PDA

View Full Version : Arizona Passes Toughest Immigration Law in Decades


Pages : [1] 2

WH
04-24-2010, 12:35 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html

Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed the nation’s toughest bill on illegal immigration into law on Friday. Its aim is to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants

The move unleashed immediate protests and reignited the divisive battle over immigration reform nationally.

Even before she signed the bill at an afternoon news conference here, President Obama strongly criticized it.

Speaking at a naturalization ceremony for 24 active-duty service members in the Rose Garden, he called for a federal overhaul of immigration laws, which Congressional leaders signaled they were preparing to take up soon, to avoid “irresponsibility by others.”

The Arizona law, he added, threatened “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.

The political debate leading up to Ms. Brewer’s decision, and Mr. Obama’s criticism of the law — presidents very rarely weigh in on state legislation — underscored the power of the immigration debate in states along the Mexican border. It presaged the polarizing arguments that await the president and Congress as they take up the issue nationally.

Mexico’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement that it was worried about the rights of its citizens and relations with Arizona. Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles said the authorities’ ability to demand documents was like “Nazism.”

As hundreds of demonstrators massed, mostly peacefully, at the capitol plaza, the governor, speaking at a state building a few miles away, said the law “represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix.”

The law was to take effect 90 days after the legislative session ends, meaning by August. Court challenges were expected immediately.

Hispanics, in particular, who were not long ago courted by the Republican Party as a swing voting bloc, railed against the law as a recipe for racial and ethnic profiling. “Governor Brewer caved to the radical fringe,” a statement by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said, predicting that the law would create “a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions.”

While police demands of documents are common on subways, highways and in public places in some countries, including France, Arizona is the first state to demand that immigrants meet federal requirements to carry identity documents legitimizing their presence on American soil.

Ms. Brewer acknowledged critics’ concerns, saying she would work to ensure that the police have proper training to carry out the law. But she sided with arguments by the law’s sponsors that it provides an indispensable tool for the police in a border state that is a leading magnet of illegal immigration. She said racial profiling would not be tolerated, adding, “We have to trust our law enforcement.”

Ms. Brewer and other elected leaders have come under intense political pressure here, made worse by the killing of a rancher in southern Arizona by a suspected smuggler a couple of weeks before the State Legislature voted on the bill. His death was invoked Thursday by Ms. Brewer herself, as she announced a plan urging the federal government to post National Guard troops at the border.

President George W. Bush had attempted comprehensive reform but failed when his own party split over the issue. Once again, Republicans facing primary challenges from the right, including Ms. Brewer and Senator John McCain, have come under tremendous pressure to support the Arizona law, known as SB 1070.

Mr. McCain, locked in a primary with a challenger campaigning on immigration, only came out in support of the law hours before the State Senate passed it Monday afternoon.

Governor Brewer, even after the Senate passed the bill, had been silent on whether she would sign it. Though she was widely expected to, given her primary challenge, she refused to state her position even at a dinner on Thursday for a Hispanic social service organization, Chicanos Por La Causa, where several audience members called out “Veto!”

Among other things, the Arizona measure is an extraordinary rebuke to former Gov. Janet Napolitano, who had vetoed similar legislation repeatedly as a Democratic governor of the state before being appointed Homeland Security secretary by Mr. Obama.

The law opens a deep fissure in Arizona, with a majority of the thousands of callers to the governor’s office urging her to reject it.

In the days leading up to Ms. Brewer’s decision, Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, a Democrat, called for a convention boycott of his state.

The bill, sponsored by Russell Pearce, a state senator and a firebrand on immigration issues, has several provisions.

It requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.

It also makes it a state crime — a misdemeanor — to not carry immigration papers. In addition, it allows people to sue local government or agencies if they believe federal or state immigration law is not being enforced.

States across the country have proposed or enacted hundreds of bills addressing immigration since 2007, the last time a federal effort to reform immigration law collapsed. Last year, there were a record number of laws enacted (222) and resolutions (131) in 48 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The prospect of plunging into a national immigration debate is being increasingly talked about on Capitol Hill, spurred in part by recent statements by Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, the majority leader, that he intends to bring legislation to the Senate floor after Memorial Day.

But while an immigration debate could help energize Hispanic voters and provide political benefits to embattled Democrats seeking re-election in November — like Mr. Reid — it could also energize conservative voters.

It could also take time from other Democratic priorities, including an energy measure that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has described as her flagship issue.

Mr. Reid declined Thursday to say that immigration would take precedence over an energy measure. But he called it an imperative: “The system is broken,” he said.

Ms. Pelosi and Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader, have said that the House would be willing to take up immigration policy only if the Senate produces a bill first.

I don't share the same views of the President as most of you, but I will say this with all of you when it comes to his criticism of this law. ''P-ss off''

It is the right of any American to defend their country against threats, both foreign and domestic. Take your illegal ass back to your own country and come in the right way: pay the fees, wait the waiting period, produce the background check, get the prints done, and then you get to pay the taxes, like everyone else.

Don't like it? 3 words: too F-word-in bad.

The only people who I have concern for are the officials that will have to enforce this bill. If you catch and illegal that is desperate enough to stay, they'll have no problem ''removing'' you from their lives.

The Patriot
04-24-2010, 01:13 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html



I don't share the same views of the President as most of you, but I will say this with all of you when it comes to his criticism of this law. ''P-ss off''

It is the right of any American to defend their country against threats, both foreign and domestic. Take your illegal ass back to your own country and come in the right way: pay the fees, wait the waiting period, produce the background check, get the prints done, and then you get to pay the taxes, like everyone else.

Don't like it? 3 words: too F-word-in bad.

The only people who I have concern for are the officials that will have to enforce this bill. If you catch and illegal that is desperate enough to stay, they'll have no problem ''removing'' you from their lives.

That's not why its unconstitutional. From now on, if you are a brown-colored American, you can be stopped by police for no reason, searched, and forced to show your ID.

Imagine forgetting to bring your driver's license when you go for a jog, and being fined and taken to jail for it. I know that would piss me off.

Leftoverhard
04-24-2010, 01:21 PM
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ijeXGv9QLRc&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/ijeXGv9QLRc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Ahhh, Arizona. They sure do wear it on their sleeve down there.

steelerohio
04-24-2010, 01:58 PM
For those who are concerned about being asked for and ID, then how do you propose that we find the people being here illegally? Besides, we have to bring ID everywhere anyhow no matter what we look like because if we can't prove who we are in suspicious situations, then how do the authorities know who we really are AND if we belong here?

I vehemnetly disagree that we can let illegals come here through illegal means and then giving them amnesty for it. That a ridiculous idea that both McCain and Obama supports...

I cheer for this bill and wish more states would have this kind of bill... I don't mind Mexicans coming here, just do ti legally and I'll respect you. If youa re here illegally, go back and do it the right way...

Vincent
04-24-2010, 02:30 PM
Tag em and bag em.

Next.

urgle burgle
04-24-2010, 02:53 PM
And this is the state of the nation. AZ had to do something. the border is becoming a war zone. Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the US. Crime has become rampant, and the coyotes are trafficking in slavery. However, I only partially agree with this bill. If it is stringently, and I mean stringently, watched over as to its implementation, then it may be a good thing. The only way I see this, is that they only check for citizenship in conjunction with either suspicion of committing another crime or legal infraction, or in the process of committing a crime or illegal infraction. Contrary to what idiot rachel maddow thinks, you wont have a plethera of papers to carry around proving legality. its called a visa(I-9). or a birth certificate. I would hope there is a grace period for producing such documentation, 24 hrs or so. Otherwise, there will be constitutional issues. I dont want citizens having to carry a passport or birth certificate everywhere they go, just to prove they are a citizen. That is harassment. The only good thing, or bad thing, is this will be highly scrutinzed here on out, and will probably force this country to finally handle the illegal immigran and border security issue. Problem is, it will be in the Dems and Obamas hands to handle. For that I fear.

WH
04-24-2010, 04:57 PM
Imagine forgetting to bring your driver's license when you go for a jog, and being fined and taken to jail for it. I know that would piss me off.

Cops can already make up reasons to search you, they just have to dream up a reason for your activities to be deemed ''suspicious''

If you know you could be asked for your ID at any time, knowing that if you don't have it you can be fined or detained, carry it with you. It's an ID card, not your whole life's history.

SteelerEmpire
04-24-2010, 06:02 PM
Arizona was also the very last state in the union to recognize Martin Luther King's holiday... and had to have their arm twisted before they recognized it. So it kind of makes me wonder about Arizona. This kind of profiling only does more harm than good and will not solve the problem anyway... There are other methods that can be used to combat illegal immigration.

urgle burgle
04-24-2010, 06:26 PM
Arizona was also the very last state in the union to recognize Martin Luther King's holiday... and had to have their arm twisted before they recognized it. So it kind of makes me wonder about Arizona. This kind of profiling only does more harm than good and will not solve the problem anyway... There are other methods that can be used to combat illegal immigration.

such as...

MACH1
04-24-2010, 06:31 PM
That's not why its unconstitutional. From now on, if you are a brown-colored American, you can be stopped by police for no reason, searched, and forced to show your ID.

Imagine forgetting to bring your driver's license when you go for a jog, and being fined and taken to jail for it. I know that would piss me off.

Like Obamacare!

Then don't forget your ID.

Arizona was also the very last state in the union to recognize Martin Luther King's holiday... and had to have their arm twisted before they recognized it. So it kind of makes me wonder about Arizona. This kind of profiling only does more harm than good and will not solve the problem anyway... There are other methods that can be used to combat illegal immigration.

What do you want them looking for? Blond haired, blue eyed illegals from Sweden?

GBMelBlount
04-24-2010, 06:40 PM
This kind of profiling only does more harm than good and will not solve the problem anyway... There are other methods that can be used to combat illegal immigration.

Such as.....

WH
04-24-2010, 06:59 PM
Should we just ask everyone kindly and offer them ice cream to tell the truth?

Preacher
04-24-2010, 07:13 PM
What do you want them looking for? Blond haired, blue eyed illegals from Sweden?


Actually, YES.

Now, how many of them are in Arizona? Probably not many. However, if they are in this country ILLEGALLY, then I want them gone. NOW. I don't care if they are Blond haired and blue eyed, or if they green polka-dotted with three eyes.

Respect the laws of the nation you are trying to enter.

Now, on the OTHER HAND, I ALSO think that we need to reassess our immigration laws completely. This nation was born, and thrives on new immigrants coming and experiencing the American Dream for the first time. It reminds the rest of us that the dream IS still alive. Thus, we need to streamline, rectify, and open up LEGAL immigration more.

However, notice the DISTINCT difference between the two.

Leftoverhard
04-24-2010, 09:54 PM
Actually, YES.

Now, how many of them are in Arizona? Probably not many. However, if they are in this country ILLEGALLY, then I want them gone. NOW. I don't care if they are Blond haired and blue eyed, or if they green polka-dotted with three eyes.

Respect the laws of the nation you are trying to enter.

Now, on the OTHER HAND, I ALSO think that we need to reassess our immigration laws completely. This nation was born, and thrives on new immigrants coming and experiencing the American Dream for the first time. It reminds the rest of us that the dream IS still alive. Thus, we need to streamline, rectify, and open up LEGAL immigration more.

However, notice the DISTINCT difference between the two.

I actually agree with you. How weird is that? :sofunny:

And I think the way we've been going about "immigration reform" for a long time has just been making the problem worse and exposing the ugly side of - well, all the sides. I don't know the solution and I don't think I've ever heard a good one. There must be something but the way it's going now reminds me of the war on drugs. Similar in their complete ineffectiveness.
Anyone else think that our immigration issues and NAFTA have more than a little bit in common? Someone brought that up in a discussion about this and it makes sense to me.

Vincent
04-24-2010, 10:01 PM
Arizona was also the very last state in the union to recognize Martin Luther King's holiday... and had to have their arm twisted before they recognized it.

The only reason they did was to get SB XXX. The NFL viewed it as awkward having all those AA folks on the main stage in a state that didn't observe MLK day.

What do you want them looking for? Blond haired, blue eyed illegals from Sweden?

Swedes aren't the invaders.

SteelersinCA
04-24-2010, 10:05 PM
People are racially profiled every day by cops. If you look out of place and suspicious police can ask for your ID. I fail to see the difference here. Being in this country illegally is, well, illegal and therefore a crime! Good job AZ.

Preacher
04-24-2010, 10:30 PM
I actually agree with you. How weird is that? :sofunny:

And I think the way we've been going about "immigration reform" for a long time has just been making the problem worse and exposing the ugly side of - well, all the sides. I don't know the solution and I don't think I've ever heard a good one. There must be something but the way it's going now reminds me of the war on drugs. Similar in their complete ineffectiveness.
Anyone else think that our immigration issues and NAFTA have more than a little bit in common? Someone brought that up in a discussion about this and it makes sense to me.

Um . . .

Er. . ..

I take it all back. Didn't mean it! :chuckle:

Vincent
04-24-2010, 10:48 PM
Now, on the OTHER HAND, I ALSO think that we need to reassess our immigration laws completely.

Or we could enforce the laws we have instead of exploiting the issue for votes. Its both teams, but the donkeys stand to get the most votes.

This nation was born, and thrives on new immigrants coming and experiencing the American Dream for the first time. It reminds the rest of us that the dream IS still alive. Thus, we need to streamline, rectify, and open up LEGAL immigration more..

The reason we have illegal (don't call it) immigration is because our politicians refuse to enforce the laws we have and close our Southern border to the invasion. Its 100% politics. Its for the votes. Those PoSs are selling the rest of us, the ones who were born here, the ones they choke taxes out of, down the river for votes that'll keep their thieving asses in Washington to choke the life out of us.

We don't need to streamline or rectify %$#@. We need to get rid of the corrupt maggots that foster this.

Nothing personal Preacher.

VegasStlrFan
04-24-2010, 11:34 PM
That's not why its unconstitutional. From now on, if you are a brown-colored American, you can be stopped by police for no reason, searched, and forced to show your ID.

Imagine forgetting to bring your driver's license when you go for a jog, and being fined and taken to jail for it. I know that would piss me off.

There's a difference between "going for a jog" and "running to the pawn shop with a stolen car stereo". The illegals are pretty easy to spot, 2 to 3 deep in a beat up vehicle traveling 5-10 under the speed limit. Oh yea, I forgot the drywall, paint, and landscaping equipment...spot'em a mile away!

MasterOfPuppets
04-25-2010, 10:36 AM
Illegal immigrant law opponents to rally in Ariz.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36758457/ns/us_news/

The new law makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. uhhhhh ... if it wasn't a "crime" before, why were they called "illegal" immigrants ? :rolleyes:

"the Mexican government condemns the approval of the law" and "the criminalization of migration,
:toofunny: ... i guess they're worried the cash flow from the illegals working in the US, to mexico might slow down.

how long is this nonsence going to continue ? the goverment just keeps throwing excuse after excuse as to why they can't control the border and flow of illegals. build barracks on the damn border and give the guys already on the payroll, (national guard, army reserve) something meaningful to do when they're not in iraq or afghanistan.. that would eliminate the lack of border agent excuse...and since there would be a constant rotation of personal it would reduce the corruption (bribes) that seems to be a problem.

WH
04-25-2010, 10:51 AM
I just hope they don't pass something like this in Minnesota. Those Illegal Canadian Immigrants would be screwed!

MasterOfPuppets
04-25-2010, 10:58 AM
I just hope they don't pass something like this in Minnesota. Those Illegal Canadian Immigrants would be screwed!

especially the ones here for the healthcare ....:chuckle:

Leftoverhard
04-25-2010, 04:18 PM
Um . . .

Er. . ..

I take it all back. Didn't mean it! :chuckle:

:sofunny: I was actually thinking of disagreeing with you for the hell of it - but then, I just couldn't go through with it.

Leftoverhard
04-25-2010, 04:25 PM
Does anyone want to actually address the issue of WHY we have a problem on our southern border? Or is this just gonna be another SF armchair xenophobathon?

Vincent
04-25-2010, 04:38 PM
Does anyone want to actually address the issue of WHY we have a problem on our southern border? Or is this just gonna be another SF armchair xenophobathon?

Do tell. Its such a mystery.

WH
04-25-2010, 04:55 PM
This isn't an issue of Xenophobia, it's an issue with people breaking the law and taking advantage of a garbage system.

Leftoverhard
04-25-2010, 05:57 PM
This isn't an issue of Xenophobia, it's an issue with people breaking the law and taking advantage of a garbage system.

No, of course not - because xenophobia is just a figment of the imagination.... :doh: When you deny that it doesn't exist, you ignore a huge part of the problem. Many Mexicans who come up here illegally are victims of classism and racism in their own country before coming up here. I think it's important to know the situation those people are coming from before flat out calling them all criminals. We Americans are so entitled to this land that we stole from others, that we settled as our relatives searched for something better. They were "pioneers" and "heroes." These people are "invaders" and "aliens." Why is that? And what have we (as a country, as corporations) done to perpetuate their terrible circumstances down south? That's a good question and it would be nice if someone would attempt to answer it.

Godfather
04-25-2010, 05:59 PM
Or we could enforce the laws we have instead of exploiting the issue for votes. Its both teams, but the donkeys stand to get the most votes.



The reason we have illegal (don't call it) immigration is because our politicians refuse to enforce the laws we have and close our Southern border to the invasion. Its 100% politics. Its for the votes. Those PoSs are selling the rest of us, the ones who were born here, the ones they choke taxes out of, down the river for votes that'll keep their thieving asses in Washington to choke the life out of us.

We don't need to streamline or rectify %$#@. We need to get rid of the corrupt maggots that foster this.

Nothing personal Preacher.

Any business that knowingly hires illegals should lose its business license on the FIRST OFFENSE. No exceptions. If illegals can't get jobs here, a lot of them will stay home or come through the proper channels.

Of course, by the time Obama is done screwing up the country, everyone will be sneaking back into Mexico anyway.

MACH1
04-25-2010, 06:29 PM
I think it's important to know the situation those people are coming from before flat out calling them all criminals

Crossing the border illegally makes them a criminal. End of story.

WH
04-25-2010, 06:32 PM
No, of course not - because xenophobia is just a figment of the imagination.... :doh: When you deny that it doesn't exist, you ignore a huge part of the problem. Many Mexicans who come up here illegally are victims of classism and racism in their own country before coming up here. I think it's important to know the situation those people are coming from before flat out calling them all criminals. We Americans are so entitled to this land that we stole from others, that we settled as our relatives searched for something better. They were "pioneers" and "heroes." These people are "invaders" and "aliens." Why is that? And what have we (as a country, as corporations) done to perpetuate their terrible circumstances down south? That's a good question and it would be nice if someone would attempt to answer it.

So you're totally cool with just opening to flood gates and letting them come into the United States unchecked? I'm sure people that put up with the problems illegal immigration cause and the people that jumped through the immigration hoops to immigrate the right way would resent that line of thought (and would also like the money they spent on the process back too)

Vincent
04-25-2010, 07:27 PM
This isn't an issue of Xenophobia, it's an issue with people breaking the law and taking advantage of a garbage system.

To people that label others whatever-phobes, it is never about a solution to a problem. Its about trying to gain another group to be beholden to their politics, and calling anyone that objects a whatever-phobe.

Any business that knowingly hires illegals should lose its business license on the FIRST OFFENSE. No exceptions. If illegals can't get jobs here, a lot of them will stay home or come through the proper channels.

Its such a simple problem to fix and that is the internal solution. End prospects for work and the river stops flowing. Do that while building the "fence".

In the mean time, tag em & bag em.

Preacher
04-25-2010, 07:41 PM
No, of course not - because xenophobia is just a figment of the imagination.... :doh: When you deny that it doesn't exist, you ignore a huge part of the problem. Many Mexicans who come up here illegally are victims of classism and racism in their own country before coming up here. I think it's important to know the situation those people are coming from before flat out calling them all criminals. We Americans are so entitled to this land that we stole from others, that we settled as our relatives searched for something better. They were "pioneers" and "heroes." These people are "invaders" and "aliens." Why is that? And what have we (as a country, as corporations) done to perpetuate their terrible circumstances down south? That's a good question and it would be nice if someone would attempt to answer it.

Sure, I'll give it a shot.

1. There is no comparison to the colonization of America. Two reasons. 1. There is no nation-state here until the U.S. became one in the late 1700's. Thus, we were not violating another nation's laws. Was our treatment of the native Americans deplorable? You bet. Breaking treaties and contracts for no reason but power is always deplorable. However, the original colonization is in no way comparable to today. 2. What C.S. Lewis calls Chronological Snobbery. In the day, colonization was life for Europe. Today, it is looked on as immoral. However, it is wrong to project today's cultural morality back 4 centuries and then make judgments. Today however, there are set laws against illegal immigration which are being violated. Thus, it isn't something that is acceptable now and in 200 years is looked back on as unacceptable. It is illegal even as we speak.

2. Is the US implicit in helping petty dictators in Central America? Absolutely. Matter of fact, a number of the illegal aliens are NOT from Mexico and thus, aren't Mexicans. They are from further south. However, the flip side is that the US has literally bailed out Mexico once (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=EeYNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lW0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3540,4937442&dq=mexico+bankrupt+united+states+helps&hl=en)by themselves, once with the help of the international lending agency (we took the lead (http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SL&p_theme=sl&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB082EAC2137E31&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM)) and gave numerous helps with their "Good neighbor" trading policy RTAA of 1934 which tripled trade between US and Latin America. The problem in Mexico is not its northern neighbor, its Mexico's inability to create a stable environment which allows a flourishing economy.

3. Mexico is an absolute hypocrite. From their constitution-


Chapter 1
Article 77.1

Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation.

Article 30

. Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization:


Mexicans by birth are:

Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of their parents:
Those born in a foreign country of Mexican parents; of a Mexican father and a foreign mother; or of a Mexican mother and an unknown father;
Those born on Mexican vessels or airships, either war or merchant vessels.

Mexicans by naturalization are:

Foreigners who obtain letters of naturalization from the Secretariat of Foreign Relations;
A foreign woman who marries a Mexican man and has or establishes her domicile within the national territory.



(Hence, if you are from el salvador, and your child is born in Mexico, it doesn't matter, you are ALL still from El Salvador.



Chapter III
Foreigners
Article 33. Foreigners are those who do not possess the qualifications set forth in Article 30 (http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/1917_Constitution_of_Mexico.html#Article30). They are entitled to the guarantees granted by Chapter I, Title I (http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/1917_Constitution_of_Mexico.html#TitleIChapterI), of the present Constitution; but the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.
Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.


Article 32. Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces. (Keep in mind, these are LEGAL FOREIGNERS)



----------However, what is Mexico demanding from teh US?

secretary of Foreign Affairs Patricia Espinosa said that the Mexican government concurs."The government of Mexico regrets that, despite the overtures made at all levels by Mexican federal and state officials, the legislators who passed this measure and the governor of Arizona have not taken into account the valuable contributions of migrants to the economy, society and culture of Arizona and the United States of America," Espinosa said. "The Mexican government took various steps to express to the Arizona government its concerns about the law without obtaining a positive response.
"The government of Mexico acknowledges the sovereign right of every country to decide on the public policies that should apply in their territory," she continued. "Nevertheless, when a measure such as SB 1070 has the potential of affecting the human rights of thousands of Mexicans, the Mexican government cannot remain indifferent." (But mexicans have first crack at ALL EMPLOYMENT over LEGAL foriegners)

The Mexican Senate had unanimously passed a resolution Thursday urging Brewer to veto the law.

"Criminalization is not the way to resolve undocumented immigration," (but they can deport LEGAL aliens without ANY court procedure) Espinosa said. "The existence of cross-border labor markets requires comprehensive, long-term solutions. Shared responsibility, trust and mutual respect must be the bases for addressing the shared challenges in North America."

Mexico is perpetuating this problem as much or MORE that the US. See this handy flyer (http://cryptome.quintessenz.at/mirror/mx/mx-migrants.htm#below)they put out... which actually tells them how to US OUR LAWS... the very ones THEY DONT GIVE THEIR ILLEGALS FROM CENTRAL AMERICA.

Mexico deports thousands of Central American migrants

Associated Press
Aug. 15, 2007 12:31 PM
MEXICO CITY - The closure of an American-run railroad in Mexico stranded thousands of U.S.-bound Central American migrants near the Guatemala border and many of them were deported Wednesday by immigration authorities.

Some camped along rail lines waiting for trains that will never come. Others tried to walk hundreds of miles to the next working rail line and some turned themselves in to Mexican authorities.

The government sent hundreds of federal police and soldiers Tuesday to clear out the migrants, who for decades have hopped freight cars on the Chiapas-Mayab railway. The company has run freight trains on two sets of tracks in southern Mexico - one that passes near Guatemala's northern jungle, and another that goes from the Guatemalan border up the western coast.




In late July, the Connecticut-based Genesee & Wyoming Inc. withdrew from a 30-year concession to operate the Chiapas-Mayab line.

Company spokeswoman Jeanette Rosado said damage to railway tracks caused by a 2005 hurricane forced the pullout. She also said rail workers had been assaulted, and that train-hopping migrants delayed operations and cost the company money.

"It is not the same, pulling a normal train or pulling it with 300 people riding on top," Rosado said.

Unfortunately, Central American migrants keep streaming into towns where they once climbed onto the trains. Thousands have been camping along rail lines, waiting for trains that will never come, said Guatemalan Consul Rogelio Mendez.

Mexico's National Immigration Institute did not respond to requests for comment. Central American consulates said extra buses had been contracted to transport deportees from immigration detention centers to the border.

Thousands more migrants were stuck at the town of Ariaga in neighboring Chiapas state, and Salvadoran Consul Nelson Cuellar said many had started walking toward a rail line in Coatzacoalcos, almost 300 miles away.

"That is a marathon walk" through countryside where the threat of being assaulted or robbed is constant, he said.

The railroad's closure may lead more migrants to hire smugglers, who often transport them in trucks. Police recently found several trucks filled with people crammed into hidden compartments, often without adequate air or water.

Franciscan brother Juan Pablo Chavez Vargas, who runs a shelter for migrants in Tenosique, said smugglers and others who profit from the flow of migrants have encouraged them to keep coming.

"They are telling them, 'The train will come, just wait. The train will come,' " Chavez Vargas said.

The government says it hopes the railway will be running again under another operator by mid-2008.

MasterOfPuppets
04-25-2010, 08:19 PM
but its ok for mexico to round up and boot ILLEGALS out of mexico

Mexico Worries About Its Own Southern Border
TAPACHULA, Mexico, June 11 — Quiet as it is kept in political circles, Mexico, so much the focus of the United States' immigration debate, has its own set of immigration problems. And as elected officials from President Vicente Fox on down denounce Washington's plans to deploy troops and build more walls along the United States border, Mexico has begun a re-examination of its own policies and prejudices.

Here at Mexico's own southern edge, Guatemalans cross legally and illegally to do jobs that Mexicans departing for the north no longer want. And hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from nearly two dozen other countries, including China, Ecuador, Cuba and Somalia, pass through on their way to the United States.

Dense jungle makes establishing an effective law enforcement presence along the line impossible. Crossing the border is often as easy as hopping a fence or rafting for 10 minutes. But, under pressure from the United States, Mexico has steadily increased checkpoints along highways at the border including several posts with military forces.

The Mexican authorities report that detentions and deportations have risen in the past four years by an estimated 74 percent, to 240,000, nearly half along the southern border. But they acknowledged there had also been a boom in immigrant smuggling and increased incidents of abuses and attacks by corrupt law enforcement officials, vigilantes and bandits. Meanwhile, the waves of migrants continue to grow.

Few politicians have made public speeches about such matters. But Deputy Foreign Minister Gerónimo Gutiérrez recently acknowledged that Mexico's immigration laws were "tougher than those being contemplated by the United States," where the authorities caught 1.5 million people illegally crossing the Mexican border last year. He spoke before a congressional panel to discuss "Mexico in the Face of the Migratory Phenomenon."

In an interview, Mr. Gutiérrez said Mexico needed to "review its laws in order to have more legitimacy when we present our points of view to the United States."

Another high-level official in the Foreign Ministry was more blunt, but spoke only on condition of anonymity because he did not want to be seen as undermining Mexico in its dealings with the United States.

"Are we where we should be in the treatment of migrants?" the official said. "No we are not. But is the Mexican government aware of that? Yes, and it is something we are trying to correct."

Unlike the immigration debate in the United States, where immigration opponents and proponents bandy about estimated costs and benefits for everything from the agriculture industry to suburban horticulture, hard numbers on the effects of illegal migration on Mexico are rare. A trip to Chiapas raises questions about whether Mexico practices at home what it preaches abroad.

If the major characters in the migration drama unfolding in Chiapas could be captured in a collage, it would include a burly, white-haired farmer named Eusebio Ortega Contreras, who did not hide that most of the workers who picked mangos in his fields for $6 a day were underage, undocumented Guatemalans. Indians from Chiapas used to do these jobs, Mr. Ortega said. But in the past five years, they have been migrating to the United States. And lately, he said, he has begun to worry that he is going to lose the Guatemalans, too.

"We know that the conditions we provide our workers are not adequate," said Mr. Ortega, president of the local fruit growers' association, who showed a reporter the meager shelter he can offer: an awning off a hay shed for a roof and lined-up milk crates for beds. "But costs are going up. Production is going down. We barely earn enough money to maintain our orchards, much less improve conditions for the workers."

Joaquín Aguilar Vásquez, a 22-year-old father of two, would be standing with his knapsack in front of a passenger bus for the northern border, because jobs here at home barely kept his family fed. He said he started migrating two years ago to work in an electronics factory in Tijuana, where he earned $12 a day and saved enough to build a house. When he reaches Tijuana this time, he said, he will hire a smuggler to sneak him to a construction job in New Orleans.

There would be a skinny unidentified Chinese citizen, chain-smoking in the new migration detention center after being caught with more than 50 of his countrymen stowed away among banana crates in the back of a tractor-trailer. Next to him would be a group of Cuban rafters who floated to Mexico because of the increased United States Coast Guard presence around Florida. And there would be a flock of Central Americans, so scruffy and tough they seemed right out of "Oliver Twist," hopping a freight train north.

In the collage, Edwin Godoy, a 21-year-old Honduran who said he was deported last year from Miami and separated from his wife and two children, would be posing in front.

GBMelBlount
04-25-2010, 08:35 PM
but its ok for mexico to round up and boot ILLEGALS out of mexico

Exactly.

Preacher
04-25-2010, 08:55 PM
but its ok for mexico to round up and boot ILLEGALS out of mexico

Exactly

Mexico deports thousands of Central American migrants

Associated Press
Aug. 15, 2007 12:31 PM
MEXICO CITY - The closure of an American-run railroad in Mexico stranded thousands of U.S.-bound Central American migrants near the Guatemala border and many of them were deported Wednesday by immigration authorities.

Leftoverhard
04-25-2010, 09:24 PM
Why exactly?

If Mexico does it, it's ok for us to do it...

That doesn't even begin to approach the problem - it just looks for an excuse.

That C.S Lewis argument is very, very weak. By his standards of Chronological Snobbery, the Constitution would be considered "out-dated."

This is one dead person's opinion (that really discounts the genocidal take-over of America btw). What we need are ideas and imagination, not excuses using developing countries (whose population wants to leave) as guides. The other marginalized people who don't come up here looking for a "better life" are busy making t-shirts and Levi's for peanuts in Mexican factories for contractors in the US. Let's talk about how that affects the influx of illegal immigrants.

MasterOfPuppets
04-25-2010, 09:42 PM
Why exactly?

If Mexico does it, it's ok for us to do it...

That doesn't even begin to approach the problem - it just looks for an excuse.

That C.S Lewis argument is very, very weak. By his standards of Chronological Snobbery, the Constitution would be considered "out-dated."

This is one dead person's opinion (that really discounts the genocidal take-over of America btw). What we need are ideas and imagination, not excuses using developing countries (whose population wants to leave) as guides. The other marginalized people who don't come up here looking for a "better life" are busy making t-shirts and Levi's for peanuts in Mexican factories for contractors in the US. Let's talk about how that affects the influx of illegal immigrants.
the point is...mexico has its OWN laws for dealing with ILLEGALS which leads to rounding up and deporting said illegals...for the mexican government to even comment on , let alone condemn the US for suggesting ways of controlling the flow of illegals in THIS country is pretty hypocritical.

Preacher
04-25-2010, 09:44 PM
Why exactly?

If Mexico does it, it's ok for us to do it...

That doesn't even begin to approach the problem - it just looks for an excuse.

That C.S Lewis argument is very, very weak. By his standards of Chronological Snobbery, the Constitution would be considered "out-dated."

This is one dead person's opinion (that really discounts the genocidal take-over of America btw). What we need are ideas and imagination, not excuses using developing countries (whose population wants to leave) as guides. The other marginalized people who don't come up here looking for a "better life" are busy making t-shirts and Levi's for peanuts in Mexican factories for contractors in the US. Let's talk about how that affects the influx of illegal immigrants.

May I suggest you read a little bit more considering C.S. Lewis's chronological snobbery. IT has to do with adapting current mentality to previous cultures and frankly, is an excellent correction to many types of scholarship that makes chronological value judgments which have no context.

As for Mexico's laws vs ours. It has everything to do with it. It shows the mentality of the Mexican government and that, in all honesty, we are not just dealing with our own laws, but with a foreign govt. that openly teaches its citizens how to manipulate our laws, all the while not extending those same rights to LEGAL Americans in Mexico.

Thus, before ANY lessening of the law or other change occurs, there has to be a quid pro quo concerning legal recognition and protection of Americans in Mexico. Furthermore, there needs to be recognition that Mexico is condoning illegal acts against the United States of America-acts that Mexico itself considers illegal in their own country under their own laws.

No- you don't deal with countries like that until they are willing to step to the plate themselves. This isn't about the cute little bambino next door. This is about our sovereignty being flouted by the same nation that we bailed out of bankruptcy... TWICE.

GBMelBlount
04-26-2010, 06:25 AM
It shows the mentality of the Mexican government and that, in all honesty, we are not just dealing with our own laws, but with a foreign govt. that openly teaches its citizens how to manipulate our laws, all the while not extending those same rights to LEGAL Americans in Mexico.

there needs to be recognition that Mexico is condoning illegal acts against the United States of America-acts that Mexico itself considers illegal in their own country under their own laws.

No- you don't deal with countries like that until they are willing to step to the plate themselves. This isn't about the cute little bambino next door. This is about our sovereignty being flouted by the same nation that bailed them out of bankruptcy... TWICE.

:thumbsup:

WH
04-26-2010, 07:19 AM
Bankruptcy bailout 1. they gave us the idea for taco's
Bankruptcy bailout 2. they gave us the idea for fajita's

that's a fair deal? no?

GBMelBlount
04-26-2010, 07:32 AM
Bankruptcy bailout 1. they gave us the idea for taco's
Bankruptcy bailout 2. they gave us the idea for fajita's

that's a fair deal? no?

That is a very compelling argument WH.

We ate at a Mexican restaurant last night and admittedly, their steak fajitas are out of this world. :thumbsup:

....of course our daughter had "Mexican" chicken fingers and french fries. :chuckle:

revefsreleets
04-26-2010, 09:58 AM
A couple of points to be made here.

1. This legislature seems to be working the WAY IT WAS DESIGNED TO. There are a ton of reports that illegals are, on their own, fleeing Arizona and heading back to Mexico. They are doing this on their own recognizance.
2. Since probably about 2002, there are more illegals flooding in then there are illegals converting to legal status. That means that the MAJORITY of Hispanics in Arizona are illegal. In fact, as of 2006, 1 in every ELEVEN residents of Arizona is an illegal immigrant.

They simply had to take drastic measures. They did, and it's working.

ricardisimo
04-27-2010, 02:08 AM
It seems to me that if we believe in freedom, we believe in it for everybody, and not just for ourselves. Freedom of movement should certainly be right up there near the top. This was one our our main critiques of the Soviets, that they restricted the movement of their citizens, and forced their people to carry IDs with them at all times to justify that they were where they were "supposed to be" at any given moment. We were right to criticize them then, and we are right to criticize the Arizona law.

Mind you, if circumstances are anything remotely like what most people would consider "normal", it's somewhat of a moot point, since most people stick with their own unless they absolutely have to move. True, some people get bored (I grew up in Ohio, and there was no %$#@ing way I was staying there), and some people have to travel regularly because of their work, but well into the 90% of any nation's populace will stay put unless extremely harsh economics dictate otherwise.

And speaking of economic factors, if we claim to believe in capitalism, then we should really believe in it. Even the briefest reading of Smith, Malthus, Mill et al. will tell you that one aspect of the system that is absolutely indispensable is movement of labor. The health of the economy demands that specialization of labor not be too rigid, and that workers be able to move where the jobs are. Without these, there is no flexibility and no adaptive quality to a region's, nation's or world's economy. People need to be able work, and to do that they need to be able to go to work.

Of course, all of this is kind of made moot by the fact that we neither believe in free-market capitalism nor practice it. We have planned, top-heavy economies designed at every level to squeeze as much as possible out of the bottom end. Our immigration policy is no different in this regard. From the perspective of big business, our current system is near perfect: Draconian laws to implement within our borders combined with xenophobic propaganda to demonize immigrants and keep them living in fear - making sure they don't file workplace complaints, join unions, demand higher wages, etc. Meanwhile, border enforcement is relatively porous, not even necessarily by design, but rather just as a reality because of the length our border.

Baby just woke up! Gotta go...

WH
04-27-2010, 02:52 AM
People need to be able work, and to do that they need to be able to go to work.

It seems like the Mexican Government needs to fix itself, then. If you are an American Resident or Citizen, there is no restriction of movement.

Is this law an example of control? yes. Is it nescessary considering the situation in Arizona? IMO, yes.

I saw an opponent of this law carrying a sign that said ''we are human.'' I thought to myself ''no one is saying you aren't, you're just breaking the law of the land.''

I would like to see Mexicans try to sneak in Russia. or China See how they are treated there when found.

They should be grateful that the United States is so nice to them, even though they are trespassing and breaking the law.

The ''anchor baby'' law in the US needs to go, IMO. I think it's stupid, outdated, and abused.

A quick look at how these trespassers cost non-trespassers $

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm

SteelerEmpire
04-27-2010, 07:34 AM
A couple of points to be made here.

1. ...There are a ton of reports that illegals are, on their own, fleeing Arizona and heading back to Mexico. They are doing this on their own recognizance.


Who are we kidding... more likely there going to Cali... lol....

revefsreleets
04-27-2010, 07:41 AM
Who are we kidding... more likely there going to Cali... lol....

No, believe it or not, they are going back to Mexico. The new "unwelcome mat" coupled with the soft economy is driving them back.

It had to be done. The infrastructure of the state simply can't take that much more burden of non-taxpaying citizens.

This isn't a long-term solution, but it will stop the bleeding for the near-term. We will need to figure something out down the road because we will eventually need the labor pool as our population starts to dwindle, but that's WAY down the road...

stlrtruck
04-27-2010, 09:37 AM
Let's face it, there are going to be two extremes to 'illegal immigration'.

1) The tough no-nonesense approach that the state of AZ has taken. Which by and by isn't that bad considering it is protecting the individuals that are here legally, and in large following the laws of the UNITED STATES.

2) The draining of the system approach (which please don't be fooled by the idiots in DC, this is the approach they want to take). Which is give them all amnesty, allow them to become citizens without having to go through the proper channels all in the name of "FREEDOM" and all in the name of "VOTES". This system will provide and even greater drain on the government which will mean those of us who follow the rules and guidelines and laws will be forced to pay greater taxes.


Ask me, I'd rather pay a greater tax to ship the illegals (regardless of which country they are from) back home and build a wall on our southern border!

Vincent
04-27-2010, 10:26 AM
Obviously an email circular, but it makes the point...

IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.

IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET:
1 - A JOB
2 - A DRIVERS LICENSE
3 - SOCIAL SECURITY CARE
4 - WELFARE
5 - FOOD STAMPS
6 - CREDIT CARDS
7 - SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE
8 - FREE EDUCATION
9 - FREE HEALTH CARE
10 - 11 - A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON
12 - BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE AND THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY'S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON'T GET ENOUGH RESPECT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD A FIRM GRASP ON THE SITUATION.

...if you violate anyone else's border, there are consequences, some severe. But because our politicians choose to exploit this to their own gain, our borders are... are... a benchmark for opportunity.

This "amnesty" bull@#$% isn't new. The last time we awarded citizenship to millions of criminals we were told "that's it". And here we are again trying to give citizenship to another 12+ million criminals. And, of course, "that'll be it". Until the next time our politicians decide to buttress their positions.

The Republic probably won't survive this time, much less a nest time.

The border is the border and the people we send to Washington are there to, first and foremost, uphold the Constitution and make damn sure the borders are secure. Everything else is bull@#$%.

7SteelGal43
04-27-2010, 10:48 AM
:hatsoff: Arizona !

FINALLY ! some news where the govt (albeit, a State govt) is doing something right !!

MasterOfPuppets
04-27-2010, 10:57 AM
Illegal immigrants leaving Arizona

PHOENIX (AP) — Illegal immigrants in Arizona, frustrated with a flagging economy and tough new legislation cracking down on their employers, are returning to their home countries or trying their luck in other states.

For months, immigrants have taken a wait-and-see attitude toward the state's new employer-sanctions law, which takes effect Jan. 1. The voter-approved legislation is an attempt to lessen the economic incentive for illegal immigrants in Arizona, the busiest crossing point along the U.S.-Mexico border.

And by all appearances, it's starting to work.

"People are calling me telling me about their friend, their cousin, their neighbors — they're moving back to Mexico," said Magdalena Schwartz, an immigrant-rights activist and pastor at a Mesa church. "They don't want to live in fear, in terror."

Martin Herrera, a 40-year-old illegal immigrant and masonry worker who lives in Camp Verde, 70 miles north of Phoenix, said he is planning to return to Mexico as soon as he ties up loose ends after living here for four years.

"I don't want to live here because of the new law and the oppressive environment," he said. "I'll be better in my country."

He called the employer-sanctions law "absurd."

"Everybody here, legally or illegally, we are part of a motor that makes this country run," Herrera said. "Once we leave, the motor is going to start to slow down."

There's no way to know how many illegal immigrants are leaving Arizona, especially now with many returning home for normal holidays visits. But economists, immigration lawyers and people who work in the immigrant community agree it's happening.

State Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, the author of the employer sanctions law, said his intent was to drive illegal immigrants out of Arizona.

"I'm hoping they will self-deport," Pearce said. "They broke the law. They're criminals."

Under the employer sanctions law, businesses found to have knowingly hired illegal workers will be subject to sanctions from probation to a 10-day suspension of their business licenses. A second violation would bring permanent revocation of the license.

Nancy-Jo Merritt, an immigration lawyer who primarily represents employers, said her clients already have started to fire workers who can't prove they are in the country legally.

"Workers are being fired, of course," she said. "Nobody wants to find out later on that they've got somebody working for them who's not here legally."

When immigrants don't have jobs, they don't stick around, said Dawn McLaren, a research economist at Arizona State University who specializes in illegal immigration.

She said the flagging economy, particularly in the construction industry, also is contributing to an immigrant exodus.

"As the jobs dwindle and the environment becomes more unpleasant in more ways than one, you then decide what to do, and perhaps leaving looks like a good idea," she said. "And certainly that creates a problem, because as people leave, they take the jobs they created with them."

Pearce disagreed that the Arizona economy will suffer after illegal immigrants leave, saying there will be less crime, lower taxes, less congestion, smaller classroom sizes and shorter lines in emergency rooms.

"We have a free market. It'll adjust," he said. "Americans will be much better off."

He said he's not surprised illegal immigrants are leaving the state and predicts that more will go once the employer-sanctions law takes effect next month.

"It's attrition by enforcement," he said. "As you make this an unfriendly state for lawbreakers, I'm hoping they will pick up and leave."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-22-immigration-leaving_N.htm

now they need to lock the door behind them..:thumbsup:

MasterOfPuppets
04-27-2010, 11:18 AM
AGIA PRIETA, Mexico — For the first time, Mexican officials in Arizona admit there is hard evidence illegal immigrants are preparing to leave the state because a new employer sanctions law is making it difficult, if not impossible, for them to keep a job.

Illegal immigrants are flooding the Mexican consulate in Phoenix for documents
that will allow them to return to Mexico to enroll their children in school, the consul to Arizona, Carlos Flores Vizcarra, told FOX News. They are also requesting a document called "menaje de casa," which allows illegal immigrant families living in the U.S. to cross into Mexico without paying a tax on their furniture and personal belongings.

Vizcarra said 94 families asked the embassy for students transfer documents last month, compared to only three last year. He said several thousand immigrants asked for the tax document.

In a separate interview, Edmundo Hidalgo of the non-profit immigrant support group Chicanos Por La Causa, said 30,000 illegal immigrants said in a survey last week that they planned to leave Arizona sometime before March 1, when the state’s tough new employer sanctions law goes into effect. Under the law, employers can lose their business licenses if they hire undocumented workers.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has set up a hotline for citizens to report on employers who hire illegals. He has said enforcement will begin when the law goes into effect. Many deputies have also been given arrest authority by Customs and Border Protection to enforce federal immigration law. So in the course of a traffic stop, illegal immigrants without a driver's license could ultimately face deportation.

These factors, combined with a slowing economy, are forcing many undocumented workers to consider leaving Arizona. According to a study last year, 12 percent of Arizona’s workforce is in the U.S. illegally, the highest percentage in the nation.

At a immigrant shelter in Agua Prieta, Mexico, just south of the Arizona border, officials say illegal immigrants are leaving the Grand Canyon state because of the employer sanctions law.

In the last month, for every five immigrants trying to enter the U.S., four were crossing back in the other direction, said Rosa Soto Moreno, who runs a Catholic shelter that provides food and lodging for illegal immigrants.

Soto said illegal immigrants crossing back into Mexico is a new phenomenon, and she attributes it to the new law. :applaudit:

"Many of the supervisors are upset by the law, but have told their workers they have no choice," she said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329829,00.html

now if the other 49 states would adopt the law , the problem would be 75% solved. of course the ones engaged in illegal activity such as drug trafficking wouldn't leave since they're not looking for jobs...:noidea:

MACH1
04-27-2010, 12:07 PM
now if the other 49 states would adopt the law , the problem would be 75% solved. of course the ones engaged in illegal activity such as drug trafficking wouldn't leave since they're not looking for jobs...:noidea:


Then theres the one's looking to blow things up.

SteelCityMom
04-27-2010, 12:20 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329829,00.html

now if the other 49 states would adopt the law , the problem would be 75% solved. of course the ones engaged in illegal activity such as drug trafficking wouldn't leave since they're not looking for jobs...:noidea:

I wouldn't go as far to say it would be 75% solved since border jumpers only amount to about half (if that) of all illegal immigrants. In 2006 it was estimated that 45% of illegal immigrants were student, work, tourist or traveller Visa overstays and another chunk of illegals are involved in Visa fraud.

"Close to half of the folks in this country illegally entered legally (but) overstayed (their ) visas."
Marco Rubio on Thursday, January 14th, 2010 in an interview with Glenn Beck

Fla. Republican Rubio says close to half of illegal immigrants entered the U.S. legally

During a wide-ranging interview on Jan. 14, 2010, Beck told Rubio that illegal immigration would be the big issue of the fall 2010 election.

Rubio responded that he thinks Republicans need to be the party that supports and promotes legal immigration. Then, he added: "Close to half of the folks in this country illegally, entered legally (but) overstayed (their) visas," Rubio said. "So we've got to get a hold of this visa program, too."

Rubio, the son of Cuban-born parents, claims people remaining in the United States on expired visas are nearly as big a problem as people illegally crossing the U.S. border. Is he right?

The border, of course, continues to be the dominant symbol of the immigration debate (see phrases "secure the border" and "border fence" for proof), but more and more questions are being asked about people who enter the United States legally but fail to leave when they should. At least four of the 9/11 terrorists were in America on expired visas, and the government has been criticized for lacking a system that can track or even count the number of people living in the country on expired visas.

To back Rubio's claim, spokesman Alex Burgos directed us to a 2006 National Public Radio report about illegal immigration. The report, filed from the U.S.-Mexico border in Douglas, Ariz., said that "nearly half the 12 million people illegally in the country didn't cross the desert or pay a smuggler ... they crossed legally at a point of entry." The NPR story points to a study conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center, a group that examines the U.S. Hispanic population.

The Pew report, published in May 2006, indeed concludes that 40 to 50 percent of people living in the United States illegally entered the country legally through ports of entry. The percentages are right in line with what Rubio suggested on the Beck program.

How did Pew get there?

Pew relied on a 1997 Immigration and Naturalization Service report that attempted to quantify the number of people overstaying visas. The INS report tried to match arrival and departure documents of people entering and leaving the United States to calculate how many people were living in the country on expired visas or expired border crossing cards. It concluded that in 1996, 41 percent of illegal immigrants had entered the country legally.

That data became the baseline for future government studies. Both the Department of Homeland Security and the General Accounting Office took the data collected by the INS (now Citizenship and Immigration Services), and tried to extrapolate their own estimates.

The Department of Homeland Security released a report in January 2003 that found 33 percent of the illegal immigrant population in 2000 had entered the country legally.

Trying to make the same estimate, the General Accounting Office produced three percentages using different methodology. In one case, the GAO used a survey of more than 1,000 adult green-card holders finding that of the 300 who admitted once being in the country illegally, 31 percent said they had overstayed their visas. In a second scenario, the GAO used arrest data on a group of 917 illegal immigrants and found that 246, or 27 percent, had been in the United States on expired visas. A second set of arrest data provided a much different result. Of 243 cases of illegal immigrants working at retail chain stores, 138 (57 percent) had been living on outdated visas.

The GAO said that the Department of Homeland Security's methodology was "complex, indirect, and marked by potential weaknesses."

Back to the Pew estimate. Researchers at Pew say they took the 1997 government report and tried to apply it to 2005, with a few minor modifications. Pew concluded that of the then 11.5 million to 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, 4.5 million to 6 million entered the country legally. Researchers admit it's an estimate. (The overall number of illegal residents also is an estimate, it's worth noting. According to USA Today, the department estimates the number of illegal residents by subtracting the number of foreign-born people who are in the United States legally from the Census estimate of the total foreign-born population. The most recent estimate, from January 2009, puts the number of illegal residents at about 11.6 million.)

"The government has a pretty good idea of how many people come into the country if they fill out one of the forms, but it does not have a full count of how many leave," the Pew report said.

A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, which now includes Citizenship and Immigration Services, told PolitiFact he is unaware of any other government studies attempting to quantify the number of people overstaying their visas. Pew also says the government has not published any new estimates. We couldn't find any, either.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said in December that while the government is working on a way to document, and ultimately apprehend, people overstaying their visas, one doesn't exist yet. "I don't think that we can say with precision what percentage of visa holders are stay over," Napolitano told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "But I think we can say that the issue of the visa overstays has been one of the kind of most difficult but top priority problems that we've been working on this last 10 months."

What we're left with then is a series of numbers -- all different, all educated guesses.

Rubio says close to half of all illegal immigrants entered this country legally but overstayed their visas. Some estimates, by Pew and one by the GAO, support that. But others put the number lower, closer to one-third. The difference between the estimates represents about 2 million people, not an insignificant number. We can't fault Rubio for using the numbers he did. But it seems like adding a little context would be appropriate. We rate Rubio's claim Mostly True.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2010/jan/18/marco-rubio/fla-republican-rubio-says-close-half-illegal-immig/

revefsreleets
04-27-2010, 12:21 PM
I've been listening to a lot of debate about this from people all over the political spectrum on NPR. The libbies pretty much are clinging to the line that this is the Federal governments responsibility. And here is the major issue I have with that "logic".

When Katrina hit NO, the Federal government was roundly and widely criticized for not doing enough fast enough. Of course, the local officials didn't ASK, which they have to do before the Feds can step in, but that was lost in all the hateful anti-Bush rhetoric. Anyway, how is this different? Arizona has been clamoring for the Federal government to do something for years, and now it's reached crisis level. I posted that stat about 1 in 11 Arizonians being an illegal, but that data is now four years old. There are 750,000 illegals entering the Country every year (as opposed to 600,000 entering legally), so it stands to reason that that ratio may be higher now. It is absolutely NO coincidence that Arizona is the kidnapping capitol of the Western Hemisphere, either. These are all illegals engaging in illegal activity. Arizona simply cannot wait another second for the US government to drag it's feet.

The law is doing what it's supposed to do. I haven't read anything about illegals being dragged out of houses in the middle of the night with black sacks over their heads and being "disappeared", but I have read more and more reports of them simply going home.

If nothing else, this will spur the Feds on to take some kind of action, although I fear the worst with this particular party in charge of the matter right at this time.

Vincent
04-27-2010, 12:32 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329829,00.html

now if the other 49 states would adopt the law , the problem would be 75% solved. of course the ones engaged in illegal activity such as drug trafficking wouldn't leave since they're not looking for jobs...:noidea:

It is really that simple. Shut down the attraction.

The same logic applies to drug trafficking. Shut down the attraction. Legalize all drugs that are trafficked. Restrict it like they do booze and butts. Who's going to buy junk from Jorge the Machete thats been stepped on from here to Cartagena when FDA certified Grade A-1 primo @#$% can be had at market prices down at the local booze mart?

:rant: "Oh, but drug addiction"!! :rant: Thats a much easier fix than drug trafficking. "Sides, the same elements that get addicted through Jorge and his "colleagues" will be addicted through the booze mart. It ain't necessarily a bad thing to cull the herd, especially if those are the culled.

But all that is way too easy and wouldn't require the enactment of new layers of bureaucracy and the associated taxes. You seeing a pattern here?

Vincent
04-27-2010, 12:44 PM
When Katrina hit NO, the Federal government was roundly and widely criticized for not doing enough fast enough. Of course, the local officials didn't ASK, which they have to do before the Feds can step in, but that was lost in all the hateful anti-Bush rhetoric. .

Yeah, they didn't ask. Then when they and the school buses were all under water, it all became B-b-b-b-bboooosh's fault. And naturally they reelected the incompetents.

I lost track. How many $Billions did we blow on NO? Something well over $100B. And of course that was all after sharpton and jackson and the rest of the thieves did all their grandstanding. As you survey the NO landscape, do you see $100B in reconstruction? Hardly.

Yeah, I know. :rant: "Just SFTU and pay for it." :rant:

MACH1
04-27-2010, 01:20 PM
But all that is way too easy and would require the enactment of new layers of bureaucracy and the associated taxes.


Fixed it. :chuckle:

That should be right up a certain organizers ally then.

SteelerEmpire
04-27-2010, 01:38 PM
The only part they have'nt figured out is the fact that most of their children are American citizens...(since they were born here). .... What will they do with the children.... :doh:

Vincent
04-27-2010, 01:45 PM
The only part they have'nt figured out is the fact that most of their children are American citizens...(since they were born here). .... What will they do with the children.... :doh:

Take them with them.

stlrtruck
04-27-2010, 02:13 PM
The only part they have'nt figured out is the fact that most of their children are American citizens...(since they were born here). .... What will they do with the children.... :doh:

Take them with them.

They can change that law too so that if an illegal has a child on American soil it is still considered an illegal immigrant due to the parent's unwillingness to go through the proper channels.

revefsreleets
04-27-2010, 02:21 PM
I believe George Will just wrote an excellent piece on that recently. There is a HUGE incentive for Mexicans to come here and have children. It absolutely defies logic to grant that kind of reward to people for breaking a Federal law.

Vincent
04-27-2010, 02:26 PM
They can change that law too so that if an illegal has a child on American soil it is still considered an illegal immigrant due to the parent's unwillingness to go through the proper channels.

Can you imagine the uproar over that? "B-b-b-b-b-but the CHILDREN!!".

ricardisimo
04-27-2010, 03:33 PM
Obviously an email circular, but it makes the point...

IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.

IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET:
1 - A JOB
2 - A DRIVERS LICENSE
3 - SOCIAL SECURITY CARE
4 - WELFARE
5 - FOOD STAMPS
6 - CREDIT CARDS
7 - SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE
8 - FREE EDUCATION
9 - FREE HEALTH CARE
10 - 11 - A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON
12 - BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE AND THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY'S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON'T GET ENOUGH RESPECT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD A FIRM GRASP ON THE SITUATION.

...if you violate anyone else's border, there are consequences, some severe. But because our politicians choose to exploit this to their own gain, our borders are... are... a benchmark for opportunity.

This "amnesty" bull@#$% isn't new. The last time we awarded citizenship to millions of criminals we were told "that's it". And here we are again trying to give citizenship to another 12+ million criminals. And, of course, "that'll be it". Until the next time our politicians decide to buttress their positions.

The Republic probably won't survive this time, much less a nest time.

The border is the border and the people we send to Washington are there to, first and foremost, uphold the Constitution and make damn sure the borders are secure. Everything else is bull@#$%.

You've copied and pasted this same ultra-Right spam mailer more than once, and I'll ask you yet again: do you really feel it is a good idea to copy the domestic policies of some of the most brutal regimes on the planet? Are you actually holding up North Korean border controls as a shining model to be emulated?

I would think it would give you pause, and that you'd argue that we move in the other direction.

ricardisimo
04-27-2010, 03:43 PM
It seems like the Mexican Government needs to fix itself, then. If you are an American Resident or Citizen, there is no restriction of movement.

Is this law an example of control? yes. Is it nescessary considering the situation in Arizona? IMO, yes.

I saw an opponent of this law carrying a sign that said ''we are human.'' I thought to myself ''no one is saying you aren't, you're just breaking the law of the land.''

I would like to see Mexicans try to sneak in Russia. or China See how they are treated there when found.

They should be grateful that the United States is so nice to them, even though they are trespassing and breaking the law.

The ''anchor baby'' law in the US needs to go, IMO. I think it's stupid, outdated, and abused.

A quick look at how these trespassers cost non-trespassers $

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm

There's a reason why the US spent so much money on Mexico's last election to ensure that AMLO was defeated. People talking about raising the minimum wage in Mexico, stopping the drug war that's killing thousands and terrorizing millions, and otherwise making Mexico a more livable place for its citizens... we simply can't have that. Then the flow of desperate immigrants crossing into our borders might stop, and then who will work our crappy jobs?

There's no lack of evidence that we go above and beyond the call of duty to make sure that life is miserable in Mexico, Haiti, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc., etc., etc.... Why are we so eager to ruin their economies? Because it is profitable to our corporations here, of course. Why should we be surprised that they follow the money that flows out of their countries into ours? You would do the same if you had to feed your kids.

It's a lot more complex than just closing down the borders. We need to get out of their business and let them develop their own economies. I would love nothing more than to see Guatemala nationalize Chiquita Banana. Then you'd see the flow of workers slow down, at least from there.

P.S. - Can you imagine the reaction in this country if Mexico were spending money on our campaigns to defeat anyone who wanted to raise the minimum wage? Wait a second... What am I saying? As if we'd ever have a candidate who would do that!

smokin3000gt
04-27-2010, 04:27 PM
No, of course not - because xenophobia is just a figment of the imagination.... :doh: When you deny that it doesn't exist, you ignore a huge part of the problem. Many Mexicans who come up here illegally are victims of classism and racism in their own country before coming up here. I think it's important to know the situation those people are coming from before flat out calling them all criminals. We Americans are so entitled to this land that we stole from others, that we settled as our relatives searched for something better. They were "pioneers" and "heroes." These people are "invaders" and "aliens." Why is that? And what have we (as a country, as corporations) done to perpetuate their terrible circumstances down south? That's a good question and it would be nice if someone would attempt to answer it.

Every illegal I've ever known is here to make money and send it back to Mexico.

Vincent
04-27-2010, 04:28 PM
You've copied and pasted this same ultra-Right spam mailer more than once, and I'll ask you yet again: do you really feel it is a good idea to copy the domestic policies of some of the most brutal regimes on the planet? Are you actually holding up North Korean border controls as a shining model to be emulated?

I would think it would give you pause, and that you'd argue that we move in the other direction.

:rofl:

But seriously. No, this is the first time I've seen this email. And I stated in my post that it was from an email.

Y'know, as I read it I don't see that it's message is "emulate the North Koreans", but rather, and this might be somewhat difficult to follow, that some countries actually impose consequences for violating their borders. Y'know, the "sovereignty" thing. Maybe though, from the anarchist fringe perspective any form of order looks "right wing". It would be useful for me to understand what you mean by "right wing".

Now here's another perspective I hadn't considered. Maybe the author chose those "regimes" because they're among the ones the left hold up as shining examples for us to follow and he's saying "Look, look! These guys enforce their borders. Its 'OK' for us to". :noidea:
__________________
Why does Ric hate America?

Vincent
04-27-2010, 04:33 PM
Every illegal I've ever known is here to make money and send it back to Mexico.

I have a buddy who's third cousin twice removed knows somebody "way way up in da gubmint" that told him or her, I forget which, that if we cut off the cash flow to Mexico, it'd really implode, and that that's the real reason we don't enforce the border.

I have, on more than one occasion, witnessed a Mexican standing at the Western Union counter in our grocery store peeling off thousands of dollars being sent South.

Many Mexicans who come up here illegally are victims of classism and racism in their own country before coming up here.

Then WTF are they coming here for? I thought we're all "classist and racist".:noidea:

ricardisimo
04-27-2010, 04:43 PM
I have a buddy who's third cousin twice removed knows somebody "way way up in da gubmint" that told him or her, I forget which, that if we cut off the cash flow to Mexico, it'd really implode, and that that's the real reason we don't enforce the border.

I have, on more than one occasion, witnessed a Mexican standing at the Western Union counter in our grocery store peeling off thousands of dollars being sent South.



Then WTF are they coming here for? I thought we're all "classist and racist".:noidea:

Which is why some people suggest that letting workers bring their families is preferable to spending hundreds of millions on a failing system. Just let them spend the money here instead.

ricardisimo
04-27-2010, 04:47 PM
:rofl:

But seriously. No, this is the first time I've seen this email. And I stated in my post that it was from an email.

Y'know, as I read it I don't see that it's message is "emulate the North Koreans", but rather, and this might be somewhat difficult to follow, that some countries actually impose consequences for violating their borders. Y'know, the "sovereignty" thing. Maybe though, from the anarchist fringe perspective any form of order looks "right wing". It would be useful for me to understand what you mean by "right wing".

Now here's another perspective I hadn't considered. Maybe the author chose those "regimes" because they're among the ones the left hold up as shining examples for us to follow and he's saying "Look, look! These guys enforce their borders. Its 'OK' for us to". :noidea:
__________________
Why does Ric hate America?

Love the sig :)

Leftists hold up North Korea and Saudi Arabia as shining examples? Links, please.

P.S. - You're right. It wasn't you, it was Venom (http://forums.steelersfever.com/showthread.php?t=49667).

Vincent
04-27-2010, 05:04 PM
Which is why some people suggest that letting workers bring their families is preferable to spending hundreds of millions on a failing system. Just let them spend the money here instead.

OK, I understand that perspective, but if they spend their money here, how does that prevent Mexico from imploding? And I don't take lightly the ugly specter of Mexico imploding.

For the record, If I was in their circumstance, I'd do my level best to get my family to the Land of Plenty. My heart bleeds for them. My state is full of them. They built my house and did a damn good job.

I don't have a clue how to fix the desperation of Mexican families, and if I did, I'd be all over it. But the situation it creates in The Land of Plenty portends the demise of same, which doesn't benefit said families any more in the long run.

So VW factories and the like in Mexico aren't helping the situation?

ricardisimo
04-27-2010, 05:32 PM
So VW factories and the like in Mexico aren't helping the situation?

No. That's where other factors weigh in, including NAFTA (http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp173/#pt2). For this stinky lump of dookie, I wish upon Bill Clinton a long, painful illness, followed by death.

SteelerEmpire
04-27-2010, 06:31 PM
There's a long list of Businesses in Arizona that is'ent gonna like this... In addition, the last time my people went through a situation in which they were routinely asked to "show me your papers" (when we became illegal citizens in many countries in Europe) and was rounded up and shipped off... it was used as a "starter drug" (if you will) for a pretty ugly conclusion... there are some systems of justice that the human race simply just is'ent ready for...

Godfather
04-27-2010, 06:40 PM
I have a buddy who's third cousin twice removed knows somebody "way way up in da gubmint" that told him or her, I forget which, that if we cut off the cash flow to Mexico, it'd really implode, and that that's the real reason we don't enforce the border.

I have, on more than one occasion, witnessed a Mexican standing at the Western Union counter in our grocery store peeling off thousands of dollars being sent South.



Then WTF are they coming here for? I thought we're all "classist and racist".:noidea:

That's why we should tax wire transfers and use the proceeds to fund emergency rooms.

MACH1
04-27-2010, 07:27 PM
There's a long list of Businesses in Arizona that is'ent gonna like this... In addition, the last time my people went through a situation in which they were routinely asked to "show me your papers" (when we became illegal citizens in many countries in Europe) and was rounded up and shipped off... it was used as a "starter drug" (if you will) for a pretty ugly conclusion... there are some systems of justice that the human race simply just is'ent ready for...

Being ILLEGAL isn't a race of people.

Vincent
04-27-2010, 07:39 PM
No. That's where other factors weigh in, including NAFTA. For this stinky lump of dookie, I wish upon Bill Clinton a long, painful illness, followed by death.

Everybody was warned about that clinton character and her husband.

That's why we should tax wire transfers and use the proceeds to fund emergency rooms.

Absolutely.

Being ILLEGAL isn't a race of people.

Every so often a pearl falls from the sky.

MasterOfPuppets
04-27-2010, 08:59 PM
now this is hilarious ...

Arizona's law — slated to take effect in late July or early August — makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally. Lawmakers said the legislation, which has sparked huge protests and litigation, was needed because the Obama administration is failing to enforce existing federal laws.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36802460/ns/world_news-americas/

would anyone like to name an administration that DID enforce the existing federal laws ?
do federal immigration agencies (INS) need to be told specificly by the president to do thier freakin jobs ?

smokin3000gt
04-27-2010, 09:03 PM
Which is why some people suggest that letting workers bring their families is preferable to spending hundreds of millions on a failing system. Just let them spend the money here instead.

Great idea.. I can't wait to see what that local ER looks like when it's the illegal workers AND their entire family waiting for free healthcare.


We should give them free car insurance too since that's easier then fixing the problem.

SteelerEmpire
04-27-2010, 09:03 PM
This debate will only get more intense... it will divide both parties down the middle.... its gettin good now... lol....

GoSlash27
04-27-2010, 09:52 PM
I wholeheartedly applaud and support this law. I think most people would if they took the time to read it.

Leftoverhard
04-27-2010, 11:16 PM
I wholeheartedly applaud and support this law. I think most people would if they took the time to read it.

most white people. you should fix that.

MACH1
04-27-2010, 11:27 PM
most legal people. you should fix that.

There, fixed it.

Don't be a racist.

Vincent
04-27-2010, 11:31 PM
most white people. you should fix that.

Lefty, I don't know what area of the country you live in but where I live it is Black folks that have a problem with Mexicans. And frankly, I don't understand it.

Could be the gangs. But gangs are a true "multicultural" issue. And everybody hates gangs.

You shouldn't write stuff like that. Folks might think you're a racist.

tony hipchest
04-27-2010, 11:35 PM
There, fixed it.

Don't be a racist.

ay wey. quitate a la verga, pinche cabron. :hatsoff:

:chuckle:

tony hipchest
04-27-2010, 11:38 PM
Lefty, I don't know what area of the country you live in but where I live it is Black folks that have a problem with Mexicans. .

es from la raza esay. choo gotta problem wit it? u fight da bean, u fight tha hole burrito.

orale.

MattsMe
04-28-2010, 12:13 AM
Lefty, I don't know what area of the country you live in but where I live it is Black folks that have a problem with Mexicans. And frankly, I don't understand it.

Spending the last few months in el paso, I can tell you that a lot of mexicans have problems with mexicans. Most of them, and I've talked to a lot of them, hate the illegals. And a lot of them totally support this law.

But I'm sure that will all be forgotten in the protests. Down with whitey!

Steelerstrength
04-28-2010, 01:33 AM
es from la raza esay. choo gotta problem wit it? u fight da bean, u fight tha hole burrito.

orale.

Hey T, heard that shit too many times when I was a teen, but only from the white boys before I kicked their ass! (one on one) :sofunny:

I know you're just being humorous, and the subject matter is provocative, so I thought you'd appreciate my humor also! :thumbsup: (all races gang up so the stereotype is just a bunch of bullshit)

That said, I spoke with my Dad earlier today (he lives in Glendale AZ) about the new law, and asked if he would have to start carrying his birth certificate with him? He laughed and said that he was personal friends with the police chief, who tells him not to worry cause he's a white Mexican.

He said they need it badly! The Police say that more than 50% of their calls have to deal with illegals. And, you'll find as many as 30 in one house. But, he said it's not only Mexican illegals, it's Koreans and other Asians, as well as many South Americans that he could not identify by country of origin. He also was told that the training will be intense for the police, in regards to how they will enforce the law. (good luck!)

In my opinion, the results are already coming in with a policy that is working based on anticipation. I admit to an uneasy feeling of legalizing the use of profiling, but am willing to hold judgement until the first six months of the enactment. If things go as planned, I would hope to see the possibility of California adopting something similar. But, we need to see some solid results and statistics, and there cannot be any hint of an escalation of racial tension.

Something had to be done, and we are seeing the extreme exclamation of an overdue solution.

Steelerstrength
04-28-2010, 01:37 AM
Spending the last few months in el paso, I can tell you that a lot of mexicans have problems with mexicans. Most of them, and I've talked to a lot of them, hate the illegals. And a lot of them totally support this law.

But I'm sure that will all be forgotten in the protests. Down with whitey!

The last sentence has no place in a serious conversation!

ricardisimo
04-28-2010, 02:56 AM
There's a long list of Businesses in Arizona that is'ent gonna like this... In addition, the last time my people went through a situation in which they were routinely asked to "show me your papers" (when we became illegal citizens in many countries in Europe) and was rounded up and shipped off... it was used as a "starter drug" (if you will) for a pretty ugly conclusion... there are some systems of justice that the human race simply just is'ent ready for...

I'm also reminded of the story of the expulsion of the Jews from - I believe - Venice, Italy. It was the usual Christian complaints: deicide and usury, and the entire ghetto was forced into exile. Within a few years the city's economy collapsed utterly, and the "Christ-killers" and "usurers" were being begged to return by chastened local leaders.

I've never actually investigated that story, but I do get a chuckle out of it all the same.

WH
04-28-2010, 06:29 AM
I'm also reminded of the story of the expulsion of the Jews from - I believe - Venice, Italy. It was the usual Christian complaints: deicide and usury, and the entire ghetto was forced into exile. Within a few years the city's economy collapsed utterly, and the "Christ-killers" and "usurers" were being begged to return by chastened local leaders.

I've never actually investigated that story, but I do get a chuckle out of it all the same.

You're story and this story are like apples and oranges.

MasterOfPuppets
04-28-2010, 09:10 AM
I'm also reminded of the story of the expulsion of the Jews from - I believe - Venice, Italy. It was the usual Christian complaints: deicide and usury, and the entire ghetto was forced into exile. Within a few years the city's economy collapsed utterly, and the "Christ-killers" and "usurers" were being begged to return by chastened local leaders.

I've never actually investigated that story, but I do get a chuckle out of it all the same. i seriously doubt they'd have to be begged to come back... they can sign up for the "guest worker" visa, and fill out tax forms and pay taxes like we do.... i'd be willing to bet that one million tax paying immigrants would help out the economy more than 12 million who don't ...:noidea:

smokin3000gt
04-28-2010, 10:11 AM
ay wey. quitate a la verga, pinche cabron. :hatsoff:

:chuckle:

:shout: infraction!


:chuckle:

smokin3000gt
04-28-2010, 10:13 AM
most white people. you should fix that.

You mean American's right? Why is it always about color with you leftover?

Vincent
04-28-2010, 10:52 AM
Why is it always about color with you leftover?

Racist? :noidea:

ricardisimo
04-28-2010, 11:27 AM
You're story and this story are like apples and oranges.

It's odd that you say apples and oranges, because that's precisely the point: agrobusiness profits, and cheap produce for the rest of us. Depending on whom you ask, California is either the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world, and it's not because of Hollywood, and it's not because of Silicon Valley. It's literally apples and oranges from the San Joaquin Valley, as well as Garlic, red peppers, wine and grapes, etc., etc.

Latino immigrants (specifically undocumented workers) are the heart and soul of this economy, which is partly why there is such an uproar in California about AZ, including from the state's Republicans. That story about the Jews in Venice was specifically a response to SteelerEmpire's last post, but it's perhaps more appropriate than I thought.

ricardisimo
04-28-2010, 11:30 AM
You mean American's right? Why is it always about color with you leftover?

Latinos are Americans. You mean to say citizens of the United States.

MACH1
04-28-2010, 11:49 AM
ay wey. quitate a la verga, pinche cabron. :hatsoff:

:chuckle:

:nono: baboso

:chuckle:

MACH1
04-28-2010, 11:52 AM
Latinos are Americans. You mean to say citizens of the United States.

They're not citizens if they're umm you know ILLEGAL.

Vincent
04-28-2010, 12:00 PM
It's odd that you say apples and oranges, because that's precisely the point: agrobusiness profits, and cheap produce for the rest of us. Depending on whom you ask, California is either the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world, and it's not because of Hollywood, and it's not because of Silicon Valley. It's literally apples and oranges from the San Joaquin Valley, as well as Garlic, red peppers, wine and grapes, etc., etc.

Ric, not to be argumentative, but our gubmint's data are in sharp conflict with your position. First, according to them, Cali's SDP puts them at #8 globally. Second, as of 2008, "Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting" account for $27.259 billion of the of the $1,846 trillion SDP, or less than 2%. The leading sector is "real estate" which accounts for $308 billion, or 17%, followed by gubmint at $217, or 12% (yikes, I see the problem!!), manufacturing at $181 billion or 10%, "Professional and technical services" at $175 billion, or 9%, and bunches of other sectors are ahead of agriculture. http://www.bea.gov/regional/gsp/

It is a broadly held perception that Cali is the great grocery wholesaler, and we really appreciate your fruits and nuts, but agriculture is a drop in the bucket there, and the Latino labor force isn't even on the charts of the "big picture".

ricardisimo
04-28-2010, 02:43 PM
They're not citizens if they're umm you know ILLEGAL.

Smokin was referring to citizens of these here United States, whom he called "Americans". Certainly, we are Americans, but so are "they". My point is that these folks have more in common with us than Nativists might want to believe.

NJarhead
04-28-2010, 03:08 PM
Smokin was referring to citizens of these here United States, whom he called "Americans". Certainly, we are Americans, but so are "they". My point is that these folks have more in common with us than Nativists might want to believe.

:rolleyes:

Anything to make a BS argument, eh ric?

:coffee:

ricardisimo
04-28-2010, 03:45 PM
Ric, not to be argumentative, but our gubmint's data are in sharp conflict with your position. First, according to them, Cali's SDP puts them at #8 globally. Second, as of 2008, "Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting" account for $27.259 billion of the of the $1,846 trillion SDP, or less than 2%. The leading sector is "real estate" which accounts for $308 billion, or 17%, followed by gubmint at $217, or 12% (yikes, I see the problem!!), manufacturing at $181 billion or 10%, "Professional and technical services" at $175 billion, or 9%, and bunches of other sectors are ahead of agriculture. http://www.bea.gov/regional/gsp/

It is a broadly held perception that Cali is the great grocery wholesaler, and we really appreciate your fruits and nuts, but agriculture is a drop in the bucket there, and the Latino labor force isn't even on the charts of the "big picture".

Real estate is a sham, a shadow economy fiction, as the headlines from the past ten years will attest. My own home has gone up and down in value multiple times by several hundred thousand dollars each time. Depending on the day of the week, I'm either a millionaire or an Average Joe. It's all meaningless.

Government is a or even the primary engine of every state in the Union (once again, we have planned economies, not free markets), so that's to be taken as par for the course. I'm not saying that this isn't real money or real jobs that are being generated, but everyone's state government plays this role... this is not what differentiates California from West Virginia or Oklahoma.

Manufacturing in California, unlike in Michigan, for example, is largely an extension of that same government planning, with companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumann being predominant... these are not companies that would even exist without massive and perpetual government contracts. The same applies to NASA and DARPA-related industries as to aerospace and naval contractors. No one's fooled: these are government jobs. They are real jobs, again, and I don't mean to diminish that.

My only point is that the largest sector of the state's economy that even smells slightly like "the market" - with people getting out of bed in the morning, working their tails off, and the fruits of their labor floating up and down based on supply and demand rather than advanced planning - is agriculture, and that means, to a very large extent, undocumented Latino workers. It obviously has both direct and multiplier effects, and it also explains in large measure why Latinos will very soon be the majority throughout the state, and not just in LA.

WH
04-28-2010, 03:56 PM
It's odd that you say apples and oranges, because that's precisely the point: agrobusiness profits, and cheap produce for the rest of us. Depending on whom you ask, California is either the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world, and it's not because of Hollywood, and it's not because of Silicon Valley. It's literally apples and oranges from the San Joaquin Valley, as well as Garlic, red peppers, wine and grapes, etc., etc.

Latino immigrants (specifically undocumented workers) are the heart and soul of this economy, which is partly why there is such an uproar in California about AZ, including from the state's Republicans. That story about the Jews in Venice was specifically a response to SteelerEmpire's last post, but it's perhaps more appropriate than I thought.

The US is not forcing Mexicans out because they are Mexicans. They're being wished out because they are in the country illegally. If they want to come to the US, there are legal avenues to take. I should know, my wife and I did it. It's a pain in the ass, but it's worth it.
Jews were forced out because they were Jews.

MACH1
04-28-2010, 04:01 PM
It's not like illegals are being rounded up and exterminated. Just sending them back where they came from.

ricardisimo
04-28-2010, 04:04 PM
i seriously doubt they'd have to be begged to come back... they can sign up for the "guest worker" visa, and fill out tax forms and pay taxes like we do.... i'd be willing to bet that one million tax paying immigrants would help out the economy more than 12 million who don't ...:noidea:

They do pay taxes, by the way. Like everyone at the bottom end - citizens or not - the bulk of their taxes are in the form of state sales taxes. Just how much Federal do you think they're cheating us if they're making under $20k/year? Many of these workers actually have fake SS#, into which accounts they are paying, never to see that money again.

What they don't do is make a lot of money, which is a problem for them, it's a problem for the country's tax base, and it's a problem for U.S. citizens who are out of work. I have serious doubts about whether those of us of European decent would take these jobs for anything less than $50,000/year, but maybe I'm wrong, and anyhow, no matter who is working the farms, they should make decent money for their hard work, no?

But that's why the system is the way it is, to keep agro jobs at minimum wage and lower. Ultimately, as someone else suggested here, the penalties need to be pointed at the companies in this sector, rather than at the immigrants. These people are just workers, like you and I, being used and abused by the system.

The second thing that has to happen is that the wages have to be forced upwards and working conditions improved, not only to entice citizens to work these jobs, but also to make the residency/citizenship process worthwhile for the undocumented. The procedure costs money, time and energy, which people working crappy 16-hour-a-day jobs have none of.

The key to any of this actually happening is that people need to be willing to pay more for their groceries. A LOT more.

revefsreleets
04-28-2010, 04:08 PM
You guys might as well discuss the space alien vehicles Elvis uses to transport the Loch Ness Monster back and forth to it's meetings with Xenu if you're going to continue taking Ric, with his half-baked semi-pseudo-intellectual conspiracy-behind-every-single-thing-as-truth-nonsense, seriously...

ricardisimo
04-28-2010, 04:10 PM
It's not like illegals are being rounded up and exterminated. Just sending them back where they came from.

You're right. They're not being rounded up and pushed into gas chambers, and I didn't mean to suggest that.

They are, however, being grossly abused by a system that could not function without them. They are all of the cogs, gears and springs in the machine, and yet they are also demonized and made into the enemy. These are working folk, following the money just like everyone else. And we can't stress this enough: it's by design, all of it; their low wages, their cycling into and out of the country, the propaganda against them, the claims that they are stealing jobs that no one else wants.

They're working folk, and everyone should keep that in the forefront.

ricardisimo
04-28-2010, 04:13 PM
The US is not forcing Mexicans out because they are Mexicans. They're being wished out because they are in the country illegally. If they want to come to the US, there are legal avenues to take. I should know, my wife and I did it. It's a pain in the ass, but it's worth it.
Jews were forced out because they were Jews.

Do you mind if I ask what you and your wife do or did for a living?

Dino 6 Rings
04-28-2010, 04:14 PM
Um....here is the actual Bill

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf

WH
04-28-2010, 04:17 PM
Do you mind if I ask what you and your wife do or did for a living?

Well, the only person who had to go through that process was her. I was born in the US. She came over legally before we got married. She was the equivalent of a Nurses Aide.

ricardisimo
04-28-2010, 04:20 PM
Um....here is the actual Bill

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/16/AzSB1070.pdf

Thanks. Here's a line from it that I think speaks to some of the fears people have about racism and racial profiling being codified into state law:
E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND THIS SECTION.

Dino 6 Rings
04-28-2010, 04:20 PM
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).

I'm pretty that right there says, there has to be a Legitimate reason for the Officer to already be engaged with the individual then, they can verify Status if the officer feels the person may be an illegal.

Dino 6 Rings
04-28-2010, 04:23 PM
Thanks. Here's a line from it that I think speaks to some of the fears people have about racism and racial profiling being codified into state law:

That is tied to Human Trafficing Laws, not people just driving down the road.

A. It is unlawful for a person to intentionally engage in the
4 smuggling of human beings for profit or commercial purpose.
5 B. A violation of this section is a class 4 felony.
6 C. Notwithstanding subsection B of this section, a violation of this
7 section:
8 1. Is a class 2 felony if the human being who is smuggled is under
9 eighteen years of age and is not accompanied by a family member over eighteen
10 years of age or the offense involved the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous
11 instrument.
12 2. Is a class 3 felony if the offense involves the use or threatened
13 use of deadly physical force and the person is not eligible for suspension of
14 sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any other basis
15 except pursuant to section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence
16 imposed by the court is served, the person is eligible for release pursuant
17 to section 41-1604.07 or the sentence is commuted.
18 D. Chapter 10 of this title does not apply to a violation of
19 subsection C, paragraph 1 of this section.
20 E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP
21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE
22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND
23 THIS SECTION.

Dino 6 Rings
04-28-2010, 04:25 PM
Each section of the bill is carefully drawn up to ensure fairness to the people it doesn't target. You can't just stop some kid jogging and "ask for his papers"

Dino 6 Rings
04-28-2010, 04:28 PM
When you actually read the entire bill, as it is passed, and think about the issues, all of them from Day Labor Hiring to Trafficking and Drug Running and all of it, its actually a Solid Law.

wipe out the "blah blah blah" from talking heads on TV and read the bill. Its a solid law.

ricardisimo
04-28-2010, 04:30 PM
Well, the only person who had to go through that process was her. I was born in the US. She came over legally before we got married. She was the equivalent of a Nurses Aide.

Based on your current location, I'm assuming that she is of European decent, which means that she was a longshot at one of the 17,600 spots available to European immigrants every year, out of the 55,000 total (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3953.html). Given the tides of Swedes yearning to breathe free on our shores, I'm amazed that she got in.

I would crack wise about the medical profession paying subsistence wages for long hours, but there is, of course, some truth to that, at least for interns.

Anyhow, you'll notice in the link the 1,358 total slots alloted in our immigration policy for the entirety of the Americas, and you can compare your wife's situation (with a US citizen fiancé to boot) and that of a brasero in Arizona.

MACH1
04-28-2010, 04:32 PM
You're right. They're not being rounded up and pushed into gas chambers, and I didn't mean to suggest that.

They are, however, being grossly abused by a system that could not function without them. They are all of the cogs, gears and springs in the machine, and yet they are also demonized and made into the enemy. These are working folk, following the money just like everyone else. And we can't stress this enough: it's by design, all of it; their low wages, their cycling into and out of the country, the propaganda against them, the claims that they are stealing jobs that no one else wants.

They're working folk, and everyone should keep that in the forefront.

How the eff are they being abused. They CHOOSE to be here ILLEGALLY. They suck the system dry and guess what, most don't pay taxes. Most are paid under the table, the easiest way to get caught employing illegals is to claim them on payroll that gets reported on a monthly basis. If they're sooo used and abused, they can choose to go back to where ever they came from!

And the farmer that employees illegals should be prosecuted to the fullest extent!

ricardisimo
04-28-2010, 04:35 PM
When you actually read the entire bill, as it is passed, and think about the issues, all of them from Day Labor Hiring to Trafficking and Drug Running and all of it, its actually a Solid Law.

wipe out the "blah blah blah" from talking heads on TV and read the bill. Its a solid law.

I understand what you're saying, but the "reasonable suspicion" provisions are the problem, no matter the legitimacy of the concerns surrounding them. With regards to illegal immigration in the American SW, "reasonable suspicion" means only one thing: Latino-looking.

I'm concerned about gun violence. Do I think the police should be able to stop anyone with an NRA sticker on their pickup? No, of course not. That's a breach of basic human rights.

ricardisimo
04-28-2010, 04:40 PM
How the eff are they being abused. They CHOOSE to be here ILLEGALLY. They suck the system dry and guess what, most don't pay taxes. Most are paid under the table, the easiest way to get caught employing illegals is to claim them on payroll that gets reported on a monthly basis. If they're sooo used and abused, they can choose to go back to where ever they came from!

And the farmer that employees illegals should be prosecuted to the fullest extent!

I'm with you completely on the second part.

The first part makes no sense to me. How can someone working long hours for subsistence wages "bleed the system dry"? And again, like anyone making very little money, the bulk of their tax contribution is in state and local sales taxes. Your teenage son is not bleeding the system dry just because he has a paper route. His tax contribution is in the form of sales taxes at the comic book store.

MACH1
04-28-2010, 04:40 PM
I understand what you're saying, but the "reasonable suspicion" provisions are the problem, no matter the legitimacy of the concerns surrounding them. With regards to illegal immigration in the American SW, "reasonable suspicion" means only one thing: Latino-looking.

I'm concerned about gun violence. Do I think the police should be able to stop anyone with an NRA sticker on their pickup? No, of course not. That's a breach of basic human rights.

I take it is like our seatbelt law. In Idaho it's illegal to not use your seat belt, but the police can not stop you if they notice it, the only way they can wright you up for a seat belt ticket is if you give them a reason to stop you, like speeding, blowing through a stop sign, ect...

Bottom line they can't pull you over for no seat belt alone.

smokin3000gt
04-28-2010, 04:46 PM
I understand what you're saying, but the "reasonable suspicion" provisions are the problem, no matter the legitimacy of the concerns surrounding them. With regards to illegal immigration in the American SW, "reasonable suspicion" means only one thing: Latino-looking.

I'm concerned about gun violence. Do I think the police should be able to stop anyone with an NRA sticker on their pickup? No, of course not. That's a breach of basic human rights.

Are you kidding? If it was up to you libs, there would be a nationwide confiscation of firearms. Horrible argument..

ricardisimo
04-28-2010, 04:48 PM
Are you kidding? If it was up to you libs, there would be a nationwide confiscation of firearms. Horrible argument..

I'm not a liberal. Ask anyone here.

smokin3000gt
04-28-2010, 04:57 PM
I'm not a liberal. Ask anyone here.

I guess if I lived in CA long enough I wouldn't realize it if I quacked like a duck either

MACH1
04-28-2010, 05:08 PM
I'm with you completely on the second part.

The first part makes no sense to me. How can someone working long hours for subsistence wages "bleed the system dry"? And again, like anyone making very little money, the bulk of their tax contribution is in state and local sales taxes. Your teenage son is not bleeding the system dry just because he has a paper route. His tax contribution is in the form of sales taxes at the comic book store.

This is a old article, but it shows how.

Illegal Immigrants' Cost to Government Studied

A report that found that illegal immigrants in the United States cost the federal government more than $10 billion a year -- a sum it estimated would almost triple if they were given amnesty -- has drawn criticism from immigration advocacy groups.

For its report, the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington-based group that advocates tougher immigration policies, used Census Bureau figures to compare the revenue that illegal immigrants contribute through taxes with the cost of government services they use.

Illegal immigrants create a fiscal deficit because they have low incomes, Steven A. Camarota said. (Robert A. Reede - Robert A. Reeder -- The Washington Post)


Friday's Question:
It was not until the early 20th century that the Senate enacted rules allowing members to end filibusters and unlimited debate. How many votes were required to invoke cloture when the Senate first adopted the rule in 1917?

"Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household," said Steven A. Camarota, author of the study.

The costs outlined in the report include government services such as Medicaid, medical treatment for the uninsured, food assistance programs, the federal prison and court systems, and federal aid to schools.

The study acknowledged that, on average, the costs that illegal-immigrant households bear on the federal government are less than half that of other households, and that many of those costs relate to their U.S.-born children. It also pointed out that tax payments by illegal-immigrant households constitute one-fourth those of other households because of low-income jobs.

"With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services," Camarota said.

The report estimates that granting legal status to illegal immigrants would dramatically increase their cost, causing the net fiscal deficit to rise to nearly $29 billion because, the author argues, unskilled immigrants would have access to more government services while continuing to make modest tax payments.

Camarota concluded in his report that the fiscal impact could be lessened only by stringently enforcing immigration laws, a view that drew criticism from some immigration specialists and advocacy groups that also accused him of not coming up with constructive recommendations.

"Implied within this study's findings is the sense that if these people could suddenly be made to disappear, the federal government would be $10 billion to the plus, and that is almost certainly not true once you look at the numbers," Jeffrey S. Passel, a demographer at the Urban Institute, said in an interview.

"Should you charge up to undocumented aliens the cost of small-business loans that they don't get or the cost of civil litigation, among other things? This report does that," he said.

Frank Sharry, director of the National Immigration Forum, an immigrant advocacy group, took issue with the report's treatment of illegal immigrants' U.S.-born children, who are American citizens.

"The costs of the children of immigrants are accounted for [in the report], but not their contributions to the economy as workers and taxpayers," he said in a written statement, adding that the report's conclusions were not helpful to the debate on immigration reform.

"There is a growing consensus in both political parties that our immigration system needs to be comprehensively reformed," Sharry said. "Our current system of haphazard laws, spotty enforcement, border chaos and unfair restrictions needs to be replaced by a regulatory regime that makes immigration safe, legal and orderly."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33783-2004Aug25.html

SteelCityMom
04-28-2010, 05:37 PM
I for one wonder if many of our ancestors who came into this country, either through Ellis Island or elsewhere, were forced to pay over a thousand dollars to become a legal citizen. That, in my opinion, is a big reason why so many who are here on expired work or student visas, or have jumped the border illegally haven't immediately gotten around to getting a legal status.

When the majority of families are making 15-20k (if that) a year and have families to support, it's no wonder they're not jumping at the chance to gain citizenship. I guarantee you these folks aren't choosing to shirk the system and have to live under the legal radar. I mean, on the money they make if they paid taxes, they'd be getting the majority of it back at tax time anyhow. In my eyes there's no other real reason outside of up front cost for not gaining legal citizenship. The cost doubles, and sometimes triples if your an immigrant that wants to open a business.

It sure would make bill like this (which I understand the principles for) seem unnecessary if the process for becoming a citizen was affordable. I doubt that the INS would need to hire more employees to track down illegals if it was financially easier for them to become legal (which hiring more employees and updating technology to keep track of immigrants was the reason for the hike in citizenship fees in the first place...if you think about it, it's kind of backwards).

GoSlash27
04-28-2010, 05:43 PM
How many times can they resurrect the "racist" boogeyman until he collapses in a pile of dust?

The illegal immigration problem is only tangentially related to race. It would be the same crisis if the illegals were arabs or asians or caucasians and would still have to be dealt with. This is permitted under the 14th.

This law is *not* unconstitutional and anyone who says it is is either a) lying or b) ignorant of the law or the Constitution.

Anyone who knows anything about the Judicial review process will declare that this law will stand up to the highest level of Judicial scrutiny and will easily be upheld.

/cake and circuses

GoSlash27
04-28-2010, 05:46 PM
And once again, I agree with SCM. We must make it easier for immigrants to legally join us. They have to jump through nearly insurmountable hoops to do it the right way, and as a result we're facing an invasion of people who have done it the wrong way.

ricardisimo
04-28-2010, 06:06 PM
How many times can they resurrect the "racist" boogeyman until he collapses in a pile of dust?

The illegal immigration problem is only tangentially related to race. It would be the same crisis if the illegals were arabs or asians or caucasians and would still have to be dealt with. This is permitted under the 14th.

This law is *not* unconstitutional and anyone who says it is is either a) lying or b) ignorant of the law or the Constitution.

Anyone who knows anything about the Judicial review process will declare that this law will stand up to the highest level of Judicial scrutiny and will easily be upheld.

/cake and circuses

Well... I'm not entirely with you there. I witness racial profiling almost literally every single day of the year. It's with regards to African-American motorists in my neighborhood (and it's even worse in the business district where I work) rather than Latinos, but it's there right in front of me. It's clearly unconstitutional, and has been declared such repeatedly, and yet there it is still. It will not go away.

Here we have it being codified into law, which will guarantee that it will never go away for as long as we live.

MACH1
04-28-2010, 06:10 PM
Well... I'm not entirely with you there. I witness racial profiling almost literally every single day of the year. It's with regards to African-American motorists in my neighborhood (and it's even worse in the business district where I work) rather than Latinos, but it's there right in front of me. It's clearly unconstitutional, and has been declared such repeatedly, and yet there it is still. It will not go away.

Here we have it being codified into law, which will guarantee that it will never go away for as long as we live.

Obaamacare is unconstitutional at yet it wont go away either.

The AZ law is no more unconstitutional then the unenforced federal laws.

The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally -- green card, work visa, etc. That hasn't changed.

ricardisimo
04-28-2010, 06:21 PM
And once again, I agree with SCM. We must make it easier for immigrants to legally join us. They have to jump through nearly insurmountable hoops to do it the right way, and as a result we're facing an invasion of people who have done it the wrong way.

I don't know that we even need to insist upon citizenship. Residency will do just fine. If we have jobs that citizens do not want to work, make residency easier, as well as citizenship.

I still think the key is to make these jobs attractive to citizens. Higher pay and better working conditions.

Vincent
04-28-2010, 06:27 PM
Real estate is a sham, a shadow economy fiction, as the headlines from the past ten years will attest. My own home has gone up and down in value multiple times by several hundred thousand dollars each time. Depending on the day of the week, I'm either a millionaire or an Average Joe. It's all meaningless.

No, its not meaningless. $308 billion in real estate transactions occurred in 2008. That is money that changed hands. Taxable transactions. And its the state's largest sector.

Government is a or even the primary engine of every state in the Union (once again, we have planned economies, not free markets), so that's to be taken as par for the course. I'm not saying that this isn't real money or real jobs that are being generated, but everyone's state government plays this role... this is not what differentiates California from West Virginia or Oklahoma.

Gubmint is a sector in the economy. Companies sell into the gubmint sector just like any other sector. It is neither a primary sector or even real big sector to most. And they don't "plan" the economy. They plan around tax revenue derived from the economy.

Manufacturing in California, unlike in Michigan, for example, is largely an extension of that same government planning, with companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumann being predominant... these are not companies that would even exist without massive and perpetual government contracts. The same applies to NASA and DARPA-related industries as to aerospace and naval contractors. No one's fooled: these are government jobs. They are real jobs, again, and I don't mean to diminish that.

Those companies do have large gubmint businesses. But they are but some of the companies even in manufacturing and professional services. And even with the federal and DoD business, its but a small fraction of Cali's economy. I'm familiar with the landscape.

My only point is that the largest sector of the state's economy that even smells slightly like "the market" - with people getting out of bed in the morning, working their tails off, and the fruits of their labor floating up and down based on supply and demand rather than advanced planning - is agriculture, and that means, to a very large extent, undocumented Latino workers. It obviously has both direct and multiplier effects, and it also explains in large measure why Latinos will very soon be the majority throughout the state, and not just in LA.

I disagree. Agriculture is around 1.5% of the Cali SDP. That is insignificant. If agribusiness went away, Cali would go on. Groceries would spike, but in the grand scheme of things, so what. Cali's engine runs on tech and manufacturing, and that's good old Yankee enterprise. And Cali's engine employs lots of folks from all demographics.

Latinos are a large legacy segment of the population. Growth in that segment would be organic without illegals. Add illegals and it grows faster.

As fun as it is to discuss Cali's economy and demographics, I am searching for a point here relevant to the new law in Arizona, and agribusiness isn't it

ricardisimo
04-28-2010, 06:31 PM
Obaamacare is unconstitutional at yet it wont go away either.

The AZ law is no more unconstitutional then the unenforced federal laws.

The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally -- green card, work visa, etc. That hasn't changed.

What has changed is the attempt to deputize cops, teachers, nurses, social workers and every other state and local employee into the INS. If the INS has no interest in deputizing them, why does Arizona?

Steelerstrength
04-28-2010, 06:35 PM
I guess if I lived in CA long enough I wouldn't realize it if I quacked like a duck either

That's weak!

My family has lived in California well before it was considered part of the US. We are of Mexican ancestry, and there is a mix of Conservatives, Liberals, and Independents. As you could imagine there are different perspectives of the law in AZ, especially because my Dad and one of my uncles live there. We embrace and respect each of our opinions because it can provide great debate, as well as empathy and an assortment of interesting views.

We all handle crucial conversations differently, and usually agree to a commitment of respectful dialogue. It doesn't always workout well, but someone gets called out for taking the suckers way out.

Your comment is a false generalization!

And, if it was an attempt at humor you might choose to add an emoticon.

ricardisimo
04-28-2010, 06:44 PM
That's weak!

My family has lived in California well before it was considered part of the US. We are of Mexican ancestry, and there is a mix of Conservatives, Liberals, and Independents. As you could imagine there are different perspectives of the law in AZ, especially because my Dad and one of my uncles live there. We embrace and respect each of our opinions because it can provide great debate, as well as empathy and an assortment of interesting views.

We all handle crucial conversations differently, and usually agree to a commitment of respectful dialogue. It doesn't always workout well, but someone gets called out for taking the suckers way out.

Your comment is a false generalization!

And, if it was an attempt at humor you might choose to add an emoticon.

[QUACK!]

:wink02:

revefsreleets
04-29-2010, 09:41 AM
A little common sense infused into this thread to counter some of the moonbattery...

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/92389544.html

Rule of law in Arizona

By George F. Will
Washington Post

Published on Thursday, Apr 29, 2010

WASHINGTON: ''Misguided and irresponsible'' is how Arizona's new law pertaining to illegal immigration is characterized by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She represents San Francisco, which calls itself a ''sanctuary city,'' an exercise in exhibitionism that means it will be essentially uncooperative regarding enforcement of immigration laws. Yet as many states go to court to challenge the constitutionality of the federal mandate to buy health insurance, scandalized liberals invoke 19th-century specters of ''nullification'' and ''interposition,'' anarchy and disunion. Strange.

It is passing strange for federal officials, including the president, to accuse Arizona of irresponsibility while the federal government is refusing to fulfill its responsibility to control the nation's borders. Such control is an essential attribute of national sovereignty. America is the only developed nation that has a 2,000-mile border with a developing nation, and the government's refusal to control that border is why there are an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona and why the nation, sensibly insisting on first things first, resists ''comprehensive'' immigration reform.

Arizona's law makes what is already a federal offense — being in the country illegally — a state offense. Some critics seem not to understand Arizona's right to assert concurrent jurisdiction. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund attacks Gov. Jan Brewer's character and motives, saying she ''caved to the radical fringe.'' This poses a semantic puzzle: Can the large majority of Arizonans who support the law be a ''fringe'' of their state?

Popularity makes no law invulnerable to invalidation. Americans accept judicial supervision of their democracy — judicial review of popular but possibly unconstitutional statutes — because they know that if the Constitution is truly to constitute the nation, it must trump some majority preferences. The Constitution, the Supreme Court has said, puts certain things ''beyond the reach of majorities.''

But Arizona's statute is not presumptively unconstitutional merely because it says that police officers are now required to try to make ''a reasonable attempt'' to determine the status of a person ''where reasonable suspicion exists'' that the person is here illegally. The fact that the meaning of ''reasonable'' will not be obvious in many contexts does not make the law obviously too vague to stand. The Bill of Rights — the Fourth Amendment — proscribes ''unreasonable searches and seizures.'' What ''reasonable'' means in practice is still being refined by case law — as is that amendment's stipulation that no warrants shall be issued ''but upon probable cause.'' There has also been careful case-by-case refinement of the familiar and indispensable concept of ''reasonable suspicion.''

Brewer says, ''We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent or social status.'' Because the nation thinks as Brewer does, airport passenger screeners wand Norwegian grandmothers. This is an acceptable, even admirable, homage to the virtue of ''evenness'' as we seek to deter violence by a few, mostly Middle Eastern, young men.

Some critics say Arizona's law is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment's guarantee of ''equal protection of the laws'' prevents the government from basing action on the basis of race. Liberals, however, cannot comfortably make this argument because they support racial set-asides in government contracting, racial preferences in college admissions, racial gerrymandering of legislative districts, and other aspects of a racial spoils system.

Although liberals are appalled by racial profiling, some seem to think vocational profiling (police officers are insensitive incompetents) is merely intellectual efficiency, as is state profiling (Arizonans are xenophobic).

Probably 30 percent of Arizona's residents are Hispanics. Arizona police officers, like officers everywhere, have enough to do without being required to seek arrests by violating settled law with random stops of people who speak Spanish. In the practice of the complex and demanding craft of policing, good officers — the vast majority — routinely make nuanced judgments about when there is probable cause for acting on reasonable suspicions of illegality.

Arizona's law might give the nation information about whether judicious enforcement discourages illegality. If so, it is a worthwhile experiment in federalism.

Non-Hispanic Arizonans of all sorts live congenially with all sorts of persons of Hispanic descent. These include some whose ancestors got to Arizona before statehood — some even before it was a territory. They were in America before most Americans' ancestors arrived. Arizonans should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Hispanics are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants, not with illegal immigrants passing through their backyards at 3 a.m.

Will is a Washington Post columnist. He can be e-mailed at georgewill@washpost.com.

Godfather
04-29-2010, 11:11 AM
We might also remember than not all Mexicans "look" like Mexicans.

This is former New Orleans newscaster Helena Moreno:

http://blog.nola.com/elections_impact/2008/08/medium_moreno.JPG

She's a native of Mexico.

smokin3000gt
04-29-2010, 03:58 PM
That's weak!

My family has lived in California well before it was considered part of the US. We are of Mexican ancestry, and there is a mix of Conservatives, Liberals, and Independents. As you could imagine there are different perspectives of the law in AZ, especially because my Dad and one of my uncles live there. We embrace and respect each of our opinions because it can provide great debate, as well as empathy and an assortment of interesting views.

We all handle crucial conversations differently, and usually agree to a commitment of respectful dialogue. It doesn't always workout well, but someone gets called out for taking the suckers way out.

Your comment is a false generalization!

And, if it was an attempt at humor you might choose to add an emoticon.

Really? It seems more like an opportunity to talk about yourself and your heritage. What does you being of Mexican ancestry have to do with the back and forth between Ric and I? You can stand up for Cali all you like but it doesn't change that it's the bluest of blue states with liberals political correctness running rampid. If CA isn't a reflection of Pelosi then I don't know what is.

Steelerstrength
04-29-2010, 04:28 PM
Really? It seems more like an opportunity to talk about yourself and your heritage. What does you being of Mexican ancestry have to do with the back and forth between Ric and I? You can stand up for Cali all you like but it doesn't change that it's the bluest of blue states with liberals political correctness running rampid. If CA isn't a reflection of Pelosi then I don't know what is.

I was offering you some respect within the conversation by providing some background that may have been viewed as credibility to speak about California. Since your conversation is occuring on a message board, and the subject matter has everything to do with Mexicans, it cannot possibly be viewed as out of place to add an opinion.

I viewed your statement of California as "weak" because in my opinion it is!

The secondary reason for including my family, was to add more perspective of how diverse things can be, even though some may have pre-conceived notions. We have it all, from the most conservative to the most liberal. Again, it creates an interesting environment for great debate!

Dino 6 Rings
04-29-2010, 04:38 PM
Senate Hearing on Home Land Security...

DHS Chief Janet Napolitano: I know that border as well as anyone. Every marker, every milepost that has been laid down by the congress in terms of number of agents, deployment of technology, construction of fencing and the like, has already been completed or is within a hair's breath of being completed. And one of the questions I think we need to talk about is whether security the border is every going to be reached before the congress in the sense of the congress or whether that goal post is just going to keep moving. And I also believe that we need to better communicate with the American people. [...]

Sen. Lindsey Graham: Knowing what you know about Arizona, would you say, would you certify that the Arizona border is secure?

Napolitano: ...First of all, it's an unfair question....

Sen. Graham: If that is an unfair question, then it would be news to the people of the United States and Arizona. If it is unfair to ask a simple question -- is the border secure -- then we're never going to have the consequence to get it secure 'cause it is a fair question -- and I'll give you my answer: I don't think it is.

WH
04-29-2010, 05:18 PM
Senator Graham comes across with a right hook and she's down! 1...2..3....4....5...6...7...8..9.......

MasterOfPuppets
04-29-2010, 07:36 PM
I was offering you some respect within the conversation by providing some background that may have been viewed as credibility to speak about California. Since your conversation is occuring on a message board, and the subject matter has everything to do with Mexicans, it cannot possibly be viewed as out of place to add an opinion.

I viewed your statement of California as "weak" because in my opinion it is!

The secondary reason for including my family, was to add more perspective of how diverse things can be, even though some may have pre-conceived notions. We have it all, from the most conservative to the most liberal. Again, it creates an interesting environment for great debate!
actually the subject matter is about ILLEGAL immigrants ... thier nationality or race isn't the issue...:noidea:

MasterOfPuppets
04-29-2010, 07:39 PM
We might also remember than not all Mexicans "look" like Mexicans.

This is former New Orleans newscaster Helena Moreno:

http://blog.nola.com/elections_impact/2008/08/medium_moreno.JPG

She's a native of Mexico.

has the INS checked her out ? :wtf:

Steelerstrength
04-29-2010, 08:02 PM
actually the subject matter is about ILLEGAL immigrants ... thier nationality or race isn't the issue...:noidea:

When I wrote that the subject matter had everything to do with Mexicans, it was precisely because of their role in the subject matter. If you're saying that Mexicans have nothing to do with the subject matter then I would be perplexed, based upon almost every post in this thread.

MasterOfPuppets
04-29-2010, 08:17 PM
When I wrote that the subject matter had everything to do with Mexicans, it was precisely because of their role in the subject matter. If you're saying that Mexicans have nothing to do with the subject matter then I would be perplexed, based upon almost every post in this thread.

mexicans ? nope...illegal immigrants from mexico...yep..along with guatemalans, salvatorians, cubans,haitians, chinese, and whoever else is here undocumented..:noidea:

ricardisimo
04-29-2010, 08:38 PM
Really? It seems more like an opportunity to talk about yourself and your heritage. What does you being of Mexican ancestry have to do with the back and forth between Ric and I? You can stand up for Cali all you like but it doesn't change that it's the bluest of blue states with liberals political correctness running rampid. If CA isn't a reflection of Pelosi then I don't know what is.

Bluest of blue with a Republican Governor now, three of the past four governors being Republican, as well as eleven of the past fifteen; Propositions 8, 13 and 187 on the books, along with all sorts of other conservative activism designed to destroy our nation.

Yeah, we're the bluest of blue.

steelerdude15
04-30-2010, 10:29 AM
It seems that now even sports are being affected by this, I figured this was important to show. Here are the links to both stories:
The first one is that a New York congressman wants the 2011 MLB All Star game out of Arizona:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-04-29/sports/ct-spt-0430-arizona-baseball--20100429_1_immigration-law-major-league-baseball-arizona-gov
The next is about a boxing association that doesn't want Mexican boxers boxing in Arizona:
http://www.kolotv.com/sports/headlines/92465379.html

WH
04-30-2010, 01:52 PM
It seems that now even sports are being affected by this, I figured this was important to show. Here are the links to both stories:
The first one is that a New York congressman wants the 2011 MLB All Star game out of Arizona:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-04-29/sports/ct-spt-0430-arizona-baseball--20100429_1_immigration-law-major-league-baseball-arizona-gov
This is nothing more than Jose Serano going ''LOOK AT ME!!! LOOK AT ME!!''

How about they do this. Take the law and let the general populous of Arizona vote on the damn thing. Have the USCIS station deportation trucks next to all of the voting booths. If anyone tried to vote on it with a fake SSN, load'em up.


If it passes they keep it, if it loses, they get rid of it. End of story.

I think the federal government is embarrased because a single state is making them look like the slackers they are.

MACH1
04-30-2010, 03:17 PM
What has changed is the attempt to deputize cops, teachers, nurses, social workers and every other state and local employee into the INS. If the INS has no interest in deputizing them, why does Arizona?

Somebody has to make the law and enforce the law. If the feds aren't going to enforce their own illegal alien laws.

revefsreleets
04-30-2010, 03:20 PM
Bluest of blue with a Republican Governor now, three of the past four governors being Republican, as well as eleven of the past fifteen; Propositions 8, 13 and 187 on the books, along with all sorts of other conservative activism designed to destroy our nation.

Yeah, we're the bluest of blue.

Space Aliens! Bigfoot!

http://www.270towin.com/states/California

First off, if Arnie isn't a RINO, then the term needs to be retired.

Since 92, California has been 100% reliable voting for Democrats. Feinstein and Boxer have been Senators since 93. 34 of the 53 Congressional seats are Democrats. Don't let those facts get in your way, though, nutbag.

Steeldude
04-30-2010, 03:28 PM
the law needs to be more strict.

ricardisimo
04-30-2010, 05:14 PM
the law needs to be more strict.

On the companies, yes. On people, no. It should be easier for people to work their jobs, not harder.

These jobs should be brought up to basic standards of decency, and then hopefully established citizens will work them, and that will resolve everything.

We don't have hordes of undocumented Latin American accountants, stock analysts, nurses and professional baseball players invading the country... Oops! Scratch that last one... :redface: The reason is simple: those jobs are taken, and we're not needing to fill them.

NJarhead
04-30-2010, 05:17 PM
Oh the poor undocumented people and those dastardly Democrats and those dastardly Republicans and those dastardly baseball players and those...
:rolleyes:

:coffee:

GBMelBlount
04-30-2010, 05:19 PM
the law needs to be more strict.



On the companies, yes. On people, no. It should be easier for people to work their jobs, not harder.

These jobs should be brought up to basic standards of decency, and then hopefully established citizens will work them, and that will resolve everything.



Can you elaborate Ricardisimo?

Both regarding stricter laws on companies and less restrictions on individuals?

MACH1
04-30-2010, 06:09 PM
Can you elaborate Ricardisimo?

Both regarding stricter laws on companies and less restrictions on individuals?

He want's it both ways.



:chuckle:

revefsreleets
04-30-2010, 07:51 PM
Jesus, people, WHY are you seeking answers from Crazy Ric? He said Nixon was a liberal. He's an anarchist who doesn't understand the basic tenets of Anarchy. He says California is a RED state!

The guy is a certifiable KOOK!

AllD
05-01-2010, 06:01 AM
Nobody has mentioned that Mexico currently has a tougher immigration policy than what is being proposed by Arizona.

1. The Mexican gov't will bar foreigners if they "upset the equillibrium of the national demographics."
2. If outsiders " do not enhance the country's economic or national interests" they are barred.
3. They must not be an economic burden to society and must have a clean criminal record.
4. Those seeking to obtain citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.
5. Illegal entry is a felony and punishable by two years imprisonment. Re-entry up to 10 years.

There is more. They are trying to exclude Central Americans. Arizona should not be getting all this bad press.

smokin3000gt
05-01-2010, 06:25 AM
http://ktar.com/index.php?nid=6&sid=1289944
PHOENIX - A veteran sheriff's deputy was shot and wounded Friday after encountering a group of suspected illegal immigrants who apparently had been hauling bales of marijuana along a major smuggling corridor in the Arizona desert- a violent episode that comes amid a heated national debate over immigration.

State and federal law enforcement agencies deployed helicopters and scores of officers in pursuit of the suspects after the deputy was shot with an AK-47 on Friday afternoon, and the search continued into the night. Deputy Louie Puroll, 53, had a chunk of skin torn from just above his left kidney, but the wound was not serious. He was released Friday night from Casa Grande Regional Medical Center.

The shooting was likely to add fuel to an already fiery national debate sparked last week by the signing of an Arizona law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration in the state.

Puroll was found in the desert after a frantic hourlong search, suffering from a gunshot wound, Pinal County sheriff's Lt. Tamatha Villar said. The 15-year department veteran had been performing smuggling interdiction work before finding the bales of marijuana and encountering the five suspected illegal immigrants, two armed with rifles.

"He was out on his routine daily patrol in the area when he encountered a load of marijuana out in the desert. He obviously confronted the individuals and took fire," Villar told The Associated Press. "I was speaking with him just a bit ago, and he's doing fantastic."

The deputy was alone about five miles from a rest stop along Interstate 8, about halfway between Phoenix and Tucson. The area is a well-known smuggling corridor for drugs and illegal immigrants headed from Mexico to Phoenix and the U.S. interior.

"Over the past 12 months we've seen an increase in the amount of drugs, and an increase in violence that has been going on in this particular corridor," Villar told KPNX.

"We've had increasing concerns in this area about being outmanned and outgunned, and unfortunately this evening, this is coming true," she added.

The shooting came as Arizona grapples with backlash over its enactment of a tough new law targeting illegal immigration. Civil rights activists, concerned the law will lead to racial profiling, have called for a boycott of the state.

The law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last week is supported by many in the state, which has become a major gateway for drug smuggling and human trafficking from Mexico.

Its passage came amid increasing anger in Arizona about violence, drug smugglers, drop houses and other problems caused by poor border security.

Villar said the search for the suspects involved numerous helicopters from state and federal law enforcement agencies and scores of officers near Interstate 8 and Arizona 84 about 50 miles south of Phoenix.

"The deputy is a search-and-rescue deputy, so its not uncommon for them to work those areas A) looking for drugs and B) looking for people who need assistance out there," Villar said. "Obviously its a high-traffic area for drug- and human-smuggling."

smokin3000gt
05-01-2010, 06:38 AM
Nobody has mentioned that Mexico currently has a tougher immigration policy than what is being proposed by Arizona.

1. The Mexican gov't will bar foreigners if they "upset the equillibrium of the national demographics."
2. If outsiders " do not enhance the country's economic or national interests" they are barred.
3. They must not be an economic burden to society and must have a clean criminal record.
4. Those seeking to obtain citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.
5. Illegal entry is a felony and punishable by two years imprisonment. Re-entry up to 10 years.

There is more. They are trying to exclude Central Americans. Arizona should not be getting all this bad press.

Good point AIID.



We should send our homeless to Mexico so they can make a better life for themselves. They can do the work of the drug traffickers for less!

Can you picture a bunch of homeless hanging out at the border waiting for work until a Mexican in a pick up truck drives by ''I need 3 gringo coke mules!''

MasterOfPuppets
05-01-2010, 05:50 PM
* 17 Illegal Immigrants arrested for shooting of AZ Deputy Louie Puroll

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.
oh noooo...the racial profiling has begun ....:doh:
they arrested 17 and were only looking for 5...thats 12 racial profilings...:jawdrop:

MACH1
05-01-2010, 05:59 PM
The back page story, an American rancher was KILLED by illegals.

MasterOfPuppets
05-01-2010, 06:12 PM
The back page story, an American rancher was KILLED by illegals.

there is no such thing as illegals..they are undocumented immigrants...just as a burglar is an uninvited house guest....:chuckle:

ricardisimo
05-02-2010, 03:05 AM
Can you elaborate Ricardisimo?

Both regarding stricter laws on companies and less restrictions on individuals?

Regarding the individuals, it's simple: I believe people should be free. That includes the freedom to travel, and to move around the globe to find work and to feed their families, and so on and so forth. Not only am I concerned about individual liberties, but I also think that labor needs to be fluid. In that sense I am more firmly in the camp of the classical capitalists like Smith and Malthus than most of the conservatives here.

There is a massive void here in this country involving tens (hundreds?) of thousands of jobs that our citizens simply will not work. Meanwhile, you have outward pressure in constitutionally depressed Mexico and Central America (we can also discuss the role of the U.S. in determining those economies). You don't need to be a physicist, meteorologist or economist to figure out what you get with a super-high and a super-low pressure zone right next to each other.

Why U.S. citizens will not work those jobs speaks to the second point: what do we do with the companies hiring undocumented workers? Strong and consistent fines and even jail time for company officials would send a very strong message indeed. However, more needs to be done than that, or else the void/pressure problem remains.

These jobs need to have decent wages with quality working conditions, so that citizens will want to work them. I know that all of the conservatives will howl at this suggestion, but we should consider regulating the farm industry just as we do (sporadically) the financial markets and our utilities. It's not as though agriculture in this country isn't already dominated by government subsidies, purchased by heavy campaign contributions from Monsanto, ADM and friends.

When our citizens start working these jobs, the void will go away. There might still be outward pressure within other countries, but you will automatically begin to see results here. There is a third aspect to all of this, to which I alluded earlier: We need to get out of other countries' politics. Period. Why are we buying elections in other countries? Why are we supporting terrorism in other countries? Why are we overthrowing other countries' democratically-elected governments? Why are we invading other countries? It's not to make them wealthier, to be sure. Someone's making money, to be sure, but it's not Guatemalan banana farmers.

We help turn up the heat in their own countries, and do nothing to eliminate the void in our own, and then we complain about those horrible immigrants. The levels upon levels of bad faith involved in these arguments are too much to even process.

That's what I think anyway.

steelwalls
05-02-2010, 03:54 AM
The back page story, an American rancher was KILLED by illegals.

Yeap those poor illegals just looking for work (and smuggling drugs)... I guess shooting police and ranchers are the price WE pay for letting them have their freedom.

GoSlash27
05-02-2010, 06:52 AM
Regarding the individuals, it's simple: I believe people should be free. That includes the freedom to travel, and to move around the globe to find work and to feed their families, and so on and so forth.

That's all very nice as a feel-good position, but completely impractical here in the real world. Thanks to folks who cynically exploit your goodwill in order to pander for your vote Phoenix, AZ is now the kidnapping capital of the western hemisphere, the cops down there are in a full-on shooting war with the drug gangs, the crime rate is 6x higher than New York, and municipal services are overwhelmed by people who aren't paying for them.

Your weird utopian fantasy of people simply wandering from country to country simply does not exist, nor should it. We need to make it as easy to gain citizenship as possible, but they must be screened for things like criminal history, job prospects, disease, etc.

More to the point, you cannot declare a law unconstitutional on the basis of "I believe", you have to establish an argument for it being in violation of the Constitution.
Assuming that you have an extremely sympathetic court who lower the bar as far as possible in order to give your appeal the best chance of success, you will still have to prove one of the following arguments (strict judicial scrutiny):
A) The State of Arizona does not have a compelling interest in controlling illegal immigration
B) The law is either insufficient or overachieves the State's interest
or
C) There is another, less intrusive way to achieve the State's interest

WH
05-02-2010, 07:00 AM
A) The State of Arizona does not have a compelling interest in controlling illegal immigration
B) The law is either insufficient or overachieves the State's interest
or
C) There is another, less intrusive way to achieve the State's interest

Nope, nope, aaaaaaand maybe (but on the nope side of maybe.)

Vincent
05-02-2010, 08:47 AM
...and then we complain about those horrible immigrants.

I can only speak for my own observations and of those I know. Nobody sees Mexicans as whole as "those horrible people". The vast majority are in families that have come here for the same reason any of the previous have come here. Again, as a "whole", they are hard working, family oriented folks that you'd want to be part of the "great melting pot". And nobody "blames" them for wanting to escape that squalor they came from. I would too.

There is a serious "gang problem" that isn't limited to the Mexicans, and needs to be seriously addressed as another issue.

The issue here is order. Immigration cannot be wholesale invasion. Evidently we aren't equipped to deal with it, nor should we. Its an invasion. When order breaks down, everybody suffers.

All else relating to this issue is politics as usual. Both sides deal with it only to the extent that it benefits them and "@#$% the Mexicans". That's every bit the issue that the invasion is.

In this climate, the only reasonable way to address the issue as a state is what Arizona has done. Arizona belongs to Arizona. If the federalies won't fix the problem, then you need to step up. The Arizona legislature stepped up to their responsibility to the citizens of Arizona. They're taking and will take a great deal more @#$% for it. But it goes back to the old saying - A politician does what is in his own best interest regardless of what it costs his constituency. A statesman does what the best interest of his constituency regardless of what it costs him personally. Kudos to the statesmen of Arizona.

fansince'76
05-02-2010, 10:44 AM
Yeap those poor illegals just looking for work (and smuggling drugs)... I guess shooting police and ranchers are the price WE pay for letting them have their freedom.

Well, those poor illegal, err, excuse me, "undocumented" immigrants have no choice but to turn to smuggling drugs among other illegal activities considering the way they're oppressed by greedy, exploitative white American capitalists the way they are. :rolleyes:

Godfather
05-02-2010, 10:55 AM
the cops down there are in a full-on shooting war with the drug gangs, the crime rate is 6x higher than New York, and municipal services are overwhelmed by people who aren't paying for them.


Legalize drugs and the first problem goes away. More government is rarely the answer.

The second problem goes away if you shift from income taxes to sales taxes, plus taxes on overseas wire transfers, fast food, money orders, etc. so illegals become contributors to the system.

WH
05-02-2010, 11:00 AM
That still doesn't fix the problem with illegals stealing.

GoSlash27
05-02-2010, 12:11 PM
Godfather,
I'm with you, but the political climate in DC is not going to make that a viable answer any time soon. They're not gonna legalize drugs and they're not gonna chuck the income tax.

Arizona still has to deal with the problems that creates.

Godfather
05-02-2010, 03:02 PM
Godfather,
I'm with you, but the political climate in DC is not going to make that a viable answer any time soon. They're not gonna legalize drugs and they're not gonna chuck the income tax.

Arizona still has to deal with the problems that creates.

Sadly, you're right.

And one reason is that would be giving up power and control. Better to create a crisis and use that as an excuse to make a power grab.

AllD
05-02-2010, 03:10 PM
I made homemade soft tacos in celebration of AZ tightening its border.

GoSlash27
05-02-2010, 08:44 PM
Sadly, you're right.

And one reason is that would be giving up power and control. Better to create a crisis and use that as an excuse to make a power grab.
Wish I wasn't. :wink02:

But in the meantime Arizona has to deal with being ground zero. So I don't see where there's much else they can do.

MasterOfPuppets
05-02-2010, 09:21 PM
Ariz. immigration policy sets off polarizing debate

City workers in San Francisco and St. Paul can no longer take business trips to Arizona. A professor who helped write Arizona's new immigration law says his phone hasn't stopped ringing. The White House is planning a strategy to combat the new law even as legislators in other states propose copycat bills.

With a stroke of her pen, Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer not only signed into law the toughest immigration law in the country, she also reignited a polarizing debate. Protesters held dozens of marches in Los Angeles, New York and other cities Saturday to cap a chaotic week.

And with congressional elections six months away, the Arizona law has put the contentious vocabulary of "amnesty" for illegal immigrants vs. "securing our borders" back on center stage.

"The issue is always there, but it's usually right below the surface," said Dan Schnur, director of the University of Southern California's Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics. "It doesn't take much to bring it back up."

The main point of contention in the law is the responsibility given to local police to verify immigration status if there is a "reasonable suspicion" that a person is in the country illegally. Brewer has said Arizona was forced to pass the law because the federal government has failed to act on a flood of illegal immigrants.

Some civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, say the law will mean racial profiling, unfairly targeting Latinos who are in the country legally or were born here.

Congress jumped back into the debate Thursday, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid outlined a legislative proposal that would increase border security and give some of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants a chance to earn citizenship.

President Obama has ordered a review by the Justice Department into whether the Arizona law, scheduled to go into effect in late July, is constitutional.

The first legal challenges were filed in Arizona last week. Civil rights groups, including the Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, are mounting a broader attack. They say the law infringes on federal responsibility and violates the 14th Amendment's equal-protection clause.

Supporters of the law are comfortable that it will hold up.

Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law professor who helped draft the law, said the state is "three for three" defending immigration laws that were challenged as unconstitutional — laws that denied public benefits to illegal immigrants and targeted employers who hired them. "They've yet to defeat one of these Arizona statutes in court," he said.

Testing strength of boycotts

While lawyers prepare their suits, civil rights groups and some government agencies have launched economic boycotts.

Brent Wilkes, executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, said they will target businesses that donated to the campaigns of Arizona legislators who voted for the bill.

Government agencies, including San Francisco and St. Paul, and Denver Public Schools, have barred employees from official travel to Arizona. Tony Winnicker, spokesman for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, said the mayor does not want to "paint all of Arizona with one broad brush" but felt a boycott was the best way to voice disapproval.

"All I can say to the mayor of San Francisco is … 'You've got some crazy laws in California, and I wouldn't dream of not coming to San Francisco,' " said Jack Camper of the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce.

Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University, said Democrats are fanning the flames of immigration to rally Hispanic voters in a year when polls show Republicans could whittle down Democratic majorities in Congress.

"It's potentially to their advantage if they're careful with it and aren't tarred by the idea of amnesty," he said.

Nowhere is the effect more apparent than in the campaigns of Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada.

In 2006, McCain co-sponsored a bill with Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts that would have made it possible for illegal immigrants to earn citizenship. This year, in the face of a strong primary challenge from former congressman J.D. Hayworth, McCain is talking tough on border security and praising his home state's law. would this be a flipflop ?

For Reid, the challenge is making sure that Hispanics — 15% of the Nevadans who voted in 2008 — show up this year. Polls show Reid struggling against possible Republican candidates, said Mark Jones, Rice University's political science department chairman.

Spawning copycat legislation

Kobach, the professor who helped write Arizona's law, said he's been contacted by so many legislators that he worries they'll act too quickly and write laws that don't stand up to challenge.

In other states:

• In Ohio, Butler County Sheriff Rick Jones and Republican state Rep. Courtney Combs are pushing a law like Arizona's.

• Utah's Legislature won't reconvene until January, but Republican state Rep. Stephen Sandstrom said he's drafting a bill like Arizona's. "I'm certainly happy to see the state of Arizona take the full size-13 boot to the federal government," Republican House Speaker Dave Clark said.

• A draft of a bill is circulating among Delaware legislators, said John Jaremchuk, a Republican councilman in Elsmere.

• Republican Missouri state Rep. Mark Parkinson said the Arizona law galvanized lawmakers to consider a similar bill in 2011.

• Texas state Rep. Debbie Riddle, a Republican, said she will file a bill similar to Arizona's. "If our federal government did their job," she told the Associated Press, "then Arizona wouldn't have to take this action, and neither would Texas.":applaudit:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-05-02-immigration_N.htm

GBMelBlount
05-02-2010, 09:34 PM
MasterOfPuppets;817146]

President Obama has ordered a review by the Justice Department into whether the Arizona law, scheduled to go into effect in late July, is constitutional.

...and looking at the positive side of this...this proves that Obama is aware that there actually is a Constitution.



In 2006, McCain co-sponsored a bill with Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts that would have made it possible for illegal immigrants to earn citizenship. This year, in the face of a strong primary challenge from former congressman J.D. Hayworth, McCain is talking tough on border security and praising his home state's law. would this be a flipflop ?

It sounds like it.


• Texas state Rep. Debbie Riddle, a Republican, said she will file a bill similar to Arizona's. "If our federal government did their job," she told the Associated Press, "then Arizona wouldn't have to take this action, and neither would Texas.":applaudit:

yep.

MasterOfPuppets
05-02-2010, 09:42 PM
The Borders We Deserve



Critics of Arizona’s new immigration law have not been shy about impugning the motives of its supporters. The measure, which requires police to check the immigration status of people they question or detain, has been denounced as a “Nazi” or “near-fascist” law, a “police state” intervention, an imitation of “apartheid,” a “Juan Crow” regime that only a bigot could possibly support.



Faced with this kind of hyperbole, the supposed bigots have understandably returned the favor, dismissing opponents of the Arizona measure as limousine liberals who don’t understand the grim realities of life along an often-lawless border. And so the debate has become a storm of insults rather than an argument.

On the specifics of the law, Arizona’s critics have legitimate concerns. Their hysteria has been egregious: you would never guess, amid all the heavy breathing about desert fascism, that federal law already requires legal immigrants to carry proof of their status at all times. But the measure is problematic nonetheless. The majority of police officers, already overburdened, will probably enforce it only intermittently. For an overzealous minority, it opens obvious opportunities for harassment and abuse.

Just because this is the wrong way to enforce America’s immigration laws, however, doesn’t mean they don’t need to be enforced. Illegal immigrants are far more sympathetic than your average lawbreaker: they’re risk-takers looking for a better life in the United States, something they have in common with nearly every living American’s ancestors. But by denouncing almost any crackdown on them as inherently bigoted and cruel, the “pro-immigrant” side of the debate is ultimately perpetuating a deeply unjust system.

There’s a good argument, on moral and self-interested grounds alike, that the United States should be as welcoming as possible to immigrants. But there’s no compelling reason that we should decide which immigrants to welcome based on their proximity to our border, and their ability to slip across.

It takes nothing away from Mexico or Mexicans to note that millions upon millions of people worldwide would give anything for the chance to migrate to America. Many come from nations that are poorer than our southern neighbor. Many have endured natural disasters, or suffered political or religious persecution. And many have spent years navigating our byzantine immigration bureaucracy, only to watch politicians in both parties dangle the promise of amnesty in front of people who jumped the border and the line.:mad:

As of the mid-2000s, roughly 700,000 migrants were entering the United States illegally every year. Fifty-seven percent came from Mexico, and 24 percent from the rest of Latin America. Only 13 percent came from Africa, the Middle East, South Asia and the Pacific Rim.

In a better world, the United States would welcome hundreds of thousands more legal immigrants annually, from a much wider array of countries. A more diverse immigrant population would have fewer opportunities to self-segregate and stronger incentives to assimilate. Fears of a Spanish-speaking reconquista would diminish, and so would the likelihood of backlash. And instead of being heavily skewed toward low-skilled migrants, our system could tilt toward higher-skilled applicants, making America more competitive and less stratified.

Such a system would also be fairer to the would-be immigrants themselves. America has always prided itself on attracting people from every culture, continent and creed. In a globalized world, aspiring Americans in Zimbabwe or Burma should compete on a level playing field with Mexicans and Salvadorans. The American dream should seem no more unattainable in China than in Chihuahua.

But this can only happen if America first regains control of its southern border. There is a widespread pretense that this has been tried and found to be impossible, when really it’s been found difficult and left untried.

Curbing the demand for illegal workers requires stiff workplace enforcement, stringent penalties for hiring undocumented workers, and shared sacrifice from Americans accustomed to benefiting from cheap labor. Reducing the supply requires bigger Border Patrol budgets and enforcement measures that will inevitably be criticized as draconian: some kind of tamper-proof Social Security card, most likely, and then more physical walls along our southern border, as opposed to the “virtual” wall that the Obama administration seems to be wisely abandoning.

You can see why our leaders would rather duck the problem. But when Washington doesn’t act, the people on the front lines end up taking matters into their own hands.

If you don’t like what Arizona just did, the answer isn’t to scream “fascist!” It’s to demand that the federal government do its job, so that we can have the immigration system that both Americans and immigrants deserve.
Sign in to Recommend

very well written article...:thumbsup:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/opinion/03douthat.html

MasterOfPuppets
05-02-2010, 09:53 PM
...and looking at the positive side of this...this proves that Obama is aware that there actually is a Constitution.





It sounds like it.


[/B]

yep.
yep....its a flipflop ...here you guys had me believing only democrats did that ...:noidea:
This year, Democrats face political challenges from the nation's growing Latino population (they are currently 13.5 per cent of the US population and growing, and tend to vote heavily Democratic) and they are pressing for immediate reform. Some Republicans, on the other hand, are facing a revolt from the nativist far-right which has caused some who previously backed reform to now oppose it. A case in point is Senator John McCain of Arizona. In the past McCain championed the very framework now being proposed. Facing a Republican primary challenge from the right, McCain has now become an opponent of reform.
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsDetails.aspx?storyid=277123

GBMelBlount
05-02-2010, 10:11 PM
yep....its a flipflop ...here you guys had me believing only democrats did that ...:noidea:

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsDetails.aspx?storyid=277123

I understand what you're saying. Politicians are politicians.

That's why I tend to stick with the basic principles I believe in and support the politicians I HOPE will follow through based on their similar beliefs. Doesn't always work in practice....liberal or conservative.

Regardless, I was never a big fan Of McCain.

MasterOfPuppets
05-02-2010, 10:22 PM
I understand what you're saying. People are people MOP.

That's why I tend to stick with the basic principles I believe in and support the politicians I HOPE will follow through based on their similar beliefs. Doesn't always work in practice....liberal or conservative.

Regardless, I was never a big fan Of McCain.
and my beliefs...always has been and always will be, they're all lying ,self serving ,pandering scumbags who'll say anything that they think will get your votes, and once they get the job, they turn thier focus on whoever will line thier pockets ... thats why i don't get why you guys spend so much time defending these dirtbags like they're family members...:noidea:
if obama wasn't screwing us over right now, i have NO doubt McCain would be...might not be on the same issues, but we'd STILL be taking one up the wazoo...

ricardisimo
05-03-2010, 04:11 AM
and my beliefs...always has been and always will be, they're all lying ,self serving ,pandering scumbags who'll say anything that they think will get your votes, and once they get the job, they turn thier focus on whoever will line thier pockets ... thats why i don't get why you guys spend so much time defending these dirtbags like they're family members...:noidea:
if obama wasn't screwing us over right now, i have NO doubt McCain would be...might not be on the same issues, but we'd STILL be taking one up the wazoo...

Perzaktly.

ricardisimo
05-03-2010, 04:50 AM
That's all very nice as a feel-good position, but completely impractical here in the real world. Thanks to folks who cynically exploit your goodwill in order to pander for your vote Phoenix, AZ is now the kidnapping capital of the western hemisphere, the cops down there are in a full-on shooting war with the drug gangs, the crime rate is 6x higher than New York, and municipal services are overwhelmed by people who aren't paying for them.

By most accounts, immigrants are much less likely (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/02/nation/la-na-arizona-crime-20100503) to commit crimes than citizens, and for obvious reasons: they have no interest in drawing attention to themselves. Most if not all of what you're talking about is Drug War fallout, as Godfather suggested. It makes no sense to say, "Yeah, but that's never going away, so we have to do something." We might as well launch rockets at the moon, or make chewing gum illegal; it's not going to have any effect on these crimes. If the Drug War is the problem, then the Drug War is the problem. Ignoring that fact is just playing into the hands of the cheapest demagogy from desperate politicians hoping to score short-term polling points.

Your weird utopian fantasy of people simply wandering from country to country simply does not exist, nor should it. We need to make it as easy to gain citizenship as possible, but they must be screened for things like criminal history, job prospects, disease, etc.

But it's not really a "weird Utopian fantasy". It's how the world worked for most of human existence, up until well into the 20th Century. Take an example: no two countries have hated each other, historically speaking, more than France and Germany. Yet at their worst moments and right smack in the middle of wars, folks walked across the border to trade and travel. In fact, it should give us all pause to think of the governments who initiated obsessive border controls and personal document checks, etc. Copying the policies of these failed regimes does us no honor whatsoever.

More to the point, you cannot declare a law unconstitutional on the basis of "I believe", you have to establish an argument for it being in violation of the Constitution.
Assuming that you have an extremely sympathetic court who lower the bar as far as possible in order to give your appeal the best chance of success, you will still have to prove one of the following arguments (strict judicial scrutiny):
A) The State of Arizona does not have a compelling interest in controlling illegal immigration
B) The law is either insufficient or overachieves the State's interest
or
C) There is another, less intrusive way to achieve the State's interest

I'm not going to speculate on whether or not the law will pass muster at the SCOTUS, especially not with the particular lineup we have there now. I suspect that Scalia's obsession with the Unitary Presidency has been put on hold now that a non-Republican President is in office, and he will be voting States' Rights for the next three-to-seven years. How the rest will vote I don't know.

We know for a fact that there are other ways to achieve the state's interest, and we've already discussed several options, some more intrusive than others, some less. But if a bunch of schmoes shooting the shit on SFF can contrive alternatives, then I'd like to think the collective brain trust at the AZ state assembly can do even better.

The Feds could certainly make the case that anything other than a consistent border policy at the Federal level harms neighboring states, So, the Arizona law could reduce the total number of immigrants by zero, but simply moves them to Texas, CA and NM. I'm no lawyer, though.

revefsreleets
05-03-2010, 10:09 AM
McCain is NOT flip-flopping, and I'll point out exactly why.

First off, that legislation in 2006 is the exact same legislation I was referring to earlier. It was at least a step in the direction of the government handling it's responsibilities in re immigration. The democrats killed the bill. McCain is simply representing the position of his constituents by now supporting the stop-gap state policy. The two positions are NOT mutually exclusive. The problem has reached critical mass in Arizona and action needed to be taken.

This is like saying the US flip-flopped by first staying out of WWII then entering it after it was attacked. The situation changed dramatically, so the policy shifted accordingly...

7SteelGal43
05-03-2010, 10:47 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Obama has ordered a review by the Justice Department into whether the Arizona law, scheduled to go into effect in late July, is constitutional.




Wonder if Obama looked closely at just how constitutional the health care legislation was ?! My guess is he didn't give a rats ***

MasterOfPuppets
05-03-2010, 11:01 AM
McCain's Triple Flip-Flop on Immigration

It was just three weeks ago that John McCain rewrote his autobiography by proclaiming, "I never considered myself a maverick." Now, the draconian new immigration law in his home state of Arizona has highlighted McCain's tortured reversals on the issue. As even CNN noted on Friday, John McCain was for comprehensive immigration reform before he was against it before he was for it and, ultimately, against it again.

Hard-pressed on his right flank by J.D. Hayworth, John McCain on Monday broke his silence on the new law. He endorsed the measure as a "good tool" because, among other things, "drivers of cars with illegals in them that are intentionally causing accidents on the freeways."

For their part, Suzanne Malveaux and Dana Bash of CNN went to the videotape to show McCain's pathetic back-and-forth-and-back-and-forth on immigration.

MALVEAUX: Where does he stand now? How is he playing into this debate?

BASH: He used to be, but not any more. In fact, if you look over the years, he has had various positions dealing with this. And it really depended on what election battle he was in at the time.

I want to start back in 2007. He was actually the lead Republican sponsor on bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform...

As they noted, in 2007, John McCain went from co-sponsoring comprehensive reform legislation with Ted Kennedy to telling Republican primary voters in January 2008 he would not vote for his own proposal because "The people want the borders secured first." But with the GOP nomination in hand, McCain told Hispanic voters in July 2008 to trust him because, "I remain committed to fair, practical and comprehensive immigration reform." Alas, that was then and this is now. Facing a primary battle from Hayworth' and his band of xenophobic Tea Baggers, the never-was-a-maverick told Bill O'Reilly this week:

"The state of Arizona is acting and doing what it feels it needs to do in light of the fact that the federal government is not fulfilling its fundamental responsibility -- to secure our borders."

As his failing presidential campaign languished in September 2008, a frustrated John McCain challenged ABC's The View:

"I've been through this litany before, where I say, 'ok, what specific area have I quote changed?' Nobody can name it...I am the same person and I have the same principles."

Of the literally dozens of McCain reversals, here's one where McCain "quote changed" three times in under three years: immigration reform.

UPDATE: In a Friday press conference, McCain ratcheted up his new hardline rhetoric, announcing, "If the president doesn't like what the Arizona Legislature and governor may be doing, then I call on the president to immediately call for the dispatch of 3,000 National Guard troops to our border and mandate that 3,000 additional Border Patrol [officers] be sent to our border as well." Meanwhile, McCain's pal Lindsey Graham is threatening to walk away from the climate bill because "moving forward on immigration -- in this hurried, panicked manner -- is nothing more than a cynical political ploy."
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001839.htm

SteelersinCA
05-03-2010, 11:04 AM
I'm not going to speculate on whether or not the law will pass muster at the SCOTUS, especially not with the particular lineup we have there now. I suspect that Scalia's obsession with the Unitary Presidency has been put on hold now that a non-Republican President is in office, and he will be voting States' Rights for the next three-to-seven years. How the rest will vote I don't know.

We know for a fact that there are other ways to achieve the state's interest, and we've already discussed several options, some more intrusive than others, some less. But if a bunch of schmoes shooting the shit on SFF can contrive alternatives, then I'd like to think the collective brain trust at the AZ state assembly can do even better.

The Feds could certainly make the case that anything other than a consistent border policy at the Federal level harms neighboring states, So, the Arizona law could reduce the total number of immigrants by zero, but simply moves them to Texas, CA and NM. I'm no lawyer, though.

I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell it passes constitutional muster. The problem lies not with illegals being stopped and asked for papers but with American citizens being stopped and asked for papers. We have a very explicit 4th amendment right to be protected from warrantless searches and seizures. If the first prong of compelling state interest gets satisfied, which I doubt it does, the narrowly tailored aspect will not. Scalia, especially, will not be happy with depriving American citizens of their 4th amendment rights. I think we've already addressed the least restrictive means argument sufficiently.

revefsreleets
05-03-2010, 11:21 AM
I'll type more slowly....

McCain has repeatedly emphasized that you cannot simply have enforcement without a broader immigration reform plan in place. BUT, since the US government has dropped the ball over and over again, it makes political sense for him to support his constituency (70% of which supports the states last-ditch law) and stand behind this bit of enforcement as a political foil to force the US government to act on that broader immigration bill.

Again, NOT a flip-flop, and the two positions are NOT mutually exclusive, no matter what some random blog might say.

Dino 6 Rings
05-03-2010, 11:24 AM
Nothing like some friendly RIOTS by the Pro-Immigration people over the weekend:

http://www.kcba.com/Global/story.asp?S=12412385

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/05/03/the-may-day-angry-mob-you-wont-see/

yeah...good people...so peaceful and civil

Got to love the signs that show Texas and California as a reconquered part of Mexico.

Seems so civil how they want to assimilate into the United States Culture.

no borders, liberate arizona, Che signs everywher...yeah...good people to flood into our country.

MasterOfPuppets
05-03-2010, 11:35 AM
flip flop ...:juggle:

stlrtruck
05-03-2010, 11:51 AM
So we're suppose to just allow them in to our country, continue with their traditions and ways, ignore our laws, and give them almost everything free while I'm paying out the arse for my own families well being and reformed health care?

Give me a break!

I say we need tougher immigration laws that will make these illegals and probably a few more legals to pack up and go back home!

WH
05-03-2010, 12:13 PM
I think we should all go to a store and steal a television. When we get arrested say ''We want these TV's for free. We deserve them because we come from houses that don't have TVs''

See how far that gets you.

Illegal immigration is a crime. I don't see why politicians are ignoring this.

fansince'76
05-03-2010, 12:22 PM
Nothing like some friendly RIOTS by the Pro-Immigration people over the weekend:

http://www.kcba.com/Global/story.asp?S=12412385

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/05/03/the-may-day-angry-mob-you-wont-see/

yeah...good people...so peaceful and civil

Got to love the signs that show Texas and California as a reconquered part of Mexico.

Seems so civil how they want to assimilate into the United States Culture.

no borders, liberate arizona, Che signs everywher...yeah...good people to flood into our country.

Looks like someone put the kibosh on the first link you posted - wonder why? :scratchchin:

Our Apologies

The page you requested is currently unavailable. Pages on this site are constantly being revised, updated, and occasionally removed. You may have followed an outdated link or have outdated pages in your browser cache.

Please use your browser's BACK button to return to the previous page.

We apologize for any inconvenience.

SteelMember
05-03-2010, 02:38 PM
Each section of the bill is carefully drawn up to ensure fairness to the people it doesn't target. You can't just stop some kid jogging and "ask for his papers"

When you actually read the entire bill, as it is passed, and think about the issues, all of them from Day Labor Hiring to Trafficking and Drug Running and all of it, its actually a Solid Law.

wipe out the "blah blah blah" from talking heads on TV and read the bill. Its a solid law.

That's what I took from it also.

It's not about just Mexicans, it's about all illegals. It just so happens this boarder is shared with Mexico. So there's bound to be some Mexicans there, right?

I understand what you're saying, but the "reasonable suspicion" provisions are the problem, no matter the legitimacy of the concerns surrounding them. With regards to illegal immigration in the American SW, "reasonable suspicion" means only one thing: Latino-looking.

If you are implying that law enforcement might use profiling as a stepping off point for "reasonable suspicion" I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you, but I'm sure they would come up with better reasons than just that. I mean, there's going to be paperwork and/or a case involved, so I would think they had better have something else to go on.

I'm concerned about gun violence. Do I think the police should be able to stop anyone with an NRA sticker on their pickup? No, of course not. That's a breach of basic human rights.

but if the truck with the NRA sticker had a gun rack in the window, they could check to make sure all of the papers for those were in order, right?

ricardisimo
05-03-2010, 04:05 PM
Looks like someone put the kibosh on the first link you posted - wonder why? :scratchchin:

It's that liberal news media at Fox. The bastards.

ricardisimo
05-03-2010, 04:14 PM
So we're suppose to just allow them in to our country, continue with their traditions and ways, ignore our laws, and give them almost everything free while I'm paying out the arse for my own families well being and reformed health care?

Give me a break!

I say we need tougher immigration laws that will make these illegals and probably a few more legals to pack up and go back home!

Give them everything free? Where are you people getting this stuff?

They're coming here to work, and they're working jobs that citizens will not work, which means long hours and crappy pay. They are statistically less likely to commit crimes (except the obvious one, of course: being here). And as I pointed out before, people at the bottom end (immigrant or not) make their tax contribution in the form of state and local sales taxes rather than income tax. That applies to the migrant farmer as much as to the kid bagging groceries for minimum wage.

You want to complain about freeloading law-breakers, let's start talking about the companies who are hiring these immigrants. They are incorrigible repeat offenders with no intention of rehabilitation, and they are stealing labor from American citizens by enforcing wage slavery of the worst kind.

I say they are mafiosi and we should hit them with RICO.

MACH1
05-03-2010, 04:22 PM
Give them everything free? Where are you people getting this stuff?

How many times does it have to be spelled out for you?

Hold on let me find a crayon, maybe that will help you.

ricardisimo
05-03-2010, 04:24 PM
If you are implying that law enforcement might use profiling as a stepping off point for "reasonable suspicion" I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you, but I'm sure they would come up with better reasons than just that. I mean, there's going to be paperwork and/or a case involved, so I would think they had better have something else to go on.

As I've mentioned before DWB stops go on in shopping districts in my town all day every day. They are flatly illegal and unconstitutional and no one has any intention of making the police stop any time soon. Local and state politicians simply will not go up against the police any more than national politicians will criticize veterans. That's a one-way ticket out of office.

Also, the police themselves compile and distribute their own data, in which respect they are effectively policing themselves. I doubt anyone here needs more than a cursory understanding of human nature to figure out how well that system works.

but if the truck with the NRA sticker had a gun rack in the window, they could check to make sure all of the papers for those were in order, right?

Why? If a truck with a gun in the gun rack drives into a state or city with no guns allowed, then yes. Otherwise, why would anyone stop them?

ricardisimo
05-03-2010, 04:28 PM
How many times does it have to be spelled out for you?

Hold on let me find a crayon, maybe that will help you.

Here's my best attempt at crayon:

Work is how we pay for things, Mach. Well, it's how most people pay for things. Rich people are born with it, I guess. Working long hours for low pay is how the working poor pay for things. How is that "getting things for free"?

Do you work?

MasterOfPuppets
05-03-2010, 05:05 PM
Give them everything free? Where are you people getting this stuff?

They're coming here to work, and they're working jobs that citizens will not work, which means long hours and crappy pay.
FALSE ...ever been on a construction site ? a few years ago, while i was on my way to sign up for unemployment because work was so slow , i passed under a bridge being worked on. there was no less than about 40 mexicans working on it. so not only were they putting about 40 people in my area out of work, they took a job from a local contractor because they were able to underbid everybody , because they aren't paying thier employess a fair wage.

They are statistically less likely to commit crimes (except the obvious one, of course: being here).
ever heard of the MS13 gang ? are all the latino gangs in LA only made up of legal immigrants ?

And as I pointed out before, people at the bottom end (immigrant or not) make their tax contribution in the form of state and local sales taxes rather than income tax. That applies to the migrant farmer as much as to the kid bagging groceries for minimum wage.
oh ok ... so we legal citizens get to pay taxes on purchases AND get to pay income taxes....maybe i should renounce my citizenship so i don't have to pay income taxes.. good arguement...:thumbsup: ...

You want to complain about freeloading law-breakers, let's start talking about the companies who are hiring these immigrants. They are incorrigible repeat offenders with no intention of rehabilitation, and they are stealing labor from American citizens by enforcing wage slavery of the worst kind.
see above ... companies who hire illegals should be sued by companies who do things the legal way for loss of earnings.

I say they are mafiosi and we should hit them with RICO.

if they get nothing for free, then who pays the bills for the pregnant immigrant who shows up at the hospital 2 days after crossing the border ? after the birth do they just hand them the baby and say adios? who pays for thier housing ? who pays for thier childrens education ? do they eat in school ? ....:noidea: here's a running tab of the "free stuff"...

I support legal immigration. If you come over here the right way to become a citizen of The United States I’m okay with that. But when you just storm across our borders, you are an invader. Read 14 reasons why we need to get control of illegal immigration:

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments. V

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. ...yep...no crimes by illegals..

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for welfare social services by the American taxpayers.

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular,their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US.

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our southern border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from terrorist countries.

12. The National Policy Institute, “estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.”

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. thats 45 billion untaxed dollars

14. “The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.”

There is one thing that can fix this problem. And this is if we get rid of the IRS and have just a national sales tax. Remember, these people are not paying an income tax and the idiots hiring them are not paying a payroll tax. Did you know that we can eliminate the IRS and have a simpler, fairer and more transparent tax system? The question is is government willing to lose it’s power? There is a bill in Congress called the FairTax Act.

Do you know what the FairTax Act is?

MasterOfPuppets
05-03-2010, 05:19 PM
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/4932/immigrationq768063.jpg (http://img24.imageshack.us/i/immigrationq768063.jpg/) Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

43Hitman
05-03-2010, 05:35 PM
Grand total= 341,295,000,000.00 a YEAR.:doh: Roughly half of the spendulas bill.

urgle burgle
05-03-2010, 06:50 PM
so sales tax alone equals income, social security, etc. etc. etc? they pay what little bills they have with money under the table. a lot they send back home, untaxed. many do not bother to get car insurance. they get their health care by going to ERs. they send their kids to school, and count on the Police they now call racist to protect them from crime. If this bill gets cruchsed as unconstiutional, then many other laws/statutes will follow. You get pulled over for speeding, they ask for license and registration. You then get run for other outstanding warrants. Then that will stop. Other warrants have nothing to do with the violation of speeding, right? Even though they smell pot or alcohol on the driver, they shouldnt require any search or questioning, right? Being impaired may not have had anything to do with the offense of speeding? What if they are running a drug or smuggling enterprise? that has nothing to do with speeding, right? the law pretty much says if you have a valid license or id card, then it wont be assumed your here illegally. legal immigrants are already required a visa. Just throw the borders open and call it a day then. of course i already know for some on here, that would be desireable. I guess those who are specifically trained to protect us are just not capable of rational discernment. they have nothing better to do but round up illegals that are not suspicous of commiting any other crime. Even though they know that they will be looked at under a fine tooth comb for any irregularties or malfeasance. so why do we give them any authority to enforce anything? obviously they are not capable or trustworthy enought to may decisions on their own. disband all police enforcement. next we should disband the military. they cant be trusted with making decisions either. i mean they do carry firearms, and are entrusted with defending agains all enemies, right? but we arent completely protected are we. and some mistakes have been made. so therefore, they are untrustworthy and incapable of performing their duties. just quit, while we are at it. this whole Country thing is just too hard.

ricardisimo
05-04-2010, 03:42 AM
so sales tax alone equals income, social security, etc. etc. etc? they pay what little bills they have with money under the table. a lot they send back home, untaxed. many do not bother to get car insurance. they get their health care by going to ERs. they send their kids to school, and count on the Police they now call racist to protect them from crime. If this bill gets cruchsed as unconstiutional, then many other laws/statutes will follow. You get pulled over for speeding, they ask for license and registration. You then get run for other outstanding warrants. Then that will stop. Other warrants have nothing to do with the violation of speeding, right? Even though they smell pot or alcohol on the driver, they shouldnt require any search or questioning, right? Being impaired may not have had anything to do with the offense of speeding? What if they are running a drug or smuggling enterprise? that has nothing to do with speeding, right? the law pretty much says if you have a valid license or id card, then it wont be assumed your here illegally. legal immigrants are already required a visa. Just throw the borders open and call it a day then. of course i already know for some on here, that would be desireable. I guess those who are specifically trained to protect us are just not capable of rational discernment. they have nothing better to do but round up illegals that are not suspicous of commiting any other crime. Even though they know that they will be looked at under a fine tooth comb for any irregularties or malfeasance. so why do we give them any authority to enforce anything? obviously they are not capable or trustworthy enought to may decisions on their own. disband all police enforcement. next we should disband the military. they cant be trusted with making decisions either. i mean they do carry firearms, and are entrusted with defending agains all enemies, right? but we arent completely protected are we. and some mistakes have been made. so therefore, they are untrustworthy and incapable of performing their duties. just quit, while we are at it. this whole Country thing is just too hard.

But all of your complaints apply to working poor citizens; they get those services as well, and yet their primary tax contribution is still just state and local sales taxes. If you're making below a certain amount, you're paying little if any federal income tax. Just how much money do you think a typical bracero makes? If you're really concerned about the money they're sending back home, then let them bring their families with them. Others recommend taxing wire transfers. Cool, that'll work too.

As an aside, it's interesting to see such a group of staunch anti-tax conservatives foaming at the mouth about unpaid taxes, mere weeks after applauding some guy for flying his plane into an IRS building, but whatever...

I'm not sure what your police rant is about. The police are supposed to uphold the law and abide by certain rules of conduct. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. You should look up DWB statistics (http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/dwb03.htm) in this country, which are quite sobering.

I'm not sure, however, why you would make the leap of logic you just made. I'm saying that we should ask our police to behave themselves, rather than codifying their misbehavior in laws like this one. Your response is a sarcastic (I hope) "let's just do away with the police altogether." Ummm... huh? Would you say the same thing if I wanted doctors to perform to certain standards? Or the engineers who build our bridges?

Anyhow, all of this is fairly off-topic. These folks are working jobs that we simply won't work. And these are jobs that cannot be exported, either because they are tied to the land in regards to the farm workers, or to our own population in regards to the service sector jobs. These jobs are here to stay, someone has to work them, and yet we won't do it.

I'm not sure how much simpler the math has to be. Make the jobs worthwhile and attractive for our citizens, and this conversation will be over. A living wage and decent working conditions and the problem goes away yesterday.

WH
05-04-2010, 04:17 AM
I'm not sure how much simpler the math has to be. Make the jobs worthwhile and attractive for our citizens, and this conversation will be over. A living wage and decent working conditions and the problem goes away yesterday.

If you eliminate the people that are willing to take these jobs than the employers who continue with the status quo will be forced to change how they do things. While there is a steady stream of people willing to accept those conditions and wages----no employer is going to touch change with a 50 foot poll. A reset button has to be pushed in one way or another, and no self preserving politician is going to go after business owners before going after their illegal alien employees.

revefsreleets
05-04-2010, 08:29 AM
This is a well written, "middle-ground" piece that actually takes both sides positions into consideration.

Nails the FACT that this is an extreme piece of legislature brought about by an extreme LACK of action by the Federal Government.

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/92742329.html

Curse Arizona? Better to blame Washington

By Ross Douthat
New York Times

Published on Tuesday, May 04, 2010

NEW YORK: Critics of Arizona's new immigration law have not been shy about impugning the motives of its supporters. The measure, which requires police to check the immigration status of people they question or detain, has been denounced as a ''Nazi'' or ''near-fascist'' law, a ''police state'' intervention, an imitation of ''apartheid,'' a ''Juan Crow'' regime that only a bigot could possibly support. (The moonbats on this board clearly fall into this camp)

Faced with this kind of hyperbole, the supposed bigots have understandably returned the favor, dismissing opponents of the Arizona measure as limousine liberals who don't understand the grim realities of life along an often-lawless border. And so the debate has become a storm of insults rather than an argument.

On the specifics of the law, Arizona's critics have legitimate concerns. Their hysteria has been egregious: You would never guess, amid all the heavy breathing about desert fascism, that federal law already requires legal immigrants to carry proof of their status at all times. But the measure is problematic nonetheless. The majority of police officers, already overburdened, will probably enforce it only intermittently. For an overzealous minority, it opens obvious opportunities for harassment and abuse.

Just because this is the wrong way to enforce America's immigration laws, however, doesn't mean they don't need to be enforced. Illegal immigrants are far more sympathetic than your average lawbreaker: they're risk-takers looking for a better life in the United States, something they have in common with nearly every living American's ancestors. But by denouncing almost any crackdown on them as inherently bigoted and cruel, the ''pro-immigrant'' side of the debate is ultimately perpetuating a deeply unjust system.

There's a good argument, on moral and self-interested grounds alike, that the United States should be as welcoming as possible to immigrants. But there's no compelling reason that we should decide which immigrants to welcome based on their proximity to our border, and their ability to slip across.

It takes nothing away from Mexico or Mexicans to note that millions upon millions of people worldwide would give anything for the chance to migrate to America. Many come from nations that are poorer than our southern neighbor. Many have endured natural disasters, or suffered political or religious persecution. And many have spent years navigating our byzantine immigration bureaucracy, only to watch politicians in both parties dangle the promise of amnesty in front of people who jumped the border and the line.

As of the mid-2000s, roughly 700,000 migrants were entering the United States illegally every year. Fifty-seven percent came from Mexico, and 24 percent from the rest of Latin America. Only 13 percent came from Africa, the Middle East, South Asia and the Pacific Rim.

In a better world, the United States would welcome hundreds of thousands more legal immigrants annually, from a much wider array of countries. A more diverse immigrant population would have fewer opportunities to self-segregate and stronger incentives to assimilate. Fears of a Spanish-speaking reconquista would diminish, and so would the likelihood of backlash. And instead of being heavily skewed toward low-skilled migrants, our system could tilt toward higher-skilled applicants, making America more competitive and less stratified.

Such a system would also be fairer to the would-be immigrants themselves. America has always prided itself on attracting people from every culture, continent and creed. In a globalized world, aspiring Americans in Zimbabwe or Burma should compete on a level playing field with Mexicans and Salvadorans. The American dream should seem no more unattainable in China than in Chihuahua.

But this can only happen if America first regains control of its southern border. There is a widespread pretense that this has been tried and found to be impossible, when really it's been found difficult and left untried.

Curbing the demand for illegal workers requires stiff workplace enforcement, stringent penalties for hiring undocumented workers, and shared sacrifice from Americans accustomed to benefiting from cheap labor. Reducing the supply requires bigger Border Patrol budgets and enforcement measures that will inevitably be criticized as draconian: some kind of tamper-proof Social Security card, most likely, and then more physical walls along our southern border, as opposed to the ''virtual'' wall that the Obama administration seems to be wisely abandoning.

You can see why our leaders would rather duck the problem. But when Washington doesn't act, the people on the front lines end up taking matters into their own hands.

If you don't like what Arizona just did, the answer isn't to scream ''fascist!'' It's to demand that the federal government do its job, so that we can have the immigration system that both Americans and immigrants deserve.
Douthat is a New York Times columnist. He blogs at http://douthat. blogs.nytimes.com.

MasterOfPuppets
05-04-2010, 08:43 AM
Paterson bill offers break to immigrant lawbreakers

By RICK KARLIN, Capitol bureau
First published in print: Tuesday, May 4, 2010
ALBANY -- Arizona may be cracking down on illegal immigrants, but Gov. David Paterson wants to make it easier for legal immigrants to remain in New York, even if they've been convicted of a crime and served their time.

In what could be viewed as a rebuke to the recent Arizona law that makes it easier to deport undocumented aliens -- and highlighting the federal government's failure to address the immigration issue -- Paterson on Monday said he will create a special panel to review potential pardons for legal immigrants who have been convicted of crimes but who have served their time and stayed out of trouble.

Such people are now at risk of deportation or indefinite detention under what the governor termed harsh federal laws.

Paterson announced plans for his Immigrant Pardon Board during the annual Law Day event at the Court of Appeals.

Paterson said he would look to pardon immigrants who meet criteria such as rehabilitation and a lack of danger to society.

The move comes as national attention has focused on a new Arizona law that directs police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are in the U.S. illegally.

Critics say it will encourage racial profiling. But supporters note that Arizona has become a gateway for drug smuggling and human trafficking from Mexico.

Paterson says his pardon initiative will help counter federal laws that don't always make sense.

"To be sure, there are some individuals whose crimes are egregious or who pose a threat to public safety, and they are justly removed from the United States," Paterson said. "But there are others for whom the situation is far less clear. For them, our national immigration laws leave no room to consider mitigating circumstances."

The National Conference of State Legislature says immigration bills are proliferating, with more than 1,500 introduced last year, but none resemble Paterson's idea.

Paterson's staff said they know of just a handful of cases that could qualify for a pardon at this point, but expect more after Monday's announcement. The panel will comprise executive branch employees who currently consider clemency requests, and no extra cost is expected.

"It's an important initiative to try to provide at least some measure of sanity into the current immigration mess," said Steven Banks, attorney at the New York City Legal Aid Society. "Longtime New Yorkers can be removed from this country as a result of a relatively minor incident."

In March, Paterson pardoned Quing Wu, an executive and Chinese immigrant who as a teenager was convicted of a mugging.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.


Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=927679&category=STATE#ixzz0mw006600

7SteelGal43
05-04-2010, 10:41 AM
Here's my best attempt at crayon:

Work is how we pay for things, Mach. Well, it's how most people pay for things. Rich people are born with it, I guess. Working long hours for low pay is how the working poor pay for things. How is that "getting things for free"?

Do you work?



Bill Gates wasn't born with it. Steve Jobs wasn't born with it. Donald Trump wasn't born with it. Why is it that libs look at someone who has sacrificed, risked everything, worked hard and become millionaires as evil ?

As for "work is how we pay for things", some people pay for things with the work that OTHERS do.

Vincent
05-04-2010, 11:17 AM
...someone who has sacrificed, risked everything, worked hard and become millionaires...

I know a guy that fits that description to a tee. Well, actually, I know a few of them.

Literally down to the last nickel, sleeping on cots at the business because the house had long since been sold to pay for the business. Then things slowly "took off". Now this couple that has been married for 40+ years lives in the fruit of their labors - half a billion and all that implies. "Only in America" you people!

The left and their "clients" choose to wallow in self pity and all that implies.

WH
05-04-2010, 11:44 AM
I "Only in America" you people!

america isn't the only place people can start successful businesses....

ricardisimo
05-04-2010, 11:48 AM
I know a guy that fits that description to a tee. Well, actually, I know a few of them.

Literally down to the last nickel, sleeping on cots at the business because the house had long since been sold to pay for the business. Then things slowly "took off". Now this couple that has been married for 40+ years lives in the fruit of their labors - half a billion and all that implies. "Only in America" you people!

The left and their "clients" choose to wallow in self pity and all that implies.

Only in America, huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Slim

ricardisimo
05-04-2010, 11:56 AM
Bill Gates wasn't born with it. Steve Jobs wasn't born with it. Donald Trump wasn't born with it. Why is it that libs look at someone who has sacrificed, risked everything, worked hard and become millionaires as evil ?

As for "work is how we pay for things", some people pay for things with the work that OTHERS do.

Bill Gates was born into a very wealthy family, "his father was a prominent lawyer, his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way, and her father, J. W. Maxwell, was a national bank president."

Was he born the second wealthiest man on the planet? No. But the US DoJ and European authorities have strong opinions over just how he got so wealthy.

Jobs was also born upper, upper middle-class. And Donald Trump "was the fourth of five children of Fred Trump, a wealthy real estate developer based in New York City." Of course he's also an idiot who has apparently repeatedly squandered his billions away, so I'm not sure why you mention him.

The long and the short of it is that the vast majority of wealth (something like 90%) is inherited. That's just the way the world works. The American Dream, revolving around ingenuity and hard work, is a nice story we tell our kids - I certainly tell mine - but the truth is a little more obvious and painful.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-04-2010, 11:56 AM
america isn't the only place people can start successful businesses....

Great job of latching on to one sentence...and completely missing the point. :thumbsup:

Vincent
05-04-2010, 12:04 PM
Only in America, huh?

Its an expression. That's why it was in quotes.

Surely your hatred of this country hasn't blinded you to some of our expressions.

Among the many reasons I love this country, despite the blemishes, is that anybody can "make it" here, and many do. There is nothing any gubmint could "offer" that I'd trade for that freedom. That also explains, in large part, my hostility toward anything or anybody that threatens that freedom (for anybody).

WH
05-04-2010, 12:05 PM
Great job of latching on to one sentence...and completely missing the point. :thumbsup:

I got the point of Vincent's post completely, pal. :thumbsup:

The phrase ''Only In America'' is a bunch of crap.

Vincent
05-04-2010, 12:16 PM
The phrase ''Only In America'' is a bunch of crap.

To some its an expression. To some its a dream. But, regardless, we all get a chance.

Sun coming up over New York City
School bus driver in a traffic jam
Starin' at the faces in her rearview mirror
Looking at the promise of the Promised Land
One kid dreams of fame and fortune
One kid helps pay the rent
One could end up going to prison
One just might be president

Only in America
Dreaming in red, white and blue
Only in America
Where we dream as big as we want to
We all get a chance
Everybody gets to dance
Only in America

Sun going down on an La. freeway
Newlyweds in the back of a limousine
A welder's son and a banker's daughter
All they want is everything
She came out here to be an actress
He was the singer in a band
They just might go back to Oklahoma
And talk about the stars they could have been

Only in America
Where we dream in red, white and blue
Only in America
Where we dream as big as we want to
We all get a chance
Everybody gets to dance
Only in America

Yeah only in America
Where we dream in red, white and blue
Yeah we dream as big as we want to

And see... http://www.onlyinamerica.cc/ and http://www.amazon.com/Only-America-Immigrant-Paul-Oreffice/dp/0974537675 and countless other stories.

MACH1
05-04-2010, 12:18 PM
Bill Gates was born into a very wealthy family, "his father was a prominent lawyer, his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way, and her father, J. W. Maxwell, was a national bank president."

Was he born the second wealthiest man on the planet? No. But the US DoJ and European authorities have strong opinions over just how he got so wealthy.

Jobs was also born upper, upper middle-class. And Donald Trump "was the fourth of five children of Fred Trump, a wealthy real estate developer based in New York City." Of course he's also an idiot who has apparently repeatedly squandered his millions away, so I'm not sure why you mention him.

The long and the short of it is that the vast majority of wealth (like 90%) is inherited. That's just the way the world works. The American Dream, revolving around ingenuity and hard work is a nice story we tell our kids - I certainly tell mine - but the truth is little more obvious and painful.

Piss poor excuse

Tell me how all the athletes that earn millions were born with a silver spoon, inherit it. Or do they EARN it, maybe some don't deserve it though.

As far as the American dream, you haven't a clue what it is.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-04-2010, 12:20 PM
Bill Gates was born into a very wealthy family, "his father was a prominent lawyer, his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way,
.


My brother in law is an attorney and my sister serves on the board of directors for the local Red Cross (which is a non-paying, volunteer job by the way)

They are upper middle class...and by NO MEANS would anyone call them "very wealthy".:doh:

If my nephew should somehow make the HUGE climb into the position as the 2nd wealthiest person in the world....only an idiot would think that it wasnt an incredible leap and achievement.

I have to laugh at those who look at success at ANY level...and minimize it with pathetic fallacies.

WH
05-04-2010, 12:31 PM
As far as the American dream, you haven't a clue what it is.

it's not an ''it'' it's a ''he''

http://www.robbloom.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/rhodes_dusty.jpg

The American Dream Dusty Rhodes.


Vincent, I understand where you're coming from, but the thought that one can succeed through hardwork as existing ''only in america'' is wrong.

MACH1
05-04-2010, 12:35 PM
it's not an ''it'' it's a ''he''

http://www.robbloom.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/rhodes_dusty.jpg

The American Dream Dusty Rhodes.


Vincent, I understand where you're coming from, but the thought that one can succeed through hardwork as existing ''only in america'' is wrong.

Got me there. :chuckle:

Vincent
05-04-2010, 12:36 PM
I have to laugh at those who look at success at ANY level...and minimize it with pathetic fallacies.

Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr.,a forensic psychiatrist, explains the madness of liberalism in his new book The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. You can read an excerpt below, and read more at his website libertymind.com.

Like all other human beings, the modern liberal reveals his true character, including his madness, in what he values and devalues, in what he articulates with passion. Of special interest, however, are the many values about which the modern liberal mind is not passionate: his agenda does not insist that the individual is the ultimate economic, social and political unit; it does not idealize individual liberty and the structure of law and order essential to it; it does not defend the basic rights of property and contract; it does not aspire to ideals of authentic autonomy and mutuality; it does not preach an ethic of self-reliance and self-determination; it does not praise courage, forbearance or resilience; it does not celebrate the ethics of consent or the blessings of voluntary cooperation. It does not advocate moral rectitude or understand the critical role of morality in human relating. The liberal agenda does not comprehend an identity of competence, appreciate its importance, or analyze the developmental conditions and social institutions that promote its achievement. The liberal agenda does not understand or recognize personal sovereignty or impose strict limits on coercion by the state. It does not celebrate the genuine altruism of private charity. It does not learn history’s lessons on the evils of collectivism.

What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice. Those who occupy this world are “workers,” “minorities,” “the little guy,” “women,” and the “unemployed.” They are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized. They bear no responsibility for their problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character. None of the victims’ plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the “root causes” of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism. In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: “Big Business,” “Big Corporations,” “greedy capitalists,” U.S. Imperialists,” “the oppressors,” “the rich,” “the wealthy,” “the powerful” and “the selfish.”

The liberal cure for this endless malaise is a very large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society through a cradle to grave agenda of redistributive caretaking. It is a government everywhere doing everything for everyone. The liberal motto is “In Government We Trust.” To rescue the people from their troubled lives, the agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. With liberal intellectuals sharing the glory, the liberal politician is the hero in this melodrama. He takes credit for providing his constituents with whatever they want or need even though he has not produced by his own effort any of the goods, services or status transferred to them but has instead taken them from others by force.

It should be apparent by now that these social policies and the passions that drive them contradict all that is rational in human relating, and they are therefore irrational in themselves. But the faulty conceptions that lie behind these passions cannot be viewed as mere cognitive slippage. The degree of modern liberalism’s irrationality far exceeds any misunderstanding that can be attributed to faulty fact gathering or logical error. Indeed, under careful scrutiny, liberalism’s distortions of the normal ability to reason can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche. The modern liberal mind, its distorted perceptions and its destructive agenda are the product of disturbed personalities.

As is the case in all personality disturbance, defects of this type represent serious failures in development processes. The nature of these failures is detailed below. Among their consequences are the liberal mind’s relentless efforts to misrepresent human nature and to deny certain indispensable requirements for human relating. In his efforts to construct a grand collectivist utopia—to live what Jacques Barzun has called “the unconditioned life” in which “everybody should be safe and at ease in a hundred ways”—the radical liberal attempts to actualize in the real world an idealized fiction that will mitigate all hardship and heal all wounds. (Barzun 2000). He acts out this fiction, essentially a Marxist morality play, in various theaters of human relatedness, most often on the world’s economic, social and political stages. But the play repeatedly folds. Over the course of the Twentieth Century, the radical liberal’s attempts to create a brave new socialist world have invariably failed. At the dawn of the Twenty-first Century his attempts continue to fail in the stagnant economies, moral decay and social turmoil now widespread in Europe. An increasingly bankrupt welfare society is putting the U.S. on track for the same fate if liberalism is not cured there. Because the liberal agenda’s principles violate the rules of ordered liberty, his most determined efforts to realize its visionary fantasies must inevitably fall short. Yet, despite all the evidence against it, the modern liberal mind believes his agenda is good social science. It is, in fact, bad science fiction. He persists in this agenda despite its madness.

ricardisimo
05-04-2010, 12:46 PM
My brother in law is an attorney and my sister serves on the board of directors for the local Red Cross (which is a non-paying, volunteer job by the way)

They are upper middle class...and by NO MEANS would anyone call them "very wealthy".:doh:

If my nephew should somehow make the HUGE climb into the position as the 2nd wealthiest person in the world....only an idiot would think that it wasnt an incredible leap and achievement.

I have to laugh at those who look at success at ANY level...and minimize it with pathetic fallacies.

You're comparing a local chapter of the Red Cross to First Interstate and the United Way? The intellectual discipline on these boards never fails to astound.

You should look into exactly how Gates became as wealthy as he did. He didn't exactly have goons blow up his competitors' facilities with dynamite, as Rockefeller did, but the principle is the same. Hard work and thriftiness in this country can give you comfort and stability down the road, which is fantastic. Hard work and thriftiness can do the same for you in several dozen other countries as well.

If you want to become a billionaire you need to do some other things, none of them pretty.

ricardisimo
05-04-2010, 12:53 PM
Dr. Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr.,a forensic psychiatrist, explains the madness of liberalism in his new book The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness. You can read an excerpt below, and read more at his website libertymind.com.

Like all other human beings, the modern liberal reveals his true character, including his madness, in what he values and devalues, in what he articulates with passion. Of special interest, however, are the many values about which the modern liberal mind is not passionate: his agenda does not insist that the individual is the ultimate economic, social and political unit; it does not idealize individual liberty and the structure of law and order essential to it; it does not defend the basic rights of property and contract; it does not aspire to ideals of authentic autonomy and mutuality; it does not preach an ethic of self-reliance and self-determination; it does not praise courage, forbearance or resilience; it does not celebrate the ethics of consent or the blessings of voluntary cooperation. It does not advocate moral rectitude or understand the critical role of morality in human relating. The liberal agenda does not comprehend an identity of competence, appreciate its importance, or analyze the developmental conditions and social institutions that promote its achievement. The liberal agenda does not understand or recognize personal sovereignty or impose strict limits on coercion by the state. It does not celebrate the genuine altruism of private charity. It does not learn history’s lessons on the evils of collectivism.

What the liberal mind is passionate about is a world filled with pity, sorrow, neediness, misfortune, poverty, suspicion, mistrust, anger, exploitation, discrimination, victimization, alienation and injustice. Those who occupy this world are “workers,” “minorities,” “the little guy,” “women,” and the “unemployed.” They are poor, weak, sick, wronged, cheated, oppressed, disenfranchised, exploited and victimized. They bear no responsibility for their problems. None of their agonies are attributable to faults or failings of their own: not to poor choices, bad habits, faulty judgment, wishful thinking, lack of ambition, low frustration tolerance, mental illness or defects in character. None of the victims’ plight is caused by failure to plan for the future or learn from experience. Instead, the “root causes” of all this pain lie in faulty social conditions: poverty, disease, war, ignorance, unemployment, racial prejudice, ethnic and gender discrimination, modern technology, capitalism, globalization and imperialism. In the radical liberal mind, this suffering is inflicted on the innocent by various predators and persecutors: “Big Business,” “Big Corporations,” “greedy capitalists,” U.S. Imperialists,” “the oppressors,” “the rich,” “the wealthy,” “the powerful” and “the selfish.”

The liberal cure for this endless malaise is a very large authoritarian government that regulates and manages society through a cradle to grave agenda of redistributive caretaking. It is a government everywhere doing everything for everyone. The liberal motto is “In Government We Trust.” To rescue the people from their troubled lives, the agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. With liberal intellectuals sharing the glory, the liberal politician is the hero in this melodrama. He takes credit for providing his constituents with whatever they want or need even though he has not produced by his own effort any of the goods, services or status transferred to them but has instead taken them from others by force.

It should be apparent by now that these social policies and the passions that drive them contradict all that is rational in human relating, and they are therefore irrational in themselves. But the faulty conceptions that lie behind these passions cannot be viewed as mere cognitive slippage. The degree of modern liberalism’s irrationality far exceeds any misunderstanding that can be attributed to faulty fact gathering or logical error. Indeed, under careful scrutiny, liberalism’s distortions of the normal ability to reason can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche. The modern liberal mind, its distorted perceptions and its destructive agenda are the product of disturbed personalities.

As is the case in all personality disturbance, defects of this type represent serious failures in development processes. The nature of these failures is detailed below. Among their consequences are the liberal mind’s relentless efforts to misrepresent human nature and to deny certain indispensable requirements for human relating. In his efforts to construct a grand collectivist utopia—to live what Jacques Barzun has called “the unconditioned life” in which “everybody should be safe and at ease in a hundred ways”—the radical liberal attempts to actualize in the real world an idealized fiction that will mitigate all hardship and heal all wounds. (Barzun 2000). He acts out this fiction, essentially a Marxist morality play, in various theaters of human relatedness, most often on the world’s economic, social and political stages. But the play repeatedly folds. Over the course of the Twentieth Century, the radical liberal’s attempts to create a brave new socialist world have invariably failed. At the dawn of the Twenty-first Century his attempts continue to fail in the stagnant economies, moral decay and social turmoil now widespread in Europe. An increasingly bankrupt welfare society is putting the U.S. on track for the same fate if liberalism is not cured there. Because the liberal agenda’s principles violate the rules of ordered liberty, his most determined efforts to realize its visionary fantasies must inevitably fall short. Yet, despite all the evidence against it, the modern liberal mind believes his agenda is good social science. It is, in fact, bad science fiction. He persists in this agenda despite its madness.

Wow. Someone wrote words in a book that disparage some subgroup in our culture? It must be true, then. Fortunately for me I've escaped the curse by not being a liberal.

Tony... Are you there? It's right here in B&W: You're mad, disturbed and diseased. Of course, we knew that already.

ricardisimo
05-04-2010, 12:59 PM
I know a guy that fits that description to a tee. Well, actually, I know a few of them.

Literally down to the last nickel, sleeping on cots at the business because the house had long since been sold to pay for the business. Then things slowly "took off". Now this couple that has been married for 40+ years lives in the fruit of their labors - half a billion and all that implies. "Only in America" you people!

The left and their "clients" choose to wallow in self pity and all that implies.
Its an expression. That's why it was in quotes.

Surely your hatred of this country hasn't blinded you to some of our expressions.

Among the many reasons I love this country, despite the blemishes, is that anybody can "make it" here, and many do. There is nothing any gubmint could "offer" that I'd trade for that freedom. That also explains, in large part, my hostility toward anything or anybody that threatens that freedom (for anybody).

Unless I am mistaken, you are pulling out the "Hate America" card faster and faster these days. Quite telling.

My self-pity (along with my thriftiness and my wife and I working three jobs between us) has given us a very nice life in Southern California, with a beautiful home and two gorgeous children. I'll keep my self-pity - and my glue-sniffing habit - thank you very much.

ricardisimo
05-04-2010, 01:04 PM
If you eliminate the people that are willing to take these jobs than the employers who continue with the status quo will be forced to change how they do things. While there is a steady stream of people willing to accept those conditions and wages----no employer is going to touch change with a 50 foot poll. A reset button has to be pushed in one way or another, and no self preserving politician is going to go after business owners before going after their illegal alien employees.

Then why don't we consider rounding up the politicians and the business owners, and sending them over the border?

Vincent
05-04-2010, 01:18 PM
Hard work and thriftiness in this country can give you comfort and stability down the road, which is fantastic. Hard work and thriftiness can do the same for you in several dozen other countries as well.

No doubt.

Lets take this discussion to another level, but absent these here United States of America. We're all fairly familiar with the events of the last century, and the first decade of this one, yes?

An argument could have been made, and was, that we shouldn't have entered both world wars. After all, what did either have to do with our national security? What might the world be today if we had sat out those two cataclysmic series of events?

World War One alone would have left all of Europe, and the colonies of the European powers, in shambles that would have lapsed into a second dark age. It wouldn't have been a place for rich Americans and their kids to vacation, and that just wouldn't do. It also might have precluded a World War Two, at least as we now know it, but Japan probably would have started it none the less.

But WWII did happen, and America once again, prevailed. But this time we rebuilt the unholy mess that the bad guys left. And the world reopened for business. The tide rose and the boats rose with it.

This nation of immigrants has risen to a level previously unimagined by mankind, and all she has touched have benefited. We give, by orders of magnitude, more than what the rest of the world together gives. And that is among the reasons why we have prospered. But rather than fumble around, I'll leave it to the original...

http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-ferrara092501.shtml

What Is An American?
A primer.

By Peter Ferrara, an associate professor of law at the George Mason University School of Law.
September 25, 2001 9:20 a.m.

You probably missed it in the rush of news last week, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper there an offer of a reward to anyone who killed an American, any American.

So I just thought I would write to let them know what an American is, so they would know when they found one.

An American is English…or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani, or Afghan.

An American is Christian, or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan. The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them choose.

An American is also free to believe in no religion. For that he will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God.

An American is from the most prosperous land in the history of the world. The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the God-given right of each man and woman to the pursuit of happiness.

An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need. When Afghanistan was overrun by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country. As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan.

An American does not have to obey the mad ravings of ignorant, ungodly cruel, old men. American men will not be fooled into giving up their lives to kill innocent people, so that these foolish old men may hold on to power. American women are free to show their beautiful faces to the world, as each of them choose.

An American is free to criticize his government's officials when they are wrong, in his or her own opinion. Then he is free to replace them, by majority vote.

Americans welcome people from all lands, all cultures, all religions, because they are not afraid. They are not afraid that their history, their religion, their beliefs, will be overrun, or forgotten. That is because they know they are free to hold to their religion, their beliefs, their history, as each of them choose.

And just as Americans welcome all, they enjoy the best that everyone has to bring, from all over the world. The best science, the best technology, the best products, the best books, the best music, the best food, the best athletes.

Americans welcome the best, but they also welcome the least. The nation symbol of America welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest tossed.

These in fact are the people who built America. Many of them were working in the twin towers on the morning of September 11, earning a better life for their families.

So you can try to kill an American if you must. Hitler did. So did General Tojo and Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung, and every bloodthirsty tyrant in the history of the world.

But in doing so you would just be killing yourself. Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.

So look around you. You may find more Americans in your land than you thought were there. One day they will rise up and overthrow the old, ignorant, tired tyrants that trouble too many lands. Then those lands too will join the community of free and prosperous nations.

And America will welcome them.

And so, to my original point. Try making it in a world without America.

fansince'76
05-04-2010, 02:02 PM
You're comparing a local chapter of the Red Cross to First Interstate and the United Way? The intellectual discipline on these boards never fails to astound.

You should look into exactly how Gates became as wealthy as he did. He didn't exactly have goons blow up his competitors' facilities with dynamite, as Rockefeller did, but the principle is the same. Hard work and thriftiness in this country can give you comfort and stability down the road, which is fantastic. Hard work and thriftiness can do the same for you in several dozen other countries as well.

If you want to become a billionaire you need to do some other things, none of them pretty.

RARELY do I agree with you on anything, but I agree with you on this. It takes more than simply thriftiness and hard work to get rich - a lot more.

SteelMember
05-04-2010, 02:08 PM
More states to follow the lead... ?

Legislators push PA immigration control bill (http://postgazette.com/pg/10124/1055464-100.stm)
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
By Tom Barnes, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

HARRISBURG -- State Reps. Daryl Metcalfe and Harry Readshaw think Pennsylvania should follow Arizona's lead and "protect its borders and citizens" by giving local and state police more power to arrest, detain and eventually deport foreigners who have entered the state illegally and don't have proper registration papers.

Mr. Metcalfe, R-Cranberry, Mr. Readshaw, D-Carrick, and several other legislators today promoted House Bill 2479, which would direct a police officer "to attempt to verify the immigration status of suspected illegal aliens."

However, an officer could not stop a suspected illegal immigrant without reason -- as critics of the new Arizona law have claimed, Mr. Metcalfe said. An officer would have to have a reason for checking a suspected illegal alien's papers, such as if the alien was driving too fast, ran a red light, or was arrested for a break-in.

The bill also would create a new third-degree misdemeanor "for illegal aliens who violate federal law by either willfully failing to register as an alien or failing to possess proper proof of such registration when stopped for another primary offense, such as a traffic violation."

The bill also would attempt to crack down on employers who hire illegal aliens without first checking to see if they had registration papers and are in the state legally. It also would create a new third-class felony "for intentionally smuggling illegal aliens (into the state) for profit" and would let police officers "impound any vehicle driven by an illegal alien or used to transport illegal aliens.''

Critics of the bill, such as Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, said immigration enforcement is a federal job, done by the Immigration, Customs and Enforcement agency, adding "State and local police are not charged with enforcing federal immigration legislation."

But Mr. Metcalfe said federal authorities have done a poor job of finding and deporting illegal immigrants and the state has the right to defend itself, as Arizona is doing.

It's difficult to know how many illegal immigrants are in Pennsylvania at any one time, but Mr. Metcalfe put the estimate at 140,000, and maintained they are costing state taxpayers at least $700 million a year in unnecessary costs. These include costs to educate the children of illegal immigrants plus costs of welfare benefits, jail cells, health care, day care and food stamps.

A number of conservative groups support the Metcalfe bill, including the Eagle Forum, the Federal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Coalition and the Citizens for Immigration Control. An official of the last group, Kathleen Appell, said, "We wish Gov. (Ed) Rendell would 'woman up' and display Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's courage (in signing such a law) but we know that won't happen."

Mr. Rendell said today he hadn't read the Metcalfe bill, "but if it's the same as the Arizona law, I would veto it." He said the Arizona law has even been criticized by staunch conservatives such as former President George Bush adviser Karl Rove and former Colorado GOP Congressman Tom Tancredo.

Some critics have claimed the Arizona law promotes "profiling" and prejudice against certain racial and ethnic groups, Hispanics in particular, but Mr. Metcalfe denied that. He said Pennsylvania has a right to protect itself against drugs, thefts, killings and other illegal activities perpetrated by immigrants who sneak into the state without legal papers.

But Andrew Hoover of the American Civil Liberties Union said Pennsylvania shouldn't copy the Arizona law.

"What happens in Arizona stays in Arizona," he said. "The new Arizona law encourages racial profiling and betrays American values. We don't need that here in Pennsylvania."
________________________________________

Ok. Maybe not, but there seems to be more dialogue about it instead of just looking the other way.

ricardisimo
05-04-2010, 02:11 PM
RARELY do I agree with you on anything, but I agree with you on this. It takes more than simply thriftiness and hard work to get rich - a lot more.

I'm bookmarking this page! :wink02:
:drink:

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-04-2010, 02:20 PM
The intellectual discipline on these boards never fails to astound.

.

Its been my experience that the intellectual discipline on this board never fails to confuse you.:noidea:

Vincent
05-04-2010, 02:28 PM
Unless I am mistaken, you are pulling out the "Hate America" card faster and faster these days. Quite telling.

Stop "hating" on our country and I'll put it away.

My self-pity (along with my thriftiness and my wife and I working three jobs between us) has given us a very nice life in Southern California, with a beautiful home and two gorgeous children. I'll keep my self-pity - and my glue-sniffing habit - thank you very much.

Congratulations to you and your Bride. "Only in America". :rofl::rofl: Sorry. I am of deeply flawed character and couldn't resist.

OK, so Ric, we've heard you tear apart our country, our religions, and much of what we believe in. And fair enough, you've voiced your opinion. What do you believe in? What do you want America to be?

ricardisimo
05-04-2010, 02:28 PM
To some its an expression. To some its a dream. But, regardless, we all get a chance.

Sun coming up over New York City
...

Only in America
...

Sun going down on an La. freeway
...

Only in America
...

Yeah only in America
Where we dream in red, white and blue
Yeah we dream as big as we want to

And see... http://www.onlyinamerica.cc/ and http://www.amazon.com/Only-America-Immigrant-Paul-Oreffice/dp/0974537675 and countless other stories.

This reminded me of a choice bit of nonsense from Laurie Anderson, sung by none other than William S. Burroughs:

Sun's going down. Like a big bald head.
Disappearing behind the boulevard. (Oooeee.) It's Sharkey's night.
Yeah. It's Sharkey's night tonight. And the manager says: Sharkey?
He's not at his desk right now. (Oh yeah.) Could I take a message?

And Sharkey says: Hey, kemosabe! Long time no see.
He says: Hey sport. You connect the dots. You pick up the pieces.
He says: You know, I can see two tiny pictures of myself
And there's one in each of your eyes. And they're doin' everything I do.
Every time I light a cigarette, they light up theirs.
I take a drink and I look in and they're drinkin' too.
It's drivin' me crazy. It's drivin' me nuts.

And Sharkey says: Deep in the heart of darkest America.
Home of the brave. He says: Listen to my heart beat.

Paging Mr. Sharkey. White courtesy telephone please.

******

Make no mistake: Ms. Anderson is an acquired taste.

lamberts-lost-tooth
05-04-2010, 02:41 PM
This reminded me of a choice bit of nonsense from Laurie Anderson, sung by none other than William S. Burroughs:

.

I'll top that with a little John Wayne...:chuckle:

You ask me why I love her? Well, give me time, and I'll explain...
Have you seen a Kansas sunset or an Arizona rain?
Have you drifted on a bayou down Louisiana way?
Have you watched the cold fog drifting over San Francisco Bay?

Have you heard a Bobwhite calling in the Carolina pines?
Or heard the bellow of a diesel in the Appalachia mines?
Does the call of Niagara thrill you when you hear her waters roar?
Do you look with awe and wonder at a Massachusetts shore...
Where men who braved a hard new world, first stepped on Plymouth Rock?
And do you think of them when you stroll along a New York City dock?

Have you seen a snowflake drifting in the Rockies...way up high?
Have you seen the sun come blazing down from a bright Nevada sky?
Do you hail to the Columbia as she rushes to the sea...
Or bow your head at Gettysburg...in our struggle to be free?

Have you seen the mighty Tetons? ...Have you watched an eagle soar?
Have you seen the Mississippi roll along Missouri's shore?
Have you felt a chill at Michigan, when on a winters day,
Her waters rage along the shore in a thunderous display?
Does the word "Aloha"... make you warm? Do you stare in disbelief ..
When you see the surf come roaring in at Waimea reef?

From Alaska's gold to the Everglades...from the Rio Grande to Maine...
My heart cries out... my pulse runs fast at the might of her domain.
You ask me why I love her?... I've a million reasons why.
My beautiful America... beneath Gods' wide, wide sky.

ricardisimo
05-04-2010, 02:50 PM
Stop "hating" on our country and I'll put it away.

Congratulations to you and your Bride. "Only in America". :rofl::rofl: Sorry. I am of deeply flawed character and couldn't resist.

OK, so Ric, we've heard you tear apart our country, our religions, and much of what we believe in. And fair enough, you've voiced your opinion. What do you believe in? What do you want America to be?

I'm sure you can figure that out Vinny. I just like to bitch and moan. :blah::blah::blah:

When I'm tired of bitching and moaning, I turn my attention to doing what little I can do - with the time, energy and money that two little kids and a wife leave me - to advance the causes of direct democracy, individual liberty, smaller government, and social and economic justice. Silly shit like that.

Part and parcel with that is to tirelessly point out to anyone who will listen that neither "major" party represents them at all, that the job of politicians is to divide people (this AZ bill is no different), and that those same people would do best to move on and find other parties and forms of political expression, most obviously local community activism, unionism and even running for office themselves.

I can go on and on and on, but I suspect your question was rhetorical, and you really don't want to know what I believe.

ricardisimo
05-04-2010, 02:52 PM
I'll top that with a little John Wayne...:chuckle:

You're going to make me break out the William Shatner, aren't you?

WH
05-04-2010, 03:25 PM
Love...is a burning thing.....and it makes....a fiery ring.....

doooo do doo dooo do do do dooo dooo doooooooo
doo do doo doo doo doo doo dooo doooooo

Vincent
05-04-2010, 04:18 PM
I can go on and on and on, but I suspect your question was rhetorical, and you really don't want to know what I believe.

No, actually I do, and we might agree on more than you think.

MasterOfPuppets
05-04-2010, 06:48 PM
Piss poor excuse

Tell me how all the athletes that earn millions were born with a silver spoon, inherit it. Or do they EARN it, maybe some don't deserve it though.

As far as the American dream, you haven't a clue what it is.

cough....jamarcus russell...cough.....:chuckle:

urgle burgle
05-06-2010, 04:25 PM
ric says:But all of your complaints apply to working poor citizens; they get those services as well, and yet their primary tax contribution is still just state and local sales taxes. If you're making below a certain amount, you're paying little if any federal income tax. Just how much money do you think a typical bracero makes? If you're really concerned about the money they're sending back home, then let them bring their families with them. Others recommend taxing wire transfers. Cool, that'll work too.

no, that is not my major complaint, and i think wire transfers should be taxed if in excess over a certain amount or multiple amounts within a certain time. However, in a sense, people who have taxable jobs still pay taxes. yes, they can get most, all, or more than they put in at the end of the year. thats why the tax laws need to be simplified. fair tax, prob best way to go. quite a few people who know they dont make that much money per year dont even file. the govt keeps that money. or they dont get it back until the end of the year, which the govt can go ahead and spend and make interest off of.
As an aside, it's interesting to see such a group of staunch anti-tax conservatives foaming at the mouth about unpaid taxes, mere weeks after applauding some guy for flying his plane into an IRS building, but whatever...

i dont know anyone, conservative or otherwise who applauded this idiot. he was a domestic terrorist. glad hes dead. its a shame he had to cause such damage and fear before he offed himself.

I'm not sure, however, why you would make the leap of logic you just made. I'm saying that we should ask our police to behave themselves, rather than codifying their misbehavior in laws like this one. Your response is a sarcastic (I hope) "let's just do away with the police altogether." Ummm... huh? Would you say the same thing if I wanted doctors to perform to certain standards? Or the engineers who build our bridges?

yes this was sarcastic. very sarcastic. my point, is it can be said the possible misbehavior, or profiling, can be in play for any law. my point is of what others have said during this discussion. if we cant trust the cops, who everyday have to make judgement calls, then in essence, we should just give up. sarcasm, again, out of frustration. of course certain specific occupations have to fall under certain standards. thats what the police and other law enforcement are held to.

Anyhow, all of this is fairly off-topic. These folks are working jobs that we simply won't work. And these are jobs that cannot be exported, either because they are tied to the land in regards to the farm workers, or to our own population in regards to the service sector jobs. These jobs are here to stay, someone has to work them, and yet we won't do it.



i totally disagree with this statement. in this economic climate, i bet there are many of these jobs Americans would work. weve done it before, and we will do it again. i agree with you in part about bringing up those wages, stronger laws to crush employers from hiring illegals. one guy i listen to on the radio came up with a good plan. for the migrant/labor type jobs that are needed by employers, a hiring agent goes to Mexico,or another country, and hires a certain amount needed by the company for the duration of the job. they get transported across the border, with papers for the work, go to the job site. the employer pays for room and board, health care, etc., and a somewhat decent wage. job done, they get transported back. simple. everybody is happy.

MasterOfPuppets
05-06-2010, 11:02 PM
A Legal Immigrant's Take on Arizona's Immigration Law

By Boris Epshteyn

- FOXNews.com

As a legal immigrant, I neither empathize with nor support those who break the law in order to gain admission into the United States of America.



I am a legal immigrant. My family and I emigrated from Russia to New York in 1993. We applied for permission to do so in 1990. Throughout those three years we went through numerous background checks and interviews and we waited patiently to be granted the right to move to America.

My status as a legal immigrant shapes my perspective on the illegal immigration issue in general, and Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070 recently adopted by the state of Arizona in particular. When confronted by critics of this legislation, who have urged me to empathize with illegal immigrants, I draw the following comparison: when a person goes into a bank with a check and receives cash for it, that person follows the legal and proper procedure for obtaining money; however, when a person robs a bank with a gun, that person, too, has received cash, but by way of committing an illegal act. Both individuals leave the bank with money, however, one is a law abiding citizen while the other is a criminal.

As a legal immigrant, I neither empathize with nor support those who break the law in order to gain admission into the United States of America. The background checks and interviews that we experienced as a part of the legal immigration process proved to the American authorities that my family did not harbor a criminal past, communicable diseases or extreme views. Those who skirt the procedures are not only breaking the law by entering the country illegally, they are robbing the United States of the chance to vet them. These illegal aliens disrespect the American rule of law. They disrespect legal immigrants like me who stood in line to come here. And they disrespect all American citizens at large who are kept safe by the immigration rules and processes.

It is counterproductive to denounce the Arizona bill as the left has at every turn. It would be much more constructive to offer Arizona and its citizens an alternative -- something the federal government has failed to do. Arizona's illegal immigration problem manifests itself in overcrowded schools and hospitals, rampant violence and has left Phoenix with the second highest kidnapping rate in the world, right behind Mexico City.

Arizona has exercised its constitutional right to deal with the problem that has bankrupted the state. Polls show that 70 percent of Arizonans and a majority of Americans support the measure.
President Obama has led the charge against Arizona’s new immigration law. He is capitalizing on this divisive issue for political gain by wrongfully painting supporters of the bill as racist.

As president of the United States, it is Mr. Obama's job to protect its citizens. He should not frivolously interfere with states as they deal with the problems that they face, especially those, such as illegal immigration, that federal institutions do not deal with adequately. Speaking both as a legal immigrant and an American citizen, I urge President Obama to put away his political interests. If his opposition to the legislation is truly genuine, then he needs to step up offer real alternatives to SB 1070.

Boris Epshteyn is a political strategist, attorney and business consultant in New York City. He served as a communications aide on the McCain – Palin 2008 presidential campaign. He is a frequent guest on Foxnews.com's "The Strategy Room" and appears occasionally on other Fox News Channel programs. Contact him at boris@strategy-llc.com.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/05/05/boris-epshteyn-arizona-immigration-law-sb-obama-america-legal-immigrant/

MasterOfPuppets
05-09-2010, 10:49 PM
Arizona’s Immigration Law Spurs Copycat Legislation

New America Media, News Report , Marcelo Ballvé, Posted: May 03, 2010 Review it on NewsTrust

Arizona’s new get-tough immigration law has emboldened other state capitols to follow suit.

Legislators in at least 10 states— Utah, Oklahoma, Colorado, Ohio, Missouri, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, and Maryland— have called for laws that would mirror Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, according to the Progressive States Network and reporting by New America Media.

First out of the gate to actually introduce a bill was South Carolina.

Along with 20 co-sponsors, Rep. Eric Bedingfield, a Republican, introduced a bill April 29 that, like Arizona’s, requires law enforcement officials to check individuals’ immigration status.

Some of the language in the South Carolina bill, which was posted on the legislature’s website, is virtually identical to the most controversial portion of the Arizona measure signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer on April 23.

The South Carolina bill reads: “When reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt must be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”

Civil rights advocates, like the Rev. Al Sharpton, blasted the same phrasing in the Arizona law as opening the door to ethnic profiling of Latinos and anyone else appearing foreign-born. Kevin R. Johnson, dean of the University of California, Davis School of Law, agrees the language is “very open-ended” and that some of the civil rights concerns over the Arizona law are warranted. But, he argues, successful legal challenges will likely focus on the far more clear-cut case that such laws usurp the federal government’s constitutionally granted supremacy over immigration.

Even so, state capitals, county seats and city halls insist on trying to legislate immigration controls.

In 2007, for example, Oklahoma passed a hard-line immigration law that, while not as tough as Arizona’s, imposed a set of controls on employers and made it a felony to harbor, shelter or transport undocumented immigrants.

This year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit struck down a section of the Oklahoma law pertaining to penalties on employers. The court said the Oklahoma measure was pre-empted in that area by federal law.

But that didn’t frighten Oklahoma legislators away from the immigration issue. They are now cobbling together proposals that would outdo even Arizona. Republican Rep. Randy Terrill has said a bill he’s authoring may go one step further and provide for the seizure and forfeiture of property of those caught in immigration violations. Latino communities in Oklahoma, who lived through panic and an exodus in the wake of the 2007 law, are bracing for a new crackdown, says Patricia Fennel, executive director of the Tulsa-based Latino Community Development Agency.

“With the legislature we have now, if that [new] legislation was introduced tomorrow, I think it would pass easily,” says Fennel.

The controversial Arizona law may be emboldening immigration hardliners.

But as Oklahoma’s own experience shows, states’ efforts to curb illegal immigration—and criminalize it— pre-date Arizona’s new bill.

But Arizona’s action seems to have spread the idea that state-level immigration laws can get tougher. Mississippi passed a bill in 2008 that made it a felony for an undocumented immigrant to solicit or accept work in the state. Now, Mississippi legislators are calling for the state to adopt Arizona’s tougher approach, according to Bill Chandler, executive director of the Mississippi Immigrant Rights Alliance. The handful of state legislators known for their frequent “ranting and raving” about illegal immigration “ramped it up since Arizona,” adds Chandler.

In Missouri, a broad bill to crack down on illegal immigration was being considered in the legislature as Arizona debated and passed its law. The Missouri bill, the subject of hearings last week, would make it a felony to knowingly transport or harbor an undocumented immigrant. But now the bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Mark Parkinson, says he will go further and introduce legislation similar to Arizona’s next year.

Utah is another state that has recently taken a hard tack on immigration. A Utah law, which went into effect last year, sought to prevent state employers from hiring undocumented immigrants and also made it illegal to harbor them. At the same time, undocumented immigrants are allowed in-state tuition in Utah schools, and the influential Mormon Church allows undocumented immigrants to be bishops.

Now, Republican Rep. Stephen Sandstrom says he’s drafting a bill modeled on Arizona’s. "With Arizona making the first step in this direction, Utah needs to pass a similar law or we will see a huge influx of illegals,” he was quoted as saying in The Salt Lake Tribune.

Despite the rash of calls for copycat legislation, it is likely an attitude of caution will prevail in many places, says Suman Raghunathan, who tracks immigration policy for the New York-based Progressive States Network, which works with progressive state legislators nationwide.

In Texas, for example, some legislators have called for a local version of the Arizona law. But Gov. Rick Perry, a conservative Republican, has cautioned against doing that. So has the business community.

States aren’t the only jurisdictions trying to craft their own immigration laws. Last year, Farmers Branch, a suburb of Dallas, Texas, passed an ordinance seeking to bar landlords from renting apartments to undocumented immigrants. That ordinance was struck down by the federal courts, as was a similar one passed a few years ago in Hazelton, Penn.

However, states and localities will continue taking matters into their own hands until Congress enacts federal immigration reform. Congressional action seems at least possible this year after Senate Democrats’ release of an immigration reform blueprint last week.

Immigrant advocates like to point out that both the backers and detractors of Arizona-style laws agree that the nation’s immigration system is broken. The question is when the U.S. Congress and White House will summon the resolve fix it.

“The crisis in Arizona today only shows what happens when the federal government fails to do its job,” says Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum.

http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=d8f9be46a8b86c61a61ce 5f00acde741

HometownGal
05-10-2010, 07:19 AM
It's difficult to know how many illegal immigrants are in Pennsylvania at any one time, but Mr. Metcalfe put the estimate at 140,000, and maintained they are costing state taxpayers at least $700 million a year in unnecessary costs. These include costs to educate the children of illegal immigrants plus costs of welfare benefits, jail cells, health care, day care and food stamps.



:jawdrop: Screw 'em - get them the hell outta here and send them back to their own shitholes.

If they want to obtain citizenship the right way, fine, but if not - GTFO of PA! :mad:

Venom
05-10-2010, 08:39 AM
Im all for Immigration, but I'm against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ( or should I say Undocumented Workers-- I don't want to offend the Bleeding Heart Liberals on this board ) .

MasterOfPuppets
05-10-2010, 12:20 PM
Legislators in at least 10 states— Utah, Oklahoma, Colorado, Ohio, Missouri, Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, and Maryland— have called for laws that would mirror Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, according to the Progressive States Network and reporting by New America Media.
if Ohio and Maryland pass this bill, pennsylvania's population is going to increase...you guys better start calling your governor....:chuckle:

SteelersinCA
05-10-2010, 12:44 PM
From the L. A. Times
1. 40% of all workers in L.A. County ( L. A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.
10. In L.A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish. (There are 10.2 million people in L.A. County .)

MasterOfPuppets
05-10-2010, 01:15 PM
you'd think since illegals are soooo good for the economy , mexifornia would be thriving instead of teetering on the brink of bankrupcy ... :huh:

MACH1
05-10-2010, 02:55 PM
you'd think since illegals are soooo good for the economy , mexifornia would be thriving instead of teetering on the brink of bankrupcy ... :huh:

Yep...According to a certain poster here, they contribute more to the economy than they take. :doh:

MasterOfPuppets
05-10-2010, 03:35 PM
Yep...According to a certain poster here, they contribute more to the economy than they take. :doh:

An analysis of recent census data indicates that the presence of illegal aliens in California is costing the state's taxpayers more than $10.5 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration.

The report, written by the Federation of American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, states that even if the tax
contributions of illegal aliens are subtracted, state government outlays still amount to nearly $9 billion a year.

The $10.5 billion figure translates into a burden to native-born residents of $1,183 per household.

FAIR notes that the results of the report take into account only state of California costs and do not include the cost of illegal aliens born by the federal government.

The report breaks down the costs of the three main areas of services, education medial care and incarceration.

Based on estimates of the illegal alien population in California and documented costs of K-12 schooling, Californians spend approximately $7.7 billion annually on education for illegal-alien children and for their U.S.-born siblings, says the report. Nearly 15 percent of the K-12 public school students in California are children of illegals.

The report shows uncompensated medical outlays for health care provided to the state's illegal alien population amount to about $1.4 billion a year.

The cost of incarcerating illegal aliens in California's prisons and jails amounts to about $1.4 billion a year. That figure does not include related law enforcement and judicial expenditures or the monetary costs of the crimes that led to their incarceration, the report notes. :noidea:

ricardisimo
05-10-2010, 08:18 PM
you'd think since illegals are soooo good for the economy , mexifornia would be thriving instead of teetering on the brink of bankrupcy ... :huh:

California is hardly West Virginia, and it's teetering on the brink of bankruptcy because of problems with taxpayers on the high end, not those on the bottom.

Gotta love Prop. 13.

GBMelBlount
05-10-2010, 08:44 PM
From the L. A. Times
1. 40% of all workers in L.A. County ( L. A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.
10. In L.A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish. (There are 10.2 million people in L.A. County .)


Ricardisimo, these stats appear pretty damning imo.

Do you doubt either the stats or the major problems they are creating in California?

Can you explain WHY prop 13 or high end tax payers are a larger contributor to the problem?

tony hipchest
05-10-2010, 09:41 PM
Ricardisimo, these stats appear pretty damning imo.

Do you doubt either the stats or the major problems they are creating in California?

Can you explain WHY prop 13 or high end tax payers are a larger contributor to the problem?well, not only is their governor a 1st generation immigrant on his 1st stint in politics, he is also a high end tax payer who happens to be a product of uber liberal lovin/ right wing hatin hollywood. :noidea:

maybe that has something to do with it.

nope... i just checked. he calls himself a republican, so all must be well on his end.

GBMelBlount
05-10-2010, 09:51 PM
Thanks for your input. *shrug*

The questions still remain completely unanswered Ricardisimo, if you don't mind responding...

tony hipchest
05-10-2010, 09:57 PM
Thanks for your input. *shrug*

The questions still remain completely unanswered Ricardisimo, if you don't mind responding...you are more than welcome!

unfortunately for you, ricardisimo doesnt appear to be on the site at this point so enjoy talking into the air... :blah:

:thumbsup: