Illegal Immigration IV: Amnesty For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration IV: Amnesty For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others

Yeah, it's wonderful when state governments enact laws that are sure to be struck down as unconstitutional. I'm sure that's the best way to use the time and money spent fighting it in the courts.

By the way, I saw Arizona legalized medicinal marijuana after all. Now that is actually good news since the people have spoken and their voices have been heard. Right?

Yah, the ballot proposition was neck and neck, with votes against leading until the last day or so of counting, and then the provisional ballots tipped the balance toward legalization. A very sad day in my book, as Arizona takes a major step toward full legalization. We'll soon by like California, where medical marijuana was an obvious Trojan horse. Just goes to show, Arizona isn't nearly as conservative, particularly on social issues, as many people commonly paint it as.

Oh, and on ballot propositions, if you'd paid attention over the years, I'm a big opponent of the process, as I think longterm it undermines our representative form of government, allowing the legislature and governor to avoid contentious issues. Not to mention that it's largely turned into a process driven by well-funded out-of-state entities pushing their policy views through ballot initiatives, when they could never get buy-in through normal legislative processes. I vote yes on some initiatives and no on others, based on the merits, but I'd be very happy if the whole initiative process disappeared.

As for SB1070, even if I knew it was going to be struck down, which unlike you, I think is an open question, I'd still support our governor and legislature passing it. Sometimes, even if you know you'll probably lose, you do the right thing and fight the good fight. There's more to life that just picking fights you are sure you will win.

 

[unofan]

Re: Illegal Immigration IV: Amnesty For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others

Not to mention that it's largely turned into a process driven by well-funded out-of-state entities pushing their policy views through ballot initiatives, when they could never get buy-in through normal legislative processes. I vote yes on some initiatives and no on others, based on the merits, but I'd be very happy if the whole initiative process disappeared.

As for SB1070, even if I knew it was going to be struck down, which unlike you, I think is an open question, I'd still support our governor and legislature passing it. Sometimes, even if you know you'll probably lose, you do the right thing and fight the good fight. There's more to life that just picking fights you are sure you will win.

So out-of-state funding to oust so-called activist judges over gay marriage (a punitive end run around the Constitutional amendment process) = good, but out-of-state funding to pass an intitiative (an end run around the legislative process) = bad. Gotcha. The former was the people of Iowa speaking up against the tyranny of the elitists, the latter is the tyranny of the elitists confounding the will of the people of Arizona.

As to "fighting the good fight" - there's doing that, and then there's banging your head against the wall out of spite. I really don't care if Arizona wants to waste its own money, but since the courts are already understaffed with a back-logged case load, fighting a clear loser that will delay other claims with more merit is just being ******y.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration IV: Amnesty For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others

So out-of-state funding to oust so-called activist judges over gay marriage (a punitive end run around the Constitutional amendment process) = good, but out-of-state funding to pass an intitiative (an end run around the legislative process) = bad. Gotcha. The former was the people of Iowa speaking up against the tyranny of the elitists, the latter is the tyranny of the elitists confounding the will of the people of Arizona.

As to "fighting the good fight" - there's doing that, and then there's banging your head against the wall out of spite. I really don't care if Arizona wants to waste its own money, but since the courts are already understaffed with a back-logged case load, fighting a clear loser that will delay other claims with more merit is just being ******y.

For not caring if Arizona wastes its money, you sure moan about it a lot!

If you can't see the difference between the ballot initiative process, where pretty much anything can be put on the ballot if you have the requisite number of initiatives, and the run-of-the-mill reelection of judges, which I think is pretty commonplace, well, ok, I guess I won't go down that road in any detail. And, my understanding in Iowa is that there was a good deal of local effort to oust the judges, unlike a lot of Arizona initiatives, where most funding comes from out-of-state interests. I know you're just baiting me, but there is a serious point to be made about whether the ballot initiative process is healthy for this country or not. But I don't expect you to comment substantively on that.

So now you are arguing against the SB1070 case in the courts because it is single-handedly delaying justice apparently across the country? I have to admit, I chuckled at that one. That's one of the weakest arguments I've seen against it yet.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Illegal Immigration IV: Amnesty For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others

I don't know, I enthusiastically voted in favor of a medicinal marijuana referendum here (non-binding though). Why not?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Illegal Immigration IV: Amnesty For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others

There was an interesting debate in Oregon (which after California is the Home of the Ballot Initiative) as to whether they are good or bad. I thought they could be good if the system were not dominated so much by special interest money --about 90% of OR measures during the time I was there were fully funded by either (1) out of state Mormons, (2) slum lords, or (3) agri-business. The idea that they in any way reflected the concerns of the people who actually lived in OR was universally mocked, and invariably almost all of them failed yet almost all of them were evergreen for cycle after cycle.

The idea that representative democracy is weakened by an infusion of direct democracy is one of those things like "healthy eating initiatives may cost jobs in the fast food industry." Yeah, I suppose they might. So be it.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration IV: Amnesty For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others

There was an interesting debate in Oregon (which after California is the Home of the Ballot Initiative) as to whether they are good or bad. I thought they could be good if the system were not dominated so much by special interest money --about 90% of OR measures during the time I was there were fully funded by either (1) out of state Mormons, (2) slum lords, or (3) agri-business. The idea that they in any way reflected the concerns of the people who actually lived in OR was universally mocked, and invariably almost all of them failed yet almost all of them were evergreen for cycle after cycle.

The idea that representative democracy is weakened by an infusion of direct democracy is one of those things like "healthy eating initiatives may cost jobs in the fast food industry." Yeah, I suppose they might. So be it.

That's pretty confusing. How is it direct democracy if it's pretty much universally acknowledged that the initiatives aren't locally spawned or representing local concerns? There's a fundamental disconnect there. Not to mention that it often takes a good deal of research to figure out what they do or don't do, so often people don't know what they are voting for (yah, I know, so how are initiatives different?). Sounds like just another way special interests manipulate public policy.

 

[unofan]

Re: Illegal Immigration IV: Amnesty For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others

If you can't see the difference between the ballot initiative process, where pretty much anything can be put on the ballot if you have the requisite number of initiatives, and the run-of-the-mill reelection of judges, which I think is pretty commonplace, well, ok, I guess I won't go down that road in any detail.

I see it as one and the same to this extent: both are processes by which issues get put before the electorate that can be manipulated and distorted. I would have agreed with you until I saw the ****storm this year in Iowa; that was anything but a run-of-the-mill judicial election.

And, my understanding in Iowa is that there was a good deal of local effort to oust the judges, unlike a lot of Arizona initiatives, where most funding comes from out-of-state interests.

While it's probably impossible to know with complete accuracy the amount spent on the Iowa judges' retention this year thanks to the various PACs, the last numbers I saw was something like $1.2 million spent on the anti-judge campaign, of which the majority was traced to out-of-state PACs from Mississippi, West Va., and the like. The most notable was the National Organization for Marriage, which put in about half a mil, if I remember correctly.

Put in context, I'm not sure $1.2 million had been spent in all previous Iowa retention elections combined.

The local leader was a noted rube whose previous claim to fame was being a three-time loser for the GOP governer nomination. If it was strictly local, no way would he have gotten the money to get the job done.

I know you're just baiting me, but there is a serious point to be made about whether the ballot initiative process is healthy for this country or not. But I don't expect you to comment substantively on that.

I think it's a necessary evil that needs clearly defined rules such as only one subject per initiative, if voted down it can't be re-proposed for X # of years, and so forth. I think there are times and places for it, and it's probably over-used, but it's just as necessary as the recall, which is likewise abused.

So now you are arguing against the SB1070 case in the courts because it is single-handedly delaying justice apparently across the country?

I never said single-handedly. But it's not helping, and it's still ******y.

 

[Patman]

Re: Illegal Immigration IV: Amnesty For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others

As to "fighting the good fight" - there's doing that, and then there's banging your head against the wall out of spite. I really don't care if Arizona wants to waste its own money, but since the courts are already understaffed with a back-logged case load, fighting a clear loser that will delay other claims with more merit is just being ******y.

Of course there's a difference between knowing "will lose in court" and "should lose in court"... I have no problem "wasting" the courts time over stuff that should be fought over and things that shouldn't "lose" in the first place.

edit: You've certainly seemed to start to put a lot of energy into the culture of the modern legal system... I tend to object to those that don't want to be questioned.

 

[Patman]

Re: Illegal Immigration IV: Amnesty For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others

Super stupid. I understand how some support the bill in southern border states. In WI, any problems are far smaller and far less likely to net any benefits. This should be addressed by pursuing the only way illegals can survive...by employment.

In states like Wisconsin, such a bill just loads government with huge costs. True WI fiscal conservatives should be outraged...social conservatives will love the bill.

Why should fiscal conservatives not be upset over the use of resources for the benefit of illegals? BTW, there are issues with illegals in a lot of states to the north... and you know this.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Illegal Immigration IV: Amnesty For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others

Why should fiscal conservatives not be upset over the use of resources for the benefit of illegals? BTW, there are issues with illegals in a lot of states to the north... and you know this.

Just what govt services do illegals use? Welfare, unemployment? Beyond that, I'll bow to police chiefs who think this is a bad bill that will result in higher crime and huge govt costs for taxpayers. But this seems to be the only bill that conservatives have any passion for...I guess it does puts standing against minorities over efficient small government.

 

[walrus]

Re: Illegal Immigration IV: Amnesty For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others

Just what govt services do illegals use? Welfare, unemployment? .

Thats it?, they don't use roads or hospitals or....

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Illegal Immigration IV: Amnesty For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others

Thats it?, they don't use roads or hospitals or....

Surely the police never have to deal with them, right?

 

[walrus]

Re: Illegal Immigration IV: Amnesty For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others

Surely the police never have to deal with them, right?

Never, unless they're shooting at 5mn while he is on I384?

 

[Patman]

Re: Illegal Immigration IV: Amnesty For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others

Never, unless they're shooting at 5mn while he is on I384?

well, that's his own fault for driving in Connecticut

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration IV: Amnesty For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others

I see it as one and the same to this extent: both are processes by which issues get put before the electorate that can be manipulated and distorted. I would have agreed with you until I saw the ****storm this year in Iowa; that was anything but a run-of-the-mill judicial election.

While it's probably impossible to know with complete accuracy the amount spent on the Iowa judges' retention this year thanks to the various PACs, the last numbers I saw was something like $1.2 million spent on the anti-judge campaign, of which the majority was traced to out-of-state PACs from Mississippi, West Va., and the like. The most notable was the National Organization for Marriage, which put in about half a mil, if I remember correctly.

Put in context, I'm not sure $1.2 million had been spent in all previous Iowa retention elections combined.

The local leader was a noted rube whose previous claim to fame was being a three-time loser for the GOP governer nomination. If it was strictly local, no way would he have gotten the money to get the job done.

I think it's a necessary evil that needs clearly defined rules such as only one subject per initiative, if voted down it can't be re-proposed for X # of years, and so forth. I think there are times and places for it, and it's probably over-used, but it's just as necessary as the recall, which is likewise abused.

I never said single-handedly. But it's not helping, and it's still ******y.

So I assume you have the same issue with all political elections? Not to mention that judge retention is a clear and defined yes or no on each judge, unlike the morass that is ballot propositions. Most judicial elections are total non-events, so it's really not fare to complain that this wasn't a run-of-the-mill judicial election, unless you expect judicial elections to never get any interest or attention, meaning they have no purpose or meaning.

Your bias shows through in things like calling a guy who has run for governor of Iowa three times as not being a notable local leader of the judge effort in Iowa. That's way more local support in and of itself than the typical ballot proposition gets here in Arizona.

Why are ballot propositions a necessary evil? Many states don't have them and never had and seem to operate just fine. Apparently those states fail to have a necessary process? This argument falls down particularly badly.


Well, given all the meaningless rubbish that clogs our courts, I'd say I'm not too worried about one court case involving the efforts of a state to have a safe and secure border being a problem for our court system. It's a lot more meaningful case that most of the stupid petty stuff people fight about in court. Really, to argue this one case has any effect on the overall efficiency of courts in the U.S. is simply preposterous.

 

[unofan]

Re: Illegal Immigration IV: Amnesty For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others

Your bias shows through in things like calling a guy who has run for governor of Iowa three times as not being a notable local leader of the judge effort in Iowa. That's way more local support in and of itself than the typical ballot proposition gets here in Arizona.

So if I go pay the filing fee 3 straight times to get put on the primary ballot for something, all of a sudden I become a notable local leader? That's all it takes?

Also, I've yet to live in a state without an initiative process of some sort, so I guess I don't know what I'm missing. But I think there can be issues which the legislature refuses to address and the people have the right to take action themselves. Likewise where the legislature takes action that is either unneeded or contrary to the will of the people.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration IV: Amnesty For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others

Just what govt services do illegals use? Welfare, unemployment? Beyond that, I'll bow to police chiefs who think this is a bad bill that will result in higher crime and huge govt costs for taxpayers. But this seems to be the only bill that conservatives have any passion for...I guess it does puts standing against minorities over efficient small government.

Wow, nice show of not having a clue on this subject. Think pretty much any basic government service that's available, and there's generally no reason to think illegals aren't using the service as legals would.

And of course your fantasy that police generally oppose this has been refuted by me multiple times in the past.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration IV: Amnesty For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others

So if I go pay the filing fee 3 straight times to get put on the primary ballot from something, all of a sudden I become a local leader? That's all it takes? I don't even need to reach the general election?

You said he ran for governor three times. I took that statement on face value that he must have been a factor in running for governor, or you wouldn't know he's run three times. I suppose you could argue the semantics of what running for the governor means, but to me you don't say someone ran for governor unless they are a notable player in the race, like being on the ballot or something.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration IV: Amnesty For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others

And back on the border, the Arizona Department of Agriculture is ending a longstanding program for inspecting produce on the Mexican side of the border, citing safety concerns for the inspectors. But, hey, everything is hunky-dorry down here, no reason for us to worry about anything down here in the desert.http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2010/11/15/20101115border-produce-inspections-halted.html

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration IV: Amnesty For Some, Miniature American Flags For Others

And a story about the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in southern Arizona being under seige as thousands of illegals and drugs come through on a daily basis, resulting in murders, rapes, and armed robberies in the refuge. But, again, nothing to worry about here, nothing to see here, just keep passing by.

http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=13506034