PDA

View Full Version : If you thought Arizona was a bunch of racists before...



Blue
01 May 10,, 18:06
Then you're really gonna get your panties in a twist over this!

GO, GO Arizona!! I hope the rest of the country will follow with similar legislation. I know my home state is already on it!

FOXNews.com - Arizona Legislature Passes Bill to Curb 'Chauvanism' in Ethnic Studies Programs (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/30/arizona-legislature-passes-banning-ethnic-studies-programs/)


Arizona Legislature Passes Bill to Curb 'Chauvanism' in Ethnic Studies Programs

FOXNews.com

After making national headlines for a new law on illegal immigrants, the Arizona Legislature sent Gov. Jan Brewer a bill Thursday that would ban ethnic studies programs in the state that critics say currently advocate separatism and racial preferences.

After making national headlines for a new law on illegal immigrants, the Arizona Legislature passed a bill Thursday that would ban ethnic studies programs in the state that critics say currently advocate separatism and racial preferences.

The bill, which passed 32-26 in the state House, had been approved by the Senate a day earlier. It now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer for her signature.

The new bill would make it illegal for a school district to teach any courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."

The bill stipulates that courses can continue to be taught for Native American pupils in compliance with federal law and does not prohibit English as a second language classes. It also does not prohibit the teaching of the Holocaust or other cases of genocide.

Schools that fail to abide by the law would have state funds withheld.

State Superintendent for Public Instruction Tom Horne called passage in the state House a victory for the principle that education should unite, not divide students of differing backgrounds.

"Traditionally, the American public school system has brought together students from different backgrounds and taught them to be Americans and to treat each other as individuals, and not on the basis of their ethnic backgrounds," Horne said. "This is consistent with the fundamental American value that we are all individuals, not exemplars of whatever ethnic groups we were born into. Ethnic studies programs teach the opposite, and are designed to promote ethnic chauvinism."

Horne began fighting in 2007 against the Tucson Unified School District's program, which he said defied Martin Luther King's call to judge a person by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Horne claimed the ethnic studies program encourages "ethnic chauvanism," promotes Latinos to rise up and create a new territory out of the southwestern region of the United States and tries to intimidate conservative teachers in the school system.

But opponents said the bill would prevent teachers from using an academically proven method of educating students about history. They also argued that the Legislature should not be involved in developing school curriculum.



BUT WAIT!! THERE"S MORE!!

If your accent is so thick you sound like you should be hosting Sabado Gigante, you aren't going to be teaching ENGLISH in Arizona schools anymore!!


Arizona Ethnic Studies Classes Banned, Teachers With Accents Can No Longer Teach English (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/arizona-ethnic-studies-cl_n_558731.html)





Under the ban, sent to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer by the state legislature Thursday, schools will lose state funding if they offer any courses that "promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."

As ThinkProgress notes, the Tucson Unified School District's popular Mexican-American studies department is the target here. The state superintendent charges that the program exhibits "ethnic chauvinism."

Meanwhile, in a move that was more covert until the Wall Street Journal uncovered it, the Arizona Department of Education has told schools that teachers with "heavy" or "ungrammatical" accents are no longer allowed to teach English classes.

As outlined by the Journal, Arizona's recent pattern of discriminatory education policies is ironic -- and is likely a function of No Child Left Behind funding requirements -- given that the state spent a decade recruiting teachers for whom English was a second language.

In the 1990s, Arizona hired hundreds of teachers whose first language was Spanish as part of a broad bilingual-education program. Many were recruited from Latin America.

Then in 2000, voters passed a ballot measure stipulating that instruction be offered only in English. Bilingual teachers who had been instructing in Spanish switched to English.
Teachers who don't meet the new fluency standards have the option of taking classes to improve their English, the Journal reports, but if they fail to reach the state's targets would be fired or reassigned.


And if you think this is Racism, then your WRONG!! Its about coming to America and being an American. Not a "whatevercountryyouchosetoleave-American"

McFire
01 May 10,, 18:19
I love it. Liberals are in an uproar because Arizona passes a law to actually enforce the unenforced federal law on immigration and now they're getting rid of the useless, divisive ethnic studies programs.

Obama and the Dimocrats are galvanizing the conservative movement in America.

Go Arizona!

Roosveltrepub
01 May 10,, 19:13
I don't think it's racist but, it is the heavy hand of goverment interfering in local matters. It interferes with local schoolboards curriculum and hiring pracices. I can understand requirements to graduate including civics and U.S. history. Any decent world history class should cover a broad stroke of ethnic history anyway and a decent history class will cover hispanic local history since it does go back so far and lasted so long and the spanish did settle the state. I think it's bullcrap public schools are teaching the southwest should be Mexico as part of a curriculum. I mean really what next claims that goverment officals or teachers are advocating the legality of nullification or a state's right to secede?


and the detention of citizens begins Truck driver forced to show birth certificate claims racial-profiling | Phoenix News | Arizona News | azfamily.com | Arizona News (http://www.azfamily.com/news/91769419.html)

JAD_333
01 May 10,, 20:32
RR:

The bill doesn't prohibit teaching Hispanic or black-related course matter; it simple says state funding will not be given to schools that teach courses that advocate overthrow of the US, carving out a part of the US for creating separate countries or separation based on ethnicity.

Also the law aims to discount ethnicity as a measure of individual worth.

How bad is that?

Again, that article you're spreading around relates an ICE action, not a state action.

Julie
01 May 10,, 20:34
I luv it. :)

Roosveltrepub
01 May 10,, 20:45
RR:

The bill doesn't prohibit teaching Hispanic or black-related course matter; it simple says state funding will not be given to schools that teach courses that advocate overthrow of the US, carving out a part of the US for creating separate countries or separation based on ethnicity. Actually, after thought anti federalism is probably least likely here and more likely other places.

Also the law aims to discount ethnicity as a measure of individual worth.

How bad is that?

Again, that article you're spreading around relates an ICE action, not a state action.

Well, seems a bit much. If they have teachers advocating segragation or sedition I'd be pretty shocked. I live in liberal land and that doesnt happen.

The accent clause is problamatic if it outlaws any accent at all after all our southern brethren have quite the regional accent ;) I'd hate to see all the English teaching jobs going to the northeners, westerners and midwesterners.

Roosveltrepub
01 May 10,, 20:48
RR:



Again, that article you're spreading around relates an ICE action, not a state action.

TY missed that. Tha's screwed up then. You are not supposed to pocess a valid DL w/o proof of citizenship/residency. It should be enough. BTW I am outraged by the dems biometric crap.

JAD_333
01 May 10,, 21:29
Well, seems a bit much. If they have teachers advocating segragation or sedition I'd be pretty shocked. I live in liberal land and that doesnt happen.

The accent clause is problamatic if it outlaws any accent at all after all our southern brethren have quite the regional accent ;) I'd hate to see all the English teaching jobs going to the northeners, westerners and midwesterners.

I think they're referring to teeechinga engeleeesh eeen zo teek acacent neuw ona untersand eet.

The accent thing could go too far, but not if there is a test of some kind, e.g., can a panel of regular American-bred people from any part of the US make out what the teacher is saying without asking him/her a dozen times to repeat it word by word.

Spanish is fun...to order hard boiled eggs in a Spanish restaurant you ask for "eggs passed under water". And Spanish words are always pronounced exactly as they are spelled--that is, if you know all 26 letters of the Spanish alphabet (2 more than ours), e.g., double LL is a letter pronounced as a Y; J is pronounced as a soft H, and H is not pronounced at all. But I digress...

JAD_333
01 May 10,, 21:35
TY missed that. Tha's screwed up then. You are not supposed to pocess a valid DL w/o proof of citizenship/residency. It should be enough. BTW I am outraged by the dems biometric crap.

What would you have thought of fingerprinting back in 1906 when it was introduced in the US...?

troung
01 May 10,, 21:42
Should do it nation wide, so we can get rid of silly southern accents...

Julie
01 May 10,, 21:44
Should do it nation wide, so we can get rid of silly southern accents...:eek: HEY ! I resemble that remark ! :mad:

dalem
01 May 10,, 21:59
My ancient southern accent only comes out under two circumstances:

1) I am very drunk.
2) I spend more than 5 minutes talking 1 on 1 with someone with a southern accent.

-dale

troung
01 May 10,, 22:00
Time to send some people out nationwide to teach your children how to speak properly without those silly accents. It's been like 200 years and it is clear you people can't do it on your own without help.

Julie
01 May 10,, 22:15
I like my accent just fine thank you very much.

Roosveltrepub
01 May 10,, 22:51
What would you have thought of fingerprinting back in 1906 when it was introduced in the US...?

suspects got fingerprinted. We are not all suspects.

Blue
01 May 10,, 22:53
Should do it nation wide, so we can get rid of silly southern accents...


Time to send some people out nationwide to teach your children how to speak properly without those silly accents. It's been like 200 years and it is clear you people can't do it on your own without help.

Even Khan eventually makes friends with his stupid hillbilly neighbors!!

And he speaks Engrish btw!!

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JH7oeDtYSYk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JH7oeDtYSYk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Julie
02 May 10,, 05:59
17 Suspected Illegal Immigrants Caught in Search for Ariz. Deputy's Attackers

PHOENIX -- Authorities have captured 17 suspected illegal immigrants in southern Arizona as they continued their manhunt Saturday for smugglers who they say shot and wounded a sheriff's deputy in a remote desert area 50 miles south of Phoenix.

Three of those captured overnight Friday matched descriptions from the wounded Pinal County deputy and were being questioned Saturday, sheriff's Lt. Tamatha Villar said. The deputy was released from the hospital, and was recovering at home.

The shooting came amid a growing national debate over the state's new law cracking down on illegal immigration. A backlash over the law has erupted, with civil rights activists, concerned it will lead to racial profiling, calling for protests and boycotts.

Criticism of the law was sure to figure prominently at dozens of immigrants rights marches and rallies planned for Saturday across the nation, including one set for the grounds of the Arizona state Capitol.

The new law's passage came amid increasing anger in Arizona about violence, drug smugglers and illegal immigration drop houses. The issue gained renewed attention a month ago when a southern Arizona rancher was shot and killed by a suspected illegal border crosser.

Arizona politicians called Friday's shooting an outrage and urged the federal government to do more to secure the U.S.-Mexico border.

The violence "should show the rest of the country what we Arizonans have known for too long -- the unsecured border poses a very real and very immediate danger," said U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, a Democrat whose district includes part of Pinal County.

On Friday afternoon, Deputy Louie Puroll, 53, was patrolling near Interstate 8 when he came upon a stash of marijuana bales and five suspected smugglers. At least one of the suspects opened fire on him, tearing a chunk of skin from his back.

Puroll radioed in that he was shot, setting off a frantic hourlong search for the deputy in the remote desert, Villar said.

The area is a well-known smuggling corridor for drugs and illegal immigrants headed from Mexico to Phoenix and the U.S. interior.

State and federal law enforcement agencies deployed helicopters and scores of officers to search a 100-square-mile zone for the suspects. The Arizona Republic reported that officials said more than one of the choppers came under fire during the manhunt on Friday.

Puroll, a 15-year department veteran, had been on the lookout for smugglers when he discovered the suspected smugglers, two armed with rifles, authorities said.

FOXNews.com - 17 Suspected Illegal Immigrants Caught in Search for Ariz. Deputy&#39;s Attackers (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/01/suspected-illegal-immigrants-caught-search-ariz-deputys-attackers/)

Julie
02 May 10,, 06:00
So what is the people in Arizona supposed to do? Wait until someone is shot and/or killed before they do something about this situation? :confused:

JAD_333
02 May 10,, 09:52
suspects got fingerprinted. We are not all suspects.

Ah, but that was not the case for many years. FBI encouraged everyone to get fingerprinted. I was at a Boy Scout convention where the FBI had a booth and we all got fingerprinted. Some employers required it. The military does.

JAD_333
02 May 10,, 10:03
So what is the people in Arizona supposed to do? Wait until someone is shot and/or killed before they do something about this situation? :confused:

If the border was watertight and this happened, they might call it a crime. That makes it a police matter.

Blue
02 May 10,, 16:24
This just keeps getting better the farther I dig! I'd say Arizona is really fed up!

KTAR.com - AZ bills feds for illegal immigrants (http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1249595)


AZ bills feds for illegal immigrantsby Jim Cross/KTAR (January 6th, 2010 @ 9:40am)

PHOENIX -- Saying the cost of illegal immigration has left Arizona broke, state Treasurer Dean Martin has shipped a $1 billion bill to the federal government.

Martin sent the invoice to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who -- when she was Arizona governor -- billed the Bush Administration almost half-a-billion for the costs of jailing illegal immigrants.

"She said, basically, the system was broken back in 2004, 5, 6, 7 and 8," Martin said Wednesday. "We're hoping to remind her that this portion of the system is still broken. We need your help to fix this."

Martin added, "The state's broke. We need cash. This $1 billion would completely replenish the state's operating fund."

Martin said he thinks there's a 10-to-1 shot that the federal government will pay the bill. He said he will take legal action in an effort to get the money.

Blue
02 May 10,, 16:31
Audit: Half Of AZ Businesses Have Illegal Employees - KSWT: Local News, Weather, Sports Yuma, AZ El Centro Imperial Valley, CA | (http://www.kswt.com/Global/story.asp?S=12370346)


Audit: Half Of AZ Businesses Have Illegal Employees

Posted: April 24, 2010 06:55 PM CDT





Arizona April 24 - An audit done by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents shows more than half of Arizona businesses have illegal immigrants on their payroll.

An Immigration Department spokesperson says 43 out of the 84 companies screened in audits have been sent violation notices about suspected illegal employees.

The agency's policy is not to name the companies with illegal employees unless they are disciplined with a fine or other measure. ICE agents did the audits last year.

Roosveltrepub
02 May 10,, 16:31
This just keeps getting better the farther I dig! I'd say Arizona is really fed up!

KTAR.com - AZ bills feds for illegal immigrants (http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1249595)

Yup, it was broken before 2008. This is just one of the crap sanwhiches He inherited. I'll pass judgement on Obama on this issue if a bill gets to his desk. It wasn't Bush's fault congress couldnt pass a bill either.

Julie
02 May 10,, 16:33
And that is just one state. Other states are feeling it as well from all of the free stuff illegal immigrants are getting that they aren't paying for. Education, free medical care for their children, Section 8 free housing, it just goes on and on. :mad:

Do they think they can blend into the woodwork without anyone noticing or feeling the crunch? Not in this economy. It won't happen.

Blue
02 May 10,, 17:13
And from the supreme libtard....


From Senate Majority Leader, a Promise to Take Up Immigration Overhaul
By JULIA PRESTON
Published: April 10, 2010

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, told an exuberant crowd at an immigration rally Saturday in Las Vegas that Congress would start work on an immigration overhaul as soon as lawmakers return this week from a recess.


The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, above, spoke Saturday in Las Vegas, one of seven cities where people rallied for the administration to grant legal status to millions of immigrants. Yeah...great plan, stupid!


“We’re going to come back, we’re going to have comprehensive immigration reform now,” he said in a speech to more than 6,000 people, mostly immigrants, gathered downtown.

“We need to do this this year,” Mr. Reid said, drawing cheers from the crowd, which included many Latinos. “We cannot wait.” Reform? What about this is reform?


Mr. Reid surprised immigrants and advocates with his direct commitment to moving forward with legislation on the volatile issue, with the Senate already divided by the passage of a health care overhaul. Also, as a result of Justice John Paul Stevens’s announcement last week that he would retire, the Obama administration and the Senate will have to focus this summer on winning confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee.

The Democratic leader was nearing the end of a week of hard campaigning in his bid for re-election in Nevada, which is facing record unemployment and the nation’s highest foreclosure rate. After seeing small turnouts at several campaign stops, he appeared elated by the boisterous gathering in Las Vegas. I'll tell you why. Election is coming and he is out there pandering for votes! He would sell out his own mother, not to mention his country to get re-elected again!


“We’re going to pass immigration reform, just as we passed health care reform,” Mr. Reid said in a five-minute speech. Latino voters, who strongly support an overhaul, were crucial to President Obama’s upset victory in the state in 2008.

The rally was the largest among demonstrations Saturday in seven cities nationwide, with immigrants pressing Congress and the administration to pass an overhaul bill this year. Ohhh! By shoving it down our throats!! OK, at least he's honest about his intent.


Organizers said they planned the rallies, on the last weekend before lawmakers return to Washington after the Congressional recess, to follow up a big rally on March 21 on the Washington Mall. They are battling to keep immigration overhaul on Congress’s agenda, even as the political odds have appeared to worsen almost daily.

The demonstrations were tinged by growing criticism of the administration from immigrant groups and labor unions that support the overhaul. They say it has continued to pursue tough enforcement leading to thousands of deportations, but has made no progress on legislation to open a path to legal status to millions of illegal immigrants. Why do labor unions support this? hmm.


“I’m very unhappy with President Obama because he said this would be the first thing he did when he was elected,” said Rafael Lopez, 21, an immigrant living in Las Vegas. “I’m worried because the Republicans are anti-immigrant,” he said, adding that he feared that Republicans could make important gains in the elections in November. I'm worried because your an idiot. Make very clear, we are "anti-ILLEGAL-immigrant". Ignorance like Mr Lopez' is the biggest problem and hardest hurdle to cross here folks.


Mr. Reid told the crowd that he believes he has 56 votes in the Senate in support of the immigration legislation. “We need a handful of Republicans,” he said, calling on immigrant groups to help mobilize support among them for the overhaul.

He outlined legislation that would include border security measures and a temporary guest worker program for future immigrants. To gain legal status, illegal immigrants would face “a penalty and a fine, people will have to work, stay out of trouble, pay taxes, learn English,” he said. “It’s not so bad, is it?” he asked the crowd. Yeah, it is so bad Harry!!!



In Chicago, at a rally that drew more than 1,000 people, Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, the No. 2 leader in the Senate, echoed Mr. Reid’s promise to try to enact the overhaul this year. Speaking of President Obama’s role in pressing for health care legislation, Mr. Durbin said, “We need that same determination and that same commitment to pass comprehensive immigration reform this year.”

He said he would work to bring Republicans to support the legislation.

Senators Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, and Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, have been working on an immigration bill. Mr. Graham said recently that he did not believe there was sufficient support among Republicans to move forward. Hey South Carolina. Graham is NOT a conservative. Quit being fooled by this joker.


“That is our challenge,” Mr. Durbin told the rally in Chicago, “to bring together the Democratic voices as well as good-thinking Republicans to make this a reality of immigration reform. We can do this.” If he can say that about me, then I can call him an asshat libtard!!




In several California cities, members of the Service Employees International Union, one of the largest labor organizations supporting immigration overhaul, protested Thursday and Friday in front of immigration agency offices. SEIU, the brownshirts of the NWO!


Eliseo Medina, an executive vice president of the union, said the group had been expecting Mr. Obama to shift enforcement policy after the high-profile workplace raids of the Bush administration. But Mr. Medina said that thousands of immigrants in the union who do not have work authorization had been fired from jobs in recent months while deportations continued.

“It’s pretty clear that our optimism about a change of policy was misplaced,” Mr. Medina said in an interview. “What they are doing makes no sense, so we are just basically mobilizing to fight back.”

Good. Do your damndest, because we are sick of you breaking OUR laws!!!

dalem
02 May 10,, 17:24
Yup, it was broken before 2008. This is just one of the crap sanwhiches He inherited. I'll pass judgement on Obama on this issue if a bill gets to his desk. It wasn't Bush's fault congress couldnt pass a bill either.

"He"? Capitalized? That's so telling.

All presidents inherit crap sandwiches - that's part of the job. He's the only one who whines about it like a 4 year old.

-dale

Blue
02 May 10,, 17:37
Immigration Counters.com - Live Counters, News, Resources (http://www.immigrationcounters.com/)


If one truly loves their home country they will want to protect it from harm and regression. What does that say about those in government, business and anyone who has allowed this foolish problem to grow? Their love for America is in doubt. What does it say about those who abandon their own country and come to America and openly violate its laws? Is this who should be granted American citizenship?

Blue
02 May 10,, 17:44
George F. Will - An argument to be made about immigrant babies and citizenship - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032603077.html)
An argument to be made about immigrant babies and citizenship

By George F. Will
Sunday, March 28, 2010

A simple reform would drain some scalding steam from immigration arguments that may soon again be at a roiling boil. It would bring the interpretation of the 14th Amendment into conformity with what the authors of its text intended, and with common sense, thereby removing an incentive for illegal immigration.

To end the practice of "birthright citizenship," all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment's first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." From these words has flowed the practice of conferring citizenship on children born here to illegal immigrants.

A parent from a poor country, writes professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school, "can hardly do more for a child than make him or her an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state." Therefore, "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."

Writing in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, Graglia says this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What was this intended or understood to mean by those who wrote it in 1866 and ratified it in 1868? The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration.

If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not.


The Civil Rights Act of 1866 begins with language from which the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause is derived: "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." (Emphasis added.) The explicit exclusion of Indians from birthright citizenship was not repeated in the 14th Amendment because it was considered unnecessary. Although Indians were at least partially subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they owed allegiance to their tribes, not the United States. This reasoning -- divided allegiance -- applies equally to exclude the children of resident aliens, legal as well as illegal, from birthright citizenship. Indeed, today's regulations issued by the departments of Homeland Security and Justice stipulate:

"A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment."

Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois was, Graglia writes, one of two "principal authors of the citizenship clauses in 1866 act and the 14th Amendment." He said that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant subject to its "complete" jurisdiction, meaning "not owing allegiance to anybody else." Hence children whose Indian parents had tribal allegiances were excluded from birthright citizenship.

Appropriately, in 1884 the Supreme Court held that children born to Indian parents were not born "subject to" U.S. jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the person so born could not change his status by his "own will without the action or assent of the United States." And "no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent." Graglia says this decision "seemed to establish" that U.S. citizenship is "a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States." So: "This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person's citizenship than to make the source of that person's presence in the nation illegal."

Congress has heard testimony estimating that more than two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals, and more than half of all births in that city, and nearly 10 percent of all births in the nation in recent years, have been to mothers who are here illegally. Graglia seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to those whose presence here is "not only without the government's consent but in violation of its law."

bigross86
02 May 10,, 17:51
Hey, here's a crazy idea, tell me if it will work: Organize a massive pro-illegal immigrant rally. When everyone shows up, call in the police, INS and all the other acronyms you feel like. Process everybody, make sure they aren't US citizens, and remove those that are. Load the rest up on buses and drive them down to Mexico. Then a few weeks later you plan a rally "protesting" what happened at the first rally, and repeat the procedure all over again.

I figure that if you organize about 20 of these rallies simultaneously you can haul a fairly large amount of illegal immigrants.

Blue
02 May 10,, 17:52
In response to Mr Reed from immigrationcounter.com....


America does not need Immigration Reform, what is needed;

1.Leadership and enforcement of the existing laws. If our government has not enforced the existing laws, why should anyone expect they can or will with a much larger program. They have not earned America's trust and confidence to grant them program expansion.

2.Secure the borders. The southern border could be secured within two weeks.

3.Enforce immigration laws in the interior, not just near the borders where agents can ask anyone to verify their status. Refute the ACLU.

4.Mandate legal right to work verification for all employers. Prosecute employer violations. Presecute the fraudulent use of SSNs and all forms of ID fraud. Enforce the IRS laws equally with illegal aliens.

5.End $6B per year Birthright Citizenships.

6.End mandatory public education for the children of illegal parents.

7.End public housing, WIC, non-emergency medical care and other benefits for illegal aliens.

8.Ramp-up 287(g) training across the country. Local law enforcement must play a key role when illegals are caught in crimes, they must be reported to ICE.

9.End catch and release courts, remove sanctuary judges and prosecutors. Illegal aliens will not report for their court dates. ICE must deport illegal's caught in crimes, this is what they are paid to do. ICE can no longer "live in the shadows" from the public eye.

10.End Sanctuary City policies. Simple as that!!

Blue
02 May 10,, 17:57
Hey, here's a crazy idea, tell me if it will work: Organize a massive pro-illegal immigrant rally. When everyone shows up, call in the police, INS and all the other acronyms you feel like. Process everybody, make sure they aren't US citizens, and remove those that are. Load the rest up on buses and drive them down to Mexico. Then a few weeks later you plan a rally "protesting" what happened at the first rally, and repeat the procedure all over again.

I figure that if you organize about 20 of these rallies simultaneously you can haul a fairly large amount of illegal immigrants.

Good idea in theory, but mass deportations are literally impossible tasks. First stop the flow of immigrants which means securing the border and then giving them no reason to WANT to come here. No welfare, no citizenship, no job if you enter illegally.

Oklahoma passed some illegal immigration laws preventing them from getting jobs last year. Since then, thousands of illegals just packed up and left. If all states pass laws like that they will have no place to go but back to Mexico.

Mass deportation logistical problem solved.

Julie
02 May 10,, 18:01
I agree, it has to be a group state effort. :) Maybe some more will follow suit.

bonehead
02 May 10,, 18:47
I agree, it has to be a group state effort. :) Maybe some more will follow suit.

Wishful thinking is not good enough. Now is the time to turn up the heat on your state elected officials and make them enact similar legislation.

Blue
02 May 10,, 18:50
If your not outraged watching this, I'd would, without apology, question your loyalty to this country.:mad:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-LINtLZF__c&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-LINtLZF__c&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Julie
02 May 10,, 18:56
Wishful thinking is not good enough. Now is the time to turn up the heat on your state elected officials and make them enact similar legislation.Our State of Georgia has already passed a law that makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants. They do sweeps of businesses here all the time, and I think it's wonderful. :)

Blue
02 May 10,, 19:03
The threat is real, we just haven't been paying attention.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wTwO457C8bQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wTwO457C8bQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Blue
02 May 10,, 19:09
From 2007 in Tucson.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N_66wkQxJzg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N_66wkQxJzg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

bfng3569
02 May 10,, 21:24
Then you're really gonna get your panties in a twist over this!

GO, GO Arizona!! I hope the rest of the country will follow with similar legislation. I know my home state is already on it!

FOXNews.com - Arizona Legislature Passes Bill to Curb 'Chauvanism' in Ethnic Studies Programs (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/30/arizona-legislature-passes-banning-ethnic-studies-programs/)





BUT WAIT!! THERE"S MORE!!

If your accent is so thick you sound like you should be hosting Sabado Gigante, you aren't going to be teaching ENGLISH in Arizona schools anymore!!


Arizona Ethnic Studies Classes Banned, Teachers With Accents Can No Longer Teach English (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/arizona-ethnic-studies-cl_n_558731.html)





And if you think this is Racism, then your WRONG!! Its about coming to America and being an American. Not a "whatevercountryyouchosetoleave-American"

wait wait wait.....

you mean people are actaully going to be treated equally instead of pandering to every ethnic group there is?

instead, they get treated as americans! ohhhh, am i outraged..... (please note heavy sarcasm!)

i am just a shocked shocked shocked!

Roosveltrepub
02 May 10,, 21:28
wait wait wait.....

you mean people are actaully going to be treated equally instead of pandering to every ethnic group there is?

instead, they get treated as americans! ohhhh, am i outraged..... (please note heavy sarcasm!)

i am just a shocked shocked shocked!

well I guess that's the end of eurocentric history classes;)

bfng3569
03 May 10,, 18:55
well I guess that's the end of eurocentric history classes;)

i'm all for teaching everything, and giving everyone and everything its due course.

i am tired of, oh, lets say, black history month for one?

i'd much rather see a concerted effort put into incorporating, fully, black history month into U.S. history.

is that so wrong?

i'm a little tired of america dividing itself for its 'own good'.

Roosveltrepub
03 May 10,, 19:02
i'm all for teaching everything, and giving everyone and everything its due course.

i am tired of, oh, lets say, black history month for one?

i'd much rather see a concerted effort put into incorporating, fully, black history month into U.S. history.

is that so wrong?

i'm a little tired of america dividing itself for its 'own good'.

I couldn't agree more. I believe some of the issue with ethnic studies might be the uncomfortability of non hispanics with the actual history of Arizona and treatment of hispanics in the 19th and early 20th century.

Some facts on some of the claims we hear repeated:

Cost of Illegal Immigrants | FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/cost-of-illegal-immigrants/)

gunnut
03 May 10,, 19:10
I support bilingual education. Someone has to mow my lawn.

highsea
03 May 10,, 19:11
Hey you're back gunnut.

I was afraid you had gone shooting in Arizona...:biggrin:

gunnut
03 May 10,, 19:18
Hey you're back gunnut.

I was afraid you had gone shooting in Arizona...:biggrin:

Nah...I just had some personal issues to work through. No fun trips for me.

highsea
03 May 10,, 19:26
Well, I hope you saved some of your ammo for the zombie attack. ;)

Crocodylus
03 May 10,, 19:40
My, we've got ourselves a lively discussion here :)

I'm not against immigration per se. My main bone of contention is that immigration is being used to divide this country instead of being used to unify it. Ideally, foreigners come to America and, within a generation or two, assimilate into the mainstream regardless of whether or not they retain characteristics from the old country.

Why the US government would espouse something so divisive as multiculturalism is most confusing :confused:

As for Chicano irredentists wanting to return most of the Western US to Mexican sovereignty, the Aztlán argument has more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese. For one, even though groups like the Hopi and Comanche are (linguistically) related to the Aztec/Nahua, according to The Book of the Hopi by Frank Waters, the Hopi migration myth says that they migrated north to their current location, not the reverse. Also, the migration of the Mexica south into the Valley of Mexico occurs several hundred years after the arrival of the Hopi in the Four Corners region.

Of course we have all these Chicano irredentists saying that their ancestors dwelled in the Western US and that all Indians (Native Americans) living therein ought to side with them. Such an assertion has no basis in reality, if the below article serves as any indication.



I Don’t Need a Great Brown Father
by David A. Yeagley
Originally published at FrontPageMagazine.com | April 11, 2001

Government officials used to tell the Indians to trust in the Great White Father. Unfortunately, the Great White Father didn’t always prove trustworthy. But, after awhile, we learned to live with him.

Now there is a new ‘father" vying for the Indian’s loyalty – the Great Brown Father.

In a previous article "Dont Burn My Flag," I wrote about a movement among radical leftwing Mexicans bent on separating the Southwest from the United States.

These "hostiles" claim that our Southwest is really Aztlan, ancestral home of the Aztecs. They say many southwestern Indian peoples of America, such as the Shoshone, speak languages belonging to the Uto-Aztecan family, which also includes the Aztec language.

Since we’re all "related," these Mexican separatists say, we North American Indians should welcome a Mexican takeover of our land.

Uh-huh.

The Great White Father pulled some fast ones on us. But I don’t think he ever tried anything quite this slick.

With 33 million Mexicans now living north of the Rio Grande, Mexican power is a reality.

"California is going to be a Hispanic state and anyone who doesn’t like it should leave," says Mario Obledo, a southwest Hispanic activist.

Art Torres, head of the California Democratic Party, said Proposition 187, the measure that banned illegal aliens from benefits, was "the last gasp of white America in California."

Past president of Mexico, Ernesto Zedillo said, "I have proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders."

As a Comanche, I watch these proceedings much as my ancestors watched the wagon trains moving west – with bow in hand.

Many tyrants have used ties of kinship to try to lure people into slavery. Hitler said that all Europeans who spoke "Germanic" languages were brothers, and should be joined in one great Reich.

But what if they didn’t want to join? Hitler ended up invading, annexing, bombing or terrorizing virtually every "Germanic" country in Europe, including Denmark, Holland, England, Norway and Austria.

The Japanese used a similar ploy. Before World War II, they stirred up anti-white feelings among their Asian neighbors by blasting propaganda about "Asia for the Asians."

When Japanese bombers attacked Rangoon, many Burmese cheered them in the streets, delighted that the British were being routed by fellow Asians.

But soon the Great Yellow Father showed his dark side.

Natives of occupied countries had to bow to passing Japanese. If they didn’t, they were slapped in the face or beaten.

If you were caught without your proper ID, the dreaded kempeitai, Japanese police, would pull out your fingernails.

In Batavia, the Japanese hoarded all the food. When starving natives raided the warehouses, they were killed and their heads displayed on poles.

In China’s Kiangsu province, some 20,000 Chinese men were marched out of the city and used for bayonet practice, mowed down by machine guns, or doused with gasoline and burned alive. The women were raped, mutilated and murdered. The "Rape of Nanking," it was called.

That’s what the Japanese meant by "Asia for the Asians."

Then there is South Africa. Everything was supposed to be dandy, once the whites stepped down and turned over power to the Great Black Father.

Well, here’s what former South African president Nelson Mandela is saying now, according to a March 3, 2001 article in The Telegraph:

"Little did we suspect that our own people, when they got a chance, would be as corrupt as the apartheid regime. That is one of the things that has really hurt us."

What was Mandela talking about? According to our liberal press here in the States, everything is hunky dory down in South Africa.

"Some Africans have made mistakes," said Mandela. "They now throw their weight about as a majority. There are some Africans who inspire fear in the minorities."

Throwing their weight around? Putting the minorities in fear? Isn’t that what the white people were doing before? Guess we’d better bring back those international sanctions.

Since my article against Mexicans burning the American flag, some Mexican separatists have e-mailed me personally, telling me that, as an Indian, I should side with them.

Sorry, folks, but you’re talking to the wrong Indian.

In the 1770s, Don Carlos Fernandez and his Mexican militia slaughtered 300 Comanche men, women and children in a surprise attack at dawn. We got them back though. We ran them off Comanche land, and they didn’t come back for a long, long time.

If these separatists want a showdown, we’re ready for it. Great Brown Father indeed!

(Original Article: brown_father (http://www.badeagle.com/html/brown_father.html))



Also, for the Mexicans of the 18th and early 19th centuries the Western US was something of an untamed frontier. Had the Mexicans invested heavily in developing those lands, the US would've not been able to take it over. In the end, the Americans had the will, manpower, and technology to develop the Western lands. What was Mexico doing the whole time between independence from Spain and 1848? Beats me.

On the side, we should remember as well that just about every Hispanic in the US outside the major cities gets called a Mexican; a relative of mine once went to NC for a couple of months and many thought he was Mexican, even though he looks more mulatto than anything else. (And Hispanics usually designate themselves according to nationality, not ethnicity.) Lumping all Hispanics under the "Mexican" label is one factor that led to the rise of the Chicano irredentists.

I would suspect that within Mexico there are several separatist movements at work as well and not just Subcomandante Marcos in Chiapas. Just about every indigenous group in Mexico suffers discrimination, despite the legal protections that Mexican law offers them.

Dreadnought
03 May 10,, 19:52
One question they still havent answered yet is how this is racist> We have Americans that were Mexicans, we have Spanish, French,German,Polish, American Indian, Pakistani, Indian, Iranian, Israeli, Canadian ...we have people from all over the globe that are legal US residients.

There is no racism, its only a tool for them to gain their means. The real issue is paying the "fair share" and get rid of repeat illegal law breaking offenders but yet they continue to skirt those points and just plaster racism signs all over it. The people hold valid points and concerns, racism is not one of them.

FOCUS ON THE POINT! NOT THE POLITICAL SPIN!

gunnut
03 May 10,, 19:56
One question they still havent answered yet is how this is racist

It's racist because most Americans are white. Didn't you get the memo? White people are inherently more racist than any other skin color.

Mexico has the same type of immigration laws but since they are majority brown, they are not racist.

bigross86
03 May 10,, 20:42
You forgot your [HEAVY SARCASM][/HEAVY SARCASM] tags. Try it now...

[HEAVY SARCASM]It's racist because most Americans are white. Didn't you get the memo? White people are inherently more racist than any other skin color.

Mexico has the same type of immigration laws but since they are majority brown, they are not racist.[/HEAVY SARCASM]

Dreadnought
03 May 10,, 21:12
It's racist because most Americans are white. Didn't you get the memo? White people are inherently more racist than any other skin color.

Mexico has the same type of immigration laws but since they are majority brown, they are not racist.

GN, I hope I'm reading this sarcasim as sarcasim.

These politicians will twist and spin this any which way, and ofcoarse the very first thing they reach for is the race card since they know it will provoke peoples emotions. Fill their heads with bullshit and accusations and now they are on your side even if you told them the sky is green and the grass is blue and water is red they will follow. Why? because you stoked their emotions through using race as the center for your arguments.

The US is home to several "races" the people are not racial (well i guess some are) but others see a much bigger picture.

*Eliminate race and then make them answer the questions you wish to ask. The truth is revealed.

This is why I have stated in numerous threads that its time to vote the bastards out. They are there to serve us the people of the Unites States, not their own interests.

The stone cold truth of the bill is far from what many claim.;)

Roosveltrepub
03 May 10,, 21:54
An irony here is the war of 1848 was the result of illegal immigration :biggrin: The damn Americans refused to learn Spanish as well.

Roosveltrepub
03 May 10,, 22:03
Also, for the Mexicans of the 18th and early 19th centuries the Western US was something of an untamed frontier. Had the Mexicans invested heavily in developing those lands, the US would've not been able to take it over. In the end, the Americans had the will, manpower, and technology to develop the Western lands. What was Mexico doing the whole time between independence from Spain and 1848? Beats me.

.
We took it over because we won a war not because the Mexicans lacked the ability to develop those lands. We didn't for a long time.

No racsism at all....http://gawker.com/5529952/arizona-republican-leader-follows-white-supremacist

Dreadnought
03 May 10,, 23:39
We took it over because we won a war not because the Mexicans lacked the ability to develop those lands. We didn't for a long time.

No racsism at all....Arizona Republican Leader Follows White Supremacist - Arizona - Gawker (http://gawker.com/5529952/arizona-republican-leader-follows-white-supremacist)

Yep, unfortunately you will have jackholes like this man to help further cloud the real issues.

Times like this you wish everyone was blind so they cannot see the color of the skin, and focus upon the issues at hand. And then you will have idiots like this one that would state either you smell different or walk different. A collosal waste of American taxpayers money thanks to idiots like this.

This one definately needs to be kept out of the gene pool.:rolleyes:

indus creed
04 May 10,, 00:57
I butcher the English language every day(although I am accent neutral). I guess I am not welcome in Arizona!:biggrin:

dalem
04 May 10,, 01:03
An irony here is the war of 1848 was the result of illegal immigration :biggrin: The damn Americans refused to learn Spanish as well.

Those darned Hatfields & McCoys!

-dale

Stan187
04 May 10,, 01:17
Hey, here's a crazy idea, tell me if it will work: Organize a massive pro-illegal immigrant rally. When everyone shows up, call in the police, INS and all the other acronyms you feel like. Process everybody, make sure they aren't US citizens, and remove those that are. Load the rest up on buses and drive them down to Mexico. Then a few weeks later you plan a rally "protesting" what happened at the first rally, and repeat the procedure all over again.

I figure that if you organize about 20 of these rallies simultaneously you can haul a fairly large amount of illegal immigrants.

We'd quickly run out of buses. :redface:

Julie
04 May 10,, 02:09
Ah, but this is really interesting:

Take Arizona: Polls reveal that two-thirds to three-quarters of its citizens approve of the new enforce-the-law law. Yet only 58 percent of Arizonans are non-Hispanic whites. Over 30 percent are Hispanic. Another 5 percent are Native Americans, 4 percent black and 2 percent mixed race. According to the left's logic, every non-Hispanic white must be "anti-immigrant." Blacks and Indians must be piling on, too.

Of course, that's nonsense. Left-leaning whites don't support the legislation. Which means some Hispanics must favor it. Many do. Hispanic Americans have the same concerns as all other citizens. They don't unanimously support human trafficking, the narcotics trade and criminal gangs. They want safe neighborhoods, too. Assuming that all citizens who happen to be Hispanic automatically back illegal immigration is just the left's selective racism.

Blaming the citizen - NYPOST.com (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/blaming_the_citizen_RXEVoCdMKmfm5mPSxqBWfL)

Blue
04 May 10,, 02:26
LEGAL immigrants should be the most put off group by ILLEGAL immigrants.

Legals worked hard and did thier time on the waiting list and respected the law. I'll bet that every one of those hispanics supporting the bill got here the right way!;)

astralis
04 May 10,, 03:53
7th,


LEGAL immigrants should be the most put off group by ILLEGAL immigrants.

yup, that's the truth. the problem is that many of these anti-illegal immigrant bills are argued from a "nativist" standpoint, ie "those illegals are stealing our jobs and using our services", which has a tendency to simplify/shade into "those immigrants are..."

to make it more clear, i think it would be good if supporters of anti-illegal immigration legislation make it clear that they're talking about illegals only, and to have accompanying legislation that demonstrate commitment towards helping out -legal- immigrants. i think blues said it before-- make it harder for illegals and easier for legals. either way, our current immigration policy is a mess.

Blue
04 May 10,, 04:06
to make it more clear, i think it would be good if supporters of anti-illegal immigration legislation make it clear that they're talking about illegals only, and to have accompanying legislation that demonstrate commitment towards helping out -legal- immigrants. i think blues said it before-- make it harder for illegals and easier for legals. either way, our current immigration policy is a mess.

They do...but the real racists with an agenda simply paint it as all immigration and the truth gets trampled until only the lies float.

dalem
04 May 10,, 05:19
yup, that's the truth. the problem is that many of these anti-illegal immigrant bills are argued from a "nativist" standpoint, ie "those illegals are stealing our jobs and using our services", which has a tendency to simplify/shade into "those immigrants are..."

I've heard/read this accusation but I've never heard/read anything to give it credence - I see it as a construct mainly of the pro-illegal side. Now, to be fair, the immigration issue isn't one of my "hot spots" so I don't pay a ton of attention to it - could be that I've missed some argument or mainstreamed theme from "my side" that's a head-cocker.

Hell, I've said before that the house next door to me is full of some legals and some illegals and they work harder and contribute more to society in offspring, probable taxes, and pretty lawn and house-factor than I do. They're at least as American as I am if not more in their actions and if it were up to me I'd give 'em all citizenship tomorrow if they asked. It just would be proper if the illegal ones had signed in first.

-dale

Julie
07 May 10,, 02:02
WASHINGTON — A prominent Senate Democrat is asking Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to put off her state's controversial new immigration law for a year to give Congress a chance to pass a federal law — a long-shot request on a bill that even the White House says is nearly dead.

"There's not enough support to move forward," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday.

But among Democrats, there's plenty of support for trying — in public — during this year of midterm elections. The party's control of Congress depends in part on keeping a key constituency — Hispanics — voting Democratic.

Hence, at a Cinco de Mayo celebration Wednesday at the White House, Obama said he wanted to start work on immigration legislation this year.

And in a letter to Brewer on Thursday, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., raised an unlikely path to passage for the troubled immigration proposal stalled in the Senate.

Delay for a year the date the Arizona law takes effect, Schumer proposed, and push one of Arizona's two Republican senators to support the Democrats' outline for an overhaul of the immigration law.

The year delay would give Congress a chance, Schumer wrote, to pass a comprehensive federal law that would toughen borders and forge a path to citizenship for millions here illegally. That would be more effective than the state law, the New York senator argued.

Scant time passed before Brewer's spokesman delivered her answer: No.

Even if she had agreed to call the legislature back into special session to make the delay official, it was highly unlikely that Sens. John McCain or Jon Kyl would change their minds and support the Democrats' proposal.

Schumer's short-lived idea was the Democrats' latest effort to look like they're not abandoning immigration reform at a time when Arizona passed the toughest crackdown in the nation. It's true that no Republican is openly supporting the bill, but it's not clear that all of the Democrats are behind it, either.

Obama has told reporters that after health care reform, there's a dearth of appetite in Congress for yet another divisive debate this election year.

The outcome of fall elections could determine whether Congress takes up immigration next year. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., an original sponsor who has backed away from the immigration bill, has said it could be done in 2012, when Obama is up for re-election.

Hispanic voters have long been frustrated that Obama's campaign promise to pass immigration reform has not happened. Some members of the House Hispanic Caucus agreed to vote for his health care overhaul on the understanding that he would push immigration reform through this year.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, struggling through is own tough re-election bid in heavily Hispanic Nevada, considered bringing it to the floor of the Senate ahead of energy and climate change legislation.

Then Obama told reporters that there's no appetite in Congress for an immigration fight this year. Senate Democrats unveiled an immigration outline — not a bill — the next day nonetheless.

The Associated Press: Senator asks Ariz. to hold off on immigration law (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hTR1dsI-IZvMOcsVULjcXd2zrHeAD9FHKHF81)

dalem
07 May 10,, 02:04
A Democrat lawmaker asking someone to hold off on something. That's rich.

-dale

gunnut
07 May 10,, 02:26
A Democrat lawmaker asking someone to hold off on something. That's rich.

-dale

Nah...I've seen that before.

About 10 years ago when California was going through power de-regulation and a hot summer hit, people were hit with humongous power bills. A democrat politician told people to hold off on paying the bills. :))

antimony
07 May 10,, 02:38
LEGAL immigrants should be the most put off group by ILLEGAL immigrants.

Legals worked hard and did thier time on the waiting list and respected the law. I'll bet that every one of those hispanics supporting the bill got here the right way!;)

I know I do. If I can jump through the multuple hoops needed to get a work visa and subsequently a permanent residency and then hopefully a citizenship, then I don't see why someone should just be able to break the law to get her and then get a citizenship through an amnesty program. I understand this al the more since illegal immigration is a huge problem in my native country too.

HOWEVER, some "non-white" natuarlized citizens are now somewhat wary of going to Arizona, for fear of (and I don't know whether this is rational or not) being stopped and asked for passports or any other citizenship document, whereas normally they would only carry their DLs or state ids. For me this is not a big deal yet, since I am reqd. to carry my green card every where but I can see where these guys are coming from.

I was passing through Arizona (the Hoover Dam area) this monday. I was stopped by some uniformed types newar the dam and asked to lower my car windows. When they saw my family they just smiled and waved me along, so I can say that I have not faced any problems myself.

Blue
07 May 10,, 04:54
First off, we are glad to have you here brother! Second, I wish you could tell that story to some media that will listen because I am very confident that there WILL NOT be any of the racist crap happen that our dear president and his regime are spouting will happen. For cripes sake, nobody is going to want to get ice cream if they listen to him!

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/r9Sk5ECvlXQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/r9Sk5ECvlXQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Btw, this kid gives me a glimmer of hope for our youngsters. I think he gets it!

bonehead
07 May 10,, 17:28
Why is it that The immigration laws and practices in Mexico have not been thrust in their face. The world need to see their hypocrisy loud and clear. Don Surber (http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/) Mexicans slam Arizona immigration law, but how do they treat their migrants? - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100428/wl_csm/297614)
Arizona's new laws are no worse than Mexico's article 67 and our government is not involved with long term abductions/kidnapping, rape, murder of immigrants.

dalem
07 May 10,, 19:32
Why is it that The immigration laws and practices in Mexico have not been thrust in their face.

Are you kidding? No one cares about Mexico.

-dale

bonehead
07 May 10,, 22:24
Are you kidding? No one cares about Mexico.

-dale

I do, and so should every one else interested in this topic. Why should they expect things from us that they themselves would not give to others. They expect us to treat them like they are saviors for being here illegally while they rape and pillage immigrants in their own country. Mexicans are screaming about their human right being violated if they have to show ID in the states yet that is exactly what they require of others.

antimony
07 May 10,, 22:46
I do, and so should every one else interested in this topic. Why should they expect things from us that they themselves would not give to others. They expect us to treat them like they are saviors for being here illegally while they rape and pillage immigrants in their own country. Mexicans are screaming about their human right being violated if they have to show ID in the states yet that is exactly what they require of others.

I care about Mexico, but in a different way. If it became another Canada (economy and living standards wise, not as another excuse to breed Celine Dions:mad:), the n I guarantee the immigration problem would take care of itself.

dalem
07 May 10,, 22:49
I do, and so should every one else interested in this topic. Why should they expect things from us that they themselves would not give to others. They expect us to treat them like they are saviors for being here illegally while they rape and pillage immigrants in their own country. Mexicans are screaming about their human right being violated if they have to show ID in the states yet that is exactly what they require of others.

Well, you asked a rhetorical question, I gave the rhetorical answer. In any real sense, Mexico is meaningless. You could erase it from the planet and nothing really important would change, and no one who wasn't there at the time would notice.

In more immediate terms they're an annoying but relatively minor pain in the tuckus for us because they're our downstairs neighbor.

But really, it's nothing much to get excited about. Bottom line is that if Americans were better at being Americans it wouldn't matter who wanted to wear what t-shirt on what day.

-dale

bonehead
07 May 10,, 23:45
The question was not rhetorical. The t-shirt debate is on another thread.
If you do not see the problem with an influx of tens of millions of people, many of which somehow fostered the belief they have a right to cross our border at will, are more Mexican than American in regards to affiliation, bring in drugs and gangs, and are harming our already shaky economy, into our country is a "minor pain" then maybe you are part of the problem. Get your head out of the sand Dale.

dalem
08 May 10,, 01:27
The question was not rhetorical. The t-shirt debate is on another thread.
If you do not see the problem with an influx of tens of millions of people, many of which somehow fostered the belief they have a right to cross our border at will, are more Mexican than American in regards to affiliation, bring in drugs and gangs, and are harming our already shaky economy, into our country is a "minor pain" then maybe you are part of the problem. Get your head out of the sand Dale.

Yes it's a problem but not one without a solution. The real problem is that a) too few people want to do anything about it and b) too few people think enough of their own country, America, to think that something even should be done about it.

-dale

Blue
08 May 10,, 04:01
Bottom line is that if Americans were better at being Americans it wouldn't matter who wanted to wear what t-shirt on what day.

-dale

Spot friggin on!!!! Thank the pubic schrool system!!!

Gun Grape
08 May 10,, 05:03
I do, and so should every one else interested in this topic. Why should they expect things from us that they themselves would not give to others. They expect us to treat them like they are saviors for being here illegally while they rape and pillage immigrants in their own country. Mexicans are screaming about their human right being violated if they have to show ID in the states yet that is exactly what they require of others.

Because we are Americans. We don't do that shit. We are the gold standard that other governments strive to achieve.

Our enemies maim and torture. We don't and if someone stoops so low as to do it, we hammer their ass. "The other guys do it" is no excuse to lower our moral standards nor violate the protections under our Constitution.

bonehead
08 May 10,, 07:33
Because we are Americans. We don't do that shit. We are the gold standard that other governments strive to achieve.

Our enemies maim and torture. We don't and if someone stoops so low as to do it, we hammer their ass. "The other guys do it" is no excuse to lower our moral standards nor violate the protections under our Constitution.

Sure. Why lower our standards and secure our own border. The Mexican government is most definitely not striving to our "gold standard". If anything, they are trying to tear ours down, one state at a time. They have repeated human rights violations concerning immigrants in Mexico, including rape kidnaping and murder. Americans on American soil have been threatened, murdered and have had their rights violated by illegals, and by some sources, Mexican military. I am not advocating we do the same. I am only demanding that Mexicans own up to their own hypocrisy concerning immigration. Why do they denounce Arizona's law when immigrants are treated much more strictly in Mexico. After all that is done in Mexico, on our border and even on American soil where is that hammer you speak of? Oh thats right. We gave them the "velvet" hammer. On a silver platter.

Gun Grape
08 May 10,, 19:05
Sure. Why lower our standards and secure our own border. The Mexican government is most definitely not striving to our "gold standard". If anything, they are trying to tear ours down, one state at a time. They have repeated human rights violations concerning immigrants in Mexico, including rape kidnaping and murder. Americans on American soil have been threatened, murdered and have had their rights violated by illegals, and by some sources, Mexican military. I am not advocating we do the same. I am only demanding that Mexicans own up to their own hypocrisy concerning immigration. Why do they denounce Arizona's law when immigrants are treated much more strictly in Mexico. After all that is done in Mexico, on our border and even on American soil where is that hammer you speak of? Oh thats right. We gave them the "velvet" hammer. On a silver platter.

And with all this violence the Southwestern US, as the rest of the nation, is experiencing less crime. Phoenix experienced a 24% drop in violent crime in the last 5 years.

Violent crime rat in Arizona went from 530 incidents per 100 thousand in 2000 to 445 per 100 thousand in 2009. Which is below the National Average

The overrun by lawless illegal thugs that are going on a murder and rape spree doesn't wash with the statistics.

As Dale wrote. I don't care what Mexico does.

antimony
08 May 10,, 19:45
Because we are Americans. We don't do that shit. We are the gold standard that other governments strive to achieve.

Our enemies maim and torture. We don't and if someone stoops so low as to do it, we hammer their ass. "The other guys do it" is no excuse to lower our moral standards nor violate the protections under our Constitution.

Thumbs Up

Roosveltrepub
08 May 10,, 20:47
Because we are Americans. We don't do that shit. We are the gold standard that other governments strive to achieve.

Our enemies maim and torture. We don't and if someone stoops so low as to do it, we hammer their ass. "The other guys do it" is no excuse to lower our moral standards nor violate the protections under our Constitution.

thumbs up for freedom and liberty.

dalem
08 May 10,, 20:50
...and rule of law, and the melting pot.

e pluribus unum.

-dale

Roosveltrepub
08 May 10,, 21:33
...and rule of law, and the melting pot.

e pluribus unum.

-dale

yep, thank god for those 18th century radicals! A book I read and liked for the context it gave is "Dangerous Nation" Those principles scared the bejeus out of the old order.

Repatriated Canuck
10 May 10,, 02:13
If your not outraged watching this, I'd would, without apology, question your loyalty to this country.:mad:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-LINtLZF__c&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-LINtLZF__c&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>



That video made me even more happy that Canada is bloody cold. :)



LEGAL immigrants should be the most put off group by ILLEGAL immigrants.

Legals worked hard and did thier time on the waiting list and respected the law. I'll bet that every one of those hispanics supporting the bill got here the right way!;)



It bloody well puts me off here in Australia with the damn boat people. I paid and waited even though my missus is Aussie and I was entitled to nothing when I got here. Absolutely nothing and if I acted up I could expect a one way trip home.

I had to get a job, save for a deposit on a house just like everyone else. I get angered when some asshat jumps in a boat goes to Christmas Island then riots when he doesn't get his free shit fast enough.......

Bigfella
10 May 10,, 10:34
And with all this violence the Southwestern US, as the rest of the nation, is experiencing less crime. Phoenix experienced a 24% drop in violent crime in the last 5 years.

Violent crime rat in Arizona went from 530 incidents per 100 thousand in 2000 to 445 per 100 thousand in 2009. Which is below the National Average

The overrun by lawless illegal thugs that are going on a murder and rape spree doesn't wash with the statistics.

As Dale wrote. I don't care what Mexico does.

Facts, facts, facts. Always with the facts. Bloody hell Gunny, you really are missing the point of these sorts of threads, aren't you. ;)

Blue
10 May 10,, 16:03
And with all this violence the Southwestern US, as the rest of the nation, is experiencing less crime. Phoenix experienced a 24% drop in violent crime in the last 5 years.

Violent crime rat in Arizona went from 530 incidents per 100 thousand in 2000 to 445 per 100 thousand in 2009. Which is below the National Average

The overrun by lawless illegal thugs that are going on a murder and rape spree doesn't wash with the statistics.

As Dale wrote. I don't care what Mexico does.

Got a source for that?


Facts, facts, facts. Always with the facts. Bloody hell Gunny, you really are missing the point of these sorts of threads, aren't you. ;)

Here's some more facts for ya then BF. New mexico is the 4th most dangerous state followed closely by Arizona at number 8!
http://www.walletpop.com/insurance/most-dangerous-states


The drop in crime rates can be directly correlated to citizens arming themselves. Concealed carry brings down crime wherever it happens. So comparatively, the border states are still high in the US rankings.

BTW, what is your take on "the point of these sorts of threads"? I posted it to inform and alert people to a very real problem, and to discuss it otherwise.

Are you disputing some of the facts posted?

Bigfella
10 May 10,, 23:10
Got a source for that?



Here's some more facts for ya then BF. New mexico is the 4th most dangerous state followed closely by Arizona at number 8!

The drop in crime rates can be directly correlated to citizens arming themselves. Concealed carry brings down crime wherever it happens. So comparatively, the border states are still high in the US rankings.

BTW, what is your take on "the point of these sorts of threads"? I posted it to inform and alert people to a very real problem, and to discuss it otherwise.

Are you disputing some of the facts posted?


Its a joke Sniper, thats why I put the winky on the end. Not intended as a personal insult.:)

gunnut
11 May 10,, 01:23
yep, thank god for those 18th century radicals! A book I read and liked for the context it gave is "Dangerous Nation" Those principles scared the bejeus out of the old order.

Interesting thoughts! Do you defend the 2nd Amendment as vigorously as the rest of the constitution? How about the 10th?

Roosveltrepub
11 May 10,, 01:43
Interesting thoughts! Do you defend the 2nd Amendment as vigorously as the rest of the constitution? How about the 10th?

Why do you think I wouldn't?

Blue
11 May 10,, 02:09
Its a joke Sniper, thats why I put the winky on the end. Not intended as a personal insult.:) Thanks man. I missed that. I didn't figure you where raggin on me since you already know I'm a "radical" nut.:biggrin:;)

Gun Grape
11 May 10,, 02:41
Originally Posted by Gun Grape
And with all this violence the Southwestern US, as the rest of the nation, is experiencing less crime. Phoenix experienced a 24% drop in violent crime in the last 5 years.

Violent crime rat in Arizona went from 530 incidents per 100 thousand in 2000 to 445 per 100 thousand in 2009. Which is below the National Average

The overrun by lawless illegal thugs that are going on a murder and rape spree doesn't wash with the statistics.

As Dale wrote. I don't care what Mexico does.


Got a source for that?


Arizona Crime rate 2005-2009 (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm)

the spreadsheet doesn't morph to the WAB in a readable format. Click the link, Should already be set up for Arizona 2005-09 then click Get table

Here is the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2009. Crime continues to drop across the board.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2009prelimsem/index.html

Blue
11 May 10,, 03:07
Arizona Crime rate 2005-2009 (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm)

the spreadsheet doesn't morph to the WAB in a readable format. Click the link, Should already be set up for Arizona 2005-09 then click Get table

Here is the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2009. Crime continues to drop across the board.

Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report, 2009 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2009prelimsem/index.html)

OK. Now here's the question. Crime is dropping across the board. I say it is because of concealed carry. But New Mexico and Arizona are ranked as #4 and #8 of the most dangerous states to live in. Why do you think that is since most the other western and mid western states rank in the safest?

For rankings, follow the links provided in my link to Personal finance news, advice, calculators - WalletPop (http://www.walletpop.com).
They provide a breakdown of safest/msot dangerous, states/cities.

NM and AZ are climbing in those rankings from the last few years btw.

zraver
11 May 10,, 03:25
OK. Now here's the question. Crime is dropping across the board. I say it is because of concealed carry. But New Mexico and Arizona are ranked as #4 and #8 of the most dangerous states to live in. Why do you think that is since most the other western and mid western states rank in the safest?

For rankings, follow the links provided in my link to Personal finance news, advice, calculators - WalletPop (http://www.walletpop.com).
They provide a breakdown of safest/msot dangerous, states/cities.

NM and AZ are climbing in those rankings from the last few years btw.

Not just guns, the housing bubble.... When the great recession hit, Arizona and Phoenix in particular got pasted and people fled. Reliable indicators like water hook ups are down meaning fewer people. Also the immigration crack down on Arizona employers caused an exodus of illegals to places of easier employment. Arizona could see a significant dip in population or at least massively slowed growth when the census gets released.

The sad part is, the illegals still in Arizona are more likely to be criminal elements since the semi-honest looking for a job border jumpers have moved on. This is even more true on the border where smuggling is big business.

And as pointed out, the brown and black belts continue to have higher crime than the rest of the nation.

Bigfella
12 May 10,, 01:23
Thanks man. I missed that. I didn't figure you where raggin on me since you already know I'm a "radical" nut.:biggrin:;)

Its the 'radical' nutjobbery that keeps me coming back. Without that you are just one more guy with too much facial hair. :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

cyppok
12 May 10,, 01:54
Well i am in NY and the professor at my college that I used to talk to used to tell us that the first thing he does when he sits in the back to evaluate the newcoming professors is if their language is understandable (ergo students hearing the words actually get what the professor is saying). Now if this is relegated to be an "accent" thing fine. But from my point of view after taking a chemistry lab with an asian gentleman whom we could not understand (about 90% of class couldn't figure out what he was saying, the handouts and when he wrote on the board was a saving grace) I am sorry but if I cant understand you, you shouldn't be paid to teach me. Weather in high school or college. I may be dumb, I may be inept but I should have a chance to understand what you are trying to teach me verbally.

bonehead
12 May 10,, 06:52
Well i am in NY and the professor at my college that I used to talk to used to tell us that the first thing he does when he sits in the back to evaluate the newcoming professors is if their language is understandable (ergo students hearing the words actually get what the professor is saying). Now if this is relegated to be an "accent" thing fine. But from my point of view after taking a chemistry lab with an asian gentleman whom we could not understand (about 90% of class couldn't figure out what he was saying, the handouts and when he wrote on the board was a saving grace) I am sorry but if I cant understand you, you shouldn't be paid to teach me. Weather in high school or college. I may be dumb, I may be inept but I should have a chance to understand what you are trying to teach me verbally.

I had similar experiences in Calculus and chemistry. I penned many course evaluations saying I would have gotten more out of the class if I knew or could understand the first language of the grad students/teacher's aids. What I did take away from the experience is that if I went abroad to take any more classes I would learn the frickin language first or I would be wasting my time and money.

Bigfella
12 May 10,, 09:16
I had similar experiences in Calculus and chemistry. I penned many course evaluations saying I would have gotten more out of the class if I knew or could understand the first language of the grad students/teacher's aids. What I did take away from the experience is that if I went abroad to take any more classes I would learn the frickin language first or I would be wasting my time and money.

Funnily enough I know people who have had similar problems with lecturers from the American south, the Nth of England & Scotland. Be thankful for printed lecture notes.

Blue
14 May 10,, 05:11
Highland Park High School Cancels Trip To Arizona Tournament Over Immigration Law (POLL) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/12/highland-park-high-school_n_573713.html)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/13/parents-foul-spiked-arizona-basketball-trip/


Well what a bunch liberal A-holes to penalize thier kids in the name of political protest.

The kids are pissed and don't see why the school administration is taking this action. Its hurting no one BUT THE KIDS and the kids WANT TO GO!!

Bigfella
14 May 10,, 10:28
Highland Park High School Cancels Trip To Arizona Tournament Over Immigration Law (POLL) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/12/highland-park-high-school_n_573713.html)

FOXNews.com - Outrage Spreads Over Decision Not to Send Girls&#39; Basketball Team to Arizona (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/13/parents-foul-spiked-arizona-basketball-trip/)


Well what a bunch liberal A-holes to penalize thier kids in the name of political protest.

The kids are pissed and don't see why the school administration is taking this action. Its hurting no one BUT THE KIDS and the kids WANT TO GO!!

A wee bit petty by the parents, personally don't agree. On the other hand, it is pretty small beer comapred to the hysteria over Obama addressing schoolkids.

Just re-read some of this. Talk about your crazy. Several posters claimed to be keeping their kids home from school. One poster actually says Obama is very nearly the anti-christ. Conservative @holes penalizing their kids in the name of political protest? ;)

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/american-politics/52480-obama-address-all-students.html

zraver
14 May 10,, 15:59
A wee bit petty by the parents, personally don't agree. On the other hand, it is pretty small beer comapred to the hysteria over Obama addressing schoolkids.

Just re-read some of this. Talk about your crazy. Several posters claimed to be keeping their kids home from school. One poster actually says Obama is very nearly the anti-christ. Conservative @holes penalizing their kids in the name of political protest? ;)

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/american-politics/52480-obama-address-all-students.html

Your missing the point that in both cases it was the liberals using kids.

Roosveltrepub
14 May 10,, 19:06
Your missing the point that in both cases it was the liberals using kids.

Presidents addressing schools or schoolchildren is not a novel idea. GWB was famously doing that on 911. There was not a thing wrong with it. It encourages civics and reinforces values surrounding education. That address was to be a stay in school speech not political theater. It should of been a non issue to adults except some think it nefarious for a President to address kids and encourage them to stay in school.

Bigfella
15 May 10,, 00:08
Your missing the point that in both cases it was the liberals using kids.

Nope, got the point both times - parents using their kids to make a political protest.

Just as some people who supported the 'Obama will brainwash our kids' protest will condemn this, so some who condemned that will think Arizona 'needs to be punished' (or some such) and this is an appropriate way to do it. Not impressed by either.

Aussiegunner
15 May 10,, 05:43
I haven't read all 100 posts on this thread so sorry if I am restating something that has already been said. It seems to me that an approach that is true to the ideals of the conservative side of politics (or at least the libertarian branch of it) in the US would not to be to dictate what can and cannot be taught in US schools through measures like this Arizona initiative or like the whole who-ha about "intelligent design" or whatever. Rather, it would be to abolish state funding and public ownership of schools altogether so that it is up to parents to decide what education their children should or should not have and to pay for it? It would save a lot of arguments about how taxpayers money is spent.

Gun Grape
15 May 10,, 20:20
Rather, it would be to abolish state funding and public ownership of schools altogether so that it is up to parents to decide what education their children should or should not have and to pay for it? It would save a lot of arguments about how taxpayers money is spent.

Disagree. The Federal Government needs to set the standards. Its those youngsters that need to be trained to run the country. Everything from its scientist to dishwashers. The country needs to have standards if we want to survive as an industrialized nation.

Aussiegunner
16 May 10,, 05:46
Disagree. The Federal Government needs to set the standards. Its those youngsters that need to be trained to run the country. Everything from its scientist to dishwashers. The country needs to have standards if we want to survive as an industrialized nation.

I've have more faith in the ability of most parents to competently choose an education for their children than I do in a government doing so. For those whose parents get it wrong and who are left less educated than they should be, I have faith that the ones that really want to they can catch up themselves as adults. I say that as the product of a very mediocre public school which taught a very mediocre state curriculum that I HAD to go to, because I lived in it's geographical zone. I had to pick up elements of my education that I missed there later in life, which I don't entirely blame the school for because I was a bit slack as a kid. However, I can't help but feel that I would have gotten a better education earlier had the money and the decision be left in my parents hands.

antimony
16 May 10,, 18:50
Disagree. The Federal Government needs to set the standards. Its those youngsters that need to be trained to run the country. Everything from its scientist to dishwashers. The country needs to have standards if we want to survive as an industrialized nation.

It would be good to have choices though, as most state regulated systems seems to be geared towards the lowest denominator.

When I was in school, I could choose between my state's school board (which wouldn't teach English), a central school board (excellent curriculum but not many good schools in my city) or a privately run school board (again, a decent curriculum and with lots of good schools in my city).

If one has only one mediocre state school curriculum to choose from, then choices become limited.

Roosveltrepub
16 May 10,, 19:19
It would be good to have choices though, as most state regulated systems seems to be geared towards the lowest denominator.

When I was in school, I could choose between my state's school board (which wouldn't teach English), a central school board (excellent curriculum but not many good schools in my city) or a privately run school board (again, a decent curriculum and with lots of good schools in my city).

If one has only one mediocre state school curriculum to choose from, then choices become limited.

It was 35 years ago but, when I was in school classrooms were broken down based on ability/drive and the performance that resulted. I lived in an affluent community. Wouldn't creating schools that could group by performance make more sense?

Blue
16 May 10,, 20:49
A wee bit petty by the parents, personally don't agree. On the other hand, it is pretty small beer comapred to the hysteria over Obama addressing schoolkids.

Just re-read some of this. Talk about your crazy. Several posters claimed to be keeping their kids home from school. One poster actually says Obama is very nearly the anti-christ. Conservative @holes penalizing their kids in the name of political protest? ;)

I think you did miss the point BF. The SCHOOL officials mnade the decision NOT to go. The kids AND the parents WANT to go.

The petty ones here are the libtards running the school.

They have yet to state a valid reason to cancel the trip.

highsea
16 May 10,, 22:01
Was watching the hearing from Thursday, House Judiciary Committee. Hearing was on Justice Department Oversight.

Holder testifying. Said he had appointed a panel to study the constitutionality of the Arizona law, specifically as it relates to pre-emption and civil rights. He said he had "concerns" that the AZ law may be unconstitutional on those grounds.

So Ted Poe asks him if he's read the AZ law. Holder says no, he hasn't actually read it for himself. :rolleyes:

Poe offers Holder his copy, lol.

Hell, we've all read it here, it's only 10 pages. How is it that Holder can have "concerns" and appoint a panel to study it, but he hasn't even taken 15 minutes to read it for himself? Jackass.

bigross86
16 May 10,, 22:27
Probably because like everything official, it's in a language only spoken fluently by lawyers and politicians.


AN ACT
AMENDING TITLE 11, CHAPTER 7, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 8;
AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 15, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION
13-1509; AMENDING SECTION 13-2319, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE
13, CHAPTER 29, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTIONS 13-2928 AND
13-2929; AMENDING SECTIONS 23-212, 23-212.01, 23-214 AND 28-3511, ARIZONA
REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 12, ARTICLE 2, ARIZONA REVISED
STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 41-1724; RELATING TO UNLAWFULLY PRESENT ALIENS.

That is just on the title page, telling you what it's amending or adding.


1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Intent
3 The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the
4 cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of
5 Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make
6 attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local
7 government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to
8 work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of
9 aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United
10 States.

Now, can we try and summarize that into 2 or 3 sentences of regular spoken English? I guarantee you, if the public could actually read these things, there would be a lot less misunderstanding

highsea
16 May 10,, 23:06
Probably because like everything official, it's in a language only spoken fluently by lawyers and politicians.And Holder is a lawyer. He's the nation's TOP lawyer.

Why should he comment on the constitutionality of a law he hasn't read?

How did he make the determination that it was necessary to assign a team of DOJ lawyers to study the law that he hadn't read?

That is just on the title page, telling you what it's amending or adding.And the remaining 16 pages detail the amendments. I can easily read the entire text in 15 or 20 minutes, and I'm not a lawyer.

Not confusing at all.

Now, can we try and summarize that into 2 or 3 sentences of regular spoken English? I guarantee you, if the public could actually read these things, there would be a lot less misunderstandingWell, that is 3 sentences of clear english. I'm not sure what you don't understand.

The general public doesn't read these things, I grant you.

But I think it's reasonable to expect the Attorney General of the United States to do so before committing limited resources to studying the constitutionality of the law, or commenting on his "concerns" in televised interviews and hearings.

Bigfella
16 May 10,, 23:09
I think you did miss the point BF. The SCHOOL officials mnade the decision NOT to go. The kids AND the parents WANT to go.

The petty ones here are the libtards running the school.

They have yet to state a valid reason to cancel the trip.


My bad.

Still think 'Obama is going to brainwash our kids day' was no better a reason to keep kids home than this. Using kids to make a political point is cheap no matter who does it.

dalem
16 May 10,, 23:15
And Holder is a lawyer. He's the nation's TOP lawyer.

Why should he comment on the constitutionality of a law he hasn't read?
.

Same way his boss can make firm, declarative statements and decisions about subjects with which he has no experience, familiarity, or data - economics, energy, and international relations to name three. Hell, even local police matters are within his reach.

An administration of simpering academics headed by an arrogant, ignorant martinet.

That's why.

-dale

highsea
16 May 10,, 23:38
Same way his boss can make firm, declarative statements and decisions about subjects with which he has no experience, familiarity, or data - economics, energy, and international relations to name three. Hell, even local police matters are within his reach.And car companies, and NASA...
An administration of simpering academics headed by an arrogant, ignorant martinet.

That's why.

-daleYeah.

Poe was setting Holder up. He wanted to ask Holder how a State incorporating a Federal law was preemption, and how a law that specifically prohibits racial profiling can be a civil rights violation.

He did get Holder to admit that USC section 287 (allows state LEO's to enforce federal laws) was contitutional.

Blue
17 May 10,, 15:46
Probably because like everything official, it's in a language only spoken fluently by lawyers and politicians. Actually, the legislature went to great lengths to make it understandable by the public. They also went to great lengths to ensure that no part could possibly called out as racial profiling.




That is just on the title page, telling you what it's amending or adding. Hence the work put into this bill.




Now, can we try and summarize that into 2 or 3 sentences of regular spoken English? I guarantee you, if the public could actually read these things, there would be a lot less misunderstanding I can see your point here, but would argue that most people do understand it. The only ones that claim they can't, just don't want to because of the concept that has been put in thier head by the MSM. Rarely do these people bother to search for truth, they just imbibe what the talking head in the little black box gives them.

bigross86
17 May 10,, 16:13
I can see your point here, but would argue that most people do understand it. The only ones that claim they can't, just don't want to because of the concept that has been put in thier head by the MSM. Rarely do these people bother to search for truth, they just imbibe what the talking head in the little black box gives them.

I can understand what they're saying, yes, but when I read stuff like that, in "high" English, I get a headache. Having to read 10 whole pages like that, I'd give up 3 pages in.

If someone were to put it in the common English that you and I speak and write in, it would be a lot easier to read. You can see my point that there is quite the difference between the two styles of speech

gunnut
17 May 10,, 20:45
So many lies get disemminated so fast and repeated so often today they might as well be fact.

For example, the Arizona immigration law.

I actually heard a radio ad paid for by SEIU in LA that said this law allows the police to stop anyone based on skin color and question their immigration status.

astralis
17 May 10,, 20:46
this isn't a rhetorical question-- what identifiers can arizona police actually use to determine if there's a reasonable suspicion that the people are illegals?

gunnut
17 May 10,, 20:48
this isn't a rhetorical question-- what identifiers can arizona police actually use to determine if there's a reasonable suspicion that the people are illegals?

The law says the police cannot question immigration status without any other crimes being committed.

Basically the cops can't pull you over because you're brown. However the cops can question immigration status if they caught you in a stolen car and you have a heavy accent or don't speak English.

astralis
17 May 10,, 20:53
interesting. i guess i'd be more comfortable with the law if it had the police check immigration status for -anyone- caught doing a crime. i wouldn't mind that.

dalem
17 May 10,, 21:02
interesting. i guess i'd be more comfortable with the law if it had the police check immigration status for -anyone- caught doing a crime. i wouldn't mind that.

Technically they already do. How often do you get stopped by cop and NOT asked for ID?

Something like the AZ law is NOT designed or intended to sweep the state clean of all illegals. It will allow the police to scrape up some of the real lightweights and send them packing and put pressure on the casuals.

-dale

gunnut
17 May 10,, 21:11
interesting. i guess i'd be more comfortable with the law if it had the police check immigration status for -anyone- caught doing a crime. i wouldn't mind that.

Sure, if the police has unlimited resources, then by all means, check everyone. But you know they have to profile to save time.

What are the chances, I mean just purely statistical chances, of a white guy named Sam Edwards, with a typical western US accent, being an illegal immigrant?

What are the chances of a hispanic looking guy named Jose Manual de la Hoya, who barely speaks English, being an illegal immigrant?

You pull them over on 2 separate stops, both in stolen cars. Which one would you waste your time on checking the immigration status?

Here's another scenario: someone bombs an abortion clinic. Would you suspect AQ or the christian nuts?

highsea
17 May 10,, 21:24
The cops have to have reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally. Not speaking english and having a latino surname isn't reasonable suspicion.

Cop pulls over a driver for some infraction.

Cop: License and registration, please.
Driver: I have no license, sir.
Cop: Why don't you have a license?
Driver: Uh, my license was suspended, sir.
Cop: What's your name?
Driver: Rodrigo Perez

Cop calls in the name and there is no suspended license under that name.

Cop: There's no record of a license suspended under that name.
Driver: Well, it was a Mexican license...

Now the cop has reasonable suspicion to verify the person's status.

Blue
17 May 10,, 21:28
interesting. i guess i'd be more comfortable with the law if it had the police check immigration status for -anyone- caught doing a crime. i wouldn't mind that.

Well if you are talking to a white guy with a deep southern drawl named "Bubba", probably his immigration status is that he just moved there from Arkansas, and its a good bet he's a citizen.

Seriously, I can't believe all the nonsensical retoric surrounding this simple law.

gunnut
17 May 10,, 21:32
Of course, what's funny is, when I go to another country, I always carry my passport with me. If the local police asks me for ID, I wouldn't scream "racism" or "anti-immigrant" or "NAZI" or anything like that. I would pull out my papers to show that I was allowed in the country legally and have not overstayed my welcome.

There are many international travelers on this forum. I'm sure you all carry your papers with you at all times when you travel to another land.

But not here. You are free to accuse the locals of acting like NAZIs if you were asked for your papers.

So what exactly would happen if I were driving in New Zealand, caused a car accident (driving on the wrong side of the road), and could not provide ID when the police asked for it?

astralis
17 May 10,, 21:33
my own suspicion is that this law will probably meet its first serious legal challenge if/when there's a ****-up, ie a legitimate mexican-american getting accused of being here illegally. if that's the case, then arizona's response will indeed most likely be to formally codify a citizenship check for anyone accused of a crime.

gunnut
17 May 10,, 21:44
my own suspicion is that this law will probably meet its first serious legal challenge if/when there's a ****-up, ie a legitimate mexican-american getting accused of being here illegally. if that's the case, then arizona's response will indeed most likely be to formally codify a citizenship check for anyone accused of a crime.

It should be simple to prove that a Mexican American is here legally. First thing, he should be able to easily produce a driver's license that checks out. That would rule out a huge chunk of suspicion right there.

My car was hit by a "Mexican" driver who could not produce any documentation and barely spoke English. What's your first instinct if that had happened to you? I mean seriously.

kato
17 May 10,, 22:00
Of course, what's funny is, when I go to another country, I always carry my passport with me. If the local police asks me for ID, I wouldn't scream "racism" or "anti-immigrant" or "NAZI" or anything like that.
US expats in Germany tend to complain about being forced to carry their passports. Regularly. Mostly because it's cumbersome. Has come to the point that by now a lot of them are hoping Germany introduces an ID card for foreigners displaying their legal residence status.


My car was hit by a "Mexican" driver who could not produce any documentation and barely spoke English. What's your first instinct if that had happened to you? I mean seriously.
Happens all the time here. Just switch "Mexican" for "US". Means mandatory police and MP involvement.

gunnut
17 May 10,, 22:03
US expats in Germany tend to complain about being forced to carry their passports. Regularly. Mostly because it's cumbersome. Has come to the point that by now a lot of them are hoping Germany introduces an ID card for foreigners displaying their legal residence status.

Notice the key word?



Happens all the time here. Just switch "Mexican" for "US". Means mandatory police and MP involvement.

Sure, and do you question their immigration status? Or will you be called "NAZI" if you do?

highsea
17 May 10,, 22:03
It should be simple to prove that a Mexican American is here legally. First thing, he should be able to easily produce a driver's license that checks out. That would rule out a huge chunk of suspicion right there.It does more than rule out suspicion under the AZ law, it proves legal status on the spot.

antimony
18 May 10,, 01:39
Of course, what's funny is, when I go to another country, I always carry my passport with me. If the local police asks me for ID, I wouldn't scream "racism" or "anti-immigrant" or "NAZI" or anything like that. I would pull out my papers to show that I was allowed in the country legally and have not overstayed my welcome.

There are many international travelers on this forum. I'm sure you all carry your papers with you at all times when you travel to another land.

But not here. You are free to accuse the locals of acting like NAZIs if you were asked for your papers.

So what exactly would happen if I were driving in New Zealand, caused a car accident (driving on the wrong side of the road), and could not provide ID when the police asked for it?

I think this hugely depends on which country you are in, and for your purpose I don't think NZ is a good example. As far as I know, most commonwealth countries do not give the regular bobby the authority to ask for citizenship info. As far as I know, cops in UK, AU, NZ or India cannot ask for citizenship papers.

For the specific eg you quoted, I would assume that you would need to have either a local DL or an International DP. If you have gotten into trouble and cannot provide info of where you come from, you are in loads of trouble regardless of citizenship, ethnicity or whatever...

About the AZ law, it does not matter for legal non-citizens (including perm. residency holders, since they are reqd. to carry passports of green cards anyway).

However, what happens to any old "mexican looking" joe justs hanging around? Currently he does not need to have any id papers if he is a citizen. Passing this law would requre him to carry that extra info.

Someone on CBS said that the AZ cops could simply pull some random guy from the street (even if he is simply, say, walking around) and ask for papers. that seems to be a wee bit concerning.

Parihaka
18 May 10,, 01:52
So what exactly would happen if I were driving in New Zealand, caused a car accident (driving on the wrong side of the road), and could not provide ID when the police asked for it?


I think this hugely depends on which country you are in, and for your purpose I don't think NZ is a good example. As far as I know, most commonwealth countries do not give the regular bobby the authority to ask for citizenship info. As far as I know, cops in UK, AU, NZ or India cannot ask for citizenship papers.

For the specific eg you quoted, I would assume that you would need to have either a local DL or an International DP. If you have gotten into trouble and cannot provide info of where you come from, you are in loads of trouble regardless of citizenship, ethnicity or whatever...

In New Zealand you are required to carry a valid drivers license when driving, whether an NZ or international one. Failure to do so is a crime and you are required to produce it when asked to by an officer if he pulls you up.
Also, if you are walking down the street a police officer is allowed to ask you your name, date of birth, current address and occupation which he can check by computer on the spot. Again, failure by you to comply is a crime.

bigross86
18 May 10,, 02:06
Not only that, if you identify yourself as a visitor in New Zealand, any law enforcement officer is allowed to demand that you produce a visa or other proof that you are there legally. Israeli's couldn't work in NZ legally, so the company I worked for demanded that you have another passport with which you could get a work visa. I had to carry my US passport on me whenever I left the house.

highsea
18 May 10,, 02:24
...Someone on CBS said that the AZ cops could simply pull some random guy from the street (even if he is simply, say, walking around) and ask for papers. that seems to be a wee bit concerning.Yeah, and it's totally wrong too. The law specifically prohibits that.

Too bad the people at CB.S. don't have the integrity for accurate reporting.

bigross86
18 May 10,, 02:28
Has it ever occurred to anybody to grab a shotgun, storm into news offices all over the USA and force people to read the law before they pass bullshit commentary?

Parihaka
18 May 10,, 03:04
Israeli's couldn't work in NZ legally, ...I didn'y know that, a legacy of Phil Goff sans doubt.

antimony
18 May 10,, 07:47
Also, if you are walking down the street a police officer is allowed to ask you your name, date of birth, current address and occupation which he can check by computer on the spot. Again, failure by you to comply is a crime.

Even though that is not really a test of citizenship, I do agree that if the police are able to verify all that over some database then they would be able to tell between legal and illegal. In fact, the liberal radio host Dave Ross called for such a system being made available to businesses (who would need to recruit folks as well as the cops) in lieu of cops asking someone for something like a passport.



Yeah, and it's totally wrong too. The law specifically prohibits that.

Too bad the people at CB.S. don't have the integrity for accurate reporting.


Hmm, apparently some legal guy from CBS went through the new AZ law and came to this conclusion. Obviously I am not in a position to confirm, but sounds interesting that CBS would posit in such a manner.

kato
18 May 10,, 09:07
Or will you be called "NAZI" if you do?
Nah, we're a bit more history-conscious. Foreigners do pull the Nazi card in front of the police sometimes, for some reason mostly anglophone and southern foreigners.

In Germany, the concept of Schleierfahndung - allowing police officers to randomly check identities on the street to fish for possible criminals - was introduced in the late 90s. Some states have abandoned it again by now.

This concept is heavily criticized within Germany; accusations range from racial profiling to being unconstitutional per se (differing opinions from courts depending on state about that), with those pulling the history card citing that the last time this was possible was in Prussia before 1851 - under Martial Law in a State of Siege only. The EU is criticizing the concept because it circumvents the Schengen Open Borders Treaty. Targets of the concept are mostly the drug scene and illegal immigrants.

Roosveltrepub
18 May 10,, 14:45
Yeah, and it's totally wrong too. The law specifically prohibits that.

Too bad the people at CB.S. don't have the integrity for accurate reporting.

So what exactly does it allow? What circumstances allow them to stop ask or detain individuals?

Blue
18 May 10,, 15:53
Of course, what's funny is, when I go to another country, I always carry my passport with me. If the local police asks me for ID, I wouldn't scream "racism" or "anti-immigrant" or "NAZI" or anything like that. I would pull out my papers to show that I was allowed in the country legally and have not overstayed my welcome.

There are many international travelers on this forum. I'm sure you all carry your papers with you at all times when you travel to another land.

But not here. You are free to accuse the locals of acting like NAZIs if you were asked for your papers.

So what exactly would happen if I were driving in New Zealand, caused a car accident (driving on the wrong side of the road), and could not provide ID when the police asked for it? Sport on GN. Furthermore, lets say your a N Korean and you illegally entered China. Chinas policy is to send you right back to NK where it is highly likely you will be executed for your trespass. But thankfully the white house has apologized for the AZ law to China and the rest of the world! :rolleyes:

Blue
18 May 10,, 15:59
Has it ever occurred to anybody to grab a shotgun, storm into news offices all over the USA and force people to read the law before they pass bullshit commentary?:cool:

Too bad what we would LIKE to do and what we SHOULD or CAN do, are so totally different things.

One of the dark sides of our freedom is that you can lie your ass off usually without serious consequence.:frown:

bigross86
18 May 10,, 15:59
I didn'y know that, a legacy of Phil Goff sans doubt.

I don't know whose fault it was, but about a month and a half ago Israel and New Zealand signed a Working Holiday visa agreement, so now Israelis can work in NZ legally. With any luck it will be put into effect within another month and a half or so

Parihaka
19 May 10,, 01:11
I don't know whose fault it was, but about a month and a half ago Israel and New Zealand signed a Working Holiday visa agreement, so now Israelis can work in NZ legally. With any luck it will be put into effect within another month and a half or so

Sweet. The Clark govt. (Phil Goff was foreign minister) imposed sanctions against Israel after Mossad got caught trying to get NZ Passports in 2005. Goff is known for constantly rattling on about 'evil Israel'. Since National got in it seems all relations have been normalised again.
Let me know if you come to Welly on your next visit, we can share a brew or two...

bigross86
19 May 10,, 01:37
Israel reopened their Embassy a couple weeks ago. If I make it back to New Zealand (I'm really hoping to, I absolutely loved my time there) I will definitely look you up.

If you're walking in the mall anytime from September-ish onwards and see some dudes selling Dead Sea stuff, there's a decent chance that I know the manager, if he still stays in his position. His name is Yoav. Tell him you spoke to Ben, he'll give you a discount on a present for your missus...

antimony
19 May 10,, 20:34
Going


Yeah, and it's totally wrong too. The law specifically prohibits that.

Too bad the people at CB.S. don't have the integrity for accurate reporting.

Back to topic on the content of the new AZ law

This is what the law says:


13
article 8. Enforcement of immigration laws
14
11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of
15
immigration laws; indemnification
16 a. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or
17 other political subdivision of this state may adopt a policy that limits or
18 restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full
19 extent permitted by federal law.
20 b. For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency
21 of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this
22 state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is
23 unlawfully present in the united states, a reasonable attempt shall be made,
24 when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. The
25 person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government
26 pursuant to 8 united states code section 1373(c).
27 c. If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is
28 convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from
29 imprisonment or assessment of any fine that is imposed, the alien shall be
30 transferred immediately to the custody of the United States immigration and
31 customs enforcement or the united states customs and border protection.
32 d. Notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency may
33 securely transport an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States
34 and who is in the agency's custody to a federal facility in this state or to
35 any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the
36 jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency.
37 e. A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person
38 if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed
39 any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States


The part that I have marked in red, especially the underlined parts, is what scares me.

I don't really know what the phrases "lawful contact" or "reasonable suspicion" mean, but I do note that for the term "law enforcement official or agency" there is no qualifier stating "WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL
4 GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS". To me this means that any LEO may be able to pull someone up and ask that the person prove his/ her immigration status.

I think this is what is concerning to some communities, as they fear that this might opne them to profiling. It would be useful if the AZ legislature gave some clarifications around this.

Again, to me, all this does not matter, since as a Perm. resident I am reqd. to carry my green card around anyways. But I can understand the concerns of a normal citizen who has the choice or not carrying any ID papers.

dalem
19 May 10,, 20:40
But I can understand the concerns of a normal citizen who has the choice or not carrying any ID papers.

What person over 16 doesn't leave the house with their wallet or purse?

-dale

highsea
19 May 10,, 21:08
I've had to show my identification to police on two separate occasions. Once in the front yard of my house, and once on my boat late at night.

Both times they were looking for someone who got away from them and wanted to make sure it wasn't me.

I don't consider this unreasonable.

I have an EDL which proves citizenship, I rarely carry my passport.

In AZ a drivers license ends the interview, so anyone pulled over who's legal shouldn't have any problems.
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants.

Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion.

Reasonable suspicion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion)

antimony
19 May 10,, 22:29
What person over 16 doesn't leave the house with their wallet or purse?

-dale

Many, I would imagine, and an even greater number without any specific forms of ID.

I myself didn't get a DL till I was around 21. Now that was back in India, but I assume that there would be many in the larger cities (whihc have better commuting and transportations options like NYC) in the US who would not feel the need to get either a State ID or a DL. Its not like there is any requirement to do so that I am aware of.


I have an EDL which proves citizenship, I rarely carry my passport.

In AZ a drivers license ends the interview, so anyone pulled over who's legal shouldn't have any problems.

There was an arguement on a liberal talk show that drivers should just be able to show their DL (not EDL) and that should show their legal status. I know that Arizona has a "Enhanced 3-in-1" DL system but I am unsure how they would treat the EDL from a different state such as, say, WA.

But the point that I was trying to make was that the LEO does not need to pull over someone who is driving (though later sections in the bill go about that), simply that an LEO may zero down on anyone based on "reasonable suspicion" and ask about citizenship status. At that point, if the dude does not have his papers on him, he is in trouble.

bigross86
19 May 10,, 23:11
Simple: Mandate that every person over a certain age must carry a legal form of ID at all times. DL, Passport, National ID card, something. Many countries do that, Israel being just one of them.

If you make it an offense not have some sort of ID on you, people won't leave the house without ID

highsea
19 May 10,, 23:14
There was an arguement on a liberal talk show that drivers should just be able to show their DL (not EDL) and that should show their legal status. I know that Arizona has a "Enhanced 3-in-1" DL system but I am unsure how they would treat the EDL from a different state such as, say, WA.EDL shows US citizenship, good for travel anywhere in the US, Canada, Mexico, and Carribean.

So I imagine it would work in Arizona...

But the point that I was trying to make was that the LEO does not need to pull over someone who is driving (though later sections in the bill go about that), simply that an LEO may zero down on anyone based on "reasonable suspicion" and ask about citizenship status. At that point, if the dude does not have his papers on him, he is in trouble.It's reasonable suspicion of being here illegally, so yes- if the LEO could show that, then the person would have to come up with ID.

Hunches, color of skin, language, etc. are not reasonable suspicion.

A guy in an orange jumpuit running down the street 1/4 of a mile from an immigration holding facility would be.

antimony
19 May 10,, 23:31
It's reasonable suspicion of being here illegally, so yes- if the LEO could show that, then the person would have to come up with ID.

Hunches, color of skin, language, etc. are not reasonable suspicion.

A guy in an orange jumpuit running down the street 1/4 of a mile from an immigration holding facility would be.

I am personally for stricter enforcement of immigration laws, though I believe that job is best left to agencies charged with it.

If the AZ legislature can take the time to explain some of these finer points, then maybe they would able to allay some legitimate concerns. I know that they would not be able to sway the pro-illegal immigration crowd, but that is not the intention anyway.

gunnut
19 May 10,, 23:36
I am personally for stricter enforcement of immigration laws, though I believe that job is best left to agencies charged with it.

If the AZ legislature can take the time to explain some of these finer points, then maybe they would able to allay some legitimate concerns. I know that they would not be able to sway the pro-immigratin crowd, but that is not the intention anyway.

They did take the time to explain. The MSM didn't bother to report it. All the traditional media did was perpetuate the myth that Arizona police will ask a brown skinned man for his papers.

And by the way, it's not "pro-immigration" crowd. It's "pro-illegal immigration" crowd you're talking about. I am "pro-immigration" and I applaud Arizona for doing something the federal government has refused to do.

antimony
20 May 10,, 00:45
And by the way, it's not "pro-immigration" crowd. It's "pro-illegal immigration" crowd you're talking about. I am "pro-immigration" and I applaud Arizona for doing something the federal government has refused to do.

You are right, that is what I meant. Thanks for pointing that out, made the correction

Blue
20 May 10,, 05:21
The part that I have marked in red, especially the underlined parts, is what scares me.

I don't really know what the phrases "lawful contact" or "reasonable suspicion" mean, but I do note that for the term "law enforcement official or agency" there is no qualifier stating "WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL
4 GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS". To me this means that any LEO may be able to pull someone up and ask that the person prove his/ her immigration status.

I think this is what is concerning to some communities, as they fear that this might opne them to profiling. It would be useful if the AZ legislature gave some clarifications around this.

Again, to me, all this does not matter, since as a Perm. resident I am reqd. to carry my green card around anyways. But I can understand the concerns of a normal citizen who has the choice or not carrying any ID papers.

Well let a former LEO help you out here.

"Lawful contact"- The law says that for an LEO to initiate a "lawful contact" there must be something called "probable cause" which will be called PC from here out. Violations of laws rank in severity from Felony, Misdemeanor, and lastly, an infraction. Most traffic rules(speeding, seatbelt, Failure to stop at a signal) are infractions. They carry a fine and most likely points on your license. Anything from failure to signal to running a stop sign or any violation of any traffic law, that could result in a an LEO pulling you over, is lawful contact because, if the officer observed you comitting this act, then he is bound by law to detain you in order to cite you or investigate your actions further, which is usually at his discretion. (anyone ever talk thier way out of a ticket?)

At this point, he has PC to pull you over.

Now Officer Joe has you pulled over and aproaches the vehicle. He might say " Good evening sir. I'm Officer Joe with the Pheonix PD and the reason I pulled you over was(whatever observed ILLEGAL action you may have taken). Now, I need to see your DL and proof of ins please.

At that point, if you don't "habla ingles" or can't produce a valid DL, OR insurance OR proof of ownership of that vehicle, which about 150 million other Americans CAN do at the drop of a hat, there might be good reason for Officer Joe to supect that there might be more to the story and REASONS you don't have any of that.

"Reasonable suspicion"- See above paragraph.

"WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS"

Actually, there was law passed many years ago, about 1943 IIRC, that allowed any state, county or municipal LEO, to enforce any federal law that was not specifically prohibited by a state. States can outlaw lots of things, but can enforce ANY federal law.

Technically, states could already do exactly what the AZ law allows, by the already existing fed law, it just defines it better.

I encountered a few illegals when I was a deputy. My Sheriff didn't want me "wasting my time with them", so I called the local Border Patrol office and turned them over to them. I was every bit within the law to detain them, and could have pursued it further if my Sheriff had deemed it in our counties best interest to use our resources to deport illegals. Which would have been done by the Border Patrol or Immigration, a federal agency, anyway. That is also how it would be done today. Pheonix PD or Sheriff Joe CANNOT deport people, but they CAN arrange the meeting of the illegal with the federal authorities.

So does that help ya"?:)

dalem
20 May 10,, 08:56
(anyone ever talk thier way out of a ticket?)


I've honested my way out of one or two.

-dale

antimony
20 May 10,, 21:30
Well let a former LEO help you out here.


My question was around the non-motor vehicle related section, but sure, this helps too.

So, a genral question to all here.

Here is what I still don't understand, among some others. What I have heard so far is that AZ (and any of the states) have full authority to implement federal law, unless stated otherwise by the Federal government or by the states themselves.

In that case, why does AZ need a law enacted to be able to do that? Can't they just ask the cops to, you know, go and enforce the law?

The only part that sense about this is they wanted to give out a strong political message, but couldn't they have done it just by announcing the intent to enfore federal immigrations laws to their fullest extent?

Edit:

Just noted this point made by Highsea in the other thread:


The only parts of the AZ law that could be a problem are the addition of the criminal tresspass charge and the penalties against employers. These parts could be invalidated by a federal court on preemption grounds.

The rest is just incorporation of existing federal law, and shouldn't be controversial.

If that is the case, barring that controversial part of criminal tresspass charge and the penalties against employers (which I actually like), why have a separate law at all?

highsea
20 May 10,, 22:17
...In that case, why does AZ need a law enacted to be able to do that? Can't they just ask the cops to, you know, go and enforce the law?That's what they're doing.

But rather than leaving up to each individual department, it's a "shall enforce" directive by the legislature to all of them.

antimony
20 May 10,, 22:25
That's what they're doing.

But rather than leaving up to each individual department, it's a "shall enforce" directive by the legislature to all of them.

Thank Highsea

Blue
21 May 10,, 15:18
My question was around the non-motor vehicle related section, but sure, this helps too.


But that is just an example of lawful contact. I just chose MV law for its simplicity. The same could be said if if someone reports a burglar or prowler and points out a suspect or say a store detective catches a shoplifter and turns them over to police. Any citizen report of an actual observed crime would also constitute lawful contact. Its runs from stop signal runners to drug smugglers with AKs.

To be more exact, the only unlawful contact would be for the sole purpose to ask about thier status. Its not like someone is going to call 911 and report that they suspect they have a houseful of illegals next door. That is still for ICE and the BP to take care of.

Hence being an illegal is not PC to get approached.

Blue
21 May 10,, 15:21
In that case, why does AZ need a law enacted to be able to do that? Can't they just ask the cops to, you know, go and enforce the law? Yes. Sheriff Joe Arpaio and others have been doing it for years now anyway.


The only part that sense about this is they wanted to give out a strong political message, but couldn't they have done it just by announcing the intent to enfore federal immigrations laws to their fullest extent? Close. They did want to draw attention to the fact that the Feds WERE NOT doing the job they claim is thier responsibility. Its not so much political as it is frustration with the Govt.

antimony
21 May 10,, 20:37
I was listening to an NPR interview of Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, a vociferous critic of the new AZ law. That along with a comment by 7th above about his sherriff reluctance to g strong on illegal immigrants made me realize the real intent of the law.

Now authorities in AZ would be bound by this law to enforce to the fullest extent of the Federal law on immigration, as not doing so would run them afoul of this new law.

Going forward, it will not be possible for pockets within AZ (Phoenix for instance) to take a soft stance on illegal immigration, they will have to enfore the federal laws.

Slick move, but I still think they could have handled the publicity better to allay concerns on racial profiling and all, and I certainly hope that this does not lead to any profiling.

dalem
21 May 10,, 20:40
Slick move, but I still think they could have handled the publicity better to allay concerns on racial profiling and all, and I certainly hope that this does not lead to any profiling.

Better how? They passed a law, the left misread it and howled, they rewrote it to tighten it up and passed it again, the left is still howling.

It is no more likely to result in some form of discrimination than any other law or rule on any other books anywhere.

-dale

zraver
21 May 10,, 21:07
Now ICE is sayign they may not accept illegals turned over to them by Arizona... WTF a federal LEO organization refusing to enforce the law.

troung
21 May 10,, 21:52
Might as well have them draw their line in the sand and admit once and for all that they don't want to enforce the law.

Let our elites finally come out and say it.

antimony
22 May 10,, 00:12
Now ICE is sayign they may not accept illegals turned over to them by Arizona... WTF a federal LEO organization refusing to enforce the law.

I have seen statements from Morton (the ICE chief) criticising the AZ law, but I can't find a single source that actually attributes it to him or any other official ICE statement. The Fox News website, which states this in the headline (Top Official Says Feds May Not Process Illegals Referred From Arizona) only refers to it rather obliquely in the actual text of the report:

FOXNews.com - Top Official Says Feds May Not Process Illegals Referred From Arizona (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/21/official-says-feds-process-illegals-referred-arizona/)



A top Department of Homeland Security official reportedly said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.

John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, made the comment during a meeting on Wednesday with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, the newspaper reports.

"I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution," Morton told the newspaper.


The exact same language from Kansas City too:

Feds might not process Arizona illegals, says ICE top official | Midwest Voices (http://voices.kansascity.com/node/9097)



In an outrageous statement that may be a not-too-subtle message to the state of Arizona, John Morton, the assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, reportedly stated that his agency would not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.

Read more: Feds might not process Arizona illegals, says ICE top official | Midwest Voices (http://voices.kansascity.com/node/9097#ixzz0obVPJREf)


I wonder if some folks are jumping the gun here.

Blue
22 May 10,, 04:59
I was listening to an NPR interview of Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, a vociferous critic of the new AZ law. That along with a comment by 7th above about his sherriff reluctance to g strong on illegal immigrants made me realize the real intent of the law.

Now authorities in AZ would be bound by this law to enforce to the fullest extent of the Federal law on immigration, as not doing so would run them afoul of this new law.

Going forward, it will not be possible for pockets within AZ (Phoenix for instance) to take a soft stance on illegal immigration, they will have to enfore the federal laws.

Slick move, but I still think they could have handled the publicity better to allay concerns on racial profiling and all, and I certainly hope that this does not lead to any profiling.

Now you got it buddy! Spot on! :);) However, Phoenix is not one of those pockets. That's Sheriff Joes town.

Blue
22 May 10,, 05:11
As others have posted and I have heard numerous reports today, that the Feds may deny accepting illegals from AZ.

I say let them go ahead and do it because that's just the next stupid thing the fedgov could do to piss off more legal residents! Keep going jackasses! Two of the three branches of our gov will be totally GOP by Jan 2013!:):cool:

JAD_333
22 May 10,, 17:39
Now ICE is sayign they may not accept illegals turned over to them by Arizona... WTF a federal LEO organization refusing to enforce the law.

Actually, when you get right down to it ICE often rejects local law enforcement requests to pick up illegals. The system is way overloaded. We have to face up to the fact that there are so many illegals in the US that it would take thousands of more ICE agents, a dozen or more detention facilities, a battalion of immigration judges to handle it all. Walls won't do any good in the long run. Our land borders and coastlines are just too long to cover.

Stiffening the penalties on illegals caught is the only way to discourage illegal immigration. The country simply has to recognize that a slap on the wrist isn't going to do the job. I doubt Obama and the dem congress has the will to increase penalties. I am not sure either party has the will. The Latino voting block is a prize neither want to alienate.

Either make it easy for them to come here and work or throw the book at illegals. What other choices do we have?

Roosveltrepub
22 May 10,, 18:38
Actually, when you get right down to it ICE often rejects local law enforcement requests to pick up illegals. The system is way overloaded. We have to face up to the fact that there are so many illegals in the US that it would take thousands of more ICE agents, a dozen or more detention facilities, a battalion of immigration judges to handle it all. Walls won't do any good in the long run. Our land borders and coastlines are just too long to cover.

Stiffening the penalties on illegals caught is the only way to discourage illegal immigration. The country simply has to recognize that a slap on the wrist isn't going to do the job. I doubt Obama and the dem congress has the will to increase penalties. I am not sure either party has the will. The Latino voting block is a prize neither want to alienate.

Either make it easy for them to come here and work or throw the book at illegals. What other choices do we have?

I couldn't agree more. Along with the political liability is the cost liability which neither party will want. I think the only real way to stem the flow and the only real way to address is is a near perfect citizenship confirmation system for all employees and contractors. Hire someone that isn't a Citizen without using the system and make it hurt enough no one wants to risk the fines to avoid the obligations of hiring an actual citizen. If there is no demand for illegal workers it makes no sense to leave the villiage and risk one's life to get here only to face real penalies if caught and no oppurtunities. It still leaves a real problem with the millions who are here and the idea we are going to round them all up and deport them is fantasy thinking. No one likes it but some legalized status or path is the only real play. They often have kids who are U.S. citizens already. Send them home and they will just be back in 10 or 15 years as U.S. citizens with zero understanding of the Country, few skills to offer because of a Mexican education.

Roosveltrepub
22 May 10,, 18:40
As others have posted and I have heard numerous reports today, that the Feds may deny accepting illegals from AZ.

I say let them go ahead and do it because that's just the next stupid thing the fedgov could do to piss off more legal residents! Keep going jackasses! Two of the three branches of our gov will be totally GOP by Jan 2013!:):cool:

and the GOP did what about the problem when they held all three?

dalem
22 May 10,, 19:58
and the GOP did what about the problem when they held all three?

Sat on their wieners.

-dale

gunnut
22 May 10,, 20:36
and the GOP did what about the problem when they held all three?

Hey...lookie here. Back to "blame Bush for everything" for Rooseveltrepub.

We know Bush and the neo-cons dropped the ball on this one. Do you want Obama and the democrats to be just as incompetent? Or do you think Obama and the democrats should get off their asses and do something about it?

It's like the deficit thing. We know Bush and the neo-cons spent too much. What do Obama and the democrats want to do about it? Outspend them! How does that make any sense?

Roosveltrepub
22 May 10,, 20:47
Hey...lookie here. Back to "blame Bush for everything" for Rooseveltrepub.

We know Bush and the neo-cons dropped the ball on this one. Do you want Obama and the democrats to be just as incompetent? Or do you think Obama and the democrats should get off their asses and do something about it?

It's like the deficit thing. We know Bush and the neo-cons spent too much. What do Obama and the democrats want to do about it? Outspend them! How does that make any sense?

I didn't place blame. 7th was making the assertion that the Republicans regaining control would somehow mean a willingness to take the issue on and ship um home to Mexico and seal the borders completely. Let's not blame the Neo Cons either. Is blaming the neo cons the new revisonism? The party was pretty damn united for most of that presidency. Too do what many want which is too round up millions and deport them is fantasy. Too think Republicans will this time is also fantasy thinking. No one is going to commit the resources to rounding up millions of people, jailing them, getting them before a judge, then arranging deportation. No one has dealt with this because it really isn't a simple problem.

gunnut
22 May 10,, 20:50
I didn't place blame. 7th was making the assertion that the Republicans regaining control would somehow mean a willingness to take the issue on and ship um home to Mexico and seal the borders completyely. Let's not blame the Neo Cons either. Too do what many want which is too round up millions and deport them is fantasy. Too think Republicans will this time is also fantasy thinking. No one is going to commit the resources to rounding up millions of people, jailing them, getting them before a judge, then arranging deportation. No one has dealt with this because it really isn't a simple problem.

No one said anything about rounding up anyone and deporting them all.

Let's start with the first step first, guard our borders. Then we enforce FEDERAL laws already in the books at the state level. Make this place less attractive to illegal immigrants and more attractive to LEGAL immigrants.

Blue
23 May 10,, 02:17
Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub
I didn't place blame. 7th was making the assertion that the Republicans regaining control would somehow mean a willingness to take the issue on and ship um home to Mexico and seal the borders completyely. Let's not blame the Neo Cons either. Too do what many want which is too round up millions and deport them is fantasy. Too think Republicans will this time is also fantasy thinking. No one is going to commit the resources to rounding up millions of people, jailing them, getting them before a judge, then arranging deportation. No one has dealt with this because it really isn't a simple problem.

I really wish people on my ignore list would also be ignored when others quote them. Since its not that way though, I happen to read this totally frigging INACCURATE LYING quote from Rosie simply because I glanced the words "7th was making the assertion" . NOWHERE and I mean NOWHERE in this entire thread, or any other btw, did I say what your twisted up little liberal mind think I said!!

I don't assert a goddam thing. I'll say it exactly as I mean it!! So read it again, S-L-O-W-L-Y so maybe you get it this time!

And you can quit quoting me AFAIC, I have nothing to discuss with you because IMO, you can't have an intelligent discussion. Your statement is a perfect example of just that!

Roosveltrepub
23 May 10,, 02:57
I really wish people on my ignore list would also be ignored when others quote them. Since its not that way though, I happen to read this totally frigging INACCURATE LYING quote from Rosie simply because I glanced the words "7th was making the assertion" . NOWHERE and I mean NOWHERE in this entire thread, or any other btw, did I say what your twisted up little liberal mind think I said!!

I don't assert a goddam thing. I'll say it exactly as I mean it!! So read it again, S-L-O-W-L-Y so maybe you get it this time!

And you can quit quoting me AFAIC, I have nothing to discuss with you because IMO, you can't have an intelligent discussion. Your statement is a perfect example of just that!

Fair enough you certainly didnt say that. I was wrong to attach that sentiment to your name. I just should of written "things will change how if Republicans are in control?" which I later did. I'll also continue to quote any post I wish but, will make sure I never put words into your mouth.

astralis
23 May 10,, 03:03
okay guys-- adding to what JAD said earlier, everyone please calm down or i will close the thread. thanks.

highsea
23 May 10,, 22:08
Actually, when you get right down to it ICE often rejects local law enforcement requests to pick up illegals. The system is way overloaded.That's because there are only 6,000 ICE agents charged with keeping track of 12-20 million illegals.


We have to face up to the fact that there are so many illegals in the US that it would take thousands of more ICE agents, a dozen or more detention facilities, a battalion of immigration judges to handle it all.Absolutely. That's a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things. If you catch them in the act, there's limited need for more judges. Stand them up in front of a magistrate then put them in jail for 10 days and then ship them back home. Second offense, 30 days, etc.

Walls won't do any good in the long run. Our land borders and coastlines are just too long to cover.See Yuma sector. Illegal crossings down 94% after the installation of double fencing and jail time for illegal entry (Operation Streamline).

Stiffening the penalties on illegals caught is the only way to discourage illegal immigration. The country simply has to recognize that a slap on the wrist isn't going to do the job.Yep. If they know they will go to jail for the try, it will deter a lot of them.

I doubt Obama and the dem congress has the will to increase penalties. I am not sure either party has the will. The Latino voting block is a prize neither want to alienate.Sad but true.

Either make it easy for them to come here and work or throw the book at illegals. What other choices do we have?Open borders are definitely not the answer. More fencing, lots more. Jail time for illegal entry. National Guard on the borders.

Bottom line is, it's the Federal Government's responsibility and failure. Another amnesty won't work, we've been sold that bill of goods once. Gotta secure the border, then deal with policy.

Blue
24 May 10,, 03:02
Fair enough you certainly didnt say that. I was wrong to attach that sentiment to your name. I just should of written "things will change how if Republicans are in control?" I didn't say things would change. I said basically, if the dems keep pushing the issue they will find themselves out of a job and that leaves WHO in charge of this crappy-ass two party dictatorship we live in?


which I later did. WHERE??? I didn't see it.


I'll also continue to quote any post I wish but, will make sure I never put words into your mouth.

Its a fairly free forum, I suppose you will, but accuracy IS the best policy here and you can bet I'll be calling you on it.

JAD_333
24 May 10,, 05:09
That's because there are only 6,000 ICE agents charged with keeping track of 12-20 million illegals.

Yes. Simply not enough manpower. It would be a debate worth having whether or not the states should get involved, with the Fed Gov giving the states block grants to cover their expenses. No need to tell me how much of a hot potato that is...


See Yuma sector. Illegal crossings down 94% after the installation of double fencing and jail time for illegal entry (Operation Streamline).

No question you can throw up an effective barrier on stretches of the border. But can you do it for 5,523 miles of the Canadian border (Alaska included) and 1,933 of the Mexican border, not to mention 12,300 miles of coastline (88,000 miles if you include every cove, inlet and bay). Experience shows that when you effectively close one well-traveled section of the border, illegals and their mules will find one less patrolled.

When you really get down to it, fences and barriers will never stop illegal immigration. The the cost of covering some 20K miles of border just to fail makes no sense. Of course, we have to have some border controls, but
the way to cut down dramatically on illegal immigration is to make the penalties so large on both the illegal and the employer that both will be deterred.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21729.pdf



Open borders are definitely not the answer. More fencing, lots more. Jail time for illegal entry. National Guard on the borders.

I don't advocate open borders, but I think a restricted guest worker program would be good. Restrictions: temporary work permit to expire in 12-24 months; worker must post a bond before entry; worker must leave US when permit expires (gets refund of bond and can reapply after 6 months); worker cannot bring family members to live with them; worker must pay all the same payroll taxes as US citizens; worker must register current address with INS.


Bottom line is, it's the Federal Government's responsibility and failure.

This is true. But it's not so simple. Illegal immigration has exploded in the last 20 years. The cost of covering all point of entry have skyrocketed. The Congress is stalled in fear that a truly effective anti-illegal immigration effort will create sticky political problems and alienate voters, and not just Latino voters.



Another amnesty won't work, we've been sold that bill of goods once. Gotta secure the border, then deal with policy.

Another amnesty may be unavoidable. The specter of kids being uprooted, families divided, and lives shattered will play like a human tragedy on TV casing Americans themselves to want to make exceptions for this or that "law-abidng" Latino family. Churches will go into sanctuary mode... it will be a mess.

The best solution is a two-part approach. 1) grant amnesty based on certain criteria, e.g., no criminal record, length of time in US (a key one), have paid taxes and ability to support oneself and 2) draw a line in the sand, e.g. no more amnesties and very stiff penalties for violators. Along with that, recruit 10,000 new agents for renewable 4-year tours and expand the INS.

dalem
24 May 10,, 06:45
No question you can throw up an effective barrier on stretches of the border. But can you do it for 5,523 miles of the Canadian border (Alaska included) and 1,933 of the Mexican border, not to mention 12,300 miles of coastline (88,000 miles if you include every cove, inlet and bay). Experience shows that when you effectively close one well-traveled section of the border, illegals and their mules will find one less patrolled.

That's a bit of a non-answer. It's the equivalent of saying that you can't solve all murders so why bother to try and solve any? Plug the biggest leaks first, then turn attention to the other ones.

-dale

JAD_333
24 May 10,, 08:00
That's a bit of a non-answer. It's the equivalent of saying that you can't solve all murders so why bother to try and solve any? Plug the biggest leaks first, then turn attention to the other ones.

-dale

It's not a question of allowing illegal immigrants to get away with being illegal immigrants. It's a question of how to deal with their crime. If covering every inch of the border isn't practical, as I believe is the case, then we have to deal with the problem in another way. We have to do the same as we do with murderers and other criminals. We try to catch them and penalize them heavily when they are convicted. We could hire agents to watch everyone in the hope of preventing murders. But we don't; because it would be highly impractical and expensive.

highsea
24 May 10,, 18:41
There aren't any Canadians sneaking into Alaska. If there were, we would know about it- everyone knows everyone in virtually every town, and there really aren't any "border towns" in the same sense as the southern border.

There is a certain amount of marijuana smuggling from Canada on the northern border, but it's a minor problem in the grand scheme.

But obviously the big problem is the southern border, where the major criminal activity is taking place, and the violence is spilling over in a big way.

Thing is, if you stop them from coming in, you don't overload your courts, schools, and clinics. Once they're here it's too late- you've lost.

We can and must intercept them coming in, it's just a matter of the will to act.

So again I say, put the guard on the southern border, install double fencing so the border patrol has a chance of intercepting the people coming across, and check 100% of all incoming trucks and railcars.

dalem
24 May 10,, 19:07
It's not a question of allowing illegal immigrants to get away with being illegal immigrants. It's a question of how to deal with their crime. If covering every inch of the border isn't practical, as I believe is the case, then we have to deal with the problem in another way. We have to do the same as we do with murderers and other criminals. We try to catch them and penalize them heavily when they are convicted. We could hire agents to watch everyone in the hope of preventing murders. But we don't; because it would be highly impractical and expensive.

Doesn't seem that difficult to me. You don't buy flood insurance in the desert and you don't worry about a sh!t-ton of Mexicans and Ecuadorians running into the country from CANADA.

I really really think you're overthinking this one a bit.

-dale

Repatriated Canuck
09 Jun 10,, 10:33
You don't buy flood insurance in the desert and you don't worry about a sh!t-ton of Mexicans and Ecuadorians running into the country from CANADA.

I really really think you're overthinking this one a bit.

-dale



I don't think I ever met a Canadian that has even entertained the idea of running the border....

We think you guys are nuts and all the good weed would be back home! :))

indus creed
10 Jun 10,, 16:57
Many Americans, Republican/Democrat/Liberal/Conservative, have generally opposed immigration. Legal or otherwise.
However most Americans, Republican/Democrat/Liberal/Conservative, have generally looked the otherway as they
are aware of it being a complex issue with some positive aspects to it and may themselves have availed the services of these same immigrants.

One problem is with allocation of resources. Have the direct beneficiaries gained at the expense of those who have not gained directly from the illegal workers? I believe a strong case can be made for the same.

Those who use the services of illegals should be made to pay for the associated social costs as well, instead of passing it on to the rest of the society. Just for this reason illegal immigration should be discouraged.

As a taxpayer, I would be mad if somebody hires an illegal to cut his lawn but it is I who ends up picking up the tab for that illegal's healthcare and schooling needs.

But one could say, "Ah, but don't the rich do the same when they pay taxes for YOUR disproportionate benefit?" Doesn't work that way. It is the middle and upper middle that end up being the suckers most of the time and thats why I usually support user-fee based public services.

These are extraordinary times in US. With the current economic mess and uncertainity in the job market it is natural that illegal users of social benefits and economic opportunities will be put under the scanner and questions asked as to where the country is headed.

The fact that some morons flew the national flag of Mexico while demonstrating for amnesty further contributed to the alienation from the mainstream. I think Americans are relatively less intimidated by Argentinian, Bolivian or Colombian immigration(illegal) than they are with Mexican immigration. Historical reasons, language issue and demographics have really scared the hell outta Americans vis-a-vis the Mexican immigration.

The best solution is user fee for public services and naturalisation laws tweaked to exclude citizenship by birth to the illegals offsprings.

The annointed one and his dwindling supporters eventually want a universal healthcare. Considering how the US govt works, it will be a ripe fruit for picking for Jose/Jingwei/ManjeetSingh/Szczepanski and his 90 year old grandmother Esmeralda/Dai_Lilly/kuljeet_Kaur/Katarzyna. See, I am an equal opportunity bigot. :)