2008 February 13 Wednesday
Arizona Enforcement Against Illegal Aliens Driving Them Out

This is a great time to enforce more laws against employers of illegal aliens. The downturn in the economy has already cut back on jobs available to illegals. Now Arizona's new law that will revoke business licenses of companies that employ illegals combined with the economic downturn is causing a flight of illegal immigrants out of Arizona.

PHOENIX — The signs of flight among Latino immigrants here are multiple: Families moving out of apartment complexes, schools reporting enrollment drops, business owners complaining about fewer clients.

While it is too early to know for certain, a consensus is developing among economists, business people and immigration groups that the weakening economy coupled with recent curbs on illegal immigration are steering Hispanic immigrants out of the state.

Immigration amnesty advocates argue that amnesty is the only practical response to large scale illegal immigation. But immigration law enforcement obviously works and quickly too.

Arizona employers have begun firing illegal aliens in order to get compliant with the new law.

Although prosecutors in the state do not plan to begin enforcing the sanctions against employers until next month, several employers have reportedly already dismissed workers whose legal authorization to work could not be proved, as required by the law.

Illegal alien families are moving out of Arizona to other states and back to Mexico.

Property managers report that families have uprooted overnight, with little or no notice. Carlos Flores Vizcarra, the Mexican consul general in Phoenix, said while he could not tie the phenomenon to a single factor, the consulate had experienced an “unusual” five-fold increase in parents applying for Mexican birth certificates for their children and other documents that often are a prelude to moving.

Building contractors find no shortage of willing laborers.

Gary Hudder, president of the Yavapai County Contractors Association board of directors, said that to his knowledge, no members have suffered from the illegal immigrants departing the area at this time.

Hudder believes the slowdown in the construction sector has skewed the magnitude of the illegal immigrants departing the area.

Illegals are fleeing both Arizona and Oklahoma for more lax Texas.

HOUSTON: Illegal immigrants are coming into Texas, but not from where one might think.

While Texas shares a border with Mexico, this rush is coming from Oklahoma, Arizona and other U.S. states that have recently passed tough new anti-illegal immigrant laws.

The two toughest measures are in Oklahoma and Arizona.

Faced with a $550 million budget deficit Rhode Island legislators are getting ready to chase out the illegals in order to cut costs.

PROVIDENCE - Rhode Island, facing a budget crisis that will lead to massive cutbacks, is engulfed in the most intense battle over illegal immigration in New England, with Republicans and Democrats alike calling for a crackdown on unauthorized workers.

In the past few weeks, state lawmakers and the governor have proposed a battery of measures targeting unauthorized workers, from expelling undocumented children from the state's healthcare system to making English the official language to jailing business owners and landlords who harbor illegal workers.

Never mind that the major Presidential candidates are soft on illegal immigration. The populace across the nation can get their will enforced at state and local levels and at those levels they are forcing a crackdown on illegal immigrants. That crack down is going to continue to scale up.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2008 February 13 09:00 PM  Immigration Law Enforcement


Comments
Audacious Epigone said at February 14, 2008 1:38 AM:

Pass laws with real penalties for residing in the US illegally, and people will stop residing in the US illegally. It's really that simple. No massive increase in ICE agents needed. No train of buses stretching all across Route 66 required (as Hillary Clinton insinuated a few months back). Just a little legislative action and some targeted employer raids, and the problem is just about whacked.

During Operation Wetback, for every one illegal forcibly removed, seven or eight left of their own volition. A similar ratio appears to be the rule today.

Bob Badour said at February 14, 2008 8:57 AM:

While it is true the local and state levels can help, they will not suffice if Congress and the Senate vote for amnesty. Once that happens, the illegals will no longer be criminals breaking laws to enforce at the state or local level.

The presidency has already been lost. That race is among three pro-immigration socialists and as such it has become irrelevant. It is nothing more than a circus to distract the electorate at this point.

What's really interesting and where the real battle has to happen is the legislatures. What are you going to do to keep congressional and senatorial feet to the flame?

Dennis Mangan said at February 14, 2008 10:47 AM:

Don't look now, Randall, but many of them must be coming our way, to California, possibly the most illegal-friendly state in the union.

Randall Parker said at February 14, 2008 6:27 PM:

Dennis,

I might just have to swap places with some illegals and move to Arizona.

I think this is great news because it shows that enforcement works. That's the bottom line. As more states adopt tough enforcement laws the pressure on the federal government to do the same will increase. Plus, the states show how few resources are needed to solve the problem.

averros said at February 15, 2008 4:25 PM:

Expect Texas economy to do better than Arizona's.

Any regulation harms economy; the more strict (such as excluding entire classes of labor force), the worse.

Film at 11.

Randall - sure, move to Arizona. There's a lot of dishwashing, housecleaning and other hard low-paying manual jobs waiting for you over there.

But, then, the lack of understanding of the same old division of labor never made anyone better off. What you miss is that by taking these low-paying jobs these illegals free up time of the locals to pursue more productive occupations. When mexicans go away, the labor prices for these jobs will go up, and a lot of locals will have to do them for themselves.

Randall Parker said at February 15, 2008 9:40 PM:

averros,

Do pollution regulations hurt the economy?

Have you looked at charts of IQ versus per capita GDP? Looks to me that low IQ people create large external costs for high IQ people and reduce their economic output.

Randall Parker said at February 16, 2008 12:49 PM:

Dennis,

I want illegal alien labor to become so rare and expensive that office building land lords find it too expensive to hire illegals to use leaf blowers a few times a week around office buildings. I hate the damned leaf blowers. The high pitched tone serves as a reminder that cheap labor is not a boon.

averros said at February 17, 2008 5:41 PM:

> Do pollution regulations hurt the economy?

Regulations? Absolutely. And if you actually looked at what these regulations *say* you'll understand that they hurt environment, too.

Basically, they give arbitrary standards (which may or, more often, may not be appropriate in particular situations) which, effectively, give polluters right to pollute in the prescribed amounts. The polluters are STILL able to externalize costs of their polluting activities, and thus have no incentive whatsoever to clean up their processes to below the levels specified in regulations. (And they do have incentives to corrupt (er, lobby) the politicos to obtain the most relaxed regulations possible).

The right solution is to stop regulating and start enforcing property rights of neighbours by forcing polluters to compensate those whom they actually hurt (most likely they'll end up with mutually acceptable settlements - and, in the future, - contracts exchanging pollution rights for the appropriate compensation).

And if some "polluting" activity doesn't demonstrably harm anyone, then this is not pollution.

Generally speaking, the tragedy of commons requires existence of commons in the first place.

> Have you looked at charts of IQ versus per capita GDP? Looks to me that low IQ people create large external costs for high
> IQ people and reduce their economic output.

Yep, I quite agree with that. Low-IQ people tend to behave like chimps - i.e. to submit willfully to alpha males and their retinues of ethically challenged busybodies (aka "authorities") and enthusiastically support the monstrous-scale criminal organizations commonly known as "states". These states then proceed to create large external costs for high-IQ (i.e. productive) people by means of armed robbery (aka "taxation") and imposing their half-baked simplistic ideas on the high-IQ people by force (aka "regulation").

Fortunately, the *illegal* aliens are not allowed to participate in the democratic activity of selling votes for promises of share in future loot, and therefore are quite harmless in this respect.

Bob Badour said at February 17, 2008 6:01 PM:

averros,

So what you are saying is after my polluting neighbour kills me and my immediate family, some extended family member who inherits everything can take the autopsy results as evidence in a civil suit to recover damages from the polluter...

Sounds wonderful... just peachy...

averros said at February 17, 2008 7:35 PM:

Bob --

a politeness in a discussion requires avoiding resorting to invalid argumentation; yours is a typical straw man argument.

> So what you are saying is after my polluting neighbour kills me and my immediate family, some extended family member who
> inherits everything can take the autopsy results as evidence in a civil suit to recover damages from the polluter...

That'd be a criminal offense, a premediated murder, - so no civil suits for that.

Also, if you see your neighbour is trying to kill you by emitting noxious gases, you have the right to defend yourself - including going out and shooting that neighbour if there's no other way to make him to stop. It would be quite justified.

But, then, socialists tend to claim that people have no right to self-defense and have to rely on the good will of their masters.

Randall Parker said at February 17, 2008 8:25 PM:

averros,

Illegal aliens have children who grow up to be voters who vote for taxes to take money away from smarter and more productive people.

We had lots more air pollution before we had pollution regulations. That air pollution went down as a result of pollution regulations. Seems like a big benefit to me since lead, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, particulates, and other pollutants harms our bodies and minds.

You sound like an anarcho-libertarian. Gotta say, read those people lots when I was younger. They are wrong in their assumptions just like the socialists are wrong in their assumptions.

averros said at February 17, 2008 10:53 PM:

> Illegal aliens have children who grow up to be voters who vote for taxes to take money away from smarter and more productive people.

Yep, and that is the core of the Ron Paul's argument in favor of ending birthright citizenship.

The problem is not the immigration, the problem is enlarging the parasite class by allowing access to the loot to more and more people.

> We had lots more air pollution before we had pollution regulations.

A typical logical mistake of confusing correlation with causation. If you look at the history closer, you'll see that the ability of factories to grossly pollute was, in the first place, caused by the pro-industrialization policies of the governments who refused to persecute polluters on the theory that it'd stall industrialization (and, thus, the ability of the governments to wage total war). There was a lot of anti-industry sentiment back then expressed by the landowners and urbanites.

Besides, absolutely the worst polluter in the US is, well, guess who.

> You sound like an anarcho-libertarian.

I am a libertarian - a practicing one.

> Gotta say, read those people lots when I was younger. They are wrong in their assumptions just like the socialists are wrong
> in their assumptions.

Oh. So what these wrong assumptions would be? I've heard that canard many times, but never once got a clear answer to this question. Typically this merely exposes the lack of basic understanding or trivial logical flaws in the claimant's argumentation.

By the way, your implication that I'd grow older and wiser and see errors of my ways, while condescending, is quite ridiculous - I'm, most likely, quite older than you are, and saw a lot more of this world, too. Living under different social systems (and having successful careers under them) gives some sense of perspective.

Bob Badour said at February 18, 2008 11:10 AM:

averros,

Polite discussion requires one to back up claims of invalid argumentation with more than just handwaving.

Your position as stated above clearly implies that some fantasy of tort law suffices to deal with pollution "by forcing polluters to compensate those whom they actually hurt." The direct logical consequent of that is one must first prove harm. Your even say "if some "polluting" activity doesn't demonstrably harm anyone, then this is not pollution." When that harm is death, tort law doesn't really help the corpse any. Just ask Nicole Brown Simpson.

Equating polluters with premeditated murderers begs the question and equivocates with a scent of "No true Scotsman" and, in fact, in a way confirms Randall's original question. It suggests you do think pollution regulation is a good thing. You apparently want it equally regulated as premeditated murder. You just seem to prefer a system where those potentially killed by pollution have to die before anyone can do anything about it.

But then again, you seem to contradict yourself by claiming I have a right to premeditate my neighbour's murder for polluting my environment. So, maybe, just maybe, you don't think we should regulate premeditated murder either.

I have had a nutty neighbour. My friend, Jeff, had a nutty neighbour. I certainly would not want to live in a world that gave either of those nutters the idea they could murder their neighbours over perceived injuries.

As far as valid argumentation goes, the straw man fallacy is an informal fallacy. Had I used a straw man, it would have constituted unsound argumentation not invalid argumentation. Begging the question is similarly valid but unsound. Compound questions, like mentioning socialists in a response to someone who is anything but socialist, are similarly unsound.

I don't have to be an anarchist to reject socialism. In fact, folks like Chomsky are both socialists and anarchists. I just happen to have a hobbesian view of the purpose and necessity of government.

Frankly, I find your whole argument reeks of the "Perfect Solution" fallacy, the fallacy of accident, false dichotomy, and the fallacy of distribution.

Charles Nobody said at March 1, 2008 7:18 AM:

It seems that the issue commenced was the enforcement of the law. Averros doesn't like it and Randall and Bob do, and apparently, the Arizona court agrees with Randall and Bob. It really boils down to whether the laws are enforced or not. Since the feds aren't doing anything about it, more and more states are picking up the gauntlet and moving toward enforcement of such. Just opining.

bruce said at July 7, 2008 9:46 AM:

as a resident of Rhode Island i resent my tax money being spent on illegal aliens and their bastard off spring.i want them rounded up and shipped out to mexico or dominican along with their phony anchor babies.the 14th amendment confers no such citizenship on illegals born here this is a gross misinterpretation of the 14th by commie traitors.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©