Arizona Immigration law SB1070

Arizona Immigration law SB1070

Very recently, the state of Arizona passed a bill (now law) that is by far the most strong immigration law the US has ever seen.
Many, like myself, see this as John McCain's last ditch attempt to hold onto his long-held Senate seat. Others disagree.
Irregardless, it has been the subject of much controversy here of late and has the Hispanic/Latino population quite riled up.


From the New York Times:
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.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Legal Illegal Aliens make for wonderful democrat voters

There's just that many, eh?

Well, the dead tend to vote republican

Not in Chicago they don't. Or in the Houston area.

What do you think about amnesty?

Is it a legitimate counter to the Arizona Immigration Law, or would it be just a vacillating band-aid that has no chance of working?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

What do you think about amnesty?

Is it a legitimate counter to the Arizona Immigration Law, or would it be just a vacillating band-aid that has no chance of working?

I think it's the only practical and humane solution AFTER the border is sealed. First things first.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I think it's the only practical and humane solution AFTER the border is sealed. First things first.

How do you get the Government to 'seal' the border, & isn't it two(2) borders, & thousands of miles of oceanfront that also need to be addressed?

Do all these things need to be completely accomplished before granting any kind of amnesty?

And, when speaking of Amnesty, do you mean 'Unconditional Amnesty', or are there other requirements that need to be satisfied first?

Sounds like a bigger deal than just a simple catch phrase to me. Is it?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

How do you get the Government to 'seal' the border, & isn't it two(2) borders, & thousands of miles of oceanfront that also need to be addressed?

Do all these things need to be completely accomplished before granting any kind of amnesty?

Yes.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

And, when speaking of Amnesty, do you mean 'Unconditional Amnesty', or are there other requirements that need to be satisfied first?

Sounds like a bigger deal than just a simple catch phrase to me. Is it?

That's what we should be talking about, but instead we're hearing how Arizona is some sort of Nazi outpost or talking about this or that state or city deciding to boycott Arizona and teach those Nazis a lesson.

As a lot of people have pointed out, maybe Arizona should pay passage for illegal immigrants to San Francisco or LA or San Diego or New York.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

That's what we should be talking about, but instead we're hearing how Arizona is some sort of Nazi outpost or talking about this or that state or city deciding to boycott Arizona and teach those Nazis a lesson.

As a lot of people have pointed out, maybe Arizona should pay passage for illegal immigrants to San Francisco or LA or San Diego or New York.

Well, they can use Nazi or Racist---both can be equally substituted from the Leftist Lexicon. According to their code, both should be used liberally. Actually because their real meanings have been so diluted & convoluted , they actually end up meaning the same thing. They simply mean, call anyone one of those names, & discussion should rapidly come to a halt --- they win!

Based on the above, Amnesty will never happen because nobody has the intestinal fortitude or the spine to 'seal' ALL the borders...ut ohh, here comes the Na & Ra words...I can hear them now!!

In my own personal opinion I doubt if Amnesty would help anyway.

It's been tried before with lousy results.

This guy pretty much sums up what Amnesty is anyhow:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

This guy pretty much sums up what Amnesty is anyhow:

Phfft. Says the descendant of unwanted immigrants. It's an empty rant, there is nothing of substance there.

Originally posted by Redem:

Phfft. Says the descendant of unwanted immigrants. It's an empty rant, there is nothing of substance there.

Coming from you, well, I could almost consider that a compliment. Before you get yer panties in a twist, I said ALMOST, & that was being extremely liberal of me I know!

I know, your probably more a Maurice Strong type of guy.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Coming from you, well, I could almost consider that a compliment.

No, not really. Stating that the rant was empty of content, merely large on self-righteousness and barely concealed xenophobia, is not a compliment in any sense.

No surprise he's complimentary of the teabaggers, and is as deluded as they as to that the meaning of the phrase "taxation without representation", or the cause of the Boston tea party. Such minor historical details just get in the way of a good self-righteous rant.

He probably is teabagger, to be fair.

Originally posted by Redem:

He probably is teabagger, to be fair.

Nicely put. I love it when you talk dirty!

But, in all reality he's actually a rallying advocate for Freedom, Liberty, & the American way of life through historical culture & traditions. Something, by the way, you know extremely little, if anything, about.

Another rallying advocate for Freedom, Liberty, Limited Government, & the American way of life has a Six point Plan to Reform Immigration. A true American Patriot, Dr. Ron Paul writes:

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked.

This is my six point plan:

+ Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
+ Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
+ No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
+ No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
+ End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
+ Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

Source

What do you think?

I personally think Dr. Paul has his finger on the pulse of the American people. He knows what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the U.S.Constitution, & he doesn't mince words when it comes to making people aware of how the present day government is way off that mark.

What do you think?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_immigration_cops_divided

Ariz. immigration law divides police across US


"Arizona's tough new law cracking down on illegal immigration is dividing police across the nation, pitting officers against their chiefs and raising questions about its potential to damage efforts to fight crime in Hispanic communities.

Two officers are challenging the law in court, while police unions that lobbied for it are defending it against criticism from police officials.

Both sides are debating how a law such as Arizona's can be enforced, without leading to racial profiling of Hispanics and without alienating residents in Hispanic neighborhoods with whom police have spent years trying to build trust.

"Before the signing of this bill, citizens would wave at me," said David Salgado, a 19-year Phoenix police officer who sued the city and the governor asking that the law be blocked. "Now they don't even want to make eye contact."

Still, police unions say, many of their officers in Arizona, the nation's busiest corridor for illegal immigration and smuggling, are tired of feeling helpless when dealing with people they believe are in the country illegally. Those officers want a tool to arrest them.

"Crime is not based upon skin color, it's based upon conduct," said Mark Spencer, president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, the union representing Phoenix officers that lobbied aggressively for the law.

It requires police enforcing another law to verify a person's immigration status if there's "reasonable" suspicion they are in the U.S. illegally.

Several Arizona police chiefs and sheriffs say, as hard as officers try not to profile, enforcing the law will inevitably lead to it. They say it will end up taking time away from solving crimes in their cities and towns.

"When you get a law that leads a state down this path, where the enforcement is targeted to a particular segment of the population, it's very difficult not to profile," said Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris, a critic of the law.

On Monday, police bosses from Maryland and Nevada condemned the law, saying that it could suck up vital resources and destroy delicate relationships with immigrant communities if implemented in their own states. There are at least nine other states considering similar legislation.

Police Chief Thomas Manger of Montgomery County, Md., in suburban Washington said he doesn't have the resources or the desire to enforce federal immigration violations by people who aren't disrupting the community.

"If they're not committing a crime here, frankly, I'm not sure how it enhances public safety to target those people for removal," he said.

Manger spoke on a conference call with the sheriff of Washoe County, Nev., and the retired police chief of Sacramento, Calif. The call was organized by the Law Enforcement Engagement Initiative, which advocates immigration reform.

Their criticism added to the chorus of opponents since the law's adoption April 23. There have been calls for boycotts, and some state and local governments have decided to stop doing business with the state in protest.

On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed the latest challenge to the law in federal court on behalf of labor unions and others.

The law takes effect July 29 unless blocked by the pending court challenges. Being in the country illegally would become a state crime, and Arizona residents could sue an agency or officer they feel isn't enforcing immigration laws to the fullest extent possible.

Arizona's legislation was passed in part with the lobbying muscle of the unions. An association of police chiefs tried to defeat or soften it.

Tucson police officer Martin Escobar also filed a lawsuit, arguing there's no "race-neutral" criteria for him to suspect that someone's in the country illegally. Some say it would be impossible to enforce without relying on indicators such as skin color, clothing and accent.

They worry Hispanic crime victims will be too scared to call for help, or eyewitnesses will refuse to cooperate in murder investigations.

Supporters say there are plenty of indicators other than race that suggest someone is an illegal immigrant, including a lack of identification and conflicting statements. They say police have plenty of experience enforcing laws without relying on physical characteristics.

If officers are empowered to decide when it's appropriate to arrest or even to kill someone, they should be trusted not to profile based on race, said Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, a supporter whose jurisdiction includes busy human and drug smuggling routes into Phoenix.

"We will do it without profiling," he said. "And any police chief or any sheriff in Arizona will not tolerate profiling based on race or national origin. That's unacceptable."

Gov. Jan Brewer insists racial profiling will not be tolerated. When she signed the bill, Brewer ordered the state's police training and licensing board to develop standards for enforcement that avoid profiling.

The board will meet Wednesday to adopt a framework for the training program, which director Lyle Mann said would include digital instruction materials for all of Arizona's 15,000 police officers.

Designing a training courses that prevents officers from using "the shortcut of race" will be difficult, said Jack McDevitt, associate dean of criminal justice at Northeastern University who studies racial profiling.

"No training you give police officers is going to change all of the officer's behavior," McDevitt said. "Unfortunately, the shortcut will be: 'What does this person look like? What kind of accent does he have? And what kind of car is he driving?' "

Sarah Palin Blames Arizona's Terrible Immigration Law on Barack Obama
http://gawker.com/5540415/sarah-palin-blames-arizonas-terrible-immigration-law-on-barack-obama




















"Sarah Palin dropped by Phoenix on Saturday to visit Arizona's brave new experiment in arresting Latinos. And guess what: She loved it! And if you hate it? Well, you only have your favorite black president to blame!

Arizona's state government, showing a real flair for the Blut und Boden craze that made Germany such a hit in the 1940s, thinks that everyone should be able to prove their citizenship at any time, especially if they are doing something suspicious, like being Latino. Sarah Palin, well-known mama grizzly and conservative intellectual, totally agrees. And if you don't like it? Well, blame "President" Teleprompter Q. Hussein!

"It's time for Americans across this great country to stand up and say 'We're all Arizonans now and, in clear unity, we say Mr. President, do your job, secure our border,'" Palin said, standing beside Brewer at a Saturday afternoon press conference.

That's right: The reason Arizona has decided to turn itself into a police state is... President Obama is lazy. Or overworked. Or maybe just ignoring the problem and hoping it'll go away? It's not, you know, that the state legislature's ties to racist hate groups is unsurprisingly leading to police-state legislation. It's totally that Obama just isn't doing his job.

Though the thing is: Maybe he's not! If his job is "comprehensively reform America's fu***d-up immigration system," and it kind of is, he is not really doing his job. But, this is not what Sarah Palin is talking about when she says "do your job, secure our border." What she actually means by "do your job" is "say meaningless strong-sounding things to comfort Arizona xenophobes." Which is not technically the president's job. For now."

You have two families: “Joe Legal” and “Jose Illegal”.
Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California.

Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.

Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash “under the table”.
Ready? Now pay attention…

Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.

Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.

Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.

Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.

Jose Illegal says, “We don’t need no stinkin’ insurance!” and still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.

Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal’s and Jose Illegal’s children both attend the same school.

Joe Legal pays for his children’s lunches while José Illegal’s children get a government sponsored lunch.
Jose Illegal’s children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal’s children go home.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.

Do you get it, now?

Originally posted by Denny77:

Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
...
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
...
Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
...
Jose Illegal says, “We don’t need no stinkin’ insurance!” and still has $31,200.00.
...
Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
...
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
...
Joe Legal pays for his children’s lunches while José Illegal’s children get a government sponsored lunch.

That doesn't add up. As soon as Jose Illegal would apply for any of those benefits, Jose Illegal and family would be deported. This whole scenario only makes sense if you're talking about someone legal trying to milk the system or an illegal impersonating a legal citizen through identity theft. But even if this were true, the law in question seems about the least effective way imaginable to remedy this scenario.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Jose Illegal and family would be deported

Nope, that is where you are using common since again..... . Don't do that....This is real life, not a class on political science...

you wonder why people get pissed off....

Originally posted by Denny77:

Nope, that is where you are using common since again..... . Don't do that....This is real life, not a class on political science...

You probably have a point. I don't really understand how large corporations (like, say, McDonald's) can employ illegal immigrants. That said, to claim benefits you would need to clearly prove who you are (thus in effect also proving you're not illegal) so this can be cross-checked with official records regarding your income and the like. I just can't imagine this being very different in the US?

One of the old arguments for illegals was they pay SS and then can't collect....

I know of one case in New York,highly regulated , a guy buys a car and drives off the lot without a valid NY license and gets drunk and kills 2 people.

Originally posted by Denny77:

One of the old arguments for illegals was they pay SS and then can't collect....

I know of one case in New York,highly regulated , a guy buys a car and drives off the lot without a valid NY license and gets drunk and kills 2 people.

What is regulated about it?

Here you can't buy a car without showing your driver's license. It must be exactly driver's license, not some other ID. The driver's license number must be on the sales contract. That's regulated.

Originally posted by ersi:

What is regulated about it?



Here you can't buy a car without showing your driver's license. It must be exactly driver's license, not some other ID. The driver's license number must be on the sales contract. That's regulated.

I was writing in a general since. We have, had, certain civil rights which included the ability to not show ID with out just cause ..etc, etc, legal things which I am not going to take the time to explain fully. You probably;y have no such rights....

This is what the left liberals are fighting the Arizona laws for, they are idiots, who think it is wrong to ask a person for identification even with just cause, I guess this is what the idiots think. They tag it as raciest, if a policeman stops a car which has broken the law and asks for ID. This is beyond belief that this country is so brainwashed that they have allowed one man to basically become a dictator.. who controls business, finances etc,etc, There are Nazi's alright, and I am not talking about teabaggers, It is the left not the right. They are very smart at shifting the Pea. Of coures their peanut gallery for most part are young and already brainwashed by educational system. it is very obvious at times on this forum The next election is the most important in our history.

In your infinite wisdom you will not agree but that is to be expected....

Sorry for the use of idiots frequently but no other word comes to mind.

Originally posted by Denny77:

I was writing in a general since. We have, had, certain civil rights which included the ability to not show ID with out just cause ..etc, etc, legal things which I am not going to take the time to explain fully. You probably;y have no such rights....

Im' at aa lozz for wordz.

Originally posted by ersi:

Here you can't buy a car without showing your driver's license. It must be exactly driver's license, not some other ID. The driver's license number must be on the sales contract. That's regulated.

Same here. It's not even legal to drive a car without proper insurance.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Im' at aa lozz for wordz.

no doubt in my mind....

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Same here. It's not even legal to drive a car without proper insurance.

Same here..

Originally posted by Denny77:

I was writing in a general since. We have, had, certain civil rights which included the ability to not show ID with out just cause ...etc, etc, legal things which I am not going to take the time to explain fully. You probably;y have no such rights....

So, buying a car and driving it off without a driver's license is a right? Here it is a crime. Please keep your explanations.

To make a long story short, illegals do not worry about law as they are illegal. Comprehend.

Originally posted by ersi:

So, buying a car and driving it off without a driver's license is a right? Here it is a crime. Please keep your explanations.

It is a crime here also, lord help me to communicate at some level...I give up

Originally posted by Denny77:

To make a long story short, illegals do not worry about law as they are illegal. Comprehend.

Something's wrong with the American system then. When you break the law you are investigated. Consequently your illegality will be discovered and you'll be deported. As an illegal it's paramount to stay within the (blind spot of the) law lest you'll be deported. I wouldn't be surprised if working on the black market were the easiest part of the equation.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Something's wrong with the American system then. When you break the law you are investigated

After the fact......, you are investigated and deported...of course you jump the fence the next day and go and pick apples again. You are assuming a perfect world...not illegals taking advantage of freedoms Americans have enjoyed...or I should say, use to enjoy.

In a perfect world there would be no borders, poverty, illegals, drunk drivers, etc. But I'd flip that around and say that you're assuming that some things which were possible in the '70s are still possible.

Originally posted by Denny77:

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Im' at aa lozz for wordz.

no doubt in my mind....

I'm sure that's true about you on many levels.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

In a perfect world there would be no borders, poverty, illegals, drunk drivers, etc. But I'd flip that around and say that you're assuming that some things which were possible in the '70s are still possible.

That is nice way, or not, of saying I am behind the times... With age comes some amount of wisdom, or not, Jaybo, regardless of what level ..
It is just there.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

I'm sure that's true about you on many levels.

Cannot ignore the facts. They is what they is... I don't get a headache over them.

Originally posted by Denny77:

That is nice way, or not, of saying I am behind the times...

I'm speaking mostly from a Dutch perspective here. In some nations digital integration is much further along than in others, and I'm sure there's quite a bit of variety between US states as well. But I do think that driving around with a car that shouldn't be allowed to be driven is a lot harder now than it used to be just about anywhere.

Originally posted by Denny77:

Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.
Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash “under the table”.

Originally posted by Denny77:

...you are investigated and deported...of course you jump the fence the next day and go and pick apples again.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

As an illegal it's paramount to stay within the (blind spot of the) law lest you'll be deported. I wouldn't be surprised if working on the black market were the easiest part of the equation.

As I said in an earlier post, if the easy part is finding work and the problem is tax avoidance then the best target of police action is the employer, not the individual. Cops get a tip off that there's illegal workers in that orchard so they make some enquiries, and at worst they make a raid. Jose gets deported and doesn't have a job to come back to if he jumps the fence. Problem depleted and Jose Tarjeta Verde doesn't get so hassled.

What on earth has this to do with an internet browser ?

Anyway, Americans should stop beating themselves up over illegal immigration -- USA is a sovereign state entitled to defend its borders. The view from Mexico seems to be that California, Texas etc are still part of Mexico and the best way to get them back is to settle them.

Originally posted by fihart:

What on earth has this to do with an internet browser ?

These are the Off-Topic Forums, meaning that what's discussed here is not in any way related to Opera.

Originally posted by WastedCharlie:

Cops get a tip off t

Charlie I don't know where you live but that don't happen here. They just pick apples. Yes they should fine employers and enforce existing law, but it doesn't happen. In areas like mine they are ignored. People in Arizona are in the firing line and that crap head , I should say crap heads in Washington. don't do their jobs, which is look out for the American people. I think they are also being paid off by drug boy's . Just my opinion. The pres of Mexico was quite right when he said we don't do anything to dry demand. .....And then I have to listen to these leftest demagogues rant on tea beggers and the mean old right wing and the raciest in Arizona I get a little pissed off. The people in Arizona are being shxx on and that is as plain as day.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

But I do think that driving around with a car that shouldn't be allowed to be driven is a lot harder now than it used to be just about anywhere

Except for illegals or anyone who doesn't pay attention to law. Nothing has changed. If illegals get a hankering to tie one on which in some case is every weekend they can't drive legally, ....I hope anyway.
.
But you are correct in saying some laws ,meaning laws which bring in money , are enforced more now than years ago. about beginning of 60's everybody got paranoid also and demanded more enforcement. It was better when law enforcement concentrated on real stuff. The locals took care of local,areas and everyone was happy . And if we were not we fired them...

Such is progress........sounds like progressive...

Originally posted by Denny77:

Originally posted by WastedCharlie:

Cops get a tip off t

Charlie I don't know where you live...

I'm in the North East of England so this subject doesn't directly affect me and illegal immigrants aren't an issue around here, but police relations often are....

Originally posted by Denny77:

... but that don't happen here. They just pick apples. Yes they should fine employers and enforce existing law, but it doesn't happen. In areas like mine they are ignored. People in Arizona are in the firing line and that crap head , I should say crap heads in Washington. don't do their jobs, which is look out for the American people. I think they are also being paid off by drug boy's . Just my opinion. The pres of Mexico was quite right when he said we don't do anything to dry demand. .....And then I have to listen to these leftest demagogues rant on tea beggers and the mean old right wing and the raciest in Arizona I get a little pissed off. The people in Arizona are being shxx on and that is as plain as day.

But it should happen there, right? I mean, if the law is there and *could* be enforced, then what's the point in bringing in this new law? Even its supporters would have to admit that it's a blunt and inelegant method, and that for all the benefit it might bring its pretty likely to do some harm too. I see that Arizona is in the front line, and I certainly agree that they're entitled, in fact obliged to take action; but I'd expect them to show that existing law is ineffective rather than just unenforced before bringing in a new law that will probably wind up doing some serious damage to the police's public relations.
I'm sure there's no shortage of legal immigrants (and people who are just on the wrong side of beige) in Arizona, California and the other states considering similar legislation, and those people deserve to be looked after by the crap heads in Washington too. To me, that includes not getting hassled to produce your identity documents as if you're suspected of being an enemy of the state, at least not without 'just cause'.

Originally posted by WastedCharlie:

But it should happen there, right? I mean, if the law is there and *could* be enforced, then what's the point in bringing in this new law? Even its supporters would have to admit that it's a blunt and inelegant method, and that for all the benefit it might bring its pretty likely to do some harm too. I see that Arizona is in the front line, and I certainly agree that they're entitled, in fact obliged to take action; but I'd expect them to show that existing law is ineffective rather than just unenforced before bringing in a new law that will probably wind up doing some serious damage to the police's public relations.

I'm sure there's no shortage of legal immigrants (and people who are just on the wrong side of beige) in Arizona, California and the other states considering similar legislation, and those people deserve to be looked after by the crap heads in Washington too. To me, that includes not getting hassled to produce your identity documents as if you're suspected of being an enemy of the state, at least not without 'just cause'.

For a little bit of clarity, I will try to explain some things short & sweet (bitter sweet).

The illegal have no use or care for the law. He does what he pleases with virtual immunity.

Why?

Its not because there aren't good laws on the books, it's because Political Correctness Insanity has become rampant that everyone it seems LOOKS THE OTHER WAY. When the car salesman might suspect he's dealing with an illegal, he turns his eyes the other way as he pockets the CASH, not financing check, he was just paid into his pocket. The school teacher would now think, as opposed to 20 years ago, think it's highly incorrect to ask lil Conchita, or Jose, or their mother about their families status---regardless if she has suspicions.

Now, because the cops have gotten bashed for so many things they do (some rightly, some wrongly) that rather than going the full 9 yards, merely says "get that fixed, ok Pancho" or "try to go a lil slower the next time Manuel..ok" or "make sure you have your drivers license the next time you go to pick up medicine for your sick mother...ok Pedro" or "go down to the DMV tomorrow & get a new license, & the next time you have a swim please remove your wallet from your pants because I can hardly make out anything on that license". In all cases they most probably had a suspicion, but looked the other way, maybe they just didn't need all the paperwork. Or maybe if they think there's a chance they might be wrong, & maybe they would be questioning a 'legal' by mistake. They don't want a suspension from their PC correct Captain, do they.

The Arizona Law is virtually a complete mirror of the Federal Law, but the Federals have abdicated all their responsibility to enforcement of the Federal Immigration Laws, which the State has taken on through this law because they are so financially impacted upon by the flood of 'Illegals'.

Hope that gives you an better idea of what the local government was/is up against.

Originally posted by WastedCharlie:

not getting hassled to produce your identity documents as if you're suspected of being an enemy of the state

Enemy of the state that is pure horse shix What do you suggest ...shoot the assholes..

They have to have cause or they will get sued. That is going to happen anyway. Mainly because of misdirected demagoguery like the shix you are saying.. Everybody assumes they will not use cause. It is just a big ole BS political game.get it And do I have to tell who is using this for their own benefit with the dumbbells.

So what you're saying then Smiley, is that the law will make no difference; That if the police bothered themselves to use their powers then there would be no need for this new law.
If that's the case, then why should we expect this power to be used any more than the others? If the problem is actually with the public and police's attitudes then isn't Arizona's new law just bad press for no reason? Those police will surely be even more cautious than ever. They've been given a great power and they're going to have to show that they're using it responsibly. If that was tough before, I expect it to be even more so now that there's been such an outcry about the potential abuse of power.

Originally posted by WastedCharlie:

So what you're saying then Smiley, is that the law will make no difference; That if the police bothered themselves to use their powers then there would be no need for this new law.
If that's the case, then why should we expect this power to be used any more than the others? If the problem is actually with the public and police's attitudes then isn't Arizona's new law just bad press for no reason? Those police will surely be even more cautious than ever. They've been given a great power and they're going to have to show that they're using it responsibly. If that was tough before, I expect it to be even more so now that there's been such an outcry about the potential abuse of power.

I will withdraw from this worthless conservation and fukinx triple

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

The Arizona Law is virtually a complete mirror of the Federal Law, but the Federals have abdicated all their responsibility to enforcement of the Federal Immigration Laws

Namely from 2001-2008 because Republicans would not get onboard with strengthening the border because small businesses which donated quite heavily to the GOP relied on illegals to make insane amounts of $$$ by not having to observe minimum wage.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

The Arizona Law is virtually a complete mirror of the Federal Law, but the Federals have abdicated all their responsibility to enforcement of the Federal Immigration Laws

Namely from 2001-2008 because Republicans would not get onboard with strengthening the border because small businesses which donated quite heavily to the GOP relied on illegals to make insane amounts of $$$ by not having to observe minimum wage.

imigrants have been picking fruit and vegetables for a long long time. Hell as a kid, I was right there picking with them. You are right about the intrusion of politics on both sides. You ever hear of unions as I stated once, that is when the shix hit the fan in the 50's illegal migration went way up.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Namely from 2001-2008 because Republicans would not get onboard with strengthening the border....

No defense of Bush---he's way beyond that by light years---but wasn't it Bush did put +/- 6,000 National Guard, directly or indirectly, on the border for a while, which prompted the Minute-Men to help out with border surveillance around the same time. Otherwise your absolutely correct. The Republicans, the scoundrels they are, were just as bad as the deceitful democrats when it came to this issue....same then....same now.

What has Obama done? Tic-toc-tic-toc-toc-tic-toc-toc-tic-toc-toc-tic-toc-toc-tic-toc-toc-tic-toc-toc-tic-toc

Times up!

Even after all the ruckus about this law, Obama hasn't done anything, zero, nada, bubkus, zip, whatsoever about Illegal Immigration except to decry the Arizona Law as unconstitutional, which his Attorney General was shamed into admitting under oath, after making exactly the same claim, that he had no first hand knowledge about the 10 page law because he simply didn't read it. Talk about arrogance!!!!

This gets better and better:

In the legal battle over Arizona's new immigration law, an ironic subtext has emerged: whether a Bush-era legal opinion complicates a potential Obama administration lawsuit against Arizona.

The document, written in 2002 by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, concluded that state police officers have "inherent power" to arrest undocumented immigrants for violating federal law. It was issued by Jay S. Bybee, who also helped write controversial memos from the same era that sanctioned harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects.

The author of the Arizona law -- which has drawn strong opposition from top Obama administration officials -- has cited the authority granted in the 2002 memo as a basis for the legislation. The Obama administration has not withdrawn the memo, and some backers of the Arizona law said Monday that because it remains in place, a Justice Department lawsuit against Arizona would be awkward at best.

"The Justice Department's official position as of now is that local law enforcement has the inherent authority to enforce federal immigration law," said Robert Driscoll, a former Justice Department Civil Rights Division official in the George W. Bush administration who represents an Arizona sheriff known for aggressive immigration enforcement. "How can you blame someone for exercising authority that the department says they have?"

Article here.

Did you know there was a Wang in the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project?

[/img]

I didn't know they had a Wang in there, & it seems to be a hard nosed Wang at that![/img]

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

"The Justice Department's official position as of now is that local law enforcement has the inherent authority to enforce federal immigration law," said Robert Driscoll, a former Justice Department Civil Rights Division official in the George W. Bush administration who represents an Arizona sheriff known for aggressive immigration enforcement. "How can you blame someone for exercising authority that the department says they have?"

This was a surprise to anyone? We all know they have the power to detain illegal immigrants, the issue at hand is the targeting of people without adequate evidence that they are illegal immigrants, and demanding they prove otherwise, based purely on their race.

Originally posted by Redem:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

"The Justice Department's official position as of now is that local law enforcement has the inherent authority to enforce federal immigration law," said Robert Driscoll, a former Justice Department Civil Rights Division official in the George W. Bush administration who represents an Arizona sheriff known for aggressive immigration enforcement. "How can you blame someone for exercising authority that the department says they have?"

This was a surprise to anyone? We all know they have the power to detain illegal immigrants, the issue at hand is the targeting of people without adequate evidence that they are illegal immigrants, and demanding they prove otherwise, based purely on their race.

That wasn't my post you quoted, but there was a piece---Supreme Court Ruling---I did post a short while back that does give the Police the right to specifically target them based on their specific characteristics (being Hispanic/Mexican)---Racial Profiling as you call it---PROVIDING IT WASN'T THE SOLE REASON THEY WERE SELECTED FOR QUESTIONING. The police would need to have another reasonable suspicion of them being involved in illegal activity to be compliant with the Supreme Court Ruling. The Arizona Law requires this, & so does the Federal Law that this new law specifically mirrors.

So, in the end, if the Supreme Court condones it, that's the end of the line, unless it's again brought to them for consideration, & they reverse the earlier ruling.

Originally posted by Denny77:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Something's wrong with the American system then. When you break the law you are investigated

After the fact......, you are investigated and deported...of course you jump the fence the next day and go and pick apples again. You are assuming a perfect world...not illegals taking advantage of freedoms Americans have enjoyed...or I should say, use to enjoy.

Would you like to be investigated before the fact? How would Arizona law or any law prevent anyone from returning after being deported? Quite an attitude to protect your freedoms by taking them away from others as a matter of principle.

Anyway, the thing with cars is easily preventable by regulation. This regulation is in force in I guess all EU countries: Require driver's license to be presented at purchase of cars.

The principle is the same as requiring ID when youngsters try to buy booze. Only in case of cars, the requirement to present the driver's license is unconditional and therefore works better. This requirement makes it an offense for the car salesman to sell a car without seeing the driver's license. At the same go, "illegals" can't buy cars, the same way as minors Of course, this logic does not apply if you assume car salesmen are also illegal and have a God-given right to be that.

There's really no reason why Americans should keep doing things the wrong way, allegedly protecting some presumed freedoms. It is not so hard to regulate correctly regarding prevention of crime. For example this guy is on the right tracks:

Originally posted by WastedCharlie:

As I said in an earlier post, if the easy part is finding work and the problem is tax avoidance then the best target of police action is the employer, not the individual.

It is not only the worker who is avoiding tax, but also the employer, isn't it so? By the same analogy, it was the car salesman who sold the car to an illegal. And who are all those people who give jobs to illegals? Why don't you focus on where the focus should be?

Illegals get busted for illegal activity anyway, thus racial profiling is unnecessary. It is only necessary if you assume race indicates crime.

Originally posted by ersi:

Why don't you focus on where the focus should be?

why don't you learn something about US law before you shoot off your mouth and show what you don't know.

Forget the explanation..

Originally posted by Denny77:

why don't you learn something about US law before you shoot off your mouth and show what you don't know.

Son, I have read this thread and didn't even miss your posts, right? Next time try to pay attention. But I understand it is bedtime in your time zone.

Originally posted by ersi:

Son

I am most likely old enough to be your grandpa..Don't misread my youthful approach to life....son indeed..
bedtime I seldom sleep anymore.. i worry constantly about my interface with the old ersie...

No I have a Dr's appointment to have my pacemaker checked..along with plumbing.. I still have excellent coverage and hopefully at least for my life time. Unless that Muslim Obama makes me take the oath..to Allah.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

That wasn't my post you quoted

Quick Quote doesn't work right, sometimes. Mostly when I click the wrong link.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

I did post a short while back that does give the Police the right to specifically target them based on their specific characteristics (being Hispanic/Mexican)---Racial Profiling as you call it---PROVIDING IT WASN'T THE SOLE REASON THEY WERE SELECTED FOR QUESTIONING. The police would need to have another reasonable suspicion of them being involved in illegal activity to be compliant with the Supreme Court Ruling. The Arizona Law requires this, & so does the Federal Law that this new law specifically mirrors.

It's still racial profiling. Moreover, there is no other factor that allows you to determine illegal immigrants from everyone in the country legally during normal activities. In the case that they had specific evidence that people were in the country illegally, they already had the power to check on them.
Either the law is redundant, or it is racist. Take your pick.

Originally posted by Redem:

Either the law is redundant, or it is racist

If I was stopped for speeding in your country and did not know the language. Would I be asked to provide ID or would that be racial profiling....raciest.
Would I have to provide passport, visa what ever, or could I say I was old Redm and be ticketed anonymously. If I could not produce any I D would I be taken into custody??Would that be raciest. If I didn't have ID and was there illegally What the xxxx then

Originally posted by Denny77:

If I was stopped for speeding in your country and did not know the language. Would I be asked to provide ID or would that be racial profiling....raciest.

When you are stopped for speeding, you are asked ID regardless of whether you know the language or not, citizen or not. The "profiling" happened when you were speeding, son.

Originally posted by ersi:

When you are stopped for speeding, you are asked ID regardless of whether you know the language or not, citizen or not. The "profiling" happened when you were speeding, son.

That is exactly right ....I am beyond help but explain it to the nitwits will you.

Thank you ersi

http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html

http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438712/index.html

see these before they are removed...

Originally posted by Denny77:

Originally posted by ersi:

When you are stopped for speeding, you are asked ID regardless of whether you know the language or not, citizen or not. The "profiling" happened when you were speeding, son.

[....]I am beyond help but explain it to the nitwits will you.

Thank you ersi

When you realise what you are talking about, there will be a chance you will realise what others are talking about. But until then, yes, you are beyond help.

No need to thank me, but I appreciate it

Originally posted by ersi:

But until then, yes, you are beyond help.

About time you realized it.. Now maybe we can have a reasonable, well somewhat considering my malfunctions, conversation on many and varied issues...

Originally posted by Redem:

It's still racial profiling. Moreover, there is no other factor that allows you to determine illegal immigrants from everyone in the country legally during normal activities. In the case that they had specific evidence that people were in the country illegally, they already had the power to check on them.

Either the law is redundant, or it is racist. Take your pick.

It may be redundant, but there is quite a bit of that in our governmental system. One thing about our system is that even though the laws are on the books, some may choose to prosecute the law, while others will ignore their obligations, & turn their blind eye to the problem. By passing this Law this is a way for the State of Arizona to ensure the laws that were created to protect the greater majority of Arizona's citizens are properly enforced---which is their right & obligation.

As far as racial profiling, you may not like it --- I may not like it --- but until the law is changed, the Supreme Court's past rulings make it the 'Law of the Land'. Case closed, that is until the politicians change it through proper channels & process, or until the Supreme Court reviews it, & finds it needs to reverse & revise it's prior decision(s).

Aren't you glad you're a foreigner, & don't have a horse in this race, or any say in the outcome?

Are you comfortable with just standing on the sidelines, mildly showing your near voiceless discontent with a law you don't have any say in or affect on & will probably never have?

I may not have much more say in the matter than you, but if it somehow comes up for a vote, at least I may be able to voice my opinion through the power of my vote either for the law directly or for a representative who will exercise their vote in my behalf.

Annnnnnd it continues to get better and better:

The Los Angeles City Council voted 13-2 to boycott Arizona, although what exactly L.A. council members would be doing at a Diamondbacks game might require explanation to Dodger fans back home -- or spouses.

Now comes some hardball from a statewide elected Arizonan named Gary Pierce. He's a commissioner of the Arizona Corporation Commission, which regulates utilities there.

So what? you say.

Well, as our beloved buddy Ed Morrissey points out over at HotAir, it seems that Arizona's power plants generate about 25% of the electricity that runs what Briton Eddie Izzard calls the City of Angles.

In a delightfully stern letter written for the desert home front, possibly indicating Mr. Pierce's higher political ambitions, the commissioner warns Villaraigosa of the retaliation consequences of an LA city boycott.

Pierce writes:

"If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation.

I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.

People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A statewide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill."

So, the choice is clear. If L.A.'s Democrat pols follow through and stop buying turquoise jewelry and bolo ties from Arizona, the next-door Republican neighbors will arrange some uncomfortable brownouts during the coming warm days.

Somehow that seems just about right.

Here.

Excellent article!

Isaac Newton's Third Law of Motion states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This means that any force exerted onto an object has a counterpart force that is exerted in the opposite direction back onto the first object.

Yes, it only gets better!

Originally posted by Denny77:

If I was stopped for speeding in your country and did not know the language. Would I be asked to provide ID or would that be racial profiling....raciest.

Would I have to provide passport, visa what ever, or could I say I was old Redm and be ticketed anonymously. If I could not produce any I D would I be taken into custody??Would that be raciest. If I didn't have ID and was there illegally What the xxxx then

ID, yes, so that a ticket could be cited properly. Proof that you were legally in the country? Not likely. That is a normal and lawful contact between the police and any speeders. That is not a background check taken simply because you "looked" illegal.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

It may be redundant, but there is quite a bit of that in our governmental system.

Either it is redundant, in which case there is no reason for you to care, or to consider it a "victory", as you apparently do. That leaves us with the other option.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Aren't you glad you're a foreigner, & don't have a horse in this race, or any say in the outcome?

"Glad"? No, it doesn't bother me one way or another in those terms. My objection is twofold, that the law is unethical, and pretence that it is not.

Originally posted by Redem:

"Glad"? No, it doesn't bother me one way or another in those terms. My objection is twofold, that the law is unethical, and pretence that it is not.

How is it unethical? Would you likewise describe Mexico's own immigration policies as unethical?

Originally posted by Redem:

ID, yes, so that a ticket could be cited properly. Proof that you were legally in the country? Not likely. That is a normal and lawful contact between the police and any speeders. That is not a background check taken simply because you "looked" illegal.

There you go the point of the whole thing.. You do understand So what's the beef ??

That is not a background check taken simply because you "looked" illegal. ...

Half the people down there look illegal or in LA or San Francisco...Go to new York in some quarters...What a joke the whole argument.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

How is it unethical? Would you likewise describe Mexico's own immigration policies as unethical?

If they're similarly racist, yes. The difference being, I don't expect much better from Mexico.

Originally posted by Denny77:

That is not a background check taken simply because you "looked" illegal. ...

Yes, it is, that's precisely what it is. During contact with the cops, anyone who "looks" illegal will have to prove on the spot that they're in the country legally, or be detained while it is checked.

I received this E-mail this morning I thought I'd pass it on..
It pretty much sums up my opinion of this limp wristed Bullshit.
By the way the Arizona law pretty much mirrors federal law.

A word from Charlie Daniels

I don't know how everybody else feels about it, but to me I think Hispanic people in this country, legally or illegally, made a huge public relations mistake with their recent demonstrations. don't blame anybody in the world for wanting to come to the
United States of America , as it is a truly wonderful place.

But when the first thing you do when you set foot on American soil is illegal it is flat out wrong and I don't care how many lala land left heads come out of the woodwork and start trying to give me sensitivity lessons.

I don't need sensitivity lessons; in fact I don't have anything against Mexicans! I just have something against criminals and anybody who comes into this country illegally is a criminal and if you don't believe it try coming into America from a foreign country without a passport and see how far you get. What disturbs me about the demonstrations is that it's tanta-mount to saying, "I am going to come into your country even if it means breaking your laws and there's nothing you can do about it."

It's an "in your face" action, and speaking just for me, I don't like it one little bit and if there were a half dozen pairs of gonads in Washington bigger than English peas it wouldn't be happening.

Where are you, you bunch of lily livered, pantywaist, forked tongued, sorry excuses for defenders of The Constitution? Have you been drinking the water out of the Potomac again? And even if you pass a bill on immigration it will probably be so pork laden and watered down that it won't mean anything anyway. Besides, what good is another law going to do when you
won't enforce the ones on the books now?

And what ever happened to the polls, guys? I thought you folks were the quintessential finger wetters. Well you sure ain't paying any attention to the polls this time because somewhere around eighty percent of Americans want something done about this mess, and mess it is and getting bigger everyday.

This is no longer a problem, it is a dilemma and headed for being a tragedy. Do you honestly think that what happened in France with the Muslims can't happen here when the businesses who hire these people finally run out of jobs and a few million disillusioned Hispanics take to the streets?

If you, Mr. President, Congressmen and Senators, knuckle under on this and refuse to do something meaningful it means that you care nothing for the kind of country your children and grand-children will inherit. But I guess that doesn't matter as long as you get re-elected.

Shame on you!!

One of the big problems in America today is that if you have the nerve to say anything derogatory about any group of people (except Christians) you are going to be screamed at by the media and called a racist, a bigot and anything else they can think of to call you

Well I've been pounded by the media before and I'm still rockin' and rollin' and when it comes to speaking the truth I fear not.
And the truth is that the gutless, gonadless, milksop politicians are just about to sell out the United States of America because they don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to face reality. And reality is that we would never allow any other group of people to have 12 million illegal in this country and turn around and say, "Oh it's ok, ya'll can stay here if you'll just allow us to slap your wrist."

And I know that some of you who read this column are saying "Well what's wrong with that?" I'll tell you what's wrong with it. These people could be from Mars as far as we know. We don't know who they are, where they are or what they're up to and the way the Congress is going we're not going to.

Does this make sense? Labor force you say? We already subsidize corporate agriculture as it is, must we subsidize their labor as well? If these people were from Haiti would we be so fast to turn a blind eye to them or if they were from Somalia or Afghanistan ? I think not.

All the media shows us are pictures of hard working Hispanics who have crossed the border just to try to better their life. They don't show you pictures of the Feds rounding up members of MS 13, the violent gang who came across the same way the decent folks did. They don't tell you about the living conditions of the Mexican illegal some fat cat hired to pick his crop.

I want to make two predictions.

No. 1: This situation is going to grow and fester until it erupts in violence on our streets while the wimps in Washington drag their toes in the dirt and try to figure how many tons of political hay they can make to the acre.

No 2: Somebody is going to cross that border with some kind of weapon of mass destruction and set it off in a major American city after which there will be a backlash such as this country has never experienced and the Capitol building in Washington will probably tilt as Congressmen and Senators rush to the other side of the issue.

I don't know about you but I would love to see just one major politician stand up and say, "I don't care who I make mad and I don't care how many votes I lose, this is a desperate situation and I'm going to lead the fight to get it straightened out."

I don't blame anybody for wanting to come to America , but if you don't respect our immigration laws why should you respect any others?
And by the way, this is America and our flag has stars and stripes, Get that other one out of my face.

Charlie Daniels


AMERICA IS MY COUNTRY. IF IT IS YOUR COUNTRY, SPEAK UP!
I am not against immigration - just come through like everyone else
Get a sponsor; have a place to lay your head;
have a job; pay your taxes; live by the rules;
and
LEARN THE LANGUAGE , as all other immigrants have in the past....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States

The Majority of LEGAL immigrants in the U.S. per year are Mexican.

Country #/year 2000 2004 2010 2010, %
Mexico 175,900 841,000 8,544,600 9,600,000 23.7%

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/77353_citizen05.shtml

And for those of you complaining of Higher educational costs...

Breaking the Piggy Bank: How Illegal Immigration is Sending Schools Into the Red
With states straining under gaping budget shortfalls, public schools throughout the country are facing some of the most significant decreases in state education funding in decades. In some states, drastic cuts mean lay-offs for teachers, larger class sizes, fewer textbooks, and eliminating sports, language programs, and after-school activities. Nearly two-thirds of the states have cut back or proposed reductions in support for childcare and early childhood programs. Some are even shortening the school week from five days to four.

While these massive budget deficits cannot be attributed to any single source, the enormous impact of large-scale illegal immigration cannot be ignored. The total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants costs the states nearly $12 billion annually, and when the children born here to illegal aliens are added, the costs more than double to $28.6 billion.1

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

The total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants costs the states nearly $12 billion annually, and when the children born here to illegal aliens are added, the costs more than double to $28.6 billion.1

Dear Sir,

Surely you don't mean to say that the parents don't need to show any kind of ID before the child gets to attend school? Oh, you mean precisely that? Now there is a self-caused problem if I ever saw one. Please focus on the cause instead of consequence..

Originally posted by ersi:

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

The total K-12 school expenditure for illegal immigrants costs the states nearly $12 billion annually, and when the children born here to illegal aliens are added, the costs more than double to $28.6 billion.1

Dear Sir,

Surely you don't mean to say that the parents don't need to show any kind of ID before the child gets to attend school? Oh, you mean precisely that? Now there is a self-caused problem if I ever saw one. Please focus on the cause instead of consequence..

Indeed, same with all that whining about illegals supposedly getting all sorts of government benefits - it's hard enough to get them legitimately, how they supposedly manage to get anything without ever proving at least lawful residency is beyond me

Originally posted by Redem:

Yes, it is, that's precisely what it is. During contact with the cops, anyone who "looks" illegal will have to prove on the spot that they're in the country legally, or be detained while it is checked.

Crap they will end up in court so fast even you couldn't be able to talk your way out. I think some people were under nourished as children.

edit:.The bill states if a cop stops someone because if race or color of skin he will be fired.. I guess Arizona doesn't want to be sued either..

That is simply ass covering. Looking illegal is the only criteria that differs illegal immigrants from everyone else.

I saw on TV two hours ago that the law won't be changed or withdrawn, if anything it will be more vigorously enforced now, being that it looks like the Federal Government, through the office of the Attorney General, Obama's chief henchman, has determined that it can't, & won't, be challenged on Constitutional grounds.

Originally posted by Redem:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

How is it unethical? Would you likewise describe Mexico's own immigration policies as unethical?

If they're similarly racist, yes. The difference being, I don't expect much better from Mexico.

Now, THAT'S racist.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Indeed, same with all that whining about illegals supposedly getting all sorts of government benefits - it's hard enough to get them legitimately, how they supposedly manage to get anything without ever proving at least lawful residency is beyond me

Been to any county health departments lately? "I don't see it happening, therefore it doesn't happen!" Sharp.

One way that it happens is that being born in this country makes one a citizen and eligible. Like I said, I'm for immigration after securing the border -- most immigrants are certainly a net plus as far as contribution/taking are concerned -- but I'm tired as hell of dishonest arguments.

Oh, & where TF does the Mexican Presidente get off addressing the American people, while a guest much less, and lecture us on how to treat illegal immigrants from Mexico. The swine! He should round up his illegal tribe (leave those in the USA legally, they are most welcome & appreciated)---we'll even be glad to assist him--and take them all back when he leaves American soil---the sooner the better! El Presidente, fix yer own damn problems first before lecturing us on how to fix ours!

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Now, THAT'S racist.

Nope, just the difference between indivudal governments. Mexico is a third world nation, the US is not. They're also not guilty of massively promoting themselves as leaders of the free world.

Originally posted by Redem:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Now, THAT'S racist.

Nope, just the difference between indivudal governments. Mexico is a third world nation, the US is not. They're also not guilty of massively promoting themselves as leaders of the free world.

Yep. "The soft bigotry of low expectations". The use of the term by Bush doesn't invalidate it. Your comment illustrates it well.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Yep. "The soft bigotry of low expectations". The use of the term by Bush doesn't invalidate it. Your comment illustrates it well

A swine called by any other name would surely still be a pig!

Originally posted by ersi:

Dear Sir,



Surely you don't mean to say that the parents don't need to show any kind of ID before the child gets to attend school? Oh, you mean precisely that? Now there is a self-caused problem if I ever saw one. Please focus on the cause instead of consequence..

My sister has set up Dual language programs in Washington State and Yes 99% of the childrens families are here illegally.
Yesterday While visiting a grade school Mrs Obama and The Predsident of Mexicos wife were informed by a school child that she and her mother were here illegally. That was Mrs Obamas reaction.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Been to any county health departments lately? "I don't see it happening, therefore it doesn't happen!" " width="17" height="22"> Sharp.

Check out any emergency waiting room.... Dual language everywhere.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Oh, & where TF does the Mexican Presidente get off addressing the American people, while a guest much less, and lecture us on how to treat illegal immigrants from Mexico.

His country needs the income that is sent home from the workers here.

Originally posted by ersi:

Dear Sir,

Surely you don't mean to say that the parents don't need to show any kind of ID before the child gets to attend school? Oh, you mean precisely that? Now there is a self-caused problem if I ever saw one. Please focus on the cause instead of consequence..

[/quote]

You've got to be living in Europe, or in an isolation ward for the criminally insane not to know that all you need to do is show up with a child, attach the child to a name--any name, & offer it to the school registrar for enrollment. You will almost never be asked for any type of ID, & never ever asked if you are a citizen. Even if you tell them they will just probably say "ssshhhhhhh, mantenga que a ti mismo". Except on TV, the Federal Government doesn't enforce the Immigration Laws hardly at all. The greater majority of American Citizens wan't them to, but it actually happening is few & far between.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Yep. "The soft bigotry of low expectations". The use of the term by Bush doesn't invalidate it. Your comment illustrates it well.

That is still a false parsing of my post. I did not say I expect little of them because they're mexican, but because their nation does not exemplify modern civilised values. The US tries, and talks a good game, and this is an example of them falling far short of the mark.

Originally posted by Redem:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Yep. "The soft bigotry of low expectations". The use of the term by Bush doesn't invalidate it. Your comment illustrates it well.

That is still a false parsing of my post. I did not say I expect little of them because they're mexican, but because their nation does not exemplify modern civilised values. ...

People in Arizona could use the same excuse.

No, they could not. They still insist on targeting people based on race, thus harassing people who are innocent for no good reason.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by ersi:

Dear Sir,

Surely you don't mean to say that the parents don't need to show any kind of ID before the child gets to attend school? Oh, you mean precisely that? Now there is a self-caused problem if I ever saw one. Please focus on the cause instead of consequence..

You've got to be living in Europe, or in an isolation ward for the criminally insane not to know

Why are there no such problems with illegal immigrants in Europe? Or in an isolation ward for the criminally insane for that matter? It's because those organisations know how to avoid self-caused problems. They don't cause problems to themselves and then scream "It's them who are the problem!" and attack human rights head-on. The solution is so ridiculously easy you have to be criminally insane not to see it.

Due to ineffective border control in some countries there is an enormous problem of illegal immigration into Europe with a resulting cost to the legitimate populations in housing shortages, depressed wages, pressure on the educational and health systems -- and overall social cohesion and any feeling of community.

London, notably, is now "home" for people who have zero connection with this country. French-speaking Africans, Israelis, Brazilians, Albanians, Afghans, Russians -- the list would include almost any nation you care to mention that has "surplus" population. Many are from regions whose cultures (especially in attitude towards women) are hostile to our liberal traditions. UK is particularly vulnerable because English is so widely spoken that we are a natural destination -- and due to our welfare system offering financial assistance, healthcare and housing on the basis of need rather than entitlement.

The beneficiaries are bad employers and bad landlords.

Of course the middle class are less worried -- for the first time since World War 2 they can afford to employ servants. It's much the same as I saw in Los Angeles -- to take a small example -- many people there are too lazy to look after their own gardens, clean their houses or cook and eat meals at home -- and an army of illegals is happy to cater for them.

Originally posted by fihart:

Due to ineffective border control in some countries there is an enormous problem of illegal immigration into Europe with a resulting cost to the legitimate populations in housing shortages, depressed wages, pressure on the educational and health systems -- and overall social cohesion and any feeling of community.

In Europe both the problem and the entire concept illegal immigrants are totally different. In Europe illegal immigrants cannot use any of the services substantially without being accepted in the country first. "Accepted" meaning given a written permission to stay after handling their issues at a refugee camp and then provided a place to live and work elsewhere. After "accepted" they can't be "illegal".

A refugee camp is an institution with full autonomous services of its own, such as catering, cleaning and healthcare, provided by the proper personnel. The camps are organised as a subset of the border guards or state police or both.

Illegal immigrants in Europe are only found at refugee camps. They can't survive long on the streets, if they can't handle the life-style of the homeless. There are no well-established autonomous communities of illegal immigrants who are able to take in more of the same independent of the state authorities, as seems to be the case in America.

The solution to most problems related to mobility of people is to require ID when dealing with any official business, such as all social services, naturally, and in case of all regulated transactions also, like when dealing in banks, buying an apartment, a car, a gun, etc.

Originally posted by ersi:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by ersi:

Dear Sir,

Surely you don't mean to say that the parents don't need to show any kind of ID before the child gets to attend school? Oh, you mean precisely that? Now there is a self-caused problem if I ever saw one. Please focus on the cause instead of consequence..

You've got to be living in Europe, or in an isolation ward for the criminally insane not to know

Why is there no such problems with illegal immigrants in Europe? Or in an isolation ward for the criminally insane for that matter? It's because those organisations know how to avoid self-caused problems. They don't cause problems to themselves and then scream "It's them who are the problem!" and go head-on against human rights. The solution is so ridiculously easy you have to be criminally insane not to see it.

[/quote]

Why not in Europe? I don't know, honestly I don't know. But what I stated earlier was fact, not fiction.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the 'self-caused problem' angle. I agree it has been caused within the system, has been out of control for many years through many Administrations, led by both parties. People have been complaining about it for quite a long time, but just when somebody seems to have the balls to do a little something about it (on the side of irony relating to balls, the Arizona Governor is a woman) the political left goes into Crocodile Tear Hysterics, & the Mexican Sombrero becomes the new National symbol for martyrdom!

"In Europe both the problem and the entire concept illegal immigrants are totally different. In Europe illegal immigrants cannot use any of the services substantially without being accepted in the country first. "Accepted" meaning given a written permission to stay after handling their issues at a refugee camp and then provided a place to live and work elsewhere. After "accepted" they can't be "illegal"."


Ersi I don't know which planet, let alone which continent, you are living on -- your theoretical description would puzzle anyone living in a large British metropolis. There are illegals arriving nightly by truck, many are absorbed as indentured labour by ruthless expatriates already here. They are housed in illegally overcrowded small flats owned by immigrant landlords. We had a clear example of this a few years ago:

www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/immi-f11.shtml -

Originally posted by fihart:

Ersi I don't know which planet, let alone which continent, you are living on -- your theoretical description would puzzle anyone living in a large British metropolis. There are illegals arriving nightly by truck, many are absorbed as indentured labour by ruthless expatriates already here. They are housed in illegally overcrowded small flats owned by immigrant landlords. We had a clear example of this a few years ago:

www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/immi-f11.shtml -

The answer to the problem on your "planet" is in the first paragraph of the article you pointed to::

The Blair government is seeking to wash its hands of any responsibility for the fate of these workers and their families. But it is its anti-asylum and immigration policies that are driving thousands of workers into the clutches of ruthless criminal gangs who are only too ready to exploit their destitution.

Letting criminal gangs flourish as autonomic social and economic entities is a self-caused problem.

"Illegal immigrants in Europe are only found at refugee camps. They can't survive long on the streets, if they can't handle the life-style of the homeless. There are no well-established autonomous communities of illegal immigrants who are able to take in more of the same independent of the state authorities, as seems to be the case in America."


To quote you again, Ersi, your picture is theoretical and based on law, not on practical examples.

We are not letting criminal gangs flourish, we are hogtied by political correctness and human rights law which disregards the needs of the indigenous population.

Originally posted by ersi:

The answer to the problem on your "planet" is in the first paragraph of the article you pointed to

Just the word "Blair" should be a tip-off already. That said, fihart certainly has a point. There are people living here illegally, the main differences are in scale. Britain has a comparatively large number of illegal immigrants.

Originally posted by fihart:

We are not letting criminal gangs flourish, we are hogtied by political correctness and human rights law which disregards the needs of the indigenous population.

These are the main excuses for letting them flourish, I know. Excuses are never good enough for me.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

That said, fihart certainly has a point. There are people living here illegally, the main differences are in scale. Britain has a comparatively large number of illegal immigrants.

Let's then rephrase my point as long as you get it:

All problems caused by the discrepancy of law and practice are self-caused, as are problems stemming from illogical legislation that simply cannot work.

I'm fairly sure that most illegal immigrants come as legal tourists first. Unless you wish to abuse tourists (which the US and the UK are already doing ftr) then I don't really see how you intend to avoid that. How the illegals get housing I don't know (it's hard enough as a local or legal immigrant), so perhaps improvements can be made there. Then again, many of these are just family members of legal immigrants that are essentially made illegal by the overly strict Dutch immigration law. As such I would definitely call the increase of illegal immigrants a self-caused problem due to making more people illegal who shouldn't have to be. On a related note, see the legality of Anne Frank & family. But how you wish to prevent this kind of thing I'm not quite sure.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

But how you wish to prevent this kind of thing I'm not quite sure.

Insofar as we agree on the self-caused bit, this paragraph summarises the essential salf-causedness of the issue:

Alves' story is just one amongst the tens of thousands of similar ones lived by immigrants living and working in the Netherlands without a permit. Most live here for a couple of years to make money for the families they have left behind or to build a good life in their country of origin.

Opportunities to work illegally are a problem, regardless whether the workers are immigrants or natives.

Originally posted by ersi:

nsofar as we agree on the self-caused bit, this paragraph summarises the essential salf-causedness of the issue:

Alves' story is just one amongst the tens of thousands of similar ones lived by immigrants living and working in the Netherlands without a permit. Most live here for a couple of years to make money for the families they have left behind or to build a good life in their country of origin.

Opportunities to work illegally are a problem, regardless whether the workers are immigrants or natives.

Indeed.

Originally posted by Redem:

Looking illegal

OK

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by Redem:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Yep. "The soft bigotry of low expectations". The use of the term by Bush doesn't invalidate it. Your comment illustrates it well.

That is still a false parsing of my post. I did not say I expect little of them because they're mexican, but because their nation does not exemplify modern civilised values. ...

People in Arizona could use the same excuse.

Originally posted by Redem:

No, they could not. They still insist on targeting people based on race, thus harassing people who are innocent for no good reason.

Sure they could. They could say, like you, that it isn't racial at all, just that illegal immigrants "don't exemplify modern civilised values". Prove otherwise.

Because they're targeting people based on race, my description of Mexico's political situation is not.

Here's an update:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/01/nation/la-na-arizona-immigration-20100501

Arizona lawmakers modify immigration law
-Legislators ban race from being used by police as a factor to identify illegal immigrants and require scrutiny only of people who police stop, detain or arrest.

- May 01, 2010
"The Arizona Legislature has narrowed a controversial immigration law in response to allegations that the measure legalized racial profiling and forced police to determine the immigration status of everyone they encountered on the streets.

The initial law, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer last week, required police to determine a person's immigration status if officers formed a reasonable suspicion about their legality during any "lawful contact." That led to suggestions by some legal experts that police would be obligated to scrutinize even people who asked for directions. A Phoenix police officer who patrols an area near a school sued, contending that it would require him to ask children he encounters during the day if they are in the country legally.

Lawmakers on Thursday night changed the language to require scrutiny only of people who police stop, detain or arrest. They also changed a section of the bill that barred officers from "solely" using race as grounds for suspecting someone is in the country illegally; opponents had argued that that would allow race to be a factor. The legislators removed the word "solely" to bar race from being used by officers enforcing the law.

"It absolutely clarifies what the intent was," said Paul Senseman, a spokesman for Brewer, who supported the changes and is expected to sign them into law. "It's undeniable now that this bill will not lead to racial profiling."

Opponents of the bill, who to date have filed three federal lawsuits against it and promise more, said the changes would make little difference.

"They're nice cosmetic changes," former state Sen. Alfredo Gutierrez said Friday during a news conference at which activists called for a boycott against Arizona and companies based in the state. "But they're insufficient."

The Arizona law, which also makes it a state crime to lack immigration papers, is the toughest measure against illegal immigration in the nation. It has been denounced by a wide range of people, including President Obama and Colombian pop star Shakira. In a Gallup poll, 51% of Americans who'd heard of the Arizona law supported it; 39% of those who had not heard of the law supported it. Its backers say it is needed to stem the tide of illegal immigration into Arizona, the favored gateway across the Mexican border."

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

it a state crime to lack immigration papers,

Oh no not that !! They have gone too far now....

Do you carry proof that you are in the US legally with you wherever you go?

Originally posted by Redem:

Do you carry proof that you are in the US legally with you wherever you go?

Yes. A driver's license.

Originally posted by Redem:

Because they're targeting people based on race, my description of Mexico's political situation is not.

Prove that you're not targeting based on race. Looked like it to me.

Originally posted by Redem:

Do you carry proof that you are in the US legally with you wherever you go?

Absolutely, I always had a Drivers License, but aside from that I always carried a copy of my Birth Certificate & SS Card. Any & all would enable any policeman to ascertain my citizenship. Unfortunately times have changed since 9/11, & we have lost a few liberties because of it, but that being the harsh reality, anyone nowadays that don't carry similar forms of ID deserve to have a little inconvenience in their lives, & if anyone is found to be illegal beyond doubt, regardless of their pleading & carrying on, they should have their asses skipped back across the Rio Grand like a smooth stone post haste...boing....boing....boing....boing. Culo Adiós!!

If they ain't from South of the Border, they should be shipped back to whence they came by the cheapest, most uncomfortable transport possible so they never want to come back again. Want to listen to the music? You must be willing to pay the band. Break our immigration laws, our immigration laws break you!

Anyone willing to conform with our Immigration Laws, anyone who is willing to follow any & all the proper procedures for residency, anyone who is willing to take on the difficult task of learning & speaking English, anyone who is willing to leave their system of laws at the border, & take on obedience to the laws of the United States as their own, is welcome to come & live. All they will be promised is life, liberty (whatever is left when they get here), & the pursuit of happiness. Admission into the United States of America is not a right, it is solely a privilege extended by the American Peoples who expect that if they want to live in America they must conform to the American way of life, & melt homogeneously into the American cultural fabric.

Don't want to submit to the above, then stay the hell out---you are not welcome! Ignore the above, show indifference to our laws, & enter illegally anyway, a pox on you & the souls of your children! At the earliest opportunity hopefully you will be hunted down & ejected like the vermin you imitate!

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Yes. A driver's license.

Always? Even when you're just popping out to the corner shop for a carton of milk?

Further, would you support legislation that required everyone to always carry ID with them at all times? That is what this amounts to, effectively, as long as you look hispanic.

Originally posted by Redem:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Yes. A driver's license.

Always? Even when you're just popping out to the corner shop for a carton of milk?

Yeah, it's in my wallet, which is usually in my back pocket. My Social Security card's in there too.

Originally posted by Redem:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Yes. A driver's license.

Always? Even when you're just popping out to the corner shop for a carton of milk?

Always, I NEVER leave home without it (my wallet)

Originally posted by Redem:

Further, would you support legislation that required everyone to always carry ID with them at all times? That is what this amounts to, effectively, as long as you look hispanic.

Yes, I always have & always will. There's no reason not to. If I was Hispanic it's a no-brainer---law or no law, carry it.

The only people that should not be required to carry legal ID would be Illegal Aliens. They're only required to carry bogus ID.

Think about this for a second: without such legislation a pickpocket gets lucky if there's more than a wallet and a few bucks. With such legislation pickpockets can be sure that you're carrying a legal document with you, which can subsequently be used for all kinds of illegal activities.

Originally posted by Redem:

Always? Even when you're just popping out to the corner shop for a carton of milk?

You must be suspected of a crime ...Why do you discuss something you obviously don't have a fuxxing clue about what you are saying?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Think about this for a second: without such legislation a pickpocket gets lucky if there's more than a wallet and a few bucks. With such legislation pickpockets can be sure that you're carrying a legal document with you, which can subsequently be used for all kinds of illegal activities.

Think about THIS for a second: that's always been the case.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Think about this for a second: without such legislation a pickpocket gets lucky if there's more than a wallet and a few bucks. With such legislation pickpockets can be sure that you're carrying a legal document with you, which can subsequently be used for all kinds of illegal activities.

Think about THIS for a second: that's always been the case.

No, it hasn't. You're speaking about your own behavior again, aren't you?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Think about this for a second: without such legislation a pickpocket gets lucky if there's more than a wallet and a few bucks. With such legislation pickpockets can be sure that you're carrying a legal document with you, which can subsequently be used for all kinds of illegal activities.

Think about THIS for a second: that's always been the case.

No, it hasn't. You're speaking about your own behavior again, aren't you?

Yes, it has, as long as there have been driver's licenses, Social Security cards and credit cards. People have been carrying more than just cash for quite a while now. Get with it, this isn't hard.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Absolutely, I always had a Drivers License, but aside from that I always carried a copy of my Birth Certificate & SS Card.

Eh? I always have my driver's license with me (in my wallet), but don't you think that the other two are a bit risky in case you are pickpocketed?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Yes, it has, as long as there have been driver's licenses, Social Security cards and credit cards. People have been carrying more than just cash for quite a while now. Get with it, this isn't hard.

Some people. Some chance of obtaining IDs to abuse for, I don't know, getting illegal immigrants into the country vs. near-certainty. A credit card is a completely different beast from an ID. I'll have the most stuff on me when I'm out of the city I live in, particularly when I'm in a different country. If you carry everything on you all the time then frankly I'd think about changing that. Before I had to have my ID on me all the time I usually had little more on me other than some cash. Well, and right now I may drop by the grocery store with just some cash since within 200m from your home you don't have to have your ID on you. But yeah, you never do such a thing and don't see why anybody would. Clearly Redem, plenty of people I know, and I do.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Absolutely, I always had a Drivers License, but aside from that I always carried a copy of my Birth Certificate & SS Card.

Eh? I always have my driver's license with me (in my wallet), but don't you think that the other two are a bit risky in case you are pickpocketed?

I've never heard of anyone carrying a copy of their birth certificate around. Nor do I see why you'd carry a Social Security card around if you don't have to.

Never, never be caught without your fingerprints. It's a dead giveaway that something is fishy!

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Well, and right now I may drop by the grocery store with just some cash since within 200m from your home you don't have to have your ID on you. But yeah, you never do such a thing and don't see why anybody would. Clearly Redem, plenty of people I know, and I do.

Most people who carry wallets at all in this country carry a driver's license in that wallet. Carrying a SocSec card is discouraged, but mine is in my wallet anyhow. Most people I know don't just grab a handful of cash from the piggy bank and head to the store. Good Lord.

You already showed you actually knew what I was talking about when you said "Carrying a SocSec card is discouraged, but mine is in my wallet anyhow," so your straw man is sort of hollow.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

You already showed you actually knew what I was talking about when you said "Carrying a SocSec card is discouraged, but mine is in my wallet anyhow," so your straw man is sort of hollow.

Straw man? Most people here carry driver's licenses and have done so for quite a number of years. Your original point is meaningless, and muttering "straw man" won't change that.

If the driver's license is sufficient, perhaps.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

No, but it was probably a red herring

The red herring is the dumo demies trying to reinforce their base with Latin votes.

Originally posted by Denny77:

The red herring is the dumo demies trying to reinforce their base with Latin votes.

dumbo demies or some word I don't know?

Anyway, I don't even remember what that was about so I'll concede to whatever you were saying.

The Democratic party is trying to get votes for upcoming elections. That is main reason for the tactics out of Washington and liberal media regarding Arizona. They are scared to death with good reason..

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Think about this for a second: without such legislation a pickpocket gets lucky if there's more than a wallet and a few bucks. With such legislation pickpockets can be sure that you're carrying a legal document with you, which can subsequently be used for all kinds of illegal activities.

Yes, but in the 'Right to Carry States', where carrying a concealed loaded handgun is legal---along with the right to use it, that lil pickpocket is libel to get shot dead right there on the spot for simply applying his trade! BTW....in the 'Right to Carry States' incidences of crime are the lowest in the Nation.

I only carry mine 3 days a week. Let them figure which 3 days.

Originally posted by Denny77:

The Democratic party is trying to get votes for upcoming elections. That is main reason for the tactics out of Washington and liberal media regarding Arizona. They are scared to death with good reason..

Well, they're settin' themselves up for a rude awakening. Somewhere around 80% of all Americans now favor the Arizona Immigration Laws & applying the same!

Seems like lately every time the WhiteHouse & the Liberal Media bad mouths either the American Tea Party Movement or the Arizona Immigration Law, both get a boost in the National polls. That being said, I wish the Liberals would keep it up, we can't thank them enough for all the outpouring of support were experiencing!

Keep the mud flying Mr. O. yer the greatest!!

Let me see if I understand, a policeman is patrolling the streets, he watch two cars and want to decide which of the two drivers he can identified as an "illegal immigrant", one car where I go driving (hair black, Hispanic, U.S. citizen since birth, because I am from Puerto Rico) and in the other car is guided by Timothy McVeigh (blue eyes, white skin and is clearly viewed as a possible citizen/non-immigrant person).

Does this mean that the policeman who is supposed to ensure my safety "as a citizen" pull me over for a "suspicion of illegal immigrant" just because my skin color, and he let's a really terrorist go...

Give me a fu**ing break here

Originally posted by usatonycuba:

Let me see if I understand, a policeman is patrolling the streets, he watch two cars and want to decide which of the two drivers he can identified as an "illegal immigrant", one car where I go driving (hair black, Hispanic, U.S. citizen since birth, because I am from Puerto Rico) and in the other car is guided by Timothy McVeigh (blue eyes, white skin and is clearly viewed as a possible citizen/non-immigrant person).

There needs to be a drinking game over mentions of Hitler and Timothy McVeigh. They both seem to come up pretty frequently.

Originally posted by usatonycuba:

Let me see if I understand, a policeman is patrolling the streets, he watch two cars and want to decide which of the two drivers he can identified as an "illegal immigrant", one car where I go driving (hair black, Hispanic, U.S. citizen since birth, because I am from Puerto Rico) and in the other car is guided by Timothy McVeigh (blue eyes, white skin and is clearly viewed as a possible citizen/non-immigrant person).

Does this mean that the policeman who is supposed to ensure my safety "as a citizen" pull me over for a "suspicion of illegal immigrant" just because my skin color, and he let's a really terrorist go...

Give me a fucking break here

No, the policeman won't be asking you or anyone else, as he's patrolling the streets--basically watching traffic, if they are illegal immigrants or not.

According to the law he won't be stopping anyone, regardless if they look Hispanic or not, if they are illegal immigrants.

But if he sees you or anyone else go through a stop sign, or you or anyone else drive through a red light, or he notices you or anyone else has a broken tail light & when attempting to stop it doesn't come on, or you or anyone else is double parked while someone from the car hops into the store to get a pack of smokes, he can then, while investigating any of those illegal issue examples, ask you or anyone else for documentation if he suspects someone just might be an illegal alien. Why he decides to ask is solely at his own discretion. If he says because the guy looked Chicano, that's why I asked, he is within the boundaries of both State & Federal Law to do so, as decided by the United States Supreme Court.

It is required by law (both Federal & State) that there must be 'just cause'---'suspicion of other illegal activity' in order to ask you or anyone else for documentation.

According to the both Federal & State Law he is forbidden to stop you or anyone else & ask for documentation solely because they 'look' like they might be illegal, or solely because he 'thinks' you or anyone else might be illegal.

You or anyone else must be suspected of another illegal activity in order for him to stop, detain, or investigate & ask for documentation.

Those that are crying crocodile tears about, or screaming racism in regards to the Arizona Immigration Law, are making the Arizona Immigration a 'Red Herring' issue because it stands contrary to their liberal open-borders policy & one-world government agenda's. They want America to be a 'Halfway House' to the entire world, at the expense of the American taxpayers. They believe America should be open to anyone, from anywhere in the world, regardless of their individual health & political histories, without America having the right to ask them seemingly about anything.

Well, I hate to burst their silly little bubbles, but America is through bending over to those who wish us harm from inside & out.

America will not stand for it any longer, & if the elected government won't protect the borders, Americans will!

At the same time Americans will be replacing any government, through any means authorized in the United States Constitution & the American Bill of Rights, that refuses to act in accordance with those documents & the 'Will of the American People'!

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Yes, but in the 'Right to Carry States', where carrying a concealed loaded handgun is legal---along with the right to use it, that lil pickpocket is libel to get shot dead right there on the spot for simply applying his trade! BTW....in the 'Right to Carry States' incidences of crime are the lowest in the Nation.

Isn't that playing judge, jury, and executioner?

Moderator edit: This comment was removed for breaching our terms of service.

Originally posted by Denny77:

Originally posted by usatonycuba:

Give me a fucking break here

Ah, no break until you get a fucking brain.

who told you that my comment was directed to you? .. who are you to tell me that I need "fucking" brain?
Same bs all over the internet, hope to see what that can be IRL?

If the shoe fits well......

Originally posted by Denny77:

Originally posted by usatonycuba:

Give me a fucking break here

Ah, no break until you get a fucking brain.

Oh the irony

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Yes, but in the 'Right to Carry States', where carrying a concealed loaded handgun is legal---along with the right to use it, that lil pickpocket is libel to get shot dead right there on the spot for simply applying his trade! BTW....in the 'Right to Carry States' incidences of crime are the lowest in the Nation.

Isn't that playing judge, jury, and executioner?

Federal statistics do not support the assertion that crime rates are lower in right to carry states. If anything, they are higher in right to carry states.

Compare right to carry states such as Alaska, Texas, Louisiana and Tennessee against gun restricted states such as New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts or Connecticut.
http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html

If we look a countries where right to carry is severely restricted, such as in England where even most police are restricted from being armed, we find that violent gun crime is much lower.

We also find that most nut jobs in the United States who go on shooting rampages do their dastardly deeds in right to carry states and most often get their weapons from states where gun laws are lax.

Ironically, the right to carry crowd crows about how they "protect" the general public but we've found in almost every instance when an armed confrontation takes place (either some nut job shooting into a crowd or an armed robbery) that the right to carry citizens, like all other citizens, disappear by melting into the woodwork. The right to carry citizens are not a deterrent to the criminals and the nutters. The "problem" always ends up being resolved by professionals - the police.

@Smileyfaze
Do you really believe That a policeman is Not going to stop a person by Their Appearance?

In the past joint press conference, President Obama acknowledged that "Arizona law has the potential to be used in a discriminatory manner" and said "I share the same frustrations" that generated the bill. ..I know that is true, by my own experience, already happened to me.. for my good fortune I have a way to slap their faces, Not just with a driver's license .. I have a Better ID card for them .. After a non reasonable pull over, it's me who will asks questions

Unfortunately, Give rights to the state or city police , to Exercise Functions of the Federal Government will end up in A Few cases of abuse and violation of Our rights as Citizens, as Also of many (people) Regardless of Their citizenship.

Today we see it as a compliment Fact That the Federal Law is put in the hands of a State Agency, but lets the water reach their level, and we will see more than a few complaints in Federal Courts for violation of our rights by State or City Police Agents.

@Denny77
Save the words, I tell you one more time .. I have not directed any comments to you in no time, I do not think it takes much brain to understand that, do you?.. If you will be redirected to me, try doing it without offending (at least not through a computer) .. I trust that you are smart enough to understand that. Thanks

Originally posted by usatonycuba:

In the past joint press conference, President Obama acknowledged that "Arizona law has the potential to be used in a discriminatory manner" and said "I share the same frustrations" that generated the bill.

I don't think Obama's an authority on the bill. Neither he nor anyone else in his administration seems to have read the thing. Obama says that the immigration system is "broken". How is it broken and what does he intend to do to fix it? If he "shares the frustrations", what's he going to do about it?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I don't think Obama's an authority on the bill.. ..what's he going to do about it?

Immigration laws belongs to the Federal Government, period.. that is a good start.

what's he going to do about it?

Well let us hope that President Obama, do something more reasonable to this Bill, which only affects minorities and shames us before the world ..Spoken to the House of Representatives and the Senate, will be a good way to generate a more sence reforms to that Bill.

America is not easy to govern (it is well known), but for the sake of our Nation, the citizens, and human rights it is better that although the law is in force, they make some reforms to protect such cases of abuse .. good shameful example would be : that a person who vicit our country, feel harassed when asked of his status in the country by a local authority.. just for a non-look as "North-American"..

"A lot of U.S. citizens are going to be swept up in the application of this law for something as simple as having an accent and leaving their wallet at home," said Alessandra Soler Meetze, president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.

The whole world is criticizing us, and I think rightly.. In the other hand, many people had found unconstitutional that Bill..

Originally posted by usatonycuba:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I don't think Obama's an authority on the bill.. ..what's he going to do about it?

Immigration laws belongs to the federal government, period.. that is a good start.

what's he going to do about it?

Well let us hope that President Obama, do something more reasonable to this Bill, ...

Yeah? Like what?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Originally posted by usatonycuba:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I don't think Obama's an authority on the bill.. ..what's he going to do about it?

Immigration laws belongs to the federal government, period.. that is a good start.

what's he going to do about it?

Well let us hope that President Obama, do something more reasonable to this Bill, ...

Yeah? Like what?

Originally posted by usatonycuba:

Spoken to the House of Representatives and the Senate, will be a good way to generate a more sence reforms to that Bill.

Originally posted by usatonycuba:

Spoken to the House of Representatives and the Senate, will be a good way to generate a more sence reforms to that Bill.

[/quote] Yeah, but what sort of reforms would you suggest?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Yeah, but what sort of reforms would you suggest?

Well, I ain't usatonycuba, but I have a suggestion. Throw more than a few of the employers of illegals into prison. Many more than a few. The idea that jobs won't be done without illegals is a myth that benefits both employers and illegals.

Your grapes and cabbages will cost more but there will be less unemployment in the country and far fewer people sneaking across the border.

As Jaybro saids: Throw more than a few of the employers of illegals into prison. Many more than a few. The idea that jobs won't be done without illegals is a myth that benefits both employers and illegals.

Perhaps avoiding the uncontrolled sale of firearms, those ending in Mexico, representing 90% of the weapons possessed by the drug cartels, that way life would not be so horrible and insecure in Mexico, and they would have more resources to prevent the illegal departure of its nationals to the United States... laws are made to be respected.. totally agree, it is good that there are regulations against violations of our laws .. but provided that such laws do not entail violating the rights of others.

Perhaps, more caring and regulating our economy unnecessary and extravagant expenditures which we have neglected for years .. to strengthen our country internally (at all levels).. someone said (to help others, you should be able to help yourself first)

Some occasions the Remedy is worse than the disease.. The phenomenon of illegal immigration has many backgrounds, and is not something that grows in a single day, These people .. are human beings.. their leave children, wives and houses (in most cases) to seek a livelihood for their family.. This does not mean there is a reason to be violating our laws, but if we feed the violence in their countries (as mentioned on firearms) .. then we must accept the impact of it... (if we want peace in our home, we must respect the neighbor's house).

IMO the problem comes way back, whem the crisis start to showing up, the external debt our country jumped from 268 billion dollars in the early '90s, to more than 2.5 million million (25% of GDP), nearly the size of the economies of Germany and France combined... back in 2003 the world spent more than 900 billion dollars in military spending.. of which almost 50% of the total was the contribution of the United States.. Global military spending in a year is greater than what was more that we needed to meet the Millennium Development Goals past them. If every year were reduced 10% of global military spending, or 20% of our military spending, the MDGs would be fully covered... but that will take more than 20 years (staring now).

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Yeah, but what sort of reforms would you suggest?

Well, I ain't usatonycuba, but I have a suggestion. Throw more than a few of the employers of illegals into prison. Many more than a few. The idea that jobs won't be done without illegals is a myth that benefits both employers and illegals.

Mostly employers who can get away with paying below minimum wage and no benefits.
Otherwise - of course, if they can't find a job there's not much of a point in crossing the border illegally. And as long as there's no significant risk of getting caught there will be jobs for them. Probably much cheaper than 800 miles or whatever it is of Berlin wall style electrical fence.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Isn't that playing judge, jury, and executioner?

No, it's not playing at all! It's deadly serious, so those that illegally target & feed off of others BEWARE---the person you choose to quarry may just snuff you out, legally!

That's why the gun crime rates are lower in 'Right to Carry' States----whereas, the States that have the most comprehensive, & stringent gun laws seem to have a unusually high rate of gun crime when you do a honest comparison, not one where the numbers have been cooked by the anti-gun mob---Why?---The criminal has no fear of loss!

Geez, on US#1 between Melbourne & West Palm Beach, road rage incidents are virtually non-existant....why....because nobody wants to piss of someone that just 'might' be sitting next to his 'pride & joy' Beretta on the seat next to him.

Originally posted by usatonycuba:

@Smileyfaze

Do you really believe That a policeman is Not going to stop a person by Their Appearance?

Well, you have to hope that they follow the law as written, but what you claim really can be coupled to virtually any law that the police need to enforce.

Originally posted by usatonycuba:

The whole world is criticizing us, and I think rightly..

After all is said & done it's American Law, made to protect America, & the rest of the world will just have to deal with it----it's tough titty when they have ta chew the milk! Like, do you think most Americans care one little centavo? NOT.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Yeah, but what sort of reforms would you suggest?

Well, I ain't usatonycuba, but I have a suggestion. Throw more than a few of the employers of illegals into prison. Many more than a few. The idea that jobs won't be done without illegals is a myth that benefits both employers and illegals.

Your grapes and cabbages will cost more but there will be less unemployment in the country and far fewer people sneaking across the border.

Well I ain't usatonycuba either, but here is my suggestion. I say build towers all along the border(s) that can comfortably hold 3 people. Now, place 3 highly trained sharpshooters/snipers fully armed to the teeth with the latest technology (night vision, motion detection listeners, etc...etc....etc.....) in each tower. Give them full rights to shoot on sight, but train them to know the difference between somebody lost, & a cluster of Illegals attempting to enter illegally or drug smugglers attempting to move drugs across the border. Now, highly publicize both north & south of the border(s)---yes Canada too---for 6 months. I mean an all out media blitz like never before seen, that these blood thirsty, cold blooded marksmen exist, what they have been hired & trained to do, & that they are located all along the entire border eagerly awaiting for the opportunity to squeeze off a few rounds in silence.

Those that heed the message, & are fearful of loosing their lives, will stay home/away.

Those none to bright, & are stupid enough to still give it a run, will never be heard of again.

Either way, as José Doroteo Arango Arámbula would say, problemo resuelto!

PS....Also arrest those employers that blatantly & repeatedly ignore the US Immigration Laws. Brand them in some obvious way, say across the forehead, & strip them of their US Citizenship. Now, deport their asses to wherever, along with the Illegals they hired. Also, just for shits & giggles, pay the biggest & ugliest of the illegals to do whatever they want to him/her, when they get to the other side of the border, & post back an 8x10 glossy of their deed in the postage paid envelope provided.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Isn't that playing judge, jury, and executioner?

No, it's not playing at all! It's deadly serious, so those that illegally target & feed off of others BEWARE---the person you choose to quarry may just snuff you out, legally!

"Separation of powers for others, not for me. Rights for me, not for others."

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

I say build towers all along the border(s) that can comfortably hold 3 people. Now, place 3 highly trained sharpshooters/snipers fully armed to the teeth with the latest technology (night vision, motion detection listeners, etc...etc....etc.....) in each tower. Give them full rights to shoot on sight

Quod erat demonstrandum.