jayetheartist posted:

rodheh posted:

You did, as I never claimed it to be right or constitutional. I was using a comparison to explain that as well.

The fact that I don't agree with your point doesn't mean I don't understand your point.

Obviously, but you acknowledged something clearly different than my point.

jayetheartist posted:

What, your point about Mexico? Exactly what is the US supposed to do about it? Invade?

No, that wasn't me, that was the other guy. My point was about how certain investigation methods can be perceived as racial profiling when taken incorrectly.


I didn't say anything about Mexico. Check on page 3.

bat42 posted:

Riktor posted:

bat42 posted:

^ fail (@Riktor). Godwin's Law

Don't look now, but...

posted:

Mexico's immigration laws are worse than Arizona's.

Logic fail.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Internet memes and kindergarten-caliber "he hit me first" arguments do not make a win.

True, which is why you shouldn't do it.

Let's approach this argument from another angle. When was the last time you heard anyone say, "There's too many damn Canadians coming over here!"? Despite sharing the world's longest, unsecured border, we don't have an immigration problem with Canada (except in the 1960's when a bunch of hippies were fleeing the draft).

The problem isn't U.S. immigration laws and policies but Mexico. When millions of its hardest working people take extraordinary risks (including death) trying to leave, something is seriously wrong. Unless Mexico gets its act together, what we do won't make any difference.

It is myopic to claim Mexico's situation is entirely its own doing. Since 1898, the United States has been knee-deep in Latin American politics and has been largely responsible for the political direction of Central and South America. There was, for a time, where nothing happened there without the approval of the United States. We overthrew two democratically elected governments in Guatemala and one in Chile. We backed the Samosas of Nicaragua both financially and military, and we were chiefly responsible for the rise and inevitable downfall of Manuel Noriega in Panama. For the better part of a century, the United States has used Central and South America as a farm for cheap resources and as a bargaining chip in the Cold War. In many cases this involved supporting politically and economically repressive dictatorial regimes.

Meanwhile, the United States strolls around the corridors of international politics proclaiming how fucking wonderful it is. It should come as no surprise people are flooding out from the third world to take advantage of the supposed opportunities in United States.

With the ever-increasing violence of the cartel wars in Mexico, it also becomes increasingly unrealistic to expect Mexico to "get its act together". Some political scientists are already suggesting Mexico is in extreme danger of becoming a failed state. We can therefore expect two things to happen: 1) Mexican authorities will wield less and less influence over the populace, and 2) hundreds of thousands of refugees will attempt to flee to the United States.

Ultimately, thought, I think "fixing" Mexico is the only real solution to the problem of illegal immigration. Militarizing the border is not financially tenable, and determined immigrants will always find their way around such obstacles. Forcing legal residents to carry their papers on them at all times doesn't do anything to prevent illegal immigration at all. Not only does it leave a wide berth for abuse, we can expect police to arrest and deport only a fraction of the nation's illegal immigrants.

Incentive is a much more effective - and ethical - motivator than coercion. So, yes, I agree with you insofar as steps need to be taken on the Mexican side to solve this problem. However, I would say the United States is going to have to play the part of fixing Mexico. We will have to decriminalize drugs here in the United Sates to rob the cartels of their buying power and we will need to mandate that American manufacturers using Mexican labor pay accordingly to entice Mexican laborers to stay in their own country.

Riktor posted:

Ultimately, though, I think "fixing" Mexico is the only real solution to the problem of illegal immigration. Militarizing the border is not financially tenable, and determined immigrants will always find their way around such obstacles. Forcing legal residents to carry their papers on them at all times doesn't do anything to prevent illegal immigration at all. Not only does it leave a wide berth for abuse, we can expect police to arrest and deport only a fraction of the nation's illegal immigrants.

Incentive is a much more effective - and ethical - motivator than coercion. So, yes, I agree with you insofar as steps need to be taken on the Mexican side to solve this problem. However, I would say the United States is going to have to play the part of fixing Mexico. We will have to decriminalize drugs here in the United Sates to rob the cartels of their buying power and we will need to mandate that American manufacturers using Mexican labor pay accordingly to entice Mexican laborers to stay in their own country.

Realistically, how soon do you really think decriminalization of drugs across America is going to happen in a country that prides itself on having a war against drugs? Don't get me wrong, I agree completely with everything you said here Riktor, but it just doesn't seem realistic in the short or even medium term compared to trying to do a massive push to deport illegals with, perhaps, a temporarily quadrupled active force of immigration officers knocking on every door. That would give the many unemployed Americans some new job options, too, as a side effect.

Secondly, the whole reason everything's been outsourced to Mexico and elsewhere by the business community in the past 20 years is the dirt cheap labour. There is no other reason other than that. You can bet businesses are going to fight any initiative to pay even remotely similar wages to Mexicans with every resource they have, delaying it as long a humanly possible. Or, even worse, the companies will simply pull out of the region entirely and move those manufacturing operations to lower cost areas around the world that remain at the bottom of the barrel... leaving Mexico in even worse shape. The corporations don't give a shit what happens to Mexico, they just do whatever is most profitable.

I don't think the US is up to doing these necessary changes you mentioned without something that would need to come close to a complete revolution in leadership and culture across the USA. In the mean time, the illegal immigration problem is already at a crisis point in many areas.

At this point anything that buys the US some time is necessary, and that's why I personally think that crackdowns and profiling are only going to get more common in the next five years.

When I was in Arizona in the spring of 2009, there were checkpoints near the border around Tombstone and Bisbee where they pulled over every single car and checked citizenship day and night. It's hard to imagine them cracking down much more than they already were. They seemed to be doing a thorough job, although perhaps they aren't being as thorough in outlying areas or minor roads, since obviously the illegals are getting in somehow, and lots of them. Upping the immigration officer staff/police presence at checkpoints on every single road that crosses the border might be another thing they could start doing in the near term. Remote monitoring needs to be done to find out where the majority are crossing.

This all costs a lot of money the US doesn't have. I really feel for you guys because I would hate to be the one shouldering the burden and expense of figuring out and fixing this massive problem. It's tiring just thinking about it.

Prag, the last two companies I worked for....one being the Worlds largest in the dialysis market...had mfg. facilities in Mexico. These facilities made simple, plastic parts. So I hear ya! There aren't people in the US that would work for the amount of money the people in Mexico do. Maybe now, with unemployment so high...but companies aren't gonna up and move back to the US now.

Also, I had family members (by marriage) who came and went, and still do, between Mexico and the US. It's not hard at all, with the right papers, to enter the US. Then once they are here...well, that's another story.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2010 07:06PM by OMS.

OMS: I have a similar story. In the 1990s I worked for one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, at their head office in Canada. Even back then they had outsourced manufacturing of a minority of products to central America. I heard two years ago that every single product ended up outsourced there and all the great jobs and the entire building where I used to work - which contained both pharmaceutical manufacturing lines and quality assurance plus all the higher end office jobs - was closed. It was one of the best places to work in the entire city.

You're right - these companies are not coming back to North America. They just keep moving as much as they can to whatever place in the world will make it the cheapest while, funnily enough, somehow still having the audacity to call themselves North American companies.

Even where I work now, which is entirely white collar, at least 30% of the workforce has been outsourced to third world countries in the last 10 years. The quality of the outsourced service is also, unsurprisingly, shit compared to what it used to be.

I hear what you're saying about how some of the illegals are getting in. Coming is as "legal visitors" and simply never leaving. Requiring visas for all entering Mexicans would at least allow authorities to identify that someone had an expired visa if they went door to door. I wonder how much of this entire illegal immigration issue is people who technically got in legally and never left, versus undocumented people with no papers who snuck in? In any case, requiring a passport and a time-limited visa for all travelers entering and exiting the USA would be a good start.

Canada recently started requiring visas for Mexican travelers in the last year, as a response to being overwhelmed with false refugee claims (and the false refugees sitting on welfare for months or years c/o our taxpayers) which I mentioned in my post at the bottom of the last page. The move really pissed off the Mexican President, who I believe responded by requiring visas of all Canadians now, but it was a very a necessary tool to help curb the clearly very large illegal immigration problem. If the US isn't already requiring visas of Mexicans, it should:

posted:

News Release
[www.cic.gc.ca]

Canada imposes a visa on Mexico

Ottawa, July 13, 2009 — Beginning 12:01 a.m. EDT on July 14, 2009, Mexican nationals will require a visa to travel to Canada, Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney announced today. For the first 48 hours, Mexican citizens may apply for entry on arrival in Canada. After 11:59 p.m. EDT July 15, 2009, a visa will be required.

Refugee claims from Mexico have almost tripled since 2005, making it the number one source country for claims. In 2008, more than 9,400 claims filed in Canada came from Mexican nationals, representing 25 per cent of all claims received. Of the Mexican claims reviewed and finalized in 2008 by the Immigration and Refugee Board, an independent administrative tribunal, only 11 per cent were accepted.

“In addition to creating significant delays and spiraling new costs in our refugee program, the sheer volume of these claims is undermining our ability to help people fleeing real persecution,” said Minister Kenney. “All too often, people who really need Canada’s protection find themselves in a long line, waiting for months and sometimes years to have their claims heard. This is unacceptable.

“The visa requirement I am announcing will give us a greater ability to manage the flow of people into Canada and verify bona fides. By taking this important step towards reducing the burden on our refugee system, we will be better equipped to process genuine refugee claims faster.”

“The visa process will allow us to assess who is coming to Canada as a legitimate visitor and who might be trying to use the refugee system to jump the immigration queue,” Minister Kenney said. “It is not fair for those who have been waiting patiently to come to Canada, sometimes for years, when others succeed in bypassing our immigration system.”

Canada regularly reviews its visa policies toward other countries. Countries are aware that if they do not satisfy the conditions of a visa-exemption, a visa may be imposed.

This change means that nationals from Mexico who want to travel to Canada will first need to apply for a Temporary Resident Visa and meet the requirements to receive one. It is up to the applicant to satisfy the visa officer their visit to Canada is temporary, they will not overstay their approved time in Canada, they have enough money to cover their stay in Canada, they are in good health, they do not have a criminal record, and are not a security risk to Canadians. These requirements are the same for anyone who wants to visit Canada.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) has been working to increase processing capacity in Mexico City. Nevertheless, the imposition of the visa will mean short-term delays in travel as CIC puts resources in place. Applicants are encouraged to send their applications by courier or registered mail and to avoid visiting the Embassy unless specifically invited for an interview.

“Canada has strong ties with Mexico,” said Minister Kenney. “We continue to welcome all genuine travellers to Canada from this country.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2010 09:28PM by pragmatica.

He's making a statement. I'm sure he's hoping the fans will, therefore, think about what the action is trying to say instead of whining that this means they don't get to see concerts. I'm sorry, but in no sense of the word does not having a band you like play in your state constitute suffering. If that were the case, most of the midwest "suffers" all the time.

Trent has a right to his opinions whether the fans agree or not. And the bit about Year Zero being fictional is bullshit -- it was fiction designed to make a political point. That was made quite clear.[/quote]

I honestly didn't even know about the boycott, and from what I've read, I kind of think people are overreacting . =\ I stay away from politics, but I think that Trent has a right to do what he thinks is "right." I think it's sad that some members of his fanbase are turning against him just because of a personal decision. If you really were a true fan, you would understand his views, accept them, and move on. So I agree with the above statement, I think some of the people getting all up in arms about this need to see the big picture. If Trent boycotted my state, I would understand his reasoning, and it wouldn't change my views as a fan.

I used to live in AZ, for four years, by the way.

There is still a large wild west mentality in AZ. When you try and boycott or attack us it just makes us want to fight back even harder. These boycotts by out of state groups lately would be like a rich eastern businessman strolling into Tombstone in 1890 and telling them that they must repeal the law that allows them to carry sidearms for protection. It's not going to have the desired effect...
While there may be a small economic price to pay for AZ losing out on some concerts the loss is most strongly felt by the fans who would want to see him ( if he were touring ). The state as a whole will not be effected much because most people attending concerts are from the immediate area anyway. If they don't spend their money at NIN they will likely spend it somewhere else in the area. Concerts bring in very few out of state dollars.

owenb_ posted:

There is still a large wild west mentality in AZ. When you try and boycott or attack us it just makes us want to fight back even harder. These boycotts by out of state groups lately would be like a rich eastern businessman strolling into Tombstone in 1890 and telling them that they must repeal the law that allows them to carry sidearms for protection. It's not going to have the desired effect...
While there may be a small economic price to pay for AZ losing out on some concerts the loss is most strongly felt by the fans who would want to see him ( if he were touring ). The state as a whole will not be effected much because most people attending concerts are from the immediate area anyway. If they don't spend their money at NIN they will likely spend it somewhere else in the area. Concerts bring in very few out of state dollars.

Typically, when a group announces a boycott, it is done with the implicit intention of soliciting others to join them. Arizona may or may not lose out on money from bands refusing to tour there, but I'd venture a guess the state would definitely lose out on money if a few thousand less tourists show up to gawk at the desert this year. I also wouldn't write off the power of national opinion. For a state that is ranked 31st in federal taxes paid while 21st in federal spending received, losing friends in Congress could also result in a shortage of state funds.

I'm not saying any of this will happen, or even that it is likely to happen. But, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the power of a simple boycott.

jayetheartist wrote:

posted:

The only way this law can be equally and properly enforced is if law enforcement asks for proof of citizenship or immigration status of every single person they come in contact with -- not just arresting, but everyone they talk to. I very much doubt that is happening. As long as they're targeting people who are or appear to be Mexican more than everyone else, it's profiling.

Yeah, so what should they do... look for people who look Swedish ...or maybe Chinese? And that would be because Swedish and Chinese illegal immigrants are the issue in Arizona? That's exactly like telling airport security they cannot give extra scrutiny to passengers who look like Osama Bin Laden. It might make you feel good about yourself, but it's also absurd.


Anyways, I doubt Trent has much choice, if the boycott is popular. If enough of the industry and its acts are jumping on the bandwagon, he really has no choice. I don't doubt that he's really and truly on board, but even if he didn't want to boycott the bill and Arizona, he'd probably have no reasonbable choice but to conform. To do otherwise is likely to mean being stigmatized and blacklisted. Isn't that what happened to Queen when they played South Africa? I'm not comparing Arizona to South Africa, but boycott to boycott and the reprisals that follow nonconformity. Trent is a man of responsibility. Nin has employees or, at least, people who's livelihoods depend on his success, I'll bet. He has a responsibility to his career and how many others' careers to be a good boy and fall in line. No one can blame him for that.

rix posted:

Yeah, so what should they do... look for people who look Swedish ...or maybe Chinese?

No, she explicitly stated the police should be looking at everyone, not particular groups.

Furthermore, what does a Mexican look like, pray tell? I know at least a handful myself that have blond hair and blue eyes.

posted:

And that would be because Swedish and Chinese illegal immigrants are the issue in Arizona?

Funny, I thought the problem with illegal immigrants was not where they are from, but that they are here illegally. Using such rationale, it would seem prudent to enforce immigration laws on all immigrant groups, rather than the one that just happens to the be the largest.

posted:

That's exactly like telling airport security they cannot give extra scrutiny to passengers who look like Osama Bin Laden.

No, it isn't. Scrutinizing somebody could be as simple as paying attention to what they are doing. Stopping a law-abiding citizen as he's on his way home from work every day just because of the color of his skin is harassment, and it is illegal.

posted:

It might make you feel good about yourself, but it's also absurd.

No, it isn't. It is a necessary risk we make to preserve our freedoms.

"A man who would give up a little freedom for a little security deserves neither."

- Benjamin Franklin

The founding fathers have spoken. End of argument.

posted:

Anyways, I doubt Trent has much choice, if the boycott is popular. If enough of the industry and its acts are jumping on the bandwagon, he really has no choice. I don't doubt that he's really and truly on board, but even if he didn't want to boycott the bill and Arizona, he'd probably have no reasonbable choice but to conform. To do otherwise is likely to mean being stigmatized and blacklisted. Isn't that what happened to Queen when they played South Africa? I'm not comparing Arizona to South Africa, but boycott to boycott and the reprisals that follow nonconformity. Trent is a man of responsibility. Nin has employees or, at least, people who's livelihoods depend on his success, I'll bet. He has a responsibility to his career and how many others' careers to be a good boy and fall in line. No one can blame him for that.

As Nine Inch Nails is no longer a touring act, Trent has plenty of choice.

rodheh posted:

jayetheartist posted:

rodheh posted:

jayetheartist posted:

rodheh posted:

jayetheartist posted:

What, your point about Mexico? Exactly what is the US supposed to do about it? Invade?

No, that wasn't me, that was the other guy. My point was about how certain investigation methods can be perceived as racial profiling when taken incorrectly.


I didn't say anything about Mexico. Check on page 3.

It's not a problem of perception. Profiling is profiling, and it's unconstitutional.

It is a problem of perception. Profiling in the sense you are referring to isn't happening, and if it starts, I'll be among the first to see it.

How will you be among the first to see it? Are you in law enforcement? [b]Living in the state doesn't mean you're going to be witness to anything.[b]

The only way this law can be equally and properly enforced is if law enforcement asks for proof of citizenship or immigration status of every single person they come in contact with -- not just arresting, but everyone they talk to. I very much doubt that is happening. As long as they're targeting people who are or appear to be Mexican more than everyone else, it's profiling.

Again, I don't argue that there are huge problems affecting Arizona and other states because of illegal immigrants, but any law giving the police more authority in an attempt to find those who are here illegally has to be far better constructed than this one.

This is where you are wrong.

Really? Where?

posted:

At this point, this thread is useless. Obama is now attacking the law.

Obama is attacking the law on the grounds that it infringes upon the constitutionally outlined duty of the federal government to police the borders. Last I checked, it was up to the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of laws, not the office of the president.

PeedroPaula posted:

And certainly not the office of rodheh!

Settle down.


Jaye, I said you were wrong because I do see firsthand laws when they are enacted here as multiple members of my family are in law enforcement, with one being a highway patrolman (who stops cars).

jayetheartist posted:

rodheh posted:

PeedroPaula posted:

And certainly not the office of rodheh!

Settle down.


Jaye, I said you were wrong because I do see firsthand laws when they are enacted here as multiple members of my family are in law enforcement, with one being a highway patrolman (who stops cars).

So, you're assuming that your family is so representative of law enforcement that if you don't see problems via their experience, that must mean there are no problems at all anywhere in the state?

Furthermore, are they enforcing this law by asking for proof of citizenship? Are they asking it of everyone in every car they stop? Are they only asking when they stop cars?

Just because they say it's all peachy or don't mention problems occurring doesn't mean it's so.

Of course I'm not saying that. I already stated this, I know that there will be officers with prejudicial intent of misusing the law. I'm just saying that from what I've seen the many outweigh the few.

jayetheartist posted:

...As the law is written, it's pretty hard to "misuse" it. Going by the law as it is written, it's perfectly okay to ask a group of people to produce proof of citizenship just because the officer thinks maybe they're Mexican. It doesn't matter how many officers choose not to use that power, the fact that it allows such a thing is not okay...

Are you kidding me? That would be racism, of course that isn't okay. You might as well get off as you said because you clearly have a botched understanding of the law. It doesn't say that, nor does it make a clear allowance of that. You should read it again at AZleg.


In order for citizenship to be checked, the person must have been stopped for unlawful contact that would lead to suspicion that the person is her illegally, such as lack of license plates or drivers license. Any use of the law to check citizenship for other means such as race WOULD be misusing the law, as right now it currently holds a firm statement.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2010 10:33PM by rodheh.