Leaving Arizona
Attrition By Enforcement
By California Yankee Posted in Arizona | Attrition By Enforcement | Fred Thompson | Immigration | Immigration — Comments (71) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Illegal Aliens are packing up and leaving Arizona.
Arizona enacted a new law in an attempt to lessen economic incentives for illegal aliens. Under the new law, which takes effect January 1, businesses found to have knowingly hired illegal workers will be subject to sanctions from probation to a 10-day suspension of their business licenses. A second violation would bring permanent revocation of the license.
Arizona employers have started to fire workers who can't prove they are in the country legally. As a result illegal aliens are returning to their home countries or moving other states.
The departure of the illegals from Arizona proves that attrition by enforcement works. When illegal aliens don't have jobs, they don't stick around.
« Enumerating the Power of Congress — Comments (7) | Them Targetted Dems — Comments (6) »
Leaving Arizona 71 Comments (0 topical, 71 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
It makes you wonder why some of the Republicans in DC can't seem to figure it out.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Seriously man you are so over the top you're coming back up the bottom. The meters are pegged. Our logarithmic scales can't handle the range.
You get the picture ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
It is just hard to imagine someone putting so much energy in distorting someone's record if they do not have a candidate. If I did that they would call me a troll. I don't. I think it is reasonable to ask the question. But I got it. I am done for now.
They'd call you a troll because you have been here for a couple days. Zuiko has been here for years.
Oh, and also cause your arguments make no sense; his do.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
because there is no backup, no facts no attempt at refutation of the counters.
The come backs are all namecalling. Rather pathetic namecalling at that.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
What was I supposed to be kidding about? Joedt said that he would be called a troll if so and so that Zuiko did. I said no, he'd be called a troll (Joedt) because his argument make no sense (for the reason's you cite), while Zuiko's do.
Oh, and the difference of time they've been on the site.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Maybe I'm dense or something.
Has been going on over at least four threads I have been following and for dozens of comments. The regulars for lack of a better term have provided factual refutation, self contradictions, and history that have supported their arguments.
What comes back from the huckabots is stubborn insistence
1. He cut taxes (More than balanced by his increases)
2. The voters supported tax increases (They voted for bonds)
3. He executed criminals (As if this compensates for his releases)
4. He is pro life (for what good it did, abortions in AR declined less than the nation)
5. He is hard on crime it decline (Turned out it did not and nationally it did)
6. You can drive on the roads and the schools are better (Apparently the roads are in debate, and Toll roads would have solved that anyway. The schools not so much in 2003 they were ranked 43 out of 50 states.)
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
He's saying the joedt7's Huckabot ramblings make no sense. You are agreeing with him. We are all in complete agreement about the lameness of joedt7's posts.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You can certainly look through my over 2 years of posts for clues where I give away the fact that I'm just a Hillary plant.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The law sponsor is Republican and it was voter approved. The Governor did nothing but accept the peoples will. Funny how the people get things done.
By the way, this is a classic CNN quote and one reason I don’t read that rag;
"I don't want to live here because of the new law and the oppressive environment,"
Well Mr. Martin Herrera, problem is under Mexican law it is a felony to be an illegal alien and they deport far more illegal aliens than the US. Who is oppressive and you came here because...?
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney
who fought the McCain-Kennedy amnesty were right as well.
We were called racist's, nativist's etc. but we didn't care we fought hard and stopped the Congress and the President.
The beauty of that win was that the state's could than do what was right and not be usurped by the government.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
I recall many people at the time saying that what congress was worried about was individual communities/states starting to do something about the problem.
My guess was they didn't want anyone to see just how little it takes to solve the problem.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
==== 13 ====
...that is all the comprehensive immigration law we need, the rest is just extra.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
defend its principles.
Sovereignty of the individual states enjoys no exception to that rule, and thus, it must be defended by the citizens.
Especially when the citizens know they stand on firm constitutional ground and recognize the failure of the federal bureaucracy.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Living in Arizona myself, you need to know that it was the Republican Legislature who pushed this law through. Our Democrat governor signed because she had little choice. However, there are Republican business interests that have fought this bill every way they could think of. Leading the Republican pack was the same guy who convinced the Republican COngressional committee to interfere in the AZ08 primary in 2006. When his candidate didn't win the primary, he also convinced the National Committee to withhold funds to support our candidate. As a result, we now have Gabrielle Giffords, an ACLU lawyer, as our Democrat representative for AZ08. She proudly takes credit for $397M in plus ups in the Defense Bill for her district this year!!! Lesson: Beware of RINOs
Crappy Nappy (Our Governor Janet Napolitano) has tried numerous times to derail this thing. She has pulled National Guard troops from the border, and spoken bad about many of the recent propositions that "we the people" have passed thru ballot initiatives.
There is a coalition right now made up of some of the communities business leaders that have challenged thhis recent law in the courts. The first of which was defeated and is pending in the 9th Circuit for appeal. They have another currently pending on some other "constitutional" violation, but it looks like that one will be shot down as well.
Now, They have created a group under the name "Stop illegal Hirings". They are trying to get an initiative put on the ballot that is being advertised just that way, but it does just the opposite. It removes the teeth of the bill that is being discussed here. What it does essentially is all tips and complaints filed against an employer must be filed in writing and public to the DA, along with a few other nifty steps.
This would add red tape to the whole process and make it extremely difficult for the DA to gather info in any investigation, not to mention some people would like to remain safely behind the scenes so as not to jeprodize their own jobs out of retribution.
Luckily for us, local talk radio DJ's like JD Hayworth, Barry Young, and Bruce Jacobs (conservative of course)are doing thier best to get the word out.
Long Story short... Our governor is no fan of these types of props or laws.
Talk Radio Junkie and Friend of Fred
This shows that simply enforcing the laws we have will resolve the problem.
Virtual surveillance and monitoring, as well as structural barriers and impediments, are required.
Attrition through enforcement of existing labor laws can help solve much of the problem regarding what to do with approximately 12 million illegal-aliens that are already here.
However, attrition does nothing to verify who is entering or exiting sovereign US territory, nor does it verify their legality or divine their intentions.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
The fence is far from the best way to fight illegal immigration. However it's important for other reasons. I wish we'd separate the two in our political fights.
I know I support each for independent reasons, anyway.
There's a big difference between illegal-immigration and infiltration, and that difference is not clarified often enough, if at all.
I'd support, even call for, separating the border fence from the immigration debate, and push for its construction on the basis of national security.
Its funding should be given a higher priority than it currently enjoys and could be attached to the Intelligence Authorization Act.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
The security issue of a fence on our Southern border is probably real, but let's face facts here. Politicians use the security argument as a fig leaf to hide from the real reason to put a fence in, to keep illegals from Mexico and South America from coming into our country.
Walking across our open borders is only one, the easiest way, for terrorists to get in.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
to enter our country is on a student visa.
They can board a plane, rent a car upon landing and drive right to the front door of the dorm. Which just happens to be located in the academic sanctuary of their choosing.
If I were a terrorist, I'd be hard pressed to find the down-side of that scenario.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
And plenty of both come across that border. And, of course, the Mexican Army has come across that border something like 1000 times in the last few years... escorting the drugs. They don't even have to unload their drugs and transfer them to waiting vehicles... they can just drive right across.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
too, and are just going to use the Arizona approach.
Who needs a fence.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
that build actual barriers, i.e. fences. That's waht we need more of at the border. Get us some virtual fences, i.e. cameras, so we can engage in chases inside the US.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
If we didn't have a fence? Fences are a common sense way to slow people down. It won't keep them out forever, but it will keep them out long enough to get there and stop them. And most importantly, it will prevent them from getting back out so they can be arrested before they reenter Mexico.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
even trying. They won't travel hundreds of miles hoping to able to jump or dig under a fence AND avoid a guard.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
>>>He called the employer-sanctions law "absurd."<<<
What an idiot. "Absurd?" Yeah, to an illegal. The law is doing precisely what it was designed to do. Bravo to those who were responsible for passing this law...and I hope other states follow suit.
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
It could very well start a cascade. Arizona passes a law. Illegals flood into New Mexico. New Mexicans speak out in anger, and New Mexico passes a law. Perhaps Texas follows suit... Once momentum builds, these will pass. The public absolutely wants them.
It's very vital that we send a Republican up for the nomination that has a strong policy on immigration. It should be the one issue where Republicans absolutely dominate the Democrats.
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
...a federal court will strike down these laws. Then if this Sup Court hears it, I wouldn't be surprised if even some of the reliably good juges go bad to strike these laws down once and for all.
Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney
with Spain letting Mexico have San Fran; we get Cuba and Spain sends 5 soldiers to Afghanistan.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
If this proposal means cheaper jeans, and the Spanish soldiers promise not to touch anything, I support it.
Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone. --Mitt Romney
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
I still think the fence is necessary. Yes, illegals may be leaving the state...but probably just squishing off to California or New Mexico. I'm still skeptical about enforcement on the federal level, but I definitely think increased fines and increased enforcement is the way to go.
Immigration reform is absolutely one of my key issues. It's but one of the reasons that I've made Romney and Thompson my top 2. Both have been right on the issue.
I think the biometric data cards are also going to be necessary, if for no other reason than to keep the ACLU at bay.
"Don't ever be afraid to see what you see." ~Ronald Reagan
For ____'s sake. You guys, really. Snort some common sense, or take a toke of logic and figure this out. The illegal immigrants are staying in Arizona anyway. I haven't heard them NOT waiting in the Home Depot parking lot saying "amigo, hire me" to the construction companies that pick them up.
Hmmm... first thing in journalism school-- if you report something, where's the evidence to back it up? Was there a study, or is this from a Minuteman scratching his ____ whilst downing a Pabst Blue Ribbon (no, he's not a hipster.)
It's good PR for Arizona politicos, look mom-- they're tough! Too bad the border is more porous Bill Clinton with an intern under his desk. Wait, do I hear some hill-dwellers say "build a fence!" Right-- because Pelosi (*cough* George Miller *cough*) and Steny are really going to let that one go happen.
If I was 140 years old, I would say: "This reminds me of when them Irish and Italians were comin' straight off them boats at Ellis Island, and taking our dagdum jawbs!"
*opens a National Review and drinks some coffee*
==== 13 ====
Yeah, thanks for noticing... (wait I'm going to use the word industry association reps use)-- "buddy".
You're right, I really have to work harder at posting in record time, since Britney and Jamie Lynn Spears can both conceive children faster than I can post replies on this forum.
Hey Nick, as I am a Zonie, I can tell ya first hand. Between Sheriff Joe Arpio cleaning up the illegals huddling outside the Home depots, The New employer canction law, the 3 big props that were passed by an 80% margin on the last ballot, not to mention the Our lame ass mayor finally addressing the issue that our police are now going to be able to ask for legal status of everyone they come across involved in any crime as opposed to the just felonies, This isn't propaganda. Internal state polls are showing many illegals that are here have already left, and more are following. We have a whole slew of jobs in the construction business that we need to fill, and the amount of welfare and other entitlment programs has dropped in the last month.
Say what you will about studys and what not, but believe me, I see it on a daily basis and wether they are leaving or just hiding, it is making a difference.
Talk Radio Junkie and Friend of Fred
Hmmm, Sheriff Joe. Let's see--
1. Cut deal with Big Janet so investigations can stop about his real estate deals.
2. Jail newspaper eds of lib paper (so they're libs, they're still allowed to print garbage) for investigating his alleged misdeeds. Let them go after one day in jail and put your "independent counsel's" head on the chopping block. You know, the one you told to prosecute the two eds.
3. Become publicity whore by "jailing illegals" which means that the state has to pay $x,xxx to keep and feed 'em per day. This comes out of your taxes. This will help Joe win the Sheriff's election (again). Make sure to market baubleheads for Christmas and find another issue to ensure you don't get investigated by the new Sheriff on why you sold movie rights of your life's story to Hollywood for x,xxx,xxx dollars.
4. Uh, so all the illegals leave Arizona or just stay in Tucson? Different county, different sheriff-- different law.
5. Your mayor, Phil Gordon, has to look tough after he was accused of making Phoenix a "sanctuary city." His poll numbers began to fall. So he proposes "tough changes" in the law that should be "reviewed". The changes will probably not go through, because it would be political suicide for the panels "reviewing" the proposed new law. Gordon wins because he doesn't look like a ______ , and saves political face.
Sounds like big Boehner, big Blunt and the "Jedediah" Jeb Hensarling's conservative posse should actually look at making a federal funded mandate to do something.
Wait, they can't-- they don't have the votes. Speaker Miller, I mean, speaker pelosi and Hoyer won't let it happen. Remember Rep. Steve King and his stupid fence during Special Orders? Jeez, people. Common sense... how are we really gonna kick 14 million people out of the country?
Tax 'em and try to turn them into R's.
"Tax 'em" is just a tough-sounding way of saying "Amnesty", is it not?
I have no problem with trying to turn legal immigrants into Republicans--as long as you're not the one who's selling. Your technique is not well-suited to new citizens/voters.
If you reply to this, could you slag on Russell Pearce a little bit, since you missed him the first time?
The story does sound good. This sort of effort, along with strong border security (the wall and the Border patrol), would probably do it. It seems to avoid the nazi-style deportaton trains and trucks, which the media would play for all it's worth, to the GPO's cost. The people being punished are the businesses getting by on the cheap by breaking the law. Good work!
Wally Lind
Am I the only republican who wants immigration reform? The harsh immigration proposals are really starting to alienate me (no pun in tended) from associating with the party.
Here’s how I see it. The “enforcement through starvation” (also known as enforcement through attrition) policy could only work if illegal immigrant families were only shallowly rooting in the US. Unfortunately a vast percentage – literally millions of people – have deep lifelong roots in our community and do not have a home outside of the US to return to.
Let me share my own story to explain. A good friend of mine (we met in college) is the son of an undocumented immigrant from Myanmar. His father and he first fled to Britain when he was 5 and later, moved to the US when he was 10. He is now 35. Although he has completed high school and college, he can only find work at fast food establishments due to his lack of a legal status. In the state where he is currently living, he cannot get a drivers license, or provide the identification to easily open a bank account. This makes it extremely difficult for him to rent an apartment etc. He is forced into the vulnerable position of relying on his employer for housing and transportation.
We call for “attrition through enforcement” and agree that there is no need to reform our laws. But how can my friend “self deport” to Myanmar – he can’t speak or read the incredibly complicated language of his ancestors. (He can speak and read English at a college level). He doesn’t even know where his relatives live. The current laws have forced my friend to a permanent life-long 2nd class position in society. The attrition through enforcement threatens to erode his 2nd class status to an even more unsustainable level.
America is the only place he can call home. How can we possibly justify denying my friend a way to feed, cloth, and house himself? Our current laws obviously don’t take into account the complexity of the immigration situation. What is wrong with reforming the laws to incorporate my friend?
So bascially you want to hand out a complete amnesty to millions because you know a guy?
The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther
Because I “know a guy”, I can’t help but recognize that this is a really complicated situation that can’t be addressed through simplistic slogans and platitudes.
What is wrong with an immigration policy that recognizes that there is a difference between someone who arrived here as a child 20 years ago and someone who arrived here 3 months ago? We might reward his father by legally recognizing his son, but how much should we really punish the kid? Doesn’t a lifetime of living as a fugitive in the only country he can call home seem a little too draconian? Why can’t we discuss some type of middle compromise that addresses the complexity of the issue?
1. Reply to this makes these threads easier to read its at the bottom of every post. If you use it, it makes it more likely that anyone can understand what you are talking about
2. Stop with the queen for a day exceptions. Its rhetorical garbage and is the equivalent of calling anyone listening to you stupid. Theres 300 million people in this country, for any rule you can find sob stories. But just to turn this around, you would think that someone in this country for 20 years would have done something to legitimize their status.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
1) Thanks for the reply advice. I messed that up.
2) Unfortunately, my friend is not an exceptional case. His life should not be brushed aside as unimportant collateral damage for both practical and moral reasons. There are estimates that a full 1.8 million of the undocumented people might fall into a similar situation. They simply cannot self-deport because America is their only home. Cutting off their means for survival would be cruel and likely quite destructive to our community.
I find our party's refusal to acknowledge the complexity of the immigration issue very perplexing and off putting.
In terms of legalization options for undocumented immigrants – there aren’t many and none that my friend is eligible for.
...are willing to work something out with those in such situtations. The problem is, we don't trust our government. Amnesty encourages more illegal immigration. Uncle Sam has done very little (if anything) to stop the invasion. Once the government has proven they can enforce the laws already on the books, I think people will be more willing to consider such proposals. This is the reason why "comprehensive immigration reform" went down in flames. It was just a repeat of the failed Simpson/Mazzoli (sp?) amnesty of the 1980s.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
But my concerns are two fold:
1)I am concerned that in the process of attempting to enforce the ineffective immigration system we will really hurt a lot innocent criminals (like my friend who came here when he was just a kid or families with both legal and illegal members).
2)From the side of me that is skeptical of big government, I can’t help but notice that (contrary to current myth) over the last decade and a half spending on boarder enforcement, fencing projects, and other enforcement bureaucracy have more than quintupled form 750 million in 1993 to 3.8 billion and climbing. Boarder patrol agents more than tripled. The result? An Unprecedented 11 million undocumented immigrants.
So how much more do we need to increase enforcement spending to reduce the flow of new immigration and self deport our current population? Double, triple, more? So if the steady increase in spending over the last decade hasn’t fixed the issue, we be convinced that simply amplifying the existing strategy will make much of a difference (except spending a lot more of our tax money).
Why not come up with a new strategy now? Why not cut the waste today? Why not save the human pain caused by rigid enforcement policies. Why not at least analyze the situation and its complexity instead of just chanting “no amnesty” every some suggests reform. Ok, so you didn’t like the last bill – neither did I. But I know we need something different than what we have. Sending swat teams into our beleaguered manufacturing industry or literally trying to starve my friend doesn’t quite do it for me.
Plus, I don’t trust the government either. How can I know that they really are going to reform the laws after they attempt to enforce the current laws? ;)
Thanks for reading my long winded reply - I am new at the blogosphere stuff and am trying to be a more concise writer – thanks for your patience – have a Merry Christmas ;)
I think that if you did. You would have a better understanding about the problems with which we are dealing. I have no problem with working something out with the illegals who have jobs, are self-sufficient, haven't been convicted of crimes (tax fraud and tax evasion included)and aren't using any social services.
Well over 60% of these people lack a high school education. There are only so many jobs for uneducated, non-English speaking individuals.
We can't go to the local nursery to buy plants without being rudely accosted by day laborers. And don't bring you wife or daughter on the trip.
There are exceptions as you suggest. But the problem is far bigger than that.
We tried it your way once. Our generosity was repaid with more lawbreaking.
Coddling criminals just leads to more crime, sorry.
In other words, one can infer from your statement that our nation, founded and governed by the rule of law, is Draconian, and instead, we should allow ourselves to be governed by a fluid collection of politically-correct personal policy preferences because the American people are compassionate?
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
Lets face it, our current immigration law is not the crowning achievement of the American legislative abilities. As it stands, it closest cousin is probably tax law - a patchwork of exceptions and inefficiency. And yes, just as tax law (when written by liberals) can be draconian and impractical, so to can our immigration laws. I regularly call for reform of our tax laws, why can’t I also call for reform our immigration laws when they don’t fully serve our needs.
Frankly, an immigration law that threatens to potentially send a million people into inescapable poverty (becasue they can't self deport) does not serve my needs or I would guess the needs of our community and economy.
Side note: just because the liberals call us cold hearted doesn’t mean we actually are.
Republicans for immigration reform!! I know - I am probably one ;)
Sorry, I didn’t mean to offend. Agreed - It wasn’t really to the point.
What I was getting at is I don’t think its necessary to discount the significance of the human suffering a rigid enforcement-only policy would cause to a lot of innocent people. As republicans, I think we can find and advocate a better solution.
addressed in a humane way AFTER we KNOW the border is SECURE and that no matter what we do in the humane way will NOT lead to another 12 million.
One thing I would support AFTER the fence is up, is to allow a legitimization status that woulkd preclude voting rights to the 2nd generation unless one or one's children go thru the whole process for citizenship from the back of the line.
I would favor this because it is true that WE allowed this all to happen for so long.
more later
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
www.fred08.com
only require common sense, simple solutions. Take away the magnet...