Okay...I am signed up for "Breaking News" stuff from CNN.

Just got an email from them on what's going on with regard to the Arizona Immigration Law....Here's a copy & paste of the crux of what they're sending to all their liberal fold:

Arizona's immigration law slowly drains economy

I would certainly never question that CNN functions as little more than a propoganda channel for the White House these days, yet I'm willing to bet (and since I'm not actually in Arizona, that's about all I can do) that there's a kernel of truth here.

All laws have unintended consequences.  That is the nature of government, and why that government which governs best, governs least.  A draining away of large numbers of consumers (illegal and otherwise) as a response to this new law, whether in force or not, is a logical unintended consequence of this one.

You're absolutely right that CNN doesn't mention all the reasons this bill was enacted, and it's obvious why: it's not in the interest of their agenda to do so.

However, any law that requires human beings, legal residents or not, to carry their papers is contradictory to a free society.  That's why I believe that a much better approach to illegal immigration is to do away with the welfare and public assistance programs that so many of them come here and use, while not contributing to their cost through taxation.  Doing this, instead of trying to interdict illegal immigrants directly, would have the effect of screening out the illegals who use the system without contributing to it, thus creating a drag on the rest of us.  The only ones who would stay would be the ones coming here to work, and we shouldn't have a problem with them.

Right?

AdamLove said :

I would certainly never question that CNN functions as little more than a propoganda channel for the White House these days, yet I'm willing to bet (and since I'm not actually in Arizona, that's about all I can do) that there's a kernel of truth here.

All laws have unintended consequences.  That is the nature of government, and why that government which governs best, governs least.  A draining away of large numbers of consumers (illegal and otherwise) as a response to this new law, whether in force or not, is a logical unintended consequence of this one.

You're absolutely right that CNN doesn't mention all the reasons this bill was enacted, and it's obvious why: it's not in the interest of their agenda to do so.

However, any law that requires human beings, legal residents or not, to carry their papers is contradictory to a free society.  That's why I believe that a much better approach to illegal immigration is to do away with the welfare and public assistance programs that so many of them come here and use, while not contributing to their cost through taxation.  Doing this, instead of trying to interdict illegal immigrants directly, would have the effect of screening out the illegals who use the system without contributing to it, thus creating a drag on the rest of us.  The only ones who would stay would be the ones coming here to work, and we shouldn't have a problem with them.

Right?

Oh yeah...on all of that, of course, Adam.  On this CNN thingy they sent...certainly there's truth to the economic impact there without the influx of people spending money there.  But, that wasn't my point at all...and I think you gathered that.  My point is that CNN was just obvious about leaving out all the B I G problems associated with the illegal immigration problem there and only posted to their E-Friends (so to speak) rhetoric and spin to bolster the Obama administrations efforts to not control the boarder and to "bend" the minds of the "faithful" lib/dems that follow their ever-decreasing viewership. 
 

I'm TOTALLY on board with ya on the doing away with the social programs/entitlements the illegals receive from WE TAXPAYERS.  The left calls that "the government" totally oblivious to who "the government" really is, of course.  Most of these left-wingers truly and honestly think that there's this big entity called the "government" that just somehow has all this money through some source OTHER than getting it from citizens in the form of taxation. I like your idea...but few politicians/representatives would EVER have the cahoonas to try to get that little dirty deed done...you can bet on that.  For one thing, the left would be standing on top of the Empire State Building and the Statue of Liberty hollering RACISM.  That's the "word of the day" for libbies these days, ya know?  Ever go over to www.BlueNC.com and read their posts?  Man, this "racism" thingy is getting RAMPANT there.  Anything and everything seems to be all about race to them.  It's mostly because they know that they desperately need to stop the big shift in political leaning going on in America (as do all liberal blogs and websites and mainstream media sources, of course...who are all doing this same thing).  They're making an all-out effort to brand republicans, conservatives, teapartiers, conservative TV news networks, conservative radio talk show hosts as RACISTS and BIGOTS.  BlueNC is really getting sickening with it.  I see a lot of people that used to post there seem to be shying away from contributing (I've been banned...and, rightly so I might add).  I think what's happening is that many people are seeing the disengenuous way the radical left is going and don't want any part of it.  I hope I'm right...and think I am.  I have a lot of friends that were Obamabots...lefties, so to speak.  They are pretty "tame" right now.  Don't want to discuss the issues of the day anymore like they used to.  Lots of them are ashamed at the left's actions and many, being white, are offended by the constant "white rascism" accusations by not only Obama ("the white executives living in the suburbs can avoid having to support inner city children") but by the CNN's and the BlueNC kind of blogs and such. 

My opinion...but me thinks it's also a LOT of people's opinion today.

AdamLove said :

That's why I believe that a much better approach to illegal immigration is to do away with the welfare and public assistance programs that so many of them come here and use, while not contributing to their cost through taxation.  Doing this, instead of trying to interdict illegal immigrants directly, would have the effect of screening out the illegals who use the system without contributing to it, thus creating a drag on the rest of us.  The only ones who would stay would be the ones coming here to work, and we shouldn't have a problem with them.

Beautiful!

This was basically my point, but when I made it I got attacked as being for "open borders".

Another issue is employment/unemployment. People are upset because they feel immigrants are taking away their jobs. While it can be argued that immigrants take jobs others wouldn't have, this misses the point. The point is that we have a scarcity of jobs because of all the regulations choking our economy.

To summarize, if we dealt with welfare, taxes and regulations, no one would get a free ride, there would be plenty of jobs, and no one would be getting upset. We are a nation of immigrants after all, and if we stop allowing immigration we further lose our identity as a nation.

Remember the Statue of Liberty? It was meant as a welcome to immigrants. We should tear it down if we don't mean it.

TEA party patriot said :

AdamLove said :

That's why I believe that a much better approach to illegal immigration is to do away with the welfare and public assistance programs that so many of them come here and use, while not contributing to their cost through taxation.  Doing this, instead of trying to interdict illegal immigrants directly, would have the effect of screening out the illegals who use the system without contributing to it, thus creating a drag on the rest of us.  The only ones who would stay would be the ones coming here to work, and we shouldn't have a problem with them.

Beautiful!

This was basically my point, but when I made it I got attacked as being for "open borders".

Another issue is employment/unemployment. People are upset because they feel immigrants are taking away their jobs. While it can be argued that immigrants take jobs others wouldn't have, this misses the point. The point is that we have a scarcity of jobs because of all the regulations choking our economy.

To summarize, if we dealt with welfare, taxes and regulations, no one would get a free ride, there would be plenty of jobs, and no one would be getting upset. We are a nation of immigrants after all, and if we stop allowing immigration we further lose our identity as a nation.

Remember the Statue of Liberty? It was meant as a welcome to immigrants. We should tear it down if we don't mean it.

If I could "edit" your remarks (I highlighted in yellow :-)....I'd make that read..."legal immigrants".  Even back in the day, we "processed" the immigrants.  The word WOP (which Italians are sometimes called even today) meant "With Out Papers" and our immigration laws applied to them as it did to all that came here. 
 

I am not a believer that anyone that is able to sneak into our country then has earned the right to STAY in our country or become a CITIZEN of our country just because they did that deed.  But, here again.....that's just me.

Just a small point, but one that's often left out of the immigration debate:

TPP makes the point that high unemployment coupled with illegal immigration creates resentment, because it creates the impression that the illegals are coming to take "our" jobs.

One of the biggest (yet least discussed) reasons for this is minimum wage laws.  American businesses cannot hire Americans or legal immigrants for less than the federal minimum wage.  However, this arbitrary law does not change the laws of economics, nor does it change the true market value of labor.  Swinging a hammer, mowing a lawn, or other kinds of unskilled labor do not magically become more valuable because Washington decrees that it is so.

All minimum wage laws do is create a black market for unskilled labor.  Undocumented immigrants, who already operate at the fringes of the law, are much easier to hire at true market rates on the labor black market than are citizens or lawful immigrants.  This becomes doubly true when the federal government is unwilling to enforce immigration laws already on the books. 

As I've said before, all government actions have unintended consequences.  The minimum wage, when coupled with an unsecure border, is no different.

AdamLove said :

Just a small point, but one that's often left out of the immigration debate:

TPP makes the point that high unemployment coupled with illegal immigration creates resentment, because it creates the impression that the illegals are coming to take "our" jobs.

One of the biggest (yet least discussed) reasons for this is minimum wage laws.  American businesses cannot hire Americans or legal immigrants for less than the federal minimum wage.  However, this arbitrary law does not change the laws of economics, nor does it change the true market value of labor.  Swinging a hammer, mowing a lawn, or other kinds of unskilled labor do not magically become more valuable because Washington decrees that it is so.

All minimum wage laws do is create a black market for unskilled labor.  Undocumented immigrants, who already operate at the fringes of the law, are much easier to hire at true market rates on the labor black market than are citizens or lawful immigrants.  This becomes doubly true when the federal government is unwilling to enforce immigration laws already on the books. 

As I've said before, all government actions have unintended consequences.  The minimum wage, when coupled with an unsecure border, is no different.

True to the bone.  Now, I'm wondering what's gonna happen if these illegal immigrants from our Southern Boarder do actually become U.S. citizens thus falling into the minimum wage laws...then the illegal immigrants continue to come across the boarder and are hired at below minimum wages thus taking jobs away from our new Mexican-born citizens. 
 

I'm wondering how that's gonna work out...think about it.  HAHAHAHA... everything has unintended conquences, like ya said.

The problem will soon solve it's self.  The economy is on a path to become so poor that there will not be jobs for those here without legal papers.  The group here will be made citizens.  The party in Power must have those votes.  The insurance policy to keep those votes is in federal give aways.  Once the Democrats have a substaintial number of votes, the wall will be complete.  Not to prevent the rush to come here to work, but to prevent the rush to come here to get the re-distribution of wealth.  After all there is only so much wealth to re-distribute.  The elite will never have their wealth re-distributed.  You know that word redistribute is an interesting word.  To re-distribute implies that someone else once had something and it is being returned to one who at one time possessed it. Strange how we misuse the language. William F. Buckley Jr,.is dead now and no one around to question such. 

Illegal is illegal.  Whether they are coming here to take jobs away from Americans or to sit on their bums on welfare really makes no difference.  We need to enforce our laws on immigration.  Right now those who play by the rules and try to immigrate legally are getting screwed, while these lawbreaking bums get away with flaunting our immigration laws.  With unemployment of our own citizens so high, any job these illegals take is a job a citizen could have.

Since Truman used cattle cars in Operation Keelhaul to ship millions of civilian refugees from eastern Europe to Stalin's tender mercies (read: execution, rape, torture, and the Gulag), I see no reason we cannot employ cattle cars to ship these illegals back where they belong. At least they will not get what Truman's scheme provided at the end of the ride.

CNN = Communist News Network

Anonymous said :

CNN = Communist News Network

Yeah, I'm with ya on that depiction of CNN.  However, they have posted a story today about some memo or letter that has been uncovered that supposedly shows that the Homeland Security Dept. said that some sort of amnesty for illegal immigrants (specifically Mexican, of course) is being considered.  Now, what I have to say about that will sound odd since I've been pretty adamant about not giving illegals blanket citizenship amnesty. 

I am not stupid enough to believe that we, as a country, can just round up all the illegal Mexicans and send them back to Mexico.  I mean, it would actually be impossible to do because for one thing we don't have a clue where a great many of them are and because of a total failing on the part of the federal government (the INS), we don't have a clue WHO a great many of them are to boot.  And, I am also not stupid enough to believe that some of what is being said about the functions some of the illegals are doing in the way of producing product and services (not discounting the disparity in their wages vs. citizen's wages...don't get me wrong).    I believe that we do, in fact, need to revamp our immigration efforts.  First, we DESPERATELY need to close the boarder with every kind of effort we can muster up.  Of course I think we need to cut short our seemingly never-ending efforts in Iraq and get our soldiers home so they can then be directed to our Sourthern Boarder states in the boarder closing effort.  Second, I think we need to develop a "path of citizenship" for the illegals here that would include 1). them identifying themselves 2). them providing their source of livelihood 3). them learning English 4). them going through the same process/time period/requirements that any other immigrant wishing to become citizens have to go through.  For doing this, they should be given work documents so they can legally work here and they should be required to pay taxes just like any working citizen would.  In addition, ALL illegal immigrants caught and found guilty of committing a crime in this nation should be IMMEDIATELY sent back to Mexico...their DNA and all other information pertinent kept so that if/when they tried to return, they would then be put in an American jail.  Also...and this is a very big part of this...all immigration laws currently on the books MUST be enforced fully by the federal government including tough penalties for employers hiring illegals and paying lesser wages than is required by law.  And, if we don't close the boarders FIRST, having this "path of citizenship" will just make a HUGE number of Mexicans want to sneak across the boarder into the U.S. to take advantage of the new path and there will be absolutely NO WAY to stop it.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I am "clarifying" my stance here on immigration with regard to our "friends" from our South.  There should be NO blanket citizenship amnesty and they must EARN their citizenship INCLUDING their right to vote (for democrats, I'm sure :-).   I'm not getting "soft" on this, but am seeing that there is a resolution that can be just for not only the illegals but for our own citizens as well.

HERE'S the story on CNN.  Yeah, I know...It's CNN....but the story is what I'm interested in..not the source of it.

Thanks all for taking the time to read it.

Dap, if you had been following conservative blogs, you would have heard about that memo long before it was finally put on CNN.  The Obamedia does all they can to sweep things like that under the rug, but sometimes the story gets out enough otherwise that they HAVE to mention it like.  Like when the British press dug up the Rezko stuff on Obama and finally the American press had to mention it, too.

And, NO, Dap, lawbreakers should NEVER be rewarded with citizenship.  There are too many lawabiding people around the world trying to imigrate legally who obey the rules.  The lawabiders should always and invariably have precedence over the lawbreakers, and there will always be more lawabiders than space availible for immigrants.

The problem with Mexicans is that they have developed an entitlement mentality about coming to the US.  Most of them never bother to apply legally.  They just hook up with a coyote and come over illegally.  Then they have an entitlement mentaliry about staying.  To control illegal immigration, the most important thing we can do is to smash this entitlement mentality.  While there are some illegals coming from elsewhere, there does not seem to be this pervasive entitlement mentality in countries other than Mexico.

We need to use whatever level of force is necessary, up to and including lethal force, to halt this invaision of our country.  We need to discourage the coyotes from their smuggling activities.  Make smuggling a capital offense and start hanging the scoundrels.

As to people here illegally now, it is cheaper to round them up and ship them home than to keep paying them beneifts, but that is not even necessary. We can put the hammer down on anyone employing them or renting them a home.  If they can't find jobs or housing, they will go home.  We need to create conditions where they will self-deport.  That is a lot cheaper than having to round them up ourselves.

As to having to carry documents, I have travelled in European countries where foreigners are required to carry identity documents.  Indeed, sometimes those laws also cover local people.  It was no biggie to me to carry those documents.  Better that than to be overrun with these Mexican invaders.

Anonymous said :

Dap, if you had been following conservative blogs, you would have heard about that memo long before it was finally put on CNN.  The Obamedia does all they can to sweep things like that under the rug, but sometimes the story gets out enough otherwise that they HAVE to mention it like.  Like when the British press dug up the Rezko stuff on Obama and finally the American press had to mention it, too.

And, NO, Dap, lawbreakers should NEVER be rewarded with citizenship.  There are too many lawabiding people around the world trying to imigrate legally who obey the rules.  The lawabiders should always and invariably have precedence over the lawbreakers, and there will always be more lawabiders than space availible for immigrants.

The problem with Mexicans is that they have developed an entitlement mentality about coming to the US.  Most of them never bother to apply legally.  They just hook up with a coyote and come over illegally.  Then they have an entitlement mentaliry about staying.  To control illegal immigration, the most important thing we can do is to smash this entitlement mentality.  While there are some illegals coming from elsewhere, there does not seem to be this pervasive entitlement mentality in countries other than Mexico.

We need to use whatever level of force is necessary, up to and including lethal force, to halt this invaision of our country.  We need to discourage the coyotes from their smuggling activities.  Make smuggling a capital offense and start hanging the scoundrels.

As to people here illegally now, it is cheaper to round them up and ship them home than to keep paying them beneifts, but that is not even necessary. We can put the hammer down on anyone employing them or renting them a home.  If they can't find jobs or housing, they will go home.  We need to create conditions where they will self-deport.  That is a lot cheaper than having to round them up ourselves.

As to having to carry documents, I have travelled in European countries where foreigners are required to carry identity documents.  Indeed, sometimes those laws also cover local people.  It was no biggie to me to carry those documents.  Better that than to be overrun with these Mexican invaders.

Dap, if you had been following conservative blogs, you would have heard about that memo long before it was finally put on CNN. 

HaHa...you obviously don't follow TAP much or you'd know Ole Dap here follows more blogs (conserv & liberal/progressive) than most folks.  I guess I missed this memo...sorry 'bout that :-).  I do agree with ya on the Obamamedia, though.
 

The problem with Mexicans is that they have developed an entitlement mentality about coming to the US.

Exactamundo, my friend. 

We need to use whatever level of force is necessary, up to and including lethal force

Okay...here's where we differ in a HUGE way.  I mean, I'm all about "legal" means to correct our illegal immigration situation in America.  When you suggest what you're suggesting here, you only show that you are a radical.  It really takes away from your post. 

As to people here illegally now, it is cheaper to round them up and ship them home than to keep paying them beneifts

I don't think that's been proven but in any case, just the problems associated with the logistics involved in shipping back millions and millions of illegals would be an impossible situation. 

As to having to carry documents, I have travelled in European countries where foreigners are required to carry identity documents

Yep...me too.  I've been to all but the Arctic poles when talking continents and you're dead on, my friend.  If you're not a citizen of nearly every country on earth, you best have identification and proof you're where you are legally...Visa/Passport etc.  And, you better have it on you.  Mexico, by the way, has immigration laws 5 times as severe as the new Arizona Immigration Law...which, by the way, is nothing more than an almost mirror image of our Federal Immigration Laws.  But then, no one is actually ENFORCING Federal Immigration Laws....so, we really don't HAVE those laws, if you want to take a realistic look at it.

Pretty good post, though.  I just can't go along with shootin' them..hahahaha.

Lethal force can mean other things than shooting them. For example, some years ago, South Africa dealt with illegal immigration by placing an electrified fence carrying a lethal current along part of its border with warning signs.  The word got out. Very few human carcasses were found, but regretably a fair number of animials which had no way to know.  Mine fields surrounded by razor wire with signs in English and Spanish saying what was inside the wire would also work (to heck with that stupid convention against land mines; there are times they are useful).

I also favor the death penalty for smuggling drugs or people across our international borders.

There have been times when lethal force has meant shooting them or threatening to.  Morrocco was having a problem with illegals from countries farther south invading its territory to try to get into the EU by sneaking into one of the two Spanish enclaves on their coast.  The Spanish put up walls, but the Africans would rush them with homemade ladders, old west style, while the Spanish police tried to fend them off by firing rubber bullets. The Africans would camp in Morrocco while trying to invade Spain.  The Morroccan government got a belly full of these illegal camps, and one day during a rush of the wall, the Royal Morroccan Army arrived, leveled their M-16s and added real lead to the Spanish rubber bullets, dropping a number of illegals and causing the remainder to beat a hasty retreat back to their camps.  The army followed them, rounded them up, loaded them on trucks, and drove them to the Morroccan border in the desert.  The illegals were dumped out and severely warned that they had better not ever show up in Morrocco again.  That was a few years ago, and the word travelled and the numbers trying that route declined dramatically.  I do not know if the solution has been permanent, though.

Another good result from a get tough attitude was in Italy a few years ago.  In the midst of a local government campaign, Umberto Bossi, leader of the Northern League, one of the parties in the center-right coalition national govenrment, addressed a get tough solution to Italy's problem of illegal aliens.  Most of them were being smuggled by Albanian smugglers across the Adriatic in go-fast boats that could outrun anything the Italian coast guard or navy had.  Bossi told a political rally that the solution was simple.  The go-fast boats could not outrun the missiles or artillery shells carried by the Italian navy and coast guard, so he advocated a policy of sinking the boats first and asking questions later if they refused an order to stop.  The left wing press howled, but the Northern League's poll numbers climbed.  What happened was that it got the attention of the Albanian government, who realized that as a member of the governing coalition, Bossi just might get that policy through.  The Albanians got serious about limiting the engine sizes of boats docked in their country and started enforcing those limits, so that smuggling boats could no longer outrun the Italians and thus avoid the prospect of being blown out of the water.