Arizona requires you to carry your papers

[StrangeSox]

So we should cancel the health care bill then?

 

I don't follow.

[southsider2k5]

I don't follow.

 

With them being forced to cover people in health care, they won't want to risk their policy costs by hiring high risk people, such as people with diseases, or women who have this nasty habit of getting pregnant.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Illinois lawmaker wants Sox out of Arizona

SPRINGFIELD - An Illinois lawmaker Wednesday called on the Chicago White Sox to pull its spring training camp out of Arizona to protest that state's controversial new immigration law.

 

"A majority of the White Sox players are Latinos, and I thought about how they would feel as they traveled to Arizona," said state Sen. Martin Sandoval, a Cicero Democrat.

 

The new Arizona law requires that requires suspected undocumented immigrants to be detained and asked for proof of citizenship. The law caused protests nationwide, including a few outside Wrigley Field last week when the Cubs played the Arizona Diamondbacks.

 

A White Sox media representative was not aware of Sandoval's request Wednesday morning.

 

At least one suburban lawmaker and White Sox fan agrees with the call for action.

 

"We should basically boycott Arizona in that regard," said Waukegan Democratic state Sen. Terry Link.

 

Asked about the Cubs spring training in Arizona, Link begrudgingly acknowledged that team's existence.

 

"I'm not a Cubs fan so I could care less what they do. But I understand they're already contemplating a move to Florida," he said.

 

It's not the first time Arizona public policy and the professional sporting world have collided. In the early 1990s, the NFL moved a Super Bowl to Pasadena after Arizona refused to recognize the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.

 

The latest immigration flap prompted the Phoenix Suns to announce players will wear "Los Suns" on their jerseys in Game 2 of the Western Conference semifinals Wednesday night, owner Robert Sarver said, "to honor our Latino community and the diversity of our league, the state of Arizona, and our nation."

 

Daily Herald news services contributed to this report.

[Balta1701]

With them being forced to cover people in health care, they won't want to risk their policy costs by hiring high risk people, such as people with diseases, or women who have this nasty habit of getting pregnant.

So, your argument then is that since this circumstance already exists, the only logical solution is to fully federalize health care. I'm game. We can do the same thing with immigration enforcement too!

[Middle Buffalo]

The cost of universal health care is the main argument against it, as I understand. Are these new immigration controls going to be cost free? How do we pay for it? Why would we trust the government to run this, when we don't think they can operate healthcare? Local law enforcement is broke throughout the country. The federal government is deeply in debt. Won't we have to raise taxes to fund this new immigration law?

[BigSqwert]

The cost of universal health care is the main argument against it, as I understand. Are these new immigration controls going to be cost free? How do we pay for it? Why would we trust the government to run this, when we don't think they can operate healthcare? Local law enforcement is broke throughout the country. The federal government is deeply in debt. Won't we have to raise taxes to fund this new immigration law?

[southsider2k5]

The cost of universal health care is the main argument against it, as I understand. Are these new immigration controls going to be cost free? How do we pay for it? Why would we trust the government to run this, when we don't think they can operate healthcare? Local law enforcement is broke throughout the country. The federal government is deeply in debt. Won't we have to raise taxes to fund this new immigration law?

 

That's where the fine for committing an already illegal act comes in. And don't worry, they will screw it up. Remember the last amnesty was supposed to fix things too.

[southsider2k5]

So, your argument then is that since this circumstance already exists, the only logical solution is to fully federalize health care. I'm game. We can do the same thing with immigration enforcement too!

 

No I am saying liberals don't have a problem with a million other things that cost companies money, why do they care now?

[Texsox]

Than I am saying conservatives have a problem with a million other things that cost money, why don't they care now?

No I am saying liberals don't have a problem with a million other things that cost companies money, why do they care now?

[Middle Buffalo]

That's where the fine for committing an already illegal act comes in. And don't worry, they will screw it up. Remember the last amnesty was supposed to fix things too.

Who gets fined in the event that an illegal immigrant gets pulled over for a traffic violation? The immigrant? Will his fine cover the cost of the enforcement? I doubt it.

 

I personally don't believe in amnesty, but I also don't think it's realistic to try to round up 12-15 million people suspected to be here illegally. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I don't see how the current law (SB1070) will manage to do anything other than hassle brown skinned people and add more work to already overworked law enforcement officers.

 

I don't see this as much more than a way for local Republicans (Arpaio, Brewer, Pearce, et al) to get some free publicity in an election year. It's similar to abortion in that it's an issue that only comes up during the election cycle. We never hear anything about abortion on the federal level unless there's a presidential election, and this is similar in that way. In my humble opinion.

 

I think we'd be better served to implement some kind of work visa situation for those that are here currently illegally. Get them to come forward and let them stay for a period. If we know who they are, then we can figure out when they'll need to leave or file for an extension. We have built a false economy that they are part of. People (American citizens) have started businesses, bought rental property, etc. with the idea that the pool of people who buy from them or rent from them have the right to be here. It's unfair to the Americans who have done nothing wrong but seek the American dream of owning their own businesses. Americans have already been burned by the collapse of Wall Street and the housing market, why pile on?

 

It might also make sense for the U.S. to give incentives to American companies to relocate some of their foreign industrial jobs to south of the border. Want to keep Mexicans in Mexico? Give them a reason to stay. I'm sure they'd rather be near their families and friends in Mexico than living in the shadows in the U.S.

[Balta1701]

It might also make sense for the U.S. to give incentives to American companies to relocate some of their foreign industrial jobs to south of the border.

Somehow, I don't think that would go over too well politically.

[southsider2k5]

Than I am saying conservatives have a problem with a million other things that cost money, why don't they care now?

 

Which do you think will cost more, a one time fine to an employer, or a lifetime of social services?

[Texsox]

There are already incentives by the Mexico government for companies from all over the world to relocate or add plants in Mexico. NAFTA has further incentified companies to locate operations in North America. One of the largest concentartions of Japanese companies outside Japan is in Reynosa, Tamps, Mexico. Most of those managers live on the US side of the river and commute daily.

[Balta1701]

Which do you think will cost more, a one time fine to an employer, or a lifetime of social services?

Because when an illegal immigrant gets sick, no one has to pay.

[southsider2k5]

Because when an illegal immigrant gets sick, no one has to pay.

 

And if they aren't here, we don't at all. Not to mention in a time when there is 10% unemployment in this country, it might actually free up some jobs, and increase some wages for people.

[Texsox]

If there were enough willing citizens to take those jobs, we would still have the same problem. The lowest income tax brackets have negative rates. From a financial stand point illegals who do not have a social security number are the best deal. They consume less of those services than a citizen. ALso, a citizen is not likely to move to Mexico but a Mexican national is. THat is why we have turned our heads since Reagan.

Which do you think will cost more, a one time fine to an employer, or a lifetime of social services?

[Texsox]

How many unemployed people do you know who are willing to work seasonal jobs for low wages?

And if they aren't here, we don't at all. Not to mention in a time when there is 10% unemployment in this country, it might actually free up some jobs, and increase some wages for people.

[Balta1701]

How many unemployed people do you know who are willing to work seasonal jobs for low wages?

Clearly a lot. Haven't you seen the migration to the Imperial Valley from the rest of California?

[southsider2k5]

If there were enough willing citizens to take those jobs, we would still have the same problem. The lowest income tax brackets have negative rates. From a financial stand point illegals who do not have a social security number are the best deal. They consume less of those services than a citizen. ALso, a citizen is not likely to move to Mexico but a Mexican national is. THat is why we have turned our heads since Reagan.

 

No we wouldn't, because we wouldn't have the extra 15 million or so people here.

[NorthSideSox72]

No we wouldn't, because we wouldn't have the extra 15 million or so people here.

To be fair though, you also wouldn't have those 15 million consumers in the economy - buying products and paying sales taxes. So while some costs would undoubtedly shrink, so would some business and government revenues.

 

[southsider2k5]

How many unemployed people do you know who are willing to work seasonal jobs for low wages?

 

I don't know when racism became OK here, but clearly not all illegals are fruit pickers. This doesn't happen just in the crop belt, or there wouldn't be illegals here in Michigan City.

[Balta1701]

No we wouldn't, because we wouldn't have the extra 15 million or so people here.

Because it's easy to pretend that'll go away.

[southsider2k5]

To be fair though, you also wouldn't have those 15 million consumers in the economy - buying products and paying sales taxes. So while some costs would undoubtedly shrink, so would some business and government revenues.

 

Sure, more money would actually stay in the country. IIRC Mexico's second biggest money maker behind petroleum is people sending dollars back to Mexico from the US. I think it was something like $20 billion a year. I'll bet that could generate a few jobs here too.

[southsider2k5]

Because it's easy to pretend that'll go away.

 

There have already been reports of people going back to their homelands because of troubles finding a job in this recession. There is no reason to think that wouldn't happen to a larger extent if we cleaned up our employers.

[Balta1701]

Sure, more money would actually stay in the country. IIRC Mexico's second biggest money maker behind petroleum is people sending dollars back to Mexico from the US. I think it was something like $20 billion a year. I'll bet that could generate a few jobs here too.

So you're in favor of import tariffs against Mexico to keep other jobs on our side of the border too?