Jan Brewer Jumps the Shark, Slides into Outright Prejudice

On this blog, over the last couple of months, I have presented a pretty clear set of facts showing that, with the possible exception of some rural border regions beset by drug gangs, the vast majority of Arizona has experienced rapidly falling crime rates, in fact crime rates falling much faster than in the rest of the country.  The crime rates of even our key border towns has remained flat.

What to make, then, of these statements by our governor.

Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday reiterated her assertion that the majority of illegal immigrants are coming to the United States for reasons other than work, saying most are committing crimes and being used as drug mules by the cartels.

Brewer's remarks are an expansion of comments she made last week during a televised debate between the four Republican gubernatorial candidates....

In the debate, Jette [a candidate running against Brewer] said that most people who cross illegally into Arizona are "just trying to feed their families." Brewer disputed that, saying, "They're coming here, and they're bringing drugs.

And they're doing drop houses, and they're extorting people and they're terrorizing the families." The governor, who has become a national media figure since signing Senate Bill 1070 into law on April 23, went further on Friday, saying that the "majority of the illegal trespassers that are coming (into) the state of Arizona are under the direction and control of organized drug cartels."

When pressed, Brewer said that even those who do come to the United States looking for work are often ensnared by the cartels.

"They are accosted, and they become subjects of the drug cartels."

Estimates are that there are 8-12 million illegal immigrants in the US (Brewer's hispano-phobic allies would put the number much higher).  They are mostly all drug dealers and criminals?  Really?

I try really hard not to try to guess at what motivates folks I disagree with by assuming they are driven by something dark and evil, but how else in this case can one describe opinions like this so contrary to facts as anything other than prejudice against a particular ethnic group?

Just look at the actions of our governor and folks like Joe Arpaio.  If it really were the case that illegal immigrants are all criminals uninterested in legal work, then why is so much recent legislation aimed at business owners that hire illegal immigrants?  Or at day labor centers?  Why are all of Sheriff Joe's immigration sweeps raiding lawful businesses rather than, say, crack houses?  After all, if illegal immigrants are all just drug dealers not looking for real work, why spend so much time looking for them, uh, doing real work?

Postscript: If Brewer is in fact correct, then there is a dead easy solution for the illegal immigration problem -- legalize drugs.  She and I both agree that the worst criminal elements of illegal immigrants would be much less of a problem without the illegal drug trade.  The only difference is that I think that segment makes up less than 1% of the population of illegal immigrants, and she thinks its everyone.

Further, to the extent that some illegal immigrants just trying to support their families are "ensnared" by drug cartels (whatever that means) it is because of their immigration status.  Make them legal residents of the country, and no one has any particular leverage over them.

Note to Commenters: Many, many of you have disagreed with me vociferously on immigration.  Please, I would love to see reasoned comments defending Brewer, particularly with data.  In particular, please use the laws of supply and demand to explain how the majority of 8-12 million people are able to earn a living in the illegal drug trade in the southwest.  To help you out, there are about 6.6 million people in Arizona.  Based on national rates of 8% of over age 12 being users, about 500,000 of those are illegal drug users.  One estimate is that there are 500,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona.

Update: Are she and I living in the same state?

Arizona GOP Gov. Jan Brewer claimed recently that law enforcement has been finding beheaded bodies in the desert "” but local agencies say they've never encountered such a case.

"Our law enforcement agencies have found bodies in the desert either buried or just lying out there that have been beheaded," Brewer said Sunday, suggesting that the beheadings were part of increased violence along the border.

But medical examiners from six of Arizona's counties "” four of which border Mexico "” tell the Arizona Guardian that they've never encountered an immigration-related crime in which the victim's head was cut off.

71 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

astonerii, If you are going to accuse me of spreading "untruths" the least you could do is point out what fact I purported that is incorrect?
Just like you said "need breeds innovation", the fact is that the "needs" of the smugglers and immigrants is far greater than our need to stop them, which is why their "innovation" (ways to sneak into this country) will always be ahead of our innovating ways to stop them, seismographs aside. We already have "unauthorized airplane visits" no one monitors air traffic under 500ft, and even if we had the resources do you really want the Air Force scrambling aircraft and shooting down GA aircraft?
I'm not sure what your point is with all the door locking business, the clear difference is that a lock for my door costs about .06% of my household income and may be enough to deter someone from stealing my meager belongings. A 2000 mile berlin-esque wall would cost billions a year to create and monitor and will still not be enough to deter someone from the opportunity of moving from austere poverty to unimaginable riches.

The workplace enforcement is a joke as well. Now that a lot of companies are doing e-verify the illegal mexicans are just forced to pay a little extra and instead of getting just a fake SS#, they buy a puerto rican's SS# and the matching name. Since these folks have payroll deductions taken out but never file tax returns they actually contribute more than their share, and the IRS certainly isn't going to complain about that.

Once again the libertatian headless horseman writes. LOL

Hey Warren whats wrong with simply moving the border south about 1000 miles?

If it's OK for Mexicans to come to America; surely it's OK for America to come to them. LOL

Bryan,
I'm glad you made that point. When "illegals" work for a legit business, they do it by purchasing SS#'s (Puerto Rico is a big one, as well as the deceased). They spend their life paying into a lot of the welfare state that they would never take advantage of.
I mean, it's not as if they'd risk being found out by going down to the SS office and demanding their check.

so again, I'll ask why it's a bad thing to have additional workers here in our country?

I think I might agree with Warren here. Once you disperse with all the "logical" arguments, your left with..."because it's MY country, and I don't want THEM here!"

Mark, Odd to ask for data while offering up none to support the lowest of illegal immigration figures. You must live "above the rim."

You asked for data, well here you go...

The larger number...
http://www.steinreport.com/BearStearnsStudy.pdf

The Arizona number..
http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2010/illegal-immigrant-stats-available-yet-appear-datagov/

In Arizona we have become tired of the crime, the stealing of services, the running of drugs and the new craze of kidnapping.
That and growing tired of people that cannot connect the dots between runaway out of social service network costs ($1 billion spent on housing California's illegal prison population alone..yes, you will need data so... http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/02/local/me-cap2/2 ) or the cost on the nations hospitals...

Data:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-01-21-immigrant-healthcare_N.htm

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/06/the_high_cost_o.php

and on and on and on....

I agree, but then we also need to address the issue no matter which side you are on. We simply cannot have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people trudging through the deserts into this country. We must recognize that htere is a need for these workers, something that the political left cannot accept. And we must also recognize that we need an orderly process for these people to enter, something that the politcial right cannot accept.

That is why guest worker, or temporary worker visas, are the solution. We can grant two types: one for those with a current job and one for those who are searching for a job. We can control the number of these visas based on economic conditions. We can make the worker visa valid for one year and set criteria on how to acquire this visa and how it can be renewed. A guest worker with such a visa would be allowed to acquire temporary visas for his family.

On the other hand, if a worker acquires a "seach visa" only that worker would be allowed into the country.

Some other attributes of the visas would be:

Fees: $500 for the work visa $250 for the "search" visa (this is much less than many of these people pay the smugglers to get them into the US)

A worker in the US on a temporary work visa would be required to pay into the FICA system and also a minimum withholding tax. These taxes would pay for the government benefits they receive.

A work visa cannot be "converted" to another form of visa. To get a "green card" for permament alien status would require the guest worker to return to their home country to get the appropriate visa. A worker on a temporary work visa cannot apply for US citizenship and any children born in the United States will be considered to be under the jurisdiction of their home country and will not be considered US citizens.

Some public services should be offered to the workers and their families. In particular, I believe separate schools should be created to educate the children financed by federal (visa fees), state, and private contributions.

ZZMike said: "... It’s also the case that no economy can withstand the influx of millions of low-wage, low-educated workers...."

That is incorrect. Two countries in recent times withstood such situations. The first was West Germany when it absorbed East Germany. East Germany had outdated factories, millions of low-income and low-skill workers, and citizens who believed that the nanny state would care for them always. It took twenty years, but Germany has fully recovered from that sudden change. Germany improved its infrastructure (better road, lots of rail, high speed internet, wireless phone coverage, etc.) and its overall quality of life during those two decades. The price required to do this: high taxes (19% VAT plus income taxes).

The other nation is Costa Rica. Costa Rica, in the past dozen years, has taken in over one million Nicaraguan refugees. On a percentage basis, that is more immigrants (legal and illegal) than the USA took in over the same period. Costa Rica grew economically despite the resources expended on the immigrants. They transferred unskilled work (such as coffee bean picking) to the Nicaraguans and attracted international technology businesses (such as Intel) to build plants and employ the well-educated Costa Rican workers.

The USA could handle gracefully the influx of twenty million immigrants over twenty years if we had set up an immigrant guest worker program and if we had supported localities in border states instead of letting them flounder under the economic burden of illegal immigrant care.

Based on Border Security statistics it's pretty clear that, at best, our governor has been smoking crack.

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/news_releases/archives/2009_news_releases/nov_09/11242009_5.xml

The percentage of illegal immigrants involved in drug trafficking can't be much higher than 2 or 3 percent...tops, and probably more like about 1-2 %.

It's bad enough a faux pas, but to continue to insist it wasn't in error only makes a bad situation worse. I never thought Brewer the sharpest tool in the shed, but, gee...doesn't she have any competent advisers at all?

To Warren Meyer:

I just discovered your blog thanks to a link from Strike the Root ( http://www -dot- strike-the-root -dot- com/jan-brewer-jumps-shark-slides-into-outright-prejudice ) and I am very impressed with what I have read, particularly this extremely insightful observation:

“Just look at the actions of our governor and folks like Joe Arpaio. If it really were the case that illegal immigrants are all criminals uninterested in legal work, then why is so much recent legislation aimed at business owners that hire illegal immigrants? Or at day labor centers? Why are all of Sheriff Joe’s immigration sweeps raiding lawful businesses rather than, say, crack houses? After all, if illegal immigrants are all just drug dealers not looking for real work, why spend so much time looking for them, uh, doing real work?”

I was also disappointed by some of the comments posted. Many exhibit old “arguments” that I have addressed and debunked in past articles of my own.
Best regards,
Dennis Lee Wilson
- - - - - -
@Henry Bowman: “It is nonetheless true that if you do not control your borders, you do not have a country.”

That assertion doesn’t bear up to the facts. In my 2007 article "Immigration control is UN-Constitutional!" ( http://tinyurl -dot- com/yeyd7kq ) I include two brief historical accounts of immigration in this country. For the first 100 years after the Constitution was signed, there was no attempt to “control the borders”. Did we “not have a country” then?
- - - - - -
@Rob: “…most illegal immigrants come to the US not only to find jobs, but to gain access to all the benefits that come with living in a welfare state…”

In my 2006 article “Ask the Right Question” ( http://tinyurl -dot- com/law9vz ) I addressed solutions to that issue. Further research also revealed that the Welfare system already has rules that only citizens can receive welfare, but that the Welfare supervisors violate the rules and do not require that Welfare dispensers confirm that the recipients are citizens. The SOLUTION to the welfare issue is to be found at the Welfare office, not by building an expensive walled border with armed guards.

I also point out another problem with that viewpoint:

Many individuals of our time maintain that we should not abolish immigration control until the immigrants have assimilated into our society.
And further, that we should continue to deprive them of liberty until we have (somehow) abolished government welfare.
Or that we should not abolish government until we have learned to live together without higher authority.

These positions are worthy of the silly old fool, who resolved to AVOID the water until he had learned to swim.
If men are to wait for liberty till they become wise and good in slavery they may indeed wait for ever.

Paraphrased from ~ Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800–1859)
- - - - - -
@Stan: “But frankly, the border will have to be secured, it is an inherent obligation of the state”

NO, IT IS NOT! And furthermore, immigration control was NOT AUTHORIZED by the Constitution. The Founding Fathers very obviously did NOT think it was an “inherent obligation” of any kind. Most of them WERE THEMSELVES either immigrants or second generation! Even 100 years later, the Statue of Liberty was erected to actually WELCOME immigrants. See "Immigration control is UN-Constitutional!" cited earlier.

The “better, more free-market oriented immigration system” of which you speak IS the open border system that the USA had for its first 100 years!
- - - - - -
@skh.pcola: “…those of us that want to live in a nation of laws and have those laws enforced by those whose jobs it is to do so.”
@skh.pcola: “Clamoring for laws to be disobeyed is the basis of anarchy, whether those laws are anathema to your personal beliefs or not.”
@Che is dead: “This all consuming hatred allows you to see laws you disagree with as illegitimate and the enforcement of those laws as optional.”
@garyp: “The real issue is the motives and characters of the people who have sworn to uphold the Constitution and enforce our nation’s laws”
@garyp: “At least Gov Brewer wants to enforce some laws…”
@Ted Rado: “The basic problem is that the Fedral Government does not enforce the law.” “The Arizona government is simply doing what the Feds are supposed to do: enforce the law.”
@L382guy: “It remains a crime to be in the US illeagaly regardless of ones’ opinion as to whether or not it should be.”

The Constitution is SUPPOSED to be the supreme law of the land and Immigration control IS UN-Constitutional! That means that ALL the Federal “laws” regulating immigration are themselves ILLEGAL! The PROPER course of action for Arizona and other states is to invoke the 10th Amendment and NULLIFY the Federal drug and travel prohibitions within their state’s boundaries.

If the Federal government is allowed to break "the law", where does that leave your “nation of laws” and what does it say about “those whose jobs it is to” enforce them—and those who WANT to enforce them? Are YOU willing to clamor for these illegal laws? Is it YOUR personal belief that these illegal laws should be obeyed? Is it a crime to ignore an illegal “law”? Even the Supreme Court (in the past) has ruled that an unconstitutional—and therefore illegal--law should be considered null and void on its face and from the time it was created.
- - - - - -
@ Dr. T: Your concern about crime rates and violence reminds me of what happened during the government’s Prohibition of Alcohol. If your concern is genuine (and I have no reason to expect otherwise), then you might consider our grandparents SOLUTION to their problems: REPEAL.

BEFORE drugs were artificially made illegal there were no black markets in drugs, there were no drug lords and there were no gun fights over drug territories. And BEFORE the established border crossings were closed with armed guards— BEFORE unconstitutional “laws” were created making both travelers and travel “illegal” —there were no “illegal” immigrants or “illegal” migrant workers. And there were no trespassers over private lands and thru deserts because it was easier and safer to cross at the long established, public border crossings. “Illegals” only have that status because the Federal government created “laws” that are unconstitutional and therefore “illegal” themselves.

Today’s problems are no different from the problems CREATED by the government’s Prohibition of Alcohol. And the ONLY solution that WILL work is the same one that DID work: REPEAL! I provide more detail in my article “PROHIBITION FAILED--AGAIN! What IS the Lesson of History?” at http://tinyurl -dot- com/ProhibitionFailed-Again

- - - - - -
@morganovich: “…anarchy, which is a system without laws”

This is the only flaw in an otherwise excellent post. Actually, anarchy is a system without RULERS. Chaos is a system without laws, and since the people in control of the Federal government ignore constitutional laws and write illegal “laws”, chaos is what we have now, both economically and politically.
- - - - - -
Note: I use “ -dot- “ instead of “.” because real links prevented this from being posted June 27th.

And, by the way, I actually support the Arizona immigration law. If we are not going to address the problem then we need to enforce the law.

To Warren Meyer:

I just discovered your blog thanks to a link from Strike the Root ( www -dot- strike-the-root -dot- com/jan-brewer-jumps-shark-slides-into-outright-prejudice ) and I am very impressed with what I have read, particularly this extremely insightful observation:

“Just look at the actions of our governor and folks like Joe Arpaio. If it really were the case that illegal immigrants are all criminals uninterested in legal work, then why is so much recent legislation aimed at business owners that hire illegal immigrants? Or at day labor centers? Why are all of Sheriff Joe’s immigration sweeps raiding lawful businesses rather than, say, crack houses? After all, if illegal immigrants are all just drug dealers not looking for real work, why spend so much time looking for them, uh, doing real work?”

I was also disappointed by some of the comments posted. Many exhibit old “arguments” that I have addressed and debunked in past articles of my own.
Best regards,
Dennis Lee Wilson
- - - - - -
@Henry Bowman: “It is nonetheless true that if you do not control your borders, you do not have a country.”

That assertion doesn’t bear up to the facts. In my 2007 article "Immigration control is UN-Constitutional!" ( www -dot- tinyurl -dot- com/yeyd7kq ) I include two brief historical accounts of immigration in this country. For the first 100 years after the Constitution was signed, there was no attempt to “control the borders”. Did we “not have a country” then?
- - - - - -
@Rob: “…most illegal immigrants come to the US not only to find jobs, but to gain access to all the benefits that come with living in a welfare state…”

In my 2006 article “Ask the Right Question” (www -dot- tinyurl -dot- com/law9vz ) I addressed solutions to that issue. Further research also revealed that the Welfare system already has rules that only citizens can receive welfare, but that the Welfare supervisors violate the rules and do not require that Welfare dispensers confirm that the recipients are citizens. The SOLUTION to the welfare issue is to be found at the Welfare office, not by building an expensive walled border with armed guards.

I also point out another problem with that viewpoint:

Many individuals of our time maintain that we should not abolish immigration control until the immigrants have assimilated into our society.
And further, that we should continue to deprive them of liberty until we have (somehow) abolished government welfare.
Or that we should not abolish government until we have learned to live together without higher authority.

These positions are worthy of the silly old fool, who resolved to AVOID the water until he had learned to swim.
If men are to wait for liberty till they become wise and good in slavery they may indeed wait for ever.

Paraphrased by Dennis Lee Wilson from ~ Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800–1859)
- - - - - -
@Stan: “But frankly, the border will have to be secured, it is an inherent obligation of the state”

NO, IT IS NOT! And furthermore, immigration control was NOT AUTHORIZED by the Constitution. The Founding Fathers very obviously did NOT think it was an “inherent obligation” of any kind. Most of them WERE THEMSELVES either immigrants or second generation! Even 100 years later, the Statue of Liberty was erected to actually WELCOME immigrants. See "Immigration control is UN-Constitutional!" cited earlier.

The “better, more free-market oriented immigration system” of which you speak IS the open border system that the USA had for its first 100 years!
- - - - - -
@skh.pcola: “…those of us that want to live in a nation of laws and have those laws enforced by those whose jobs it is to do so.”
@skh.pcola: “Clamoring for laws to be disobeyed is the basis of anarchy, whether those laws are anathema to your personal beliefs or not.”
@Che is dead: “This all consuming hatred allows you to see laws you disagree with as illegitimate and the enforcement of those laws as optional.”
@garyp: “The real issue is the motives and characters of the people who have sworn to uphold the Constitution and enforce our nation’s laws”
@garyp: “At least Gov Brewer wants to enforce some laws…”
@Ted Rado: “The basic problem is that the Fedral Government does not enforce the law.” “The Arizona government is simply doing what the Feds are supposed to do: enforce the law.”
@L382guy: “It remains a crime to be in the US illeagaly regardless of ones’ opinion as to whether or not it should be.”

The Constitution is SUPPOSED to be the supreme law of the land and Immigration control is UN-Constitutional! That means that ALL the Federal “laws” regulating immigration are themselves ILLEGAL! The PROPER course of action for Arizona and other states is to invoke the 10th Amendment and NULLIFY the Federal drug and travel prohibitions within their state’s boundaries.

If the Federal government is allowed to break "the law", where does that leave your “nation of laws” and what does it say about “those whose jobs it is to” enforce them—and those who WANT to enforce them? Are YOU willing to clamor for these illegal laws? Is it YOUR personal belief that these illegal laws should be obeyed? Is it a crime to ignore an illegal “law”? Even the Supreme Court (in the past) has ruled that an unconstitutional—and therefore illegal--law should be considered null and void on its face and from the time it was created.
- - - - - -
@ Dr. T: Your concern about crime rates and violence reminds me of what happened during the government’s Prohibition of Alcohol. If your concern is genuine (and I have no reason to expect otherwise), then you might consider our grandparents SOLUTION to their problems: REPEAL.

BEFORE drugs were artificially made illegal there were no black markets in drugs, there were no drug lords and there were no gun fights over drug territories. And BEFORE the established border crossings were closed with armed guards— BEFORE unconstitutional “laws” were created making both travelers and travel “illegal” —there were no “illegal” immigrants or “illegal” migrant workers. And there were no trespassers over private lands and thru deserts because it was easier and safer to cross at the long established, public border crossings. “Illegals” only have that status because the Federal government created “laws” that are unconstitutional and therefore “illegal” themselves.

Today’s problems are no different from the problems CREATED by the government’s Prohibition of Alcohol. And the ONLY solution that WILL work is the same one that DID work: REPEAL! I provide more detail in my article “PROHIBITION FAILED--AGAIN! What IS the Lesson of History?” at www -dot- tinyurl -dot- com/ProhibitionFailed-Again

- - - - - -
@morganovich: “…anarchy, which is a system without laws”

This is the only flaw in an otherwise excellent post. Actually, anarchy is a system without RULERS. Chaos is a system without laws, and since the people in control of the Federal government ignore constitutional laws and write illegal “laws”, chaos is what we have now, both economically and politically.
- - - - - -
Note: I use “ -dot- “ instead of “.” because real links prevented this from being posted June 27th.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics". Pick your numbers, by subset, lack of depth, or whatever. I don't think the great "aha" is in your statistics. Nor do I think the answer to crime is to simply eliminate laws or provide amnesty. US citizens have the right to expect the government to control the border and prevent illegal crossings. We have a border and a legal method of immigration. Honor it. Use it!

Many of the arguments sympathetic to illegal immigrants relate to them being poor people trying to improve their lot. If this argument is correct, there are a some logical sequels:

Anyone who is poor is free to break any law in pursuit of a better life. Rob a bank, steal food, sell dope, etc. The end justifies the means, provided the end being considered draws publc sympathy.

If the object is to let poor people sneak in, the poorest should logically come first. There are 4.5 billion people with a lower standard of living than Mexico. It then follows that Mexicans should be thrown out to make way for Somalis, Bengalis, Rawandans, etc.

Who decides which laws can be broken with impunity and which must be enforced?

Allowing high immigration rates, legal or illegal, assumes that the country can absorb those people. There is a limit to how many agricurtural workers, chamber maids, gardeners, etc. the economy can handle. Note that in the 30's immigration was controlled by the Dept. of Labor.

To obtain citizenship, one must learn English and US history and civics. Otherwise, we would degenerate into a polyglot country where we have no common bond. Look what happened to the Austro-Hungarian empire. One should go through the established channels to enter the US and subsequently apply fo citizenship. I am an immigrant myself (1930). I speak perfect English and do not identify myself with any ethnic group other than (proudly) American. It seems to me that everyone wishing to come to the US should do likewise.

Finally, a calm review of the problem would, I am confident, permit forming a fair, logical, and workable system for dealing with immigration. Letting people simply crawl under the fence in an uncontrolled manner makes no sense at all.

"Anyone who is poor is free to break any law in pursuit of a better life"

THis is a simplistic argument and is easily countered. Anyone is free to break a stupid, innefficient law if they want to risk the consequences. "Ted Rado" probably makes the decision that he is free to break stupid laws every single day. Nice rolling stop? 68 in the 60? Keep it under 10 miles over, don't ya? Ted makes the calculation that the safety concerns, etc, of the posted speed limits and other traffic laws are a little bit over the top, calculates the odds of having to pay a consequence (traffic ticket), and measures that against the value (time savings) breaking the traffic laws serve to him. Maybe Ted Rado follows the traffic laws to the letter, but I know that 95% of Americans do not.

So, obviously, most Americans believe that they are not obligated to follow stupid laws. Should we expect that "illegal" immigrants should be any different? They break the immigration laws, for the most part, to work and provide a value to the American economy, something that most Americans take advantage of. They provide their labor services for a value they cannot get in their home country, so they do not do this alturistically. In the end, it is a win-win proposition. Good for the Mexican labourer and good for the American economy. And Ted wants that "crime" to be on par with, lets see, robbing a bank, stealing food, or selling drugs.

And, Ted, there is most likely a limit to ho many of these workers the econimy can absorb. But, these workers follow labor supply and demand "laws" just like everything else. When the supply of these cheap laborers excedes teh demand the wage price will decline and fewer "illegal" immigrants will come over the border.

People like Ted want to pretend that there isn't a demand for these laborers. They also want to pretend that American workers would be willing to do these jobs for a reasonable price. But reality stands in their way. We need to recognize that there is a large need for low end labor in the United States and organize better laws to meet this demand.

@Allan: “…. Nor do I think the answer to crime is to simply eliminate laws or provide amnesty. US citizens have the right to expect the government to control the border and prevent illegal crossings. We have a border and a legal method of immigration. Honor it. Use it!”

We have a Constitution. Honor it. Use it! There is NO “right to expect the government to control the border and prevent illegal crossings”. And there is NO AUTHORITY to control immigration! Don’t pretend to support the rule of law while ignoring the Law of the Land. As long as illegal “laws” are created and enforced, we live in chaos. Businesses are failing because of all the new and illegal “laws” that regulate them. No one can know what “the law” REALLY is because our multiplicity of rulers (city, county, state, federal) can and do make and change “the law” to fit any action they desire at any time that suits their purpose. One has only to read the news for proof.

The answer to the Federal crimes of ignoring the Constitution is REPEAL. The states should be invoking the 10th Amendment for that purpose. There should be no amnesty for violating the Constitution.

I am sorry for the triple postings, the 2nd and 3rd were frustrating attempts to convert links to text because of 2 day delay caused by the spam filter. If the human moderator would be so kind as to remove #2 and #3 ( both starting with "To Warren Meyer:" and dated June 29, 2010, 6:16 pm and June 29, 2010, 9:53 pm respectively) and THIS comment, it would clean up the comments section nicely.

@morganovich: "jp, what it it you are attempting to demonstrate with those quotes?"

Warren is claiming that the crime numbers in Arizona are dropping faster than the US average overall, and that therefore crime is a invalid justification for increased policing of illegals. Some critics point out that the crime rates in the rural, non-metro counties are rising, not falling.

Warren concedes this point, but tries to deflect it (in his post from the 22nd) by saying there are other reasons the numbers may be rising besides immigration. He then says "To the extent the rural numbers are driven by immigrants, my sense it is due to the violent well-armed drug gang flavor of immigrants" (Importantly, note the lack of any qualifiers in this statement.)

Essentially, he's saying that the immigrants are largely violent and drug related.

But, when Gov. Brewer says THE EXACT SAME THING, "majority of the illegal trespassers that are coming (into) the state of Arizona are under the direction and control of organized drug cartels.", Warren has a conniption and claims the only reason you could possibly think that is because you are prejudiced.

Well, how can he jibe this with his own stated view on the "violent well-armed drug gang flavor of immigrants"?

He doesn't. This, to me, shows that he hasn't really thought this through very carefully, flying by the seat of his pants, inventing ad hoc rationalizations for his arguments. His inconsistency betrays emotionalism on this topic.

The LEAR program began in September 2006 to provide a more comprehensive response to Arizona law enforcement agencies seeking assistance from ICE during encounters with suspected illegal aliens. From October 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007, the LEAR unit received 897 calls for assistance and arrested 5,249 illegal aliens. For the same period this fiscal year, the unit received 1,283 calls for assistance and arrested 6,235 illegal aliens.

It is amazing to me that so much energy and vitriole goes into the discussion of illegal immigration. It's quite simple if one focuses on one phrase:

Illegal Aliens:

They are not immigrants, they are interlopers, and by definition, Felons. This applies to any alien irrespective of national origin, race, creed, color, religous faith or ethnicity. They need not perpetrate any further crimes, and it matters not, their work ethic, intentions, or economic plight, they are Felons the instant they cross our border and should be prosecuted and deported.

Try applying the logic used in support of 'undocumented workers' to Felons in our prisons. The moral equivilant is that illegal aliens are the same as prison Felons and our laws should apply evenly to both.

For those who bemone the task of 'rounding up' those here now, now worries; we'll deport them one at a time, however long it takes...

It's a Republican primary: xenophobia is okay, but talking drug law liberalization is not. I doubt that Brewer even believes in the veracity of these statements, but she must position herself in league with the rest of the candidates, and they've already set the bar pretty low.

Mark ii says that everyone is free to break "stupid" laws. This is true. They also are free to go to jail if they do. If one feels that a law is stupid, then try to get it changed. A society where each person decides which laws are "stupid" and can be ignored makes no sense and leads to chaos.

Nobody has put forth a program to solve the problem. Let's hope that a well thought out proposal is put forward soon. The politicians are dodging it for various selfish political reasons. Seventy or eighty percent of the people want the border closed, first of all. Then a fair and logical immigration and guest worker program can be instituted. I understand that many are sympathetic toward poor Mexicans who are trying to improve their lot, but letting them all pour into the US in an uncontrolled manner is not working.