Arizona
We have talked about Arizona throughout the week. I suspect we’ll talk about it even more next week, especially if the demonstrations planned for Los Angeles turn ugly, as predicted.
You know what’s happening. LA has called for a boycott. So has San Francisco. Gov. Schwarzenegger said he would never push an anti-immigration policy like Arizona’s in California. Jeb Bush has denounced, as have many police chiefs and city officials WITHIN Arizona. President Obama and Attorney General Holder are trying to block the new law from taking effect on July 1. Now there is pressure on Major League Baseball to move the 2011 All Star Game from Phoenix. It’s just beginning.
As we discussed on the show, I predict the Arizona will be shot down in federal court. There have been three previous attempts by states to regulate immigration and each time they’ve been tossed out, including California in 1995.
I also believe that Arizona will suffer severely from these economic boycotts. Yes, other conservative groups may rush in to support Arizona’s economy, but it’s hard to compete against something like the All-Star Game.
Having said that, I don’t support the boycott. The people–and the businesses–of Arizona should not have to suffer for the actions of their elected officials. It’s not fair.
Also, hopefully, some good will come out of this because maybe now Washington will be pushed into undertaking some serious immigration reform, something they should have done long ago.
It will be interesting to see what unfolds next week.
Leave a reply to Mr. Facts Cancel reply
The Dave Congalton Show 
Thanks Dave, I have to agree with you. Immigration has become the dirty catch phrase for all kinds of espoused ideologists from both the left and the right. I've heard gross exaggerations of fact from both sides. It is going to take some kind of federal legislation to settle the matter. They failed to provide an adequate health legislation, so let's hope they can do better on this.
As unconstitutional, racist, and immoral as this law is, I have but one question.Does the US bear any responsibility for initiating policies in Latin America which led to the influx of undocumented workers into this country?What happened in the 80s was Reagan's dirty wars in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala. His support for Pinochet. Bush's invasion of Panama. The militarization of Columbia and Peru. Bush set up NAFTA and Clinton rammed it in — just as both these presidents messed with the nascent democracy in Haiti with the result that Haiti can no longer feed itself and the corpse of its government is floating in the bathtub.The history of our policy in Latin America since Reagan isn't even history, it's not even "past". Witness Hillary Clinton's State Department supporting a repressive, murdering, torturing, raping coup in Honduras recently and trying to whitewash it. Still trying to whitewash it as late as last week when a fake "truth and reconciliation" commission was set up in Washington to further legitimize the last fraudulent election in Honduras — that our government also supported.You don't have to be Houdini to know that we will get a new wave of immigrants, likely mostly undocumented, from Honduras. That's not a border problem. That's a State Department problem.If you burn down my house, look for me under the eaves of your porch when it rains. To expect any other result is unreasonable. What we call the "undocumented worker crisis" here will not change until we recognize, contain and diffuse our own majority contribution to that crisis. If we don't want these refugees here, we need to stop creating them.We have an undocumented worker problem which will require a multifaceted approach to cure. This insane law will only add to the problem, not help it.Meanwhile all this appealing to the lowest denominator of the human condition detracts from the real goal of this bill which looks to be the disenfranchisement of legal Hispanic voters. As a distraction and in dividing the people I would say that it has been quite successful.
The Arizona law is an exact word-for-word replication of a federal law that has been on the books for over 70 years. All Arizona did was to make a federal law a state law so their law enforcement agencies can enforce is since Obama won't do a thing.What you may not know since the state run media won't cover it it is tens of thousand illegal immigrants and their families are headed to California's sage heaven.One Hispanic insurance company in Phoenix closed their doors as the owner said "I am following my clients to California"Our concern here in California is NOT what's going on in Arizona. It's how it will affect our bankrupt state. Early reports are the so called boycott has helped Arizona's economy. For every cancellation (and they are few) three new reservations have taken their place. Many Scottsdale resorts have noted an increase in convention inquiries that are 500% over last year.Our collective concern should not be about a federal law made into a state law (which 13 states have started the paperwork to do in their states) but with the 100,000 children that are sold across the border each year as sex slaves, the rape trees (search youtube) where the coyotes hang the panties of the young girls their rape as a trophy tree. Our concern should be with the thousands of illegal Mexican held as captives in Phoenix drop houses until their relatives pay the $2500 ransom.Our concern should be with the over 1000 legal and illegal people that are kidnapped in Phoenix every year and half for hundreds of thousands of dollars in ransom.Our concern should be the hundreds of thousands in Arizona that have to live in the dark to avoid the Mexican coyotes kidnapping attempts. Let's keep it real folks. This open border policy is good for nobody except those interested in their vote.Talk about that Dave…talk about the people in need…not the slimy politics.I ask that before you pretend to be an expert on the bill that you read the 16 page bill before you get an opinion about which you know nothing. Read the law!
Winston…where was your outrage for the last 70's years while this exact law was on the federal law books? Where?
A boycott is not necessary. The itself law will cause enough damage to the Arizona economy to change the minds of the Arizona government. Watch 9500 Liberty. A law like this was already tried in Virginia. The justifications for the law were the same; 'the federal government isn't doing anything,' 'these illegal immigrants are draining our resources,' etc. The latinos, documented an undocumented, left that Virginia community for fear of harassment. The economy of that community crashed. Supermarkets and restaurants closed, stores shut down, teachers were laid off, and housing prices fell. It took the Latinos leaving for the "real" Americans to realize how dependent they were on the latinos for consumption and labor.One of my best friends lives in Arizona. It's a really odd friendship because his views are really extreme to the right (he doesn't even accept evolution) and mine are really extreme to the left.I texted him last night as we both watched the Sharks' playoff game and I joked with him that I shouldn't be texting him because I was boycotting Arizona. He joked back that he is, too. See, his wife is a first generation American citizen who was born in Costa Rica. They're thinking of leaving Arizona because they're afraid she's going to be harassed by law enforcement. She makes 6 figures/year and Arizona won't get any of it or his income if they move. If Arizona has as large of a Latino population as the data shows, their economy will suffer a huge blow as a result of this law scaring people away.
I lived and worked in Arizona when the state was being boycotted for opposing the Martin Luther King Holiday. Students at the local high school held a protest rally in SUPPORT of the MLK holiday and in SUPPORT of a boycott of the state. The high school principal tried to quash to protest and suspended the leaders of the protest rally and warned other students of similar actions that he threatened would harm their chances of being accepted into college. I subsequently contact several college admission folks at various universities and asked if being suspended for leading a protest rally in support of the MLK holiday would harm a student's chance of being admitted to the college or university. In each case, they said that all things being equal, it would likely not be counted as a negative whatsoever. One said that it would possibly be considered a positive as it showed the student's drive and ambition and willingness to stand up for what they believe in the face of pressure. By the way, the open corruption among and between business people and government in Arizona was blatant and the worst I have ever personally experienced. They barely tried to hide it. In fact, more than once I heard wealthy land developer bragging about how they ripped off the government with the help of corrupt politicians. And, not surprisingly, it was always "conservatives" who were doing the ripping off. One guy I know billed the government $1 million dollars for "fill dirt" for a government building built on an empty lot in the desert. This was for a project, budgeted at $5 million, that ended up costing $11 million. Nobody blinked an eye.
If the Obama administration argues that the law is a burden on the federal government? Or refuses to assist Arizona in determining a person's legality? The drafters thought of that, too. There's a federal statute — 8 USC 1373, passed during the Clinton years — requiring the feds to verify a person's immigration status any time a state or local official asks for it. The federal government cannot deny assistance to Arizona without breaking the law itself.This law was carefully drafted to avoid any legal challenge on pre-emption in two ways. One, it perfectly mirrors federal law. Courts usually ask whether a state law is in conflict with federal law, and this law is in perfect harmony with federal law.Obama will lose this battle.The problem for Obama and Holder is that the people behind the new law have been through this before — and won. Arizona is three-for-three in defending its immigration measures.The facts of this case are on the side of the people of Arizona. Obama stands to lose huge on this matter.Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion. So the US Constitution clearly requires the federal government to protect states from invasion. Almost a million aliens illegally pouring across the border into states each year is clearly an invasion.narco-terrorism in its purest form. Our borders are under attack by sophisticated organizations that have no qualms about firing on our Border Patrol units. As we get tougher and more committed, so do the organizations committed to smuggling death and terror across our borders.Viva Arizona! California should follow their example.
If…If America did the same things they do in Mexico as it relates to immigration our laws would look like this. Why should ours be any more lenient? What say you?• The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics." How's that for racial and ethnic profiling?• If outsiders do not enhance the country's "economic or national interests" or are "not found to be physically or mentally healthy," they are not welcome. Neither are those who show "contempt against national sovereignty or security." They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories.• Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove that they can provide their own health care.• Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years' imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by 10 years' imprisonment.• Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country.• Officials at all levels must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizen's arrests of illegal aliens.• Ready to show your papers? Mexico's National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizen's identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.Certainly you see the hypocrisy.
Mr. "Facts".Does the US bear any responsibility for instituting policies in Mexico and Central and South America (Which continues to this day) which has led to the influx of undocumented workers into this country?Unless we reform our predatory foreign policy in Latin America that benefits multinationals and hurts workers there and here, we are wasting our time trying to find a solution for the people who are driven north. And the rest of it is just racist nativists pointing to brown people.
The short memeories of liberals is always amazing.One of these liberal weinnies thinks that Reagan is to blame. HAHAHAHAHAHA, that's a laugh.How about going back just a liiiittttle bit further. How about back to the first Texans that wanted a little space of their own from the Mexicans… to own slaves. How about the truly illegal war, not the "quasi-"illegal war that liberals believe Iraq was, that James Polk started with Mexico so he could get his hands on the gold in California?How about Teddy Roosevelt (the first 'Aryan' president and the biggest fraud this nation had as president in the 20th century)? He started a "war of independance" between the fictious country of "Panama" as the means of getting the Panama Canal out of the hands of the Columbians.The fact is that the United States has invaded Mexico 17 times in our history. And with the drug lords in control of every major city along the border, it may happen again. Fact is that FDR invited mexicans to cross the border to pick vegetables in Arizona and California because all the white males and most of the black males were either in the Pacific or Europe fighting WWII.Fact is that Mexico has had a revolution in the tenth year of the century for the last two centuries. With the way the government is corrupt down there with all the drug money, there may be a third this year. Finally it is not just the US that has meddled in Mexican affairs. It has also been the French and the Spanish that started all of these problems when Mexico was a colony of these nations.So, NO, Reagan is not the reason why there are problems in Mexico and Latin America, but this is just another attempt by a liberal to smear Reagan.
If I ever step foot inside Arizona again, and some cops asks me to prove I'm an American, I'll tell him to prove I'm not. Go ahead, make my day, take me to jail. I'm meet you tough guys in court and kick your tails. I don't care what this Gestapo law says. This is America. We don't have to carry passports or birth certificates to cross state lines or cross the street, the way the Germans did before WWII. We are innocent until proven guilty, not the converse, as this twisted law tries to require.There is a problem with our borders, there is no doubt. But stripping American citizens of the right to travel freely, unfettered throughout the land, is not the way to solve the problem.Anyone who tries to justify this law by crying "law and order" simply does not understand American history, our Constitution, nor the character and soul of our nation. Supporters of this law are anti-American. Period.Lastly, the teabaggers shout that they want "less government," that they're afraid of "big government." I can think of nothing more Big Brotherish, intrusive, overbearing and frightening than this unleashing of government-sponsored harassment of American citizens in the name of law and order. If the teabaggers truly believed their own rhetoric, or if they even knew what they're talking about, they would loudly denounce this law as a true threat to their liberty.But we all know that loathing of big government isn't their real motivation. Hatred of our duly elected dark-skinned president (honestly elected by an overwhelming majority of Americans, not perniciously appointed by the Supreme Court), is their real problem.
Of course the Democrats are trying again for immigration "reform". The Democrats, as the hsitoric "party of slavery" is trying once again to enslave 12 million people. This time around it is the illegal mexicans that come north seeking 'a better life' doing the 'jobs Americans won't do'. Fact is that Democrats just want another voting bloc to keep themselves in power. The Democrats will do nothing to keep employers from hiring illegal at slave labor wages, because that interfers with their donors businesses. The Democrats will do nothing about the open border that allows mexican drug cartels to murder American citizens in their homes and on their property. The Democrats will do nothing about the coyotes that run the illegals over the border to "safe houses" where the illegals are held for ransom until the family in Mexico pays off. The Democrats will do nothing about the corruption of the mexican government that encourages illegals to violate the territorial sovereignty of the United States and then bitches like whiny children when a state tries to reassert that sovereignty.Why? Becuase Democrats are STILL all about slavery: they pushed slavery to health insurance companies with ObamaCare; they push slavery for low-income Americans with greater and greater state welfare payments; the Democrats push slavery to the unemployed by extending unemployment welfare checks for nearly two years; and they push slavery to illegal aliens by granting them amnesty but doing nothing about their income, education or language so the former illegals are forced into barrios, further balkinizing America. "Dependancy" is just another word for "slavery".The Democratic Party of America is STILL the party that fought a war with other Americans so they could own slaves. Now the Democratic Party of America is waging another civil war with other Americans so they can own as slaves illegal mexican laborers and welfare recipiants.
I thought "conservatives" and Republicans favored a "free market economy" and are opposed to laws that interfere with it?So, isn't it a glaring contradiction that so many "conservatives" and Republicans promote this Arizona law that flies in the face of "free market" economics? It is the free market that attracts immigrants to the United States. U.S. employers have the desire and capability of hiring these immigrants. Landlords have the desire and capability to house these immigrants. Real estate owners have the desire and capability of selling homes to these immigrants. This is the "free market" in action. It is now clear that "conservatives" and Republicans and others who champion "free market" economics are not willing to do so when it applies to people of certain races or nationalities. So, my conclusion is that for many of these Republicans and conservatives, the things they want for themselves, the things that will benefit them, they are not interested, and in many cases blatantly opposed, to allowing those things to be available to others. This is just another form of selfishness and greed. It's also another in the long list of examples of the huge contradictions inherent in "conservative" and Republican rhetoric and thinking. .
Wise Guy: You are quite right that free market philosophy is generally in favor of immigration. Milton Friedman repeatedly discussed immigration and free markets. In an ideal world with a worldwide free economy, there would be no need for restrictions on immigration. Labor would freely flow in the same manner as any other resource. There would be a high degree of social mobility, both up and down. Those individuals who could not or would not work would find themselves at the bottom of the ladder and would often be pushed out of their own native countries by the economic success of others.However, that is not the reality of the present world. And as Milton Friedman also pointed out, there can be no free immigration when there are different social benefits (welfare) in various countries. Since the USA has no intent of reducing social benefits in this country to what exists in most of the rest of the world (i.e. virtually nothing), we cannot have unfettered immigration. Furthermore, there are other aspects to immigration which do not have anything to do with the economy, such as a desire of the host country to maintain its language and customs (e.g., France, where North African immigrants who refuse to accept French principles of cultural and religious tolerance have created a great deal of conflict).As is often the case, you touch on an interesting point, but your urgency to slap down conservatives blinds you and keeps you from getting a real understanding of the subject matter.
Here's the address of the ACLU's analysis of this law (sorry, I don't know how to create links on this blog):http://acluaz.org/ACLU-AZ%20Section%20By%20Section%20Analysis%20of%20SB1070updated%204-14-10.pdfIn short, just as I believe, they argue that several provisions within the law violate the Supremacy Clause of the 14th Amendment.Have a read.
Additionally, the ACLU argues that this law places a burden on state law enforcement officers to detect federal administrative immigration violations even though state law enforcement officers receive no such training.
I saw something so funny on the news this weekend in a story on this immigration bill.They interviewed some old rancher whose land is on the boarder in Arizona. This old guy was complaining about all the immigrants crossing over his property. He said that 5,000 arrests were made on his property last year. This ruggedly independent rancher then complained that the federal government not doing anything about the immigration problem.Uh, how do the last two claims square, Rancher Bob? Who made those arrests?
Today's liberals favor indignation over information, but lawyer Obama must know that since 1952 federal law has said: "Every alien, 18 years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him.Now it says that in Arizona so ALL law enforcement can enforce this long ignored law. It is constitutional and oh so very legal. California should follow suit as we don't have long to fix things.
Why is it that any time Wrong Guy puts out something that is supposed to "contrast" what conservative believe with their actions, he requires an extreme example? So in order for conservatives to be against "big government" and "the free market" we have to open the border? See? That is what I'm talking about. I know that Wrong Guy favors a "free market" solution… just as his Democrat forebearers favored the "free market" when they were buying and selling whole families of slaves at auction.As I said before, people like Wrong Guy are all in favor of slavery. This time around they coax the would-be slave into willingly placing themselves in bondage for "free healthcare" or "public assistance funds" (welfare) or for "affordable housing". The list is nearly endless. So Wrong Guy wants Arizona to stop interfering with the slavers in the Democxrat Party from enslaving millions of mexican illegal aliens by enforcing the laws of the United States. One other thing, the Democrat Party is truly color-blind… in that they will enslave anyone regardless of color, Anyone that puts their "hand out" for some of their largess gets shackles put on their wrists. Of course, the recipient of that largess doesn't mind so much. They have been brainwashed by propaganda, like what Wrong Guy preaches here. They are feed a steady diet of th gruel of "social justice", "entitlement", "sharing the wealth" and so on until the person is so brainwashed they LET and WILLINGLY allow the Democrat to shackle them. They will brainwash a single black mother into killing her baby with abortion as a "privacy rights" issue. They will brainwash poor whites with talk of "free healthcare". They brainwash poor mexicans with talk of a "pathway to citizenship" and "amnesty". The Democratic Party is still the party of slavery
The soveriegnty of the United States is ABSOLUTELY in the federal governments lane. The fact that ONLY 5000 arrests were made underscore the fact that the federal government needs to do MORE to secure the borders, both north and south. I have a buddy that works as a border patrol agent along the canadian border. He tells me that it is just as bad. Meth labs, North Korean hired backpackers to mule stuff across the border and THOUSANDS of illegal aliens (Chinese, N. Korea, etc) walk across the border every month. Bush tried to police the southern border and was told to stop by Congress, the ACLU and liberal governors Napolitano, Schwartzenegger, and Richardson. Now this is OBAMA's problem to SOLVE. And by solve, I mean solve it, not just give all 12 million amnesty and reset the illegal mexican counter to zero. This problem should never happen again once it is "solved". That's what Arizona is forcing the administration to wrestle with and I say, "Good work, Arizona!"
Big Tent, the negro slave trade in pre-Civil War America, can only be considered "Free Market" economics if one disregards the free will of the men, women and children who were slaves, and consider them nothing but property or "chattel." And that attitude, frankly, I consider repulsive. Furthermore, I totally disagree and find absurd your claim that providing the sick and needy free healthcare or affordable housing in this day and age is a form of "slavery." For you to try to deny needy and suffering American citizens a modicum of assistance at their time of need based on your absurd propaganda equating that with the horrors of pre-Civil War slavery in America is not only absurd, it is cruel.Furthermore, to say that immigrants from Mexico who cross the border to the U.S. illegally are "brainwashed" to the point of that they come here and "willingly" want to be placed into bondage and slavery is not only wildly absurd, it is an absolute insult to the intelligence of the immigrants. I don't think you have adequate appreciation for the desperation that drives many Mexicans to come to the U.S. and your condescending attitude is the type that tends to encourage some American employers to follow a slave-holder mentality, treating Mexican immigrant workers as inferior to Americans and exploiting them with sub-standard wages and working conditions when given the opportunity..
WG said: "I don't think you have adequate appreciation for the desperation"Over 1000 illegal Mexicans cross the border into Arizona every day. 87% of them have criminal records which keeps you from the great jobs in Mexico. The Nestle plant employees 12,000 workers. 6000 per 12 hour shift. You can't get a security clearance if you have a criminal record, so they come to Arizona to break the law and sell drugs.Not sure where you get your facts but it's not from a reliable source.Now they are all going to California and New Mexico.
Big Tent:The 5,000 arrests were only arrests this rancher alleged to have taken place on his private property. If illegal immigration from Canada is just as big of a problem, as you say, the disproportionate attention to illegal immigration from Mexico supports the allegation that racism is involved.Did you read the ACLU's analysis? As an attorney, I find it extremely measured and fair. The ACLU often gets demonized by the right, but the right must remember that it was the ACLU who jumped to the defense of Oliver North and, more recently, Rush Limbaugh.
But this was the Democratic Party's stance that african men and women were chattle. The Dredd Scott ruling by the SCOTUS supported that by forcing all states to send back slaves found in their areas. This was the very underpinnings of why the Civil War was fought: southern state DEMOCRATS seceded from the United States so they could own slaves after REPUBLICAN Abraham Lincoln won the presidency over John C. Breckinridge (D-KY). Period. It is absurd for you to argue against this point.As I stated, you are still singing the Siren's song of slavery. Your claim that "providing the sick and needy free healthcare or affordable housing in this day and age is a form of "slavery" ignores the costs in human dignity that is the price for turning over to the federal government the basic responsibilties that all Americans have to take care of themselves and their families. Trusting a faceless, nameless bureacrat to provide you "affordable" housing and "affordable" healthcare has been proven over and over to promote sloth and laziness in those that receive that "assistance". Again, you ignore this point.Finally, illegal aliens may be desparate, but they are still breaking the law when they enter the US illegally. Why are mexicans suffering more important than they suffering in Darfur? The only reason why mexican suffering is even a blip on your radarscope is because THEY CAN WALK HERE. This is YOUR selfishness and shortsightedness. The plights of the oppressed around the world are ignored but we are supposed to open the borders so these poor mexicans can alieviate their suffering at the expense of America. Your bleeding-heart do-gooderism isn't coming out of YOUR wallet; you expect ALL Americans to pay for your bleeding heart ideas.Finally, "comprehensive immigration reform" will do NOTHING to stop MORE illegals from crossing into the US. Therefore, there will be 12 million illegal mexicans now pushed to the front of the line (as happens with amnesty) and another 12 million illegal aliens still enslaved to sub-minimum wage jobs because this administration and the last do nothing about their political donors paying slave wages to these illegals. You ignore this AGAIN. Get your head out of the sand and stop with the do-gooder mentality and push to SOLVE the problem, Wrong Guy.
There has to be an informed conservative somewhere in this county to discuss issues with…..
Illegals should not be criminalized! That is just wrong and goes against the law and the constitoosion.
Big Tent, when I talk about the Republican and Democratic Parties, I'm usually talking about them in regards to the 21st Century, NOT the 19th Century, prior to the Republican Party being corrupted. It was in the second half of the 20th Century when large numbers of racist Southern Democrats who were not comfortable with the anti-racism leanings of the modern Democratic Party began changing their party affiliation to Republican, something that continues to this day. Racist Alabama Governor George Wallace, his racist attitudes having been rejected by Democrats, changed from Democratic to the American Independent Party to run for president in 1968. In the 21st Century, as most people know, anti-minority bigots are more likely to be registered as Republicans, rather than Democrats. George Wallace, if he were alive today, would surely find more love from Republicans than from Democrats.But as it is, I wouldn't be a member of either the Democratic or the Republican Party. They are too much the same, though, clearly the Democratic Party is the lesser of two evils. And what exactly is wrong with being a "do-gooder"? Isn't that preferable to being a "do-badder"? Are you speaking for Satan? Service to our fellow man is something that should be encouraged, not ridiculed. Contrary to what you state, I don't happen to believe that the suffering of Mexicans is "more important" than the suffering of people from Darfur. I think it is unhealthy and unholy to treat one nationality or one race as inherently more important than another. If Americans, acting as individuals, if not through their government, are able to "do good" for the suffering innocents of Darfur, I'm all for it.."Doing good" feels good, Big Tent. I wouldn't be so quick to ridicule it if I were you, Big Tent. It's a satisfying alternative to greed and selfishness Maybe some day you'll join us and promote unity, rather than division among mankind..
P.S. Big Tent, many of us find it fascinating how you have begun mimicking my word choice and cadences in your postings. But as much as you try to refine your writing style by using other people's writing as models, you need to realize that content and basic logic trumps style in these types of discussions. You lose both style and content points every time you blatantly misquote or mischaracterize my statements or make obtuse or irrelevant comparisons such as your comparison of the people of Darfur to the people of Mexico. Beginning two separate paragraphs in the same posting with the word "Finally", as you did in your latest posting, also detracts from your credibility. Your attempts to copy my style are flattering, but at the same time, I would cringe at the thought of anyone giving me the slightest credit for the content of your postings..
You only flatter yourself, Wrong Guy, because I certainly am NOT copying anything about you. But continue deluding yourself, it means nothing to me.
Once again, Big Tent, I'll have to agree to disagree with you on that one, my persistent friend. Sincerely, Wise "Wrong Guy" GuySLO County Anonymous Blogger of the Year, 2009-2010"If it feels this good being "wrong", I don't want to be Right."..
Juris Doctor 78: I have read the ACLU analysis. It is not a legal brief or a memorandum; rather, it is a list of various arguments that might be raised against the constitutionality of the statute, as well as a large number of policy points which have nothing to do with constitutional law.There seem to be two main lines of attack against the constitutionality of the Arizona statute. The first involves supposed racial profiling. However, the language of the statute itself prohibits racial profiling, and it should be clear by this time to anyone who has read the statute and followed the reasoned discussion in the media, and not just the hyperbole about Nazis willy nilly asking people on the street for "papers, please", that Arizona police officers must first have lawful contact and a "reasonable suspicion".The second line of attack involves the issue of whether Federal immigration law preempts state law. I understand that the Arizona law was intentionally designed to mirror Federal law. In effect, the Arizona statute basically orders state police officials to also enforce Federal immigration law. This falls under the heading of "concurrent enforcement", and this is already provided for under Title 8 U.S. Code § 1357 subsec. (g) (1) and (10)."(g) Performance of immigration officer functions by State officers and employees(1) Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, the Attorney General may enter into a written agreement with a State, or any political subdivision of a State, pursuant to which an officer or employee of the State or subdivision, who is determined by the Attorney General to be qualified to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States (including the transportation of such aliens across State lines to detention centers), may carry out such function at the expense of the State or political subdivision and to the extent consistent with State and local law.(…)(10) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require an agreement under this subsection in order for any officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State – (A) to communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not lawfully present in the United States; or(B) otherwise to cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States.For the sake of argument, I assume that there is no agreement between Arizona and the U.S: Attorney General, and I doubt that Attorney General Holder would enter into such an agreement, but it seems that such an agreement is not required under subsec. (g) (10). I also doubt that the Attorney General will turn away Arizona officials if they show up at ICE detention centers with illegal immigrants. That would be tantamount to a refusal to enforce the immigration law, and that would be politically untenable.One final note: The ACLU argument about the Arizona officers not having training ignores the fact that the Arizona governor has already initiated the development of a training program (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/27/20100427arizona-police-officer-training.html ).
Serious, "issue oriented" legal questions here, for Chris or anyone:What would constitute "reasonable suspicion" that a person is an illegal immigrant? I would think that unless that is narrowed down to some specific criteria, we would be left with police officers relying on factors that would not be exclusive to illegal immigrants., i.e., foreign sounding last names, speaking languages other than English, and skin color, which, it seems, would amount to "racial profiling." Could there be or will there be any list of factors that would constitute "reasonable suspicion" that would not be so broad as to apply to many legal citizens?It is easy to imagine that it will be much more likely that a legal citizen if Hispanic heritage would be much more likely to be detained and questioned by law enforcement for "suspicion" than would a truly illegal immigrant who happens to be caucasian. It seems a certainty that dark skinned people will face a much greater chance of being detained and questioned than will caucasians, even though, on an individual basis, there is just as much potential for the caucasian to be an illegal immigrant as there is for someone with darker skin. Thus, we can imagine that dark skinned U.S. citizens will go into the world each day knowing they are considerably more likely to be detained by authorities, perhaps thrown in jail until they can prove themselves a citizen, than will citizens or non-citizens who are caucasian. This does not seem fair and does not seem to pass the test of treating all citizens equally under the law. They can write all kinds of laws against "racial profiling" but I guarantee that in Arizona, if you are not white, all things being otherwise equal, your skin color will determine to some extent how likely it is you will be detained and required to prove your legal status. It's hard to imagine how "de facto" racial profiling won't be happening because of this new law. Under this Arizona law, law-abiding U.S. citizens of hispanic heritage will face greater liability of having an unpleasant or dangerous encounter with law enforcement than will white folks. Thus Hispanics will undoubtedly face a greater chance of being shot by police should there be misunderstandings or other factors that put things awry. This does not seem fair and seems to violate principles of equal treatment under the law.Because of the Arizona immigration law, Arizona just became more uncomfortable and threatening for law-abiding U.S. citizens with darker skin. .
The legality of the Arizona law is moot my friends. Last night's headline from the CBS evening news states: "100,000 Illegal Immigrants Flee Arizona, Fearing Law" That is almost 25% of Arizona's illegal Mexican population and the law won't even take effect for another 83 days. Like it or not that is as close to genius as it gets. Where do you think they are headed? Thanks Arizona-NOTRead the full story here
Unless and until we address the issues which have caused the influx of undocumented workers into the US, it is not likely that any legal or pseudo legal laws will be much more than a band aid or the finger in the dike holding back the diaspora which we have caused. Even now, our policies in Honduras will lead directly to an influx of Honduran immigrants in the not too distant future. We simply cannot continue to exploit and destroy other nations without realizing that our actions have consequences.Cease our devastating policies in Latin America while alleviating much of the poverty and destruction that we have caused, and I would imagine their would be much more support to honest immigration reform.Once those issues have been addressed, punishing the CEO's and politicians who facilitate the hiring of undocumented workers (Sorry Chamber of Commerce) would go far in reducing the number of said workers into the US.We are reaping the effects of 30 yrs. of Reaganomics and the right wings assault on the working class. Time to set things right.
Wrong Guy, this is a softball question you pose.Here is your answer: In a routine traffic stop for running a red light, a cop pulls over the suspect car. When the cop walks up to the car, he notices that the driver has tattoos on his face of a gang nature. The cop after going through his gang awareness training recognizes the tattoos as being related to MS13, a well known latin american gang. Additionally, the driver speaks no English. Therefore, you have a legal reason to stop (breaking a traffic law) and reasonable suspicion (gang tattoos and no English) for the cop to ask if the driver of the car is legal to be in America or not. Your racism in trying to paint Arizona as racist for trying to concurrently enforce Federal law is quite striking.
Well, the conservative side of this blog was the first to sound the alarm about nationalized healthcare in relation to how over extended the US is versus the obligations that our politicians are committing the taxpayers to.The biggest international story today is the looming default on national debt by the nation of Greece. When we conservatives, myself and a couple of others, first brought up the PIIGS, (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain; I left out Ireland), Wrong Guy was more concerned about the slur on those nations more than the fact that they were overextended with massive debts and were ripe for collapse. BTW, Good Morning America's reporters called these nations by that name, so your beef is with the MSM not me. Fact is that Greece is teetering on the brink of economic ruin because their socialist government has killed the goose of largess in a mistaken effort to give more and more golden eggs to the unions in Greece. When the Greek politicians came to their senses and tried to stem the outflow of euros they don't have with budget cuts, the greek unions took to the streets. The results have been violence all over greece with 3 union protesters getting killed in the process. If Greece defaults on its debt, it could destroy the euro and, by extension, destroy the EU. Nations like France and Germany stand to lose billions if Greece defaults and that may keep them and other EU nations from bailing out any of the other PIIGS nations. With a ruined euro and the EU in a general recession, that will raise the dollar making US goods too expensive for a ravaged european economy to buy, which hurts the US. The only country in a pretty good position vise the other EU nations is Britain. Since Britain wisely refused to take the euro as their currency, the Pound Sterling will not be directly impacted by any collapse of Greece, IMHO. Here is a real-life laboratory of the failures of socialism: unrestrained government spending, overcommittment to unions with bloated, too expensive guaranteed contracts and the unwillingness of unions to do the right thing and renegotiate for the good of the entire nation. Sounds like the events in Greece portend to the situation in California to come to me.
Well, the conservative side of this blog was the first to sound the alarm about nationalized healthcare in relation to how over extended the US is versus the obligations that our politicians are committing the taxpayers to.The biggest international story today is the looming default on national debt by the nation of Greece. When we conservatives, myself and a couple of others, first brought up the PIIGS, (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain; I left out Ireland), Wrong Guy was more concerned about the slur on those nations more than the fact that they were overextended with massive debts and were ripe for collapse. BTW, Good Morning America's reporters called these nations by that name, so your beef is with the MSM not me. Fact is that Greece is teetering on the brink of economic ruin because their socialist government has killed the goose of largess in a mistaken effort to give more and more golden eggs to the unions in Greece. When the Greek politicians came to their senses and tried to stem the outflow of euros they don't have with budget cuts, the greek unions took to the streets. The results have been violence all over greece with 3 union protesters getting killed in the process. If Greece defaults on its debt, it could destroy the euro and, by extension, destroy the EU. Nations like France and Germany stand to lose billions if Greece defaults and that may keep them and other EU nations from bailing out any of the other PIIGS nations. With a ruined euro and the EU in a general recession, that will raise the dollar making US goods too expensive for a ravaged european economy to buy, which hurts the US. The only country in a pretty good position vise the other EU nations is Britain. Since Britain wisely refused to take the euro as their currency, the Pound Sterling will not be directly impacted by any collapse of Greece, IMHO. Here is a real-life laboratory of the failures of socialism: unrestrained government spending, overcommittment to unions with bloated, too expensive guaranteed contracts and the unwillingness of unions to do the right thing and renegotiate for the good of the entire nation. Sounds like the events in Greece portend to the situation in California to come to me.
I think you should consider Kosovo, because that is where California is going. Kosovo was a Serbian "state" that was very important in Serbian history, something like our Massachusetts. Albanians started moving in, had higher birthrates, and slowly became the overwhelming majority. Many Serbs moved out, laws changed to favor the new majority and after a while it was like 95% Albanian, and next thing you know they are calling for independence. That is where California is going. Some Mexicans call it the "reconquista". There will inevitably be civil war, hatred, killing, death and destruction. Arizona is doing the right thing.
(Investors Business Daily)IBD/TIPP Poll: 60% Favor New Arizona Immigration Law 27% oppose.By SEAN HIGGINS, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 05/04/2010 As Arizona drives Obama's policy on illegal immigration many still line up on the wrong side of this firestorm issue.60+% of Americans favor the Arizona law, in state approval tops 75%. When has America every approved of anything at that rate.Obama promised illegal immigration reform in his first year. Now 16 months later he announced he has taken the issue off the table until after the 2010 elections. Arizona has the president of the Unites States on the run. Amazing!Yesterday Sheriff Joe raided a local Phoenix business and arrested two dozen illegal immigrants. As the wives and families screamed outside as their husbands were shackled and hauled off to jail many other business owners and employees were on the street cheering the Sheriff department. All 24 illegals will be tried and convicted and then deported despite their family situation. Arizona is now setting national policy on illegal immigration.
Unable to competently and honestly address the many issues inherent with the unconstitutional and immoral Arizona law so you clumsily divert to the economic situation in Greece?Greece has a lot of problems, none of which were caused by anything resembling "socialism" although continuing to perpetuate that worn out meme is an obvious indicator of desperation.Greece, thank Goldman Sachs and thirty years of insane flat-earth free-trade policies and Reaganomics which have disemboweled the economies of the United States and numerous European countries.Interesting that European countries with the strongest social safety networks – Germany, Norway and Denmark, things are going just fine. In Germany, every corporation is required to have half of the members of their board of directors appointed by the union representing the workers of the company – the most corporate-intrusive system in all of Europe. In Denmark, not only are health care and education free, but they even pay students a monthly stipend to cover food, housing, and books – all the time they're in school all the way up to PhD or MD degrees. So what separates Germany, Norway, and Denmark from Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain? They never fully drank the so-called "free trade" kool-aid, and thus both have strong manufacturing sectors. Across America you'll find German cars and Danish wind turbines, as well as across those nations themselves. But walk into any store in Spain, Greece, Ireland, or Portugal and you'll find row after row of Chinese-made goods. The US has gone from over 20% GDP in manufacturing before Reagan to just 11% now. Countries that don't make things don't create real wealth, and thus must turn to Goldman Sachs to help them borrow money.The run up to the current crisis in Greece made a few people a lot of money while doubling down and engineering the failure of a nation with a strong social safety net. Conservatism uber alles can't have that.Now comes IMF/US empire hegemony 101. Loan Greece the money while stipulating obscene restrictions and caveats which hamper social safety nets and infrastructure improvements while guaranteeing maximum profits/extortioners from transnational/US corporations. (See Central and South America redux)Greece and the US in trouble, thank Reagan, Bush's, Clinton, Obama and right wing group speak.
Winston said: "…the unconstitutional and immoral Arizona law"Many on the far left including the state run media have been spewing this crapoloa for over a week now.I ask here…with all due respect. Please quote What article or amendment is violated by this law and please show stare decisis that "proves" your point. If there is no precedence there is no proof.Please use no vague ambiguous HuffPo talking points.If it is unconstitutional then so is a current federal law that has been on the books for 58 years. The Arizona law copied that federal law word for word and made it a state law (Please see the 10th amendment). Arizona simply made a federal law a state law…something that is done ALL the time.I await your attempt at showing us all just exactly how the Arizona law is unconstitutional.(PS: Don't you think if it was that Obama's AG puppet Holder wouldn't have committed 95% of his staff to shut it down? As it is all Obama can do is "watch the law" because even Obama knows it 100% legitimate and legal and above all…the law IS constitutional, not to mention it's also a thorn in his side))
Winston Smith: Your description of the situation in Germany is not correct. I practiced law, including especially corporate law, in Germany for roughly 25 years, so allow me a brief correction.The requirement for equal representation in the supervisory board (Aufsichtsrat) applies only in the largest corporations. The supervisory board is not comparable to an American board of directors; rather, the company is run by the executive board (called a Vorstand in German stock corporations), and there is no employee participation in the executive board. The supervisory board, as its name indicates, is responsible for supervising the activities of the executive board, but the executive board has no power to run the business itself. Furthermore, whenever there is a tie vote in the supervisory board, the chairman, who is always a representative of the shareholders, has the tie breaking vote.Aside from this, German corporate law and the general concept of co-determination (Mitbestimmung) by employees is quite intricate in Germany. There is no need to go into further detail here. However, the shareholders still generally determine what happens in a company, and co-determination in the supervisory board and other collective rights of employees in so-called works councils (Betriebsrat) generally involve a duty of management to consult with the employee representative bodies before taking certain actions. Such collective employee rights do not give the employees much influence in the actual running of the companies.Things are also by no means going just fine in Germany. The unemployment rate in March increased by 0.1% to 8.6% or 3,586 million ( http://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/arbeitsmarkt174.html ). The government has been modifying social benefits for some time now. The main change is that the statutory retirement age will increased step-by-step to 67 starting in 2012 for anyone born in 1967 or later. Yes, the German politicians had the guts to deal with what in America is the famous third rail of policlinics, social security. Unemployment benefits have also been modified so that the benefits phase out over a period of time.Talk about Chinese products! That's exactly what you find on the store shelves in Germany. Just as in the USA, many German companies moved production to China and elsewhere in the world because the cost of labor in Germany is very high. This means that German industry tries to focus on high value / high skill products (e.g., machinery, cars, aircraft such as Airbus Industries, etc.).In general, life in Germany is similar to life in the USA, except that the people speak a different language and the weather is not very good. Their social issues, economic problems, etc., are similar to what we have. They deal with them differently than we do at times, because the circumstances in Germany are different. But the main forces we find at work in our society also apply in Germany and in general throughout northern Europe.Of course, I don't know if you have spent much time in Europe or in any other foreign country, but it is quite an eye opener.
WSJ BlogsLaw Blog Law Profs On Arizona Immigration Bill: It’s Unconstitutionalhttp://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/04/23/law-profs-on-arizona-immigration-bill-its-unconstitutional/tab/article/Arizona's new immigration law is unconstitutionalNot all of it will be thrown out by the courts, but the most controversial provision has to be. Here's why http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/04/26/is_arizona_immigration_law_constitutionalArizona's Immigration Law Likely Doomed in Courthttp://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/04/26/arizona-s-immigration-law-likely-doomed-in-court/Arizona Law Unconstitutionalhttp://www.thespectrum.com/article/20100427/NEWS05/100427013/Shurtleff-Arizona-immigration-law-unconstitutionalArizona Law Unconstitutionalhttp://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-440442I only endured 1 year of law school some 30 yrs. ago so I'm not really qualified, but the above may be.Ultimately the Constitution says what the SCOTUS says it says, and with the current crop of flagrant corporatists on the bench anything is fair game. Time will tell."Don't you think if it was that Obama's AG puppet Holder wouldn't have committed 95% of his staff to shut it down?" Mr. FactsSeriously, what makes you think that either of them would do what's in the best interest of the American people let alone undocumented workers?It always amuses me when conservatives criticize Obama for acting, well, conservative while yelling "socialist" in the next breath.Obama is a right wing gift as all presidents of the past 30 yrs. have been. He is something to be endured, not everlasting.Playing devils advocate, even if the law is deemed constitutional, unless we address the conditions which force people to migrate into the US, all will be for naught.This law was about a lot of things (Read about Russell Pearce for a gander at what this law is really about) immigration isn't one of them.But it sure succeeded in stoking the fears and hate of a largely uninformed base.
No, I think that Greece is right on point right now as an illustration of just how jacked up the world is right now.The Dow dropped 1000 points in a HALF an HOUR, and everyone with any common sense can see was caused by the situation in Greece. The economy SUCKS! Unemployment rose AGAIN and one missed keystroke caused the market to tank and tank hard. So Arizona is now the latest distraction for this administration. Brian Williams said it right when he said that the WORLD is broke and the emperor has no clothes. So the people of Arizona elected officials that decided NOW is the time to enforce FEDERAL laws. With a majority of the illegal aliens out of the state, state expenses on jsut about everything will go down. There will fewer illegal alien welfare mothers, fewer illegal aliens in jail, fewer children of illegal aliens getting state subsidized education. The greatest benefit of all will be all of the JOBS that will be available for AMERICANS to step up and do. The "meme", to use Winston's word, that illegals do "jobs Americans won't do" is a lie. There were hundreds of unemployed black men that wanted to rebuild New Orleans but they couldn't get in because of all of the ILLEGAL laborers sucking up all of the jobs. Arizona is the only state in the union enforcing FEDERAL immigration law while Kosovo-California is continuing to let illegal aliens and unions syphon more and more dollars out of the state. Doesn't bode well for California.
Notice how Chris in Paso conveniently avoids addressing the legal issues and challenges I brought up in regard to the Arizona immigration law and his position on it. Chris frequently makes the point of how he worked as a lawyer, but that alone does not make his arguments valid or convincing. Lawyers are taught not to engage in arguments that they cannot win. I don't know if Chris supports the immigration law because he doesn't have an adequate grasp of Constitutional law (and perhaps that's why he worked in Germany) or he understands the Constitutional weaknesses of the law but supports it simply for ideological reasons and takes a "let the Constitution be damned" attitude. I understand Constitutional law enough to know that any Supreme Court Justice with integrity would have to rule against it. But, as we saw with the Bush vs. Gore election ruling, it's obvious we have judges on the court who are not ethical and have no true respect for the Constitution wherever it conflicts with their own personal ideology or political goals. .The Arizona law is written in a way that leaves the door wide open for all kinds of arbitrary enforcement and abuse that threatens the freedom and liberties of all legal citizens of the United States..
Winston, good effort but for all the sites you copy-n-pasted NONE stated any stare decisis cases to back up their case. Not one.Many were not even specif about HOW it was unconstitutional. Just more far left blow back and claims of racism which is standard for any debate the left is losing.So unless and until any of you can show specif stare decisis on prior cases of immigration law or states making federal laws state laws we have to go with the Arizona law is legal and constitutional. Thanks for trying.Did you see the LA Times article showing even a majority of democrats are supporting the Arizona law? The tide has turned. Even Holder and Obama have backed off when they took the rating hit.This new law is on the books permanently and it has been 25% effective and it's not even law yet. That's what I'm talking about.As far as fixing US policy that keeps illegal Mexicans crossing the border…you're going to have to be a LOT more specific on that one.Enjoy the weekend.
Mr. Facts, for reasons why any true patriot should consider the Arizona law "unConstitutional", read my posting above. If you want a full legal brief on it, be assured there will be one, but I won't be writing it and you're not likely to ever see in posted on this forum. But, for most of us, a basic understanding of the Constitution, history, and having a functioning moral compass, combined with common sense, tells us the law insults the Constitution and the fundamentals that this nation was founded on and patriots died for. .
Wise Guy: The only time you raised a point of constitutional law was in your entry of 6 May, 03:03 AM. You expressed great concern about the meaning of "reasonable suspicion" and felt that it would permit arbitrary behavior by the police, especially racial profiling. You apparently never even saw the other, more complex issue under constitutional law, namely, whether Federal preempts state law so that Arizona could not pass this statute dealing with immigration (see my entry of 5 May). You are not a lawyer, so you cannot be expected to recognize that "reasonable suspicion" is a term of art in the legal profession. Whenever you see the term "reasonable" in law, this refers to an objective standard. Racial features such as skin color are not considered to meet the objective standard. Thus, relying on racial features as a basis for inquiring about whether or not an individual is a citizen or valid holder of a visa would be arbitrary and, thus, prohibited conduct by a police official. The Arizona legislation expressly states this. The new Arizona Revised Statues 13-1509 C. reads:"A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution."I suggest you google "reasonable suspicion defined" to get a better idea about what this term of art entails.You might also want to consider breaking your habit of engaging in personal attacks every time you don't know what else to write on the substance of an issue. You only demonstrate your inability to stay on point. Of course, focusing on substance requires a great deal more effort than just lashing out.
The right wings dirty wars in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala led us to where we are today. Reagan's support for Pinochet. Bush's invasion of Panama. The militarization of Columbia and Peru. Bush set up NAFTA and Clinton rammed it in — just as both these presidents messed with the nascent democracy in Haiti with the result that Haiti can no longer feed itself and the corpse of its government is floating in the bathtub. This "illegal immigrant" problem is of our own making. Or, to be fair because we don't get to vote on foriegn policy directly, of our government's making. But the history of our policy in Latin America since Reagan isn't even history, it's not even "past". Check out Clinton's State Department supporting a repressive, murdering, torturing, raping coup in Honduras recently and trying to whitewash it. Still trying to whitewash it as late as two weeks ago when a fake "truth and reconciliation" commission was set up in D.C. to further legitimize the last fraudulent election in Honduras — that our government also supported.You don't have to be Houdini to know that we will get a new wave of immigrants, likely mostly undocumented, from Honduras. That's not a border problem. That's a State Department problem.Until our government ends what John Pilger has called "the war on democracy" in Latin America, there is no law we can pass here in the States that will solve the problem of economic and political refugees we are still, today, creating in Latin America. If the United States doesn't want Mexicans to be here, we should never have invaded Mexico. We have invaded and occupied not only Mexico but most of Latn America either literally or economically since the Mexican War. To expect any border to contain the damage our goernment has done (and is doing now) in the region is a massive failure to understand the big picture of this hemisphere. Unfortunately as former UN General Assembly president Miguel d'Escoto remarked recently, there is no change in the Obama adminstration's Latin America policy but, the rhethoric is softer. These were and are the stories of people who don't want to be here at all but who have been forced out of their homes and in large part because of American policy. I think we need to know that. Because no matter how many employers of undocumented people you put in jail today, unless we change our foreign policy in Latin America — which seems to be built on the premise that these workers are an obstruction between our corporate interests and our natural right to the resources of their countries, these people will not stop trying to survive and to feed their families in any way they can. If you burn down my house, don't be surprised if you find me under your porch when it rains. To expect any other result is unreasonable and insane. What we call the undocumented worker crisis here will not change until we recognize, contain and diffuse our own majority contribution to that crisis. If we don't want these refugees here, we need to stop creating them. Unless we reform our predatory foreign policy in Latin America that benefits multinationals and hurts workers there and here, we are wasting our time trying to find a solution for the people who are driven north. And the rest of it is just the right wing justifying racism pointing to brown people.This video runs down the activity of the brutal coup government in Honduras that the Obama administration helped to install. It's 10 minutes in English but also has subtitles in English for people who need caption.It's not possible to watch our regional policy in action and still not understand why undocumented workers come north, IMHO.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kb95opkp3mY
Okay, "right-wingers" on this blog, check this out: Winston Smith is so lazy he is cutting and pasting HIMSELF. He is so unoriginal and lazy he copied form his post ON THIS THREAD on April 30 and posted it again today. Utterly and completely pathetic.Your time, Winston, would have been better spent celebrating Mother's Day with a mother in your life than wasting it cutting and pasting yourself. If you are that lazy, then don't even bother showing up.BTW, I have already spent my day with my wife and her mother and called my mom so no hypocracy here.Happy Mother's Day everyone.
Winston: "This "illegal immigrant" problem is of our own making."And Arizona is going to resolve it with this new law at least in Arizona and other states that are in the process of passing the same law.It is settle law now gang. Like Roe V Wade. 65% of Americans including a lot of democrats approve of this bill…and 75% didn't want the health care fiasco. So be it.News reports are showing hundreds of thousands of illegals are leaving Arizona for California. May we will learn our lesson finally.
Chris, yes, you referenced the entry of mine I was referring to.I understand the technical aspect of "reasonable suspicion" at least as well as you do. Your continual attitude that you somehow understand all aspects of law better than everyone else here is presumptuous.What you conveniently avoid discussing is the probability that officers will detain and question immigration "suspects" without having proper "reasonable suspicion." Sure, the "suspect" may be found to have been wronged eventually, but by then harm has already been done and freedom and liberty and fairness and equality under the law compromised. Circumstances used to determine what is "reasonable suspicion" in regards to Arizona's immigration law will not, generally, be the same as circumstances used to determine "reasonable suspicion" in a drug or robbery case, for instance. I predict there will be considerable controversy and disagreement over what will be considered "reasonable suspicion" for illegal immigration. Sure, there may be situations in which it will be clear. A police officer over-hearing a suspect admitting he is an illegal, for instance. But I expect there will be serious differences of opinion for other situations. I expect we will have cases of officers detaining illegal immigration suspects based on hunches—clear violation of the law by the officer—but, especially given the super-heated emotional and political aspects of the climate, juries will be swayed by lawyers that there was "reasonable suspicion" even when there was not. Nearly every day in the United States some law enforcement officer claims "reasonable suspicion" to excuse actions where there really wasn't any. It's a gamble law enforcement officers commonly engage in, with the down side for the officers being negligible compared to the harm that befalls the victim of the officer's violation of the law.Yes, Chris, I know I've opened up a can of worms here and haven't adequately addressed Constitutional aspects, but you can't expect me to compose an effective, convincing legal brief on this matter here. But I could, and if you pay me $400 per hour I might be convinced to. Of course, that would not be to your advantage now, would it?Constitutional or not, the new Arizona immigration law is written in a way that facilitates abuse. That makes it a poor law in my book.Would you at least agree that this new law is likely to be challenged in court, with judges agreeing there are enough questions remaining to warrant the court's time?And I don't believe the challenges will be limited to strictly to the states rights issue you referred to, though that too is likely to come into play, of course. As for your personal attack accusing me of not being able to "stay on point", I object. It's my opinion that is simply your ham-fisted way of rationalizing your habit of trying to ignore or dismiss relevant points I bring up that challenge you beyond your comfort zone or talent as a legal thinker and practitioner. Perhaps in the past you've used that technique successfully with juries, judges or opposing counsel, but it doesn't work in my court. Sorry, you'll have to do better than that. .
BTR, interesting that you feel the need to resort to ad hominems rather than address what I wrote. No matter how many times I write it, not one person has rebuted what I have written yet. I understand the dilemma that you find yourself in. You feel the need to respond to what I wrote but apparently you lack the ability to do so based on facts, logic, or reason, thus you lash out with an ad hominem attack. I get it and I feel your pain. The perceived need to make such issues personal rather than on the merits speaks volumes.
Wise Guy: You are, of course, correct that the constitutionality of the Arizona stature will be challenged in the courts; numerous cases have already been filed. We've already addressed the two main issues raised by the statute. Although I would not be suprized to see one of the many judges dealing with these cases hold that the statute is unconstitutional, I believe that the constitutionality will be upheld when the case gets to the US Supreme Court.Your most recent entry raises a subpoint concerning racial profiling. You seem to accept that "reasonable suspicion" is a valid basis for inquiry. But now you express concern "that officers will detain and question immigration 'suspects' without having proper 'reasonable suspicion.' " This sounds as if you are arguning that a law which on its face is constitutional could be ruled unconstitutional because the enforcing officers do not comply with the law. Now that is truly a creative argument.Wise Guy, you don't need to prepare a legal brief to raise points of law and make rational arguments on them. Legal briefs on this site would bore most peoople to tears. Nonetheless, when you or Winston Smith assume the unconstitutionality of a law, you should have at least some support (as WS has done when inserting websites).Your concern (and Winston's), however, obviously goes far beyond the question of whether the Arizona statutes is constitutional. You both apparently do not like the policy of enforcing US immigration laws. Winston oviously takes the position that we deserve to be flooded with illegal immigrants from Latin America as some sort of penance or reparations for the USA's past, supposed sins against the countries to the south. You also apparently favor a lenient policy towards illegal immigrants, although you don't come out and say so as clearly as Winston.There is obviously a need to revise US immigration policies, both with regard to how to deal with illegal aliens who are already here in the country as well as with regard to who we want to come into the country in the future (e.g, guest worker programs, revision of visa regulations).We should also revisit our citizenship laws, especially the rule derived from the Constitution about anyone being born in this country automatically becoming a citizen (there is some discussion in the legal community whether the Constitution really mandates this, but in my view it does). This type of rule might have made sense in the 18th century, but today, when a pregnant woman can hop in a plane as a tourist and fly here from across the ocean in a few hours, there are clearly opportunities for abuse. Just a couple of weeks ago, I read an articles in "Der Spiegel" which was about a practice on the part of young Turkish couples who come to the USA on a 90 day tourism visa near the end of the seventh month of pregnancy just in order to give birth here and make their children US citizens. I am not aware of any other country that permits this, and there is no reason for us to do so.
Pennsylvania is drafting a similar law to that of Arizona. Their new motto is :"If you are an illegal alien you need to go home or go to jail"Michigan and many more states are also drafting similar laws.Arizona is now driving national policy on immigration. Nobody else would do the job.
First, which time are you referring to? The first time you wrote it or the second time when you cut and pasted it again? If it is the first time, then I answered you by throwing your crap back in your face pointing out that the US did a whole lot more to latin America BEFORE Reagan was even in politics let alone as president. The second time I ignored since I had already responded to you the first time. Its like when there is a re-run of a call in show, they have that disclaimer that says "Do not call in. Previously recorded" Well, that is the case with your second "post".But you are still lazy for having cut and pasted yourself. You didn't "write" it because it is word for word from your first ignorant rant about Reagan. For you to claim that you "wrote" that makes you a liar. There is no other word for it. Wrong Guy is just wrong, but you are a liar, Winston. At least Wrong Guy stays original.
One other thing, Winston: I don't think you ever "wrote" either post. I think you forgot you already cut and pasted your Reagan rant from your uncited source and posted it again yesterday. That would make you both a fraud and a liar… and a plagerist. Three reasons why you have no credibility with me.Then you have the nerve to accuse me of an ad hominem for calling you the liar you are. Quite the piece of work you are, Winston.
I've posted the same comment more or less on at least 5 other blogs, why reinvent the wheel.But even more curious is your ongoing inability to address the issues. Sadly, no surprise there.Until the US stops devastating other nations it is stupid and irrational to expect undocumented workers to stop coming into the US.The US created this mess, time to own up to the responsibility.
I answered your point the first time you posted it. I won't waste anymore time on your pathetically lazy second or any other posting on the subject.
Quotes from Kris Kobach, a professor of law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, A.B. (Harvard University); Ph.D., M.Phil. (Oxford University); J.D. (Yale School of Law). Kobach has litigated a number of high-profile lawsuits in the field of immigration. He is also the principal drafter of Arizona’s new immigration law.“Arizona’s already been down this litigation road three times before,” he said. “The last three major laws to discourage illegal immigration in Arizona were all challenged in court. Those three were the 2004 Proposition 200 which limited public benefits to illegal aliens. That was challenged in court, went up to the Ninth Circuit and Arizona won.”“In 2005, Arizona passed its human smuggling act at the state level that was challenged in state court and I assisted Maricopa County in defending the constitutionality of that act and Arizona won,” Kobach continued.“In 2007, Arizona passed an employer act that requires employers to use E-Verify,” he said. “That was challenged, went up to the Ninth Circuit U.S. court and Arizona won.”E-Verify is an internet based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States.And the Ninth Circuit is arguably the most liberal court in the nation yet it supported Arizona 3 times out of 3. This law will stand and Arizona will protect her citizens because Obama won't. It just doesn't get any simpler that that.Irrefutable facts are hard to spin eh?
I wish I could have responded sooner, but I’ve been ill.Chris said: “There seem to be two main lines of attack against the constitutionality of the Arizona statute. The first involves supposed racial profiling. However, the language of the statute itself prohibits racial profiling . . . .”Actually, this is not true. I am curious to know which section you believe prohibits racial profiling. The only section I can find having anything to do with race is Section 23-212.01, an amendment, stating that the attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints against EMPLOYERS alleged to have hired illegal immigrants that are based SOLELY on race, color, or national origin.This statute says nothing regarding contacts and/or detentions based solely on race and says nothing about contacts and/or detentions that are based primarily on race.Chris said: “The second line of attack involves the issue of whether Federal immigration law preempts state law. I understand that the Arizona law was intentionally designed to mirror Federal law. In effect, the Arizona statute basically orders state police officials to also enforce Federal immigration law. This falls under the heading of "concurrent enforcement", and this is already provided for under Title 8 U.S. Code § 1357 subsec. (g) (1) and (10).”You should familiarize yourself with Gonzales v. Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (1983). In Gonzales, the court found that local and state law enforcement were not precluded from enforcing the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. However, the court explained that a criminal violation of the Act would be to cross into the country illegally. This is distinguished from someone who entered legally, but has now had their visa expire or their student status changed, etc., anything that would make their visa now invalid. The latter are administrative violations of the Act. The Gonzales court found that state and local law enforcement are precluded from enforcing the administrative provisions of the Act.In that case, the court found that, because Peoria’s statute did not distinguish between administrative and criminal violations of the Act in giving their local law enforcement authority to arrest, the statute was invalid as violating the Supremacy Clause.Here, SB 1070 makes no distinction between criminal and administrative enforcement. It only states that local and state law enforcement may arrest upon probable cause that the person has committed “any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.” This statute clearly attempts to give state and local law enforcement a duty to enforce criminal and administrative provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Therefore, it would be held invalid as violating the Supremacy Clause.Also, Chris, Section 5 violates First Amendment rights of undocumented workers by criminalizing their speech (solicitation of work).This law really could have been drafted better had it not been composed by an emotional white separatist ((Russell Pearce).
Why won't Obama and the federal government act to protect the US borders and it's citizens and why won't the federal government act to fine companies that hire illegal workers? Well that answer is easy. The U.S. Government is biggest employer of Illegal Alien Workers.Latest numbers from the US inspector general's office are that some 370,000 illegal Mexican are working for federal, state or local tax supported agencies.Any of you looking for work? Looking for a cushy job with tons of benefits and a cake walk retirement? You might want to write to Obama and ask him why he hasn't cracked down on this, given the fact the unadjusted unemployment figures are now at 17%! California is even higher.here is the CNN on air report for Bob.
Mr. "Facts" said: "And the Ninth Circuit is arguably the most liberal court in the nation yet it supported Arizona 3 times out of 3. This law will stand and Arizona will protect her citizens because Obama won't. It just doesn't get any simpler that that."Well, using statistics to predict the constitutionality of this law is easier than obtaining a legal education and judging it based on its content, but it yields less than accurate results. This law is entirely different from the others cited by Kobach. I've explained why it will be held unconstitutional.I do think it is peculiar that you would blame Obama for 'not protecting Arizona.' If you read the news this past month, you'd see that it was Obama and the Democrats who called for immigration reform and it was the Republicans who said they don't want to do immigration reform this year. Is that what you meant by "Irrefutable facts are hard to spin"?
Mr. Facts: Once again, your attempt at an embedded link failed (404 error, not found) Keep trying.As to your points about Arizona and their "batting" average with the Supreme Court; you mentioned E-Verify, but failed to mention that even though Arizona mandates that all employers use E-Verify, the actual number who do is very low, when it should be in the upper ninety percentile. So, Arizona may have a nice tool in place to make sure that employers follow the law, they don't enforce it, which seems to be SOP for Republican Administrations, be they federal or state. If you really want to clamp down on people coming here without documentation, take away the incentive for undocumented workers to come here, and you will have solved almost every reason for the problem we have. Employers who hire undocumented workers need to fined, and if they exhibit a pattern of abuse of the law over and over, give their business the death penalty, put them out of business, period. Both parties will not go there however, as they are both pushing the big business, corporatist agenda that only cares about profit, not what is best for workers or what is best for citizens.
“There is far more support for Arizona’s immigration law than there is Obamacare.” Ouch!The bill makes it a penalty under state law to do what is now a crime under federal law, If the state is concurrently prohibiting the same behavior that the federal government is, then the state is not preempted and is acting consistently with Congress’ objectives.Follow me here…1) Only the federal government can deport illegal immigrants.2) Arizona will increase it's deportations by 1000 fold when the law goes into effect.3) Thus, Arizona has brilliantly forced the federal government to shift many more resources to Arizona to handle the increased deportations.Arizona is very brilliant for taking this action in many ways (and its not even a law yet)1) Almost 25% of Arizona's illegal Mexican population has left the state of Arizona most are headed to California.2) Another 50% of Arizona's illegal Mexican population has gone underground lowering traffic accidents and petty crimes.3) The savings to the state far out weight any petty boycotts by the far left, who is stating to their own populations that they approve of breaking laws.4) Illegal border crossing are moving away from the Arizona border to California or Texas.5) The economic benefits due to Arizona being in the national highlight has been tremendous.65% of all Americans support this law…only 21% disapprove.6)75% of all Arizonans approve and Arizona has a 30% legal Hispanic population who supports the law as well. They say "why should they get something for nothing when I had to do it the right way.7) Arizona has deeply embarrassed Holder, Nepolitano and Obama, and are now driving the national conversation on illegal immigration.8) All 3 of Arizona's illegal immigration laws have passed muster under the 9th districts nose…as will this well written law.The very hard thing to grasp here is that Eric Holder was on Meet The Press Sunday talking about his opinion on the new Arizona law and what actions he and Obamawould or might take. He appeared before Congress yesterday and was asked if he even read the bill…he said "No". Shame shame!He knows it is legal and constitutional yet he and Obama just want to stir up race reactions by race bating on this issue. Arizona has spoken…65% of all Americans have spoken. Illegal immigrants must be stopped and sent home. The sad thing is, California suffers most from all of this.Recent CBS News/New York Times Poll numbers:1) 70 percent say it is at least somewhat likely that the measure will both reduce the number of illegal residents and new illegal immigration into the country2) 78% say the USA should do more to stop illegal immigration.3) 74% say illegal aliens weaken the economy.4) 89% say the federal immigration law needs fundamental changes or to be completely rebuilt.5) 51% saying the law is about right with another 9% saying it does not go far enough. (60%)
Juris Doctor 1978: You did not find the language prohibiting racial profiling because you might have been looking at the original Arizona SB 1070. That was subsequently amended by Arizona HB 2162. You can find the text of the final version of the statute as adopted on 29 April and signed into law on 30 April as a pdf file showing the signatures at http://www.azcentral.com/ic/community/pdf/HB_2162Signed.pdf . There, on pg. 7, lines 21-24, a new Section 13-1509 C. is shown with the text:"A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution."(see also my blog entry above on 9 May, 1:31 pm).Section 11-1051 B (pg. 5 of the pdf file, lines 8 – 12) contains the same language.You and I seem to agree that the main issue of constitutional law will be whether the Arizona statute usurps Federal authority. The legal briefs on that point will certainly be exhaustive as well as interesting for jurists, but it would certainly bore other readers on this site to tears if you and I started to exchange legal briefs here. However, I checked out the Gonzalez case from the year 1983 you refer to. That case, which in the final analysis upheld the decision of the first instance court dismissing the claims raised by plaintiffs against the city of Peoria in Arizona, left no doubt that state and local police officers could enforce the criminal provisions of immigration law. The court held that this was not the case with the administrative provisions of immigration law.The law has not remained constant since 1983, and this relatively minor issue about the authority of state officials to enforce the civil provisions of immigration law still seems to be the subject of discussion. There is a short 2005 paper summarizing the discussion issued by the Office of Legislative Research in Connecticut at http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0457.htm . I am confident that the people involved in drafting the new Arizona law took the 1983 Gonzalez case as well as whatever has happened in the law since then into account when drafting the Arizona statute.The political outrage triggering calls for boycott and President Obama's completely misinformed statements about what can happen on the way to get an ice-cream in Arizona have nothing to do with people being upset about the intricacies of whether the supremacy clause was violated. The outrage stems from the completely false argument that the Arizona law will permit racial profiling. Many of the people raising that completely phony argument obviously just do not want effective enforcement of immigration laws. Indeed, they apparently favor an open border policy.
The liberal of 21st Century America believes that to enforce immigration law would be to continue the destructive policies of the last 25 years as it pertains to the less fortunate nations of central and south America. This is clearly evident with Winston's plagerized and unattributed posting on all of the evils that America has done on the latin and carribean nations of this hemisphere starting with Reagan. To the narrow view of the self-described "progressive" it is only right that Mexicans by the millions should be able to swarm on the southern states of the US because, after all, it is rightfully theirs. Deep in their tiny, overly bleeding hearts, they agree with the reconquista and they agree that America is the source of evil for all the world's problems. Just listen how they talk: Oil gushing in the Gulf of Mexico? America's fault because we use 25% of the world's production but only have 5% of the world's reserves.Global warming? (while bogus) America produces 65% of the world's CO2 emissions.Deaths in Iraq? Because America invaded that country… everything was just fine and dandy before Bush ordered the invasion (with Congress' approval). Global recession? America's fault.Greece's problems? … Well, I can't give an example of progressive "thinking" on this subject on how this is the US's fault but one of the liberal bloggers here will provide us the reason.The point is that liberals hate their own country with the same self-loathing they have for themselves. They know they have to drive cars to work, so they heate tehmselves for the oil produced for their needs and implicitly hold themselves to blame while saying that everyone else bears responsibility. Same holds true for the illegal alien problem. The "progressive" knows that we NEED illegal immigration because, as they say, our countrymen are too lazy to do the work the illegals do and because our evil american businessmen keep attracting they over the border; All America's fault.Look how many times Obama has apologized and genuflected to the terrorists and despots of the world for America's actions. Obama had to see a chiropractor for back strain from all of the bowing he did to the monarchs of the world. The bottom line is that "progressives" do not want AMERICAN progress; they want American REGRESSION. The heart of the "progressive" movement is the progress of the rest of the world at America's expense. The immigration law in Arizona, while consistent with established yet unenforced federal law, hampers their efforts to regress America and provide progress to Mexico and illegal mexicans. The concepts of social justice, wealth redistribution and other socialist talking points purposefully damage America and its ability to compete in the world. In the end, a weakened, damaged, impotent America is EXACTLY where "progressives" want us on the world stage.
Of course the massive inequality which plaques America is the result of progressive thinking rather than the 30 years of Reaganomics and conservatism which exists to create a two class system of the haves and the have nots. Creating a class of serfs (Servile people rarely revolt) "Keeping the working class insecure about employment assists in keeping them in check" GreenspanThat BTR and others constantly resort to the ad hominem rather than addressing the facts is part and parcel of their inability at critical thinking. Attack the messenger, not the message.Whether it be in castigating Obama as a "socialist" (Rather than the right wing toady he is), blaming the nations woes on the undocumented workers rather than the politicians and CEO's who create them, or criticizing and condemning anything resembling a community construct due to years of being indoctrinated by very effective propaganda promulgated by right wing think tanks created by multi billionaires to enforce the status quo and guarantee their future enrichment on the backs of the working class and poor, they have to keep denying the truth as to accept it tears down all who they have become.We have all been had, it's only that some of us are aware of it while others continue to extol and work on behalf of the very system which enslaves them. They're constructing the bars of their own prison cells.Undocumented workers are only the latest and most obvious targets of the low informed who have been led to believe whatever their authoritarian masters have told them. Undocumented workers are not the problem, only one of the symptoms in the collapse of the American zeitgeist. BTR and others have to lash out at those who are reasonable because down deep they recognize that they themselves are the problem, not the solution.
Tent: Winston nailed the response very well, but perhaps the depth of his response is lost on some like you who may not be able to grasp the reality of his comments, so permit me another response."Oil gushing in the Gulf of Mexico? America's fault because we use 25% of the world's production but only have 5% of the world's reserves." America's fault, yes, but not for what you state, but rather the lax oversight of what is laughably called "regulation". The waiver granted to British Petroleum for the exploratory well that exploded was granted by those in the Minerals Management Service prior to President Obama's nominee to be seated in that agency. Every other developed country in the world would have required safety features that were not installed on this well. So, yes, it was America's fault that this well exploded."Global warming? (while bogus) America produces 65% of the world's CO2 emissions." I don't agree with your caveat (meaning, not bogus) President Carter had started America towards a goal of having 20% of our energy produced by solar power by the year 2000; and then President Reagan came into office very quickly had the solar collectors on the roof of the White House ripped out, along with Carter's push for development of solar power. Link here to a story from 2000 about how America failed to "warm up" to solar power."Global recession? America's fault." Well, since Wall Street is in America, yeah, it is America's fault, once again due to lack of oversight by lax enforcement of regulation as well as laws passed that specifically allowed for what has been happening on Wall Street. Link here to an article about enforcement coming back to Wall Street, and link here to a Wikipedia explanation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 that allowed the investment banks and regular banks to merge and really screw up the economy.
Part Two"Greece's problems? … Well, I can't give an example of progressive "thinking" on this subject on how this is the US's fault but one of the liberal bloggers here will provide us the reason." Well I'm certainly not going to suggest that all of Greece's financial problems originated here in the US, but our financial market players have certainly not helped Greece's situation at all, in fact, most of the financial activity happening on Wall Street has exacerbated their situation. LInk here to an article that explains it pretty well."The point is that liberals hate their own country with the same self-loathing they have for themselves." Speaking only for myself as a liberal, a progressive; I don't "hate" America (never have, never will), nor do I hate myself. Yes, I drive a car that uses oil and gasoline, but I do try to do so responsibly, limiting my trips in a manner so that I can combine some of my errands together most of the time; I drive the speed limit, don't accelerate hard or brake too late, and I keep my car tuned up and so on. What I don't like about what happens in America is how the agenda of the rich and powerful rides paramount to the best interests of the nation as a whole, society as a whole, and the rest of the world in general. Those in the top percentage of income "earners" have the ability to shape the laws that effect all of us, and that is wrong, period. Call it "class warfare" if you wish, but as Winston stated: "Servile people rarely revolt". The two times in American history that we had the strongest middle class were 200 years apart; 1770's and 1970's, and both of those times were when great strides were made at moving our country forward as in making "progress".As for the problem of undocumented workers, I addressed that in my comment (5/13/10 @ 6:24 pm), which has not been addressed by any of you righties here so far, so those comments stand; solve the illegal employment problem, and most of the illegal immigration problem goes away with it. To address your diatribe on "progressives"; it is the wealthy that want America to be another third world nation; they have their wealth, they can survive, but they would prefer that we fight for the crumbs on the bottom with very little separation between the poverty stricken on the bottom and the rapidly diminishing middle class, and then a huge gulf of difference up to the wealthy elite. Suits them fine, screws everyone else, and certainly doesn't have the best interests of America at heart.
Winston, thanks for not doing any more plagerism with your latest "contribution". Your post has a jewel of a run-on sentence that proves my point on the liberal mindset. You said:"Whether it be in castigating Obama as a "socialist" (Rather than the right wing toady he is), blaming the nations woes on the undocumented workers rather than the politicians and CEO's who create them, or criticizing and condemning anything resembling a community construct due to years of being indoctrinated by very effective propaganda promulgated by right wing think tanks created by multi billionaires to enforce the status quo and guarantee their future enrichment on the backs of the working class and poor, they have to keep denying the truth as to accept it tears down all who they have become."Wow! Now that is one hell of a run-on sentence. "Whether it be in castigating Obama as a "socialist" (Rather than the right wing toady he is)…" Really? You believe that Obama represents "the right wing"? Yeah, that's right. I did see him at a Tea Party rally decrying a wasteful bloated federal government. Nope, that wasn't him. If this were a public in-person forum, you would have been laughed out of the room with that comment. Trust me: Obama is a true-believing socialist, he just doesn't have the freedom to come right out and admit he's one since most of America HATES what genuine socialism is. That is why liberal democrats, like yourself, put up the facade by saying you are a "progressive". "…blaming the nations woes on the undocumented workers rather than the politicians and CEO's who create them…". Another wow here. So illegal aliens were created by corporate CEOs? Really? So corporate America recruited poor Mexicans to come to America to work at slave wages? This is typical self-hatred thinking: some faceless power-monger victimizing the helpless. This totally ignores the culpability of the Mexican government that has shit on Mexico with their incompetence and corruption. In Winston's mind, they don't exist. It is just the evil CEOs and the innocent illegal aliens they create. "…or criticizing and condemning anything resembling a community construct…" blah blah blah on the backs of the working class and poor…"This could have been lifted (it might be paraphrased) right out of the "Communist Manifesto". Notice how I don't think what I think, but I have been programmed through indoctrination to believe and say this. Typical method liberal radicals try to marginalize opposition: first, claim that I am a victim, too, because of the indoctrination. Second, bring up the faceless, unseen power-mongers operating in the shadows with billions of dollars. "Right wing think tanks" gives way too much credit to the right wing to think that anything or anyone can be organized like this to oppose the left. This is projection on the part of Winston and his like-minded liberals: this is what they do, they organize like what right wing Barack Obama did when he worked for ACORN. "…they have to keep denying the truth as to accept it tears down all who they have become." Here is an interesting contradiction. Earlier I am a victim because I was programmed through indoctrination, but here I genuinely believe and have to keep believing the lie or else I lose my self worth. Sounds like more projection to me. Guys like Al Gore are the wealthy keeping the believers ignorant through indoctrination to continue their self-enrichment (his new $9 mil beachfront mansion). This is Winston continuing to preach from the bible of "socialism" in order to maintain his self-worth. This is why Winston steals to have something to post. When Winston posts, he is really just talking to himself in the mirror.
Schadenfreude.BTR, you seem to have this need to keep making things personal rather than addressing the issues. I get it. I even understand it. I even feel for you.Keeping us divisive and arguing over immigrants while we are all being further controlled and dominated is the name of the game. The Arizona law was authored by a racist which has achieved its goal of playing on the fears of the low informed and emboldening them at the same time. The undocumented workers are not the problem, just one of the symptoms of US hegemony, oligarchy, and empire.
"Guys like Al Gore…" BTRI have almost as many problems with Gore as I do with the Bush crime family and most politicians.But it does belie your desperation.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) signed legislation affirming that nothing in state law requires businesses to provide "trained and competent" interpreters when a customer comes in speaking a language other than English. Arizona has set illegal immigration on it's ear! Governor Jan Brewer has embarrassed Obama, Holder, and Neplatano for slamming the new law SB1070 without even reading it.Holder will not survive this. Obama will not either. In a recent press conference Brewer told to keep his day job as his attempt and read John Stewart comedy he failed badly. She went on to call Obama the Comedian in Chief. Smack!
It is a copy of the fed law. This is 1005 constitutional. You all should read the law first.
Part 1 of 2 (Sorry for the length. It is required.)Chris said: “The law has not remained constant since 1983, and this relatively minor issue about the authority of state officials to enforce the civil provisions of immigration law still seems to be the subject of discussion. There is a short 2005 paper summarizing the discussion issued by the Office of Legislative Research in Connecticut at http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/rpt/2005-R-0457.htm .”The paper you cited only reiterates the Gonzales court’s position as to state and local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the law. Unless you know of a more recent case, Gonzales is still good law and the AZ law violates federal supremacy by requiring that state and local law enforcement investigate and enforce against administrative immigration violations.And, Chris, the issue of enforcement of administrative violations is anything but a minor issue and the fact that you think it is would suggest your understanding of the applicable law is deficient.I’ll explain.For those who don’t already know, criminal violations of immigration law and administrative violations of immigration law are distinguished as follows: the act of coming into the country without the government’s permission (crossing the boarder illegally) is a criminal violation. The act of BEING in this country without the government’s permission (expiration of a visa) is an administrative violation. The courts have said that only the federal government can enforce administrative violations. The significance of the fact that this law requires state and local law enforcement to enforce administrative violations is as follows:Of course, there are certain ways in which state and local law enforcement may obtain a reasonable suspicion that someone has ENTERED the country illegally without unconstitutional racial profiling. For example, law enforcement may actually see someone cross the boarder at an illegal location or they may see someone driving evasively in a known illegal crossing area in a vehicle marked with Mexicali plates. Easy ones. The courts have said that state and local law enforcement can enforce these violations. [It is important to note that the Gonzales court stated that the fact that a person does not possess their immigration papers does not give probable cause to suspect they are guilty of a criminal violation (entering the country illegally).]The trouble arises when a state requires law enforcement to enforce against administrative violations of the immigration law because how could state and local law enforcement obtain a reasonable suspicion that someone is here illegally without unconstitutional racial profiling? Without racially profiling, what could a police officer possibly observe that could give him/her a reasonable suspicion that a person has overstayed their visa or that they got here on a student visa but dropped out of school so their visa is no good anymore, etc.? I can’t think of anything.So, how does state and local law enforcement enforce against administrative violations? They can’t, unless they racially profile. The long and the short of it is, if this law is to be enforced in a constitutional manner, it will provide no additional advantage to state and local law enforcement. The only way state and local law enforcement would gain an advantage with this law is if they enforce it in an unconstitutional manner. And the fact that proponents suggest this law will give state and local law enforcement a new advantage suggests it will be enforced unconstitutionally.
Part 2 of 3 (More parts required than I thought.)Chris said: “I am confident that the people involved in drafting the new Arizona law took the 1983 Gonzalez case as well as whatever has happened in the law since then into account when drafting the Arizona statute.”A statement of confidence is kind of a cop-out unless you state the reason for your confidence, Chris. Why would you be confident in their preparation? It wouldn’t be the first time Kobach had one of his laws declared unconstitutional. It seems your confidence may be only borne from the fact that the drafters share your general ideological views on the issue. Don’t forget, not only does the law violate the Supremacy Clause for enforcement of administrative immigration violations, it also violates federal supremacy by creating a new crime for illegal immigration (trespassing) and imposing criminal penalties that are much more strict than current federal penalties. This could also be seen as disturbing the flow of interstate commerce.Of equal importance, it violates the First Amendment rights of illegal immigrants by making it illegal for them to solicit work. Geez, why not make it a crime for them to buy groceries or clothes?Also, what I find the most striking is that The Right (defenders of all things law enforcement) has not objected to the provision that gives ordinary citizens standing to sue law enforcement officers who they believe aren’t enforcing the law. Does this not just blow apart all notions of standing we were taught in law school? Also, while this law gives attorney’s fees to victorious citizens, it does not afford attorney’s fees to victorious officers. This is going to create a real problem for law enforcement in defending themselves against frivolous lawsuits and, with the budgetary problems AZ is having (not to mention the outgoing consumer population), this law will create a list of new financial obligations the state can’t satisfy.
Part 3 of 3Chris said: “The political outrage triggering calls for boycott and President Obama's completely misinformed statements about what can happen on the way to get an ice-cream in Arizona have nothing to do with people being upset about the intricacies of whether the supremacy clause was violated. The outrage stems from the completely false argument that the Arizona law will permit racial profiling.”Oh, I don’t think Obama’s statements about racial profiling were misinformed. Otherwise, why did the legislators amend the bill with anti-discrimination language? It was obviously lacking some key protections against racial discrimination. Further, I don’t think the argument that this law could lead to racial profiling is false. I don’t know exactly what area of law it was in which you primarily practiced (business/corporate, I think), but I’ve specialized in criminal law. In my practice, I see the product of racial profiling all too often. And I think it is a completely legitimate concern that a law that, in PRACTICE and INTENTION, primarily targets a particular ethnic/economic demographic could lead to discriminatory practices. Also, the potential for practical blunders is increased when law enforcement is forced to overstep the bounds of what it may enforce and what it is trained to enforce (I’ve looked at the Governor’s training plan and it is seriously lacking adequate federal training assistance and adequate training time for what law enforcement will be required to take on). Finally, I think proponents of this bill may have not considered some of the collateral effects of this law. For example, people who are here illegally are already less likely to report crimes or to admit they witnessed crimes for fear of deportation. A law like this only serves to heighten that fear and cause illegal immigrants more apprehension to report crimes or to identify themselves as witnesses. This is yet another way this law will make law enforcement’s jobs more difficult.The fact is, this law was drafted by Kris Kobach, an anti-immigration crusader, and Senator Russell Pearce, a known white supremacist/white separatist. The motivation is obviously to intimidate a growing Latino population into leaving the state of Arizona so that the white right-wing conservative establishment may retain its political stronghold. I wish the boycotts would stop only so we can see the true economic effects of the Latino consumer exodus.
From Human Events (2006) by J. Michael Waller: Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven’t been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.That's too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:-in the country legally; -have the means to sustain themselves economically; -not destined to be burdens on society; -of economic and social benefit to society; -of good character and have no criminal records; -and contributors to the general well-being of the nation. The law also ensures that:immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor; foreign visitors do not violate their visa status; foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics; foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported; foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported; those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison. Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens — and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, orGeneral Law on Population, spells out specifically the country's immigration policy.
It is an interesting law — and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is acrime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let's look at Mexico's main immigration law.Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32) Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34) Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37) The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38) Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73) A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116) Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116) Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117) Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118) Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,"A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123) Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125) Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126) Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127) Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
(Continued)All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico's immigration practices versus its Americanimmigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government's agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.Let's call Mexico's bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let's propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico's own law as a model.This is four years old and it is as if it was written yesterday. Mexico is still trying to meddle in US policy regarding OUR sovereignty along OUR southern border… only this time he has a willing accomplice in our President. Obama has, again, placed the interests of an incompetent and corrupt anti-american government above the interests of America. Not surprising nor is it in anyway shocking after nearly 18 months of Obama's regime. After reading the Arizona law and the excerpts of the mexican law, it appears to me that the legislators in Arizona have taken Dr. Waller up on his challenge and have implemented Mexico's standard for immigration. The only exception is that, unlike the Mexican law which MANDATES racial profiling, the Arizona law prohibits it and states as such 10 times. Liberal hypocrasy, as this article shows, is timeless and frighteningly consistent.
Big Tent's proposal; let's be more like Mexico.Pigs will fly.
No, Big Tent's proposal is that we should do as Mexico does regarding immigration: Make everyone crossing illegally into the US a felon; put them in prison; deport illegals on welfare; deport illegals without medical insurance; deport illegals without jobs; deport illegals that are criminals; deport illegals if there are too many Mexicans in one town.Mexico has been doing this for nearly 10 years but when Arizona passes their law that is not nearly as draconian as the mexican law, they are branded as racists by the same people that engage in racial profiling in Mexico.Typical liberal response to go to the extreme, JD.I said that liberal hypocrasy is timeless. It is also international.
Big Tent said: “Make everyone crossing illegally into the US a felon; put them in prison; . . .”Enactment of this policy would be inconsistent with your desired goals of (1) removing them from this country and (2) remedying the supposed financial strains they put on this country.Charging defendants with felonies entitles them to procedural rights in excess of what they would be entitled to had they been charged with misdemeanors. For example, felony charges entitles one to a preliminary hearing and to a jury trial (although, some misdemeanors also carry the right to a jury trial). Therefore, charging all illegal immigrants with felonies would increase the cost of prosecuting them.Additionally, putting them in prison would cost more to the American tax-payer than putting them in jail – or, simply, deporting them – because, whilst they serve lengthy prison sentences, they will have to be fed, clothed, bathed, given medical care, etc. So, sentencing them to prison time only increases the amount we’ll have to spend on them. Also, putting them in prison requires additional administrative costs (parole supervision, etc.).What’s more, doesn’t keeping them here in prison directly conflict with wanting them out of our country? If you want them out of the country, why not just deport them? Why make it mandatory that they stay for a while? Your suggestion that they be sentenced to prison time is an example of how anger can sometimes interfere with pragmatic thinking. Big Tent said: “. . . deport illegals on welfare; . . .”Illegal immigrants aren’t eligible for welfare benefits. Even LEGAL immigrants are subject to restrictions on what benefits they may receive.Nonetheless, being here illegally already causes them to be deported, so I’m not sure why you think we need additional cause to deport them. (continued)
(Continued)Big Tent said: “ . . . deport illegals without medical insurance; . . .”Big Tent, during the health insurance reform debate, you fiercely argued against mandated health insurance. What gives? How would you be able to justify mandates for illegal immigrants if you are so against mandates for citizens? Both groups pay the taxes that go to funding emergency health care.But, again, being here illegally already causes them to be deported, so I don’t know why you think we need additional cause to deport them. Isn’t the fact that they’re here illegally enough?Big Tent said: “. . . deport illegals without jobs; . . .”Again, if they’re here illegally, they are deported anyway. I don’t know why you think we should make a specific target out of people who, at the time they are apprehended, happen to have no ongoing employment. What’s your beef with the unemployed? Do you have something against poor people?Big Tent said: “ . . . deport illegals that are criminals; . . .”We do deport “illegals” who have criminal records. We also deport LEGAL immigrants who have criminal records.Like your belief that illegal immigrants receive welfare, your belief that we don’t deport illegal immigrants who have criminal records exposes your unbelievable ignorance on the facts surrounding this issue, Big Tent. Topic after topic on this blog, you have no hesitation in participating in discussions that are grossly outside your knowledge base. A more rational person would be so embarrassed by now that they’d have learned to stay out of the discussion until such time as they were educated enough to add something intelligent and informed to the dialogue. (Continued)
(Continued)Big Tent said: “ . . . deport illegals if there are too many Mexicans in one town.”And here we get to the true basis for the outrage, folks. Let me guess, Big Tent. You’re a white man, aren’t you?Big Tent’s suggestion that we “deport illegals if there are too many Mexicans in one town” reveals the true motivation behind the current “illegal” immigration outrage. I put “illegal” in quotes because Big Tent’s above suggestion reveals that the concern isn’t really about illegal immigration. For a while, I’ve known Big Tent’s true concern was not about illegal immigration because he has refused to describe the process for legal immigration. I asked him to describe the process without Googling it because I thought, if he is truly only outraged that the legal process was not followed, surely he should know what that process is. To date, he has not explained what the legal immigration process requires (even though he’s had plenty of time to educate himself on it by now).The outrage is not about some process not being followed. It’s really just about Big Tent, and white people like him, becoming a minority. And the thought of losing their institutional control frightens the hell out of them. This claimed outrage about illegal immigration getting worse is just not grounded in any fact. Sure, the talking heads on right-wing radio and TV would lead you to think illegal immigration was worse than it had ever been, but it’s not. The rate at which illegal immigrants enter the country has actually been decreasing over the last several years and that rate has slowed enough that there are 1 million fewer illegal immigrants in this country now than there were in 2007 (thank our economic collapse).The claims that illegal immigrants cause a strain on society are also unfounded. Study after study (including studies commissioned by the Bush administration) show that illegal immigrants provide a net economic benefit to this country. They pay more in taxes (sales and property) than they receive in benefits. Documentaries like “9500 Liberty” detail how the economic benefits we receive from an illegal immigrant population far outweigh any burden they impose. That documentary tells the story of a Virginia community that virtually collapsed after it enacted a law similar to the one Arizona just enacted. The immigrant consumer population left that community. As a result, stores discovered how much they relied on their immigrant consumers. Restaurants, grocery stores, and other retail stores closed. Housing prices dropped because there was a surplus of available real estate. Teachers were laid off because schools get their funding based on the number of students enrolled. When the immigrant students left, funding was reduced and teachers were left without jobs. The citizens of that Virginia community eventually crawled back to their leadership begging that the law be repealed. I’m confident Arizona will do the same. I am not, in any way, suggesting that the laws of entry into this country should go unenforced. I’m just suggesting we maintain a little perspective on what the degree of the problem, keep the punishments proportionate to the crimes, and not get carried away with our paranoid xenophobia.The end.
Part 1 of 2:JurisDoctor 78: As far as constitutional law is concerned, the supremacy clause is certainly the most complex issue in the Arizona bill as signed into law. You and I have already addressed the main aspects concerning the supremacy clause, and that is probably more than enough for the other participants in this site. I would not be surprised to see one or the other provision in the bill, fall to the supremacy clause, such as the part of the law creating an independent misdemeanor under Arizona law for an illegal immigrant to be in Arizona. However, if only isolated provisions are found to be unconstitutional, that will not necessarily lead to the fall of the entire statute.The hot issue is racial profiling, and that is also apparently your main concern. Just to summarize the process for those who haven't yet read the statute: There must first be "lawful contact" between the police officer and an individual. If the police officer gains a "reasonable suspicion" during the course of the lawful contact that the individual is an illegal alien, the officer can pursue the inquiry about immigration status further.As you have certainly now seen, the language in the bill as signed into law expressly prohibits racial profiling. It was not really necessary to include such language. The legal term of art "reasonable suspicion" would have precluded racial profiling, anyway, since racial profiling is not considered "reasonable". Furthermore, statutory language must be interpreted in conformity with the Constitution; i.e. the courts cannot throw out a statute on the basis of an interpretation that would render the statute unconstitutional if the language in the stature permits another interpretation which falls within constitutional limits. However, it is not uncommon for such a politically hot statute to be drafted in a "belt and suspenders" manner by including appropriate, albeit unnecessary language. That appears to be the reason why the Arizona legislature amended the language in the original SB 1070 by adding the express prohibitions on racial profiling.You argue that the only way for the police to enforce U.S. immigration law is to racially profile. Your comments indicate that you believe that cops inherently racially profile. Indeed, you seem to argue that, since cops will supposedly violate the law by engaging in racial profiling, the law is unconstitutional. However, you cannot seriously argue that an otherwise constitutional law is rendered unconstitutional because an official charged with enforcing the law violates it instead.Your factual premise that racial profiling would be an inherent part of having Arizona officers also enforce US immigration law is wrong. For example: A cop pulls over a car for speeding. The driver has little or no command of English, presents a phony drivers license (easily checked on the spot in the police computer) or no drivers license. When asked about where he is from, the driver answers that he is from [pick a country]. When asked for a passport, the driver says he has none or produces a passport without a U.S. visa. The police officer has more than enough reasonable cause by that time to pursue the matter further, and there has been absolutely no racial profiling, either with regard to the initial "lawful contact" or with regard to "reasonable suspicion".
Part 2 of 2:Drawing on my experience living in Germany, there is nothing at all unusual about the Arizona approach. Indeed, the laxity in enforcing US immigration law is what sets us apart from the European countries. A person's citizenship is one of the first things determined whenever an individual is stopped by the police in Germany or elsewhere in Europe. Illegal immigrants are easy to identify because they don't have the right documentation in their passports (e.g., an entry stamp), and deportation is a common consequence of being caught as an illegal alien. The Europeans do this all without racial profiling. For example, it makes no sense to try to distinguish a Ukrainian from a German using appearances.After sorting through all the legal issues and the trumped up hyperbole about racial profiling, the substance of the Arizona statute is simply that it authorizes Arizona officers to also enforce US immigration law up to the point of turning suspected illegal aliens over to the ICE. That immediately adds thousands of officers as reinforcements for enforcing immigration laws. Unless a person has fundamental problems with enforcing the laws about illegal immigration, there is nothing wrong with adding the reinforcements.And that brings us to the most telling words in your contribution (end of Part 3):"The motivation [behind the Arizona law] is obviously to intimidate a growing Latino population into leaving the state of Arizona so that the white right-wing conservative establishment may retain its political stronghold."Which Latino population is being intimidated? American citizens with Spanish surnames? Certainly not! (although there are obviously some individuals who now love playing the role of victim). There are reports that illegal aliens are starting to leave. But illegal aliens shouldn't have any influence on politics in Arizona, anyway, since they can't vote. Your play on race ("white right-wing conservative establishment") implies that you actually favor not enforcing laws against illegal immigration as a means for changing Arizonan and presumably also Californian and even national politics.Most Americans want our laws against illegal immigration to be enforced. We like our country and do not want to see it overrun by millions of people who have no allegiance to the USA and bring lots of crime and other social problems with them. We are also picky about who we want as guests in our country. After all, that's exactly why we have various types of visas. And if the guests want to stay, we want them to assimilate and accept American society (e.g., learn the language, understand the basics of our Constitution, respect the individual liberties of others). Permanent immigrants must also drop some of the practices that might be perfectly acceptable in their home countries (honor killings, female circumcision, murdering apostates, etc.).Then there are those few Americans who view illegal immigration as another tool for dramatic, even revolutionary change in our political system. They hate the "establishment" (because they feel they are not part of it?) and would actually favor an open borders policy as a means of helping to bring down the USA. "Winston Smith" and "Wise Guy" appear to belong to this latter group, as does apparently the group "La Raza".Finally there are many in the Democratic Party and especially the current Obama administration who, while admittedly not having read or understood the Arizona law, see it as an opportunity to engage in race based politics. Apparently these politicians assume that many Hispanic voters will feel allegiance and solidarity with illegal immigrants because of race rather than supporting the enforcement of immigration laws. This intentional appeal to race is disgusting.
If the US really wanted to stop undocumented workers from entering its borders it should simply stop creating them in the first place.Interesting that other nations are able to deal with their immigration issues not by building expensive fences which enrich a few at on the backs of the working class and poor, nor with increased guns on their borders. They do it by enforcing sanctions against employers and by not pillaging and raping the resources of neighboring nations. What a thought.
Winston, I am all for fining every employer $250,000 per undocumetned worker to work to ending the demand for illegal aliens coming to America. However, when you have the government of Mexico producing pamphlets on how to enter the US illegally and how to get on US welfare once they get here, we need to address border security as well. Mexico is pushing their own people to become illegal aliens in this country. That is a FACT. The US isn't creating illegals (how do you "create" aan illegal anyway? Is this some sort of mexican cloning program in a lab somewhere? You will have to explain that one) as much a mexico is pushing their own people north. If you want to end illegal immigration ( I don't think you do) then seal the border and make mexico address the chronic underemployment, high cost of living, rampant corruption and extreme lack of internal security that exists right now in THAT country that makes Mexicans want ot come live in our country.
It's ironic that conservative Chris in Paso wants the U.S. to operate more like Germany and other European nations. He, and other conservatives here, seem to ignore that the United States was founded as a way of breaking from the restrictions and class rivalries of Europe. Anyone could come to the U.S to start a new life. The United States is charting new territory. Most of us do not want the United States to be run like Germany. We love the United States and we know that the hope it offers was never intended to be reserved only for those within its borders. The French gave us a gift known as the Statue of LIberty to remind Americans that the United States is not like any other nation, that this miracle nation was a miracle blessing for the entire world; that we are a nation of immigrants and should ever be so; being a place of refuge and upliftment for people from around the world, a place of freedoms and possibilities for people who were denied it in the lands of their birth. What moral right do we have to deny those who in good faith come to the United States to make a better life for themselves as did our forefathers? I love being an American and I don't mind sharing the blessing with others who have not yet had the opportunity. May others be so fortunate as I, who, simply by the accident of birth, achieved what others are willing to work so hard to achieve, but are mercilessly denied..
In what is developing into a standoff between states and the federal government that could be bigger than gun control or even health care, 17 states have launched versions of Arizona's immigration law, even as federal officials say they may not bother to process illegal aliens caught by the states.William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, which has been trying to get officials to address the open southern border for years, warned the consequences could be dire."Over the last couple days, Obama and the chief of ICE have refused to honor their oaths of office," he said. "Their constitutional requirement is to enforce existing laws."They've told the American public to go eat cake," he said. Obama will lose these kinds of fights faster and faster rendering him literally useless.
"The US isn't creating illegals (how do you "create" aan illegal anyway?" BTRI've repeated this several times and even plagiarized myself in the process, but I will give it one more shot.If you are responsible for burning down your neighbors house, it would probably be a good idea if you gave him a place to live, ya think?The US has destroyed Mexican agriculture by NAFTA and dumping subsidized US corn on them which the US grows for more than they can sell it for. The US "burnt down millions of homes".US corporations and transnationals have devastated and pillaged Central and South American nations for years, strip mining comes to mind on top of the CIA coups and assassinations. When they protest the US mined their harbors (Nicaragua) or trained and supplied right wing groups with arms. (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras) "Burning down more homes."Mexico has some 40 families who control over half the wealth. The US has about 380 doing the same. Why would the US cease such a cozy and mutually beneficial arrangement? Why would we stop that which we encourage here at home? Fences won't do it nor will guns on the border although such nonsense appeals to some of a certain mind set.If the US wants to stop undocumented workers from crossing its borders, stop creating them. Stop repeating that they are acting "illegal" while the US illegal actions are causing the diaspora in the first place.
Winston, you are a liar when you say that US "dumped" corn on them which inflated the prices. The fact is that ethanol production is what has inflated the price of corn due tothe artifical shortage of the grain worldwide. The production of ethanol has made even other grains like wheat and rice more expensive because the corn diverted to ethanol would have gone to feed our cattle and pigs. Now these animal farmers have to resort to other grains, like rice and wheat, to feed the hogs and cattle. As for the rest of your rant, you ignore the Mexican corruption, Mexican government aiding and abetting the illegal entry into the US and the fact that we incentivise them illegal entering the US with anchor-baby status, in-state college tuition, sanctuary cities, liars in the federal government (who have never read the law) saying they HAVE read it and are going to overturn the Arizona law, and the revolving door at the border.You ignore all of that to go on an anti-america, anti-corporation, anti-US government rant. Fact is that Mexico's "house" has been a smoldering pile of ash since the last revolution there 100 years ago. That pile of ash is once again going to implode from the mexican drug cartels that commit wholesale murder on a daily basis and export death to the US. Get your facts right.
Does the US bear any responsibility for initiating policies in Latin America which led to the influx of undocumented workers into this country?
Do we bear any responsibility? Hell yes we doo! We have made it way to easy to come here. It's time to close the border and deport ALL illegal aliens. Get in the back of the line and do it right this time. Here are some consequences to illegally crossing the border in other countries. Pay attention:- IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.- IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.- IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET SHOT.- IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.- IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.- IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.- IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.- IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET:1 – A JOB,2 – A DRIVERS LICENSE,3 – SOCIAL SECURITY CARD,4 – WELFARE,5 – FOOD STAMPS,6 – CREDIT CARDS,7 – SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE,8 – FREE EDUCATION,9 – FREE HEALTH CARE,10 – A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON ,11 – BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE,12 – AND THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY'S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON'T GET ENOUGH RESPECT.Arizona was right to act.
http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_052110_BorderAircraftProposalLtrtoPresObama.pdfJan Brewer, Governor of Arizona, wrote this letter to Barack Obama…Who thinks anything will happen?
Your claims of culpability towards Latin America for the US are overstated. And that is being VERY generous.You acknowledge the wealth inequities in Mexico and fail to attribute ANY significance to it. This is a prime reason for the underemployment that drives Mexicans north. You have your anti-corporate, anti-america mantra and will ignore all other evidence to the contrary.(a side note, you are anti-america, not anti-american: the difference is that you claim to love America while blaming it for everything. While not "anti-american" in the same vein that Chavez is anti-american, you are anti-america in that you have self-loathing for the country of your birth and blame it for all the world's ills. This is for clarification to avoid a tangental dodge of my post)Obama has today acknowledged that, despite your erroneous claim to the contrary, we do need more guns on the border. He has, without consulting anyone on either side, committed 1200 army troops (that's US army troops to avoid any further confusion) to the border. This sends a clear message that Arizona is right and you, Winnie, are wrong. You (or maybe it was Wrong Guy) claimed that arrests were up in Arizona therefore the law was unnecessary. Oh, nope, there it is. It was JD78 that posted that. Well, JD, your man Obama is telling you you are wrong. Why would he deploy 1200 troops to the border if everything is hunky-dory? Because things are not hunky-dory. Jan Brewer is right, Sarah Palin is right, Sheriff Joe is right. On the other side, Wrong Guy, WInnie and JD are all WRONG! The Bamster has just told you that. Obama knows that he and his administration were on the WRONG side of the immigration issue and that the PUBLIC (you know, those hayseeds that elected him across america) favored the Arizona law by 78%. Obama is in full damage control mode and knows that he and his party will get their asses kicked in November on this issue alone. Of course, he is not seriously trying to close the border. What died-in-the-wool, socialist-democrat is? But while he gives a sop to the Arizona republicans that passed this law, he is still going to use this as jsutification for his comprehensive amnesty, er, um, immigration reform. Obama hasn't stopped lying about immigration or Arizona, he has just changed what he is lying about.Oh, and Winnie, thanks for fessing up to your plagerism (two times worth). Isn't confession good for the soul?
"Winston, you are a liar when you say that US "dumped" corn on them which inflated the prices." -Big Tent RepublicanHe's not lying, though I believe that agricultural dumping by definition does not "inflate" prices.The Mexican farmers cannot compete with the low low price of US corn-based commodities exported to their country, as corn is HEAVILY subsidized by the US government with your tax dollars to keep its price artificially low. The price is typically lower than production cost for the Mexican farmer. This results in significant $$$ losses for the farmers.The Global Development and Environment Institute (GDAE) at Tufts University has done extensive research on the effects of NAFTA on the Mexican economy.This paper (http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/policy_research/AgNAFTA.html) reports on studies done to determine how agricultural "dumping" impacts the Mexican economy. Some interesting stuff.
"- IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET:1 – A JOB," The government has rules prohibiting this, but private citizens violate. "2 – A DRIVERS LICENSE," False. They don't qualify."3 – SOCIAL SECURITY CARD," False. They don't qualify."4 – WELFARE," False. They don't qualify."5 – FOOD STAMPS," False. They don't qualify."6 – CREDIT CARDS" Yes, private companies don't verify immigration/citizenship status."7 – SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE," False. They don't qualify."8 – FREE EDUCATION," It's not free because they pay for it through taxes."9 – FREE HEALTH CARE," Emergency health care. Shame on us."10 – A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON ," Who doesn't?"11 – BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE," The U.S. does not have an official language. And to assume that someone is here illegally just because they aren't 100% confident with their English shows you to be ignorant."12 – AND THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY'S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON'T GET ENOUGH RESPECT." Free speech. It's what makes the U.S. great.
Often while perusing this site I feel that I must have fallen in a time warp and am revisiting school yards taunts from immature bullies past.The blame towards the least among us is as predictable as it is erroneous. The scapegoating undocumented workers never mentions the loss of millions of jobs overseas due to predatory capitalist hegemony, never mentions the long term decline and now collapse of U.S. capitalism, and never lays the blame where it belongs, corporate controlled US foreign policy.In every "immigration reform" proposal that I have read, not one deals with the cause of massive immigration as to do so would cut into the profits of US and transnational corporations Immigration reform must not further exploit, imprison, deport and destroy the millions of working people and their children who often have lived and worked here for many years, for the most part aided and abetted by the US government and the plutocracy it has become. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights must extend to all working people living here without exception.If “immigration reform” does not focus on the causes of the massive flight from Latin America, all other efforts will fail miserably. While building fences and guns on the border appeal to those of a certain authoritarian mindset, they will not deter immigration one iota, but they will further enrich a few individuals in the process. For immigration reform to be successful it must address the following.End the NAFTA, CAFTA, and other such treaties which forces privatization of government public social services, destroying these services and making them unaffordable and unavailable except to the small middle-class and wealthy elite. Remove such restrictions placed on IMF loans which penalize the working class and the poor while further enriching the wealthy.is unavailable in rural areas.Stop subsidies to U.S. corporate Agri-business which were allowed to dump cheap corn into Mexico, forcing over a million subsistence peasants off their land, into the cities and then North. Desperation, starvation and death are driving the migration north.Decriminalize illegal drugs and so end the drug induced violence on the border.The forced impoverishment of Mexico and Central and South America by U.S. corporate foreign policy over decades has predictably caused the civil corruption, drug wars, and made Mexico and much of Latin America a “failed state” in the eyes of the US plutocracy, wanting to seize the state run oil for further profiteering. The results of decades of both corporate controlled Dem and Repug parties in forever waging wars on behalf of the transnational corporations and the MIC have maintained the destruction of Mexico and South and Central America with the help of totally corrupted local elites. (Much as it is here in the US)The involvement of the US in the devastation and destruction of Mexico and South and Central America has been massively understated by myself.The U.S. has overthrown democratically elected governments in Central and South America to maintain the profit of US and transnational corporations. Allende in Chile, Arbenz in Guatemala, The “contra” war in Nicaragua. The attempted coup and continuing subversion of democratically elected Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, (Much like our own attempted coup of FDR) the 50 year blockade of Cuba, etc.Our misadventures and crimes in the Middle East are just as worrisome and destructive.Our problems are many and varied, and none are caused by undocumented workers coming into the US. Yes, admitting to plagiarizing myself with my own writings is a major coup. I'll go back to my usual ignoring of BTR comments as they bring nothing of substance to the table.
(1 of 2)Chris: There are a few misunderstandings I must clear up for you.First, you’ve taken the cheap route and suggested my comments indicate that I believe that “cops inherently racially profile.” There is nothing in my comments that indicate such a belief. I simply acknowledge that racial profiling does occur. You’re just attempting to divert the conversation by putting me on the defensive.Second, you seem to have the mistaken belief that a statute that is facially neutral cannot otherwise be found to be unconstitutionally discriminatory. I know it’s been years since you practiced law and it doesn’t appear as though your prior practice much involved consideration of the U.S. Constitution, but you surely should remember what your Con Law professors told you about finding that a statute was unconstitutionally discriminatory. In order to find that a statute is discriminatory, you must find a discriminatory effect (such as, Latinos are disproportionately detained and arrested) as well as a discriminatory intent. Discriminatory intent may be found where the statute is facially discriminatory (not here), where the statute is applied in a discriminatory manner, OR where there was a discriminatory motive in enacting the statute. Discriminatory application may be established if Latinos are disproportionately detained and arrested for violations of this statute. Discriminatory motivation can be established because this statute was authored by a white supremacist and white racist, Russell Pearce (a fact you still avoid addressing), who has previously stated his intention to rid Arizona of the growing Latino population. He has also stated that the statute was amended to include municipal code and local ordinance violations to provide additional pretexts for immigration investigations. The Maricopa County Sheriff has publicly stated that his department has already enacted what he believes SB 1070 is intended to do. After studies found that Latinos were being disproportionately detained and arrested by his department, the USDOJ began an investigation that is currently underway for civil rights violations.The example you gave which you believe illustrates reasonable suspicion without racial profiling, in fact, does not illustrate reasonable suspicion. Your profile of a person who does not speak English well, who does not have in his possession a driver’s license or a passport or a visa, who says he’s “from” (vague) another country applies to millions of people who are in this country legally. Facility with English is not requisite to legal entry or legal presence in this country, Chris. Lack of possession of a driver’s license, a passport, or immigration documents does not indicate illegal entry or illegal presence because there are a number of reasons someone may not have these documents in their possession but, nonetheless, still be in the country legally. The Gonzales court said as much.
(2 of 2)But, Equal Protection aside, the immigration process is a complicated one that relies on complicated statutes and hearings in order to determine who may remain and who must be deported. This statute pretends that there are offenses that make a person deportable. There are not. The immigration process is much more holistic. This statute pretends that a person’s immigration status may be determined by a simple trip to the station while local law enforcement contacts the feds for a few minutes. This is not the case. The immigration process is a complex, lengthy process. This statute will require people to be held in custody for days or weeks while their immigration status is determined, clearly violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.The complexity of immigration law is why the federal government has only given state and local law enforcement authority to make immigration arrests when there is a reasonable suspicion that the person committed one of only a few select criminal violations that all can be witnessed by local officers, such as entering the country by avoiding the legal crossing channels, smuggling, etc. The federal government knows that state and local law enforcement are not equipped to determine who may or may not BE in this country legally. So they have told state and local governments to stay out of that end of it and only enforce against people they see ENTER the country illegally.I find it curious that you haven’t offered your thoughts on the obvious First Amendment violation this law commits by criminalizing solicitation of work. This is major.Further, I wonder why you do not feel it necessary to jump to law enforcement’s defense when it comes to the civil exposure this law creates for them and the frivolous law suits this law will require law enforcement spend their time and money defending against. I’ve cited my objection to this aspect of the statute many times and you have refused to express your position.But I haven’t even gotten to violating interstate commerce. This law creates requirements that individuals carry certain documents other states don’t require. This would have a chilling effect on travel to Arizona. People who are otherwise in the country legally would avoid visiting Arizona for fear that they’d be subject to lengthy detention while their immigration status is determined. This is also why otherwise legal Arizona residents are intimidated by this law and are leaving (my friend and his wife included). They fear that law enforcement will find reasonable suspicion to detain them down at the station while the feds sort things out. This is where Obama’s example of going out to get ice cream and getting locked up becomes a reality. Stray from your house accidentally leaving your documents at home and you could end up detained for who knows how long? And you’d better hope the feds have their records straight or its off to ICE for youyou’re your documents are in process but haven’t received them from the feds yet, don’t leave the house at all.There are so many things wrong with this law. I hope you won’t mind the big “I told you so” when the court strikes it down.
Big Tent said, "Oh, and Winnie, thanks for fessing up to your plagerism (two times worth)."It's not considered plagiarism (yes, you spelled it incorrectly) if its by the same author, Smarty.
JD, as a lawyer you make a great spelling teacher. He plagiarized the same source not of his writing twice. He didn't write what he double posted and he admitted that. But thanks for playing anyhow.
YOU ARE SO WRONG I AM AMAZED!JurisDoctor78 said… "- IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET: 1 – A JOB," The government has rules prohibiting this, but private citizens violate. THE LARGEST EMPLOYER OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT "2 – A DRIVERS LICENSE," False. They don't qualify. THEY ARE FORGED AND ACCEPTED AS LEGAL "3 – SOCIAL SECURITY CARD," False. They don't qualify.MOST ARE STOLEN OR MADE UP BUT ALL ARE ACCEPTED AS LEGAL BECAUSE "E-VERIFY" HAS BEEN BEEN BLOCKED BY THE LIBS "4 – WELFARE," False. They don't qualify.WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ARIZONA NO STATE REQUIRES PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP TO GET GOVERNMENT AND STATE SERVICES "5 – FOOD STAMPS," False. They don't qualify.WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ARIZONA NO STATE REQUIRES PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP TO GET GOVERNMENT AND STATE SERVICES "6 – CREDIT CARDS" Yes, private companies don't verify immigration/citizenship status. CASE AND POINT! "7 – SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE," False. They don't qualify.WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ARIZONA NO STATE REQUIRES PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP TO GET GOVERNMENT AND STATE SERVICES "8 – FREE EDUCATION," It's not free because they pay for it through taxes. "9 – FREE HEALTH CARE," Emergency health care. Shame on us.AND THIS IS BANKRUPTING HOSPITALS, COUNTIES AND STATES AND NOW EVEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT…SHAME ON US! "10 – A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON ," Who doesn't? "11 – BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE," The U.S. does not have an official language.IT SHOULD! And to assume that someone is here illegally just because they aren't 100% confident with their English shows you to be ignorant. "12 – AND THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY'S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON'T GET ENOUGH RESPECT." Free speech. It's what makes the U.S. great. JD? How does it feel to be with the vast minority on these issues? Why is that? And why be so misleading and dishonest?
Mr. Facts, please allow me to assist…Illegal aliens have received credit cardsThey also received and defaulted on billions in home mortgages. The trouble with you lawyers, JD, is that you argue the intent of laws and not the application of laws. Just because a law exists to prevent illegal aliens from getting credit cards doesn't mean that it will not happen again. It does mean that there will be a penalty if caught doing it. Laws do not prevent crime. If they did then this thread would not exist because it is a crime to enter the US without proper legal documentation. It is the hallmark of liberal thought to be more concerned about the intent of a law rather than the practical application of that law. Liberals are always stuck in Phase I thinking and never can see the 2nd and 3rd order of consequences.
Facts: Perhaps you should have specified that you were talking about state assistance and not federal. Since you were talking about entry into the U.S. and you have a habit of expressing gripes with the current federal government, I mistakenly assumed you were talking about federal assistance.Nonetheless, your example of food stamps is misleading because illegal immigrants only receive them if they have children who are born here and, thus, natural born citizens. I know this irks you, but it's constitutional. We give automatic citizenship to those who fall out of a uterus on U.S. soil. After all, that's most likely how you gained your citizenship. Wave your flag.Second, what is your source of your information about the federal government employing illegal immigrants? In what capacity are they employed? What jobs are they doing? Let me know, because I haven't been able to find a credible source on this issue.Your claims that illegal immigrants get a driver’s license and a social security card are grossly misleading. Anyone, even your golden retriever, can get a “forged” driver’s license and a fraudulent social security card. You presented this information in a way that dishonestly gave the impression that the government was knowingly giving these documents to illegal immigrants. Your list was proposed as a list of entitlements. Now you're backtracking and including things illegals can obtain through fraud? Why stop at the items you have? Why not claim banks will give illegals all of the money in the vault . . . . . if they point a gun at the teller?E-Verify is only accurate 50% of the time. Do you want your livelihood staked on something that is that unreliable? I wouldn’t think so.On the issue of credit cards, you know it’s not the government who issues credit cards, right? Do you really want to require private businesses to check citizenship – a highly complex and expensive process – before they contract with customers? You're pro-business, right? Do you really want to have to prove your citizenship before you contract with a private company? Before you get a credit card, a car, clothes, groceries? An argument that private businesses don't check citizenship is a weak one.As for how it feels to “be with the vast minority on these issues, I’m not sure what you mean. If you’re asking whether it causes me to second-guess my views, no, it doesn’t. If you’re asking whether or not it is frustrating, yes, it is. But, then, I’m in the minority on virtually all of my views, not only in political and social issues, but also in entertainment, sports . . . I'm a far left, anti-religious hockey fan living in one of the warmest states in one of the most religious and conservative countries in the western world, for Christ's sake! I am quite used to having uncommon views. But, then again, the majority of people are ignorant, narrow-minded simpletons . . . . and that’s your company, not mine. Enjoy.
Big Tent said: “The trouble with you lawyers, JD, is that you argue the intent of laws and not the application of laws.”Oh, sweet little “Big” Tent. You never seem to disappoint. Just when I think you’re tapped out of sparkling ignorant expressions, you come through again. Thank you for making it obvious to all of us that you have no knowledge of anything relating to the law . . . or anything else. It makes it easier for all of us to just dismiss your comments as the obsessive-compulsive ramblings of know-nothing.
1) Second, what is your source of your information about the federal government employing illegal immigrants?THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR2) Anyone, even your golden retriever, can get a “forged” driver’s license and a fraudulent social security card. THAT'S WHY THE BORDER MUST BE SEALED3) E-Verify is only accurate 50% of the timeNOT IF BILL GATES OR GOOGLE WERE IN CHARGE.4) Do you really want to require private businesses to check citizenship (credit cards)YES! SEE ABOVE ANSWER
1) Second, what is your source of your information about the federal government employing illegal immigrants?THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR – Facts, I searched all over the DOL's website for that data. Can't find it. Give me an exact address to the page of their site where you found it.You could be confused by some of the independent companies the federal government contracts with who hire illegal immigrants. There was an ironic story in 2006 where the feds busted one of the companies they contracted with to build the border fence who had been hiring illegal immigrants. 2) Anyone, even your golden retriever, can get a “forged” driver’s license and a fraudulent social security card. THAT'S WHY THE BORDER MUST BE SEALED – I agree, the border must be sealed to keep your Mexican golden retriever from obtaining a fraudulent driver's license.3) E-Verify is only accurate 50% of the timeNOT IF BILL GATES OR GOOGLE WERE IN CHARGE. – So, you admit E-Verify is highly inaccurate. Then do you retract your blame of "libs" for opposing it? And, Facts, are you suggesting the federal government order Bill Gates or Google to run E-Verify. Things are a little more complicated than the Drudge report would make it seem.4) Do you really want to require private businesses to check citizenship (credit cards)YES! SEE ABOVE ANSWER – You're obviously not a small business owner like myself.
In their writings here JD and Winston Smith continually show a common sense wisdom that those who try to insult them do not. One thing I always say, when judging a debate, if you are going to err at all, err on the side of common sense and decency. I've always believed that the founding of the United States, and the documents that set its course, were aimed, above all, to uphold and foster decency, even if that requires sacrifice.Thank you JD and Winston.Can you believe that in this day and age we've had people in our own community, people who judge themselves "decent" citizens, who have come to this forum and vigorously defended, to the point of insult, the torturing of human beings? Torture sanctioned in the name of the United States, no less!The fact that experts judge torture to not even be effective for its stated purposes still does not deter these irrational zealots.These people who challenge simple human decency have the perversity to consider themselves greater "patriots" than their critics. These are crazy times. But the truth has never been more accessible to those who want it. .
"Can you believe that in this day and age we've had people in our own community, people who judge themselves "decent" citizens, who have come to this forum and vigorously defended, to the point of insult, the torturing of human beings? Torture sanctioned in the name of the United States, no less!The fact that experts judge torture to not even be effective for its stated purposes still does not deter these irrational zealots." Wise GuyIt simply boggles the mind. To think that we could grow people such as them in our community.Sadly, we do grow people like that in our community.
Mexican Drug Cartel Threatens Nogales, AZ Police Officers with SnipersStandWithArizona.com06-21-2010IT HAS BEGUN. On the same day 15 Federales were gunned down in Mexico by drug cartel gunman, the cartel has threatened American police in Nogales, AZ with gunman and sniper attack if they again interfered in drug smuggling activity while off duty.This follows an incident in early June when off-duty Nogales officers conducted a drug bust while off duty. Nogales police said they would not turn a blind eye to illegal activity when not on duty, but the threats are a new and menacing signal that Mexican-style murder and reprisals against law enforcement may be coming to America sooner than thought.SECURE THE DAMN BORDER NOW. FUND THE FENCE!
A fence will make no difference when it comes to the violence of the Mexican drug trade and it spilling into the U.S.As Mexican Drug Cartel expert and author Charles Bowden has explained, the thing that fuels the Mexican drug cartel violence is the U.S. WAR ON DRUGS. Most of the drugs distributed by the Mexican cartels is distributed and consumed in the U.S., the primary commodity being marijuana. You want to solve the Mexican drug cartel violence in Mexico and the U.S.? Stop the prohibition of marijuana in the U.S. This is not my opinion. It is the opinion of an expert.A fence will not stop the killing and violence. Even the Great Wall of China turned out to be a failure, and that was before airplanes and helicopters. There are these high tech devices that help people get past fences. They are called ladders, ropes and shovels. Then of course there are bribes that rarely fail to get people and product through the gates of fences. .The fence that is being built is a humongous waste of money, as nearly every expert on the matter agrees. And who pays for it? The U.S. taxpayers. And naturally it is "conservatives" who are most eager to push for this wasteful spending.
And if we want to decrease the murder rate in Detroit, let's make murder legal. hell, let's just throw out all laws so that way the US will be the first nation in human history to be crime free. Of course it would lead to anarchy, but if all you are wanting to do is take the easy, lazy way out to declare victory on the war on whatever, then a little anarchy would be tolerated by you liberals.That specious thought process is exactly what Daniel Patrick Moynihan called "defining deviancy downward." Whatever happened to right and wrong? It is wrong for someone to show up at their job site stoned on marijuana. It is wrong to walk around with your child filthy and hungry because you are too stoned and too self-absorbed to realize that your child is filthy and hungry.Furthermore, why are MEXICO drug cartels America's fault? That's like blaming Italy for all the Italian mobsters. MEXICO has the same responsibility to halt the drug cartels as Pakistan does to combat the islamo-facsist douchebags that train wannabe terrorists to try to blow up shit in America. How do you know a fence won't work anyhow? It sure works in San Diego and Nogales. How do you know? Because more illegals turn up dead in the desert from dehydration because they can't cross the border at San Diego or nogales. That's how.A war is brewing on our border. Either we can listen to idiotic notions like "legalize marijuana to stop the cartels" (moron, actually that will just INCREASE the drug flow because then it would be LEGAL and the drug cartels have the supplies in the pipeline ready to go). This president and the next will have to decide whether it is better to cowtow to a 3rd world nation on our southern border to garner a few voters or if they are really sworn to defend the United States from all enemies, foreign and dmestic. Right now the jury is still out on this president and where his priorities lie.
Building a fence will not stop the drug violence in Mexico, the world's new killing fields. Citizens of the U.S. fund the Mexican Drug cartels, and profit from it. The U.S. "War on Drugs" has been a catastrophic, deadly, failure, enriching criminals on both sides of the border and killing thousands annually. The "conservative" approaches to solving these problems are an absolute, undeniable failure. The problem continues to get worse, not better, while the U.S. spends more money on it. Don't you see something wrong with this picture? Simply allowing U.S. citizens to grow a marijuana plant or two each would likely do more to stop the violence than would the billions of dollars spent on fences and every other expensive, failing "strategy" to curtail drug crimes and violence. Considerably fewer people will be paying $300 to $500 an ounce for pot when they can grow a pound of it (organically!) annually in their kitchen window box. Whatever happened to the "conservative" "free market" approach? It seems conservatives only tout "free market" economics when it fosters death and destruction, and reject it when it saves lives.The Republican Party of Death and Destruction strikes again! How typical!…