Arizona, a rogue state at war

[zsdersw]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/27/navarrette.arizona.rogue.state/index.html?hpt=T2

San Diego, California (CNN) -- Don't be surprised if, any day now, you read that the People's Republic of Arizona is in the market for nuclear warheads to put an end, once and for all, to illegal immigration on its southern border. After all, it's the next logical step for the rogue state.

This week, to advance the narrative that Arizona has no choice but to do its own immigration enforcement because the federal government is asleep at the switch, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer called for air support. Brewer requested helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles from the White House to patrol the border region with Mexico.
In a letter to President Obama, Brewer asked that the National Guard reallocate reconnaissance helicopters and robotic surveillance craft to the "border states" to prevent illegal immigration. The governor also requested the deployment of unmanned drones, including possibly the Predator drones used in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, in her letter, Brewer even mentioned those foreign wars as examples of where the drones have been effective.

What's the matter with Arizona? Isn't it a little early in the year for the folks in the desert to be suffering from sunstroke?

I guess this is par for the course. Brewer just signed SB 1070, a disgraceful anti-immigration and pro-racial-profiling law, to give local and state cops throughout the state the chance to suit up and play border patrol agent. Why shouldn't she get the chance to suit up and play general?

After all, like the United States, Arizona is currently involved in two wars. There's the hypocritical war against the very illegal immigrants that the state has spent the past 15 years providing with gainful employment by allowing them to do jobs that Arizonans wouldn't do. And then there's the rhetorical war with the Obama administration, which Arizona wants to portray as negligent in stopping illegal immigration, which forced Arizonans to take matters into their own hands.

The argument that the federal government isn't actively engaged in border enforcement is both dishonest and reckless.
It is dishonest because it's not true. I've visited the U.S.-Mexico border a dozen times in the past 10 years: in Texas, Arizona and California. I've interviewed countless border patrol agents and supervisors. I've also been up in a Border Patrol helicopter flying above the border, which offers a unique perspective on border security.

So I can tell you what the border patrol agents on the ground would tell you: The U.S.-Mexico border has never been more fortified. There are now more than 20,000 border patrol agents on the federal payroll. That's more agents than any other federal enforcement agency, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Those agents apprehend people and deport them at a feverish clip. In fact, it was recently announced that the Obama administration deported more people last year than the Bush administration during its final year in office.

It is reckless because -- when this law is hauled before a federal judge, as it will be -- opponents will argue that the measure violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution by usurping federal authority to enforce immigration law. And that's the very thing that proponents seem to be admitting in their bravado. In fact, it might not be a bad idea for Arizona officials to pipe down and stop bragging about how they're doing the job of the federal government in terms of immigration enforcement, since that's a no-no under the Constitution.

If the federal government does take border enforcement seriously, critics might ask: Why are there still people trying to enter the United States illegally? Simple. We can dig a moat, deploy an army, build walls or call in an airstrike, but desperate people will always find a way to go around, under or over any impediment in their path to a better life.
This isn't to condone illegal immigration. My views -- in support of deportations, workplace raids, giving more resources to the Border Patrol etc. -- are well known. I'm just telling you what Border Patrol agents tell me: that it doesn't make any sense to focus all our attention at the border while turning a blind eye to employers in the interior. That's like trying to fill a bucket with teaspoons of water without first plugging the hole at the bottom.

Now Obama has fallen into that same trap. He is reportedly ready to announce that he is sending 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to help control illegal immigration and quell some of the violence. That's a far cry from the 6,000 troops that Arizona Sen. John McCain had requested, and congressional Republicans seem miffed that Obama stole their thunder.

Still, as long as the troops follow the protocol laid out in 2006 when George W. Bush launched Operation Jumpstart -- that they're unarmed and act only in a support capacity to the Border Patrol by fixing vehicles, monitoring surveillance equipment, repairing fences -- I think sending the National Guard is a fine idea. It's just not the magic bullet that the most enthusiastic proponents of the idea would have us believe. There's only one of those. It involves fining, arresting and prosecuting the employers of illegal immigrants, including people who are, this election year, streaming into fundraisers for McCain, Brewer and other tough-talking Republicans vowing to solve a problem that many of their backers helped create.

Bolded parts in which I agree.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Bolded parts in which I agree.

*yawn*

 

[rudder]

After all, like the United States, Arizona is currently involved in two wars. There's the hypocritical war against the very illegal immigrants that the state has spent the past 15 years providing with gainful employment by allowing them to do jobs that Arizonans wouldn't do.

Typical bullshit line. If there were no fruit pickers... the agricultural industry would have been forced to mechanize. cheap labor... no need.

And it is not that illegals are doing jobs Americans won't do... they are doing jobs that Americans can no longer afford to because illegal labor has depressed wages in more areas than just cleaning hotels. Around where I live you could have earned a good living being a roofer or a mason or general carpenter. Then came the flood of illegals who will work for 1/3 or 1/4th the pay along with all the government entities looking the other way. Very hard for people to work for $5/hour when they pay for health care, auto insurance, obey the law and live with one family in a single family dwelling. So suddenly these become jobs "Americans won't do."

 

[Patranus]

t involves fining, arresting and prosecuting the employers of illegal immigrants, including people who are, this election year, streaming into fundraisers for McCain, Brewer and other tough-talking Republicans vowing to solve a problem that many of their backers helped create.

An employer should have the assumption that all people applying for a job is in the United States legally as by the fact that under federal law illegal immigrations shouldn't be here to begin with.

Now, if someone knowingly hires an illegal immigrant that is one thing but if someone goes down to Home Depot it is not their responsibility to check immigration status. As the federal government keeps saying in response to the new AZ law, immigration is the federal governments responsibility.

 

[zsdersw]

*yawn*

It's that time already? Ok, here ya go. It's all ready for you:

 

[nick1985]

San Diego, California (CNN) -- Don't be surprised if, any day now, you read that the People's Republic of Arizona is in the market for nuclear warheads to put an end, once and for all, to illegal immigration on its southern border. After all, it's the next logical step for the rogue state.


You agree with that? You wouldnt be suprised if Arizona aquires a nuke to drop on Mexico? lol...



Anyway,

So Arizona passes a watered-down verion of existing federal law, and suddenly they are a rogue state at war?

And you liberals wonder why less than 1/3 of the nation is on your side with this issue. Dont be scratching your head all confused after you get clobbered to hell in November.

 

[zsdersw]

You agree with that? You wouldnt be suprised if Arizona aquires a nuke to drop on Mexico? lol...

I wouldn't be surprised if they asked for them, no.

 

[zsdersw]

An employer should have the assumption that all people applying for a job is in the United States legally as by the fact that under federal law illegal immigrations shouldn't be here to begin with.

Now, if someone knowingly hires an illegal immigrant that is one thing but if someone goes down to Home Depot it is not their responsibility to check immigration status. As the federal government keeps saying in response to the new AZ law, immigration is the federal governments responsibility.

Oh yeah... a bunch of Mexicans standing down at the Home Depot isn't going to AT ALL raise any doubt about illegal immigrant status in an employer's mind.

It may not be their responsibility to check, but shouldn't they do so anyway?

The most likely explanation is they don't really care and simply want to find the best worker for the lowest wage.

 

[nick1985]

Here is another load of shit:

"If the federal government does take border enforcement seriously, critics might ask: Why are there still people trying to enter the United States illegally? Simple. We can dig a moat, deploy an army, build walls or call in an airstrike, but desperate people will always find a way to go around, under or over any impediment in their path to a better life."

Let me get this straight. Deploying the Army, building a wall, building a moat, and having air surveilance would certainly reduce illegal immigration, and probably most all of it. But since 1% of people who try to cross with all of this will succeed, that means we should just not try anything and not secure our border? I dont get the logic in this.

 

[zsdersw]

Here is another load of shit:

"If the federal government does take border enforcement seriously, critics might ask: Why are there still people trying to enter the United States illegally? Simple. We can dig a moat, deploy an army, build walls or call in an airstrike, but desperate people will always find a way to go around, under or over any impediment in their path to a better life."

Let me get this straight. Deploying the Army, building a wall, building a moat, and having air surveilance would certainly reduce illegal immigration, and probably most all of it. But since 1% of people who try to cross with all of this will succeed, that means we should just not try anything and not secure our border? I dont get the logic in this.

The bolded section was never said or implied.

 

[Patranus]

Oh yeah... a bunch of Mexicans standing down at the Home Depot isn't going to AT ALL raise any doubt about illegal immigrant status in an employer's mind.

It may not be their responsibility to check, but shouldn't they do so anyway?

The most likely explanation is they don't really care and simply want to find the best worker for the lowest wage.

If there is a bar with an age limit of 21 and over and someone under 18 uses a fake ID to enter is it another patrons responsibility to check ID of that person if they end up hooking up with them?

Or is it reasonable to assume that everyone in the bar is over 18?

 

[nick1985]

The bolded section was never said or implied.

It sure was implied. They said you could do everything to stop them, but "they will always find a way". Thats such crap and you know it.

 

[bfdd]

zsdersw I generally read your posts and find you to be rather intelligent or at minimum make a good point, but really? This article is a huge piece of shit. It screams ignorance and bigotry.

 

[werepossum]

Sweet Jesus, it's no wonder CNN is headed for extinction. This is the silliest, whiniest article I've seen on the subject - and it faced stiff competition for that title. Bottom line is that it's just another slam on Republicans for actually doing what the people want done, coupled with yet another attack on capitalism. Typical progressive fare.

 

[zsdersw]

It sure was implied. They said you could do everything to stop them, but "they will always find a way". Thats such crap and you know it.

No it wasn't implied. You think it does because you're so blinded with rage about illegal immigration you don't see this part of the opinion piece:

This isn't to condone illegal immigration. My views -- in support of deportations, workplace raids, giving more resources to the Border Patrol etc. -- are well known. I'm just telling you what Border Patrol agents tell me: that it doesn't make any sense to focus all our attention at the border while turning a blind eye to employers in the interior. That's like trying to fill a bucket with teaspoons of water without first plugging the hole at the bottom.

 

[zsdersw]

zsdersw I generally read your posts and find you to be rather intelligent or at minimum make a good point, but really? This article is a huge piece of shit. It screams ignorance and bigotry.

I only agree with parts of it.

 

[nick1985]

No it wasn't implied.

Yes it was. You are the blinded one. When they say all those defenses wouldnt matter because they will always find a way....that is sure as fuck implying that those defenses dont work. How are you this stupid? Its incredible.

 

[zsdersw]

Yes it was. You are the blinded one. When they say all those defenses wouldnt matter because they will always find a way....that is sure as fuck implying that those defenses dont work. How are you this stupid? Its incredible.

He's using hyperbole to demonstrate a point; a point that you're oblivious to, apparently.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

lol, more liberal FAIL.

 

[nick1985]

He's using hyperbole to demonstrate a point; a point that you're oblivious to, apparently.

The moat and airstrikes obviously are, but the fence and troops are not. Those things would work in reducing the flow of illegals. You are oblivious

 

[Genx87]

San Diego, California (CNN) -- Don't be surprised if, any day now, you read that the People's Republic of Arizona is in the market for nuclear warheads to put an end, once and for all, to illegal immigration on its southern border. After all, it's the next logical step for the rogue state.

Hard to take an article serious when this is how it starts off.

Yes, the next logical step from enforcing federal immigration law is to acquire nuclear weapons.

/boggle

 

[zsdersw]

Sweet Jesus, it's no wonder CNN is headed for extinction. This is the silliest, whiniest article I've seen on the subject - and it faced stiff competition for that title. Bottom line is that it's just another slam on Republicans for actually doing what the people want done, coupled with yet another attack on capitalism. Typical progressive fare.

Well, Republicans in Arizona are definitely enacting the push-away-with-one-hand-pull-toward-with-the-other mentality of most Americans on this issue. Americans love cheaper produce, but don't like the illegal immigrants who work for a wage that at least partially allows it to be cheaper.

 

[nick1985]

Hard to take an article serious when this is how it starts off.

Yes, the next logical step from enforcing federal immigration law is to acquire nuclear weapons.

/boggle

...and the OP agreed with it. Even more mind boggling.

And they wonder why over 2/3 of the nation thinks they are retarded on this issue

 

[Drako]

Wow, this is shocking - an opinion piece by Ruben Navarrette, Jr. is pro-illegal immigration/anti-Arizona

 

[MotF Bane]

That article isn't worth a thread.