OK... here's a juicy one.
Can anybody tell me exactly why it is that the left is all lathered up about Arizona's new illegal immigrant law?
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/local/huge-rally-at-arizona-capitol-today
I'd like to duplicate that law here in NM.
Well I'm not the left and I'm not exactly lathered up about it nor am I pro-illegal immigration but I can tell you why it is upsetting to many people, including myself.
Racial profiling. The bill makes it legal to pull over, detain, and jail people based on skin color. I've heard the counter arguments, "What's the big deal? Just show the proper documentations and there is no problem!".
I have left my house and forgotten my wallet before, I don't think I should have to potentially go to jail for that. Of course you and I will never need to endure that, being fair skinned. Still doesn't make it right.
Papers please!?? Sounds like some other countries we used to think of as evil, not America.
I never understood wy they need a seperate law for this. If you are here illegaly.. you are breaking the law. Maybe they never had it written out on paper before.... ???
There are existing laws; that's how ICE is able to send people back to Mexico. We have uneven enforcement.
Add to that the fact that NM issues drivers licenses to every Tom, Dick and Harry who comes along, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, and we have a real mess.
If we really want to curb illegal immigration (and I do) there are many things that have to change. That might include requiring a national ID card for those born here or with 'green cards' or those who are naturalized citizens. Maybe we need guest worker visas. Maybe we need to somehow change the law that automatically grants US citizenship to babies whose mothers purposefully cross over to give birth in the USA.
Here in Oklahoma, to get a drivers liscense you have to have a certified birth certificate and a valid SS card. (Or a current US passport)
To get a job here you have to have two valid forms of ID to get a job, and that is by federal mandate.
Several years ago I was unemployed because the company I worked for closed. I had to prove my citizenship to get unemployment and food stamps.
So what is all this talk about illegals taking all the jobs and getting on welfare? I just don't understand that part.
I also think that Arizona didn't really think this thru. I really wonder what it is going to do to tourism and conventions?
Who would want to vacation there if they didn't have the proper skin color and run the risk of frequent checkpoints for driving around with out of state plates. But then again, with the bleak picture painted by those who supported this law, who would want to visit such a dangerous place, with Mexican banditos bearing assault rifles behind every rock.
Basicly the problem with the law is you are guilty until proven innocent. Existing laws already cover illegal alien issues but are not enforced.
Here's an overview:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.1070pshs.doc.htm
How does #18 break down? Does this mean that it is only unlawful to transport workers to another location if you are blocking traffic?
Well I'll sure agree with #'s 26-31. There are many industries that rely heavily, if not entirely on illegal labor forces. It seems doubtful that these companies hire most of these illegal workers unknowingly.
If the focus would be on this issue I think a lot more could be accomplished, yet it always ends up on the back burner in order of importance.
Extinguish the source and you might have a fighting chance to eliminate the problem.
In addition to the racial profiling potential, citizens can sue the police for not questioning enough people about their immigration status, and citizens can sue the police for harassing them unreasonably. Police are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
This is going to tie the Arizona courts in knots, and cost them a fortune in judgements. If the state isn't bankrupt now, it will be soon.
??? [noidea'
This law and all the BS politicians are full of crap. Neither liberals or conservatives want to stop the border crossings. They all say that they do but they are lying.
The liberals like it because they hope to get another 10 million or so democratic voters someday after they are legalized, and they are just plain do-gooders that dont care about the impact on the existing americans.
The conservatives like it because they want cheap labor to exploit. Its that simple. It will not be stopped because no-one but the people want it stopped.
If we really wanted to stop it, and didnt care about all the "we cant hurt anyone do-gooders." It could be stopped in 30 days and all the current illegals returned. Of course it would never be done, its way to "barbaric". Just make a law that no-one would be prosecuted for shooting an illegal in cold blood, as long as they are here illegally you could blow them away. Now lets see. the do-gooders clain that thousands die crossing the desert every year, so if we gunned down say 100 or so before they all got smart and left the country, Then we should get a noble peace prize for saving lives right???
obviously sarcastic, the point is...what does no you can not come illegally mean?
The problem has many solutions if you actually wanted to stop the crossing instead of jaw bone about it.
Tom
The funny thing here in Minnesota is that we get the illegal from both borders. Not only is there a high population from south of the border centered in the Twin Cities and meat packing towns like Austin, but there is also a growing population from north of the border. My wife worked with a guy who came from England and Canada, and has no green card. He was more worried about being sent back than some of those south of the border.
Quote from: NM_Shooter on April 26, 2010, 09:23:52 AM
Can anybody tell me exactly why it is that the left is all lathered up about Arizona's new illegal immigrant law?
How's this for starters? http://iowaindependent.com/32851/the-new-birthers-arizona-truck-driver-arrested-forced-to-show-birth-certificate (http://iowaindependent.com/32851/the-new-birthers-arizona-truck-driver-arrested-forced-to-show-birth-certificate)
My emphasis - "
Both were born in the United States..."
Next, as someone mentioned, the color of your skin is now probable cause for a stop and to be asked 'Papers please'.
How long until everyone has to show papers when crossing state borders?
Carrying firearms? Got proof you own them legally? Can't prove it like the kid in the news article mentioned above - confiscate your personal property. Good luck getting 'em back.
This 'so called' law, if not found unconstitutional, may be the first step on the way to national ID, check points and a country where our last bit of freedom is gone 'poof', like smoke in a strong wind.
And as Txcowrancher said, people on both sides of the issue want to use this as a political wedge issue without really doing anything serious about stopping it. Don't matter the political persuasion.
AND... Just exactly who is gonna pick seasonal crops? Sure ain't gonna be a red-neck from deep woods Georgia/Kentucky/Arkansas going to Florida or California and doing stoop labor for pennies an hour. But those same red-necks will grab the welfare and food stamps and then whine about too much gov'ment spendin'. He-double hockey sticks, don't y'all know that if'n the company ya worked for for 20+ years shut its doors and you were drawing unemployment benefits - that you partly paid into the state - and ya can't find a job that - according to some GOP politicians in several states - you're just a lazy no-good for nothing sucking the state coffers dry.
Don't matter that those same politicians made it easy and without penalty for companies to move decent family wage jobs overseas. Nah, no connection. Freeloaders! You-betcha! Get'em out in the fresh air and sunshine and get those strawberries hoed under 'cause there's a glut!
But don't ever mention that the average Joe or Jane American is carrying 30% to 150% more weight than they should and couldn't bend over their belly to pull a weed or harvest a head of lettuce more than three times in a day without injuring themselves and claiming disability. Gotta have those illegals to keep the food fresh behind individually plastic wrapped pablum at Wal-Mart.
[/rant]
QuoteThis 'so called' law, if not found unconstitutional, may be the first step on the way to national ID, check points and a country where our last bit of freedom is gone 'poof', like smoke in a strong wind.
Bingo! We have a winner.
Quote from: Txcowrancher on April 26, 2010, 03:55:24 PM
Just make a law that no-one would be prosecuted for shooting an illegal in cold blood, as long as they are here illegally you could blow them away.
I think you are on to something! But if we took it one step further, we could cure the problem in two weeks: make it legal to shoot anyone who hires an illegal. If there are no jobs, they will deport themselves. Plus, since one business owner can employ dozens of illegals, there would be fewer graves to dig.
I'm surprised/shocked at the cavalier mention of shooting people, if even in jest.
From the L A. Times:
1. 40% of all workers in L. A. County (L. A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.
10. In L. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish. (There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County.)
(All 10 of the above facts were published in the Los Angeles Times)
Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare. Over 70% of the United States' annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens .
AND-
CHEAP LABOR? Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about?
Business doesn't want to pay a decent wage.
Consumers don't want expensive produce.
Government will tell you Americans don't want the jobs.
But the bottom line is cheap labor. The phrase "cheap labor" is a myth, a farce, and a lie. There is no such thing as "cheap labor."
Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes a job for $5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, he gets an "earned income credit" of up to $3,200 free.
He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.
He qualifies for food stamps.
He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) healthcare.
His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.
He requires bilingual teachers and books.
He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.
If they are, or become, aged, blind or disabled, they qualify for SSI. If qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicaid. All of this is at (our) taxpayer's expense.
He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.
Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.
He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.
Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6..00/hour left after paying their bills and his.
I think we should lead by example. We should make our Whitehouse resident prove he is an American or send him back to Kenya. [waiting]
Why are we worried about Mexicans? [noidea'
Gee, I thought that AZ already had that law back in 1999 when I got pulled over by an AZ state trooper and patted down because I had out of state plates and was working for the summer there. Oh, and he wanted to know if me and my Navajo friend who was riding with me were drinking because, well, we looked suspicious with out of state tags, dark skin, and tinted windows. He told me that my OK license was not valid for more than 16 days in AZ (not true, I did look that one up) and that I had to immediately get my license and tags changed to AZ. Thought he was going to arrest the whole bunch of us at first, and the crazy thing was that he didn't even have a reason to pull us over in the first place!
http://www.devvy.com/new_site/arizona_immigration_042610.html
Arizona's new immigration law: Not all illegals are Mexicans
By: Devvy
April 26, 2010
The worn out chant claiming racism over Arizona's tough and long over due immigration reform bill is saturating the media. I caught a segment on FAUX News two days ago. A robot in the form of a female had her yap going, declaring the law unconstitutional because it "makes all Hispanics in Arizona second class citizens". If I had an extra one of my favorite bumper sticker, I'd mail it to her:
Because this female loads the pie hole in her face before her brain, she either hasn't read the bill (if she can read English) or chooses not to because it doesn't fit with her agenda: promoting lawlessness instead of the law. This genius also doesn't seem to comprehend this on-going invasion has brought terrible suffering to the people of Arizona for decades. Both emotionally and physically from crime, and economically by stealing jobs that belong to the people of Arizona and naturalized citizens in that state.
Arizona's current unemployment rate is 9.6%. How many thousands of jobs are being held by illegal aliens who have no legal right to work in that state? Thousands. Those jobs belong to the people of Arizona, not some criminal from Columbia, Cambodia or Manila.[1] In the meantime, Arizonans stand in unemployment lines.
A new Rassmussen poll shows 70% of Arizonans are in favor of this law. The other 30% are illegals, their friends and extremist fringe groups like the ACLU and militant America haters like LaRaza.
The usurper in the White House, who has no legal authority to say or do anything while he illegally occupies the office of president, fired off his politically correct rhetoric for votes calling the law 'misguided'. Obama/Soetoro knowingly and and with pre-meditation, broke dozens of laws when he brazenly ran for president knowing full well he is and always will be constitutionally ineligible. Anything he says, which is usually a bald face lie, means nothing. It's all political posturing.
The American Communist Lawyers Union (ACLU) blasts the new law "threatens civil rights and public safety". Of course, the ACLU has never done anything that would endanger public safety:
ACLU Defends Child Molester Group
"The American Civil Liberties Union has asked a judge to dismiss what it calls an "unconstitutional" lawsuit against a national pedophile organization being sued in a wrongful death case after two of the group's members brutally raped and murdered a 10-year-old boy. The $200 million civil lawsuit, which charges the North American Man-Boy Love Association with wrongful death, was originally filed in Massachusetts Federal District Court on May 16....
"But the ACLU believes NAMBLA is being unconstitutionally ''sued for their ideas.'' According to court documents from the ACLU, the case raises ''profoundly important questions under the First Amendment,'' because NAMBLA is not being sued for making any particular statements, but simply for creating an ''environment'' that encourages sexual abuse.
''What they don't like is what NAMBLA stands for,'' said John Reinstein, legal director of the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU. ''They don't like their ideas or the notion that someone else would have accepted them,'' he told the Boston Globe."
Those monsters out there who preach 'sex after eight it's too late' don't endanger public safety? Why, they just exchange "ideas" that are putrid and revolting. Surely that doesn't endanger America's children who are the targets of those ideas from heinous monsters who steal their childhood and turn their heads into an emotional wasteland. I guess the ACLU chooses to ignore how many illegal aliens are child sex predators that have already molested and murdered:
How many more tears? How many more funerals?
Violent Sexual Predators Who Are Illegal Aliens - A note about that column. It was written by the late Dr. Madeleine Cosman. Another radical extremist fringe group, the Southern "Poverty" Law Center, went after Dr. Cosman as they do anyone who dares to challenge the lies and propaganda spewed forth by the "mainstream" media (print and electronic) and cable TV networks.
For example:
Operation Predator: Targeting child exploitation and sexual crimes
Non Citizen Predators
"Three-quarters of the arrests under Operation Predator have been arrests of non-citizen sex offenders whose crimes make them removable from the United States. Others must serve their sentences before being removed from the United States. These predators have included New Jersey, New York, and California men who repeatedly molested their own daughters as well as an Austrian-national soccer coach convicted of fondling a mentally impaired minor."
Non-citizen means illegal alien.
Each day, approximately 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sex offenders cross the US border.[2] They are on the hunt for your daughter, grand daughter, grand son or you. Age doesn't seem to matter as I pointed out in a recent column. Those animals have raped 80 year old grandma's.
The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes
Committed by Illegal Immigrants in the United States
Murder and other forms of violence are out of control in the State of Arizona, yet the ACLU condemns their state legislature and governor of Arizona for taking long overdue steps to protect their citizens. Never mind how many of these illegals are disease ridden which IS a public health safety concern. Those criminals are not immigrants. They are leeches who come here to suck off the fruits of your labor and now expect to be rewarded with amnesty courtesy of the usurper and vile senators like Juan McCain and Lindsay Graham who has now been outed.
As Gov. Brewer was signing the bill into law, what was going on outside the capitol?
67 Illegal Immigrants Found in U-Haul Truck
ELFRIDA, Ariz. - "Sixty-seven illegal immigrants were found crammed inside a U-Haul truck near Elfrida, Ariz. about 20 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border after deputies spotted it driving erratically.
"Cochise County sheriff's spokeswoman Carol Capas said Friday that deputies pulled the U-Haul over Thursday evening, and the driver and front passenger ran out of the vehicle into the desert.
"The two, believed to be smugglers, got away. Meanwhile, deputies found 67 illegal immigrants in the back of the 26-foot truck."
67 criminals in just one truck. No background on any of these illegals; health, criminal or otherwise. And the American Communist Lawyers Union thinks the new law endangers public safety? It is any wonder that outside the world of the fools who support them, the rest of us find the ACLU a vile, anti-American operation?
Racial profiling
While 62% of illegals are Mexicans, illegal aliens come from many countries to break into our house:
In the eye of the 'illegals' storm
"The Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform's inaugural meeting on a wretched January night at Rory Dolan's Bronx bar has already become part of New York's Irish community folklore. "It's a bit like the 1916 Rising," quips Ciaran Staunton, O'Dowd's brother-in-law and vice-chairman of the ILIR. "There were 300,000 in the GPO that day too."
"That night, O'Dowd proposed a campaign to secure visas for the 25,000 to 50,000 illegal Irish workers in the US, someone pointed out that Washington was in no humour to hand out visas to illegal workers, O'Dowd shot back immediately that the undocumented Irish in the Bronx were in plenty of humour to receive them. The ILIR was up and running.
"The political apparatus that was used to secure the Donnelly and Morrison visas of the eighties was dusted off, oiled and put to work. Within weeks it resembled a very small, very efficient presidential campaign. In March, 2,400 Irish illegals took buses to a rally in Washington, where they were greeted by 2008 presidential contenders Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator John McCain. Senators Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer were amongst the high-profile senators who pledged their support to the 2,400 illegal Irish who demanded the right to "earned legalisation".
"A dozen Congressional lawmakers, Republican and Democrat, fell over each other in the rush to declare their support for the Irish illegals. "It would never have happened without Niall," Staunton says. "He doesn't care whose name is on the green card. The Donnelly visas were signed by Ronald Reagan, the Morrison's by Bush Sr and the Adams visa by Bill Clinton. He'll work with whoever can deliver."
I wish I had a list of those Republican and Democrats who "fell over each other" to support individuals who violated federal immigration law by sneaking into the country.
2,400 illegals "demand" a non existent right. Those illegals from Ireland are the same legal flavor of criminal as an illegal from Guatemala.
About 120,000 illegal aliens per year are from commie China, a half million from the Republic of Georgia and another 750,000 from the Philippines and South America.
The Irish are known for their beautiful, milky white skin. Asians are distinguishable from other races because God chose different colors and features for mankind. Are law enforcement going to pull over every person with milky white skin or with Asian features and demand their citizenship documents? Hardly. Advocates for illegal aliens and their mouthpieces like the ACLU seem to forget that state troopers and other law enforcement are all races: Caucasian, Negro, Asian, Hispanic. They are out there to do their job which is uphold the law. Should Irish and Asian illegals start squawking about racial profiling even though the officer questioning them is of the same race?
Let us not forget the roughly 150,000 illegals from middle Eastern countries. They are criminals just like all the rest. We know some of them are terrorists who have been running cells in this country. Yet, the bleeding hearts want to put everyone at risk with their mewling about racial profiling. In case it has been overlooked, many of the verified hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi's.
The American people have had it with law enforcement getting killed by illegal aliens as well as thousands of Americans per year -- and those are only the ones we know were committed by illegals. So many go unsolved.
The hawking of the racial profile hysteria is just more marketing to get this law overturned. However, it seems an appellate court issued a recent decision that should help law enforcement with their real concerns about getting sued for asking for identification with probable cause:
ESTRADA; ESTRADA; MUСOZ; AQUINO; RIVERA; TAMUP; BURGOS; URIZAR; TEBALAN; NORIEGA; CRUZ; VILAVICENCIO
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, State Police Department; STEVEN M. PARE, individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Rhode Island State Police; C. THOMAS CHABOT, individually and in his official capacity as a state trooper employed by the State of Rhode Island,
Defendants, Appellees,
JANE DOE, individually and in her official capacity as a state trooper employed by the State of Rhode Island,
Defendant
Case No. 09-1149, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, decided February 4, 2010
Fifteen men in a van stopped by a state trooper. He felt he had probable cause to ask for identification. Some of the illegals admitted right there they were here here illegally and on their way to work at jobs that belong to the people of Rhode Island. The trooper calls ICE and the illegals rightfully get hauled off and jailed. Those criminals who could care less about our laws and stealing jobs from the people of Rhode Island. They sued to go after the deep pockets of state law enforcement, but the cost is borne by the taxpayers.
This case addressed racial profiling in detail. The lower court sided with the defendants. The illegals appealed and the First Circuit upheld the lower court's ruling. The illegals lost. I invite you to read the decision so you can urge your state lawmakers to get the same bill passed in your state - even if they have to call an emergency session. This is an emergency. The lawsuits to over turn Arizona's new law will be filed soon, make no mistake. This should not deter other state legislatures from doing as Arizona has: Stand up to these militant pro-illegal organizations and corrupt politicians who support illegal aliens.
Illegal means illegal regardless of country of origin.
The criminals in the above cited case claimed their Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Illegal aliens are not citizens, so why do we the people put up with giving these illegals rights? It makes an absolute mockery out of citizenship and further reinforces in my opinion what Leo Donofrio wrote about citizenship.[3]
The next challenge is to get rid of this hoax called 'anchor babies.' The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment never meant what the federal courts have been shoving down our throats: That babies born on U.S. soil of an illegal automatically become citizens. That's hooey. Too bad the corrupt Outlaw Congress didn't start removing federal judges a decade ago for rubber stamping the rape of we the people to fund hundreds of billions of dollars every year to support those criminals and their off spring. YOUR vote for any incumbent in Congress tells them you approve of their refusal to shut down the border years ago and stop this nonsense:
Calif. School Targets Mexican Students
"Every day along the 1,952-mile border, children from Mexico cross into the United States and attend public schools. No one keeps statistics on how many. Citizenship isn't the issue for school officials; district residency is.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled illegal immigrants have a right to an education, so schools don't ask about immigration status. But citizens and illegal immigrants alike can't falsely claim residency in a school district."
The Supreme Court has given non existent rights to those who have no right to even be in this country. The Supreme Court says you, your children and grand children must work your arse off to fund an education for an illegal alien because it's their "right". I say bull. Neither Supreme Court Justices or Federal Judges are given automatic employment for the rest of their lives. It is Congress - your incumbent and mine - that has refused to remove activist judges from the bench because they are gutless or because those activist judges are making rulings your incumbent wants to further their agenda.
In the meantime, 12-14 Americans will die today at the hands of an illegal. Perhaps it will be you in the wrong place at the wrong time. Either driving drunk, during a robbery or rape, more Americans WILL die today because of an illegal alien.
Another baby, adolescent or teen will be raped by one of those animals here illegally out roaming your city or town? No?
Take a good look at this beautiful 15-year old girl. Raped and murdered by two animals:
"Alejandro Emeterio "Alex" Rivera Gamboa, 24, and Gilberto Javier Arellano-Gamboa, 23 have admitted to being in the US illegally, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Rivera Gamboa was issued an Oregon ID card and avoided deportation even though he has been arrested for drunk driving four times since 2000."
Can't happen in your area?
27 Cases of Illegal Alien Sexual Assault Against Children in 30 days.
Dozens of American lives and families will be destroyed today because of the illegals invasion that remains unchecked.
Have we had enough?
Footnotes
[1] 21 Arrested in Immigration Raids at Ariz. McDonald's
[2]: Illegal Immigration Crisis Fact Sheet
[3] The Complete File - Scroll down to Fourteenth Amendment
Arizona's New Law - Senate bill passed
Video: 700 illegals smuggling themselves across the border in only 40 days
1 - Why haven't these state legislators been indicted?
2 - $338.3 Billion Paid to Service America's Illegal Aliens
3 - Immigration and the SPLC: How the Southern Poverty Law Center
Invented a Smear, Served La Raza, Manipulated the Press,
and Duped its Donors
4 - ACLU fulfilling communist agenda
5 - Crime victims of illegal aliens
6 - Owner, employee of Miami language school charged with immigration fraud
ICE special agents also administratively arrest 81 student visa violators
7 - 2 illegal aliens beat, rape elderly couple, steal car
Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies distributed. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.
Visit Devvy's website at: http://www.devvy.com. You can also sign up for her free email alerts.
Copyright © 2010 Devvy Kidd
All rights reserved.
It is unconstitutional. Simple as that. I guess as your the "right" ethnicity , oh wait what happens is when your not? What happens when they pull you over for no reason other then the way you look. How would that make feel?
Imagine the nerve of the immigrants.... right? We were here first damn it ! Oh yeah..the indians... I wonder if we had legal papers at the time when we slaughtered them.
Quote from: MountainDon on April 26, 2010, 08:17:42 PM
I'm surprised/shocked at the cavalier mention of shooting people, if even in jest.
Why would that surprise you considering some of the posts recently. >:(
Quote from: glenn kangiser on April 27, 2010, 12:44:20 AM
I think we should lead by example. We should make our Whitehouse resident prove he is an American or send him back to Kenya. [waiting]
Why are we worried about Mexicans? [noidea'
ROTFL!!!!!
Quote from: speedfunk on April 27, 2010, 08:16:14 AM
It is unconstitutional. Simple as that. I guess as your the "right" ethnicity , oh wait what happens is when your not? What happens when they pull you over for no reason other then the way you look. How would that make feel?
Imagine the nerve of the immigrants.... right? We were here first damn it ! Oh yeah..the indians... I wonder if we had legal papers at the time when we slaughtered them.
Read the law. This has nothing to do with who the cops pull over.
Is it unconstitutional to ask a 18 year old to show ID when he tries to purchase alcohol?
Quote from: NM_Shooter on April 27, 2010, 01:08:03 PM
Quote from: speedfunk on April 27, 2010, 08:16:14 AM
It is unconstitutional. Simple as that. I guess as your the "right" ethnicity , oh wait what happens is when your not? What happens when they pull you over for no reason other then the way you look. How would that make feel?
Imagine the nerve of the immigrants.... right? We were here first damn it ! Oh yeah..the indians... I wonder if we had legal papers at the time when we slaughtered them.
Read the law. This has nothing to do with who the cops pull over.
Is it unconstitutional to ask a 18 year old to show ID when he tries to purchase alcohol?
I agree NM and the law says that they have to have some reason to think they may be illegal aliens. Probable Suspicion satisfies the Terry Stop requirement and if they can't or won't speak English, it would certainly be a good indication they shouldn't be here.
The ultimate solution is allow everyone to ask for proof of residency. I have to prove I live in my county before I can use the county dump. If illegals were refused housing, school, God Forbid...Welfare, drivers licenses, jobs and anything else...they'd stay home.
Talking about shooting them is plain wrong. Many are worthless creatures but many are also just trying to better themselves. If we are allowed to shoot people just because I didn't want them here, I'd be tempted to start with a lot of natural born Americans just to clean the place up.
Well put, Peter. (https://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q75/djmillerbucket/Emoticons/ththumbs_up.gif)
I have no isse with legal immgration. I have said so many times. I am very irriated by illegal immigration. However I also do not like giving up my liberties in order to deal with those who are breaking the law and having to hold a national id for me is not right or being detained because I left my wallet at home is not right either (All though a cop can look you up based on your date of birth and address and look at your picture....)
Anyways....I really have come to the thought that the issue alot of us have is paying for those not legally here be it through the cost of health care or those on welfare. I seriously believe at this point going to a federal sales tax instead a federal wage tax is the way to go. This way everyone pays federal taxes (and even state) based up their consumerism. Thus those illegalize will be paying and contributing to the tax base based on what they buy too.
Quote from: Homegrown Tomatoes on April 27, 2010, 01:12:57 AM
Gee, I thought that AZ already had that law back in 1999 when I got pulled over by an AZ state trooper and patted down because I had out of state plates and was working for the summer there. Oh, and he wanted to know if me and my Navajo friend who was riding with me were drinking because, well, we looked suspicious with out of state tags, dark skin, and tinted windows. He told me that my OK license was not valid for more than 16 days in AZ (not true, I did look that one up) and that I had to immediately get my license and tags changed to AZ. Thought he was going to arrest the whole bunch of us at first, and the crazy thing was that he didn't even have a reason to pull us over in the first place!
I think his only interest was in patting you down, Homey.... [waiting]
Well, good or bad, right or wrong. the idea certainly seems to be catching on ...
http://www.kvue.com/news/Berman-aide-State-Rep-plans-immigration-bill-similar-to-Arizonas-92213914.html
TexasQuoteTexas rep. plans immigration bill similar to Arizona law
by MARTIN BARTLETT / KVUE News
Posted on April 27, 2010
AUSTIN – State Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, will introduce immigration legislation comparable to a law recently enacted in Arizona, according to an aide.
Rep. Berman, who is traveling in Europe, authorized the aide to respond to KVUE News' request for information regarding his plans for the 82nd Legislative Session which begins in January 2011.
According to the aide, Berman said his bill will be similar to the Arizona law, specifically the provision which requires local law enforcement agencies in the state to check the immigration status of individuals who they suspect of being in the United States illegally. ... entire article at link
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700027727/Utah-lawmaker-Stephen-Sandstrom-to-draft-immigration-bill-similar-to-Arizonas.html?pg=1
UtahQuote
Utah lawmaker Stephen Sandstrom to draft immigration bill similar to Arizona's
By Arthur Raymond
Deseret News
Published: Monday, April 26, 2010
The political and legal fallout now plaguing Arizona after that state's passage of one of the nation's toughest new immigration laws could soon be headed for Utah.
Arizona's SB1070, signed into law Friday by Gov. Jan Brewer, calls for, in part, all local law enforcement officers to ask for immigration status documents "whenever there is reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present."
Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, told the Deseret News Monday he's started work on drafting a bill for the 2011 Utah legislative session that uses the Arizona statute as a model — a move he said is necessary to stanch the flow of illegal immigrants into the Beehive State.
"It is imperative that we pass similar legislation here in Utah," Sandstrom said. "In the past, when we've seen tougher legislation in Arizona ... a lot of illegal immigrants just move here." ... entire article at link
http://www.wlwt.com/news/23279581/detail.html
OhioQuoteLegal Immigrants Would Be Required To Show Papers
April 27, 2010
HAMILTON, Ohio --
An area lawmaker and law enforcement official known for their tough stances on illegal immigration have asked Ohio officials for legislation similar to a controversial Arizona law.
Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones and state Rep. Courtney Combs sent letters Tuesday to Gov. Ted Strickland, Senate President Bill Harris and Speaker of the House Armond Budish urging them to develop and pass a law that mirrors Arizona's Senate Bill 1070.
Under the new law, legal immigrants would required to carry documents to prove their status and law enforcement officers would be required to check the legal status of anyone they suspect of being undocumented... more linked
Personally. I show my ID when I buy beer, when I need to buy insurance, when I get a job, when I renew my license, when I rent a car, when I get pulled over, when I purchase car, or pay for car or trailer registration, when I need to do the state inspection, when I write a check, when I applied for a mortgage, when I try use a credit card in some places, or even when I just happen to get caught in a simple DUI checkpoint where everyone goes through it.
I see nothing wrong with asking others to provide identification when asked. I see nothing wrong with enforcing existing laws.
Just be be clear on my position on this, my wife is an immigrant. Her family escaped the civil war of El Salvadore when she was a child. I certainly have no problems with the culture or the people, or the idea of immigration, nor do I have any issues with a slightly darker skin color. I do have a problem with criminals who have no respect for our laws and come here to cause a collective drain on our neighborhoods, our schools, our personal safety net programs, our police forces, our hospitals, and our criminal system.
I agree, muldoon. People are people. I work with Mexicans daily, most of all who are here legally. I have a problem with any criminals who are up to no good, no matter what color.
My point is that I would trust my life to any of these immigrants I work with more than I do with some legal substance abuser who may be working on the job. In my work I often depend on these guys to have their wits about them and hold up their end of the job.
How many of us come from immigrant families?
How many people do we support that are legal but will not work in order to keep from losing their benefits? I know and have known a ton of them over the years and they were not illegal immigrants. Just legal lazy entitled slobs and I think they may be more of a drain on us than an illegal who will work and support our (broken) system.
This does not mean I am in favor of unlimited illegal immigration. Just that I have nothing against the good ones personally.
Quote from: NM_Shooter on April 27, 2010, 01:08:03 PM
Quote from: speedfunk on April 27, 2010, 08:16:14 AM
It is unconstitutional. Simple as that. I guess as your the "right" ethnicity , oh wait what happens is when your not? What happens when they pull you over for no reason other then the way you look. How would that make feel?
Imagine the nerve of the immigrants.... right? We were here first damn it ! Oh yeah..the indians... I wonder if we had legal papers at the time when we slaughtered them.
Read the law. This has nothing to do with who the cops pull over.
Is it unconstitutional to ask a 18 year old to show ID when he tries to purchase alcohol?
Ah the march toward fascism. Guilty till proven innocent. I'm not sure what being 18 and showing ID has to do with anything.
Quote from: speedfunk on April 28, 2010, 03:11:30 PM
Ah the march toward fascism. Guilty till proven innocent. I'm not sure what being 18 and showing ID has to do with anything.
Seriously? You don't understand the correlation?
Did you read Muldoon's post? Did you read the law?
The point that we are making is that we Americans already have to provide documentation of who we are before we are eligible to do many things. You seem to be upset that a person needs to be able to prove who they are in order to obtain benefits associated with being an American (such as being on American soil legally).
Let's go over that one more time.
A person who is in our country is asked to show identification in order to obtain benefits of being American.
A person who wants to purchase alcohol is asked to show identification in order to obtain alcohol.
My question was pretty simple... do you have a problem with the second example as well as the first example?
Here's a bonus question....
Can you name any modern advanced country that allows someone to enter and stay without national identification?
QuoteCan you name any modern advanced country that allows someone to enter and stay without national identification?
United States of America
Oh wait we aren't modern or advanced. Nevermind.
In an effort to show what good neighbors and citizens they can be, looks like we can expect a day of road clogging.
I especially like the last sentence :
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63R5HP20100428
I stuck up for the good ones a bit but then there are ones like this who can't understand why her son was shot by police just because he shot at them with an assault rifle... but he is likely here legally. He made it to 15 and only has one kid that is a year old... [waiting]
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=7405884
I boil this all down to a yes or a no answer to the following question... does the USA have the right to limit immigration to our own country? A simple yes or no answer is all that's needed, no, "yes, but..." or "maybe, but..." just a simple yes or no answer.
I truly believe that every country in the world has their own right to allow or disallow immigration into their own country. No one has a right to live in any other country just because they feel like it. There are procedures in place to grant or deny permission to someone to emigrate to the USA. I suppose this whole thing irks me more than some folks as I went through the legal paperwork, the hoop jumping, the fingerprinting, the background checking, the interviews and everything in order to move legally to this country and be assigned an official green card and a SSN.
I don't have all the answers of what to do with those who are already here. However, if they are "recent" illegals and would not have been permitted to immigrate if they had made official application they should go back from where they came. Rounding up families who have been here for years is impractical. They should be encouraged to fully join in participation in our society. BTW, if immigrants (green card holders) are convicted of breaking US federal laws of any kind, as things are now and have been for decades, they can be deported at any time regardless of having established families in this country.
Have to start somewhere.
Quote from: MountainDon on April 29, 2010, 06:35:01 PM
I boil this all down to a yes or a no answer to the following question... does the USA have the right to limit immigration to our own country? A simple yes or no answer is all that's needed, no, "yes, but..." or "maybe, but..." just a simple yes or no answer.
I truly believe that every country in the world has their own right to allow or disallow immigration into their own country. No one has a right to live in any other country just because they feel like it. There are procedures in place to grant or deny permission to someone to emigrate to the USA. I suppose this whole thing irks me more than some folks as I went through the legal paperwork, the hoop jumping, the fingerprinting, the background checking, the interviews and everything in order to move legally to this country and be assigned an official green card and a SSN.
I don't have all the answers of what to do with those who are already here. However, if they are "recent" illegals and would not have been permitted to immigrate if they had made official application they should go back from where they came. Rounding up families who have been here for years is impractical. They should be encouraged to fully join in participation in our society. BTW, if immigrants (green card holders) are convicted of breaking US federal laws of any kind, as things are now and have been for decades, they can be deported at any time regardless of having established families in this country.
Have to start somewhere.
That's the rational way to look at it Don...unfortunately, I can't ever seem to look at things in black and white. I have this nasty compassionate streak I can't seem to get rid of.
First, the majority of illegals I run across are worthless and I'd like nothing better than to bus them back home. BUT...when I try to think of an across the board, zero tolerance policy I hit a snag.
Let's put me in the position.
I was born in the armpit of the world. No chance at a livable income, rampant corruption, horrid living conditions, a wife and two kids. Just across the river is a country where even doing basic labor I can make more in a year than in ten in my country. So I go for a swim, get a job doing landscape work, learn the language, obey the law and mind my own business.
Things go so well I sneak the wife and kids over and we all learn the language, obey the law, pay our taxes...so on.
This goes on for 15 years and in reality, we've been better citizens than the citizens.
Isn't there a point when my wife and myself can stop looking over our shoulders and live like free men and women should.That's the problem with witch hunts.
c*
Quote from: peternap on April 29, 2010, 07:01:30 PM
Isn't there a point when my wife and myself can stop looking over our shoulders and live like free men and women should.
I agree with that. Right now though I believe we need to stop the incessant new illegal crossings and honestly assess those that have been here for "a while". If they are honest hard workers, great. As you say, there is no one size fits all, never has been, never will be, no matter what it is one is talking about. We've had an amnesty program in the past. It was supposed to be an "end all" But it wasn't.
Quote from: MountainDon on April 29, 2010, 07:08:25 PM
Quote from: peternap on April 29, 2010, 07:01:30 PM
Isn't there a point when my wife and myself can stop looking over our shoulders and live like free men and women should.
I agree with that. Right now though I believe we need to stop the incessant new illegal crossings and honestly assess those that have been here for "a while". If they are honest hard workers, great. As you say, there is no one size fits all, never has been, never will be, no matter what it is one is talking about. We've had an amnesty program in the past. It was supposed to be an "end all" But it wasn't.
Yes we do!
As usual, you, NM and Muldoon have given a pretty good assessment of the situation and if Arizona can pull this off in a fair and humane way...I'm all for it.
A lot of the concerns I have come from being on the other side of the fence and seeing how we treat our own citizens as well as illegals. One instance that stands out was a conversation I had with one of the SCC Judges. There was a Vietnamese kid that worked in the mail room and he was bragging about an expensive stereo he had just gotten.
Later in the day the Judge said to me "He buys those things because he and his wife work three jobs. They aren't like us, barely human".
It wasn't meant as a compliment.
Another time, I was in Richmond and had warrants for someone in the Fan. I walked up to two of the local Cops at 7-11, told them what I was doing and told them it might get exciting and please don't shoot me if they get called (That almost happened once). The older cop giggled and said "We don't shoot white men for running after people".
So much for putting a lot of faith in professionalism.
I've been reflecting on what it is about illegals that chaps my ass so bad. I have no issue with legal immigration... heck, my roots here in the US don't stretch back more than two generations.
I think that it is the fact that when my grandparents came here, they came here to be American, and to contribute to America. They did their damnedest to break ties with the old country, learn the language and BE AMERICAN. They didn't want to be German/Hungarian/Czech in America, they wanted to be Americans. They became citizens, learned English, worked three jobs, paid taxes, raised kids who fought for the US, and wanted desperately to BE AMERICAN. They wanted to build America and create wealth, and did their best to fit in.
I see the new class of immigrants somewhat differently. They fly their flag on state property, have no interest in learning English, have no desire to adapt to our culture and insist on having their customs and traditions honored and practiced here. Don't get me wrong... I think it is good for them to maintain some of their own culture, but the damn Mexican flag waving road blocks during immigration protest rallies downtown on Cinco de Mayo piss me off.
IF they come here to be an AMERICAN citizen, work hard, pay taxes, obey the laws, and celebrate the 4th of July, and I'll help them move in.
Quote from: dug on April 26, 2010, 09:59:52 AM
Well I'm not the left and I'm not exactly lathered up about it nor am I pro-illegal immigration but I can tell you why it is upsetting to many people, including myself.
Racial profiling. The bill makes it legal to pull over, detain, and jail people based on skin color. I've heard the counter arguments, "What's the big deal? Just show the proper documentations and there is no problem!".
I have left my house and forgotten my wallet before, I don't think I should have to potentially go to jail for that. Of course you and I will never need to endure that, being fair skinned. Still doesn't make it right.
Papers please!?? Sounds like some other countries we used to think of as evil, not America.
I'm coming into this late, so my apology if I missed something, but has someone actually shown the section of the law which allows racial profiling? Or is this just another propaganda hack job?
I've read the law, it's not easy to read, but I couldn't find that specific peace in there.
So please, direct me to the EXACT paragraph which allows racial profiling please.
Thanks
I went through all the posts and what I found was merely speculation and guessing.
I submit that all the answer and rhetoric is nothing more then ill informed masses fighting their fight for the sake of fighting it.
Calling this bill unconstitutional is laughable if you are a health care supporter since that bill actually IS, but more so laughable because it demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the Constitution itself and the founders of our great nation.
Calling this racial profiling is nothing more then cheap race bating. Period.
Quite frankly opposing this attempt to secure our border is akin to promoting slavery. I personally oppose any form of slavery.
As for the comment about 'fascism' -- you do realize that Progressive = Socialist and Socialism is nothing more then secular fascism right?
Hitler's party was the National Socialist Party - The left are socialists.
So while some in this debate want to try to make the claim that 'The right' or 'conservatives' just want slaves, or that they are fascists and want national papers etc etc what they don't realize is that Progressives in BOTH parties want this. Left and Right, Conservative and Liberal, Democrat and Republican, and anyone who argues vehemently for either side is nothing more then a useful idiot (thanks Lenin or Stalin whichever).
We DO need to enforce our laws. We DON'T need more laws.
Indeed, we need LESS laws, LESS regulation and SMALLER government -- it's the only way to prevent the Fascism or Marxism that you (and me for that matter) worry about. And no, Marxists ARE NOT better then Fascists. They are one and the same. Brothers and Sisters. Birds of a Feather.
And they are responsible for more deaths in modern history then anyone.
Liberty my fellow Americans, THAT is what saves lives and makes a country prosperous and that can only be achieved by REDUCING the size and impact of government and ENFORCING the LIMITTED laws we (should) have.
One of those laws is immigration -- doesn't matter what country, color or race.
Finally, let me tell you about racial profiling, or more accurately REVERSE racial profiling. I was born in the US and raised in Canada and I've known MANY a Canadian who wanted to emigrate to the USA....guess what? Not so fast.
So, picture this: my wife (ex now) who is Canadian but who married me earned her temporary green card after much pain and suffering after we got married and mistakenly moved her to NC. We thought since we were married should could come down to the US to take care of the paperwork -- after all, we saw a lot of people from Mexico doing this so why not Canada? We were then informed of our error.
Years later, still on a temp card (though we didn't think about it that way) we moved back to Canada for 4 years. No big deal right?
When we returned to the US her card was expired so we went to file for a new one....they sent her packing....that's right MY WIFE!!! My two kids and I -- young kids -- survived the FOUR MONTHS she was gone staying with friends in Canada trying to get PERMISSION to return to her HUSBAND and CHILDREN in the US......
And this is a GOOD CASE from Canada.
I've known Canadians who decided to come down and give the old "cash system" a try and guess what? ICE sends them home.
Canadians are given the boot WHENEVER they are caught....Mexicans are not.
Who's being profiled because of race now?
Equal justice is the answer and you know it, so lets cut the bullcrap and decide: DO YOU WANT EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL?
I'm no law expert and even less of an authority on the constitution. I would think the racial profiling issue would stem from article 8 section B. Reasonable suspicion.
If you are swerving down the road the police have reasonable suspicion to believe you are intoxicated. If you are creeping around a window at 2 AM police have reasonable suspicion to think you may be a burglar. In this case looking hispanic may well pass for reasonable suspicion to be pulled over, interrogated, detained, and jailed, even if you do happen to be a legal US citizen. That's where I have a problem with the bill.
The constitutional argument arrises from the fact that it states in the constitution that Federal law alone controls immigration. I'm not saying that they haven't thoroughly botched the job.
Your example about the Canadians illustrates the problem quite well I think. We need the Mexican labor force, not the Canadians. I think everyone (both sides these days) is being duped. We are fighting the wrong enemy. Illegal immigration is destructive to our country, no doubt, but there are many ($$$$$$$$$$$$$) reasons why it has not been contained.
We all ready have laws on the books that the Feds and others do not use. I am not sure what makes everyone think that more laws will make the Feds and others follow it? Seems like we are having more burdens placed on us under the guise of immigration reform laws. When did adding more laws ever really help get something done when laws all ready exist? Bureaucracy plain and simple. Something to appease the voters and waste more tax dollars on.
This law will not reduce the number of illegal immigrants. Most of them have been deported before, some more than once. They are willing to risk their lives crossing a broiling desert, so I seriously doubt there is anything we can threaten them with that will prevent them from coming here.
Except...
Remove their jobs. I say stiffen the penalties for employing illegals. Seize outlaw employers' property: vehicles, real estate, machinery, bank accounts, lock, stock and barrel. When the jobs are gone the illegals will deport themselves.
But that won't happen, because the truth is, the money interests don't want to lose cheap labor. The economies in Southwest states would collapse if all the illegals went home, so there is a powerful incentive for good capitalists to make sure their representatives vote against anything that will make any meaningful change in immigration that might upset the sweet deal they have going.
In the mean time, cursing the foreigners keeps the masses busy so they won't notice who is making big money off the backs of undocumented workers.
OMG, I agree completely with something Pox said.....its the end, we are doomed... [cool]
Ummm [noidea'
Pox got it right...... :)
(https://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy62/the_troglodyte/Obamacantproveit.jpg)
The officer continued, "...and not that crappy Hawaiian proof of live birth paper. Anybody can get one of those...... "
Quote from: Txcowrancher on May 01, 2010, 06:59:55 AM
OMG, I agree completely with something Pox said.....its the end, we are doomed... [cool]
He's either drinking...or I am ???
Quote from: peternap on May 01, 2010, 07:36:58 PM
He's either drinking...or I am ???
I'm not. Even liberals can be in favor of strictly regulated immigration. Illegal immigration is bad for American workers, and while I have sympathy for Mexicans who want to work to support their families, they have no right to American jobs.
I have worked in the salmon canneries of Alaska, and can safely say there is no job Americans will not do for a fair wage, but they should not have to compete against those who are here illegally.
I do not, however, endorse violating the Constitution to achieve that end. If we crack down on illegal employers, we won't have a problem with illegal immigrants, without sacrificing liberty and equality under the law.
I was working with a hmong co-worker last night. He was complaining about the Arizona law. Well, actually, he was complaining about a governor candidate here in Minnesota who supports the new AZ law. I disagreed with him civilly and we let it drop.
About an hour later, he was scanning the news. He informed me that an AZ deputy shot their first illegal alien. The headline was, something to the effect of:"Illegal alien shot by AZ deputy".
I said...and...
He looked at me, and then read deeper into the story...
It seems the illegal happened to be running drugs...and attempted to shoot the deputy.
I said, so the headline SHOULD have read, "Drug runner shot by AZ Deputy, who was returning fire"?
He was speechless....
The news people usually have their own agenda or government propaganda interests as a driving force and they know that if they spin the story correctly it will make their cause seem more just.
The amount of people being fooled by the useless sold out media is dwindling daily as more and more newspapers and agencies go broke. More people are looking into alternative news sources to get a better take on what is really going on. You still have to sort it out but at least it is not all twisted their way.
Quote from: Pox Eclipse on April 30, 2010, 05:07:12 PM
This law will not reduce the number of illegal immigrants. Most of them have been deported before, some more than once. They are willing to risk their lives crossing a broiling desert, so I seriously doubt there is anything we can threaten them with that will prevent them from coming here.
Except...
Remove their jobs. I say stiffen the penalties for employing illegals. Seize outlaw employers' property: vehicles, real estate, machinery, bank accounts, lock, stock and barrel. When the jobs are gone the illegals will deport themselves.
But that won't happen, because the truth is, the money interests don't want to lose cheap labor. The economies in Southwest states would collapse if all the illegals went home, so there is a powerful incentive for good capitalists to make sure their representatives vote against anything that will make any meaningful change in immigration that might upset the sweet deal they have going.
In the mean time, cursing the foreigners keeps the masses busy so they won't notice who is making big money off the backs of undocumented workers.
This we can agree on.
I did a quick google.. seems legit :
I'm Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen. I want to explain SB 1070 which I voted for and was just signed by Governor Jan Brewer. Rancher Rob Krentz was murdered by the drug cartel on his ranch a month ago. I participated in a senate hearing two weeks ago on the border violence, here is just some of the highlights from those who testified.
The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the Arizona/Mexico Border have for years been terrorized and have pleaded for help to stop the daily invasion of humans who cross their property . One Rancher testified that 300 to 1200 people a DAY come across his ranch vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles and property, cutting down his fences, and leaving trash. In the last two years he has found 17 dead bodies and two Koran bibles.
Another rancher testified that daily drugs are brought across his ranch in a military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in front, 1/2 mile behind are the guards fully armed, 1/2 mile behind them are the drugs, behind the drugs 1/2 mile are more guards. These people are violent and they will kill anyone who gets in the way. This was not the only rancher we heard that day that talked about the drug trains.
One man told of two illegal's who came upon his property one shot in the back and the other in the arm by the drug runners who had forced them to carry the drugs and then shot them. Daily they listen to gun fire during the night it is not safe to leave his family alone on the ranch and they can't leave the ranch for fear of nothing being left when they come back.
The border patrol is not on the border. They have set up 60 miles away with check points that do nothing to stop the invasion. They are not allowed to use force in stopping anyone who is entering. They run around chasing them, if they get their hands on them then they can take them back across the border.
Federal prisons have over 35% illegal's and 20% of Arizona prisons are filled with illegal's. In the last few years 80% of our law enforcement that have been killed or wounded have been by an illegal.
The majority of people coming now are people we need to be worried about. The ranchers told us that they have seen a change in the people coming they are not just those who are looking for work and a better life.
The Federal Government has refused for years to do anything to help the border states. We have been over run and once they are here we have the burden of funding state services that they use. Education cost have been over a billion dollars. The healthcare cost billions of dollars. Our State is broke, $3.5 billion deficit and we have many serious decisions to make. One is that we do not have the money to care for any who are not here legally. It has to stop. The border can be secured. We have the technology we have the ability to stop this invasion. We must know who is coming and they must come in an organized manner legally so that we can assimilate them into our population and protect the sovereignty of our country. We are a nation of laws. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens and to protect the integrity of our country and the government which we live under.
I would give amnesty today to many, but here is the problem, we dare not do this until the Border is secure.
It will do no good to forgive them because thousands will come behind them and we will be over run to the point that there will no longer be the United States of America but a North American Union of open borders. I ask you what form of government will we live under?
How long will it be before we will be just like Mexico, Canada or any of the other Central American or South American countries? We have already lost our language, everything must be printed in Spanish also. We have already lost our history it is no longer taught in our schools. And we have lost our borders.
The leftist media has distorted what SB 1070 will do. It is not going to set up a Nazi Germany. Are you kidding. The ACLU and the leftist courts will do everything to protect those who are here illegally, but it was an effort to try and stop illegal's from setting up businesses, and employment, and receiving state services and give the ability to local law enforcement when there is probable cause like a traffic stop to determine if they are here legally. Federal law is very clear if you are here on a visa you must have your papers on you at all times. That is the law. In Arizona all you need to show you are a legal citizen is a driver license, MVD identification card, Native American Card, or a Military ID. This is what you need to vote, get a hunting license, etc.. So nothing new has been added to this law. No one is going to be stopped walking down the street etc... The Socialist who are in power in DC are angry because we dare try and do something and that something the Socialist wants us to do is just let them come. They want the "Transformation" to continue.
Maybe it is too late to save America. Maybe we are not worthy of freedom anymore. But as an elected official I must try to do what I can to protect our Constitutional Republic. Living in America is not a right just because you can walk across the border. Being an American is a responsibility and it comes by respecting and upholding the Constitution the law of our land which says what you must do to be a citizen of this country. Freedom is not free.
Respectfully,
Sylvia Allen
Arizona State Senator
I think the biggest problem with the AZ law was that once again, a law was written by politicians who are just plain stupid. They really need to read and study the law's they want to pass, I think if they had passed the later ammended law first, they would have had much less fuss. They also once passed a law that local law enforcement didn't have the manpower, or funds to enforce. Another example of this stupidity took place here in Oklahoma, a state politician wrote a law protesting the hate crimes inclusion of homosexuals. The law stated that any city, county or state law enforcement officers were not to give any information to the federal government concerning hate crimes against homosexuals. The problem was the person who wrote the law quoted the wrong part of the hate crimes bill, and instead denied state help for any hate crimes against people based on race or religion.
Two koran bibles? Oh noes!!!
This is a post off of one of my gun boards. A lot of the members there are ex LEO and pretty reliable.
Got a phone call about an hour ago from our Texas Ranger family member. Said to check my e-mail box, and here it was.
He agrees that 90% of the real story as to what is happening on the southern border is not being reported. He, and most other Rangers working those sectors are convinced that a shooting war between border state residents and Mexican druggies is less than six months away. He said the intelligence division is predicting mid to early December for the violence to overflow and move beyond the ability of any law enforcement to control.
Worse yet, apparently command in Austin has asked for additional funds and troops, including active-duty troops, to help patrol the border where the drug cartel violence is heaviest, and where that violence has spilled over to the U.S. side.
The administration has refused.
Now word has it that Governor Perry is looking at ways to legally recall Texas soldiers in the Guard back home to secure our borders before worrying about the ragheads 5,000 miles away when we have Mexican invaders FIVE miles away.
"Messages" have been sent across the border in the past 24-hours from Mexican cartel leaders stating that because of what Arizona passed, "there will be retribution" and that "they cannot be stopped."
Folks, it is about to get damned ugly down here.
Here is the e-mail:
XXX,
As you know, one of the local ranchers was murdered in Douglas two weeks ago. His funeral is tomorrow. I received three messages similar to the one below from different officers within the Rangers and law enforcement.
Yesterday afternoon I talked to another rancher near us who is a friend of ours and whose great grandfather started their ranch here in 1880. These are good people. He told me what really happened out at the Krentz ranch and what you won't read in the papers. The Border Patrol is afraid of starting a small war between civilians here and the drug cartels in Mexico.
Bob Krentz was checking his water like he does every evening and came upon an illegal who was lying on the ground telling him he was sick. Bob called the Border Patrol and asked for a medical helicopter evac. As he turned to go back to his ATV he was shot in the side. The round came from down and angled up so they know the shooter was on the ground. Bob's firearm was in the ATV so he had no chance. Wounded he called the Cochise County Sherriff and asked for help. Bleeding in the lungs he called his brother but the line was bad so he called his wife but again the line was bad.
Several ranchers heard the radio call and drove to his location. Bob was dead by this time. The ranchers tracked the shooter 8 miles back towards Mexico and cornered him in a brushy draw. This was all at night. The Sherriff and Border Patrol arrived and told them not to go down and engage the murderer. They went around to the back side and if you can believe it the assassin managed to get by a BP helicopter and a Sherriff's posse and back to Mexico. So much for professional help when you need it.
One week before the murder Bob and his brother Phil (who I shoot with) hauled a huge quantity of drugs off the ranch that they found in trucks. One week before that a rancher near Naco did the same thing. Two nights later gangs broke into his ranch house and beat him and his wife and told them that if they touched any drugs they found they would come back and kill them. The ranchers here deal with cut fences and haul drug deliveries off their ranches all the time. What ranchers think is that the drug cartels beat the one rancher and shot Bob because they wanted to send a message. Bob always gave food and water to illegals and so they think they sent the assassin to pose as an illegal who was hungry and thirsty knowing it would catch Bob off guard.
What is going on down here is NOT being reported. You need to tell people how bad it is along the border. Texas is worse. Near El Paso it's in a state of war. 5000 people were killed in Ciudad Juarez last year and it's over 2000 so far this year. Gun sales down here are through the roof and I get emails from people wanting firearms training.
Something has to be done but I don't hold out much hope. These gangs have groups in almost every city in the US. Please read below. This is serious business. The Barrio Azteca and their sub gangs are like Mexican Corporations and organized extremely well. If this doesn't get dealt with down here you guys will deal with it on your streets.
This is all really spooky. The troubling thing is that if we don't seal up our border, that by the time any illegals are being "racially profiled" by the AZ cops, they are already here.
Build a damn wall already. A real one. Use my tax money / stimulus funds for that!
email poster - real I think
(https://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy62/the_troglodyte/mexprotest.jpg)
From MLB Fanhouse... http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/05/03/offering-up-a-zona-defense/?icid=main|netscape|dl8|link3|http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/05/03/offering-up-a-zona-defense/ (http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/05/03/offering-up-a-zona-defense/?icid=main%7Cnetscape%7Cdl8%7Clink3%7Chttp://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/05/03/offering-up-a-zona-defense/)
It used to be easy to spot a racist. They wore white hoods with eyeholes cut out.
Now they wear Arizona Diamondbacks caps.
At least that's the message from opponents of Arizona's new immigration law. They are calling for fans to picket Diamondbacks games. They want the 2011 All-Star Game moved from Phoenix. They want teams to move their spring training sites out of Arizona.
Boycott Fever -- Catch It!
Sorry, I can't. And I hope you'll think twice before making a picket sign.
That would be once more than the boycott crowd. It looked at the bill and quickly distilled Arizona's motives by using standard reactionary math:
New Law + Immigrants = Racism.
If anything, a boycott should be aimed at the Nationals. Washington's spineless politicians forced Arizona to take the law into its own hands before the state turned into one big O.K. Corral.
Critics can't be bothered with such complexities. They are saying Hanley Ramirez will be treated like Rodney King the next time he gets to Phoenix.
The Major League Baseball players' union has come out against the law. It is shocked that a player "must be ready to prove, at any time, his identity and legality of his being in Arizona."
The horror is apparently catching on. Adrian Gonzalez told FanHouse he'd boycott next year's All-Star Game "because it's a discriminating law."
Yes, just as theft laws discriminate against thieves, illegal immigration laws discriminate against illegal immigrants. Or as MSNBC breathlessly flashed in headline:
"Law Makes It A Crime To Be Illegal Immigrant."
Terms like Brownshirts, vigilantes, apartheid and Republican are being thrown around. Al Sharpton has landed. The celeb crowd has taken its standard morally superior stance.
Shakira weighed in, saying "Some of the darkest moments in human history -- persecution of Jewish people, segregation in the American South and ethnic cleansing around the world -- began just like this."
Today, they're rounding up shortstops in Phoenix. Tomorrow, they're putting you in a cattle car for having a Spanish accent.
People are so busy demagoguing you wonder if they've actually read the law. It's 16 pages that grant police broader powers to identify and arrest illegal aliens.
"Now they're going to go after everybody, not just people behind the wall. Now they're going to come out on the street," Baltimore Orioles shortstop Cesar Izturis said. "What if you're walking down the street with your family and kids. They're going to go after you."
It's no surprise a player is misinformed and easily manipulated. You expect more out of The New York Times. Or maybe you don't.
"The statute requires police officers to stop and question anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant," The Times reported.
Wrong.
Police must have "reasonable suspicion" to determine a person's immigration status. The law specifically states that race cannot be a factor in determining reasonable suspicion.
Critics automatically presuppose Arizona lawmen have been dying for an excuse to racially profile and deport 30 percent of the state's population. But before anyone can be even be suspected, they have to be part of a "lawful stop, detention or arrest."
In other words, a cop can't just stop a car full of law-abiding Mexicans or a Marlins shortstop walking down the street.
Ramirez would have had to violate some law. And you know what police would do if they suspected he's an illegal immigrant?
Ask for his papers!
(Please add evil voiceover for dramatic effect).
"It harkens back to apartheid where all black people in South Africa were required to carry documents in order to move from one part of town to another," Cynthia Tucker said on ABC's This Week.
Actually, it harkens back to 1940 when Congress passed the Alien Registration Act. Non-citizens have been required to carry a visa or green card or some form of identification for the past 60 years.
More Coverage
• Kevin Blackistone on Arizona
• Padres' Gonzalez Upset With Law
• Related News From Politics Daily
What seems like common sense is now controversial. Constitutional lawyers say Arizona's law may not stand up because states can't enforce federal laws.
That legality isn't what has boycotters threatening everything Arizona. They see xenophobia as deep as the Grand Canyon.
Never mind that every civilized country in the world has laws against anybody just wandering in. In politically correct America, merely asking someone for proof of citizenship is grounds for Klan induction.
Polls show 51 percent of Americans favor Arizona's law, while 39 percent oppose it. In Arizona, polls show 70 percent of residents support the law.
Are they all bigots?
Most illegal aliens don't come to America to deal drugs and join gangs. But according to the Department of Justice, Phoenix is the country's kidnapping capital, with 566 abductions the past two years. Attacks on Border Patrol agents increased 46 percent to 1,097 in 2008. Federal officials reported the victims usually have connections to either immigrant smuggling groups or drug traffickers.
A recent University of Arizona study found illegal immigration cost the state $1.4 billion a year. The state treasurer said the true cost is closer to $2 billion.
You can probably find a study to support whatever position you favor. Either way, it's easy to be sanctimonious when you're sitting in New York City. It's not so simple when you live in Arizona.
The state is essentially attempting to enforce federal laws on illegal immigration. Given that, shouldn't the boycott be nationwide?
Let's picket every baseball team everywhere and demand that every All-Star Game be moved to ... Mexico!
No wait, Mexico's immigration laws make Arizona look like San Francisco. You can get two years in jail just for entering the country illegally.
Or in terms even MSNBC might understand, "Law Makes It An Illegal Crime To Be Illegal Criminal Immigrant In Mexico."
Such discrimination cannot stand.
I fully expect Gonzalez, Shakira and the MLB players union to call a press conference and demand we boycott Mexico.
Here's what I'm surprised I haven't seen on this whole hullabaloo yet:
1:This new AZ law apparently requires occifers to stop and demand ID documents from anyone they 'suspect' of being in country illegally.
2: There is no law at either the state or federal level requiring one to possess ID documentation while out and about in public.
3: While AZ DOES have a 'narrowly defined' stop and identify statute (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02412.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS), one is ONLY required to provide one's name. Not date of birth. Not place of residence. NOTHING but one's true legal name is required.
4: The SCOTUS held in HIIBLE v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (et al) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada) that "There was no "articulated real and appreciable fear that [Hiibel's] name would be used to incriminate him, or that it 'would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute' him." Because Hiibel's name was not an incriminating piece of evidence, he could not invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege in refusing to disclose it."
5: Bearing in mind points 3&4, the 'suspicious' occifer would be legally hog tied when attempting to enforce this new law, as the state requires only a name (and even then ONLY under valid 'Terry' stop conditions), and SCOTUS reinforced the protection via HIIBLE against being required to provide anything that would directly implicate one in a crime. So refusal to provide documentation is non-actionable, ESPECIALLY if one is in country without said 'proper documentation', since any action would be a direct violation of ones rights as a natural born human being specifically enumerated in (not 'granted' by) the fifth amendment, and actionable in response under Title 18 Sec 242 USC (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000242----000-.html) (criminal) and Title 42 Sec 1983 USC (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html) (civil).
I believe your point 1 is incorrect. I believe city, county, state police must have "reasonable suspicion" to determine a person's immigration status. The law specifically states that race cannot be a factor in determining reasonable suspicion. We'll have to wait and see how that works in practice.
As for #2 holders of "green cards", also known as a Resident Alien card if one is a legally admitted non US citizen resident, are required by the conditions governing their status to always carry their card with them. Always, no if's and's or but's. The rules are different for a US citizen.
If I ever am stopped for something, no matter how stupid the pretext for the stop may be, I will be happy to provide my DL, birth certificate copy, citizenship status or living will, if asked for ID. I might not be pleased but I'm not going to argue the point then and there. If I figure that the stop I will take it up later with someone other than the inquiring officer. Confrontation usually ends up with a situation akin to that of Prof. Henry Louis Gates. A strict constitutionalist may differ with my opinion/view. That fine with me too.
I start with the question, "is it right to allow 'undocumented' people to freely wander around the USA without being legally admitted? If the answer is No, then, to me, it follows that steps have to be taken to put a stop to the practice. But I don't want to beat a dead horse. [deadhorse]
There are sufficient laws already in place to handle the problem if I recall correctly. When I first moved down here and they were allowed to, La Migra knew how to take care of the problem.
But one more observation. My oldest passport has entry and exit and in some cases visa stamps from over a couple dozen other countries. This was a Canadian passport. Even Great Britain required to see my passport in order to enter their country, even with Canada being a member of the Commonwealth. Not only that they wanted to see proof (some money) that I could support myself while in their country as well as proof that I had the means to leave (a return flight airline ticket). I still think that is all reasonable.
You know what? I'd pass on the AZ law in exchange for a law that requires proof of citizenship in order to receive any sort of immediate benefit.
Want your kid to go to school here? Need emergency services (ambulance, police, fire?) Want food stamps? Want to ride on public transportation? Want a drivers license? Access to public land? Use of interstate and local highways and roads?
Show some ID.
All excellent ideas. Here's mine: Let's adopt Mexico's immigration laws. They are quite specific and any violations carry a stiff penalty.
Quote from: NM_Shooter on May 11, 2010, 08:18:28 AM
You know what? I'd pass on the AZ law in exchange for a law that requires proof of citizenship in order to receive any sort of immediate benefit.
Want your kid to go to school here? Need emergency services (ambulance, police, fire?) Want food stamps? Want to ride on public transportation? Want a drivers license? Access to public land? Use of interstate and local highways and roads?
Show some ID.
Hmm, Frank, all of those would be used against us too. I prefer racial profiling.... [waiting]
Another question to ask yourself:
Does this law pass the 'Jews in the attic (http://www.joehuffman.org/Freedom/JewsInTheAttic.htm)' test? ???
Non-applicable. Jews were legal residents who were declared otherwise.
Invoking the Jews' plight is a bit over the top here. Jewish folks were legal residents of Germany and the atrocities perpetrated against them should never be used to attempt to make a political point. Quite simply, the reference is ridiculous. n*
Yup - due to the controversial nature of the Jewish plight we do not discuss it here.
Nothing controversial about history. In the 1930's Germany was not the only anti-Semite state in the world. Hitler's gang took things to a new level, that of trying to exterminate them. I've never read anywhere that the Jews did not have the right to be where they were.
Here and now, the argument is really about whether or not immigration to the US should be controlled and what to do about those who break the immigration laws. Remove the emotion and that is what's left. Then if one is to disregard the immigration law and say "Oh that's alright", that reinforces the view that it is okay to break some laws. It doesn't set a very good example for the new residents of the country. "We can get away with that so there's no need to obey these other laws either", sort of a mentality.
Concentrating on the 'jew' part of the test seems a bit myopic to me, but then that's just my personal opinion. It could just as easily read 'gays in the military', or 'slaves in the basement'. Going on the assumption that you read the whole page you will recall that the test can be applied to many diverse situations, from gun ownership, to health care, and a myriad other rights regardless of citizenship (or whatever determining factor is chosen). It's simply a matter of singling out one class for persecution.
Note also that almost all of the (few) examples given could easily affect (be applied against) someone in an 'exempt' class (in this case citizens) in the course of an effort to 'enforce the law' against the 'target' class (illegal aliens) which is where this 'law' runs up against it's biggest legal hurdle.
Quote from: Phssthpok on May 12, 2010, 01:57:48 PM
Concentrating on the 'jew' part of the test seems a bit myopic to me, but then that's just my personal opinion. It could just as easily read 'gays in the military', or 'slaves in the basement'. Going on the assumption that you read the whole page you will recall that the test can be applied to many diverse situations, from gun ownership, to health care, and a myriad other rights regardless of citizenship (or whatever determining factor is chosen). It's simply a matter of singling out one class for persecution.
Note also that almost all of the (few) examples given could easily affect (be applied against) someone in an 'exempt' class (in this case citizens) in the course of an effort to 'enforce the law' against the 'target' class (illegal aliens) which is where this 'law' runs up against it's biggest legal hurdle.
Nonsense.
Quote from: MountainDon on May 12, 2010, 01:51:24 PM
Nothing controversial about history. In the 1930's Germany was not the only anti-Semite state in the world. Hitler's gang took things to a new level, that of trying to exterminate them. I've never read anywhere that the Jews did not have the right to be where they were.
Here and now, the argument is really about whether or not immigration to the US should be controlled and what to do about those who break the immigration laws. Remove the emotion and that is what's left. Then if one is to disregard the immigration law and say "Oh that's alright", that reinforces the view that it is okay to break some laws. It doesn't set a very good example for the new residents of the country. "We can get away with that so there's no need to obey these other laws either", sort of a mentality.
I am more speaking of current events and opinions one way or the other, however the topic is off limits per John's policy.
Quote from: Phssthpok on May 12, 2010, 03:21:21 PM
Quote from: NM_Shooter on May 12, 2010, 02:55:50 PM
Nonsense.
In what way?
The actual nonsense is this.... The premise is the following :
Will this law make it difficult or impossible to protect innocent life from a government intent on their imprisonment or death?First, Illegal aliens are not innocent life. They are illegal. They are here illegally and are aware of this.
Second, I neither want to kill them nor imprison them. I just want them out of my country and off of the US dole.
You don't have to think deeply to find ways in which this "theory" has significant flaws. Actually, you only have to find one which renders it worthless. Here are three:
Is it unconstitutional to ask a person who looks younger than 21 to show ID to purchase alcohol?
Is it unconstitutional for an officer to pull over a "suspected" drunk driver on the basis of erratic, but not illegal driving?
Is it unconstitutional to ask for a person to show proof of citizenship at an immigration checkpoint in an airport or border crossing?
You know what? Don't get me wrong on this.
I think that our naturalization practices are horrible. There are thousands of folks in the queue who are trying to do this legally, and we are not making it any easier for them to do so. I am all for immigration reform, and it needs to start in simplifying and expediting the applications of those who want to become US citizens.
But much like the liberal mindset thinks that healthcare reform should start with insurance and free healthcare, they now think that immigration reform should be about amnesty.
I have great insurance, yet crappy healthcare. I have lots of laws about immigration, and little enforcement.
Elect me president, and I will build a fence, throw out amnesty, and streamline legal immigration. Probably get shot my first month.
Quote from: NM_Shooter on May 12, 2010, 04:20:03 PM
Quote from: Phssthpok on May 12, 2010, 03:21:21 PM
Quote from: NM_Shooter on May 12, 2010, 02:55:50 PM
Nonsense.
In what way?
The actual nonsense is this.... The premise is the following : Will this law make it difficult or impossible to protect innocent life from a government intent on their imprisonment or death?
First, Illegal aliens are not innocent life. They are illegal. They are here illegally and are aware of this.
Second, I neither want to kill them nor imprison them. I just want them out of my country and off of the US dole.
You don't have to think deeply to find ways in which this "theory" has significant flaws. Actually, you only have to find one which renders it worthless. Here are three:
Is it unconstitutional to ask a person who looks younger than 21 to show ID to purchase alcohol?
Is it unconstitutional for an officer to pull over a "suspected" drunk driver on the basis of erratic, but not illegal driving?
Is it unconstitutional to ask for a person to show proof of citizenship at an immigration checkpoint in an airport or border crossing?
Since you asked your questions I find it only fair to answer in kind.
Yes, yes, and yes.
See...the Constitution's primary purpose is not to enable people, but to
RESTRICT government. Laws abhorrent to the constitution are null and void.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
(and yes I am aware that's from the 'declaration' not the Constitution, but I doubt you'll find anything in the constitution that authorizes any of the actions in question)
A serious question... are you an anarchist?
So.. if it is unconstitutional to ask for ID at a border crossing, then you must believe the Constitution of the United States must apply to all persons everywhere on the globe, regardless of nationality, or geographical location.
Yeah... your quote is from the declaration, not in the constitution. Nice try but that is even less applicable. You know what is in the constitution? The words "We the people... to secure the blessings of liberty to OURSELVES". Not every person on the globe who happens to sneak across the border. I believe ALL have a right to liberty and happiness... in their own damn country. If they want to come here legally, great!
BTW...Amendment 4 has a very, very important word in it... "unreasonable". That very word makes all of my three scenarios legal under the constitution of the United States, and renders your silly little litmus test as nonsense.
Reasonable is in the eye of the beholder.
It would seem that NM_Shooter and I shall simply have to agree to disagree.
Yup.. we'll have to disagree. I also think that reasonable is in the eye of the majority of the beholders... not any one in particular.
Quote from: Phssthpok on May 12, 2010, 07:11:23 PM
It would seem that NM_Shooter and I shall simply have to agree to disagree.
That is what keeps this place enjoyable, [cool]
Quote from: Phssthpok on May 12, 2010, 03:21:21 PM
Is it unconstitutional to ask a person who looks younger than 21 to show ID to purchase alcohol?
Is it unconstitutional for an officer to pull over a "suspected" drunk driver on the basis of erratic, but not illegal driving?
Is it unconstitutional to ask for a person to show proof of citizenship at an immigration checkpoint in an airport or border crossing?
No, no and no, of course not.
True though, the constitution does not address the age a person is permitted to purchase alcohol, about unsafe operation of a motor vehicle by an intoxicated person, nor does it say what rules should be in place at a port of entry. But then it also does not say anything about a number of other state or federal laws that we have today. And not all of today's laws make sense, some are stupid to me, but maybe not everybody else.
However, none of those three scenarios seem to be unreasonable in today's modern world.
I think I've said it before; the thing I do not see a lot of people paying attention to with this immigration thing is the simple question of whether or not a person from another country has any right to anything in this country. I say, NO they do not. Until they are present legally in this country they have no rights here at all, and we, the people, have every right to expect our governments to enforce laws or to abolish or amend those laws.
At times I believe the only reason AZ acted on this is to push the federal governments buttons, to get them to get things together, get things moving to enforce the federal laws on immigration.
Call me simple or single minded, but we have to start someplace/somehow.
I agree with you MtnDon, :)
Quote from: glenn kangiser on May 12, 2010, 03:36:58 PM
I am more speaking of current events and opinions one way or the other, however the topic is off limits per John's policy.
I am sometimes easily confused and sometimes forgetful but all I can remember on the forum off topic area guidelines is that what John said here...
http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=7722.msg99229#msg99229 (http://countryplans.com/smf/index.php?topic=7722.msg99229#msg99229)
which was...
Use this board to discuss topics not related to building and designing small buildings. This is NOT the place for hate material, racial or religious slurs, or any material attempting to incite violence or spread malicious rumor. If you find such material posted here please report to moderator.... which I take to mean that we
do not approve of the dissemination of
actual hate material or religious slurs. I read that as a rather straightforward statement. It should be possible to exchange views and opinions on both history and current news, as long as
nobody libels any other person or group of people, or... well I thought John's directive was clear, and still left the choice of discussion topics open.
What he said.
Any topic as long as the discussion is thoughtful and respectful.
Quote from: MountainDon on May 12, 2010, 08:46:58 PMTrue though, the constitution does not address the age a person is permitted to purchase alcohol, about unsafe operation of a motor vehicle by an intoxicated person, nor does it say what rules should be in place at a port of entry. But then it also does not say anything about a number of other state or federal laws that we have today. And not all of today's laws make sense, some are stupid to me, but maybe not everybody else.
It does say that what it doesn't say is left to the states and the people.
This is something that is all to often forgotten today.
US Constitution Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now from a historical perspective this Amendment was ratified by the founders. It was the last of the original 10 and became part of the 'bill of rights' (which is just the Amendments of the Constitution itself) in 1791.
Bear in mind that when this was placed in the constitution it was done specifically to make the point that the Constitution LIMITS the Federal government but not the States.
The problem today is that we've moved away from this founding principle and from a judicial standpoint used precedent rather then Constitutional understanding and history to determine if something is 'legal' or not.
There is so much stretching of what can be done by the Federal Government these days (and in the last 100 years) that most have no clue what is actually Constitutional and what is not. Heck, people still think that Jefferson's letter regarding the separation of Church and State is actually part of the Constitution, which it clearly is not, but that's another issue entirely.
As far as AZ's law goes, it's clear the Federal Government is failing miserably and not enforcing their own laws in this regard and AZ's law merely says that they will -- hardly something for people top get up in arms over -- but then the lack of education and the amount of propaganda people get off MSNBC etc these days is stunning so it's no wonder they have no clue.
Sadly, I don't think the problem will go away or be fixed in the courts (or by rioters). If we do not stop the rhetoric and start getting educated (as in read history, the Constitution etc) then it is likely the situation will be settled by the use of high speed lead poisoning.
The question is: are you willing to press the issue until it becomes a show down at high noon? Because from what I see, that's where we are headed.
I'll leave it at that then.
Quote from: OlJarhead on May 13, 2010, 10:23:47 AM
The question is: are you willing to press the issue until it becomes a show down at high noon?
What is meant by that? It is as important an issue as many, more so than some.
As fas as the constitution and the fact that is was set up to limit federal power and give all else to the states, I understand that. However, the states can not run things like immigration policy. Immigration is a federal issue and the feds seem to purposely avoid their responsibilities or at least be selective in their enforcement. It's a heck of a way to run a country. That's why I applaud Arizona; they are trying to force the feds to get off their pot and take hold of that responsibility with a firm grip.
Quote from: MountainDon on May 13, 2010, 10:45:11 AM
Quote from: OlJarhead on May 13, 2010, 10:23:47 AM
The question is: are you willing to press the issue until it becomes a show down at high noon?
What is meant by that? It is as important an issue as many, more so than some.
As fas as the constitution and the fact that is was set up to limit federal power and give all else to the states, I understand that. However, the states can not run things like immigration policy. Immigration is a federal issue and the feds seem to purposely avoid their responsibilities or at least be selective in their enforcement. It's a heck of a way to run a country. That's why I applaud Arizona; they are trying to force the feds to get off their pot and take hold of that responsibility with a firm grip.
2nd first: I agree. The Federal Government must control immigration but in the absence of a Federal Government the States must step in and take control. In this case I argue there is no Federal Response and their lack thereof demonstrates the need for the States to act -- I support the AZ Law.
High Noon: I've done a LOT of reading and observing lately and have come to the conclusion that what we see in Greece is coming here ten fold if we do not stop the ratcheting up of the rhetoric. Firearms sales in the 1st 8-9 months of the Obama Presidency were at record highs -- levels never seen before -- and the anger on both sides is being pushed and fomented pretty much daily by those who want confrontation (whether they know it or not). In the mean time you have an economic collapse of Global proportions on the way (yes on the way) and the resulting fear and anger combined with the hate being spewed at decent American citizens is going to push them to the breaking point.
I've said before "there's going to be a shooting war in this country if we don't find a way to calm people down" and I'll say it again. What we're headed for is Bosnia/Serbia ugly if people don't stop hating each other and start agreeing on something.
I'd suggest we agree on the rule of law.
That means we must enforce the law even if we do not like them. Then, if we do not like them, change them or abolish them but rioting in the name of illegal immigration, health-care etc is only going to ratchet things up and sooner or later those who have not been violent will be pushed to the breaking point.
Today the left has been violent while the Tea Partiers etc have been peaceful. God help us if they decide they've had enough.
Those of us of the Libertarian vent prefer the rule of law with a lot less laws -- perhaps it's time we call for peaceful protest and condemn ANYONE who acts violently.
So I ask all on the left: will you condemn the violence and commend the Tea Parties for their peaceful demonstration of their right to assemble?
Quote from: OlJarhead on May 13, 2010, 10:23:47 AM
It does say that what it doesn't say is left to the states and the people.
This is something that is all to often forgotten today.
US Constitution Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now from a historical perspective this Amendment was ratified by the founders. It was the last of the original 10 and became part of the 'bill of rights' (which is just the Amendments of the Constitution itself) in 1791.
Bear in mind that when this was placed in the constitution it was done specifically to make the point that the Constitution LIMITS the Federal government but not the States.
The problem today is that we've moved away from this founding principle and from a judicial standpoint used precedent rather then Constitutional understanding and history to determine if something is 'legal' or not.
There is so much stretching of what can be done by the Federal Government these days (and in the last 100 years) that most have no clue what is actually Constitutional and what is not. Heck, people still think that Jefferson's letter regarding the separation of Church and State is actually part of the Constitution, which it clearly is not, but that's another issue entirely.
And the stretching of the Constitution occurs on both sides of the political aisle.
Case in point: Do you believe the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to limit the power of the states to regulate the sale of health insurance within their own state?
No?
Then why are conservatives in such a hurry to allow the purchase of health insurance across state lines? Doing so is nothing short of the federal government telling the states they may not regulate insurance that is for sale in other states, yet this is a mainstay in the conservative alternative to the Democrat's health care reform bill.
It is very apparent that the Constitution is only sacred when is protects your political views, but is fungible when it gets in the way.
Pox, I don't understand your point.
Are you arguing that health insurance should only be supplied by the state, or by someone in the state of a person's residence?
I'm missing something here. The insurance that you are referring to as being provided by an out of state source... is the out of state source a private entity, or is it another state the source of insurance?
Why would you not want insurance companies to compete? Competition makes for better products.
Can you provide reference to the conservative plan you are arguing against? I'd like to read it.
Quote from: Pox Eclipse on May 13, 2010, 11:17:51 AM
Quote from: OlJarhead on May 13, 2010, 10:23:47 AM
It does say that what it doesn't say is left to the states and the people.
This is something that is all to often forgotten today.
US Constitution Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now from a historical perspective this Amendment was ratified by the founders. It was the last of the original 10 and became part of the 'bill of rights' (which is just the Amendments of the Constitution itself) in 1791.
Bear in mind that when this was placed in the constitution it was done specifically to make the point that the Constitution LIMITS the Federal government but not the States.
The problem today is that we've moved away from this founding principle and from a judicial standpoint used precedent rather then Constitutional understanding and history to determine if something is 'legal' or not.
There is so much stretching of what can be done by the Federal Government these days (and in the last 100 years) that most have no clue what is actually Constitutional and what is not. Heck, people still think that Jefferson's letter regarding the separation of Church and State is actually part of the Constitution, which it clearly is not, but that's another issue entirely.
And the stretching of the Constitution occurs on both sides of the political aisle.
Case in point: Do you believe the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to limit the power of the states to regulate the sale of health insurance within their own state?
No?
Then why are conservatives in such a hurry to allow the purchase of health insurance across state lines? Doing so is nothing short of the federal government telling the states they may not regulate insurance that is for sale in other states, yet this is a mainstay in the conservative alternative to the Democrat's health care reform bill.
It is very apparent that the Constitution is only sacred when is protects your political views, but is fungible when it gets in the way.
Oh you and I agree on this Pox. BOTH sides are guilty as charged. But remember, your chatting with a Libertarian.
Personally I think the Supreme court has been wrong on a number of decisions (some reversed some not) and the Executive and Legislative branches have been weak in balancing the powers (we have a three headed system).
Quote from: NM_Shooter on May 13, 2010, 11:48:44 AM
Pox, I don't understand your point.
Are you arguing that health insurance should only be supplied by the state, or by someone in the state of a person's residence?
I'm missing something here. The insurance that you are referring to as being provided by an out of state source... is the out of state source a private entity, or is it another state the source of insurance?
Why would you not want insurance companies to compete? Competition makes for better products.
Can you provide reference to the conservative plan you are arguing against? I'd like to read it.
I'm not sure either -- I was agreeing with the statement that both sides abuse the Constitution.
As far as insurance in states go -- that's the point of the 'make regular' part of the commerce clause. The Federal Government SHOULD be insisting that insurance companies are not prohibited from provising insurance across state lines.
Indeed, it's nonsensical to think otherwise - -the supply and demand system if allowed to work would mean that prices would go down due to competition.
Speaking of which, it's nonsense to assume free market principles have been involved in health care for some time. Example: locally there is a battle between two hospitals, one publicly funded, the other not, to get the states permission to ad beds.
Ya, that's right THE STATE has to approve the increased beds....um, where is the free market there?
The rule of law is abandoned in favor of the rule of men.
Quote from: NM_Shooter on May 13, 2010, 11:48:44 AM
Pox, I don't understand your point.
Are you arguing that health insurance should only be supplied by the state, or by someone in the state of a person's residence?
I'm missing something here. The insurance that you are referring to as being provided by an out of state source... is the out of state source a private entity, or is it another state the source of insurance?
Why would you not want insurance companies to compete? Competition makes for better products.
Can you provide reference to the conservative plan you are arguing against? I'd like to read it.
The conservative plan wants the federal government to deny the states the authority to regulate the sale of insurance within their own state. If Illinois wants to impose more stringent requirements on private insurance providers than Mississippi, where in the Constitution does it say the federal government has the power to prevent them from imposing stronger regulations?
I oppose totally free markets. Total freedom would permit marketing of adulterated food and fake pharmaceuticals, so even you must agree some regulation is necessary. We are only differ on the degree. Each state has the right to impose regulations as it sees fit, and there are no constitutional grounds for the federal government to deny them that right.
Quote from: Pox Eclipse on May 13, 2010, 02:24:38 PM
The conservative plan wants the federal government to deny the states the authority to regulate the sale of insurance within their own state. If Illinois wants to impose more stringent requirements on private insurance providers than Mississippi, where in the Constitution does it say the federal government has the power to prevent them from imposing stronger regulations?
I oppose totally free markets. Total freedom would permit marketing of adulterated food and fake pharmaceuticals, so even you must agree some regulation is necessary. We are only differ on the degree. Each state has the right to impose regulations as it sees fit, and there are no constitutional grounds for the federal government to deny them that right.
Hmmm.... I don't want anybody to regulate the sale of insurance anywhere. I want the feds and the state out of it. I don't want stronger regulations in ANYTHING. I do believe that regulation by form of certification is required (such as FDA purity of pharmaceuticals, certification for physicians and health facilities, FAA safety, highway standards), but I oppose regulation generally, and especially as it applies to commerce trade. A good example is the methanol crap that that is mandated as an additive in all gas here in NM.
I don't like being told what I have to buy and from whom I have to buy it. I like even less being told that I have to buy it for someone else.
Quote from: NM_Shooter on May 13, 2010, 03:02:49 PM
Quote from: Pox Eclipse on May 13, 2010, 02:24:38 PM
The conservative plan wants the federal government to deny the states the authority to regulate the sale of insurance within their own state. If Illinois wants to impose more stringent requirements on private insurance providers than Mississippi, where in the Constitution does it say the federal government has the power to prevent them from imposing stronger regulations?
I oppose totally free markets. Total freedom would permit marketing of adulterated food and fake pharmaceuticals, so even you must agree some regulation is necessary. We are only differ on the degree. Each state has the right to impose regulations as it sees fit, and there are no constitutional grounds for the federal government to deny them that right.
Hmmm.... I don't want anybody to regulate the sale of insurance anywhere. I want the feds and the state out of it. I don't want stronger regulations in ANYTHING. I do believe that regulation by form of certification is required (such as FDA purity of pharmaceuticals, certification for physicians and health facilities, FAA safety, highway standards), but I oppose regulation generally, and especially as it applies to commerce trade. A good example is the methanol crap that that is mandated as an additive in all gas here in NM.
I don't like being told what I have to buy and from whom I have to buy it. I like even less being told that I have to buy it for someone else.
You are speaking my language!
Quote from: NM_Shooter on May 13, 2010, 03:02:49 PM
Hmmm.... I don't want anybody to regulate the sale of insurance anywhere. I want the feds and the state out of it. I don't want stronger regulations in ANYTHING. I do believe that regulation by form of certification is required (such as FDA purity of pharmaceuticals, certification for physicians and health facilities, FAA safety, highway standards), but I oppose regulation generally, and especially as it applies to commerce trade. A good example is the methanol crap that that is mandated as an additive in all gas here in NM.
I don't like being told what I have to buy and from whom I have to buy it. I like even less being told that I have to buy it for someone else.
That is fine, you have 50 states to choose from, there must be one that is more or less to your liking. But individual states have a constitutional right to regulate insurance within their own state. If you want to live in a state that allows rescission (cancelling an insurance policy when someone gets an expensive disease), I agree, that should be your choice. I disagree that the federal government has the constitutional power to force all states to allow rescission, just because your state does.
OK... back to immigration.. Throw the illegals out! ;D
Quote from: Pox Eclipse on May 13, 2010, 04:26:02 PMIf you want to live in a state that allows rescission (cancelling an insurance policy when someone gets an expensive disease), I agree, that should be your choice.
Sort of drifting away from the topic as listed, but why would anyone
want to live in a state that allows insurance companies the power to willy-nilly cancel a policy? Most companies, it would seem, be all to happy to be able to do that.
As far as regulation of the insurance industry within a geographic area, there is no benefit to anyone when the list to choose from is artificially restricted. That is, no body benefits except for the companies who have less competition.
As long as we tolerate drift, I wonder why most of us live in the states we do? I know of a couple retirees who have selected Nevada because of no personal income tax. I think I'll spin that thought off after I figure out what's for dinner.
Quote from: Pox Eclipse on May 13, 2010, 04:26:02 PM
Quote from: NM_Shooter on May 13, 2010, 03:02:49 PM
Hmmm.... I don't want anybody to regulate the sale of insurance anywhere. I want the feds and the state out of it. I don't want stronger regulations in ANYTHING. I do believe that regulation by form of certification is required (such as FDA purity of pharmaceuticals, certification for physicians and health facilities, FAA safety, highway standards), but I oppose regulation generally, and especially as it applies to commerce trade. A good example is the methanol crap that that is mandated as an additive in all gas here in NM.
I don't like being told what I have to buy and from whom I have to buy it. I like even less being told that I have to buy it for someone else.
That is fine, you have 50 states to choose from, there must be one that is more or less to your liking. But individual states have a constitutional right to regulate insurance within their own state. If you want to live in a state that allows rescission (cancelling an insurance policy when someone gets an expensive disease), I agree, that should be your choice. I disagree that the federal government has the constitutional power to force all states to allow rescission, just because your state does.
And that's ok as long as you also disagree that the Federal Government has the power to determine for the states what they must accept also.
The idea of the 'make regular' clause was to ensure that states did not rip each other off with restrictions and/or taxes placed on other states that produce a competitive product. Thus it would be in the Fed power to insist that a state must allow an insurance company located in one state to operate in another equally. This is not the case today as many states restrict what insurance companies can or cannot operate within their state lines.
But as far as illegal immigration goes the Federal Government has an obligation to uphold their laws, if they do not then the states must take action which is what AZ did
Quote from: MountainDon on May 13, 2010, 05:07:30 PM
Sort of drifting away from the topic as listed, but why would anyone want to live in a state that allows insurance companies the power to willy-nilly cancel a policy? Most companies, it would seem, be all to happy to be able to do that.
Why indeed! Until the recent health care reform bill, most insurance companies practiced rescission to reduce their liabilities: Insurance industry will end rescission in May (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36496.html)
Quote
As far as regulation of the insurance industry within a geographic area, there is no benefit to anyone when the list to choose from is artificially restricted. That is, no body benefits except for the companies who have less competition.
I agree. The states do not artificially restrict companies from selling insurance. State monopolies of health insurance are contrived by the insurance companies, not the state governments. Health insurance companies are exempt from federal antitrust laws. (http://www.examiner.net/news/x1914248650/Health-insurance-companies-exempt-from-anti-trust-laws) Still think deregulation is a good idea?
Quote from: Pox Eclipse on May 13, 2010, 05:30:28 PM
I agree. The states do not artificially restrict companies from selling insurance. State monopolies of health insurance are contrived by the insurance companies, not the state governments. Health insurance companies are exempt from federal antitrust laws. (http://www.examiner.net/news/x1914248650/Health-insurance-companies-exempt-from-anti-trust-laws) Still think deregulation is a good idea?
Not accurate. Insurance companies still are held accountable to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, to the extent that such business is not regulated by State law.
Paragraph 5 : http://law.jrank.org/pages/8497/McCarran-Ferguson-Act-1945.html
Quote from: NM_Shooter on May 14, 2010, 08:37:31 AM
Insurance companies still are held accountable to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, to the extent that such business is not regulated by State law.
That's a loophole you could drive an ambulance through. In what state are insurance companies subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act?
Which ones are not allowed to apply the Sherman Anti Trust law?
WE GOT MEXICANS!
I was trying hard to get out of work today and decided to go in search of inland Mexicans. I found a bunch. Not many spoke English and none of them wanted their picture taken. If you want to get rid of illegals, start taking pictures ;D They disappear fast.
I tried my new low carry mount and need to work on technique some. :(
http://vimeo.com/11771152
Arizona Motivation?
QuoteOperation "Streamline Taxpayer Money into the Private Prison Industry"
The $67 million edifice that is the Evo DeConcini (former Arizona Attorney General) Federal Courthouse in Tucson stands as a monument to corruption.
Every weekday at 1 p.m., around 75 undocumented immigrants, freshly caught by the BP, are paraded into a cavernous courtroom on the third floor. The clinking from their manacles and leg irons echoes around the room while they are led to their seats, all of them wearing the same dirty clothes they were wearing in the desert when they were picked up by BP. More clinking as each stands when their name was called, as they each answered "presente." Then clinking again as they were taken, five at a time, to stand in front of the Judge Tom Ferraro to plead guilty, in a simultaneous "Si," for entering the country illegally.
Thus is immigration criminalized by a vulgar display of inhumanity.
The maximum sentences, as explained by the judge, are six months in jail and a $5,000 fine. After more information is imparted to them by the judge, five at a time, the migrants are asked if they signed their plea agreements, to which they all answer "Si" simultaneously. To this Judge Ferraro replies, "All plead guilty." Any who incurred legal infractions during previous stays are given more time in jail.
There is a short period after this when each of their lawyers (who are paid between $6,000 and $12,000 of US taxpayer money per day), standing behind their immigrant "clients," make brief requests from the judge for their clients. A husband and wife asked to be sent to the same jail so that when they are released they will be together. Another asked if he could be held in Tucson so he can be near his three daughters who live there.
To these Judge Ferraro responded that he would make a recommendation towards this, but the final decision would be up to the prison. After this, he announced, "That's all gentlemen. Thank you and good luck to you."
As another group of five migrants shuffle their way out of the courtroom, I notice a shorter man wearing a dirty yellow and white shirt, with a particularly anguished look on his face. His eyes catch mine just as he exits the courtroom.
The total amount of time it takes from when Judge Ferraro began calling their five names to his dismissal of them is five minutes and 17 seconds, roughly one minute and three seconds per migrant for their "trial."
Isabel Garcia, the aforementioned Federal Public Defender, is not amused by these ongoing show-trials at the US District Court of Arizona.
"All pretense of any justice is removed, aside from having a judge and lawyer present," she told Truthout before we entered the courtroom. "The entire criminal case happens before your eyes. My position is that DHS controls everything – these judges and courts are doing what the BP wants. This is just a show trial, but with real consequences for the immigrants and taxpayer."
Operation Streamline was created by George W. Bush's DHS in 2005, on the theory provided by BP that by recording migrants illegal entries, they would be deterred from returning over the border. Since the program was launched in 2008, it has not functioned as a deterrent in any way. Instead, it has served as a generator of millions of taxpayer dollars into Arizona's economy. BP agents, federal marshals, criminal defense attorneys, judges, and especially Arizona's private prison industry, are all on the receiving end of these funds.
Garcia told Truthout that it costs taxpayers between $20 and $22 million per month "to run this courthouse, not including lawyers or the private prison complex that locks up the immigrants."
Many of the migrants do their time in nearby Eloy, Arizona, at the Eloy Detention Center that is operated by the private prison firm Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). In addition to the Eloy Detention Center, the CCA has brought three more detention facilities to the small town, adding 1,500 new jobs. David Gonzalez, Arizona's US marshal, said taxpayers shell out between $9 and $11 million every month to incarcerate migrants at Eloy alone.
CCA has pulled off this money-making scheme by the usual methods.
Former Arizona Democratic Senator Dennis DeConcini, (whose father the courthouse is named after), is on the board of directors of CCA, and is also friends with former Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, who left that post to become DHS Director.
http://www.truthout.org/arizonas-war-immigrants59522 Article by Dahr Jamail, an acquaintance and friend of mine and Sassy's.
I am against the inhumanity. I still see the problems for us with the cost of supporting the illegals, even though the working ones pay their share into the system. I have always been helped on my trips in Mexico by these poor people that we have been taught in the US to view as no better than animals.
I have seen farmers work them for a month then call the border patrol on them so they would get the work for free, That is a pretty common practice. I have listened to an old farmer brag and laugh to me on how he and his son would go and spray the Workers small gardens with Round-up to kill the garden because they did not want them to have anything, yet these illegals would have fed him from their table if he was only sociable enough to show up at dinner time.
No - it's not the people - it's the system and money and corruption. Arizona seems to be cashing in just fine on taxpayer money and they see a way to make more.
I'm not saying that the illegals are right or that we should support them through our social programs. I'm just saying that the world and the system sucks. They are still people.
[
QuoteThey are still people.
That about covers it Glenn ;)
I don't believe that they should be mistreated at all. I believe they should be handled as humanely as possible, and deported without delay or false-trial as soon as immigration status is verified.
I'm pissed that the legal system is raking in cash over this.
Maybe California should follow Arizona's lead - it could replenish the budget.
Don sent me this today....I love it!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/19/arizona-official-threatens-cut-los-angeles-power-payback-boycott/
Cool idea.
Quote from: NM_Shooter on May 19, 2010, 06:03:21 PM
Don sent me this today....I love it!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/19/arizona-official-threatens-cut-los-angeles-power-payback-boycott/
More meaningless posturing. Los Angeles owns the power plants in Arizona (http://www.ladwpnews.com/go/doc/1475/555479/), so any threat to cut off the power is toothless yammering:
QuoteOn any given day, we receive 20 – 25% of our power from two power plants located in Arizona: Navajo, a coal-fired plant, and Palo Verde, a nuclear plant.
We are part owner of both power plants, which are generating assets of the Department.
According to the Border Patrol the public is being mislead as to WHO is coming into the US from Mexico. This IS THE TRUTH. As reported by WSBTV in Atlanta.
video 1/2 http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html
video 2/2 http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438712/index.html
OTM pdfs used in article:
http://www.wsbtv.com/download/2010/0503/23436567.pdf
http://www.wsbtv.com/download/2010/0503/23436648.pdf
OTM pdfs of iranian/egyptians/iraq/yemen/saudia/jordan/kenya currently being held by ICE border agents.
http://www.wsbtv.com/download/2010/0503/23436558.pdf
http://www.wsbtv.com/download/2010/0503/23436608.pdf
http://www.wsbtv.com/download/2010/0503/23436612.pdf
http://www.wsbtv.com/download/2010/0503/23436632.pdf
http://www.wsbtv.com/download/2010/0503/23436621.pdf
Quote
Terrorist Threat On Border With Mexico
DOUGLAS, AZ -- The U.S. Border Patrol uses choppers, ATVs and horses to patrol the 2000-mile border between the Southeastern U.S. and Mexico. Agents say most of the illegals caught crossing are from Mexico or South America. Still, they say thousands of people caught are classified as O.T.M.'s, which stands for "other than Mexican". They report that includes hundreds of people from nations that sponsor terrorism.
Channel 2 Action News anchor Justin Farmer traveled to Arizona to view a detention center near Phoenix. He viewed records that show illegals in custody from from Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan and Yemen.
WEB EXTRA: People Other Than Mexicans, Including From Terrorist Nations Captured In The Last Two Years (Documents above)
Former Arizona U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth has seen the reports. "We have left the back door to the United States open," he said. "We have to understand there are people who definitely mean to do us harm who have crossed that border."
WATCH: Channel 2 Investigates U.S. Border Security Part 1
(Video Above)
Farmer talked to an Arizona rancher who didn't want to be identified because he's afraid of the Mexican cartels who smuggle drugs near his property. He said he found a Muslim prayer rug on his ranch. "This is one more indication that there is a whole lot more than just a few Mexicans coming into the U.S.".
A recent congressional report on the border threat confirmed members of Hezbollah have crossed the Southwest border. It shows photos of military jackets with Arab insignias found on the border. One depicts a picture of a plane crashing into the twin towers in New York City.
Dave Stoddard was a border patrol agent for 20 years. "The American public has been kept in the dark about this issue," he said. "In my experience, for every one apprehended, at least 10 escape apprehension."
The congressional report also revealed the route Middle Easterners take to get the United States. It showed they travel from Europe to South America, then to the tri-border region. That's where they learn to speak Spanish. The report said they then travel to Mexico and blend in with other illegals.
WEB EXTRA: People Other Than Mexicans Currently In Detention In ICE Custody In Florence Arizona Including From Terrorist Countries (Documents above)
Law enforcement officials believe one of the world's most wanted terrorists may have traveled into the U.S. in 2004 by coming through the mountains on the Mexico border. Federal agents confirmed Adnan Shurkajumah spent time in Atlanta just prior to Sep. 11th, and left on a bus. He is a Saudi Arabian pilot and bomb expert with a $5 million bounty on his head. In 2004, Shurkajumah was one of seven Al-Qaida members agents were looking for after they were spotted in Central America and believed headed to the United States through Mexico . Federal agents now say Shurkajumah seems to have disappeared.
WATCH: Channel 2 Investigates U.S. Border Security Part 2
(Video Above)
Hayworth said one of the most grave concerns from the congressional report is that Mexican drug cartels will help terrorists smuggle weapons across remote border crossings.
"If we learned nothing from 9-11, certainly we should have learned that our borders are important."
Quote from: muldoon on May 20, 2010, 09:36:14 AM
According to the Border Patrol the public is being mislead as to WHO is coming into the US from Mexico. This IS THE TRUTH. As reported by WSBTV in Atlanta.
video 1/2 http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html
video 2/2 http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438712/index.html
Nice, huh? 20% have criminal records. 100's every year from countries with terrorist ties. Making jokes about finding copies of the Koran doesn't seem so funny now.
Isn't it odd that a person on the homeland security committee would not have access to that document? Wonder why that is?
Allow Arizona to protect its border by ANY and ALL means.
From an Blitzer interview with Felipe Calderon.....
BLITZER: So if people want to come from Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador or Nicaragua, they want to just come into Mexico, they can just walk in?
CALDERON: No. They need to fulfill a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not a criminal precedent. And they coming into Mexico. Actually...
BLITZER: Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants?
CALDERON: Of course. Of course, in the border, we are asking the people, who are you?
And if they explain...
BLITZER: At the border, I understand, when they come in.
CALDERON: Yes.
BLITZER: But once they're in...
CALDERON: But not -- but not in -- if -- once they are inside the -- inside the country, what the Mexican police do is, of course, enforce the law. But by any means, immigration is a crime anymore in Mexico.
BLITZER: Immigration is not a crime, you're saying?
CALDERON: It's not a crime.
BLITZER: So in other words, if somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America, through the southern border of Mexico, they wind up in Mexico, they can go get a job...
CALDERON: No, no.
BLITZER: They can work.
CALDERON: If -- if somebody do that without permission, we send back -- we send back them.
BLITZER: You find them and you send them back?
CALDERON: Yes. However, especially with the people of Guatemala, we are providing a new system in which any single citizen from Guatemala could be able to visit any single border (INAUDIBLE) in the south. And even with all the requirements, he can or she can visit any parts of Mexico.
Calderon is a hypocritical moron. The reason people are coming over our border, President Calderon, is because your country's infrastructure, educational system, economic system, system of jurisprudence, suck. How many Americans are trying to ILLEGALLY establish residence in Mexico? I would wager that the number is about.. zero.
http://www.mmdnewswire.com/arizona-immigration-bill-8558.html
17 States filing their own version.
Wait and see the Congress Critters are going to resurrect the REAL ID (National ID) program when they start Obama's "comprehensive immigration reform". I don't see how anyone would want to have a National ID, complete with Fed data base, biometrics, RFID (?), etc.
Take away the so called entitlements for the illegals, and find a judge to properly read the 14th amendment to end anchor baby status. Oh, maybe the U.S. should stop recruiting foreign born "kids" to fight it's wars, then give them citizenship for "serving", then fast track their parents and siblings for citizenship.
Quote from: Shawn B on July 17, 2010, 01:47:10 AM
Take away the so called entitlements for the illegals, and find a judge to properly read the 14th amendment to end anchor baby status.
Just what we need, more activist judges.
Just what we need, more activist judges? Like Sonia Sotomayor? You know, the one who was caught in a YouTube moment admitting that she and her fellow liberals make policy by way of the bench. Remember that? That clip was hilarious! [rofl2]
Quote from: peternap on May 15, 2010, 07:05:49 PM
WE GOT MEXICANS!
I was trying hard to get out of work today and decided to go in search of inland Mexicans. I found a bunch. Not many spoke English and none of them wanted their picture taken. If you want to get rid of illegals, start taking pictures ;D They disappear fast.
I tried my new low carry mount and need to work on technique some. :(
http://vimeo.com/11771152
Some nice flea market video, shot from the hip! Which one was the illegal? It's hard for me to tell the difference between the documented and the un-documented . . .
/
Quote from: bayview on July 19, 2010, 11:09:39 AM
Quote from: peternap on May 15, 2010, 07:05:49 PM
WE GOT MEXICANS!
I was trying hard to get out of work today and decided to go in search of inland Mexicans. I found a bunch. Not many spoke English and none of them wanted their picture taken. If you want to get rid of illegals, start taking pictures ;D They disappear fast.
I tried my new low carry mount and need to work on technique some. :(
http://vimeo.com/11771152
Some nice flea market video, shot from the hip! Which one was the illegal? It's hard for me to tell the difference between the documented and the un-documented . . .
/
If they run, they're illegal.
If they don't run, they're well disciplined illegals. :-\
We don't call them illegal aliens anymore. To be politically correct we call them Undocumented Democrats.
Hi desdawg. Nice to see you.
Hi Des!
Good to see you back..
I have to ask this..
I don't like the flood of Mexicans but for the life of me, I can't come up with a solid reason why. My first thought is that we're going to be up to our armpits in them soon.
They feed off of the system.
They talk funny.
But then we (including me) said the same thing about the Viet Nam and Cambodian refugees and every race and nationality that's immigrated to date. I expect the Indians said the same thing when my Ancestors came here.
Logic says there has to be a compromise. My bigoted side says differently though. I wonder which side is right?
I trust them more to watch my back --- carry their half of the load working with me than white dopers that are becoming so prevalent.... or people of any race that work while impaired. I guess I just say that because a white stoner hit me in the shin with a sledge hammer after his "lunch break" in his van.
The paperwork is a bit of a complication. Most of the Mexicans I work with are first generation legal ones though.
I have no problem with good people of any race.
Funny. I am living on a Mexican Land Estate sold to John C. Fremont. This was their property at the time of the gold rush.
I have tried for years to erase my bias thinking regarding discrimination and at this point of my life I think I have accomplished it to a degree that is acceptable to me. I have nothing against someone wanting to better themselves by migrating to our country IF and that is the word that seperates my thoughts being that IF they conduct themselves in a manner that our country was founded on, IF they contribute to the betterment of our nation, IF they work and become a productive individual , IF they become a citizen and only then will they recieve the benefits that they are entitled to. I feel that our nation needs to take care of every individual that meets these ( mind set requirements) and only then should they be compensated. There are so many US citizens ( those who for their lifetime) have worked for our nations and are being left out so that some ( not US citizens) may be compensated because they "are just here" and have no job and offer no contribution. Am I still a biggot? OK I will step down from my soap box now.
I don't have a problem with that, John, but lets export all of the worthless trash of all nationalities including our own that will not work, steal from those that do, graffiti and destroy property of others and are a drain on the system no matter what nationality.
The system design is such that many of those who get benefits designed to help those in great need, are punished if they do anything to help themselves so many will not even try to get off of life support.
Most of that is not a genuine desire not to help themselves but rather a desire to be taken care of without lifting a finger to help themselves. The supporters of the system are their enablers.
Those that are truly worth having here will use the system as designed when they are down, as a step to get back up then get off of it. I have no problem with them.
Hi Guys,
I don't have much problem with hispanic people. I have lived and worked among them here for quite some time. The problems I encountered came mostly from ones that were born and raised right here in AZ. They seem to develop attitudes. Some not all. I have become friends with some of the people that I hired and couldn't have asked for better workers. I ran into a couple of guys on the quad trail a while back inside the Barry Goldwater Bombing Range.They had been deported to Mexico on a Tuesday and by Sunday afternoon had walked about 200 miles to where I saw them. One said he had lived here for 25 years. He had been stopped for speeding and something about his documentation wasn't right. He had a wife and family in Eloy, AZ. These guys were dehydrated and worn out. I gave them some water and called his wife so she could find him. They are human beings just like we are after all.
Peternap:
To start with:
- The financial drain on the "system". Often without paying any taxes.
- Overcrowding of schools.
- Hospitals overburdened. Hospitals are obligated to treat the uninsured without reimbursement.
- Jail overcrowding. Major felonies including murder and rape. . .
- American workers are left underemployed, unemployed.
- Health threats.
- Diseased undocumented workers in the food industry. (Harvesting and preparing)
- Possible terrorism. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24987 (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24987)
- "Anchor babies"
- Overpopulation.
- Drug smuggling.
- Crowded highways. Traffic violations. Including drunken driving.
- Environmental issues. (Vandalizing the border states with trash and human waste.)
- Etc, Etc, Etc . . .
Besides that, they are in violation of U.S. law. They are here ILLEGALLY.
Illegal's come here from just about every country. But, the majority are from Latin America and Mexico. Its hypocritical that Mexico feels that it is acceptable for its citizens to migrate to the U.S. But submits harsh punishments for people entering its own country. Maybe they should practice what they preach.
I found it amusing that the illegal's were self-deporting from Arizona just before its immigration laws were to be enacted. Illegal's would self-deport if there were no social services, or employment opportunities.
Glenn:
You're right. Social benefits are being given to people besides illegal's that rarely deserve them.
It "warmed" my heart when our neighbor had all four generations under one roof . . . The grandmother (in her thirties) was pleased that her mother (great-grandmother) was able to visit. Her daughter of 16 just had a child. The grandmother, daughter and grandchild all live together. How wonderful that the great-grandmother was able to visit. Four generations under one roof . . . All on welfare.
There is a difference between a helping hand and a hand-out.
/
I also have seen that one before, Bayview.
Des, I have noticed the problem with second and third generation. The illegals are many times better than ones influenced by our enabling socialist entitlement policies.
Bayview: to support your post I offer this bit of anecdotal evidence. I have quite a few Spanish friends who have emigrated legally, and without exception they are against illegal aliens. These folks are very peeved about the situation that has occurred on the southern border because they feel that illegals there have turned many of the states into something they have left - countries that are failures. Oh, and for the record, here in New England we have a bit of trouble with illegal aliens from Somalia, Ireland and other African countries. It's not just confined to folks of Spanish descent.
It really peeves me when I have friends in home construction that are without work. While their illegal counterparts are working. Not paying taxes. Sending money "home". Their families on Medicaid and other social programs.
Meanwhile the rest of us have to pay federal, state, social security and self-employment taxes. It amounts to about ½ of what we make. Sure, we could give our customers a break if we didn't have any expenses.
Why not even the playing field . . .
Quoting Kathy McKee:
http://www.theamericanresistance.com/articles/art2004jan04.html (http://www.theamericanresistance.com/articles/art2004jan04.html)
Illegal aliens are NOT doing work Americans won't do. What jobs won't Americans do? In most states, Americans still clean their own houses, do their own landscaping, clean hotel rooms, work in restaurants and fast food places, paint houses, DO CONSTRUCTION WORK, work in airports, etc. - just like we have the past 200 years before "our" government allowed these people to invade our country. There are 18 million Americans who cannot find a job, so illegal aliens who are coming here to work do so at peril to American workers.
Consumers are NOT benefiting from lower labor costs. Again, it's CEOs and business owners who benefit from taxpayer subsidies for their illegal alien workers.
/
CNSNews.com
Arizona Sheriff: 'Our Own Government Has Become Our Enemy'
Monday, August 02, 2010
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer
Pinal County (Ariz.) Sheriff Paul Babeu
(CNSNews.com) – Pinal County (Ariz.) Sheriff Paul Babeu is hopping mad at the federal government.
Babeu told CNSNews.com that rather than help law enforcement in Arizona stop the hundreds of thousands of people who come into the United States illegally, the federal government is targeting the state and its law enforcement personnel.
"What's very troubling is the fact that at a time when we in law enforcement and our state need help from the federal government, instead of sending help they put up billboard-size signs warning our citizens to stay out of the desert in my county because of dangerous drug and human smuggling and weapons and bandits and all these other things and then, behind that, they drag us into court with the ACLU," Babeu said.
The sheriff was referring to the law suits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Department of Justice challenging the state's new immigration law.
"So who has partnered with the ACLU?" Babeu said in a telephone interview with CNSNews.com. "It's the president and (Attorney General) Eric Holder himself. And that's simply outrageous."
Last week, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton placed a temporary injunction on portions of the bill that allowed law enforcement personnel during the course of a criminal investigation who have probable cause to think an individual is in the country illegally to check immigration status. The state of Arizona filed an appeal on Thursday with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Our own government has become our enemy and is taking us to court at a time when we need help," Babeu said.
Babeu and Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County Ariz., spoke by phone with CNSNews.com last week about the May 17 ACLU class-action lawsuit, which charges the law uses racial profiling and named the county attorneys and sheriffs in all 15 Arizona counties as defendants. The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit on July 6, charging the Arizona law preempted the federal government's sole right to enforce immigration law.
"If the president would do his job and secure the border; send 3,000 armed soldiers to the Arizona border and stop the illegal immigration and the drug smuggling and the violence, we wouldn't even be in this position and where we're forced to take matters into our own hands," Babeu said.
Dever said the federal government's failure to secure the border and its current thwarting of Arizona's effort to control illegal immigration within its borders has implications for the entire country.
"The bigger picture is while what's going on in Arizona is critically important, what comes out of this and happens here will affect our entire nation in terms of our ability to protect our citizenry from a very serious homeland security threat," Dever said. "People who are coming across the border in my county aren't staying there. They're going everywhere USA and a lot of them are bad, bad people."
According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), about 250,000 people were detained in Arizona in the last 12 months for being in the country illegally. Babeu said that that number only reflects the number of people detained and that thousands more enter the country illegally each year.
The CBP also reports that 17 percent of those detained already have a criminal record in the United States.
Both Babeu and Dever said they want to remain involved in the legal battle over the law, which many experts predict will end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Dever has hired an independent attorney to represent him in the ACLU case and his attorney has already filed a motion of intervention in the DOJ lawsuit so the "(Dever) will have a seat at the table."
A Web site also has been launched by the non-profit, Iowa-based Legacy Foundation to raise money for the Babeu's and Dever's legal defense.
Both men said they believe the outcome of the case has national significance."For us, this is a public safety matter and a national security threat," Babeu said.
I want to know why we have to accommodate the hispanics (or anybody)? All of the other ethnic groups that came here over the last 200 years mostly went through legal channels, and worked their butts off to become AMERICANS. Why do we see all of the signs in stores in English and in Spanish? Why not Italian? Or Swedish? German? What makes them so special? America is a great country, formed from people all over the world, but I think it's dangerous to cater to one group. LEARN ENGLISH!
mush, I can think of a few cities with "chinatowns" where all the signs are in chisese or vietnamese. san jose has a japantown section. people cater to hispanics because it is a large demographic, especially in parts of the country where they are prevalent. here in Houston I frequently notice that for every 10 cars I see on the freeway or road, 8 of them are hispanic. they are catered to because they have cash. americans these days mostly have credit cards that get declined. those mexicans pay in cash.
So......As I read through this thread and have added my comments. I have come to the definitive conclusion we must abolish the Federal income tax and go to a national sales tax. Thus, everyone is contributing to the system and the argument and the burden of un documented individuals would be less of a drain on the system.
I really think that is the right direction to go.
Good stuff here. I live in Pinal County and have met Sheriff Paul Babeu.
He seems to be a pretty right thinking guy at least by my standards. We are Facebook Friends
I imagine this controversy will go on for some time to come. I hesitate to stereotype and paint everyone with the same brush. There are valid arguments against the illegal migration and I certainly don't support it. It has gone on for a long time which makes it more difficult to suddenly try to reverse it now.
When I enter the Goldwater Range I have to call and let the security folks know that I am going in and then call again and check out when I am done. They ask where I am entering from and when I told the guy I was coming in from the Vekol Valley he commented that that was where the deputy was shot a while back. I said I knew that but based on where I lived that is where I would be coming from. he Goldwater Range is over a million acres and stretches from the Vekol Valley to Yuma and from near I-8 to the border. It is a huge expanse of Vacant Land that is only used to train pilots and is a natural corridor for the foot track from the South. I have only just begun to explore over there.
We used to have some mule deer in our area and with the huge influx of people they disappeared and I suspect that is where the moved to. I want to find out this next winter ( it is too darned hot right now for me to want to risk riding out there currently)
Quote from: StinkerBell on August 03, 2010, 08:39:50 AM
So......As I read through this thread and have added my comments. I have come to the definitive conclusion we must abolish the Federal income tax and go to a national sales tax. Thus, everyone is contributing to the system and the argument and the burden of un documented individuals would be less of a drain on the system.
I really think that is the right direction to go.
Of course, the illegal's on Welfare-Social Services or illegal's in prison wouldn't have to worry about a national tax. . .
A national tax still wouldn't send
undocumented workers illegal's back to their home country.
And what about the American that lost his job because a illegal will work for less money.
Why not eliminate all personal income taxes and put an excise tax on foreign goods - As permitted by the Constitution. It will never happen . . . There are to many people that live off the current system. Govt. employees (IRS), lawyers, accountants, etc.
/
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/immigration/mexican-drug-cartel-sheriff-arpaio-07292010
Az Sheriff Joe gets a text message from Mexico.
Bayview,
I do not think itis right for illegals to be on welfare. But it is just not illegals there are many who immigrate here from theEastern block coutries that our goverment set up on welfare the moment they arrive. I have issues with that too.
I do think a national tax is the first step and not the only step. Everyone is a consumer, thus everyone would be contributing to federal tax based upon their consumer spending or lack of. If people are truly poor they will not be spending money on getting their nails done, wearing gold jewlry or any other thing I see while they are living off the government which is really living off those who work and struggle too.
This was written in 1996 but still applies in regards to anchor babies...
Anchor Babies
By Wayne Lutton
Volume 6, Number 4 (Summer 1996)
Issue theme: "The battle for official English"
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, quoted in the box on this page, was ratified in 1868 as a measure to grant citizenship to recently freed black slaves. However, it has been interpreted by the Congress as extending citizenship to anyone born within the geographic limits of the United States, even if the individual's parents are not citizens or legal residents.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
- The U.S. Constitution
Amendment Fourteen
Section 1 Popularly known as the "citizen-child loophole," this curious provision of U.S. law is used every year by tens of thousands of illegal aliens to obtain instant U.S. citizenship for their newborns. By mid-1995, the number of citizen-children who had been born to illegal alien parents was conservatively estimated at over one million.1 The citizen-children are automatically entitled to all of the benefits available to Americans, and, upon reaching the age of 21 years, can legally sponsor their parents and siblings for citizenship. This is why they are known as "anchor babies" - a child making it possible for an entire family to gain entry into the United States and its social welfare programs.
As illegal aliens, the parents of such children could be reported to federal authorities and potentially face deportation. However, deportations rarely occur. Indeed, being the parent of a new citizen-child is often cited as a legal argument to avoid such action. "In the last 10 to 15 years, I can't remember a case (of deportation of parents)," observed Peter Nu�ez, U.S. Attorney for San Diego during the Bush administration.2
Along the Texas-Mexican border, pregnant Mexican women frequently use the services of midwives (parteras) on the U.S. side who, for anywhere from $200 to over a $1000, provide women with delivery care, as well as U.S. citizenship forms and supporting documentation for their infants. From Matamoros, Mexico, pregnant women often simply take a taxi across the international bridge to deliver their children in Brownsville, Texas. One popular midwife, 48-year-old Trini Saldivar, freely conceded to a Los Angeles Times reporter that "the prospect of instant citizenship is the lure that draws many of her patients across the border."
"Mexicans who cannot afford American immigration lawyers after their kids are born go to American parteras before their kids are born," Professor Margarita Tagle of Texas A & M University explained. Between Brownsville and Laredo, 140 parteras are doing business - about one per mile. In 1995, 259 midwives were licensed in Texas.3 Should complications arise, women are taken to local public hospitals, where they are cared for at U.S. taxpayer expense.4
California Governor Pete Wilson pointed out in 1994 that there was an alarming jump in the number of citizen-children on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Between 1988 and 1993, the number of citizen-children in California receiving AFDC increased fourfold to about 12 percent of the state caseload. A report by the California Department of Health Services found nearly 96,000 babies were born to illegal immigrants in 1992, with their medical care costing the state $230 million.5 A 1993 cost-benefit study prepared by Louis Rea and Richard Parker of San Diego State University found that 41 percent of the estimated 5,800 citizen-children born in San Diego County in 1992 immediately went on welfare. A year later, about 34 percent of them were still receiving benefits. Such welfare cases in San Diego were estimated to cost taxpayers $18.7 million per year.6 By 1995, there were over 114,000 citizen-children living in Los Angeles County.
The system is open to fraud. A state-funded Orange County (CA) study found 62 percent of the claims in citizen-child cases were fraudulent. Some parents were earning money without reporting their income, or were using counterfeit documents."...the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause pertains only to the children of those legally admitted to permanent residence."
Others were not even living in California. "They were getting checks laundered by friends and family. When we checked with schools, often the child wasn't in the country," reported Angelo Doti, director of financial assistance for Orange County.7
Last year, in the largest such case in INS history, four midwives in Brownsville and San Benito, Texas pleaded guilty to filing fraudulent Texas birth certificates for 1,500 children actually born in Mexico. Making $800 to $1,200 for each birth certificate they falsified, the network of midwives operated profitably from 1988 to 1994.8 However, midwife-assisted birth registrations are rarely checked. There are virtually no safeguards to prevent a midwife from inventing a child's U.S. address.
The United States is one of the very few countries basing citizenship on the mere fortuity of having been born here. The overwhelming majority of countries base citizenship on the legal status of the parents. [See the chart on page 16.]
Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith of Yale University are among the legal scholars who argue that the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause pertains only to the children of those legally admitted to permanent residence. Few believe that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to extend citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, a non-existent legal concept in 1868.9 (See page 19.)
Several members of Congress have introduced measures to close the "citizen-child loophole." Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) is sponsor of a Citizenship Clarification Amendment. This act would grant automatic citizenship to a newborn only on the condition that at least one parent is a legal resident at the time of the child's birth.
Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) asserts Congress can simply reinterpret the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, since the drafters could not have foreseen the current immigration situation. Rep. Bilbray's Citizenship Reform Act would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to define the Amendment's phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as referring only to U.S. citizens or legal immigrants. Immigrants illegally in this country would be in violation of the act. (See page 9.)
On another tack, Elton Gallegly (R-CA) and Anthony Beileson (D-CA) both have submitted constitutional amendments that would deny citizenship to babies of illegal aliens. (See page 7.)
These proposals were introduced during the 1995-1996 Congress but were not acted upon. They are expected to be reintrodcued in the next Congress.
NOTES
1 Nancy Cleeland and Eric Young, "Citizen children: Offspring of illegal immigrants face an uncertain future," Miami Herald, June 5, 1995.
2 Ibid.
3 Jesse Katz, "Rio Grande Midwives Deliver Citizenship," Los Angeles Times, May 13, 1995.
4 Matt Moffet, "Border Midwives Bring Baby Boom to South Texas," Wall Street Journal, October 16, 1991.
5 Joan Lowry, "Pushing to limit U.S. birthright," San Francisco Examiner, July 23, 1995.
6 Ibid.
7 Cleeland and Young, op. cit.
8 Fernando Del Valle, "Four midwives plead guilty," Valley Morning Star, Harlingen, Texas, July 6, 1995.
9 Peter H. Schuck and Rogers M. Smith, Citizenship Without Consent (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985).
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Illegal immigrants are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. or the State that they reside in. Therefore their children cannot be under the jurisdiction either because it takes at least one parent that has U.S. citizenship for the child to be under the jurisdiction.
Politicians love reading only the opening statement's of the different articles and clauses of the Constitution, and they don't understand comma's or semicolon's either.
.
Quote from: Shawn B on August 03, 2010, 03:05:51 PM
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Illegal immigrants are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. or the State that they reside in.
You are mistaken. Illegal aliens can be, and are prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned for crimes they commit in the US. That makes them subject to the jurisdiction of the US. That clause refers to the children born to foreign diplomats while serving in the US. Diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and cannot be prosecuted for crimes they commit while posted here (they can be sent home). Children born to them while posted here do not get birthright citizenship.