IMO, HB2162 clears up much of the gray area.

True, but it's the systemic bias that's the problem. I don't know enough about the HB in detail anyway. I just go with "bad law" all around for a wide variety of reasons.

Feds bans critical parts of arizona's immigration law

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100728/...na_immigration

FIFY. ;)

thx...was out on iPad.

National Crime Report numbers for Arizona

if true, would really make you wonder what the real motivating factor is for the new law.

I thought this deserved to be posted from your link:
After being here for two months, Phoenix is a very clean, safe city. I feel much more safe here than I did in Baltimore.

Those stats are essentially meaningless without accounting for causation/correlation problems, though.

i think about 99 percent of the cities in the country are safer than baltimore, lol.

Sure, but no one has showed that illegal immigration leads to an increase in crime either. They just flash the stats.

Right? Feeling "safe" or "not safe" is all in ones head. I felt that DC was safe when I lived even though I'm sure there are people that are hella scared of that town, but I was also coming there via Detroit.

Right - I'll agree with that completely. For both sides, crime stats are the dog and pony show to avoid discussing the real problems with policy on either side (namely, that they don't address incentives/motivation for illegal entry - it's easier to build a fence than start from scratch).

Yeah, but it's a lot easier to feel safe when the crime rate is low. People feel safe around their families, but statistically, you're more likely to be killed by your own family member than an illegal immigrant.

BTW, I felt safer where I lived in Baltimore than I did in Shreveport, LA.

Ding ding ding.

You're messing with my head woman. I was trying to quote you and your post went poof.

Anyway, most crimes seem to be that way. I'm not actually sure which crimes are more likely to be perpetrated by a stranger rather than by a family member or acquaintance. Murder, rape, child abuse, all are committed by those 'closest' to you far more often than by the random person on the street, but most people seem to focus on the stranger in the van, the creep in the alley, the illegal immigrant on the street as the person you should be afraid of. Maybe because it's just too hard to believe you could know someone who would do terrible things.

I was thinking that when they compared the current violent crime stats of Detroit, which has been economically depressed for generations, to San Antonio, which has economically grown by leaps and bounds during the last decade. I think San Antonios lower crime rate has more to do with the economic opportunities available for it's residents than anything else.

Sorry, didn't want to leave out the other post. :)

As for causation/correlation, it's hard to argue about that when the republicans backing this bill in AZ are arguing that the crime rate is why they want this bill. The crime rate is DOWN! The crime is not because of illegal immigration which is also DOWN! It is as KSig RC said, "a dog and pony show."

The bill was really sold on fear of potential violence spilling over into the U.S. It hasn't really happened yet, but that doesn't mean it can't ( see Bob Krentz). I blame the drug cartel war going on in Mexico and the fear generated from it as pushing the anti-illegal agenda going on today as well as the current recession. History proves that we haven't been the most hospitable to immigrants during economic turmoil.

i think the argument that illegals are committing all of these violent crimes is sensationalism at best.

but they're still illegal. so they're breaking the law by their mere presence.

While that is true it doesn't answer the question of what we are to do with them. Amnesty is an option that would cut down on the ancillary crimes committed by illegals such as driving without a license and ID theft/fraud, not to mention they wouldn't be illegals anymore. Easy money.

amnesty is the worst idea that one can have. it's a slap in the face of all the naturalized citizens who obtained citizenship properly.

Just for reference: http://lafinjack.net/images/random/immigration.jpg

I'm not posting it because it's huge.

I'm not an advocate for amnesty at all, in fact I'm against it but it is an option. The way I see it is like this, we had an amnesty back in 1986 and yet today we have anywhere between 12-18 million illegals in the country. What exactly did amnesty do other than encourage further illegal immigration?

Also, some of the old timers I know who worked for INS during the amnesty said it was a nightmare and didn't do squat to fix the immigration system.

Yeah, and that reasoning works as well as the reasoning that every person with a car should be arrested for daily breaking the law as they speed to work. Everyone breaks the law. That's illegal. Think of another argument.

Speeding isn't normally an offense that warrants an arrest, it's just a civil infraction. Why do people try to justify breaking immigration laws by acting as if it's no big deal or it's a stupid concept to begin with, so why follow it?

But breaking a law multiple times is an offense that can get you arrested. There is a difference between acting as if breaking an immigration law is not a big deal and the end of the world. I agree that there is a problem with illegal immigration, but vilifying these people is not the solution. Going on and on and on about how they broke the law is dumb, IMHO.

I think it's more than that. If I'm not mistaken, "illegal" immigration is a civil offense and doesn't become criminal until a person is deported and then returns again without documentation. Like I said, I could be wrong, so I'd appreciate confirmation from someone who knows.

Anyway, speeding can be a criminal offense. So, if illegal immigration is only civil, speeding is worse. :p

That's a good point. Where's MysticCat?
BTW, being illegally in the country has never killed anyone, but speeding has sure resulted in lots of deaths. That also makes speeding worse. :P

For reasons both obvious and not, undocumented entry into the US doesn't warrant an arrest either (deportation instead).

The main issue with immigration over the Mexican border is that there's no real incentive for most people to cross legally. Crossing with a coyote is expensive, dangerous, and generally just a shitty experience - but it's still apparently preferable to attempting to enter the country legally. Unless that changes, no fence or semi-racist Minutemen patrol will stem the tide of illegals.

Also, as an aside, the problem with connecting crime statistics to immigration is that there's been a drop in crime overall, and particularly violent crime, over the last two decades or so, and the reasons are really poorly understood (Levitt connected it to Roe v. Wade and abortions among the poor, for example - so the reasons are likely much broader than any one immigration issue). Any comparison has to account for this general drop first. Second, crimes among illegals (for instance, theft or rape) will likely go underreported, and there is no way to know how many unsolved crimes can be tied to a group of people adept at changing names/information/location - it's a minor point when compared with point 1, but there's a good chance it's significant. That's without getting into the fact that there's really no proof that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than non-immigrants once you account for socioeconomic factors.

Inadmissibility/Deportation charges under section 212 and 237 of the INA are administrative but can lead to criminal charges if the alien is deemed to be a criminal alien, i.e. making false claims, smuggling, etc. Illegal entry following a deportation order is a criminal offense. Immigration law is pretty complex and murky, to really get into it would take a whole thread.

BTW, I'd much rather deal with a speeding ticket than served with a NTA for an immigration hearing. Not fun at all.

people are pulled over. and given speeding tickets. and just because many folks aren't, that doesn't mean that illegals should be given amnesty. so your comparison is poor.

no, that's stating a fact. illegal immigration isn't contributing to the overall wellness of this country like many seem to believe. there's 330 million americans, and 12 million illegals. it's a drop in the bucket overall. but they don't deserve amnesty.

Uh huh, and where exactly did you see me say that we should offer them amnesty? Good try. Yes, people are pulled over and given speeding tickets. People are also caught and sent back to their countries of origin. The difference is that we don't run around screaming that the speeders are CRIMINALS. Do you see the point I was making now? If you don't, you are trying really hard not to.

that's the converation me and pika2001 were having when you chimed in. who cares if we don't run screaming around that speeders are criminals? people make an issue on what they want to make an issue about. just because folks don't make an issue about speeders, doesnt' mean they can't make an issue about illegal immigration. if you want, you can start up a thread on speeders. this one is about illegal immigration.

If we were able to establish a track record of mostly stopping illegal immigration and drying up the job opportunities for those already here, amnesty would be fine.

She's saying that treating illegal or undocumented immigrants as universally criminals and nigh subhuman is the problem. Everyone who speeds breaks the law but we don't villianize "speeders." Hell society doesn't villianize drunk drivers in some places either. Villianizing, or "othering" illegal immigrants leads to knee-jerk laws that typically don't solve the problem.

The options aren't only "Amnesty and nothing else" or "Kick them all out" either.

Personally I think we need to reform immigration, see the link I posted, there's a reason why "getting back in line" isn't effective. Whether that means making the hiring process easier, so that employers can/will sponsor more, or whether we add more "basic labor" positions to the immigration code, I'm not sure. We need to pass the DREAM act. We need to grant citizenship to immigrants who have been working, living, otherwise contributing to our economy. And we need to crack down on employers who hire under the table and exploit their employees (and typically subsequently abuse them).

But you can't expect to do part of it without doing all of it.

people will react and villanize who and what they want to villanize. someone might view armed robbery as not a big deal, but will view jay walking as a big deal. and that's their prerogative and their issue.

just because folks don't make a big deal about speeding, drunk driving, or drug use and choose to make a big deal about illegal immigration, doesn't mean that the former offences aren't a big deal to someone else.

i comment on illegal immigration. we're in an illegal immigration thread. does that mean that i should have the same level of opinion in a thread regarding tax evasion? no.

i don't know what about the immigration process that needs reforming. and no one has been able to say what's wrong with the process. just because folks bypass the process, doesn't mean the process is wrong.

I see the pros and cons of amnesty and the children of illegal immigrants being citizens by birth. It does give illegal immigrants a way out and contribute to the moral dilemma of kicking illegal immigrants out ("how can you kick the parents out when their kids are citizens?). Crafty.

Well . . . the majority of people would rather go through the arduous, expensive and dangerous process of crossing illegally instead of using the established legal process. That pretty much indicates the legal process is broken, by definition - it clearly is not working in the intended fashion.

It seems pretty clear there has to be a better way. Whether or not the process is "wrong" is irrelevant at that point (indeed, it seems that immigration policy was intended for European/Asian immigration and educational opportunity, and not low-income immigration).

As far as what needs fixing, it seems similarly clear that there are two fundamental angles of attack that need to form the basis of any reform:

1 - End the system of employers essentially enforcing immigration policy by proxy - employers have no incentive to enforce, and actually have disincentive (cheap labor, tax burden, etc.).

2 - Shift the risk/reward axis to give better incentive to legal entry rather than illegal entry, whether that is by establishing a new, "temporary worker working toward citizenship" class or whatever other method.