Printable View
Arizona citizen's arrest
A private person may make an arrest:
1. When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.
2. When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.
So the wholesale disintegration of our border in times of economic prosperity doesn't bother you? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by ']['ear
To add to what others have pointed out, these groups tend to just walk around and call the police when they see something. This is the most legal route and the easiest way to avoid lawsuits. That said, as OG pointed out there are Citizen's Arrest laws so it's likely someone will cross the line somewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
likely ≠ possible :rolleyes:
Oh ffs, Dread. Don't be a drama queen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
You have yet to show a single fact that the border got substantially worse than in previous times, or that there was more violence or drugs (and, again, none of that says shot about the advisability of this current law). I said that proof will change my mind, but you can't provide any. Instead, I'm treated to "yeah, but I've got family in border states!" In the time you've belabored that silly point, you could have provided ample linkage (or not).
Tear, chill. Take a step back.
I'm not talking about stats yet, I'm talking about logic.
How can you say that our border isn't substantially less secure, when you readily admit that each economic upswing brings increasing numbers of immigrants with no system to help them become citizens?
Why is addressing this massive lack of an effective border such a problem?
Logic: The fact that during economic prosperous times more people are willing to cross the border doesn't reflect on the decreasing security of the border, but on the amount of people taking advantage of it.
I don't support drug laws because its the not the governments job to make sure people don't do stupid things that harm themselves. This is why I dislike seat belt laws for adults.Quote:
I think it may be reasonable to expect his views on the two issues to be different. Theft is a crime that Lewk thinks is very wrong. But Lewk, iirc, doesn't think it should be illegal to smoke pot.
And of course I'm not in favor of just killing people because they break a federal law. However its pretty obvious that displaying a contempt for the law makes you more likely to break other laws if you think it benefits you. I would say drug users are more likely to commit others crimes as well.
They cut in line in front of people who are following the law. They typically wouldn't pay as much taxes as a normal American since there is some effort to hide the fact they are here illegal. They cause a mess at the border in trying to stop terrorists and other malcontents from entering. They increase crime and put a drain on social services. Very few if any country allows open and completely unrestricted immigration. For good reason. Most countries want to keep their culture intact. Allowing others in is perfectly fine but not an unending wave.Quote:
I don't know how notable it is to point out that every illegal immigrant has broken a federal law by virtue of being illegal immigrants in a discussion about whether or not your approach towards illegal immigrants is wrong
It reflects on both elements. Ever increasing numbers of people being able to take advantage of our lack of effective border enforcement is itself a deterioration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
And BTW there are other things I think are relevant, such as amount of drugs transported across the border. This kind of narco-trafficking is tearing Mexico apart, but our federal government is just sitting here on it.
But I'm just curious about why people like Tear seem reluctant to end most of this border-hopping, or think doing so is more of a pointless, theoretical exercise. The US dealt with this issue in the 1980s by granting a broad amnesty. But we didn't improve our borders and now the exact same issue is back. It's clear that reforming our immigration system (along with some kind of amnesty) has to happen again, in conjunction with actually maintaining an effective border.
Yes. But here we aren't talking about "being able" but about "willing" when we're talking about the incentive of economic prosperity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
:rolleyes: I haven't flamed, ranted or even done Loki-style distortions. No need for "chill," or "take a step back."Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
1) Increased flow means less secure? Not really. What if the same percentage are intercepted? That would mean that our border control was working at the same efficiency. You're making assumptions here (again).Quote:
I'm not talking about stats yet, I'm talking about logic.
How can you say that our border isn't substantially less secure, when you readily admit that each economic upswing brings increasing numbers of immigrants with no system to help them become citizens?
I didn't say that. I said it isn't relevant to this Arizona bill. I think it's a different thread.Quote:
Why is addressing this massive lack of an effective border such a problem?
Well, by Dread's logic our border has become MORE secure since the economy went south (Get it? Went south? Har!) All without any policy change! Yay for increased border security! Yay president Obama! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust
I also dislike seatbelt laws, for we need more donated kidneys!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
But seriously, I don't see them as necessary. But it is complicated. Local governments aren't trying to enforce a perfect life. They're trying to decrease health and emergency costs. That is a huge part of why they have gone after smoking. If a government makes sleeping on the train tracks illegal, they may be doing so to save lives, or they may be doing so to keep costs down and commerce moving.
Flaw in your logic chain. People desperately poor with no options and no future choosing to sneak across a border to work hard, earn a good salary, and send it back to support their family is not the same as people willing to endanger others just so they don't have to work.Quote:
And of course I'm not in favor of just killing people because they break a federal law. However its pretty obvious that displaying a contempt for the law makes you more likely to break other laws if you think it benefits you. I would say drug users are more likely to commit others crimes as well.
Do you speed, Lewk? Or do you go precisely the speed limit? If you speed, then you are a scofflaw and are more likely to break other laws (by your logic). And by speed I mean 5 mph over: it's a violation, but not strictly enforced. Huh, sort of like illegal immigration.
Bah, we know why you are performing lame sophistry like this. You have no evidence that illegals are more likely to commit crimes in the US, so you pull lame-ass "logic" out of your ass.
Specious argument. Few of them make enough of an income to put them above the tax line.Quote:
They cut in line in front of people who are following the law. They typically wouldn't pay as much taxes as a normal American since there is some effort to hide the fact they are here illegal.
You still have not shown this!!!! Stop claiming something you can't show.Quote:
They increase crime
Agreed, they do.Quote:
and put a drain on social services.
Really? I'll bet you that more than half of the countries in the world have de facto no controls on immigration. Heck, more than half the countries in the world have no documentation of their citizens.Quote:
Very few if any country allows open and completely unrestricted immigration. For good reason.
Ah! Wait, this is about culture? I remember that argument was made about Italians, Germans, Swedes, Poles, Irish, etc. ,etc., etc.. It was also made about freeing blacks. Always can count on you to be anachronistic!Quote:
Most countries want to keep their culture intact.
Oh, and deciding based on culture is racist Lewk. Just an FYI.
I'm just curious why people like Dread insist on conflating racial profiling with border integrity. One is controlling a space and the other is controlling people. The former is justified by national security, crime and safety, the latter by "jobs, social services and culture." I don't think they belong in the same thread, and I think you're being dishonest by conflating the two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Start a new thread, and I'll debate the importance of border integrity with you. I think you'll find that we agree (though I'm still going to ask for evidence that the border is less secure than 10 or 20 years ago). Our border needs to be controlled. This has little to do with chasing a fraction of nannies and house builders back across the border.
Not been reading this thread, just responding to report.
Was that really necessary?Quote:
Originally Posted by ']['ear
I haven't been talking about the law for several posts now. I've just been saying that laws like this are sorta inevitable if we have no border integrity and people cross in large numbers.
I'm not saying those people are bad people, or they wouldn't be great citizens. Nor am I saying they aren't great contributors to society and shouldn't share the privileges and benefits of citizenship.
But when they are illegally crossing the border and coming into our country in very large numbers, it's going to lead to inevitable problems and tensions. Those whose backyards they are almost literally walking through are going to get annoyed.
That's great! Why don't you start a new thread about border security!
Depends on whether you consider his periodic trolls of me necessary. Whoops! You haven't sen them because I don't report him.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Careful about the double standards, Rand. I've been pretty good since Cain left, but you shouldn't penalize me for actions that others do with impunity.
I'm not even Dr. Ivanovich and Hell yesQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Because it's relevant to a discussion of why states are passing harsh laws targeting illegal immigrants.Quote:
Originally Posted by ']['ear
I thought you were all about being intellectually honest and thinking about the context traditions, laws, ideas, policies, etc., and accusing me of not doing that.
While we don't normally identify reporters, I feel comfortable saying that neither Loki nor I reported you. I think your post ticked off people vis-a-vis the comments in the "Why" thread in the Site Discussion forum.Quote:
Depends on whether you consider his periodic trolls of me necessary. Whoops! You haven't sen them because I don't report him.
Careful about the double standards, Rand. I've been pretty good since Cain left, but you shouldn't penalize me for actions that others do with impunity.
Chilling and taking a step back is always a good idea.
As the great James Brown once said:
Sometimes I feel so nice, good Lord!
I jump back, I wanna kiss myself!
Spoiler:
As Dread said. Indeed it wasn't either Dread nor Loki nor anyone disagreeing with you that reported that. Nor have I penalised you.Quote:
Originally Posted by ']['ear
But please read the Why thread.
Like I've said, I think you've conflated the issues. Relatedness? Sure! Constantly mentioning drugs, violence and insecure borders in the context of a discussion of deporting nannies and construction workers? Not so much!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Then to enlighten myself I will read the "Why" thread in a section of the forum I generally neglect.Quote:
While we don't normally identify reporters, I feel comfortable saying that neither Loki nor I reported you. I think your post ticked off people vis-a-vis the comments in the "Why" thread in the Site Discussion forum.
I don't see it as a significant increase of costs. As far as smoking I believe they did a study that smokers actually cost the system less because they end up dying so much earlier then non-smokers.Quote:
But seriously, I don't see them as necessary. But it is complicated. Local governments aren't trying to enforce a perfect life. They're trying to decrease health and emergency costs. That is a huge part of why they have gone after smoking.
And those day labors that get picked up most likely won't be paying payroll taxes.Quote:
Specious argument. Few of them make enough of an income to put them above the tax line.
Of course they increase crime. Even if you believe (and I certainty don't) that they commit less crime then legal immigrants the most you could say is that they aren't increasing crime per capita. Crime is still being increased.Quote:
You still have not shown this!!!! Stop claiming something you can't show.
Let me amend my statement. Almost all modern countries have limitation on immigration. Does anyone really care if Zimbabwe stops people from entering into the country? Who the hell would want to live there?Quote:
Really? I'll bet you that more than half of the countries in the world have de facto no controls on immigration. Heck, more than half the countries in the world have no documentation of their citizens.
Actually - no. Culture is a seperate item from race. For example - America is a melting pot. This country didn't exist 500 years ago but now there is a unique American culture. It is not a European culture, it is not a racial culture it is something uniquely its own.Quote:
Oh, and deciding based on culture is racist Lewk. Just an FYI.
Being black, brown, white or green doesn't decide your beliefs or attitudes. You can not choose to change your race. You can choose to change what cultural norms you adhere to. The idea that every culture is equally valid and good is stupidly PC and idiotic.
Really? I've read the opposite repeatedly. Smokers have FAR more chronic health problems, many of which (hardening of the arteries, emphysema/COPD) can last for decades. Heck, most cancer deaths, much higher in smokers, are more expensive than other deaths.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
And as illegals they won't be cashing in on the benefits those pay for either.Quote:
And those day labors that get picked up most likely won't be paying payroll taxes.
Congratulations, you've just made a cogent argument against legal immigration and procreation. Curse you, by having a child you increased our crime rate!!! {are we really having this discussion? Why should I even respond to somebody who posts stuff like this? I'd stop here, but there are more silly statements to follow, and I just can't resist.}Quote:
Of course they increase crime. Even if you believe (and I certainty don't) that they commit less crime then legal immigrants the most you could say is that they aren't increasing crime per capita. Crime is still being increased.
Call me stupid, but aren't all countries modern? Ness, is there some weird physics/time thing where some countries are non-modern? :confused:Quote:
Let me amend my statement. Almost all modern countries have limitation on immigration. Does anyone really care if Zimbabwe stops people from entering into the country? Who the hell would want to live there?
Made almost entirely by immigrants, right? I'd say you just disproved your argument that "destroying our culture" is relevant. By your definition, they can't destroy our culture.Quote:
Actually - no. Culture is a seperate item from race. For example - America is a melting pot. This country didn't exist 500 years ago but now there is a unique American culture. It is not a European culture, it is not a racial culture it is something uniquely its own.
I didn't say that each culture is equally valid and good (I'm not too entranced with the pockets of fundamentalist Islam right now). But I do think that consciously engineering a culture is as stupid as consciously engineering an economy. It's also bigoted. You're generalizing everybody and then judging them as "trash." Where I come from, the surest way to earn the "trash" label is to be a bigot.Quote:
Being black, brown, white or green doesn't decide your beliefs or attitudes. You can not choose to change your race. You can choose to change what cultural norms you adhere to. The idea that every culture is equally valid and good is stupidly PC and idiotic.
I think he was using it as a short-hand for civilized, modernized, technologically advanced, so on.Quote:
Ness, is there some weird physics/time thing where some countries are non-modern?
lol!
Oh. "Developed" you mean. Or "Industrialized."
Places where people like him do not hold sway over the judicial system, ironically enough.
Indeed. Irony.
Can't get around how tough it is to discuss this without acknowledging the facts on the ground and the reason people feel the way they do. You think a pointless law was passed? Great, so do I. But it's merely a footnote in a much larger issue. Giving this law that much thought is a total distraction from the actual issue at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by ']['ear
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle.../15293006.htmlQuote:
Really? I've read the opposite repeatedly. Smokers have FAR more chronic health problems, many of which (hardening of the arteries, emphysema/COPD) can last for decades. Heck, most cancer deaths, much higher in smokers, are more expensive than other deaths.
Its one study but I've heard about similar ones as well. It kind of makes sense, when you get old you will use health benefits. If it is dragged out over 20+ years of old age that costs more then if you get sick and die in your 60s.Quote:
Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported Monday.
It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.
"It was a small surprise," said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the Netherlands' National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, who led the study. "But it also makes sense: If you live longer, then you cost the health system more."
In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.
On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on. The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.
Hah you think that. The way SS is set up is you don't need to work 40+ years to get most of your benefit.Quote:
And as illegals they won't be cashing in on the benefits those pay for either.
Increasing the population of low tax payers already burdening an overcrowded prison system? Increasing the population of a group of criminals who have already committed at least one crime? If 20,000 illegals come over how many are going to be police officers, probably 0 because they are here illegally! Your increasing the population and increasing crime. By all accounts Mexico IS more violent then America, so why do you continue to say they are less likely to commit crimes per capita? Even so it would still put a strain on the system (and has!).Quote:
Congratulations, you've just made a cogent argument against legal immigration and procreation. Curse you, by having a child you increased our crime rate!!! {are we really having this discussion? Why should I even respond to somebody who posts stuff like this? I'd stop here, but there are more silly statements to follow, and I just can't resist.}
You call Zimbabwe modern?Quote:
Call me stupid, but aren't all countries modern? Ness, is there some weird physics/time thing where some countries are non-modern?
Cultures can be created and destroyed. Altered and transformed. No one wants America and its culture to turn to corruption ridden violent Mexico.Quote:
Made almost entirely by immigrants, right? I'd say you just disproved your argument that "destroying our culture" is relevant. By your definition, they can't destroy our culture.
Trash as in undesirable. Do a poll of Americans. How many of them want to have people come into this country illegally who don't speak English. We aren't talking 50/50 we aren't talking about 60/40. A vast majority of Americans do not want people coming into this country who can not speak its language.Quote:
I didn't say that each culture is equally valid and good (I'm not too entranced with the pockets of fundamentalist Islam right now). But I do think that consciously engineering a culture is as stupid as consciously engineering an economy. It's also bigoted. You're generalizing everybody and then judging them as "trash." Where I come from, the surest way to earn the "trash" label is to be a bigot.
Its perfectly reasonable to expect someone to speak with language of the country they are going to! That it not an unreasonable barrier to entry.
Interesting. I suppose it's best if you live healthy and die suddenly without a prolonged death bed. What's your view on euthanasia? That probably saves a lot of money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Cultures evolve due to immigrants, too, and that's not necessarily bad.Quote:
Cultures can be created and destroyed. Altered and transformed. No one wants America and its culture to turn to corruption ridden violent Mexico.
I'd say it is reasonable for economic refugees/immigrants, but for political refugees? I would support being forced to be able to speak the language after a number of years, when you have had the chance to learn it.Quote:
Trash as in undesirable. Do a poll of Americans. How many of them want to have people come into this country illegally who don't speak English. We aren't talking 50/50 we aren't talking about 60/40. A vast majority of Americans do not want people coming into this country who can not speak its language.
Its perfectly reasonable to expect someone to speak with language of the country they are going to! That it not an unreasonable barrier to entry.
One thing I often notice is that a lot of people who complain about the language thing often can't be bothered to speak another language when they are abroad. It is a bit hypocritical, too, people would mind an arab immigrant who doesn't speak Dutch, but a western immigrant who doesn't speak Dutch is okay to almost everybody.
You cite a study that irresponsibly mentions smoking but only studies obesity. Since the obesity epidemic is the Netherlands is way behind that in the US, I don't buy it. Besides, I mentioned smoking, whose effects are much easier to tease out from genetic things the plague obesity studies (like some people are naturally stout). So, poor journalism, and you can't generalize all studies to one general principle. The smoking positions of governments are based on MANY studies showing that smokers are more expensive than non-smokers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Um, don't you need to be a citizen to collect? Likewise with unemployment insurance?Quote:
Hah you think that. The way SS is set up is you don't need to work 40+ years to get most of your benefit.
Another false logical step. just because Mexico is violent doesn;t mean that Mexicans are violent. That's like claiming that Irish in America were more violent because of the Troubles in the UK.Quote:
Increasing the population of low tax payers already burdening an overcrowded prison system? Increasing the population of a group of criminals who have already committed at least one crime? If 20,000 illegals come over how many are going to be police officers, probably 0 because they are here illegally! Your increasing the population and increasing crime. By all accounts Mexico IS more violent then America, so why do you continue to say they are less likely to commit crimes per capita? Even so it would still put a strain on the system (and has!).
Why, yes! I do believe it is 2010 there as well.Quote:
You call Zimbabwe modern?
Lewk
point
Again, the failed logical connection. Is the violence in Mexico due to its system of government, or is it a genetic property of its citizenry?Quote:
Cultures can be created and destroyed. Altered and transformed. No one wants America and its culture to turn to corruption ridden violent Mexico.
1) You've conflated points (illegals vs. non-English speakers)Quote:
Trash as in undesirable. Do a poll of Americans. How many of them want to have people come into this country illegally who don't speak English. We aren't talking 50/50 we aren't talking about 60/40. A vast majority of Americans do not want people coming into this country who can not speak its language.
2) I think about 60% of Arizonans support this fairly draconian law.
3) What percentage of, say, Alabamas in 1954 supported civil rights?
My grandfather arrived from Germany in 1922 at age 17 not speaking a word of English. I'd say he and all of his descendants have been at least as productive as you and your family.Quote:
Its perfectly reasonable to expect someone to speak with language of the country they are going to! That it not an unreasonable barrier to entry.
Language is a completely unreasonable barrier, and so is using that criterion to label somebody trash. Or have you forgotten your Polish ancestors? Typical conservative sense of entitlement....
Stupid Judge has ruled in favor of the feds.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38436995...ation_divided/
Good. Now perhaps lawmakers can deal with illegal immigration in a manner that doesn't involved constantly rounding up a certain ethnic group and asking for their papers.
It is primarily the conservatives who are very concerned about immigration reform. When they had all 3 branches of government for 6 years, why didn't the GOP satisfy their constituency by doing something? Border security, cracking down on hiring, guest worker programs, SOMETHING.