posted
Listening to discussions on the immigration debate I hear three main arguments for tightening enforcement.
1) Cost. The cost of illegal immigrants on the government needs to be dropped. While others argue there is a net gain, the basic cost argument won't go away.
2) Safety. From terrorists to drug dealers and drug wars to simple Hispanic thugs, my personal safety may well depend on how well our border is guarded.
3) Basic rule of law. Illegal immigrants are breaking the law to come here. Any argument or suggestion that would give them reprieve is one that slaps the rule of law in the face.
Now let us take a look at Stop Light Cameras.
1) Cost: These cameras pay for themselves, and generate revenues for the government--revenue that is paid by the guilty, not by the average citizen. Unlike a tax that everyone has to pay, or a tax on one segment or class of society, this is a tax paid by those who--drive through red lights. Its supporting the law enforcement arm of the government by taxing law breakers.
2) Safety: My personal safety often relies on people actually stopping at stop lights, and not racing to squeeze through an orange light. (An orange light is a yellow light that just turned red, so the driver still hopes its close enough to yellow not to matter.) More lives have been saved due to the reduction in stop light accidents due to stop light cameras than have been lost to terrorists and drug violence that came across illegally from our borders.
3) Rule of Law: If you drive through a red light you are breaking the law. All the crying about the cost of the ticket and the unfairness of fair cameras doesn't change the fact that you broke the law.
If there is a question of your innocence you can take the ticket to court and they are usually thrown out.
So how can some people be for tougher immigration enforcement while being against tougher traffic enforcement?
And the same politicians in Missouri that want to round up all the illegal immigrants also want to ban all the stop light cameras.
Why?
It could be because the stop light cameras do have a reputation for false accusations. It could be that they require people to prove their innocents not the state to prove their guilt. Then again the same can be said about demanding people prove their citizenship.
No. I think its one of culture.
US Culture is not Hispanic culture. (This is not a Racial issue. Its not brown vs white. Its a cultural issue. Its US Culture vs Mexican Culture.) Further, US Culture believes in Orange Lights, in Yellow Means Speed Up not Slow Down, that slipping through a red light is fine as long as no one gets hurt.
Its culture wars that explains the hypocrisy.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm for the cameras but against the enforcement tightening. Does that make me a hypocrite too?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It could be because the stop light cameras do have a reputation for false accusations. It could be that they require people to prove their innocents not the state to prove their guilt. Then again the same can be said about demanding people prove their citizenship.
No. I think its one of culture.
Or, it could be all or none of the above; or any number of other things that you just haven't thought of.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel like you neglect the fact that illegals often times bring down local economies because they accept pay that is lower than minimum wage.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: I feel like you neglect the fact that illegals often times bring down local economies because they accept pay that is lower than minimum wage.
Oddly enough, in Canada, conservatives usually argue against higher minimum wages based on the premise that lower minimum wages boost the economy.
Cultural differences can sometimes be interesting.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In what way does working at <minimum wage bring down the local economy? It brings down the economy for some people, sure, but there is no economic event which affects only one or two people.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the same politicians in Missouri that want to round up all the illegal immigrants also want to ban all the stop light cameras.
I'm not sure about the political angle, but I've heard a few stories of local police departments getting rid of the cameras because they altered people's behavior to the extent that the city was losing money for lack of red-light runners.
That suggests that, at least in some cases, safety is not the primary objective of red light cams.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: In what way does working at <minimum wage bring down the local economy? It brings down the economy for some people, sure, but there is no economic event which affects only one or two people.
It doesn't. By "bring down the economy" people mean: "allow employers to pay lower wages to white people because of competition." Conservatives are totally in favor of competition, as long as it's a competition they are winning. It's also a problem of conservative populism v. pro-business conservatism, because low wages are good for business short-term. Once the economic disparity encouraged by low-wage short term profiteering starts to creep in, and people can't afford even to pay for cheap goods, you get the old suburban death syndrome. Just go look at all the small towns that used to be in South Dakota to see what happens when wages go down and stay down for too long.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the same politicians in Missouri that want to round up all the illegal immigrants also want to ban all the stop light cameras.
I'm not sure about the political angle, but I've heard a few stories of local police departments getting rid of the cameras because they altered people's behavior to the extent that the city was losing money for lack of red-light runners.
That suggests that, at least in some cases, safety is not the primary objective of red light cams.
Truly awesome.
"These cameras are for safety"
"These cameras have achieved safety"
"We are removing these cameras because they do not produce income"
"dot dot dot"
Sort of like town-planners who push to reduce bus schedules because of lack of use of the bus systems, when the overwhelming complaint about most bus systems is the infrequency of their runs.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Cost: These cameras pay for themselves, and generate revenues for the government--revenue that is paid by the guilty, not by the average citizen.
There have been examples of red-light cameras being set up in such a way that both the guilty and innocent are are given tickets.
quote:Rule of Law: If you drive through a red light you are breaking the law.
Is this actually true? It's definitely a traffic infraction, but my understanding is that in general, traffic infractions don't actually rise to the level of a crime.
I'm against the cameras and against enforcement tightening. Do I get to be a hypocrite too?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh. Either I'm remembering wrong, or the collective wisdom of HR 6 years ago or so was full of crap.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Red light cameras are also used to generate revenue, and frequently lead to yellow lights being shortened (hurting safety).
I have mixed feelings about red light cameras. I think that, if used judiciously to improve the safety of particularly problematic intersections, they could be a good tool. I think that there are far too many governments that abuse the tool, though, making me less happy with them.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: my understanding is that in general, traffic infractions don't actually rise to the level of a crime.
Yes. Misdemeanors.
According to wikipedia, in the US, most minor violations are codified as "civil infractions", with only the more major ones being misdemeanors or felonies:
quote:In the United States, most traffic laws are codified in a variety of state, county and municipal ordinances, with most minor violations classified as civil infractions. Although what constitutes a "minor violation" varies, examples include: non-moving violations; defective or unauthorized vehicle equipment; seat belt and child-restraint safety violations; and insufficient proof of license, insurance or registration. A trend in the late 1970s and early 1980s also saw an increased tendency for jurisdictions to re-classify certain speeding violations as civil infractions.[2] In contrast, for more "serious" violations, traffic violators may be held criminally liable, guilty of a misdemeanor or even a felony. Serious violations tend to involve multiple prior offenses; willful disregard of public safety; death, serious bodily injury or damage to property.[2]
posted
If I'm reading things right, common infractions (including running red lights) aren't misdemeanors in California, but if you don't settle up (or get it dismissed), that's a misdemeanor.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The definition of a misdemeanor was on your written test? Mine had crap like "if someone tails you, should you speed up?"
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: 2) Safety: My personal safety often relies on people actually stopping at stop lights, and not racing to squeeze through an orange light. (An orange light is a yellow light that just turned red, so the driver still hopes its close enough to yellow not to matter.) More lives have been saved due to the reduction in stop light accidents due to stop light cameras than have been lost to terrorists and drug violence that came across illegally from our borders.
Not only did you just make up that fact about more lives being saved, but this entire bullet point is almost certainly wrong.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok. Lisa--Hypocrisy--strange spell check program.
Hypocritical is what I meant.
There are good reasons to be against the Red Light Cameras. While I've not heard the horror stories about cities or police removing them in order to increase revenues or shortening yellow lights to force more revenues I can't argue against them.
Then again, city and police departments can also change their rules and regulations to gather more federal funds to combat illegal aliens.
In both cases it would be wrong.
What I am calling hypocritical is not having different reasons for being for immigration enforcement but against red light cameras. I am saying its is hypocritical to be for enforcement of one for one reason, then be against it for the other without accounting for that reason.
In other words, "We should round up all the Illegal Aliens because they broke one law--that required to enter the country. It doesn't matter if they've been angels since--they broke that law. Oh, but I don't that Red Light Camera at that intersection because the fines are too big when I run the light."
And yes, I think its a bit of a cheat to argue that the "rule of law" is threatened unless you break up a family if one is illegal alien, but its perfectly safe from your misdemeanor stop light running.
And yes, I don't have any statistics on the number of people injured or killed at stop lights because people run them. I have received a constant stream of numbers about lower accidents and fewer fatalities after cameras were installed. There have been 0 terrorists who crossed over the Mexican border so no deaths there. Drug violence is bad, but not as deadly as I assumed car accident violence over the whole country.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"We should round up all the Illegal Aliens because they broke one law--that required to enter the country. It doesn't matter if they've been angels since--they broke that law. Oh, but I don't that Red Light Camera at that intersection because the fines are too big when I run the light."
I'd like to see a quote - preferably several - of anyone, anywhere saying this. Bonus points if it is actually someone who does policy for a living.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |