A Practical Question About the AZ Law

[Liability]

My premise is that stopping someone because they LOOK like an alien (meaning they look hispanic) and demanding they identify their origin (whether that person is native born or an actual immigrant of whatever legal or illegal stripe) goes against everything we stand for.

But that's not in the slightest little bit what the law addresses.

Again, it is only AFTER an otherwise lawful police encounter with an individual (such as a lawful traffic stop, etc) that the officer asks anybody (illegal alien, legal alien of citizen) "where are you from?" The question doesn't affect me even if I look like one of President Bush's brown skinned relatives. If I am here legally, the asking of the question is of no consequence.

It is only if I am here illegally that the asking of the question poses a problem for me.

And as to that "problem," I cannot pretend to have any particular sympathy for the person being questioned.

so in other words, the police can come search your house without a warrant because if you have nothing to hide, then it's ok

The Mercedes-Benz exec was here legally and yet somehow he had a problem.

And lol, so did this guy:

First to be arrested was a German director of the Mercedes-Benz factory in Tuscaloosa for failing to carry his driver’s license. Next came the detention of Honda manager Ichiro Yada at a checkpoint in Leeds, Ala,

Yada produced a passport, U.S. work permit, and international driver’s license, none of which satisfied Leed’s law officers . They wrote Yada a ticket and released him on a signature bond.

Police say Yada should have had in his possession either an Alabama license or one issued by Japan. The charges were dismissed only when Yada’s attorney faxed a copy of his Japanese driver’s license to the judge.

Business Blog » Alabama nabs foreign auto execs in immigration crackdowns

Holy shit.

Ravi has discovered that some cops suck at that whole "complying with the law" thing.

Therefore, we best rescind all criminal laws.

 

[Ravi]

so in other words, the police can come search your house without a warrant because if you have nothing to hide, then it's ok

The Mercedes-Benz exec was here legally and yet somehow he had a problem.

And lol, so did this guy:

First to be arrested was a German director of the Mercedes-Benz factory in Tuscaloosa for failing to carry his driver’s license. Next came the detention of Honda manager Ichiro Yada at a checkpoint in Leeds, Ala,

Yada produced a passport, U.S. work permit, and international driver’s license, none of which satisfied Leed’s law officers . They wrote Yada a ticket and released him on a signature bond.

Police say Yada should have had in his possession either an Alabama license or one issued by Japan. The charges were dismissed only when Yada’s attorney faxed a copy of his Japanese driver’s license to the judge.

Business Blog » Alabama nabs foreign auto execs in immigration crackdowns

Holy shit.

Ravi has discovered that some cops suck at that whole "complying with the law" thing.

Therefore, we best rescind all criminal laws.

Nah, just victimless crime laws. Too much scope for abuse.

 

[Liability]

The Mercedes-Benz exec was here legally and yet somehow he had a problem.

And lol, so did this guy:




Business Blog » Alabama nabs foreign auto execs in immigration crackdowns

Holy shit.

Ravi has discovered that some cops suck at that whole "complying with the law" thing.

Therefore, we best rescind all criminal laws.

Nah, just victimless crime laws. Too much scope for abuse.

Then why are you posting about it in a non-victimless crime thread?

 

[Ravi]

Holy shit.

Ravi has discovered that some cops suck at that whole "complying with the law" thing.

Therefore, we best rescind all criminal laws.

Nah, just victimless crime laws. Too much scope for abuse.

Then why are you posting about it in a non-victimless crime thread?

I'm not. Being undocumented victimizes no one.

 

[Liability]

Nah, just victimless crime laws. Too much scope for abuse.

Then why are you posting about it in a non-victimless crime thread?

I'm not. Being undocumented victimizes no one.

Being here illegally does victimize lots of people.

 

[Ravi]

Then why are you posting about it in a non-victimless crime thread?

I'm not. Being undocumented victimizes no one.

Being here illegally does victimize lots of people.

Who?

 

[Liability]

I'm not. Being undocumented victimizes no one.

Being here illegally does victimize lots of people.

Who?

The fact that you (and you are sadly not alone) can even "ask" such a dopey question constitutes evidence of why the liberals cannot be trusted in positions of responsibility.

Every single illegal alien here jumped the line in front of all those poor schlubs who have tried to comply with the much more complicated and difficult LAWFUL immigration laws.

They hurt all of them.

And if the illegal alien who has no ******* right to even BE here happens to get hurt, he/she or they can go (and do go) to ANY hospital for emergency treatment and GET it. they cannot pay and most often do not pay. But that means either the hospital doesn't GET paid OR the rest of us have to take up the slack via higher hospital costs, higher insurance costs and/or higher taxes. So it hurts all of us.

In fact, that's just one reason, one example of why we are entitled to HAVE laws placing limits on the numbers of outsiders who are granted permission to enter and/or remain in our country.

Why you libs have such a studiously hard time grasping the painfully obvious is a bit of a mystery. It's almost like you WANT to believe that reality doesn't even ******* exist.

 

[Ravi]

Being here illegally does victimize lots of people.

Who?

The fact that you (and you are sadly not alone) can even "ask" such a dopey question constitutes evidence of why the liberals cannot be trusted in positions of responsibility.

Every single illegal alien here jumped the line in front of all those poor schlubs who have tried to comply with the much more complicated and difficult LAWFUL immigration laws.

They hurt all of them.

And if the illegal alien who has no ******* right to even BE here happens to get hurt, he/she or they can go (and do go) to ANY hospital for emergency treatment and GET it. they cannot pay and most often do not pay. But that means either the hospital doesn't GET paid OR the rest of us have to take up the slack via higher hospital costs, higher insurance costs and/or higher taxes. So it hurts all of us.

In fact, that's just one reason, one example of why we are entitled to HAVE laws placing limits on the numbers of outsiders who are granted permission to enter and/or remain in our country.

Why you libs have such a studiously hard time grasping the painfully obvious is a bit of a mystery. It's almost like you WANT to believe that reality doesn't even ******* exist.

No, our immigration system is so retarded that it really makes no difference if there are undocumented people here or not. I've known several people that have struggled to become US citizens and the ins and outs have nothing to do with anything but quota limits and red tape. Unless you're Cuban, then it is a breeze.

As for your hospital example, all you need do is allow undocumented workers to buy health care insurance. That would actually BENEFIT all of us because it would put more people in the pool and bring rates down.

You're going to have to try harder if you want to prove that being undocumented victimizes anyone.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is astounding reasoning from a guy that thinks TSA agents want to get into his pants.

Also, it is incorrect.

Lawsuit alleges ICE agents illegally detained, assaulted Grand Rapids residents | Michigan Radio

I am the guy that will argue all day that cops abuse their power, is you posting a story about cops abusing their power supposed to make me defensive?

Tell me something, why did ICE approach them? Do you think it was because they looked Hispanic? Didn't I just argue that ICE does that all the time, which is why they did not try to use it against Arizona? Did I also not point out that ICE has the authority to ask anyone in this country to declare their citizenship?

Thanks for making my point for me though.

Well, gee....you said if ICE detains someone and the someone declares their citizenship, ICE will leave them alone. I showed you to be incorrect.

ICE, under the law, is required to have probable cause to detain people. ICE is also full of people who break the law. Intelligent people understand this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My premise is that stopping someone because they LOOK like an alien (meaning they look hispanic) and demanding they identify their origin (whether that person is native born or an actual immigrant of whatever legal or illegal stripe) goes against everything we stand for.

But that's not in the slightest little bit what the law addresses.

Again, it is only AFTER an otherwise lawful police encounter with an individual (such as a lawful traffic stop, etc) that the officer asks anybody (illegal alien, legal alien of citizen) "where are you from?" The question doesn't affect me even if I look like one of President Bush's brown skinned relatives. If I am here legally, the asking of the question is of no consequence.

It is only if I am here illegally that the asking of the question poses a problem for me.

And as to that "problem," I cannot pretend to have any particular sympathy for the person being questioned.

so in other words, the police can come search your house without a warrant because if you have nothing to hide, then it's ok

The Mercedes-Benz exec was here legally and yet somehow he had a problem.

And lol, so did this guy:

First to be arrested was a German director of the Mercedes-Benz factory in Tuscaloosa for failing to carry his driver’s license. Next came the detention of Honda manager Ichiro Yada at a checkpoint in Leeds, Ala,

Yada produced a passport, U.S. work permit, and international driver’s license, none of which satisfied Leed’s law officers . They wrote Yada a ticket and released him on a signature bond.

Police say Yada should have had in his possession either an Alabama license or one issued by Japan. The charges were dismissed only when Yada’s attorney faxed a copy of his Japanese driver’s license to the judge.

Business Blog » Alabama nabs foreign auto execs in immigration crackdowns

A bunch of cops being their typical, moronic self. The truth, if you want to get into it, is that they probably gave the cops lip, and got arrested for contempt of cop. That does not make the law bad, it makes the cops bad. If you want to argue that we should get rid of laws that let cops do bad things then we will have to get rid of every law ever written. Doesn't it make more sense to get rid of the bad cops?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

so in other words, the police can come search your house without a warrant because if you have nothing to hide, then it's ok

The Mercedes-Benz exec was here legally and yet somehow he had a problem.

And lol, so did this guy:

First to be arrested was a German director of the Mercedes-Benz factory in Tuscaloosa for failing to carry his driver’s license. Next came the detention of Honda manager Ichiro Yada at a checkpoint in Leeds, Ala,

Yada produced a passport, U.S. work permit, and international driver’s license, none of which satisfied Leed’s law officers . They wrote Yada a ticket and released him on a signature bond.

Police say Yada should have had in his possession either an Alabama license or one issued by Japan. The charges were dismissed only when Yada’s attorney faxed a copy of his Japanese driver’s license to the judge.

Business Blog » Alabama nabs foreign auto execs in immigration crackdowns

Holy shit.

Ravi has discovered that some cops suck at that whole "complying with the law" thing.

Therefore, we best rescind all criminal laws.

My bet is she thinks it only works with some laws.

 

[Ravi]

The Mercedes-Benz exec was here legally and yet somehow he had a problem.

And lol, so did this guy:


Business Blog » Alabama nabs foreign auto execs in immigration crackdowns

Holy shit.

Ravi has discovered that some cops suck at that whole "complying with the law" thing.

Therefore, we best rescind all criminal laws.

My bet is she thinks it only works with some laws.

For once in your life, you are correct. Keep reading the thread.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Holy shit.

Ravi has discovered that some cops suck at that whole "complying with the law" thing.

Therefore, we best rescind all criminal laws.

My bet is she thinks it only works with some laws.

For once in your life, you are correct. Keep reading the thread.

Victimless crimes like, for example, illegal stock manipulation? Or does that not count because people make money off of it?

 

[Foxfyre]

My bet is she thinks it only works with some laws.

For once in your life, you are correct. Keep reading the thread.

Victimless crimes like, for example, illegal stock manipulation? Or does that not count because people make money off of it?

The point is that we are either a nation tempered by the law or we are not. People visiting in this country are required to have specific forms of identification and documentation or proper licenses, etc. when that is required. And yes, when people get snippy with the cops, the cops are far more likely to react by more strict application of the law. We honestly don't know what happened in these cases, but the fact that the proper documentation was provided rather than there being an embassy intervention is a pretty good indication that the cops were acting lawfully. Try bending the rules in most other countries and get snippy with the local law and I'm guessing that won't go well almost anywhere.

Can cops go overboard in strict application of the law? Of course they can. And some do. Most don't.

Can cops choose not to apply the full penalty of breaking the law? They can do that too, and I will be forever grateful for cops and a couple of judges who have given me a break in traffic infractions. I'm guessing it might not have been as positive an outcome had I failed to have all required documentation with me, however--license, proof of insurance, registration.

But when we break the law, it should make absolutely no differenvce whether we are black, white, Japanese, Hispanic or polka dotted, we should all be subject to whatever the designated consequences are for that and nobody should be exempt because they are black, white Japanes, Mexican, polka dotted or a representative of any other demographic. And if we use political correctness to hamstring the police from enforcing the law, there are very likely going to be consequences for all lawful demographic groups.

 

[Liability]

Who?

The fact that you (and you are sadly not alone) can even "ask" such a dopey question constitutes evidence of why the liberals cannot be trusted in positions of responsibility.

Every single illegal alien here jumped the line in front of all those poor schlubs who have tried to comply with the much more complicated and difficult LAWFUL immigration laws.

They hurt all of them.

And if the illegal alien who has no ******* right to even BE here happens to get hurt, he/she or they can go (and do go) to ANY hospital for emergency treatment and GET it. they cannot pay and most often do not pay. But that means either the hospital doesn't GET paid OR the rest of us have to take up the slack via higher hospital costs, higher insurance costs and/or higher taxes. So it hurts all of us.

In fact, that's just one reason, one example of why we are entitled to HAVE laws placing limits on the numbers of outsiders who are granted permission to enter and/or remain in our country.

Why you libs have such a studiously hard time grasping the painfully obvious is a bit of a mystery. It's almost like you WANT to believe that reality doesn't even ******* exist.

No, our immigration system is so retarded that it really makes no difference if there are undocumented people here or not.

While I obviously cannot disagree that our Immigration "system" is a clusterfuck (it is, you got that right), I obviously can and do disagree with your claim that "it really makes no difference." As I correctly noted, it does make a difference. It makes a very big difference.

I've known several people that have struggled to become US citizens and the ins and outs have nothing to do with anything but quota limits and red tape. Unless you're Cuban, then it is a breeze.

Probably true in lots of cases. And I will agree with you that it sucks. But again, so what. It's difficult. And?

As for your hospital example, all you need do is allow undocumented workers to buy health care insurance. That would actually BENEFIT all of us because it would put more people in the pool and bring rates down.

Allow? They come here in MANY cases to do the menial work that the rest of us Americans wont do. I mean that IS the meme, right? So how the **** do they AFFORD to buy insurance when they're struggling to buy -- food, shelter, clothing? And the answer is -- they can't. And they don't have to. ALL they have to do is go to OUR hospitals and get FREE stuff, courtesy of the rest of us. They call that a "burden" on the system. But it's really a burden on the chumps who comply with the law and who work HARD for their place in our society.

You're going to have to try harder if you want to prove that being undocumented victimizes anyone.

Not at all. YOU have the insurmountable battle ahead of YOU. So far all your "arguments" are pitiable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For once in your life, you are correct. Keep reading the thread.

Victimless crimes like, for example, illegal stock manipulation? Or does that not count because people make money off of it?

The point is that we are either a nation tempered by the law or we are not. People visiting in this country are required to have specific forms of identification and documentation or proper licenses, etc. when that is required. And yes, when people get snippy with the cops, the cops are far more likely to react by more strict application of the law. We honestly don't know what happened in these cases, but the fact that the proper documentation was provided rather than there being an embassy intervention is a pretty good indication that the cops were acting lawfully. Try bending the rules in most other countries and get snippy with the local law and I'm guessing that won't go well almost anywhere.

Can cops go overboard in strict application of the law? Of course they can. And some do. Most don't.

Can cops choose not to apply the full penalty of breaking the law? They can do that too, and I will be forever grateful for cops and a couple of judges who have given me a break in traffic infractions. I'm guessing it might not have been as positive an outcome had I failed to have all required documentation with me, however--license, proof of insurance, registration.

But when we break the law, it should make absolutely no differenvce whether we are black, white, Japanese, Hispanic or polka dotted, we should all be subject to whatever the designated consequences are for that and nobody should be exempt because they are black, white Japanes, Mexican, polka dotted or a representative of any other demographic. And if we use political correctness to hamstring the police from enforcing the law, there are very likely going to be consequences for all lawful demographic groups.

I know what the point is, which is why I am mocking her. I suppose I could have pointed out that her definition of victimless crime is wrong, but I would rather use the wrong definition to show her she doesn't really mean what she said.

 

[Navy1960]

Navy, you're giving all the leftist and libertarian arguments. I know some at CATO support your point of view and the leftist press is reporting all the things you are reporting.

But I just looked at the statistics. Arizona's GDP is up and unemployment is down since the law went into effect. Tourism seems to be doing just fine and dandy. Arizona's unemployment rate is roughly that of the national average and down significantly over the last two years.

Where is all the hardship the law is producing?

Arizona economy booming despite controversy — RT

For 2012, we expect increases in average annual growth of 3.9% for personal income, 1.3% for nonfarm employment, 0.5% for population, and near 5% for retail sales. In absolute numbers, that’s 30,000 new residents, and a similar number for nonfarm employment. The following year will bring 64,000 new residents and 54,000 new jobs. By 2015 the numbers will be near “normal” at 135,000 and 120,000, respectively. The accompanying forecast tables provide additional details.

By mid-decade, we will have regained all the jobs lost and repaired the damage suffered during the recession. At this point, after all we’ve been through, that’s sounds pretty good.
: Arizona's Economy : Economic and Business Research Center : Eller College of Management : The University of Arizona

Arizona's economy started to slowly recover from 2008 prior to the Law going into effect, and it has not been put into full effect as you may well know, until the SCOTUS decides on this issue and lifts sections of the law that are currently under the 9ths ruling ,however, in answer to your question.

The tab for defending the state against lawsuits stemming from Senate Bill 1070, Arizona's controversial immigration law, is now more than $2 milllion dollars and climbing and at this point see no end in sight, while it's true that some of these suits that are directly paid for with donations to defend the law, state costs are not. The Arizona tax payers pick up the tab for that. The Arizona Tourism industry which is the lifesblood of this state in terms of it's economy aside from housing and as you can see our housing industry is not all that well at the moment, has lost, 490 Million dollars in lost revenue and over 3000 jobs as a result of this law according to the Arizona Tourism Employers. Even if this figure is 50% off it's still 50% too high in an economy that is as U of A has shown is slowly on the mend and is far from healthy.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the state's $8.3 billion FY2012 budget into law on April 7, 2011. Using mostly cuts, the budget eliminates a projected $1.1 billion shortfall.[1] The budget is 20% smaller than it was four years ago.[2]

Spending cuts include:[1][16]
• $198 million from universities, approximately a 40% reduction in state support to the schools from the past thee years
•$183.2 million from K-12 schools
•nearly $72.9 million from community colleges
•$50.4 million from the state's social-service agency
Arizona state budget - Sunshine Review

Forgive me Fox, but I don't see how when you have Federal Laws that already address the subject of immigration and knowing that your state already has issues such as I mentioned above, a legislator would be willing to put the state in a position where it has to spend even more money for a law that will have little if any impact on illegal immgration other than to clog the courts with any number of lawsuits costing the citizens of this state. The other issue I find disturbing here is that with 183 Million dollars in cuts to schools, and last in education in the nation, as a legislator you would focus on an issue that is less a priority for State Govt. than it is for the Federal Govt. at the expense of the citizens of this state. No matter, we will have to disagree on this issue, while, I am a huge advocate for providing resources and Federal immigration reform and enforcing the laws we have now on a Federal level, the state of Arizona has other more pressing issues to deal with other than one's that are clearly better solved on a national level. When I see an Arizona Law Officer who has lost his or her job because of budget cuts, and then a willingness to spend the states money on these sorts of issues I tend to think our legislature spends more time worrying about that people think about them personally and less time owrry about the citizens of this great state.

 

[Foxfyre]

Navy, you're giving all the leftist and libertarian arguments. I know some at CATO support your point of view and the leftist press is reporting all the things you are reporting.

But I just looked at the statistics. Arizona's GDP is up and unemployment is down since the law went into effect. Tourism seems to be doing just fine and dandy. Arizona's unemployment rate is roughly that of the national average and down significantly over the last two years.

Where is all the hardship the law is producing?

Arizona economy booming despite controversy — RT

For 2012, we expect increases in average annual growth of 3.9% for personal income, 1.3% for nonfarm employment, 0.5% for population, and near 5% for retail sales. In absolute numbers, that’s 30,000 new residents, and a similar number for nonfarm employment. The following year will bring 64,000 new residents and 54,000 new jobs. By 2015 the numbers will be near “normal” at 135,000 and 120,000, respectively. The accompanying forecast tables provide additional details.

By mid-decade, we will have regained all the jobs lost and repaired the damage suffered during the recession. At this point, after all we’ve been through, that’s sounds pretty good.
: Arizona's Economy : Economic and Business Research Center : Eller College of Management : The University of Arizona

Arizona's economy started to slowly recover from 2008 prior to the Law going into effect, and it has not been put into full effect as you may well know, until the SCOTUS decides on this issue and lifts sections of the law that are currently under the 9ths ruling ,however, in answer to your question.

The tab for defending the state against lawsuits stemming from Senate Bill 1070, Arizona's controversial immigration law, is now more than $2 milllion dollars and climbing and at this point see no end in sight, while it's true that some of these suits that are directly paid for with donations to defend the law, state costs are not. The Arizona tax payers pick up the tab for that. The Arizona Tourism industry which is the lifesblood of this state in terms of it's economy aside from housing and as you can see our housing industry is not all that well at the moment, has lost, 490 Million dollars in lost revenue and over 3000 jobs as a result of this law according to the Arizona Tourism Employers. Even if this figure is 50% off it's still 50% too high in an economy that is as U of A has shown is slowly on the mend and is far from healthy.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the state's $8.3 billion FY2012 budget into law on April 7, 2011. Using mostly cuts, the budget eliminates a projected $1.1 billion shortfall.[1] The budget is 20% smaller than it was four years ago.[2]

Spending cuts include:[1][16]
• $198 million from universities, approximately a 40% reduction in state support to the schools from the past thee years
•$183.2 million from K-12 schools
•nearly $72.9 million from community colleges
•$50.4 million from the state's social-service agency
Arizona state budget - Sunshine Review

Forgive me Fox, but I don't see how when you have Federal Laws that already address the subject of immigration and knowing that your state already has issues such as I mentioned above, a legislator would be willing to put the state in a position where it has to spend even more money for a law that will have little if any impact on illegal immgration other than to clog the courts with any number of lawsuits costing the citizens of this state. The other issue I find disturbing here is that with 183 Million dollars in cuts to schools, and last in education in the nation, as a legislator you would focus on an issue that is less a priority for State Govt. than it is for the Federal Govt. at the expense of the citizens of this state. No matter, we will have to disagree on this issue, while, I am a huge advocate for providing resources and Federal immigration reform and enforcing the laws we have now on a Federal level, the state of Arizona has other more pressing issues to deal with other than one's that are clearly better solved on a national level. When I see an Arizona Law Officer who has lost his or her job because of budget cuts, and then a willingness to spend the states money on these sorts of issues I tend to think our legislature spends more time worrying about that people think about them personally and less time owrry about the citizens of this great state.

I would have to see the other data. Are there as many illegals in Arizona now as there were before? Are your emergency rooms as clogged with them? Are your public assistance resources as strained beccause of them as before? Are your schools struggling to meet their obligations to educate them? All that has to be measured against the lawsuits which, if Arizona prevails in them, will become less and less until a consistent law is again established and enforced.

The Supreme Court arguments have been fascinating. The Obama Administration actually seems to be arguing that they don't want the states to interfere with the feds non enforcement of the law. They don't want the states doing the job the feds have been unwilling to do. Even Sotomayor realized the absurdity of it and suggested the Administration needs a more persuasive argument.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court arguments have been fascinating. The Obama Administration actually seems to be arguing that they don't want the states to interfere with the feds non enforcement of the law.

The government’s argument is that 1070-type laws preempt Federal statutes, which they do.

They don't want the states doing the job the feds have been unwilling to do. Even Sotomayor realized the absurdity of it and suggested the Administration needs a more persuasive argument.

Incorrect, the Federal agencies responsible for enforcing immigration law are doing just that – within the limits of finite resources. It would be irresponsible idiocy to expect those Federal agencies to chase down every border crosser while allowing violent criminals and drug dealers to go free.

And Justice Sotomayor’s comment was an acknowledgement of the conservative justices’ willingness to entertain that irresponsible idiocy.

 

[Navy1960]

Navy, you're giving all the leftist and libertarian arguments. I know some at CATO support your point of view and the leftist press is reporting all the things you are reporting.

But I just looked at the statistics. Arizona's GDP is up and unemployment is down since the law went into effect. Tourism seems to be doing just fine and dandy. Arizona's unemployment rate is roughly that of the national average and down significantly over the last two years.

Where is all the hardship the law is producing?

Arizona economy booming despite controversy — RT

For 2012, we expect increases in average annual growth of 3.9% for personal income, 1.3% for nonfarm employment, 0.5% for population, and near 5% for retail sales. In absolute numbers, that’s 30,000 new residents, and a similar number for nonfarm employment. The following year will bring 64,000 new residents and 54,000 new jobs. By 2015 the numbers will be near “normal” at 135,000 and 120,000, respectively. The accompanying forecast tables provide additional details.

By mid-decade, we will have regained all the jobs lost and repaired the damage suffered during the recession. At this point, after all we’ve been through, that’s sounds pretty good.
: Arizona's Economy : Economic and Business Research Center : Eller College of Management : The University of Arizona

Arizona's economy started to slowly recover from 2008 prior to the Law going into effect, and it has not been put into full effect as you may well know, until the SCOTUS decides on this issue and lifts sections of the law that are currently under the 9ths ruling ,however, in answer to your question.

The tab for defending the state against lawsuits stemming from Senate Bill 1070, Arizona's controversial immigration law, is now more than $2 milllion dollars and climbing and at this point see no end in sight, while it's true that some of these suits that are directly paid for with donations to defend the law, state costs are not. The Arizona tax payers pick up the tab for that. The Arizona Tourism industry which is the lifesblood of this state in terms of it's economy aside from housing and as you can see our housing industry is not all that well at the moment, has lost, 490 Million dollars in lost revenue and over 3000 jobs as a result of this law according to the Arizona Tourism Employers. Even if this figure is 50% off it's still 50% too high in an economy that is as U of A has shown is slowly on the mend and is far from healthy.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the state's $8.3 billion FY2012 budget into law on April 7, 2011. Using mostly cuts, the budget eliminates a projected $1.1 billion shortfall.[1] The budget is 20% smaller than it was four years ago.[2]

Spending cuts include:[1][16]
• $198 million from universities, approximately a 40% reduction in state support to the schools from the past thee years
•$183.2 million from K-12 schools
•nearly $72.9 million from community colleges
•$50.4 million from the state's social-service agency
Arizona state budget - Sunshine Review

Forgive me Fox, but I don't see how when you have Federal Laws that already address the subject of immigration and knowing that your state already has issues such as I mentioned above, a legislator would be willing to put the state in a position where it has to spend even more money for a law that will have little if any impact on illegal immgration other than to clog the courts with any number of lawsuits costing the citizens of this state. The other issue I find disturbing here is that with 183 Million dollars in cuts to schools, and last in education in the nation, as a legislator you would focus on an issue that is less a priority for State Govt. than it is for the Federal Govt. at the expense of the citizens of this state. No matter, we will have to disagree on this issue, while, I am a huge advocate for providing resources and Federal immigration reform and enforcing the laws we have now on a Federal level, the state of Arizona has other more pressing issues to deal with other than one's that are clearly better solved on a national level. When I see an Arizona Law Officer who has lost his or her job because of budget cuts, and then a willingness to spend the states money on these sorts of issues I tend to think our legislature spends more time worrying about that people think about them personally and less time owrry about the citizens of this great state.

I would have to see the other data. Are there as many illegals in Arizona now as there were before? Are your emergency rooms as clogged with them? Are your public assistance resources as strained beccause of them as before? Are your schools struggling to meet their obligations to educate them? All that has to be measured against the lawsuits which, if Arizona prevails in them, will become less and less until a consistent law is again established and enforced.

The Supreme Court arguments have been fascinating. The Obama Administration actually seems to be arguing that they don't want the states to interfere with the feds non enforcement of the law. They don't want the states doing the job the feds have been unwilling to do. Even Sotomayor realized the absurdity of it and suggested the Administration needs a more persuasive argument.

Monthly Census Bureau data show that the number of less-educated young Hispanic immigrants in the country has declined significantly. The evidence indicates that the illegal population declined after July 2007 and then rebounded somewhat in the summer of 2008 before resuming its decline in the fall of 2008 and into the first quarter of 2009. Both increased immigration enforcement and the recession seem to explain this decline. There is evidence that the decline was caused by both fewer illegal immigrants coming and an increase in the number returning home. However, this pattern does not apply to the legal immigrant population, which has not fallen significantly.

A Shifting Tide: Recent Trends in the Illegal Immigrant Population | Center for Immigration Studies

The entire bill has not gone into effect here yet, however parts have been in effect since July of 2010, illegal immigration has been on the decline prior to SB1070 and will likewise stay that way as long as the economy is in it's current form. It takes a little reasearch but when you do you will find that SB1070 has no benefit to Arizona at all other than to cost the state Revenue and to say that it is the main reason for the decline in population of illegal immigration here is wrong as well considering that decline was happening prior to the bills passage. The City of Phoenix has said that this law will erode the relationship between Officers and the hispanic community as well as cost the City needless money to defend it, as well the city currently has a policy in place that was similar to SB1070. The supporters of this bill see this as the State of Arizona doing something that the Federal Govt. is not doing, but the problem with that is, Arizona is not the only state in the United States, so unless SB1070 is the law if the land illegal immigrants who were to leave as a result of the law can simply go to a state near us that does not have such a law in place such as California or N.M. and leave Arizona with the cost of defending lawsuits and the stigma associated with the bill itself. This is why matters like this are best addressed on a national level and the investment is needed on a national level to solve it. As for our schools, it would not matter if there were illegals in the schools as that issue has been resolved by the SCOTUS and if they are here they are to be educated.

Some school districts that serve large immigrant neighborhoods already have seen sharp drops in enrollment. That could save the state money but hurt individual schools because every student equates to $4,404 in per-pupil state funding. Analysts say the flight of illegal immigrants also could lead to a loss of sales tax and other revenue. And their departure is hurting the apartment complexes and stores where they live and shop.
Latinos represent a huge and fast-growing market. About one in three people in Arizona is Latino, and about 40 percent are 17 or younger. In Arizona, Latinos accounted for 16 percent of all purchases in the state, or $31 billion in spending, according to a report by the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.


Arizona's illegal immigrants departure affecting businesses

Forgive me if I find laws like SB1070 written by and at the request of lobby groups to be a huge exercise in nonsense and more so these lobby groups do not have to pay the real costs associated with such legislation, we DO, the Arizona taxpayers. Again I would just say this in closing, even if this law had any effect here locally and it's my belief that any effect it does have is offset by the cost to Arizona, the very fact there are a whole host of other states that do not have these Laws, Arizona will just be a highway in which illegal immigrants pass through to get there, because this Law at least the last time I checked does not call for local police to set up it's own ports of entry and border patrol.