Calls to boycott Arizona are spreading like a virus

[wade]

Kathy, when you and I were young(er) we called that a commune. I have noticed that you and Bill still wear tie died tee shirts. Do you feel stuck in time?

 

[kathylove]

Haha! I remember when communes were popular. I was in my late teens. That never appealed to me too much - I like the idea of working more, or less, as you feel the need and motivation to do. And, of course, to reap the benefits of either choice. But in difficult times, a commune might be just the thing to get you through it. At least you can pick your fellow commune residents who will share everything with you - unlike our national commune system in which all 300 million people are your fellow commune residents - like it or not, lol!

Betsy would be a great addition to our commune, I am sure! So would many other people I know enough to value their friendship and contributions, here or elsewhere.

My brother's friend has a big RV with solar panels on the roof. He owns a couple of acres up in the Az mountains. So if it got really bad (or if a bird flu pandemic went through or something similar), I guess we could take our chickens and go to the mountains for the summer. Then they could hunt and I could cut up the game!

 

[jpccusa]

Here are some articles I found interesting

GOP on Immigration: Talking Tough While Stonewalling Attempts to Fix the Problem

As anti-immigrant ringleaders whip themselves into a frenzy over illegal immigration, and continue a strategy that is both bad for the Republican Party and bad for the country, some Republicans are suggesting another way.

As reported in Think Progress, the latest anti-immigrant meme states that President Obama should be impeached due to his "failure" to enforce immigration laws. Never mind the actual facts on immigration enforcement – that Obama’s numbers are even higher than Bush’s. According to a Washington Post piece today:

" [the Obama Administration] expects to deport about 400,000 people this fiscal year, nearly 10 percent above the Bush administration's 2008 total and 25 percent more than were deported in 2007," and the "pace of company audits has roughly quadrupled since President George W. Bush's final year in office."

It’s “metrics” like these that have gotten the Obama Administration in trouble with immigrant community leaders, who are concerned about the record pace of deportations and glacial pace of action on comprehensive immigration reform.

Still, anti-immigrant leaders like former Republican representative—and gubernatorial candidate—Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX), were never ones to let facts and reason get in their way. In an op-ed in the Washington Times last week, Tancredo made the outrageous assertion that President Obama constitutes "a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda" and called for Obama's impeachment. Tancrdo claimed that Obama’s immigration enforcement record amounts to a failure of his oath of office, "which includes the duty to defend the United States against foreign invasion." Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) agreed, telling listeners on Lou Dobbs's radio show:

"Whatever law they're not enforcing, I think it comes awfully close to a violation of their oath of office."

Despite the Party's drift toward extremism on immigration, some Republicans such as Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) are bravely promoting an unpopular idea within today’s GOP: bipartisan problem-solving, on the issue of immigration no less. On ABC's This Week, Gov. Christie called for comprehensive immigration reform and a federal solution to the broken system, saying:

"The president and the Congress have to step up to the plate, they have to secure our borders, and they have to put forward a commonsense path to citizenship for people... States are going to struggle all over the country with this problem [until President Obama and Congress craft an immigration reform measure], and so is federal law enforcement, who doesn't have the resources to do it effectively."

Similarly, Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) summarized the politics of immigration nicely when he said,

"Republicans see a short-term benefit because of the popularity of the Arizona law. But then, a lot of Republicans realize, long term, this is not a winner for the party to take a position that is so distant from the largest-growing demographic. Some are willing to sacrifice the short term for the long term."

On immigration issues, the Tancredo wing of the Republican Party is driving the GOP agenda on immigration these days. Not only does this imperil the Party’s long-term viability in many states due to simple demographics, but it also represents the triumph of nativism - unpersuaded by facts and reality - over pragmatism, reason, and problem-solving.

The Republican Party has a choice - would it rather rail against illegal immigration while stonewalling action on actual solutions, or roll up its sleeves to--gasp--work with Democrats to address the problem with comprehensive reform?

I suggest the answer lies with Party leaders who have figured out how to win in contested races, like Christie, not “leaders” like Tancredo and Smith who are bent on driving the party further into oblivion with the fastest-growing group of new voters, Latinos.

Source: http://americasvoiceonline.org/blog..._tough_while_stonewalling_attempts_to_fix_th/

Amid Immigration Debate, Americans' Views Ease Slightly
Preference for decreased immigration remains, but to a lesser degree than a year ago
by Lymari Morales

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans remain more likely to say immigration should be decreased (45%) rather than kept at its present level (34%) or increased (17%), but the gap between the two most popular options has narrowed from a year ago. The shift comes amid continuing political and legal wrangling over comprehensive immigration reform and the passage of Arizona's contested immigration law.

The Gallup survey conducted July 8-11, 2010, marks an easing of views from last year, when Americans more clearly favored less immigration over the status quo, and a return to the more divided views of 2007. The national debate over immigration, plus Arizona's new law and an improving but still struggling economy are likely all in play as Americans assess the issue. Americans have generally been tougher on immigration since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, than they were immediately before them, in most instances supporting less immigration rather than the same amount or more, but rarely providing a clear mandate.

The majority of Americans continue to say immigration, on the whole, is a good thing rather than a bad thing for the country -- though they are less positive about it now than they have been at most points in the last decade.

All three party groups follow the same pattern as the national averages, with at least a plurality preferring decreased immigration and a majority saying immigration overall is a good thing. Republicans are the most likely to favor reduced immigration, but views by party do not diverge to the extent they do on other issues.

Implications

Gallup continues to find Americans expressing fairly nuanced views on immigration. While Americans are consistent in saying they do not want immigration increased, they are more divided and wavering about whether immigration should be decreased or kept at its present level. Americans see value in both halting the incoming flow of illegal immigrants and dealing with those currently in the United States. They are also more likely to favor than oppose Arizona's new immigration law and more likely to oppose than favor the federal government lawsuit to block that law.

Federal action to date reflects a sense of the complexities involved. While immigration reform has yet to become a near-term legislative priority, President Obama earlier this month said his administration would demand more accountability for enforcing existing immigration laws, and urged all parties to move beyond "the two poles of this debate." According to a report in Monday's Washington Post, the administration is deporting record numbers of illegal immigrants and performing more audits of businesses believed to be hiring illegal workers.

Immigration ranks fourth among the most important problems facing the country in the same July 8-11 Gallup poll, conducted prior to the passage of financial reform legislation -- which up to now presented a competing priority. As lawmakers consider how to address the immigration issue going forward, they would be wise to remember that Americans tend to see immigration as a good thing but at the same time tend to want less of it. Taken together, their views suggest widespread support for policies to make legal -- rather than illegal -- immigration the norm.

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/141560/A...htly.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&u

And finally,

Global Warming Means More Mexican Immigration?
As Mexican crops wither, immigration to the U.S. might increase.

Disputes over illegal Mexican immigrants are already heating up in the United States, thanks in part to a new Arizona immigration law.

But global warming could bring the immigration issue to a boiling point in the coming decades, if a new study holds true.

According a new computer model, a total of nearly seven million additional Mexicans could emigrate to the U.S. by 2080 as a result of reduced crop yields brought about by a hotter, drier climate—assuming other factors influencing immigration remain unchanged.

"The model shows that climate-driven refugees could be a big deal in the future," said study co-author Michael Oppenheimer, an atmospheric scientist at Princeton University in New Jersey.

(Related: "Climate Change Creating Millions of 'Eco Refugees,' UN Warns.")

Using data on Mexican emigration as well as climate and crop yields in 30 Mexican states between 1995 and 2005, Oppenheimer and colleagues created the computer model to predict the effect of climate change on the rate of people crossing the border.

In that ten-year period, 2 percent of the Mexican population emigrated to the U.S. for every 10 percent reduction in crop yield.

Using the model to extrapolate this real-world figure over the next 70 years, the researchers calculated that 1.4 to 6.7 million adult Mexicans—a number roughly equal to 10 percent of Mexico's current adult population—could migrate to the U.S. by 2080.

The research is one of the first attempts by scientists to put hard numbers on how climate change can affect human migration patterns.

"Our study is the first to build a model that can be used for projecting the effects on migration of future climate change," Oppenheimer said.

(Related: "Global Warming Threatens Coffee Collapse in Uganda.")

Global Warming Study "a Simplification"

Though the new global warming study is "original and very interesting," it shouldn't be interpreted as a forecast of what will happen, economist Ian Goldin, who wasn't involved in the project, said via email.

"The [end of the] time range—2080—is a very long time off, and there are many other factors [besides climate change] which may lead to a very different outcome," said Goldin, director of the University of Oxford's James Martin 21st Century School.

Barry Smit, a climate-impact scientist at the University of Guelph in Canada, agreed.

"I wouldn't take these numbers to the bank," said Smit, who also wasn't involved in the research, which is published in this week's issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

To reach their conclusions, the authors had to make some "heroic assumptions," Smit said, such as that the current economic and political situations of the U.S. and Mexico won't change for decades.

Study co-author Oppenheimer acknowledged there are many uncertainties in his team's model. But it's important for scientists to investigate climate change-induced migration quantitatively, he said.

"This is the first time anybody's built a model to do this," Oppenheimer said. "It's a simplification, and there are a lot of assumptions, but it's the start of a learning process. As we learn more, the model will improve, and the numbers will get more reliable."

(Also see "Global Warming Making People More Aggressive?")

U.S. Should Help Mexicans Adapt to Warming?

Despite its limitations, the Mexican-immigration model could help spur governments to start thinking about how they'll deal with so-called eco-migrants created by global warming, the University of Guelph's Smit said.

"The takeaway message for me of this study is that there is indeed a relationship between changes in crop yield and the movement of people," Smit said. "And to the extent that future climate change will introduce more of those stresses on yields, we can expect more pressures on the movement of people."

If the U.S. and other developed nations start thinking about climate change-related immigration now, before it becomes a major problem, they could take steps that would help reduce the amount of immigration in the first place, said Robert McLeman, a geographer who studies climate migration at Canada's University of Ottawa.

Toward this end, developed nations can do a lot to help their poorer neighbors, said McLeman, who wasn't involved in the modeling.

For example, the U.S. could make it easier for Mexican crops to reach U.S. markets, McLeman said. Or the U.S. could help Mexico create new, non-agricultural employment opportunities by encouraging other industries in rural areas.

"One of the things I encourage policymakers to think about is that people don't have to migrate if they have other means of adapting to climate change where they already live," he added.

Emigration is "often a last resort," McLeman said. "The more options you give people, the less 'distress migration' you're likely to encounter."

A real-world example of this is Bangladesh, a country whose coastal inhabitants are currently struggling with climate change-related sea level rises, the University of Guelph's Smit said.

"You might think that this would cause millions and millions of people to move somewhere else, but many of them are adapting," Smit said.

"They're doing things to change their basis of living, such as building floating gardens and harvesting crabs."

No Downside to Preempting Global Warming Immigration?

In some sense, it may not matter whether the study is right or wrong.

The University of Ottawa's McLeman, for example, argues that many of the things the U.S. could do to help Mexico adapt to global warming will also help improve the quality of life for many of Mexico's poor.

"A lot of the things that we could be doing are things that we should be doing anyway," he said.

"Even if it turns out that our future projections about climate change impacts aren't right, it's still a good investment. I don't see any downside to it."

Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...aw-global-warming-mexican-environment-nation/

 

[airenlow]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/27/arizona-hotels-thriving-despite-boycotts-immigration-law/

 

[jpccusa]

Since I don't trust FoxNews for news, here it goes: http://travel.usatoday.com/hotels/p...-hurting-hotels-its-too-early-to-say/101483/1

 

[jpccusa]

Here is an initial ruling

Judge Blocks Key Parts of Immigration Law in Arizona
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
Published: July 28, 2010

PHOENIX — A federal judge, ruling on a clash between the federal government and a state over immigration policy, has blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law from going into effect.

In a ruling on a law that has rocked politics coast to coast and thrown a spotlight on the border state’s fierce debate over immigration, United States District Court Judge Susan Bolton in Phoenix said some aspects of the law can go into effect as scheduled on Thursday.

The parts of the law that the judge blocked included the sections that called for officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws and that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times. Judge Bolton put those sections on hold until the issues are resolved by the courts.

The judge’s decision, which came as demonstrators opposed and supporting the law gathered here and after three hearings in the past two weeks in which she peppered lawyers on both sides with skeptical questions, seemed unlikely to quell the debate.

The ruling came four days before 1,200 National Guard troops are to report to the Southwest border to assist federal and local law enforcement agencies there, part of the Obama administration’s response to growing anxiety over the border and immigration that has fed support for the law.

Lawyers for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican who signed the law and is campaigning on it for election, were expected to appeal, and legal experts predict the case is bound for the United States Supreme Court.

The law, adopted in April, was aimed at discouraging illegal immigrants from entering or remaining in the state.

It coincided with economic anxiety and followed a number of high-profile crimes attributed to illegal immigrants and smuggling, though federal data suggests crime is falling in Arizona, as it is nationally, despite a surge of immigration.

Seven lawsuits have been filed against the law, challenging its constitutionality and alleging it will lead to racial profiling.

The Justice Department lawsuit was among the more high profile, filed after President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder condemned the law.

It also lead to mass demonstrations in Phoenix, for and against it, and a national campaign by civil rights groups to boycott the state.

The Mexican government warned its citizens about traveling to the state and filed a brief in court supporting the lawsuits. Its human rights commission was sending inspectors to the border in anticipation of an escalation in deportations.

But the law also has attracted support, with polls showing a majority of Americans support the notion of local police assisting in federal immigration enforcement.

The Obama administration struggled to respond. After the law was adopted it defended its handling of the border and immigration while urging Congress to enact a sweeping change in immigration law.

Judge Bolton conducted three hearings on the lawsuits.

Justice Department lawyers argued the state law amounted to regulation of immigration, the exclusive authority of the federal government. They said the law goes too far in requiring local police to make immigration checks and that federal agencies would be overwhelmed in responding to the requests.

In addition, they argued that the law could lead to harassment of legal residents and citizens who fell under suspicion by the police and could damage relations with Mexico and other countries the United States relies on for cooperation with law enforcement and other matters.

Judge Bolton at times did not sound open to the federal government’s arguments.

“Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?” she asked Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler last week.

“It is not for one of our states to be inhospitable in the way this statute does,” he replied, echoing arguments from other lawyers who have warned against a patchwork of state and local immigration laws.

At another point, she asked, “Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?”

She suggested the immigration agency could simply refuse to pick up someone referred by the police, a tact federal officials have hinted could be their response if the law goes forward. But she seemed reluctant to accept that local police making the inquiry intruded on federal authority.

John Bouma, a lawyer for the state, said the law closely hews to federal statutes and follows the intent of Congress to give states a role in enforcing immigration laws.

He said Arizona was being irreparably harmed by the flow of immigration across the border – more people are apprehended crossing the border in Arizona than any other state – and the state should not be penalized for stepping in where the federal government has not.

“The status quo is simply unacceptable,” he said.

But Judge Bolton seemed flustered by vague wording in the law and questioned, among other things, if people arrested for any crime would be detained for unusually long periods while their immigration status was being determined, as the law requires.

She also questioned whether local police could arrest somebody without a warrant if they believe they have committed a deportable offense. Determining who gets deported is typically left to a judge.

 

[jpccusa]

And another report

Report: Population Growth Depends On Immigration
By Elise Foley 7/28/10 1:21 PM

U.S. population growth is petering out, with future growth to come mostly through immigration from developing countries, according to a report released today by the nonpartisan Population Reference Bureau. Andrea Stone of AOL News reports that U.S. immigration laws and policies could impact population growth:

The Population Research Bureau [sic] said in a report released today that the rate of increase over the next four decades “depends largely on future trends in international migration.” It said that the current population of 310 million could increase to 399 million, 423 million or 458 million by 2050, depending on immigration trends and, by extension, immigration laws, over the next 40 years.

The group’s 2010 World Population Data Sheet defined low net immigration at 1.1 million to 1.8 million per year and high immigration at a range of 1.5 million to 2.4 million per year.

Current immigration laws put the U.S. on the low side for net immigration — at least for legal entry into the country. The government caps green cards at a certain number each year. In 2009, that meant about 1.1 million people became legal permanent residents of the U.S., according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Of course, that’s not counting illegal immigrants — DHS estimated 10.8 people were living in the U.S. illegally in 2009. But advocates of higher quotas argue that increasing the number of people who could legally enter the U.S. would also decrease illegal immigration. “We have a fundamental problem as a country accepting the idea that we need immigration numbers,” Mary Giovagnoli, director of Immigration Policy Center told TWI. “If we had a legal immigration system that worked, it would reduce the incentive for illegal immigration.”

Source: http://washingtonindependent.com/92906/report-population-growth-depends-on-immigration

 

[airenlow]

Do we need the population to increase?

 

[Lovin2act]

Welp, since illegal clearly means the same thing as legal now, I am gonna go learn to smoke the ol bong I suppose. It will calm down my anger and if they try to arrest me for having an illegal substance I will simply sue the country for enforcing one law but not another. Let the anarchy begin!

 

[starsevol]

Welp, since illegal clearly means the same thing as legal now, I am gonna go learn to smoke the ol bong I suppose. It will calm down my anger and if they try to arrest me for having an illegal substance I will simply sue the country for enforcing one law but not another. Let the anarchy begin!

Markus, I think I love you!

 

[Lovin2act]

Markus, I think I love you!

The love is returned :cheers:

 

[jpccusa]

Welp, since illegal clearly means the same thing as legal now, I am gonna go learn to smoke the ol bong I suppose. It will calm down my anger and if they try to arrest me for having an illegal substance I will simply sue the country for enforcing one law but not another. Let the anarchy begin!

Well, if you are talking about smoking pot in a bong, you can actually do that legally in CA. You just need to know a "good" doctor.

 

[wstphal]

Do we need the population to increase?

If we want people to pay taxes to take care of all the Baby Boomers who are now retiring, YES, we want population growth. Otherwise Medicare & Social Security will go broke even faster than the CBO has predicted.

Otherwise, probably not.

 

[Lovin2act]

Well, if you are talking about smoking pot in a bong, you can actually do that legally in CA. You just need to know a "good" doctor.

Haha well then....hook a brother up

 

[Lovin2act]

If we want people to pay taxes to take care of all the Baby Boomers who are now retiring, YES, we want population growth. Otherwise Medicare & Social Security will go broke even faster than the CBO has predicted.

Otherwise, probably not.

Good point indeed

 

[airenlow]

If we want people to pay taxes to take care of all the Baby Boomers who are now retiring, YES, we want population growth. Otherwise Medicare & Social Security will go broke even faster than the CBO has predicted.

Otherwise, probably not.

Hmm...tough call! :uhoh:

 

[jpccusa]

Haha well then....hook a brother up

You can start here Markus:

Medical Marijuana Identification Card Program
Public Health Services

The County of Orange is now accepting applications for Medical Marijuana Identification Cards (MMIC). By action of the Board of Supervisors, a fee of $150 dollars will be charged for cards issued to qualified patients and their caregivers. By state law, the fee for cards issued to qualified Medi-Cal patients and their caregivers will be one-half of the regular fee, or $75.
For general information about the State Medical Marijuana Program, please refer to their website at www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/MMP/Pages/Medical Marijuana Program.aspx. Additional information about the identification card application process in the County of Orange will be posted on this site as it becomes available.

 

[Lovin2act]

You can start here Markus:

Sweeeeet!! :dancer: Now to think of some ailment that I may have. My sore tennis elbow, or the kink in my neck after sleeping in a bad position! :crazy02:

 

[Outcast]

Get PTSD, that might help out your cause..... someone around here found out that I have been diagnosed with PTSD and told me that I could get a prescription for medical marijuana. Though, honestly I would rather not start smoking it right now...lol

 

[ghosthousecorns]

f we want people to pay taxes to take care of all the Baby Boomers who are now retiring, YES, we want population growth. Otherwise Medicare & Social Security will go broke even faster than the CBO has predicted.

That's the worst reason I think I ever heard to have a population increase... so someone pays social security for the aging retired ones? Really? Then who pays for those people when they get old? And would the population not have to increase exponentially to work that way?
LOL I know it wasn't meant seriously but overpopulation of the planet is something I really care about. In fact, too many humans on planet Earth just gets me a lot more angry than too many illegals in the U.S. for some reason.