Arizona to illegals: GTFO.

[Vajra]

but if you're a native English speaker who learns Spanish you aren't really hopping ahead of the curve.

K tell me that again in 30 years when you'll be the only guy who doesn't know Spanish :D.

[kuronosan]

K tell me that again in 30 years when you'll be the only guy who doesn't know Spanish :D.

Ne pravda, my govorim russkiy-yzik!

[Cadsuane]

Japan and Korea built up strong domestic industry and businesses so to avoid the common case of simply being a resource-whore for the first world and thus becoming dramatically tied to the price of commodities. Many other countries have taken similar protectionist policies, preferring domestic economic stability/job environment versus short term profits.

Let's talk about Japan since it's a great example of mercantilist fuck-ups and also because I don't know that much about Korea. Japan does have strong domestic industry which can plausibly be laid at the feet of post world war II protectionist strategies (the infant industry argument is one of the "good" arguments for protectionism I was alluding to), however that's only half the picture. Constant trade surprluses have been appreciating the Yen to the point that deficit spending and inflationary monetary policy are insufficient to curb it. Japanese monetary policy is pretty much deadlocked with interest rates already close to 0% (which is too high to balance investment and exchange trends), domestic companies are faced with constantly decreasing export profits as the Yen rises, and consumer spending is heavily discouraged when people would rather hold onto currency.

So the first thing to realize is that the Japanese economy, despite being a fantastic example of a 3rd world country catching up economically to the 1st world, is utterly fucked economically precisely because they paired protectionism with heavy capital outflow. They're in the interesting position now of being in a staggering amount of national debt, coupled with rock bottom interest rates and crippling deflation, and it's not as if they can sign free trade agreements tomorrow to balance money demand and capital outflow either, at least not without massive temporary unemployment resulting.

protectionism is also a means of furthering safety, labor and environmental standards, which have intangible (in the eyes of teh free market) benefits.

Like what, do you mean when one country buys cheap goods from another country with shitty labour laws and safety regulation? Yeah maybe, but it doesn't do shit for any of these things domestically.

You're conflating sound economic theory with brain dead conservative ideology. Safety/labour/environmental standards have very tangible benefits to economists.

Fucking pseudo-moderate free marketeers.

Alright, apparently I'm a "pseudo-moderate" for arguing for free trade. I suppose that's fair, since you're not really a liberal either.

[Beckwin]

isn't the problem of japanese debt more complex, in that while having a significant debt they also happen to own significant amounts of other countries' debt (namely, the US)?

but yes, Japan and Korea are both excellent examples of protectionism leading to diverse, stable 1st world economies following absolute obliteration in the wwII(/korean war) peoriod. interestingly, you can look at the 97 IMF crisis which forced more free-market friendly policies as potentially being culprits for whatever current and theoretical future woes they face.

and in regard to the intangibles, protectionism can keep manufacturing (or whatever sort of) jobs in country where they must adhere to progressive labor/environmental/safety standards, furthering those causes by not allowing easy circumvention of them with businesses simply setting up shop in an easily exploitable 3rd world proto-colony.

and yeah, probably not a liberal, at least not in the sense of the 17th century sort that you likely romanticize.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You give a good explanation of how protectionism is bad for an economy.

[Kyreth]

Far as illegals paying much in the way of property tax?

Fuck no, not around here. They rent property under the table with cash from owners (who are happy to do it tax free, and know the illegals aren't going to report shit) and pile in a dozen+ people into a house that'd normally fit a family of 4. If not closer to 20.

And this is rich-and-then-some Fairfax County, VA. You can tell, it'll be a nice house on the outside with five-six crappy cars parked outside (or work trucks).

[Cadsuane]

and yeah, probably not a liberal, at least not in the sense of the 17th century sort that you likely romanticize.

lolno, stop projecting. I'm not Swamp on a crusade against progressivism, and I'm not Rothbardian whinging on about inalienable property rights. Conversely I'm not a one trick liberal purporting a "free markets are bad m'kay" hypothesis for the sole purpose of fulfilling a vendetta against an incompetent political party despite the fact that this shouldn't really be a question of politics.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later.

[Kuya]

Yea, beckwin tends to hurl accusations left and right to see if something sticks at some point.

[Beckwin]

I don't think it's a one trick pony to say that free markets are bad because there are always conditions and situations requiring some sort of regulation/oversight/whatever to prevent rampant abuses. Any fetters are thought to be decreasing the freedom of a market, so even a single one makes a market less than 100% free.... ergo 100% free markets are not as good as less freer markets.

and it's pretty absurd to say that this shouldn't be a political issue when it inescapably is. but let's just run back to theory and documents, sticking our heads into the sand when it comes to social/political climate and the real applications we're seeing.

the way I've seen you talk about economics, cultural relativism, etc had me thinking you might be the type to identify with 17th cent liberals, though not in the Rothbardian sense (who goes for the later free-marketeers) or Swampy (who goes for freerepublic).

[Hellfury]

I don't get how the hell anyone could conceivably be pure free-market.

The very concept of basing anything on the idea that people will make informed rational decisions is absurd in itself. (funny thing, agency-principal theory in economic theory dictates that the very concept of full information is impossible, and that information asymmetry is one of the fundamental problems corporate governance attempts to address)

the need for some control stems from the fact that most people, probably me included, don't always make good decisions, for various reasons.
Now you can argue that "so what? let it take it's own course, the market will punish etc..."

The thing is, the market punishment will very often have a pretty bad chance of taking a lot of "innocent" people with it. "the market will fix itself" fat chance, go go monopolies.

Also: even if a free market that corrected itself etc was a good idea, it demands that everyone plays fair, which, they don't. Not nationally, and if you look abroad, many nations actively encourage (and facilitate/support) their own business to a degree that should scare the hell out of even the most anti-free market people.

finishing note, because I need to rant.

dear god the U.S. system regarding elections of board of directors is fucked up.
You guys are like inviting buddy-corruption. Also: look at SECs composition.


edit: (and totally unrelated, but I'm procrastinating: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/367691...y-today_books/ Bush releasing memoirs on November 9th, did the dude get a dark sense of humor?)

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Yea, beckwin tends to hurl accusations left and right to see if something sticks at some point.

don't get mad, get glad

[Yugl]

Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI) schemes place huge protectionist policies on market access (Essentially zero). Latin America adopted this and fell to rent seeking businesses and other inefficiencies. This policy also caused Latin America to miss economic opportunities that Asia was able to take advantage of. Clearly, there is an argument to be made that certain types of protectionism can lead to poor outcomes.

[Gregorio]

K tell me that again in 30 years when you'll be the only guy who doesn't know Spanish :D.

Spanish speakers are a dime a dozen. Its not getting you anywhere in the international community, or really even the US community. Even in 30 years...if you think the national big business owners are going to be converting to a Spanish speaking market you're overestimating minorities...unless everyone shifts to a lawn care/fast food based economy. [/racism]

[Beckwin]

back on topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6AradppFx4

great fucking job arizona. glad to see this bill isn't being used to violate civil rights and profile based on someone having Hispanic heritage.

fucking ridiculous, I'm genuinely angry right now. Obama needs to come to AZ so Arpaio and Brewer can ask for his birth certificate. I'd love to see the secret service handle that.

[Beckwin]

also, reason #3657 why "states rights" fucking SUCK.

Here's an interesting summary of the bill I found (confirms my reading of the bill):

I haven't seen many people around this group that have actually read the bill, so, in the spirit of informing myself, I decided to give it a go (at least the parts amended/added). Here's what I found. I'm not a lawyer, so if you find something wrong with my assessments, I'm all ears.

You can find the amended bill here: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

This is a long read, so go get some coffee or something...
(There's a summary and a conclusion section at the end if you want to jump over the boring parts)

---Racial Profiling?---
It isn't made clear what are the "reasonable suspicions" with which ANY officer is allowed to question the immigration status of any person (Section 11-1051.B, 13-2319.E). This is important as, if proof isn't provided, such suspicions are enough to arrest that person without the need of a warrant (Section 11-1051.E). With no clarity in this regard, it could be assumed that the only way in which those suspicions may arise is visually (leading to racial profiling). However, because of the vagueness of the wording ("reasonable suspicion"), this assumption may be incorrect, and ANY person can be questioned: illegal Canadians (which are of ethnicities similar to Americans) are also illegal aliens and prone to suspicion, thus, even whites can be lawfully "reasonably suspected".

In addition, although an officer may not be indemnified legal costs for being accused of having acted in bad faith (Section 11-1051.I), no mention is given of a vehicle with which a wrongfully accused person may sue an officer acting in bad faith during their detention. In fact, the bill goes as far as not even providing, on any basis, "suspension or commutation of sentence or release [...] until the sentence imposed is served" (Section 13-1509.C). Also, no mention of a right for a trial and lawyer for the person being arrested is given anywhere in the bill. It may be argued that Section 11-1051.J addresses those rights by pointing out that everything in this bill will be implemented having Civil Rights in mind, however, the persons whose Civil Rights are protected by Section 11-1051.J are only US citizens, rendering the point mute as the residence status of the accused is unknown when the enforcement is in play.

The combination of these two points implies that the officer is acting judge and jury when it comes to the person's arrest and imminent deportation. This is a lot of weight on the judgement of one person, with definitely severe undeserved repercussions for the accused if the accusation is mistaken.

It is important to state that in the whole of the bill, there is no mention of a specific ethnic group being targeted for suspicion, meaning that it doesn't legalize racial profiling per se. It could be argued that, if made law, this bill could be used later to justify racial profiling, but it would be necessary to deem racial profiling as a "reasonable suspicion", which the Fourth Amendment clearly dictates is not. The vagueness of this area, however, is the main factor of its wide disapproval, as "reasonable suspicion" could mean different things to different law officers. In that sense, it is understandable how people may become nervous with the fact that it is ultimately the officer's judgement (which can either be plagued by either stereotypical racism or be flourishing with tranquil reason) that dictates the implementation of this bill's unapologetic guidelines.

---Relevant Findings---
All state and local agencies are not allowed to act less than the full extent of federal immigration law. In this regard, any citizen that suspects that a neighbor/gardener/mailman may not have legal status, can accuse an agency of not acting according to such extents, by which the person is needed to be brought to justice to see if the agency can rectify its behavior (Section 11-1051.G). If the suspected person can't provide proof of legal status, the accuser will be reimbursed legal fees and be paid an amount in the range of $1,000 to $5,000 USD for each day the case was brought to court (Section 11-1051.G.2). This basically places a bounty on all illegal aliens, which can ultimately create an aura of mistrust between neighbors, as there will be incentive for common citizens for bringing illegals to justice.

Harboring illegal aliens has been raised to a Class 1 Misdemeanor if harboring less than 10 illegals; a Class 6 if harboring more. These crimes are subject to a fine of $1,000 USD (if it's a Class 6 offense, the fine is multiplied by the number of harbored aliens). This is relevant as the officer is able to enquire and be informed of where the alien resides (Section 11-1051.F), meaning that the alien's family and/or associates can be penalized, even if they are legal residents.

However, the employers are given a 3-year probationary period for first-time violations and much less severe penalizations, such as filing quarterly reports and writing a statement swearing that they're not employing any more illegal aliens (Section 23-212.F.1). The bill also provides a type of legal defense to employers (called "entrapment") with which, in certain situations, they may be able to make a case in court to avoid penalizations (Section 23-212.K). This gives a clear mark of where the bill-creators' minds were when writing this bill: support for the employers even to the point of providing legal assessment, but little mention of any rights for wrongfully accused aliens.

Finally, a fund called the "Gang and Immigration Team Enforcement Mission Fund" is established (Section 41-1724), which "shall be used for gang and immigration enforcement", equating illegal aliens to gang members. This fund is also used to reimburse costs for county jails related to illegal immigration, making it profitable for jailers to have more illegal aliens in jail for longer periods of time.

---Summary---
Although the suspicion of it legalizing racial profiling is not completely substantiated, it is comprehensible how in practice it can easily render itself into doing that, as it is ultimately in the officer's hands. The repercussions on the officer/accuser in case of a wrongful accusation are small compared to the repercussion of the accused in the same scenario, all while having little protection of US Civil Rights in the process.

In addition, there are other parts of the bill that are clearly poorly thought out, which can overflow to affect even legal residents of many generations.

The bill bears a heavy bias towards the protection of local business which, in the big picture, are very much breaking the law in the same manner as the illegal aliens, while making a profit and taking a relatively small risk in doing so: if a business employing illegal aliens is caught, the employer can continue on with work, while being put on probation with easily falsified documents. The illegal alien, on the other hand, is left without a job and deported, leaving his US-resident family to go bankrupt from legal fines.

---Conclusion---
Now that I've actually read the bill I can consciously say that I definitely don't support it. It is of no surprise that Sen. Russell Pearce, author of the current bill, stated that "When you make life difficult, most will leave on their own.” After going down in the nitty-gritty, it is easily concluded that this bill isn't written to enforce the federal immigration law currently in place. It is written to intimidate, with the hope of "smoking out" illegals from the state. However, the blow-back it might create may morph it into either a piece of useless legislation that no officer in his right mind will enforce, or an initial step into a paranoid society clinging to governmental papers to confirm its own identity.

"I'm an american citizen, the officer told me so."



For those that read all of this through the end, thanks.

Caleb

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

"Wrongfully accused aliens" lol.

All you need to do to prove you're a citizen is provide a DL number.

[Mugekuge]

Spanish speakers are a dime a dozen. Its not getting you anywhere in the international community, or really even the US community. Even in 30 years...if you think the national big business owners are going to be converting to a Spanish speaking market you're overestimating minorities...unless everyone shifts to a lawn care/fast food based economy. [/racism]

Some people i know that moved to USA have been telling me that newborns of latin/hispanic inmigrants barely speak spanish, so yea i doubt spanish will be a "must" speak language in near future over there.

Also this is an old article but interesting i guess, you guys should start making birth controls, and wth black people dont like having children O.o

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7559996.stm

[ringthree]

"Wrongfully accused aliens" lol.

All you need to do to prove you're a citizen is provide a DL number.

You are incorrect. A driver's license is not a proof of citizenship.

[Kuya]

Some people i know that moved to USA have been telling me that newborns of latin/hispanic inmigrants barely speak spanish, so yea i doubt spanish will be a "must" speak language in near future over there.

Also this is an old article but interesting i guess, you guys should start making birth controls, and wth black people dont like having children O.o

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7559996.stm

The new projections suggestion that by 2050, minorities will account for 54% of the population

lol

[Lucavi]

I'm just wondering how all of this would have went down 100 years ago when it was white people immigrating into white america, instead of brown people immigrating into mixed america with whites paranoid about it not being completely white.

That was hilarious shit decades ago. White people bitching about the master race on one hand, while fighting against, cursing, and having prejudice against other whites.

Humanity loves to hate, no matter what.