Factual, huh? In the very first sentence the article states that Bolton declared the Arizona law unconstitutional - not true. It may not survive a court case, which is why it will now go to court, but Bolton cannot make that decision without a trial.
It also states that Bolton said it infringes on federal jurisdiction - same thing. As usual in such articles facts are twisted, spun and generally distorted to the point they no longer have any value.
I have read the bill. It is one bill, passed with one collective vote. Yes, the courts will probably rule on separate clauses separately as a method to indicate just why it is wrong and perhaps to help Arizona make a different one.
That does not change the FACT that Bolton can not make such a declaration without a trial. Your article is just more spin.
You seem to be making the point that the hyperbole (rampant crime caused by an invasion of the dreaded Mexican horde) is true; and the FACTS - reduced violent crime and illegal crossings, are just spin.
You misunderstand the thrust of my comment, Ron. When an article presents obvious falsehoods to help the spin on what they are presenting it throws the entire article in doubt.
Has the number of police officers increased during the period in question? What is the percentage of illegal aliens vs citizens in the jails or deported for violent crime? It is well documented that illegals are leaving Arizona after the passage of the bill - how much of the decreased illegal crossing is due to increased efforts by various law enforcement?
All questions that are germane to the article, but never presented. The whole article is an effort to present only one side and to emotionally convince the reader that that side is correct. It is well disguised by so-called facts, figures and statistics, but all those facts are really thrown into serious doubt with the use of so much spin and falsehood.
I posted, via cut and paste, the falsehood; you said is was not pertinent.
I repeated the fact the Bolton can't do what the article said she did; you ignored it and suggested I go on Fox.
Now you again ask for the same falsehood I've shown twice and you ignored while introducing additional emotional arguments about Obama and again claim the article contains only facts.
The appearance (which I do not claim to be fact) is that you have found an article that agrees with your own emotional assessment of the problem and you accept it in toto without evaluation or consideration of the opposite viewpoint.
It is not a method of problem solving I choose to endorse. I have instead done considerable research on the effects of illegal immigration and found that the figures above are spun so badly as to be meaningless - some of the questions I asked earlier are indeed pertinent and need to be considered. There are, in addition, more aspects to the problem than simple violent crime statistics.
It is true that Phoenix has in recent years seen a spate of kidnappings. But in almost every case they've involved drug traffickers targeting other narcos for payment shakedowns, and the 318 abductions reported last year were actually down 11% from 2008. Either way, the figure hardly makes Phoenix, as Arizona Senator John McCain claimed last month, "the No. 2 kidnapping capital of the world" behind Mexico City. A number of Latin American capitals can claim that dubious distinction.
My brother lives in Phoenix and he says it is out of control and the news media does not report the truth to all of the country nor all of the facts. My brother says it is very scary to live in Phoenix. His wife will not leave the house, and she panics when he leaves which he has to do daily, he works in security for a major hospital, so I beleive him over any others especially the above who is down playing this major invasion of criminals. When did we give preferential treatment to law breakers? Does it really matter if there are more than 5 or more than 300 kidnappings up 1% or 5%, fact is any kidnapping for any reason is one too many! A lady I know and her daughter had to run from Arizona and hide because the daughter "messed" with the Mexicans! They had actually kidnapped her and she escaped after the guard fell asleep, barely getting out in time because they were ready to execute her and another female. I can assume what she did but I don't have that fact so I won't bother, but isn't it enough that these Mexican thugs are using 3rd world tactics on our soil and no fear of retribution, does that alone not open some of your eyes to the future if we don't stop the flow of these criminals and send back the worst of the worst at least make it harder for them to move about and run amok? Seriously it will be in your town tomorrow if not already there.
Jim Hunter said: " Its funny how facts differ from other facts. One of the differing facts has to be fiction."
Not necessarily. Two people can look at the same situation, or experience the same experience,and report it differently. My reality (and to me, it IS reality) may not be the same as your reality. Just as your reality is 100% authentic to you, but may be only partially authentic to me. Both of our realities may (or may not be) based on facts. Who is to say my facts are fictionalized? Or that yours are?
Besides, how can we trust any information coming out of any media or the government (federal, state or local) to be factual?
That would be a capital idea, if we could really trust that our fact-checked sources were any more truthful! Do we not tend to rely on sources that reinforce what we already believe to be facts? How many "fact-checkers" among us truly search a broad cross-section of sources vs. amassing "proof" from a limited set of sources we know to see things like we do?
Surely public education went to a great extent to train us to trust the sources without cross-checking. There is only one correct answer to every question, right? All other answers are heresy. Just choose the right source, and you have all the right answers.
And yeah, it seems natural for us to cherry pick facts that support our opinion and to "not notice" those that don't
My name is Jim and I pick facts. Who picks facts? Jim picks facts! How come only Jim picks facts? Why not Mighty, or Misha, or Moe? Can't they pick facts like Jim, we aks? They can't because they are not Jim. All the facts belong to him. Not to Mighty, Misha or Moe But only to him, the him named Jim.
"The Los Angeles Times more specifically reported that Phoenix "police received 366 kidnapping-for-ransom reports" in 2008 and that they estimate "twice that number go unreported," according to a Feb. 12, 2009, article."
Seems the dispute is whether or not Phoenix is the kidnapping Capital.
None of you seem to notice that in 2004 there were 48 reported cases of kidnapping, in 2007 there were over 300, 2008 more than 300, 2009 more than 300.
Fine - we are all for going after the drug cartels that work across the border. Do you think this law will discourage them?
If the problem is drug gang violence, why are you going after undocumented lettuce pickers?
What Ron showed with his post is that GENERALLY crime is down in AZ - and has been going DOWN while the population of undocumented workers rose. Now you want to make the discussion about drug & gang violence, which the bill won't even incidentally address.
Jim said -"It will address it if the bad guys are illegal, which most of the Mexican drug cartel members in the US are.
Glossed right over that didn't ya?"
Lacks critical thinking skills..
Example - If we stipulate that all the guards at Auschwitz were Christian - then it stands to reason that all Christinas are mass murderers.
Even you can see the falicy in that (I hope.)
If you were prosecuting the genocide of Auschwitz, you would target the specific offenders. In this example, the offenders by class were Nazi SS soldiers stationed at Auschwitz. In the same manner, if you identify that you are trying to prevent kidnappings in the US done by Mexican drug cartels, you target that group - to obtain the greatest benefit for the lowest cost.
The problem the wingnuts claim to be solving (crime) doesn't exist as they describe. Where it does exist - the kidnapping issue - isn't going to be addressed by the bill they wrote. Think about it - the cartels are sophisticated and they have money - they can produce phony documents for their memebers. After devoting endless resources on chasing hispanics with no papers - who are not the problem - the only group unaffected will be the most violent and best funded group - the cartels.
Thanks for posting this, Ron. A lot of what AZ is doing is a solution in search of a problem. The real motive is building a (hysterical) base for tea-baggers. President Obama (and President Bush) have tried to get everyone together to address a comprehensive solution. That makes sense. However, it doesn't serve the purposes of the wingnuts who would have to COMPROMISE in some areas in order to get agreement in other areas.
The actual answer - addressing the problem rationally - is DOA in DC.
Every day we hear from hubbers about how Obama is out to destroy the Constitution. Across this great nation there is a movement of very vocal, very serious "pro-contitutionalists."The Constitution is suddenly...
A California congresswoman is pointing the finger at white supremacist groups, who she says have inspired Arizona's new law cracking down on illegal immigrants.Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., told a Democratic Club on...
Let's open this with examples.Fact -The Moon's diameter is 3,474 kilometres.Lie - (This won the 2009 Lie of the Year Award - Politifact)"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with...