SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,663
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 27, 2010 9:25:54 GMT -5
I think it is fantastic to make fun of the birthers. I swear Ed is the most politically correct person on the board.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 27, 2010 9:37:49 GMT -5
I think there will be trouble with the language you copied upthread - reasonable suspicion. The argument, off the cuff, would go something like this -- statute touches on race/insular minority --> strict scrutiny --> need compelling government interest + law narrowly tailored to achieve same. Here is an early challenge from an employer advocacy group: www.azeir.org/pdf/Scan_2007_07_13_14_37_18_217.pdfIIRC, courts use intermediate scrutiny when the government limits rights based on immigration status. Good luck with the "touches on race" argument, when race is clearly not implicated by the statute. As SF pointed out, there are clearly illegal immigrants of multiple races and nationalities. The .pdf you link to involves a separate issue.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 27, 2010 10:09:40 GMT -5
The state of Hawaii no longer keeps paper copies of birth certificates (and that was prior to 2008). Thus, electronic copies are the only records available but are valid in the state for all purposes. Some of this birther talk really gets strange, kind of like the "we didn't go to the moon" theories out there. There are really better things to argue about. Reminds me of 2000 when a group of Democrats were going to challenge Dick Cheney's state residency as violating the Constitution that two candidates couldn't be from the same state (GW Bush and Cheney lived about five minutes from each other in Dallas, but Cheney suddenly claimed Wyoming residency before the convention), but decided that it was tilting at windmills, which is what the birther argument comes down to. I am not sure that the birth certificate copy issue is even the right one. Apparently, HI did not issue birth certificates if certifications of birth were issued. So, it is quite possible that none exists for Obama, and the people with birth certificate-related concerns are looking for something that isn't in the files.
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on Apr 27, 2010 10:27:25 GMT -5
The problem is not that they are trying to mandate what you can buy with food stamps its that they are giving out food stamps in the first place I just want to go back to this for a second and say that I think this is a pretty sick statement. I know we live in a capitalistic society, but I'd like to think that we can care a little bit for others that have much less. Also, I'm in favor of a guest worker program that allows immigrants to work here legally. I think that would help a lot of things. I think it's one of the few good things that Bush introduced.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 27, 2010 11:00:02 GMT -5
I do have an honest question for the Bandos and Ambassadors though. What is your ideal solution to the problem of illegal immigration? Do you consider it a problem? Do you think US border security is OK as is, or do you think we need to strengthen that? To be honest, I've never really been able to get a grasp of what the average liberal thinks about this issue, because every time it comes up, the talking heads and extreme wings drown everyone out, either the Keith Olbermanns of the world crying "RACIST!!!" or the Ann Coulters of the world talking about how all liberals want is to destroy the country by letting it be overrun by those who don't speak English. I'll give this a shot, but keep in mind that I might not be the most representative liberal in this regard. In large, I believe that we should have government policy toward the economy that has, relative to today, freer trade, less regulation, and higher taxes that pay for generous social welfare spending (I think we have more regulations because "tax" is a dirty word, and regulations work more poorly than taxes, but that's a whole 'nother post). Part of accepting free trade is that we generally accept the free movement of labor. To do otherwise is to state that free trade is only for other countries (see also: our refusal to allow Canadian lumber imports or Mexican trucks). I see enforcement as folly because it does nothing to address the underlying causes of Mexican immigration. Largely, these causes all revolve around the fact that there are more available jobs here in the States than there are in Mexico. Building a fence or beefing up deportations does nothing to change this basic market dynamic. It won't stop people from crossing the border, but it will ensure more blood is shed when they do. Furthermore, enforcement only builds on itself. If new measures don't stem the tide, authorities won't conclude that these measures don't work, they'll instead conclude they need measures that are more draconian. Maybe it's a small shred of libertarian in me, but I don't see giving the police more and more power as a good thing. (this, incidentally, is the crux of my drug war analogy). So my ideal solution involves many aspects, but mostly revolve around amnesty and demand-side intervention. Bolstering the Mexican economy is probably the greatest thing we can do to stem the tide of Mexican immigrants, but many will still be needed to fill jobs in the state. Additionally, we need to end the drug war with all available haste; powerful narcotrafficers are as much a threat to Mexican stability as anything else. For a less wonky explanation, I find nativism and xenophobia to be cruel, and generally shy from any measure that reeks of both.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 27, 2010 11:01:50 GMT -5
The problem is not that they are trying to mandate what you can buy with food stamps its that they are giving out food stamps in the first place I just want to go back to this for a second and say that I think this is a pretty sick statement. I know we live in a capitalistic society, but I'd like to think that we can care a little bit for others that have much less. Also, I'm in favor of a guest worker program that allows immigrants to work here legally. I think that would help a lot of things. I think it's one of the few good things that Bush introduced. I don't think jgalt is being as cruel as you think. I think jgalt thinks we should just give the poor money instead of conditional money. People are rational economic actors and know best what to spend it on, in other words.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Apr 27, 2010 12:05:36 GMT -5
As a liberal, even I'm not sure what the liberal position on illegal immigration is. To be perfectly honest, I think that liberals are sort of the "Party of No" when it comes to immigration. We know what we don't want (the Arizona law definitely fits in that category), but we're not sure what we do want.
For what it's worth, I don't think conservatives have a coherent immigration policy either. Some want to build the Great Wall of Texas, others quietly like their source of cheap labor.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 27, 2010 12:18:27 GMT -5
Some want to build the Great Wall of Texas, others quietly like their source of cheap labor. For the record, both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama voted to start building the "Great Wall of Texas," which I agree is a terrible idea. At the 2008 presidential debate in Austin, both agreed that a physical barrier may be necessary in some places, but that local communities needed to be consulted on where the fence would be built. www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/21/debate.transcript/I agree with you and Bando that wall-building doesn't work, but let's not pretend that "liberals" haven't supported a border fence. Both national parties are hopelessly out-of-touch WRT immigration policy.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 27, 2010 12:43:14 GMT -5
I do have an honest question for the Bandos and Ambassadors though. What is your ideal solution to the problem of illegal immigration? Do you consider it a problem? Do you think US border security is OK as is, or do you think we need to strengthen that? To be honest, I've never really been able to get a grasp of what the average liberal thinks about this issue, because every time it comes up, the talking heads and extreme wings drown everyone out, either the Keith Olbermanns of the world crying "RACIST!!!" or the Ann Coulters of the world talking about how all liberals want is to destroy the country by letting it be overrun by those who don't speak English. I'll give this a shot, but keep in mind that I might not be the most representative liberal in this regard. In large, I believe that we should have government policy toward the economy that has, relative to today, freer trade, less regulation, and higher taxes that pay for generous social welfare spending (I think we have more regulations because "tax" is a dirty word, and regulations work more poorly than taxes, but that's a whole 'nother post). Part of accepting free trade is that we generally accept the free movement of labor. To do otherwise is to state that free trade is only for other countries (see also: our refusal to allow Canadian lumber imports or Mexican trucks). I see enforcement as folly because it does nothing to address the underlying causes of Mexican immigration. Largely, these causes all revolve around the fact that there are more available jobs here in the States than there are in Mexico. Building a fence or beefing up deportations does nothing to change this basic market dynamic. It won't stop people from crossing the border, but it will ensure more blood is shed when they do. Furthermore, enforcement only builds on itself. If new measures don't stem the tide, authorities won't conclude that these measures don't work, they'll instead conclude they need measures that are more draconian. Maybe it's a small shred of libertarian in me, but I don't see giving the police more and more power as a good thing. (this, incidentally, is the crux of my drug war analogy). So my ideal solution involves many aspects, but mostly revolve around amnesty and demand-side intervention. Bolstering the Mexican economy is probably the greatest thing we can do to stem the tide of Mexican immigrants, but many will still be needed to fill jobs in the state. Additionally, we need to end the drug war with all available haste; powerful narcotrafficers are as much a threat to Mexican stability as anything else. For a less wonky explanation, I find nativism and xenophobia to be cruel, and generally shy from any measure that reeks of both. I agree with the majority of what Bando says. I just want to be clear, lest my previous comments be misinterpreted: I think the Arizona law will be counterproductive. It's a bad law. I am simply arguing that the statute, as written, doesn't permit racial profiling and is probably constitutional. This is bound to disappoint parties on both sides of the aisle. It is bound to disappoint the media as well, since "Rabid nativists draft law that comports with US Constitution" isn't much of a headline when compared with "Rabid nativists pass racist legislation to allow police to round up brown people." (John Hockenberry said on my radio this morning that the law allows police to detain "suspicious people," which is a complete distortion.) (Question for Bando: if we're talking about the "free movement of labor," does everyone get paid minimum wage? Part of my problem with the current system is that illegal workers DON'T get paid minimum wage, which is arguably a restriction on the free movemement of labor.)
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 27, 2010 13:34:21 GMT -5
The state of Hawaii no longer keeps paper copies of birth certificates (and that was prior to 2008). Thus, electronic copies are the only records available but are valid in the state for all purposes. Some of this birther talk really gets strange, kind of like the "we didn't go to the moon" theories out there. There are really better things to argue about. Reminds me of 2000 when a group of Democrats were going to challenge Dick Cheney's state residency as violating the Constitution that two candidates couldn't be from the same state (GW Bush and Cheney lived about five minutes from each other in Dallas, but Cheney suddenly claimed Wyoming residency before the convention), but decided that it was tilting at windmills, which is what the birther argument comes down to. I am not sure that the birth certificate copy issue is even the right one. Apparently, HI did not issue birth certificates if certifications of birth were issued. So, it is quite possible that none exists for Obama, and the people with birth certificate-related concerns are looking for something that isn't in the files. Not true. A birth certificate actually exists for Barach Obama as noted in the link that follows. It's been viewed by Hawaiian officials but for some reason an actual copy has not been made available though the officials have certified he is a natural born citizen. hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 27, 2010 15:21:43 GMT -5
I am not sure that the birth certificate copy issue is even the right one. Apparently, HI did not issue birth certificates if certifications of birth were issued. So, it is quite possible that none exists for Obama, and the people with birth certificate-related concerns are looking for something that isn't in the files. Not true. A birth certificate actually exists for Barach Obama as noted in the link that follows. It's been viewed by Hawaiian officials but for some reason an actual copy has not been made available though the officials have certified he is a natural born citizen. hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdfI really have no interest in the birth certificate issue, but that's a pretty shady release. "I can't show it to you, but trust me, I've seen it"? Really? That's your answer? Anyway, thanks to bando and others for your insights. While I agree that enforcement does not address the malady, only a symptom of it (to use a poor analogy), I do believe that enforcement, at least stricter enforcement than we have today, is necessary (see below). I don't think it's folly, but it yes it almost certainly is folly to do that and nothing else. However, I do agree, bando, that this can lead to more and more strict measures until the possibility of us actually having something akin to Iron Curtain policies is a real possibility. I don't think that is codified at all in this particular state law, to be clear, but your concern is understandable, and I think I noted that certain aspects of this law are troubling to me as well. As for other areas of this issue, I don't really believe in amnesty, since I think we tried that before and it didn't work (probably for the reasons you mentioned -- we addressed an exigent problem, but not the underlying causes of this problem). Some sort of path to citizenship or legal residence does make sense I think, or at the very least a new visa program that can help those who honestly want to come here for the American dream are being helped to do so and are not being encouraged to break the law to achieve that. I think we also have to accept the reality that there are a significant number of people who are coming into this country not for that purpose (unless you consider Tony Montana to be the embodiment of the American dream), but for criminal purpose. That is the fear and reality that a lot of Arizonans have dealt with and I think it is both real and what was the impetus behind this law. I think that any criminals who are subsequently identified as illegal aliens should be deported immediately. I do not consider this to be racist policy. On the contrary, I think the better job we do of eliminating this element, the more we can show preference and eliminate stigma from those who do want to come to this country for honest and noble reasons. I think the same goes for cracking down on American businesses who employ illegal workers. And, I think (and I don't think this is a popular conservative view) that if we need to increase the amount of legal immigrants that we allow into the country each year to accomplish the end of promoting legal work and not encouraging illegal entry, then, well, we just need to do that. It will not solve the supply-demand imbalance, no, but it can help to mitigate it. Lastly, one thing that concerns me about bolstering support for the Mexican economy is a worry that we may already be dealing with a nigh completely failed state. So I don't really have an answer or even a great idea on that right now. This is very incomplete, and probably not entirely coherent since I sort of rushed through it, but all that I have time for at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 27, 2010 15:22:53 GMT -5
I am not sure that it is not true. We do not know if the official was clouding the distinction between the certification of live birth and a birth certificate as distinguished from that. Typical parlance does not distinguish between the two. Another HI official has said that a certification of live birth is a valid birth certificate as a matter of state law, so there is a distinct possibility that we are only talking about one sheet of paper, which we've already seen due to the voluntary disclosure by the Obama campaign. I consider that credible as compared to the suspicions with which we're otherwise dealing, especially when the adherents of this mistaken belief have generated and circulated forged certificates to cloud the legitimacy of Obama's citizenship.
I don't think HI has released the certification of live birth (to the extent it is separate from an Obama birth certificate) either but may be wrong. Privacy is one compelling reason since the unique numbers are personal information.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Apr 27, 2010 16:53:21 GMT -5
I think there will be trouble with the language you copied upthread - reasonable suspicion. The argument, off the cuff, would go something like this -- statute touches on race/insular minority --> strict scrutiny --> need compelling government interest + law narrowly tailored to achieve same. Here is an early challenge from an employer advocacy group: www.azeir.org/pdf/Scan_2007_07_13_14_37_18_217.pdfIIRC, courts use intermediate scrutiny when the government limits rights based on immigration status. Good luck with the "touches on race" argument, when race is clearly not implicated by the statute. As SF pointed out, there are clearly illegal immigrants of multiple races and nationalities. The .pdf you link to involves a separate issue. We'll see how it all ends up. I am not sure it is cut/dry on either side. In any event, it will be hotly contested. As a liberal, I support something like a guest worker program or other efforts that are designed to assimilate immigrants into their communities. I am not totally sure of the CA experience, but it sounds positive to some extent, perhaps because folks appreciate what the immigrants are doing and welcome them into the community. I hope that's the case. To the extent the AZ law encourages immigrants to assimilate so as not to create reasonable suspicion (although I doubt it will do so), that's a positive in my mind. Separation of individuals based on citizenship status in this country generally has not proven workable, practical, or effective, and I am not one to try it again. Efforts, transparent and otherwise, that create this separation/stigma strike a nerve with me as a matter of policy and politics. Now, execution of a guest worker program, I think, will produce some stigma, but all designed to reach an end of integrating immigrants into the polity as full-borne citizens. I'm willing to make that trade. I haven't seen a discussion yet of how best to treat asylum-seekers in this discussion. It is another hot button issue and has only come to my attention due to their imprisonment in for-profit penal-style institutions in Texas. That practice appears to have been discontinued but only raises the issue that needs to be treated thoughtfully and delicately. How the AZ law affects them, I don't know, but it is worthy of examination just to test out the quality of the policy.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Apr 28, 2010 11:06:46 GMT -5
I just want to go back to this for a second and say that I think this is a pretty sick statement. I know we live in a capitalistic society, but I'd like to think that we can care a little bit for others that have much less. Also, I'm in favor of a guest worker program that allows immigrants to work here legally. I think that would help a lot of things. I think it's one of the few good things that Bush introduced. I don't think jgalt is being as cruel as you think. I think jgalt thinks we should just give the poor money instead of conditional money. People are rational economic actors and know best what to spend it on, in other words. No, Cahoya is right, I dont think they should get any money. And I dont think it is cruel. I think it is cruel that I work hard for the money I make and it is taken from me and given to people who dont work for it.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,390
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Apr 28, 2010 11:27:35 GMT -5
No, Cahoya is right, I dont think they should get any money. And I dont think it is cruel. I think it is cruel that I work hard for the money I make and it is taken from me and given to people who dont work for it. Cain and Abel or the Good Samaritan mean anything in your world? Just wondering....
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,390
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Apr 28, 2010 11:37:20 GMT -5
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Apr 28, 2010 13:05:28 GMT -5
No, Cahoya is right, I dont think they should get any money. And I dont think it is cruel. I think it is cruel that I work hard for the money I make and it is taken from me and given to people who dont work for it. Cain and Abel or the Good Samaritan mean anything in your world? Just wondering.... Not wanting money forcibly taken and given to people to help them is NOT the same as not wanting to give to help people
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Apr 28, 2010 13:15:01 GMT -5
Cain and Abel or the Good Samaritan mean anything in your world? Just wondering.... Not wanting money forcibly taken and given to people to help them is NOT the same as not wanting to give to help people What did jgalt's hero Ms. Rand have to say about helping people? Ayn had a big heart, didn't she?
|
|
CAHoya07
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,598
|
Post by CAHoya07 on Apr 28, 2010 13:20:15 GMT -5
I don't think jgalt is being as cruel as you think. I think jgalt thinks we should just give the poor money instead of conditional money. People are rational economic actors and know best what to spend it on, in other words. No, Cahoya is right, I dont think they should get any money. And I dont think it is cruel. I think it is cruel that I work hard for the money I make and it is taken from me and given to people who dont work for it. Many homeless people have jobs. That is all...
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Apr 28, 2010 13:32:41 GMT -5
Not wanting money forcibly taken and given to people to help them is NOT the same as not wanting to give to help people What did jgalt's hero Ms. Rand have to say about helping people? Ayn had a big heart, didn't she? Never bothered to read her books. I just hate when people equate not wanting the gov't to take their money with not wanting to help people.
|
|