Exactly.yovargas wrote:"Capitalism loves cheap labour" is perhaps true if you view Capitalism solely from the false perspective that it's only about making rich people richer.
To tie that in with this thread, cheap labor via illegal immigrants creates more problems than it solves as evidenced by unemployment figures and the drain on social services.For over a half century, American manufacturing has dominated the globe. It turned the tide in World War ii and hastened the defeat of Nazi Germany; it subsequently helped rebuild Europe and Japan; it enabled the United States to outlast the Soviet empire in the Cold War. At the same time, it met all the material needs of the American people.
During this period, many American icons were born. Companies like General Motors, Ford, Boeing, Maytag and Levi Strauss became household names. American manufacturing became synonymous with quality and ingenuity.
On the back of this industrial output rose America’s middle class. High-paying manufacturing jobs, in turn, helped spur a robust and growing economy that depended little on foreign nations for manufactured goods and armaments.
However, manufacturing as a share of the economy has been plummeting. In 1965, manufacturing accounted for 53 percent of the economy. By 1988 it only accounted for 39 percent, and in 2004, it accounted for just 9 percent.
Considering the stupendous list of America’s manufacturing achievements and the vulnerabilities associated with foreign dependence when a nation lacks strong domestic manufacturing, it is alarming when economists are warning that the U.S. is facing the “gutting, hollowing out and closing down of American manufacturing forever” (Benson’s Economic & Market Trends, Feb. 27, 2004).
Nor a "religion", actually.vison wrote: Capitalism is an economic system, not a government.
Pass a flawed immigration reform bill (such as the McCain-Kennedy bill that failed 3 years ago) rather than passing no bill. But that won't happen because of the current state of extreme bipartisan partisanship (that's my new buzz phrase). McCain himself is adamently opposed to the same bill he championed then. And Kennedy, of course, is gone.vison wrote:What do you think the federal government ought to do?
linkAnyway, if enforcing immigration law is a bad thing for local cops to do, as Holder claims, why pick on Arizona? If he’s really upset that the same laws he has taken an oath to enforce might actually get (gulp!) enforced, why isn’t he suing Providence instead of Phoenix? They’ve been doing local immigration enforcement for years now.
As The Boston Globe-Democrat reported yesterday, “From Woonsocket to Westerly, the troopers patrolling the nation’s smallest state are reporting all illegal immigrants they encounter, even on routine stops such as speeding, to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.”
When you present an issue in a way that makes it worth discussing, then perhaps it'll be discussed in a worthwhile way. Until then, I'll just point out that you do not present the issue in a way that makes it worth discussing with you.halplm wrote:Ah, good ol' commenting on the poster and not the issue. Some things never change.
Please explain what part of the arizona bill requires an arrest of suspected illegal status?Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:All that article says is that Rhode Island state troopers go out of their way to cooperate with ICE, as opposed to Massachusetts state troopers. That's a far cry from a law that requires that all state and local law enforcement officers are required to arrest anyone they stop for any lawful reason that they reasonably suspect is an illegal alien. If you can't see the difference, there really isn't anything that I can say to you that will make any difference.
Yes, that's what I said you did, commented on me, rather than contributing anything to any possible discussion... a tactic that is often used when people are presented with truths they dislike.yovargas wrote:When you present an issue in a way that makes it worth discussing, then perhaps it'll be discussed in a worthwhile way. Until then, I'll just point out that you do not present the issue in a way that makes it worth discussing with you.halplm wrote:Ah, good ol' commenting on the poster and not the issue. Some things never change.
That's the point. You can't make something that is a federal crime also a state crime if it is in an area that is reserved for the federal government, as immigration is. As opposed to, for instance, drug trafficking, which can be made illegal under both state and federal law. I thought you were in favor of strict interpretation of the constitution? This is one area where the language of the document is quite clear, and it is still applicable today.halplm wrote:All arizona's law does is make what was a federal crime, also a state crime
The only reason this is necessary is because the feds refuse to enforce the law. Perhaps ICE isn't massively overworked in Rhode Island, so they can handle working with the state police to manage the situation in a tiny state far from the border... but they're not getting it done on the Mexican border.
That's not entirely true, actually. While the suit does not specifically address racial profiling or include a cause of action under the equal protection clause (unlike other lawsuits filed by the ACLU and others), it does address civil rights concerns. For instance, the complaint states:And the suit has no mention of racial profiling or civil rights issues whatsoever. It is only referencing the supremacy clause stating that federal law supersedes state law.
In the declaration filed by the chief of police of the Tuscon, supporting the lawsuit, he writes:In addition, the mandatory nature of this alien inspection scheme will necessarily result in countless inspections and detentions of individuals who are lawfully present in the United States. Verification is mandated for all cases where an Arizona police officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that a person in a lawful stop is unlawfully present and it is practicable to do so. But a “reasonable suspicion” is not definitive proof, and will often result in the verification requirement being applied – wholly unnecessarily – to lawfully present aliens and United States citizens. Further, because the federal authorities may not be able to immediately verify lawful presence – and may rarely have information related to stopped U.S. citizens – Section 2 will result in the prolonged detention of lawfully present aliens and United States citizens. Section 2 of S.B. 1070 will therefore impose burdens on lawful immigrants and U.S. citizens alike who are stopped, questioned, or detained and cannot readily prove their immigration or citizenship status, including those individuals who may not have an accepted form of identification because, for example, they are legal minors without a driver’s license. Arizona’s alien inspection scheme therefore will subject lawful aliens to the “possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance,” Hines v.
Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 74 (1941)
Similar statements appear in the declarations of the heads of the law enforcement department of the city of Phoenix and Santa Cruz County, AZ.Despite the executive order of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to the contrary, Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training board has not been able to clearly define for Arizona's law enforcement officers what is reasonable suspicion regarding immigration status. Each police agency in this state will therefore develop its own definition, no doubt resulting in a patchwork of policies and procedures, with obvious danger to both law enforcement agencies and their communities. The relationship between law enforcement agencies and their communities will be seriously strained. Many community leaders now believe that their constituents will be unfairly targeted in the eyes of law enforcement. The concern is not over persons illegally present, but rather with legal citizens of the United States, who may, they believe, experience unnecessary and prolonged police contact based on their appearance of national origin or ethnicity. They fear the legislation codifies racial profiling, despite its wording, and such fear could destroy the good relationships that currently exist between police and local communities that have taken years to build through our efforts in community policing.
