La Raza boycott of Arizona was an epic fail (born, immigrants, laws)

[Rockmadinejad]

Originally Posted by Isitmeorarethingsnuts?

Competition is good when all the players are playing by the same rules. Well done.

I agree, hence I support liberalized legal immigration policies! But I assume that by "the same rules" you mean "those people aren't allowed to play at all, and these people are." Which, you know, is not exactly "the same rules," but at least you have it right in theory.

[mateo45]

"Only a handful (Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, and South Carolina) actually passed anti-immigrant bills, while 26 others rejected them. Even Arizona, which last year saw its anti-immigrant bill largely blocked by a federal judge, joined this movement and rejected a series of even harsher bills this year. One of the principal reasons for the failure of so many of these legislative efforts was cost."

Your State Can’t Afford It: The Fiscal Impact of States’ Anti-Immigrant Legislation

BTW, not surprisingly, AZ and the 4 states that passed anti-immigrant bills are also all Red state moochers, which chronically receive more in federal dollars than they pay in.

[chicagonut]

Originally Posted by mateo45

"Only a handful (Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, and South Carolina) actually passed anti-immigrant bills, while 26 others rejected them. Even Arizona, which last year saw its anti-immigrant bill largely blocked by a federal judge, joined this movement and rejected a series of even harsher bills this year. One of the principal reasons for the failure of so many of these legislative efforts was cost."

Your State Can’t Afford It: The Fiscal Impact of States’ Anti-Immigrant Legislation

BTW, not surprisingly, AZ and the 4 states that passed anti-immigrant bills are also all Red state moochers, which chronically receive more in federal dollars than they pay in.

Anti-"immigrant" bills?

[Arjay51]

Originally Posted by mateo45

Not surprisingly, few states have chosen to follow AZ's "lead" on immigration, mostly because they did the math and figured out they just can't afford it (due to the legal cost from defending lawsuits, the added resources needed to implement, and most of all the economic damage to their respective states). Basically, once you get past all the rhetoric, it turns out the negatives far outweigh the dubious "positives".

And as already noted, the majority of folks everywhere have more important priorities right now. Besides, the only ones really making a big fuss about "illegals" aren't professionals or hi-skills jobs anyway. Instead, they mostly just seem to be low-income, unskilled whites who resent facing added competition now in the low-end of the job market. For example you never hear about computer programmers, managers, teachers, engineers, or doctors complaining about "illegals"!

So, are you saying that being an illegal is okay with you as long as it doesn't personally impact you?

That's what it sounds like.

[mateo45]

Last time I checked your location, Utah receives $1.07 in federal money for every dollar it puts in. So when y'all can take care of yourselves and quit being a net drain on the the rest of us, then we can entertain your brilliant ideas for further "improving" things....

[tinman01]

Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad

I agree, hence I support liberalized legal immigration policies! But I assume that by "the same rules" you mean "those people aren't allowed to play at all, and these people are." Which, you know, is not exactly "the same rules," but at least you have it right in theory.

The rules are the same. Its just some cant meet the minimum standard.
Is it unfair that not everyone can play pro football? Not everyone meets the minimum standards.
Should a company be required to hire every applicant regardless of qualifications?
Then why should the USA lower standards to appease those who dont qualify? To appease those who disregard our laws?

[Rockmadinejad]

Originally Posted by tinman01

The rules are the same. Its just some cant meet the minimum standard.

No, there are different standards for citizens and non-citizens, of course. If you really think it's JUST as easy to compete as a non-citizen with citizens, or that the rules are the same, you are objectively incorrect. There's no matter of opinion there. If our poor old labor force doesn't "need" more low-skill workers, you still let low-skill citizens compete.

[tinman01]

Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad

No, there are different standards for citizens and non-citizens, of course. If you really think it's JUST as easy to compete as a non-citizen with citizens, or that the rules are the same, you are objectively incorrect. There's no matter of opinion there. If our poor old labor force doesn't "need" more low-skill workers, you still let low-skill citizens compete.

Citizens yes.... Illegals no.

[Rockmadinejad]

Originally Posted by tinman01

Citizens yes.... Illegals no.

So you admit the rules are not the same, the standards are not the same, and so forth. There is no question there.

[All American NYC]

Originally Posted by chicagonut

http://standwitharizona.com/blog/2011/09/20/1115/

Indeed it was go Arizona!!!!!!!