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 Smileyfaze:

That's a matter of personal opinion. Your personal opinion.

So you did understand that this law would cause Hispanic businesses to be raided and legal immigrants and US citizens harassed in the name of collecting a few illegals? You grasped that and support it anyway? That's not even fascist in the Italian Mussolini sense (He espoused a nationalism that said ALL Italians are valid citizens) The idea of supporting this knowing that the outcome would be like is worse then Fascism.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

These things can and are happening already. (emphasis added)

Have been, for decades… The article you linked to (and pasted into your post) could have been written in the early '80s. But that they're happening now (your insinuation) is the result of recent (non-liberal) political pressure.
Just how cynical and manipulative do you think the Obama administration is?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

My suggestion was noting that the wall worked, & you know it.

Yes, and after I had acknowledged that, I told how bad of an example that was.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

It keeps the overwhelming majority, almost all, of the bad guys out.

Bad guys is subjective. As usual with TP'ers, you lot always over-generalize.
The majority of the Palestinians are not terrorists, rather they are just in a crappy situtation.
They must put up with Israel's state-sanctioned terrorism on a monthly basis.

Other than all of that, which you seemingly didn't think of beforehand, why lump all Mexicans as "bad guys"?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

I don't give a rats ass what the Israeli's do or don't do with their wall. That's their problem & their issue---not this one.

You should give a shit about it, because that is likely where WWIII will begin.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Checkpoints: Got papers, no problem. No papers, but are legal---a small detention while investigating. If legal, once your status is verified, you're in.

East Germany all over again eh?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Or maybe that it will work is what you fear most!?

No, it's not, and I fear nothing.

I am sick and tired of Republicans inching my country ever closer to a damn fascist state. Although I in no way resemble a Hispanic, I will be damned before I have to present my "papers" before entering Arizona ( I would tell them they can go f*** themselves), and soon enough, my home state which is loving the new AZ law.
As far

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

But that they're happening now (your insinuation)

I posted the article showing that it happened. And it had the date on it! Is there something funny in the tea you guys are drinking?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

But that they're happening now (your insinuation)

I posted the article showing that it happened. And it had the date on it! Is there something funny in the tea you guys are drinking?

You forget the Teabagger's Prime Directive - blame Obama, if that's not feasible blame some random democrat senator, if that's not going to work either blame The Liberals and the media. As you can easily see those raids were clearly Obama's fault.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Although I in no way resemble a Hispanic, I will be damned before I have to present my "papers" before entering Arizona ( I would tell them they can go f*** themselves), and soon enough, my home state which is loving the new AZ law.

That's your personal prerogative. You're free to sit in detention as long as yer lil heart pleases!

Try that attitude the next time you go abroad, & then try to return to the International Airport International Arrivals of your choosing anywhere within the USA.

Customs won't take rightly to yer tone son!

Sang, since I'm pretty sure my meaning wasn't over your head, you must have ducked…

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Try that attitude the next time you go abroad, & then try to return to the International Airport International Arrivals of your choosing anywhere within the USA.

But I am not abroad yet.
As I am still in the country to which I was born and am a citizen of, you're damn skippy I'll tell 'em that.

Is this really what you want?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Customs won't take rightly to yer tone son!

Well, I don't "take rightly" to fascism within my country.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

My suggestion was noting that the wall worked, & you know it.

Yes, and after I had acknowledged that, I told how bad of an example that was.

It's just an Example. Just because Israel is one of yer pet peeves, you know exactly where I was coming from, so stop with the theatrics & focus on the Arizona Law & not what example I so happened to use.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

It keeps the overwhelming majority, almost all, of the bad guys out.

Bad guys is subjective. As usual with TP'ers, you lot always over-generalize.
The majority of the Palestinians are not terrorists, rather they are just in a crappy situtation.
They must put up with Israel's state-sanctioned terrorism on a monthly basis.

Other than all of that, which you seemingly didn't think of beforehand, why lump all Mexicans as "bad guys"?

I'll rephrase that, being that you Liberals are so pedantic.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

It will keep the overwhelming majority, almost all, of the bad guys out.

As far as me lumping all Mexicans as "bad guys". I didn't-----you did.

Just because the wall is on the border between the USA & Mexico, don't for one second presume I meant 'only bad Mexicans', I meant EVERYONE. The Good, The Bad, & in Sanguinemoon's case The Ugly. Mexican, Ukranian, Canadian, American, Israeli, Brit, & even Mongolians too! EVERYONE, period. Nobody has a right to entry without documentation, period. Only those with their proper documentation get in. It's exactly the same as with Customs located at any International Arrivals within the entire USA. No documentation, no entry. Citizen or not. Period.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

....you're damn skippy.....

WTF does that mean, somthin' to do with peanut butter, you lot speaks stwange!?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

It's just an Example.

Indeed it is. A horrible example.
You might as well have used the Berlin Wall, Comrade SF! *salutes*

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Just because it is one of yer pet peeves, you know exactly where I was coming from, so stop with the theatrics & focus on the Arizona Law & not what example I so happened to use.

Pet Peeves? No, not hardly.
As I have said (repeatedly), it's a horrible example to use. After you get done patting yourself on the back about it's success rate as compared to the Berlin Wall, the Great Wall of China, etc, keep in mind that your stance not only goes against the Libertarian position (which I noticed you have abandoned of late, though not before you tut tuted me a couple of weeks back about not adhering to every position 100%), but also (however stunningly) the American Spirit.
I use no theatrics. I post directly and to the point. Sub-topics pop up all the time in threads, and a Wall is well within discussing Immigration and any law that falls under that category. I'll dang well comment on your examples if I want to. This is a public forum after all, and if you didn't want your comments commented on, why post them or why not post them differently?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

I'll rephrase that, being that you Liberals are so pedantic.

I am no liberal, and it is hardly trivial at all.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

As far as me lumping all Mexicans as "bad guys". I didn't-----you did.

I was inquiring as to whether or not you lumped all Mexicans as "bad guys", considering that you put all Palestinians into the "bad guy" characterization. You say at length how much you admire the Israeli Wall of subjugation, how it keeps out the Palestinian "bad guys" and how we, the US, would do well well to copy Israel's example. Thus, it is quite logical that I should ask if you threw all Mexicans into the "bad guy" category.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Just because the wall is on the border between the USA & Mexico, don't for one second presume I meant 'only bad Mexicans', I meant EVERYONE.

I see, I'm glad we got the air cleared on that.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

The Good, The Bad, & in Sanguinemoon's case The Ugly. Mexican, Ukranian, Canadian, American, Israeli, Brit, & even Mongolians too!

I see. So after you got through launching your personal attack on Sang, you would prefer if we kicked out Allies out of the US as well?
(I'm fairly certain you are being sarcastic. (?)

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

It's exactly the same as with Customs located at any International Arrivals within the entire USA. No documentation, no entry. Citizen or not. Period.

Yes, except that rest don't racially profile people.
(Well, Muslims sometimes to get profiled as well.)

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

My suggestion was noting that the wall worked, & you know it.

Yes, and after I had acknowledged that, I told how bad of an example that was.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

It keeps the overwhelming majority, almost all, of the bad guys out.

Bad guys is subjective. As usual with TP'ers, you lot always over-generalize.
The majority of the Palestinians are not terrorists, rather they are just in a crappy situtation.
They must put up with Israel's state-sanctioned terrorism on a monthly basis.

Other than all of that, which you seemingly didn't think of beforehand, why lump all Mexicans as "bad guys"?

I'm sure that Hadrian's wall, the Great Wall of China and the Berlin Wall all worked in the beginning.

However, as I said, societies that hide behind walls are societies that are not vibrant and healthy, they are instead scared and degenerating. After time, the walls they thought would protect them will be nothing but sand.

Since Macallan chimed in with essentially the same mis-reading of what I said, I had better repeat what I said in clearer language… (Although I find these readings disingenuous.)

The article about ICE raids in Nevada, on the day the Arizona law was to go into effect, described events and attitudes that have recurred repeatedly over (at least) the last 30 years; a search of the archives of any large and many small newspapers would yield numerous examples. Do either of you contest this?

The implication seemed to be that they were unusual or something new, and that the current controversy prompted such. Was that not your point, Sanguinemoon?
And that the [insert your preferred pejorative] elements of American politics effected it somehow; the alternative being that the administration was deliberately heavy-handed, in order to show what enforcing even the current laws would mean?

But you may both continue to contend that I meant to question when the story referred to or when it was published…

Originally posted by BernG:

However, as I said, societies that hide behind walls are societies that are not vibrant and healthy, they are instead scared and degenerating.

I agree.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Since Macallan chimed in with essentially the same mis-reading of what I said, I had better repeat what I said in clearer language… (Although I find these readings disingenuous.)

Well, maybe it should tell you to be a little less vague. Seriously, it annoys the living crap out of me which is why I rarely respond to your posts anymore.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

I see. So after you got through launching your personal attack on Sang, you would prefer if we kicked out Allies out of the US as well?
(I'm fairly certain you are being sarcastic. (?)

Who's kickin' anyone out???????? That doesn't happen unless you are already in, ILLEGALLY


Customs is there to make sure that anyone who wants ENTRY is in possession of proper documentation.

Have it, & you are permitted to COME IN---WELCOME!

Don't have it, NO ENTRY.

Sometimes things happen that may cause you not to have it, say theft, or loss. Here you will be understandably inconvenienced with having to wait temporarily while Customs establishes your identity & status before you are allowed to continue----as they always have in the past.

Rough concept I know (sarc), but this is how ALL countries establish safe, secure borders on behalf of their citizens. If one that doesn't follow similar procedures exists, then I'd like to know who it is. I am well traveled---I don't know of any.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Have it, & you are permitted to COME IN---WELCOME!

And of course, afterwards, if you are not white or black, be prepared to get stopped every 500 yards or so for inspection of "proper documentation".

I have no problems with making sure people have the proper ID. That should be done and done well.
What I take issue with is the racial profiling and singling-out of Latinos and other non-Caucasians/African-Americans.
That goes directly against my American values, and I am appalled at the large number of people who enthusiastically support such profiling.

What amuses me the most about it all, is the fact that those who most enthusiastically support building a wall like Israel's wall of subjugation/Berlin Wall, etc, are the one's who gripe the most and loudest about job losses of jobs that nearly 95% of Americans will not take. Ironically enough, those same people are the ones that hire illegals to work in the fields, construction work, etc! (I.E. unskiled labor)

On that note, get ready for a lot of this come November!

Originally posted by Macallan:

Well, maybe it should tell you to be a little less vague.

You mean, I should prefer context-free haphazardly constructed statement and innuendo? No thanks.

Originally posted by Macallan:

[…] which is why I rarely respond to your posts anymore

Hm. I assumed you either had no interest in the topics or had insufficient understanding of them to feel competent. I suppose –if you insist that my simple point was but vaguely posed– than another explanation is very likely; sad to say…

But now that the misunderstanding has been cleared up to the satisfaction of all: Would you care to respond to anything substantive?

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Well, maybe it should tell you to be a little less vague.

You mean, I should prefer context-free haphazardly constructed statement and innuendo? No thanks.

Come on, I know your reading comprehension is better than that.

Let me try, one more time…

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

The horror and the human rights violations are happening already, even outside Arizona. This a sign of what's to come.
http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12903328

Is this really what you support Oakdale, Smiley? Is this the type of America your really want. US citizen afraid to leave their homes? Businesses raided and every customer harassed. This article doesn't say it, but on Tv they just mentioned most of the people were not even illegal immigrants. This is the American that you, Sarah Palin and the TP are cheering in.

This is the situation we've had, for more than 30 years! It's the status quo ante Arizona's SB 1070.

It is decidedly misleading, to purport otherwise. (I was pretty sure that that is what I said…)

But "decidedly misleading" is okay, so long as the politically-correct venom is directed at politically-incorrect persons or groups?

BTW: I don't believe I've yet said here, if I support Arizona's SB 1070. That may be the actual cause of some misunderstanding; but pigeon-holing shouldn't be considered an acceptable substitute for (what did you call it, Mac?) reading comprehension.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

And of course, afterwards, if you are not white or black, be prepared to get stopped every 500 yards or so for inspection of "proper documentation".

Can I see your source documentation Senor, or is this your own personal undocumented & unsubstantiated paranoia shining through?

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

This is the situation we've had, for more than 30 years! It's the status quo ante Arizona's SB 1070.

a) It's not a good situation.
b) I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it got worse post 9/11, if not de jure then at least de facto.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

It is decidedly misleading, to purport otherwise. (I was pretty sure that that is what I said…)

I didn't see any purporting otherwise, and I bet that's what Macallan is talking about with reading comprehension, but I do think this makes it sound like you don't think that this situation is a bad thing.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

But "decidedly misleading" is okay, so long as the politically-correct venom is directed at politically-incorrect persons or groups?

If it was decidedly misleading, it was insinuating that the Obama administration was behind it, since it was about the situation as it was a few months ago, no?

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

BTW: I don't believe I've yet said here, if I support Arizona's SB 1070. That may be the actual cause of some misunderstanding;

No, I'm pretty sure it's the things you said, not whether or not you support some law.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I didn't see any purporting otherwise

Then whatever can Sanguinemoon have meant by "This [is] a sign of what's to come"? And what would Palin, the Tea Party Movement, and Arizona (and its unimplemented law) have to do with the situation?
Had he said something like "This is already bad enough, and has been for a long time; it will get much worse, if they have their way" I'd agree with you. And that's something that could profitably be discussed.
But he didn't; and one would have to torture his words to get them to give that sense.

No, I understood his post. Otherwise, he was really asking me and Smileyfaze if we'd reject the Tea Party Movement in favor of just this situation… Does that seem likely?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

but I do think this makes it sound like you don't think that this situation is a bad thing

U.S. immigration policy and enforcement is a debacle, and has been for a long time. The human costs of its incoherence and inconsistancy are enormous. (That's bad.) The economic costs are approaching the breaking point in many areas. (That's bad.)

The cultural costs of an increasing unassimilable underclass are –shall we say– bad? Hm. Can we say anything about that, without being denounced as [the epithet du jour]…? Probably not; and that's too bad.

So, I do think we need comprehensive reform…and soon. But I don't think a general and perpetual amnesty (de jure or de facto) is the answer. Not even for our neighbors to the south.
Guess what that makes me?

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Then whatever can Sanguinemoon have meant by "This [is] a sign of what's to come"?

That it'll make things worse rather than better?

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

But he didn't; and one would have to torture his words to get them to give that sense.

*shrugs*

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

No, I understood his post. Otherwise, he was really asking me and Smileyfaze if we'd reject the Tea Party Movement in favor of just this situation… Does that seem likely?

You mean the Tea Party movement is against the immigration law?

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

So, I do think we need comprehensive reform…and soon. But I don't think a general and perpetual amnesty (de jure or de facto) is the answer. Not even for our neighbors to the south.
Guess what that makes me?

Someone who doesn't support ideas just because they are "liberal" or "conservative" but on their own merit?

Hm. "On their own merit?" Let's see if you can sell that opinion of me…

What say, Sanguine? Was that all you meant, that a long-standing problem would/might be exacerbated by Palin and the Tea Parties and those rascally Arizonans? Or did you indeed mean to blame them for this incident somehow?

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Hm. "On their own merit?" Let's see if you can sell that opinion of me…

Extra! Extra! OakdaleFTL may not be a Tea Party supporter! Read all about it after donating $10 to the Fund Frenzie's Next Vacation Fund!

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Customs is there to make sure that anyone who wants ENTRY is in possession of proper documentation.

Customs doesn't stop you in the street going about your legal business and demand you provide those same papers simply because you look foreign.

It's not the same damn thing by any stretch of the imagination.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Then whatever can Sanguinemoon have meant by "This [is] a sign of what's to come"? And what would Palin, the Tea Party Movement, and Arizona (and its unimplemented law) have to do with the situation?

Ok. At this point clearly you're trolling. You were never this daft in the past.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

This is the situation we've had, for more than 30 years! It's the status quo ante Arizona's SB 1070.

No, it hasn't either. There have not been massive raids at hundreds of legal Hispanic businesses.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

The cultural costs of an increasing unassimilable underclass are –shall we say– bad? Hm. Can we say anything about that, without being denounced as [the epithet du jour]…? Probably not; and that's too bad.

Both haves of my family (Irish and Italian) were both "unassimilable" Come now. The difference between you and me is talk about what is really happening and what has happened. You repeat talking points.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

U.S. immigration policy and enforcement is a debacle, and has been for a long time. The human costs of its incoherence and inconsistancy are enormous. (That's bad.) The economic costs are approaching the breaking point in many areas. (That's bad.)

It's not the policy that causing the problems. You think America has a weak policy, but it does not (as I mentioned above with my personal experience with American immigration policy.) You have an economic powerhouse of a country right next to a developing country and how many miles of open, thinly populated desert. It might not even possible to stop illegal immigration Certainly arrest the "coyotes" and depart the illegals (short of raids on legal businesses just because the management and clientèle are brown) But think of the logistics, man. You could probably have multiple helicopters patrolling the length of the border, combined with ground paroles and thousands would still probably get through.

Is it difficult for Mexicans to obtain citizenship in Germany?

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Is it difficult for Mexicans to obtain citizenship in Germany?

Depends on their level of education I imagine.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Is it difficult for Mexicans to obtain citizenship in Germany?

Depends, if they have german relatives it's easy, otherwise it's a pain in the arse. German citizenship laws are quite insane.

Yup. I get it, Sang. You know what you know, and nothing's going to change that; for the benefit of others– I'll reserve the option of replying to your posts. But for the most part I'll let them speak for themselves.
I'm sorry you doubt the veracity of my experience… But what is one to do? Not only do you know what you know: That seems to be all that you know, and all you'll ever know.
Sobeit.

Originally posted by Redem:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Customs is there to make sure that anyone who wants ENTRY is in possession of proper documentation.

Customs doesn't stop you in the street going about your legal business and demand you provide those same papers simply because you look foreign.

It's not the same damn thing by any stretch of the imagination.

I know you just search for my name, barely skim over what I say, & then disembark on a tirade of slather in opposition.

If you took the time to read senor, you would have noted I was (we were--dawg & me) talking about Customs that would be stationed at "MY/OUR" Wall, & Customs Agents stationed at the International Arrivals in American Airports, just doing their job as usual. Can you ascertain the concept?

They were not some of your delightfully imaginary Gestapo Custom Agents that you envision raiding the Church of San Remo de Madona during First Communion Ceremonies, snatching up all things brown for torture, execution, or anything they so desire just for kicks.

Read, comprehend, speak----front to back----not back to front, put some extra effort into the comprehend part too.

No, Customs Agents don't stop you in the street going about your legal business, unless---regardless of what kind if business they're conducting---they know know for sure (or highly suspect because of credible information---not just a hunch) they/he/she is/are in the United States Illegally.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

I know you just search for my name, barely skim over what I say, & then disembark on a tirade of slather in opposition.

Hahaha wow. Persecution complex much?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but, no. You merely post such inane drivel that I often feel the desire to protest while browsing threads.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

If you took the time to read senor, you would have noted I was (we were--dawg & me) talking about Customs that would be stationed at "MY/OUR" Wall, & Customs Agents stationed at the International Arrivals in American Airports, just doing their job as usual. Can you ascertain the concept?

Indeed I can, however you were attempting to compare that to the Arizona law that is the subject of this thread, and claim that asking for papers is nothing. This is clearly not an accurate or fruitful comparison because customs do not harass people in the streets, which is what I posted.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

No, Customs Agents don't stop you in the street going about your legal business, unless---regardless of what kind if business they're conducting---they know know for sure (or highly suspect because of credible information---not just a hunch) they/he/she is/are in the United States Illegally.

As it should be, indeed. So why is this not good enough for Arizona, why do they need to do precisely this?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

They were not some of your delightfully imaginary Gestapo Custom Agents that you envision raiding the Church of San Remo de Madona during First Communion Ceremonies, snatching up all things brown for torture, execution, or anything they so desire just for kicks.

Ignoring the obvious hyperbole, Arizona has already done just that. Raiding legal businesses on nothing more substantial than it catered to Hispanic people.
It is an unwelcome injustice.

Originally posted by Redem:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

If you took the time to read senor, you would have noted I was (we were--dawg & me) talking about Customs that would be stationed at "MY/OUR" Wall, & Customs Agents stationed at the International Arrivals in American Airports, just doing their job as usual. Can you ascertain the concept?

Indeed I can, however you were attempting to compare that to the Arizona law that is the subject of this thread, and claim that asking for papers is nothing. This is clearly not an accurate or fruitful comparison because customs do not harass people in the streets, which is what I posted.

I am doing nothing of the sort, further proof that you didn't read what I posted, but rather than read you preferred cater to your imaginative obsessions.

I was specifically responding to a question of what I wanted to see happen in Arizona. Not a comparison, a specific answer to a specific question. Something you could have easily read, & would have hopefully comprehended, if you chose to take the time to do so! But you didn't, & that's why I'm setting the record straight right here. Not for your benefit, but for the others that might even remotely consider your misleading & totally erroneous interpretation of what I posted as having any credibility whatsoever.

This is a re-post of what I originally posted:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Is this really what you support Oakdale, Smiley? Is this the type of America your really want.

What I want is immaterial.

What should happen is simple.

The Federal Government should, through the Attorney General's Office, prosecute & enforce the immigration laws that are on the books. It's that simple, no sitting around the campfire singing Cumm-bye-yahhs playing nicety nice with our lawbreaking 'friends', just enforce the laws on the books. You're legal,,,,yer in. You're illegal,,,,yer out--go home apply through the proper channels, get the right papers, come back, & then you will be let in.

Why? Because you are legal.

You say you need money to support your family, if you become legal yer in---earn as much as you can, otherwise Tight Sneakers Sherlock, piss up a rope---yer outa here!

What I would like to see is a wall from the Gulf of Mexico (just east of South Bay, Texas) all the way to the Pacific Ocean, like the one's on the Israeli borders, with manned surveillance, patrols, checkpoints & the like. Why? Two simple words------IT WORKS!

So, I never tried in any way to compare my suggestion to any law. It was a direct answer to a specific question from Sanguinemoon, & also later explained to dawg.



The only thing that I would change about the above re-post in hindsight if I could would be this:

...What I would like to see is a wall from the Gulf of Mexico (just east of South Bay, Texas) all the way to the Pacific Ocean, like the one's on the Israeli borders, with manned surveillance, patrols, checkpoints & the like. Why? Two Three simple words------IT WILL WORK S !

That way it directs focus on my suggestion of a wall on the US Southern borders, rather than on any misconceptions one may have relating to the Israeli conflict & Palestinian dilemma. It's the wall, only the wall, & nothing but the wall----a wall on the US Southern Borders, not on Gaza or the West Bank or any other wall.

There will be no further debate by me regarding this issue of what I meant in the original post & the re-post above with you or anyone else. This is final, you stand corrected. If you are blind, I suggest you enjoy the darkness.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

rather than on any misconceptions one may have relating to the Israeli conflict & Palestinian dilemma.

In no way is what I posted a misconception, and you know this quite well.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

It's the wall, only the wall, & nothing but the wall----a wall on the US Southern Borders, not on Gaza or the West Bank or any other wall.

Exactly.
I just pointed out to SF how horrible a comparison he made was.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Can I see your source documentation Senor

In no way do I mean this to be rude, but if you look back at my previous posts in this thread, you will see my response to anyone asking for my "papers".

As for your Limbaugh-esque picture, if you can't face the facts, that is your problem I'm afraid.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

And of course, afterwards, if you are not white or black, be prepared to get stopped every 500 yards or so for inspection of "proper documentation".

Can I see your source documentation Senor, or is this your own personal undocumented & unsubstantiated paranoia shining through?

Dawg, I know what you personally would say if someone asked for your "papers", but what I was asking for here was merely what source documents did you use to make the claim above outside of you own 'inner feelings' "...if you are not white or black, be prepared to get stopped every 500 yards or so for inspection..."?

Those are specific claims, & I would like to see your source material validating these 'facts' if any exist. If there are none, no problem, I'd understand.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

but what I was asking for here was merely what source documents did you use to make the claim above outside of you own 'inner feelings' "...if you are not white or black, be prepared to get stopped every 500 yards or so for inspection..."?

This law of course.
The term/phrase "reasonable suspicion" that is included in the law. It gives the po-po the go-ahead to stop anyone who falls under that phrase. Do I fit under the "reasonable suspicion"text in the law? Do you? Does Jaybro? Does Obama/Bush?
Remove that phrase, and you remove the racial profiling, and thus, you (moslt likely) remove my opposition to the law. If I am not mistaken, there has been some talk of removing that damnable phrase.
Until then, common sense dictates that the term "reasonable suspicion" will fall directly on the entire Arizonian Hispanic population. The singling-out (racially profiling) of a race is un-American.
(As long as it remains in the law, my opposition to it will remain.)

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

The term/phrase "reasonable suspicion" that is included in the law. It gives the po-po the go-ahead to stop anyone who falls under that phrase. Do I fit under the "reasonable suspicion"text in the law? Do you? Does Jaybro? Does Obama/Bush?
Remove that phrase, and you remove the racial profiling, and thus, you (moslt likely) remove my opposition to the law.

If that phrase "reasonable suspicion" is out & out obvious 'Racial Profiling', & is that "Crystal Clear", then when interviewed why did the AG say that there were no supportable grounds to proceed with a lawsuit based solely upon 'Racial Profiling'?

Was it because there were other sections in the law that he felt confident enough with that actually would remove being searched in a way you describe---eliminating 'Racial Profiling' as an objection ?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

then when interviewed

I have no idea.
I've never been much on Eric Holder to begin with. Quite the dodgy character in my opinion.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Was it because there were other sections in the law that he felt confident enough with that actually would remove being searched in a way you describe---eliminating 'Racial Profiling' as an objection ?

Maybe so, we can only hope so anyway.

I think your crusade against "Racial Profiling", if it exists, is a noble one. But, does it actually exist in this law?

If it did I'm sure as shootin' that the Obama Administration--like no other-- would pounce on it like the 'Hammers of Hell', & take great joy in doing so, rooting out Racial Injustice in this case. Would Obama pass up such a victorious photo-op?? He can use all the help he can garner in his darkest hours (Polls show less than 42% job approval ratings for his Administration).

Perhaps, SF, you could explain to us poor deluded fools what the "reasonable suspicion" that let Arpio to raid the businesses that served Hispanic customers, and hold them until their immigration status could be proven?
It would seem that being brown was the only thing needed.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

I think your crusade against "Racial Profiling", if it exists, is a noble one.

Thanks, glad to see we agree.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

But, does it actually exist in this law?

From the dodgy term that McCain and the rest of his pals (dems included probably) approved of in the lettering of the law, I think it does.
That doesn't make a damn, seeing as how I can do nothing but protest, but I still think it does nonetheless.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Would Obama pass up such a victorious photo-op??

I doubt it.
Nor would (have) Bush, Clinton, Bush 41, Ronald "Iran Contra" Reagan, Jimmy "Inflation" Carter or Richard "I am not a crook" Nixon.

Originally posted by Redem:

Perhaps, SF, you could explain to us poor deluded fools what the "reasonable suspicion" that let Arpio to raid the businesses that served Hispanic customers, and hold them until their immigration status could be proven?
It would seem that being brown was the only thing needed.

Being that this is about SB1070, Did he cite this law as legal grounds for his actions, or would have he taken these actions even if there weren't a SB1070?

Personally, I think he would. He did prior to the law even being suggested in the first place.

Originally posted by Redem:

It would seem that being brown was the only thing needed.

Certainly seems that way to me as well.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Redem:

It would seem that being brown was the only thing needed.

Certainly seems that way to me as well.

May I ask, if 90+% of all the illegals in that area are brown, how does one go about doing anything related to the issue of illegal immigration enforcement without having this aura you cast over it that it is solely racially motivated against browns?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

May I ask, if 90+% of all the illegals in that area are brown

Hold on, where did the 90% figure come from?
I can't answer your query until I see the source you got the 90% figure from.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

May I ask, if 90+% of all the illegals in that area are brown, how does one go about doing anything related to the issue of illegal immigration enforcement without having this aura you cast over it that it is solely racially motivated against browns?

Simple, they need evidence.

It's not that hard a concept.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

May I ask, if 90+% of all the illegals in that area are brown

Hold on, where did the 90% figure come from?
I can't answer your query until I see the source you got the 90% figure from.

The data is old, & I adjusted the figures to reflect what I would expect it to be in Arizona in 2010 (my bad?)....I could have said the 'overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants', but maybe I should have just used the 70+% from the data dated 2004...

Census figures show that 90 percent of illegal immigration comes from Latin America, with 70 percent of the total from Mexico.26 The last decade has witnessed a tidal wave of illegal Mexican immigration. The Center for Immigration Studies noted:

"Indeed, the last decade saw an unprecedented number of Mexicans cross the U.S. border. Between 1990 and 2000, their number doubled - from 4.2 million to 9.2 million, or 30 percent of the entire foreign-born population in the United States. Within this number, unauthorized Mexicans grew by more than 100 percent - from 2 million to 4.8 million, or 69 percent of all illegal aliens in the United States."

Though the Mexican government should be embarrassed that 10 percent of its people have fled to the U.S. from Mexico...

HERE

Under the subheading of Step 1: Estimate the gross numbers of illegals entering the U.S.

Originally posted by Redem:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

May I ask, if 90+% of all the illegals in that area are brown, how does one go about doing anything related to the issue of illegal immigration enforcement without having this aura you cast over it that it is solely racially motivated against browns?

Simple, they need evidence.

It's not that hard a concept.

Originally posted by Redem:

Perhaps, SF, you could explain to us poor deluded fools what the "reasonable suspicion" that let Arpio to raid the businesses that served Hispanic customers, and hold them until their immigration status could be proven?
It would seem that being brown was the only thing needed.

Where did you get your information to base your statement that supposes that they 'didn't have any evidence' when they made this/these raids?

You're not just pulling things out of your 'tail' again are you?

You do have a somewhat 'valid' source, don't you?

That's not a hard concept, is it?

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

From the dodgy term that McCain and the rest of his pals (dems included probably) approved of in the lettering of the law, I think it does.

You mean McCain, the U.S. Senator from the state of Arizona?

Illegal immigrant population of the United States

According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, Mexicans make up 57 percent of the undocumented immigrants. Another 24 percent are from other Latin American countries. Approximately 9 percent are from Asia, 6 percent from Europe and Canada, with the remaining 4 percent from the rest of the world [5]

.
Country of Origin (January 2006)
Mexico........................................6,840,000 57%
Latin & Central Amer......................3,000,000 24%
Asia 1,080,000 9%
Europe + Canada 720,000 6%
Rest of World 480,000 4%

The number of Mexican legal immigrants and Mexican illegal aliens in the United States has grown quite rapidly over the past 35 years, increasing almost 15-fold from about 760,000 in the 1970 Census to more than 11 million in 2004—an average annual growth rate of more than 8 percent, maintained over more than 3 decades. This remarkable growth has been largely driven by the encroachment of illegal aliens. On average the net Mexican population living in the United States has grown by at least a half million people a year over the past decade. About 80 to 85 percent of the immigration from Mexico and Central America in recent years has been illegal.

In Arizona Illegals account for approximately 8% ( 485,000 +/- ) of the total (5,940,000 +/-) population.
I personally would think that most probably the overwhelming portion of those come from Mexico & Central/South America due to geographic location if for nothing else.

BTW....just fer shits & giggles, your own poll shows that 54% of those responding don't seem to think it is racial profiling and should be repealed immediately. (48% Definitely do think it is nothing more than racial profiling and should be repealed immediately)

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

BTW....just fer shits & giggles, your own poll shows that 54% of those responding don't seem to think it is racial profiling and should be repealed immediately. (48% Definitely do think it is nothing more than racial profiling and should be repealed immediately)

I don't care if 90% don't think its racial profiling.

In WW2 most thought locking into camps American citizens of Japanese descent was a good idea.

In the past most thought segregation was a good idea.

In the past most thought slavery was OK.

Civil rights should not be decided by polls.

Originally posted by BernG:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

BTW....just fer shits & giggles, your own poll shows that 54% of those responding don't seem to think it is racial profiling and should be repealed immediately. (48% Definitely do think it is nothing more than racial profiling and should be repealed immediately)

I don't care if 90% don't think its racial profiling.

In WW2 most thought locking into camps American citizens of Japanese descent was a good idea.

In the past most thought segregation was a good idea.

In the past most thought slavery was OK.

Civil rights should not be decided by polls.

I whole heatedly agree 100%

The Arizona SB1070 discussion, it's actually a temporary injunction to parts of the SB1070 Law---not the Law in it's entirety, is not about Civil Rights, it's come down to something much simpler. Does a State have a right to protect it's Citizens, & does the Federal Government have the right to keep them from doing so.

Remember, the ruling & injunction in part, had absolutely nothing to do with any unasked question pertaining to the 'Racial Profiling' of innocent citizens. Why? Because it's a non issue except for those that insist on creating a 'Red Herring Issue' that it is Racial Profiling, simply because they need it to be.

The Federal Government (Obama Administration) didn't think it was, & by all that's holy if there was even the remotest possibility that it (SB1070) might be seen promoting 'Racial Profiling', they would have pursued it inexhaustibly! You know that I'm sure.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

The Federal Government (Obama Administration) didn't think it was, & by all that's holy if there was even the remotest possibility that it (SB1070) might be seen promoting 'Racial Profiling', they would have pursued it inexhaustibly! You know that I'm sure.

I know they failed to do that with net neutrality.

You would think anybody from Mississippi would be for some migration laws..... genetic testing or something. I was only there once passing through thank the lord. Instead they run polls on Arizona. Go figure. I know for a long time Jews were not welcome....or Catholics...as some have proven on this board. Just a little old timey relegion, oh yea, and you people talk about Arizona.

Originally posted by classicdenny77:

You would think anybody from Mississippi would be for some migration laws..... genetic testing or something. I was only there once passing through thank the lord. Instead they run polls on Arizona. Go figure. I know for a long time Jews were not welcome....or Catholics...as some have proven on this board. Just a little old timey relegion, oh yea, and you people talk about Arizona.

i think you are mistaken by a fact here, its unconstitutional to begin with. second illegal immigration has been a problem with our borders for a while now yes we may discriminate at first but then we as society accepts them as our own, it called a melting pot for a reason. You want in our country sure just do it legally.

And what does Mississippi have anything to do with this AT ALL?

Originally posted by Virusboy:

And what does Mississippi have anything to do with this AT ALL?

Absolutely nothing at all, just a vendetta thing I guess.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

And what does Mississippi have anything to do with this AT ALL?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Absolutely nothing at all, just a vendetta thing I guess.

The "living dead" poster who goes by the name of "classicdenny77" has an extreme dislike for me.
This latest nonsense of his is just his usual jab at my state's past.

Strange how banned users (denny77) have a habit of coming back under (somewhat) different aliases.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Virusboy:

And what does Mississippi have anything to do with this AT ALL?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Absolutely nothing at all, just a vendetta thing I guess.

The "living dead" poster who goes by the name of "classicdenny77" has an extreme dislike for me.
This latest nonsense of his is just his usual jab at my state's past.

Strange how banned users (denny77) have a habit of coming back under (somewhat) different aliases.

Doesn't say much about the quality of moderation when the banned can be so easily resurrected.

This is a tough issue. On the one hand you have to consider the poor land owners of Arizona, they have to deal with people trespassing, and not every illegal immigrant is a wide eyed, hopeful, hard working individual. Some are criminals coming to participate in the illegal black market drug trade. On the other hand, most illegal immigrants are coming with the hopes of simply having a better life, and improving things for themselves and their families. I totally get both sides of the issue. Clearly we need immigrants now more than ever in this country, as baby boomers start to retire in bulk, houses will need to be sold, jobs will need filled, stocks will need someone to buy them as the baby boomers move into bonds to safeguard their money. On the other hand, we can't have non tax payers taking advantage of government services, costing everyone else, while not paying their fair share. It seems the answer is somewhere in the middle. Possibly, Ellis Island type border crossing centers to let the "good" immigrants across, while keeping the criminals out. Along with those, militarizing the rest of the border, land mines, razor wire, and machine guns to keep the criminals out. Of course I would be for pulling the rug out from the below the black market that has developed under the prohibition of drugs, by legalizing them. And no, I don't want to tax them, just to make them legal. If given the choice between a dealer and a store, most users would use a store. The gangs would have no income to fight over, and like Al Capone and the gangs of that era, the crime associated with drugs would see a steep drop, not going away completely, but mostly. But if that isn't what is going to happen, then my above solution is the best I can come up with. Although I would be glad to hear ideas on it. By the way, my first post on Opera, and I love it! I was stuck on Yahoo, and this is great!

Originally posted by JFeldman:

By the way, my first post on Opera, and I love it! I was stuck on Yahoo, and this is great!

Welcome to the fold.

Originally posted by JFeldman:

not every illegal immigrant is a wide eyed, hopeful, hard working individual. Some are criminals coming to participate in the illegal black market drug trade.

Yes, but there are conventional law enforcement systems in place to deal with these things. I forget their name, the DEA maybe? Whatever the anti-drug task force is called.
They are not going to be helped to any significant degree by the proposed bill.

Originally posted by JFeldman:

On the other hand, we can't have non tax payers taking advantage of government services, costing everyone else, while not paying their fair share.

Gotta disagree with this one. They pay most of the same taxes as everyone else, but don't gain the benefits of legal residence. On balance, I would guess they paid more than they consumed in terms of public resources. Well, discounting any efforts to build an enormous wall that is, if you wanted to pay that cost at their door, they would indeed cost more than they benefited the country. Although I would place the blame for that elsewhere.

Originally posted by JFeldman:

And no, I don't want to tax them, just to make them legal. If given the choice between a dealer and a store, most users would use a store.

I failed to see a good reason not to tax them if they are legalised. We tax basic food items, why not recreational drugs?

Apart from that, there are a good many drugs that I would not favour banning. A topic for another time, however.

Originally posted by Redem:

Originally posted by JFeldman:

On the other hand, we can't have non tax payers taking advantage of government services, costing everyone else, while not paying their fair share.

Gotta disagree with this one. They pay most of the same taxes as everyone else, but don't gain the benefits of legal residence. On balance, I would guess they paid more than they consumed in terms of public resources. Well, discounting any efforts to build an enormous wall that is, if you wanted to pay that cost at their door, they would indeed cost more than they benefited the country. Although I would place the blame for that elsewhere.

Actually the tax argument is even more hollow - illegals tend to work low paying jobs so even if they filed income tax they would not pay a damn penny, quite the opposite. US federal income tax is progressive and becomes negative if your income gets low enough. Maybe someone can tell me how they avoid paying sales tax and such

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by Redem:

Originally posted by JFeldman:

On the other hand, we can't have non tax payers taking advantage of government services, costing everyone else, while not paying their fair share.

Gotta disagree with this one. They pay most of the same taxes as everyone else, but don't gain the benefits of legal residence. On balance, I would guess they paid more than they consumed in terms of public resources. Well, discounting any efforts to build an enormous wall that is, if you wanted to pay that cost at their door, they would indeed cost more than they benefited the country. Although I would place the blame for that elsewhere.

Actually the tax argument is even more hollow - illegals tend to work low paying jobs so even if they filed income tax they would not pay a damn penny, quite the opposite. US federal income tax is progressive and becomes negative if your income gets low enough. Maybe someone can tell me how they avoid paying sales tax and such

True. Income tax for many of them would be zero or negligible. But those that start businesses do contribute to the tax base.

However, I read that illegals put billions into social security every year and they won't be collecting it because they can't. The social security and Medicare taxes are regressive, with the low income earners paying the greatest percentage of their income.

STOCKTON, Calif. - Since illegally crossing the Mexican border into the United States six years ago, Ángel Martínez has done backbreaking work, harvesting asparagus, pruning grapevines and picking the ripe fruit. More recently, he has also washed trucks, often working as much as 70 hours a week, earning $8.50 to $12.75 an hour.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Martínez, 28, has not given much thought to Social Security's long-term financial problems. But Mr. Martínez - who comes from the state of Oaxaca in southern Mexico and hiked for two days through the desert to enter the United States near Tecate, some 20 miles east of Tijuana - contributes more than most Americans to the solvency of the nation's public retirement system.

Last year, Mr. Martínez paid about $2,000 toward Social Security and $450 for Medicare through payroll taxes withheld from his wages. Yet unlike most Americans, who will receive some form of a public pension in retirement and will be eligible for Medicare as soon as they turn 65, Mr. Martínez is not entitled to benefits.

. . .

While it has been evident for years that illegal immigrants pay a variety of taxes, the extent of their contributions to Social Security is striking: the money added up to about 10 percent of last year's surplus - the difference between what the system currently receives in payroll taxes and what it doles out in pension benefits. Moreover, the money paid by illegal workers and their employers is factored into all the Social Security Administration's projections.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html

Originally posted by BernG:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by Redem:

Originally posted by JFeldman:

On the other hand, we can't have non tax payers taking advantage of government services, costing everyone else, while not paying their fair share.

Gotta disagree with this one. They pay most of the same taxes as everyone else, but don't gain the benefits of legal residence. On balance, I would guess they paid more than they consumed in terms of public resources. Well, discounting any efforts to build an enormous wall that is, if you wanted to pay that cost at their door, they would indeed cost more than they benefited the country. Although I would place the blame for that elsewhere.

Actually the tax argument is even more hollow - illegals tend to work low paying jobs so even if they filed income tax they would not pay a damn penny, quite the opposite. US federal income tax is progressive and becomes negative if your income gets low enough. Maybe someone can tell me how they avoid paying sales tax and such

True. Income tax for many of them would be zero or negligible. But those that start businesses do contribute to the tax base.

They all pay sales tax one way or another ( unless they're close to the border and make the jump twice a day which seems rather unlikely )

Originally posted by NYT:

While it has been evident for years that illegal immigrants pay a variety of taxes, the extent of their contributions to Social Security is striking: the money added up to about 10 percent of last year's surplus - the difference between what the system currently receives in payroll taxes and what it doles out in pension benefits. Moreover, the money paid by illegal workers and their employers is factored into all the Social Security Administration's projections.

Probably another reason why 'immigrations reform' - whatever it may be this week - never seems to happen.

I think you guys missed the gist of my post, I wasn't against immigration, just illegal immigration. I said they help grow the economy, so they do generate tax revenue, except of course for the meth and marijuana mules, who, like most drug dealers don't deal with the IRS. Plus when the DEA gets involved, it costs taxpayers money, federal money, in other words income tax. If they were legal, they could pay more, and get their fair share of benefits they would be entitled to. Why would anyone be against making legal immigration easier? Do you like people dying while trying to traverse the desert into this country? Legalizing it makes it safer for the immigrant too.

Originally posted by JFeldman:

I think you guys missed the gist of my post, I wasn't against immigration, just illegal immigration. I said they help grow the economy, so they do generate tax revenue, except of course for the meth and marijuana mules, who, like most drug dealers don't deal with the IRS. Plus when the DEA gets involved, it costs taxpayers money, federal money, in other words income tax. If they were legal, they could pay more, and get their fair share of benefits they would be entitled to. Why would anyone be against making legal immigration easier? Do you like people dying while trying to traverse the desert into this country? Legalizing it makes it safer for the immigrant too.

and who exactly is against legal immigration and pro-illegal immigration?

Originally posted by JFeldman:

Of course I would be for pulling the rug out from the below the black market that has developed under the prohibition of drugs, by legalizing them. And no, I don't want to tax them, just to make them legal.

I think that's silly. Basic necessities like bread and water are taxed, so not taxing such luxury products is like subsidizing them or saying they're more important than the basic necessities of life. I say they need to be taxed more, like cigarettes and alcohol.

Originally posted by JFeldman:

Why would anyone be against making legal immigration easier? Do you like people dying while trying to traverse the desert into this country?

Good question that. You would have to ask the conservatives here why they oppose immigration reform that doesn't amount to turning the border into a new version of the Korean DMZ.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Actually the tax argument is even more hollow - illegals tend to work low paying jobs so even if they filed income tax they would not pay a damn penny, quite the opposite. US federal income tax is progressive and becomes negative if your income gets low enough. Maybe someone can tell me how they avoid paying sales tax and such

Obviously they can't avoid paying sales tax, or the hidden tax of deflationary monetary value, or even tolls and fees. That being said, what isn't being paid are the lion's share of payroll taxes, income taxes, and FICA taxes. When not employed "under the table", often times these people use a stolen Social Security number, ask to have their withholding to a very low rate, and run up tax debt they have no intention of paying. But beyond the fact that some are getting away with under-paying their taxes, there is also the additional costs of law enforcement. All in all, from a governmental perspective, illegals are a losing proposition. From an economic side though, they are helping grow the economy be creating more consumers, and the value of their labor being added into the aggregate wealth of the community.

Originally posted by JFeldman:

On the one hand you have to consider the poor land owners of Arizona, they have to deal with people trespassing

Several layers of barb wire would help that.

Originally posted by JFeldman:

I totally get both sides of the issue

Originally posted by JFeldman:

It seems the answer is somewhere in the middle. Possibly, Ellis Island type border crossing centers to let the "good" immigrants across, while keeping the criminals out. Along with those, militarizing the rest of the border, land mines, razor wire, and machine guns to keep the criminals out.

So while you "get" both sides of the issue, you would have us "demilitarize" the Mexico-US border?

Originally posted by JFeldman:

By the way, my first post on Opera, and I love it

Welcome.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I say they need to be taxed more, like cigarettes and alcohol.

/Methinks you are a sadist if you want higher alcohol taxes.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I say they need to be taxed more, like cigarettes and alcohol.

/Methinks you are a sadist if you want higher alcohol taxes.

I don't say they should be higher, just that whatever you do with drugs would need to be similar to what we do with other drugs like alcohol.

Originally posted by Redem:

You would have to ask the conservatives here why they oppose immigration reform that doesn't amount to turning the border into a new version of the Korean DMZ.

Immigration of the usual variety is expensive and not an alternative to sneaking in.

I don't know enough about the larger issue to have fixed ideas. The following numbers are of concern to me:

Illegal immigrants work in many sectors of the U.S. economy. According to National Public Radio in 2005, about 3 percent work in agriculture; 33 percent have jobs in service industries; and substantial numbers can be found in construction and related occupations (16 percent), and in production, installation, and repair (17 percent).[4] According to USA Today in 2006, about 4 percent work in farming; 21 percent have jobs in service industries; and substantial numbers can be found in construction and related occupations (19 percent), and in production, installation, and repair (15 percent), with 12% in sales, 10% in management, and 8% in transportation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

That is simply irresponsible.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I don't say they should be higher, just that whatever you do with drugs would need to be similar to what we do with other drugs like alcohol.

Point taken.

Though I will add that I do think drugs like alcohol and marijuana should be taxed at least as much as things like bread. Never less. So unless bread is taxed 0%, no 0% tax on alcohol etc.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Though I will add that I do think drugs like alcohol and marijuana should be taxed at least as much as things like bread. Never less. So unless bread is taxed 0%, no 0% tax on alcohol etc.

marijuana should have some sort of tax on it i mean make it legal put HALF the sales tax on it and boom, what recession. on another note , i whole heartily agree with no sales tax on beer, but with that it means Food Stamps now covers beer, see what im saying?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Though I will add that I do think drugs like alcohol and marijuana should be taxed at least as much as things like bread. Never less. So unless bread is taxed 0%, no 0% tax on alcohol etc.

That sure as heck wouldn't be fair here in MS.
We have the highest grocery tax in the nation.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Though I will add that I do think drugs like alcohol and marijuana should be taxed at least as much as things like bread. Never less. So unless bread is taxed 0%, no 0% tax on alcohol etc.

That sure as heck wouldn't be fair here in MS.
We have the highest grocery tax in the nation.

So that's fairer on bread than on alcohol or marijuana?

Just a notoriously un(der)-appreciated fact: Individual states of the U.S. (as well as many counties, and some cities) have their own tax structures. For example, groceries are not taxed in California; and a few states don't tax income…

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Just a notoriously un(der)-appreciated fact: Individual states of the U.S. (as well as many counties, and some cities) have their own tax structures. For example, groceries are not taxed in California; and a few states don't tax income…

...which gives the states, counties, cities a right to abolish/override federal taxes? America is special indeed. Learn something new every day. (BTW, municipal rights to introduce their own taxes is explicitly granted in my country's constitution too. But this is insignificant and plain old boring, because it's Europe.)

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Just a notoriously un(der)-appreciated fact: Individual states of the U.S. (as well as many counties, and some cities) have their own tax structures. For example, groceries are not taxed in California; and a few states don't tax income…

Unless you're saying that the states in question override the federal income tax (and other applicable federal taxes), I fail to see what you're getting at.

Originally posted by ersi:

...which gives the states, counties, cities a right to abolish/override federal taxes?

No.
See the following for details on state income taxes.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/state_individualincome_rates-20100325.pdf

In a sense, though, that's the tip of the iceberg.
.........................................
The following numbers are for my state, Michigan.
Michigan has a 6% sales tax (raised from 4% in 1994). Michigan has a use tax of 6%, which is a tax that is applied to items that were brought into Michigan but not bought there, and of which taxes were not paid to the state in which the item was bought in. The tax is supposed to be paid when filing a resident's annual income tax.[77] A service tax was approved in September 2007, effective December 1, 2007, allowing certain services to be taxed. The services tax was repealed the same day it went into effect. There is no local sales tax in Michigan. Food, periodicals[78], and prescription drugs are not taxed. Restaurants, however, do have a tax, but the tax is for the service and not on the food. Michigan also has recently introduced a business tax called the Michigan Business Tax (MBT) which replaces the Single Business Tax (SBT).[79]

While not necessarily a tax, Michigan has the highest bottle deposit for carbonated beverages ($0.10) in the United States; however, it is refunded as an incentive for recycling. The bottle deposit was originally instituted as a litter control initiative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_States
.........................................
That doesn't cover my property taxes, however.

Am I overtaxed? I don't think so. I love my life, taxes and all.

Basically a upside down pyramid scheme with all money ending up at the bottom.

The Forums tax me more than Michigan does.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

The Forums tax me more than Michigan does.

http://www.newgeography.com/content/00754-local-and-state-tax-burden-maps

You are just part of the distribution.....like the rest of us.

You and I don't have to worry much longer, its the rest that are in deep crap..yes I edited it.

Originally posted by classicdenny77:

You and I don't have to worry much longer, its the rest that are in deep shite

Damn, Sir. That's scary! My next goal is 80! Wish me luck.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

The Forums tax me more than Michigan does.

Oh, I know how you feel — and I'm only pushing 60…

I would suggest you all not set goals and live today as if tomorrow is you 80th birthday.

I would suggest you all not set goals and live today as if tomorrow is you 80th birthday.

However old you are, you are wise beyond your years.

BTW, I have been living today, yesterday and will tomorrow, Classicdenny7 allowing. And you lost an 'r' above. Here's one free....r.

And a gummy bear for you....

Disgusting things, gummy bears...along with fruit roll-ups.

Gummy bears. That reminds me of Hot Shots! Part Deux.

Hot Shots?! I know not Hot Shots.

http://www.ohnuts.com/buy.cfm/bulk-candy/gummies-gummy-candy/cinnamon-hot-shots

Sure you do. I would always offer to old ladies..

now I offer to buy them a drink....

Correction. I know hot shots.

how can you not like gummie bears
slogan for Jaybro
Gummie bears are for teh win!

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Gummie bears are for teh win!

I just have a slight clarification: not American Gummy Bears. Those are too sweet and aren't as good by far.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Hot Shots.

That brings up another argument against the law right here ......

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

That brings up another argument against the law right here ..

I knew someone would make since if I stayed around long enough.

i don't know a whole lot about politics (my life is too full of other things to really think about), but i'm on the fence about the law.. While it should seem like a natural progression to put this law into place, i think they should also make it a bit easier (and maybe cheaper?) for immigrants to gain citizenship. A close friend of mine that i worked with & her husband are from peru. The husband gained citizenship i guess before they got married. It took my friend around 7 years & upwards of $10k (if not more than that) to become a naturalized u.s. citizen.

And as far as the enforcement, i traveled from phoenix to my home city & our bus was stopped at least 5 times between phoenix and texas.. Border patrol checked ids of everyone who wasnt black or white. Cops in tempe gave me a citation & court date for not having my license on me when i was walking down mill ave with my ex on a saturday night. He told me it was like against the law to do that. Amazingly enough, my ex got out of trouble & he was an illegal.

But anyway, theres a website - i don't know if anyone's brought it up yet, but: www.takeourjobs.org if you're willing, the website will set you up with a job at a farm picking fruits & veggies that is normally handled by illegals.. The pay is often below minimum wage & there is no workman's comp or insurance..

Anywho! I think the law is kind of pushing it. And whats worse - one of the guys running for senate in my state is pushing for the bill to be passed here as well

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Gummie bears are for teh win!

I just have a slight clarification: not American Gummy Bears. Those are too sweet and aren't as good by far.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Hot Shots.

That brings up another argument against the law right here ......

Thanks for the drive-by Trojan download in that link you posted, it was really fun (A$$hole)

Originally posted by Muttsfan:

.........Thanks for the drive-by Trojan download in that link you posted, it was really fun (A$$hole)

So, some of them illegal beaners were gettin' in via Trojan Horse all along!

If that don't beat all!

[…]
To the extent that appellants [STATE OF ARIZONA…] seek to expedite the appeal beyond the provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3(b)¹, appellants’ motion is denied. See 9th Cir.R. 27-12. Accordingly, briefing shall proceed as follows: the opening brief and excerpts of record are due not later than August 26, 2010; the answering brief is due September 23, 2010 or 28 days after service of the opening brief, whichever is earlier; and the optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of the answering brief. See 9th Cir. R. 3-3(b).

The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a)² shall not apply to this appeal. The Clerk shall not grant any extensions of time to file the briefs absent extraordinary and compelling circumstances.

The Clerk shall calendar this case during the week of November 1³, 2010 in San Francisco, California.

If appellants fail to file timely the opening brief, this appeal will be dismissed automatically by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1.

(source; notes 1 and 2 from here)

Proceeding apace.
—————————————————————
1. Within 7 days of filing a notice of appeal from an order specified in subparagraph (a), the parties shall arrange for expedited preparation by the district court reporter of all portions of the official transcript of oral proceedings in the district court which the parties desire to be included in the record on appeal. Within 28 days of the docketing in the district court of a notice of appeal from an order specified in subparagraph (a), the appellant shall file an opening brief and excerpts of record. Appellee’s brief and any supplemental excerpts of record shall be filed within 28 days of service of appellant’s opening brief. Appellant may file a brief in reply to appellee’s brief within 14 days of service of appellee’s brief. (Rev. 12/1/02; 12/1/09)

2. If good cause is shown, the clerk […] may grant an oral request for a single extension of time of no more than 14 days to file an opening, answering or reply brief. […]
In all other cases [i.e., this one], an extension of time may be granted only upon written motion supported by a showing of diligence and substantial need.

3. Ya gotta love it! Good thing this case has no political overtones…

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

So, some of them illegal[s…] were gettin' in via [broken] Trojan all along!

That's the worst pun I've seen in a very long time!
Graham's idea of amending the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to reflect its ante-bellum origins is noteworthy: Congress should have this power…

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Graham's idea of amending the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to reflect its ante-bellum origins is noteworthy: Congress should have this power…

Seems the thing to do is drop a kid on U.S. soil and viola!

Seven Latin American Nations Join Mexico In Arizona Immigration Lawsuit

PHOENIX — Seven other Latin American countries want to join Mexico in supporting a lawsuit challenging Arizona's immigration enforcement law.
Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru filed separate, nearly identical motions to join Mexico's legal brief supporting the lawsuit filed by U.S. civil rights and other advocacy groups.
A federal judge formally accepted Mexico's filing July 1 but did not immediately rule on the latest motions filed late last week.
Mexico says the law would lead to racial profiling and hinder trade, tourism and the fight against drug trafficking.

I really don't like Other countries trying to dictate our laws.

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

I really don't like Other countries trying to dictate our laws.

Then perhaps your own should stop interfering in the laws of other nations.

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

Seems the thing to do is drop a kid on U.S. soil and viola!

And voila... what? That does the parents no good. They would have to wait until the kid was 21 before the kid could petition for residency on their behalf.
Does them no good until then.

Originally posted by Redem:

And voila... what? That does the parents no good. They would have to wait until the kid was 21 before the kid could petition for residency on their behalf.
Does them no good until then.

OK... Who pays for the child's welfare, health, Schooling, until that age.

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

OK... Who pays for the child's welfare, health, Schooling, until that age.

The parents, until they're found out and kicked out of the country. It's not like they can apply for benefits without valid documentation.
"Anchor babies" are a myth.

Originally posted by Redem:

"Anchor babies" are a myth.

Is this something you've read?
My sister set up Washington states Bilingual teaching curriculum.. Also in Guatemala.
And the majority of the students that attend are Children of the silent ones.. as she refers to them.
This has put quite a strain on the districts here. And our educational systems are failing.
I wish we could still afford the Dream..
Emma Lazarus summed it up in those lovely words that are inscribed on the base of the Statue:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these — the homeless, tempest-tossed — to me;
I lift my lamp beside the Golden Door.

Time to close it for a while.

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

Is this something you've read?

Why yes, yes it is. The status of the child has no bearing on the parents when it comes to deportation. Even legal immigrants are deported without consideration of the child.
Secondly, if a child is born to illegal immigrants, the chances of successfully petitioning for the parents when the child hits 21 is essentially zero. So that's of no use to the parents at all.

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

My sister set up Washington states Bilingual teaching curriculum.. Also in Guatemala.
And the majority of the students that attend are Children of the silent ones.. as she refers to them.
This has put quite a strain on the districts here. And our educational systems are failing.

What does this have to do with "anchor babies", or are you claiming that these children are all the children of illegal immigrants? And you know this as a fact?

If they are the children of illegal immigrants, I doubt the numbers are in any way significant enough to impact the budget sheet.

Redem, I don't know what you read… But I do know that you are ill-informed on this issue. (I'll refrain from mentioning others. ) Do you follow news of the U.S. via the Huffington Post?

Originally posted by Redem:

What does this have to do with "anchor babies", or are you claiming that these children are all the children of illegal immigrants? And you know this as a fact?

The majority assigned to these classes are.

You go ahead and believe the doctored statistics.. Sanctuary cities ring a bell?
I'll believe what I've witnessed. Stats that have been released to the government from localities
If you haven't noticed my Government lies... a lot.
So if you find it on the Internet... it must be true.

Originally posted by Redem:

Then perhaps your own should stop interfering in the laws of other nations.

Another thing... I would gladly see a complete world wide withdraw of American forces. Cut off all military foreign aids.. except food.
Move that Useless UN to where ever. We could use the buildings for homeless folks.
We here should be working to resolve not only our problems but with our attached neighbours problems first.
Friday @ 17:15... hell I'm going to the bar to play Texas Holdem... and drink.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Do you follow news of the U.S. via the Huffington Post?

Nope.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Redem, I don't know what you read… But I do know that you are ill-informed on this issue.

Pretty sure I'm not. There's nothing in the immigration codes that I've seen that would make the myth a reality. Having a child neither makes you eligible to stay in the country nor helps your chances of applying for citizenship later.

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

You go ahead and believe the doctored statistics.. Sanctuary cities ring a bell?
I'll believe what I've witnessed. Stats that have been released to the government from localities
If you haven't noticed my Government lies... a lot.
So if you find it on the Internet... it must be true.

Show me evidence of doctored statistics. You say the government lies, prove it. Rarely do governments actually lie, usually they just spin the truth as they need it.
Outright fabrication of the statistics for deportations? I call bullshit on that claim.

Originally posted by Redem:

There's nothing in the immigration codes that I've seen that would make the myth a reality.

The relevant codes require a resident alien to carry requisite documentation and risk deportation for infractions… The letter of the law can be and often is ignored; the spirit of such laws has become a ghost — a bogyman, used to frighten immature voters.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

The relevant codes require a resident alien to carry requisite documentation and risk deportation for infractions… The letter of the law can be and often is ignored; the spirit of such laws has become a ghost — a bogyman, used to frighten immature voters.

"Can" be, doesn't imply that it is to any significant degree.

Originally posted by Redem:

"Can" be, doesn't imply that it is to any significant degree.

Not to those who expect the rule of individual men…and all that that implies; no, you're right: it doesn't matter; corruption will grow, to meet the demand. Where the rule of law has some history, and a supposed primacy in both the founding and the maintenance of the system in question; among other things — flooding that nation with immigrants who won't and likely can't understand the difference seems a bad idea.
Where do they go, when the U.S. becomes another Mexico? (Are you volunteering Canada? How very British of you!)

I choose the beer option because 1) I like beer and 2) Because I partly agree with it, and partly don't. People trying to legally move to the states find it very hard, because of those who illegally try to enter.

In my opinion, a little identification card (like a drivers license) should be given to immigrants, and should be readily producible. But it shouldn't be illegal not to carry it.

PHOENIX (AP) - Lawmakers in at least 14 states are collaborating on proposed legislation to deny U.S. citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, according to lawmakers, including the sponsor of Arizona's 2010 law targeting illegal immigration.
(source)

There's also an informative article on Article V constitutional conventions here.

Originally posted by Redem:

usually they just spin the truth as they need it.

Any distortion of the truth is a lie.

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

Any distortion of the truth is a lie.

Eh, I can't agree. A lie is something that is outright false, spin tends not to be, even where it's unrecognisable as being true.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/26/31381.htm

9th Circuit Strikes Down Arizona Voter Law
By ELIZABETH BANICKI
ShareThis

(CN) - The 9th Circuit on Tuesday struck down Arizona's requirement that registered voters show proof of citizenship before casting their ballots, saying the measure is "superseded" by federal voter registration requirements.
Arizona's Proposition 200, approved by voters in 2004, requires registered voters to prove their citizenship with documentation in order to vote at the polls.
A group of Hispanic and Native American voters challenged the requirement, claiming it unfairly impacts Latino and Native American voters by diluting those voter pools in violation of the National Voter Registration Act.
A 2-1 majority of the 9th Circuit ruled that the requirement is invalid because it directly conflicts with Congress' intent to streamline the voting process. Proposition 200 imposes additional identification requirements on top of those required by federal law. The National Voter Registration Act requires applicants to attest on the Federal Form, under penalty of perjury, that they meet every requirement.
"The value of the Federal Form would be lost, and Congress's goal to eliminate states' discriminatory or onerous registration requirements vitiated, if we were to agree with Arizona that states could add any requirements they saw fit to registration for federal elections through the Federal Form," Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote for the appellate panel in Tucson, Ariz.
The majority called Arizona's requirement an unnecessary "state hurdle" to registration.

In his dissenting opinion, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski cited a 2007 panel ruling that Proposition 200 isn't preempted by the National Voter Registration Act. The prior panel had concluded that the law's provisions "plainly allow states, at least to some extent, to require their citizens to present evidence of citizenship when registering to vote."
"The majority refuses to accept the consequences of this reality," Kozinksi wrote, referring to the earlier Arizona v. Gonzalez ruling. "That is the law of the circuit and therefore binding on us."
He added: "Because I believe that we must take precedent seriously and that Gonzalez I was correctly decided, I dissent from the majority's conclusion that the NVRA preempts Arizona's voter registration requirement."


The National Voter Registration Act requires applicants to attest on the Federal Form, under penalty of perjury, that they meet every requirement.

Like someone here Illegally is worried about lying on a form.


One word... ACORN.

Originally posted by MAXXTHRUST:

The National Voter Registration Act requires applicants to attest on the Federal Form, under penalty of perjury, that they meet every requirement.

Like someone here Illegally is worried about lying on a form.


One word... ACORN.

Illegals voting is another right wing myth, a fear meme.

Illegals are here to work, to make money. They have jobs such landscaping or maids in hotels and so on. The last thing they want is to attract government attention. Why would an illegal take the chance to illegally register to vote when that increases their chance of being caught? What would an illegal personally gain by voting?

If we have all these illegals voting, where are the arrests? How come none are caught even in counties controlled by the likes of Sheriff Joe Arpaio? There are no arrests or none caught because there are no illegal voters. Maybe 10 in the last 10 years.

There is a very good reason why we have national voting standards. Before we had standards, people of color were disenfranchised by the 10's of thousands because they did not have the "right" proof of citizenship at the polling booths. "Proof" would vary by polling booth and by year. It seemed, whatever they brought, was often found to be deficient. Strangely, whites were rarely proofed:
"

The value of the Federal Form would be lost, and Congress's goal to eliminate states' discriminatory or onerous registration requirements vitiated, if we were to agree with Arizona that states could add any requirements they saw fit to registration for federal elections through the Federal Form," Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote for the appellate panel in Tucson, Ariz.

The majority called Arizona's requirement an unnecessary "state hurdle" to registration.

When you register, the state or county registrar is supposed to do some check on eligibility. In NJ, for example, SS number or drivers license has to be supplied. The NJ registration process then uses that info to help determine eligibility.

Once you are registered, that is supposed to be it. When you vote, you sign the voter card at the poll booth and if an election monitor questions your signature you are then required to show you are the voter. But you are not required, at that point, to prove your citizenship.

up from the ashes..............................



Supreme Court Upholds Law Penalizing Hiring of Illegal Immigrants

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld an Arizona law that imposes harsh penalties on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

The 5-to-3 decision amounted to a green light for vigorous state efforts to combat the employment of illegal workers. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts on behalf of the court’s five more conservative members, noted that Colorado, Mississippi, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia had recently enacted laws similar to the one at issue in the case.

The decision did not directly address a second, more recent Arizona law that in some circumstances requires police there to question people they stop about their immigration status. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit blocked enforcement of that law in April, and that case may reach the Supreme Court soon.

Source

Sanity reigns........dry up the illegal jobs by imposing harsh penalties on employers is finally going to be enforced by the States, rather than being ignored by a flaccid White House.

If enforced vigorously it will finally send the Illegal Immigrants back to whence they came, after all no incentive is actually the best incentive.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

rather than being ignored by a flaccid White House.

Make that 2. From 2001-20?? .

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

rather than being ignored by a flaccid White House.

Make that 2. From 2001-20?? .

Yes from 2000-2008 by the now retired occupants of White House way back then, but most importantly, vigorously ignored & avoided by the ignorance & arrogance in power this present day--who not only ignore, but exacerbates the illegal alien activity through back channel directive(s) handcuffing legitimate enforcement!

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

rather than being ignored by a flaccid White House.

Make that 2. From 2001-20?? .

Yes from 2000-2008 by the retired occupants of White House then, & most importantly, vigorously ignored & avoided by the ignorance in power present day--who not only ignores, but exacerbates the illegal activity through back channel directive(s)!

It is no more vigorously ignored and avoided and indeed, exacerbated, today by the present occupant than it was be his infamous predecessor.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

rather than being ignored by a flaccid White House.

Make that 2. From 2001-20?? .

Yes from 2000-2008 by the retired occupants of White House then, & most importantly, vigorously ignored & avoided by the ignorance in power present day--who not only ignores, but exacerbates the illegal activity through back channel directive(s)!

It is no more vigorously ignored and avoided and indeed, exacerbated, today by the present occupant than it was be his infamous predecessor.

Nice to know for it's historical value, but in dealing with the present day illegal activity, only the present day occupant has the ability to affect the issue by the power in his office & directives.

Are you aware of Mississippi's enactments related to this issue? (as mentioned in the linked article)

......The Legislature finds that when illegal immigrants have been sheltered and harbored in this state and encouraged to reside in this state through the benefit of work without verifying immigration status, these practices impede and obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration law, undermine the security of our borders, and impermissibly restrict the privileges and immunities of the citizens of Mississippi. The Legislature further finds that illegal immigration is encouraged when public agencies within this state provide public benefits without verifying immigration status. The Legislature further finds that the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reserves to the states those powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Therefore, the Legislature declares that it is a compelling public interest of this state to discourage illegal immigration by requiring all agencies within this state to fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The Legislature also finds that other measures are necessary to ensure the integrity of various governmental programs and services......

........Employers in the State of Mississippi shall only hire employees who are legal citizens of the United States of America or are legal aliens. For purposes of this section, a legal alien is an individual who was lawfully present in the United States at the time of employment and for the duration of employment, or was permanently residing in the United States under color of law at the time of employment and for the duration of employment.......

.......It shall be a felony for any person to accept or perform employment for compensation knowing or in reckless disregard that the person is an unauthorized alien with respect to employment during the period which the unauthorized employment occurred. Upon conviction, a violator shall be subject to imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for not less than one (1) year nor more than five (5) years, a fine of not less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) nor more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), or both.......

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Are you aware of Mississippi's enactments related to this issue? (as mentioned in the linked article)

......The Legislature finds that when illegal immigrants have been sheltered and harbored in this state and encouraged to reside in this state through the benefit of work without verifying immigration status, these practices impede and obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration law, undermine the security of our borders, and impermissibly restrict the privileges and immunities of the citizens of Mississippi. The Legislature further finds that illegal immigration is encouraged when public agencies within this state provide public benefits without verifying immigration status. The Legislature further finds that the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reserves to the states those powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Therefore, the Legislature declares that it is a compelling public interest of this state to discourage illegal immigration by requiring all agencies within this state to fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The Legislature also finds that other measures are necessary to ensure the integrity of various governmental programs and services......

........Employers in the State of Mississippi shall only hire employees who are legal citizens of the United States of America or are legal aliens. For purposes of this section, a legal alien is an individual who was lawfully present in the United States at the time of employment and for the duration of employment, or was permanently residing in the United States under color of law at the time of employment and for the duration of employment.......

.......It shall be a felony for any person to accept or perform employment for compensation knowing or in reckless disregard that the person is an unauthorized alien with respect to employment during the period which the unauthorized employment occurred. Upon conviction, a violator shall be subject to imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for not less than one (1) year nor more than five (5) years, a fine of not less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) nor more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), or both.......

I was not aware of them. Thanks for the post.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

rather than being ignored by a flaccid White House.

Make that 2. From 2001-20?? .

Yes from 2000-2008 by the retired occupants of White House then, & most importantly, vigorously ignored & avoided by the ignorance in power present day--who not only ignores, but exacerbates the illegal activity through back channel directive(s)!

It is no more vigorously ignored and avoided and indeed, exacerbated, today by the present occupant than it was be his infamous predecessor.

Nice to know for it's historical value, but in dealing with the present day illegal activity, only the present day occupant has the ability to affect the issue by the power in his office & directives.

If Republican ever do make it back to the White House*, I am seriously going to enjoy holding your feet to the proverbial fire.

*=Unification will be necessary. Teabaggers and Moderate Republicans will have to iron out their differences. A return to actual Conservatism i.e. Ike Eisenhower/Paul Conservatism will be necessary.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

If Republican ever do make it back to the White House*, I am seriously going to enjoy holding your feet to the proverbial fire.

Why not join me, & my fellow patriotic citizens, & hold the Republican's feet to the fire?

Oh, why proverbial??

We'll be there, come join us--won't you?

You are now, & have always been, welcome.

We all have differences, some major some minor---but in unity there is always strength.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

& my fellow patriotic citizens

So people who aren't in the TP aren't patriotic?

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Why not join me, & my fellow patriotic citizens, & hold the Republican's feet to the fire?

I'll probably contribute my always constructive criticism when they get back into the WH.
I've done so for Obama when I feel he deserves it, and I did so for Shrub 43.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

You are now, & have always been, welcome.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

We all have differences, some major some minor---but in unity there is always strength.

Well put!

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

So people who aren't in the TP aren't patriotic?

Never said that, & would never support that position. I am not speaking for those I don't know, just those I do, those I have first hand knowledge of.

I consider you a patriot, not because of your positions--they have their own merits & I may agree with them or not, but because in your heart of hearts I know all that you wish for, your every fervent desire, is because of your immense love of Country----The United States of America-----the best Country on the face of this here planet----and that is patriotic!

This is a very sensitive issue which has demonized A population of people who have already experienced an economic collapse in their place of origin in which we, here, in the U.S. are currently experiencing. As far as I know we, here in the U.S. already have immigration laws in place and to elaborate on these existing laws should raise some concerns as to their intended purpose.
I don't pretend to know the details of these laws or know for certain that their is an underlying motif, but I believe this issue is something that may, or will someday have an adverse affect on the citizenry here in the U.S. Hope I am wrong.

You may have immigration laws but they are not so much a sieve but a broken dam just like here. If the Arizonians can stem the tide good luck to them.

Goes to show you rjhowie..... what is written are only words .

Originally posted by rjhowie:

You may have immigration laws but they are not so much a sieve but a broken dam just like here.

Why, because the leftist elites & the fat pig corporates have the money to payoff the legislatures & courts into turning a blind eye to illegal immigration rather than enforcing the laws on the books-------allowing in more immigrants, for cheap disadvantaged labor, that they hope to persuade & manipulate into leftist voters (democrat here) someday.

If enforced vigorously, the laws on the books would easily resolve most of the illegal immigration issues here, & probably there too. Eliminate the bleeding heart pablum pukers in the legislatures, & the courts, & there would probably be a vast about face in the trends we deplore today (on both sides of the pond).

Well after all that you are still on on the same wave length re illegal or too much immigration. The USA has allowed the invasion to continue and we have had the same here. And that after the new giovernment promising a crackdown. Oh yeah, really?!

Smileyfaze makes a very important rj, by pointing to the fact that there are existing laws that are not being acknowledged, but I personally believe that.... a surplus in the "labor market" creates competition among "wage earners" which ultimately limits "buying power," and the results affect the over-all economy as a whole.
The benefits of cheap - labor costs always "rises to the top."
Does this scenario appear evident in your "backyard" as well rj ?

Maybe not to the same extent but enough to be a consideration zapl25.

We have a six-figure number of illegals here who by law should be got out but they are even making excuse because the Border Agency is a joke. I read the other dy of illegals interviewed in France trying to hop lorries on feries, etc. Repeated comments about how the French treated them like dogs but in GB it will be great. There they give them free money and benefits and they will get a job and then bring their families over. Hell this little island is already over-populated. There are cases of firms charged with paying less than the minimum wage and when people are interviewd on things the goverenment should be doing immigragation is right up there. In the last ten years here what is it two million onto the population?

Time and time again I have challenged as to what should the limit be from open minds who say there should be no limit. In the late froties we had 48 million now it is 61 million and offically wer aretold to expect that to reach 70 million with no slowing showing. Just look at the size of this island on the map. Demographics come into play. Immigrants come from cultures where they breed like rabbits. More mouhts to feed more cost to the taqx system. Alreasdy in saouth England with a high density of population the future is another million new homes alone in the nexttwo decades. Water and other facilities are getting tight down there (we get lots of rain in the northern part of the Kingdonm in Scotland!). Schools are finding it hard to cope, lack of English asd first language means tens of millions on translation services alone to taxpayers. I know that here we have had legions and they get free houses with furniture and all mod things like tv's, washing machines, etc. Add in free bus passes on the taxpayer too. One can understand people from poor places wnating to improve their financial lot but there is the nub. They are vastly in the catagory of economic not persecuted. They head for hear because of our traditional generoisty but past immigration has never been on the scale of now. And before I forget the social impact is there too as ghettos are growing everywhere. I think you will see similarities.......

rj,
When people are in economic or social destitute, they feel that their only recourse is to seek respite elsewhere, and their intent is not to (take) something from somebody else but to survive , because most migration is based on concerns of family well being and that is something we need to be
conscious of.
Nobody wants to leave their place of origin but under the current global - economic climate, it is an inevitability and there will more migration
coming everybody"s way, you know..."follow the money."
Unfortunately our so - called elected leaders, and their droogies have no concerns what so - ever as to the outcome of their ineptitude or intentions
and that is unfortunate for those who fall prey, which is all of us.

All very well and with a bit of turth but the generous societies do not have unlimited money nor mcan accomodate everyone who wants to come. Limits are well overdue especially here before we all fall in the damn sea.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

] I consider you a patriot, not because of your positions--they have their own merits & I may agree with them or not, but because in your heart of hearts I know all that you wish for, your every fervent desire, is because of your immense love of Country----The United States of America-----the best Country on the face of this here planet----and that is patriotic!

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Why, because the leftist elites & the fat pig corporates have the money to payoff the legislatures & courts into turning a blind eye to illegal immigration rather than enforcing the laws on the books-------allowing in more immigrants, for cheap disadvantaged labor, that they hope to persuade & manipulate into leftist voters (democrat here) someday.

If enforced vigorously, the laws on the books would easily resolve most of the illegal immigration issues here, & probably there too. Eliminate the bleeding heart pablum pukers in the legislatures, & the courts, & there would probably be a vast about face in the trends we deplore today (on both sides of the pond).

So by "fat pig corporates" you mean the Republican's bedfellows, right? The same people who heavily influenced the 43rd President to not do a damn thing about immigration, except to make matters worse.....

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

....So by "fat pig corporates" you mean the Republican's bedfellows, right? The same people who heavily influenced the 43rd President to not do a damn thing about immigration, except to make matters worse.....

By "fat pig corporates" I mean the democrat's & Republican's bedfellows.

The same people who heavily influenced the 42nd & 43rd President to not do a damn thing about immigration, except to make matters worse.....

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

....So by "fat pig corporates" you mean the Republican's bedfellows, right? The same people who heavily influenced the 43rd President to not do a damn thing about immigration, except to make matters worse.....

By "fat pig corporates" I mean the democrat's & Republican's bedfellows.

The same people who heavily influenced the 42nd & 43rd President to not do a damn thing about immigration, except to make matters worse.....

Just checking to make sure we are all being fair here.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Limits are well overdue especially here before we all fall in the damn sea.

Can you not swim?

Don't see why I shoud swim it's my country - for now. But there again I won't be here at the end of the 21st century when it isn't!

Hhhm. Maybe I could move to Arizona?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Hhhm. Maybe I could move to Arizona?

go to mexico first then youll have a better chance in 5 years to own your own fortune 500 company(no shit)