Hello Righty's:

Come on. You can tell me. Do you think it's Constitutional for the cops to be able to demand to see the papers of individuals based upon their race?

I don't know what Constitution you want to restore, but it ain't one I'm familiar with.

excon

What are you talking about ?

The 4th amendment is easy to read .
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated".

This doesn't make an exception to anyone based on race. In addition the 14th amendment reinforces that point.

Now I know that this is a setup question and you have some specific instance in mind.

My guess is that you are thinking of the new Az law . My answer is that is also covered under the word unreasonable .

But just imagine how oh lets say academic this discussion would be if there was a wall preventing endless waves of illegals to cross into the State ? Gee ;maybe there would be no reason for Az to consider such a law.You can thank the negligence of the federal government for Az feeling the need to pass this measure.

Tom you have said the intrepretation of this surrounds the word unreasonable but I would suggest it surrounds the word people. Who are the people to whom it refers. Does it refer to all the people of the World? No, the preamble is specific, and I suggest other parts are specific in specifying citizens. So the question becomes what is unreasonable in relation to a citizen may be reasonable for a non citizen. Is a citizen merely a person who lives in a particular place? Do I become a citizen by stepping across the border?

I would suggest that if a law officer first enquired whether a person is a citizen he does not violate that persons rights by then asking for written confirmation any more than he does by asking the young driver of a car to see his license

Clete ;excellent point. This is also a distinction Excon often misses. Perhaps it's due to his theory that the US constitution is universally applied even though most of the world doesn't live under it's tenets. It is the key point in my debate with Ex over wiretapping also .

I had that discussion with ex before, he just thinks "we the people" means the authors, not the citizens of the nation. That's how he can justify giving U.S. constitutional rights to foreign enemies in a time of war.

That's how he can justify giving U.S. constitutional rights to foreign enemies in a time of war.Hello again, Steve:

If you only understood what the words in our founding documents mean, world peace would break out. But, you don't.

Here's the deal. In our Deceleration of Independence, Jefferson claims that we are endowed, by our creator, with "unalienable rights". To me, that means, for the first time in the history of the world, people HAVE rights. And, they have them AUTOMATICALLY, by virtue of being a person. Before that, only kings had rights. That is a unique concept. It's distinctly American. As a matter of fact, that concept IS the central core belief of our system... Frankly, I thought we ALL embraced those ideas.

I'm saddened to find that YOU folks still cling to the worn out anti American idea, that we're GIVEN these rights by the government. Therefore, we can CHOOSE who the government is going to GIVE them to next.

THAT fundamental misunderstanding of how our system works, and who we are as a nation, is the reason we have the disagreements we do.

excon

PS> By the way, I don't think of our Constitutional Rights as being a "get out of jail free" card, like you apparently do. After all, we ARE the worlds LARGEST jailer. Certainly, we couldn't have achieved that milestone if they were.

YOU, on the other hand, think we're GIVEN these rights by the government, and therefore we can CHOOSE who the government is going to GIVE them to next.


I doubt that is Steve's position and certainly not mine, Read a little further in the Declaration (next sentence ) you find that the founders believed


That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

In other words they may very well believe that their values are universal ;but do not necessarily apply to people in other nations . In fact it would be too much for us to do to secure those rights for all humans. We in this nation secure our rights for our nation and there are no guarantees for others . That was also reinforced as Steve said by the preamble to the Constitution where they made it very plain that the document of laws and rights applied only to "We the people" .

In other words they may very well believe that their values are universal ;but do not necessarily apply to people in other nations . In fact it would be too much for us to do to secure those rights for all humans. Hello again, tom:

The words... "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed", do NOT, in my view, modify the previous sentiment. They don't even come CLOSE to saying that.

Plus, you say our founders thought that rights were universal, but not necessarily?? That makes NO SENSE on it's face. One thing our founders did, was MAKE sense. Besides, I don't believe they were conflicted or hypocritical like you suggest they were.

By the way, who said that it's too much to do? Certainly, not Ronald Reagan when he saw his shining city on the hill. Being a world leader ain't for sissy's.

excon

Yes shining city on a hill is a worthy sentiment and goal . But even President Reagan understood the limits of the country's power.It reminds me of the platitudes in the Monroe Doctrine at a time when James Monroe had absolutely zero ability to prevent European nations from encroaching .

It's easy to deem it so ,much more difficult to execute.

I'll go back to the Az example. The State has been forced to deal with an impossible situation being one of the point states in dealing with porus borders that are a Federal responsibilties to control . They suffer a disproportionate cost because of their location to the border and are having their hands tied behind their backs in their attempt to maintain some kind of control against what is an invasion... there are no better terms to describe it.

It is more than reasonable for an officer to ask someone to produce papers upon the occasion of resonable suspicion. This occures routinely in traffic situation and I have yet to hear this massive outcry by the we the people that rights are being violated . We think instead it is reasonable.

I'll go back to the Az example. The State has been forced to deal with an impossible situation...

It is more than reasonable for an officer to ask someone to produce papers upon the occasion of resonable suspicion. This occures routinely in traffic situation and I have yet to hear this massive outcry by the we the people that rights are being violated . Hello again, tom:

Yes, I was aiming at Arizona. I don't disagree with you that the state has been forced to act because the federal government is not.

Nonetheless, this ISN'T the way to do it. I also don't disagree with you that the cops DO have the right to ask to see your papers based upon "reasonable suspicion". The problem with THIS law, is the only way a cop could possibly HAVE reasonable suspicion about ones immigration status, is based on race. That's racial profiling, and you can't do that here in the good old US of A, even if it IS reasonable. It has to be CONSTITUTIONAL, not just reasonable, and it ain't.

excon

It is ridiculous to imagine that everyone with brown skin in Arizona will suddenly come under surveillance .Probable cause still has to be established. The law just lowers the bar as to what qualifies as probable cause. But the words probable cause is used a number of times in the new law . So your fear of cops indiscriminently stopping Hispanics is unfounded.

The Supreme Court has already decided that it is legal for police to stop anyone and request valid identification;and refusing to produce one can indeed be reasonable suspicion.(Hiibel v Sixth )

Drivers are required to produce on demand their driver's license and legal immigrants are also required to produce their "green card " upon demand . I don't see how this law violates anyone's rights.

I don't see how this law violates anyone's rights.Hello again, tom:

The legality of the law rests on the answer to a simple question. How do you reasonably suspect someone of being an illegal alien, if NOT for their race? You discussed everything BUT that, yet THAT is the only question.

excon

Scenario . I the policeman see a pick up truck stopping by a group of day laborers and 20 of them squeeze into the truck . I think I have probable cause to stop the truck (what the driver did is most likely a violation of the traffic laws ) ,and to ask all the passengers to produce a valid ID .

That's just one of many examples I could think of. OK I'll give you another... a bunch of Minute men doing the job the Federal Government won't do ;sitting on the border, observe a bunch of people crossing the border.
Knowing that the Feds won't do anything they call Sheriff Arpaio . With this law ,he now has the enforcement tool he has been looking for to do his job.

scenario . I the policeman see a pick up truck stopping by a group of day laborers and 20 of them squeeze into the truckHello again, tom:

That is about the only scenario wherein a cop might suspect people are illegal. Although, I don't think the cops are going to hang out at Home Depot or Lowe's all day. That's the ONLY place that could happen, because people jamming into a truck from the parking lot of McDonald's DOESN'T indicate that they're illegal OR day laborers.

excon

Hello again, tom:

That is about the only scenario wherein a cop might suspect people are illegal. Although, I don't think the cops are gonna hang out at Home Depot or Lowes all day. That's the ONLY place that could happen, because people jamming into a truck from the parking lot of McDonald's DOESN'T indicate that they're illegal OR day laborers.

excon

However Ex you have provided the ideal scenario where a law officer might suspect some of those people are illegal without racially profiling them

However Ex you have provided the ideal scenario where a law officer might suspect some of those people are illegal without racially profiling themHello clete:

Probably. But, after they clean out Home Depot and Lowe's, what are they going to do?

excon

Hello clete:

Probably. But, after they clean out Home Depot and Lowes, what are they gonna do?

excon

Ah well there is always McDonells, I hear they hire cheap labour

Is anyone with a different accent, let alone skin color, probable cause?
How about a Russian accent in a prostitute? Or an Indian accent behind the counter at the gas station store? Sorry, but most small town cops are not trained enough to be constitutional scholars.


G&P


G&P

Ah well there is always McDonells, I hear they hire cheap labourHello again, clete:

I only caved on Home Depot and Lowe's because I personally think most of those people are illegal. I have NO idea if that's so, but if a cop thought like me, he COULD harass people at Home Depot.

But, McDonald's hires all sorts of people, and most of them are citizens. So, NO, they couldn't reasonably assume, because a person works there, that they're illegal.

excon

Hello again, clete:

I only caved on Home Depot and Lowes because I personally think most of those people are illegal. I have NO idea if that's so, but if a cop thought like me, he COULD harass people at Home Depot.

But, McDonald's hires all sorts of people, and most of them are citizens. So, NO, they couldn't reasonably assume, because a person works there, that they're illegal.

excon

I think you are getting the point Ex there are many ways to profile people and not all of them are racial. I thought police officers had certain training that allowed them to home in on the criminal class surely that training would be useful in observing behaviour. What it means is that police forces need to be better trained and not just someone's cousin.

I do think that it is unfortunate local police forces are being used to do the federal government's job for them but obviously there is a local problem that prompted these laws. We see law enforcement problems among certain populations, as I'm sure you do, and it is very easy to racially profile potential offenders, particularly in a given region or neighbourhood. What will happen, as is the intent of the legislators, is that these populations will depart the area and stay away. Whether that is economically desirable is another issue.

Hello again, clete:

I only caved on Home Depot and Lowes because I personally think most of those people are illegal. I have NO idea if that's so, but if a cop thought like me, he COULD harass people at Home Depot.

But, McDonald's hires all sorts of people, and most of them are citizens. So, NO, they couldn't reasonably assume, because a person works there, that they're illegal.

excon

What about a policy that asks everyone with no ID if they are illegal. Like if they get pulled over and magically they have no papers? Or they get arrested? Doesn't matter what they look like. Would you support that ?

Al Sharpton (sp) just announced that he will lead a march in Az and all of them will not have proper ID.

What about a policy that asks everyone with no ID if they are illegal. Like if they get pulled over and magically they have no papers? Or they get arrested? Doesnt matter what they look like. would you support that ?Hello dad:

My problem is with racial profiling. If they ask EVERYBODY to show their papers, across the board, I would support it.

But, it would really waste a lot of police time that could be better spent doing real law enforcement, because MOST of the people they'll be asking for papers will be white. So, it might be Constitutional, but it won't work very well to arrest illegals.

excon

Hello:

Being the suspicious type, I wonder if this law has anything to do with disenfranchising Democratic voters... Nahhhh. They wouldn't do that, would they?

excon

Here's the actual law (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf), it doesn't sound nearly as ominous as it's being portrayed. The feds will still be counted on to enforce immigration laws and as was entirely predictable, Dems are already suggesting the feds not cooperate (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042600226.html). I guess they don't get that not enforcing immigration laws IS the problem AZ is addressing.

Arizona must do something to stop the unnecessary crime and violence that has resulted in the sanctuary cities such as Phoenix. Last Thursday in anticipation of the bill being signed into law a company fired 500 workers. Imagine that. Guess the company didn't want to get heavily fined for having hired illegals.

If the jobs are taken away from the illegals (and not just the Mexican or Latino illegals by the way) in Arizona then they will have to move elsewhere to have a job or better yet go back to their original country. There are a lot of other illegals in Arizona as well that need to be addressed.

I am sure a lot of "legal" Latinos will be stopped and have to prove who they are, but that is to be expected. If done properly there should be no problem with having to prove to the police who they are.

During WWII all Asian people were rounded up and sent to detention camps even if they where born in the USA. Think about that one. They didn't have the luxury of proving identification - they were just taken away and detained... just because they "looked Asian". This happened also to the German and Italian peoples as well during the war. They had no say so but were just "rounded up" and detained.

Having 57,000 stolen cars per year for one state is a lot of stolen cars. Arizona is just fed up waiting for the government to actually DO something so they've done something for themselves. I am sure that a lot of other border states will shortly follow suit with this same type of law.

I have noticed that since the economy has really tanked here in Ohio there are a lot less Latino looking folks shopping at WalMart and the local Mexican restaurants have gone out of business. I don't even see the fancy, flashy expensive cars and pick up trucks driven by Latinos here anymore. Ohio lost too many jobs for the Latinos to stick around and make money to send home so they've left here.

Hello:

Being the suspicious type, I wonder if this law has anything to do with disenfranchising Democratic voters.... Nahhhh. They wouldn't do that, would they?

excon

Actually it is the president who is trying to exploit this for political reasons
YouTube - President Obama Announces Vote 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh-yR1HWkbM&feature=player_embedded)

actually it is the president who is trying to exploit this for political reasons
YouTube - President Obama Announces Vote 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oh-yR1HWkbM&feature=player_embedded)

Does he have no boundries nor shame?

Hello again:

I wonder if you live in Arizona, and happen to be a brown skinned person, and you get assaulted, would you be hesitant to call the cops? Nahhh. This law won't do that.

excon

Ex re #24

Are you implying that a Democratic voting block is illegal immigrants?!

I thought they were not allowed to vote?



G&P

Tom


The POTUS thinks American priority is about winning an election?
Hmmm... I thought it was about jobs and economic recovery.

It is disgraceful that the POTUS plays the identity politics of getting, women, the young, blacks, and hispanics to vote as if the old, men, non black/hispanic people did not vote for him.


G&P

Are you implying that a Democratic voting block is illegal immigrants?!?!! I thought they were not allowed to vote?Hello again, in:

Not at all. And, you're to be congratulated for thinking such pure thoughts...

No, I'm thinking that the law is going to be enforced BIGTIME on voting day, in hispanic districts, perpetrated against LEGAL hispanic citizens waiting in line to vote, but forgot their "papers".

Nahhh, the Republicans wouldn't do that... I should have pure thoughts, too, but I'm a realist.

excon

Tom


The POTUS thinks American priority is about winning an election?
Hmmm ..... I thought it was about jobs and economic recovery.

It is disgraceful that the POTUS plays the identity politics of getting, women, the young, blacks, and hispanics to vote as if the old, men, non black/hispanic people did not vote for him.


G&P

As Captain Renault said "I'm shocked, shocked ......"

* 95 percent of homicide warrants in Los Angeles are issued for illegal aliens. Additionally, 67 percent of the 17,000 outstanding fugitive felony warrants in that city are issued for illegal aliens.

* 83 percent of homicide warrants in Phoenix are issued for illegal aliens.

* 86 percent of homicide warrants issued in Albuquerque, New Mexico are issued for illegal aliens.

* In Operation Predator, ICE arrested and deported 6,085 illegal alien pedophiles. There have been many studies which suggest that each pedophile molests and average of 148 children over their lifetime. Considering that estimate, the deportees alone could have accounted for 900,580 victims.

* 29 percent of the U.S. prison population is comprised of illegal aliens, at an annual cost to the American taxpayers of more than $1.6 billion.


Have you had enough of this or do you want this to come to your city/state? It's about time something has started to be done to alleviat this problem that is literally draining this country of it's resources. Hats off to Arizona for having the guts to stand up to the illegals.

I'm beginning to think that Obama messed up in pushing the health care scam down our throats instead of the illegal immigration problem. Now he's waited too long and the immigration amnesty is essentially a "dead" issue. He should have pushed the amnesty down our throats instead.

Oh well, he had his chance and essentially picked big money over the illegals.

Hello again:

I wonder if the tea partiers, who HATE big government, mind that government now has the authority to stop you and ask for PROOF that you belong here...

Nahhh, that's OK with the small government types.

excon

Hello again:

I wonder if the tea partiers, who HATE big government, mind that government now has the authority to stop you and ask for PROOF that you belong here...

Nahhh, that's ok with the small government types.

excon

Now ex you know that that right wing conservative bunch always like to be in control, what could be better than a legal reason to stop, question and detain for exercising control. But there is a certain genius to the Arizona law, this is one time when the threat of the law just might work, not because of anything their police might do but because these illegals are used to heavy handed police tactics. Rreading that law was very interesting, it was more about traffic control than it was about immigration enforcement, and it certainly didn't demand that law enforcement stop people in the street and ask for ID, however once the system has hold of them, I could see a lot of police time being taken up in processing illegals. Law Enforcement, a growth industry.

Hello again:

I wonder if the tea partiers, who HATE big government, mind that government now has the authority to stop you and ask for PROOF that you belong here...

Nahhh, that's ok with the small government types.

excon


No big deal. I go to vote - ID. I go to a club - ID [ though that is very rare these days ]. I go to the bank - ID etc.

I don't like the BIG government taking more money from me just because I work hard and am more successful. And if BIG government can't get you that way, they will in AMT. For those of us in our 40s or younger - sorry about all those years we took your hard earned money to support the ponzi scheme called social security and medicare - that will be broke or gone in 10-20 years.

But one of the few things I do expect big government to do is to competently protect our borders.

This, from one who is an American and an ethnic minority with darker skin than you, if you are white, and a Spanish sounding surname.



G&P

Rreading that law was very interesting, it was more about traffic control than it was about immigration enforcement, and it certainly didn't demand that law enforcement stop people in the street and ask for ID,
YUP

Nahhh, that's OK with the small government types.

Small government types do want the government to perform the few things the government alone can do ,like provide security against invasion.

YUP

Small government types do want the government to perform the few things the goverment alone can do ,like provide security against invasion.

Eleven or is it fourteen million and you call that protection against invasion, where I come from we call that not asleep at the wheel but in hibenation.

We go into apolexy about a few thousand and you guys are sweet with a few million, just shows to go you, different strokes for different folks

No big deal. I go to vote - ID. I go to a club - ID [ though that is very rare these days ]. I go to the bank - ID etc.Hello again, in:

No big deal. Walking down the street while being Mexican?

excon

you guys are sweet with a few million,

That's a broad brush depiction. Our government lack of enforcement of immigration laws is not something I support.

Hello again, in:

No big deal. Walking down the street while being Mexican?

Uh no, the law does not provide for harassing folks for "walking down the street while being Mexican" and you know that.

All Arizona did was to give itself the authority to enforce existing Federal law.

Uh no, the law does not provide for harassing folks for "walking down the street while being Mexican" and you know that.Hello Steve:

I DIDN'T know that, so I read the law. I know it now.

excon

Please name for me any other country in the world (other than USA) that knowingly permits or allows illegal aliens to reside within their borders for years without being deported?

What other country gives them free money, free medical care, allows them to commit crimes and run to sanctuary cities without prosecution, and takes jobs from the lawful citizens of that country and then cries "foul" when they are caught?

Try as I may, I cannot name one other country on this planet other than the USA that permits or allows this kind of behavior.

What gives these people the "right" to be immune from being ID'd to see if they are here legally or not? In other countries around the world this is the norm for tourists to be stopped and ID'd to see if they are supposed to be in that country or not. What's so special about these people that they can be immune to being asked if they are in this country legally or illegally?

But aren't the people of Arizona hiring them for jobs? They are paying them to come over but giving them jobs. Why are they doing that?

Please name for me any other country in the world (other than USA) that knowingly permits or allows illegal aliens to reside within their borders for years without being deported?Hello twink:

It really doesn't matter what other country does it. What matters is that WE DID IT - and we've done it for a long, long time. The result is people who have lived here for YEARS and established themselves.

Given that you have correctly identified the bad guy - THE GOVERNMENT, we shouldn't take it out on the people who only did what you yourself would have done. Yes, they got to the border and saw a sign saying DO NOT ENTER. Then they read the next sign which said HELP WANTED.

excon

The left, in their rush to boycott all things Arizona (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/us/27arizona.html?ref=us), have called one of my favorite beverages "the drink of fascists." I'd really appreciate it if these morons would do their homework first, Arizona Iced Tea is made in New York (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/04/28/2010-04-28_ariz_law_leads_to_misfired_ire.html). And just so no one gets any ideas about one of my favorite restaurants should you get angry with my state, Texas Roadhouse is not based in Texas.

Meanwhile, San Francisco cuts off diplomatic relations with Arizona (http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/28/san-francisco-cuts-off-diplomatic-relations-with-arizona/). Would anyone in Arizona care?

I think Arizona should deport all the illegals they catch to the sanctuary city by the bay .

That is the best idea I've heard all day. Makes perfect sense.

That is the best idea I've heard all day. Makes perfect sense.Hello again,

Me too.

excon

The law is clear as far as what is required to be here. Citizenchip... green card or Visa specifying the length of stay.

And incidentally... with countries where we have a reciprocity agreement... they may not require a VISA to vist... but the duration of such visit is limited to 6 months.

The police have every bit the same right to ask for that information as they do to ask for your drivers license.

Every nation has the sovereign right to control its borders and determine who can and can not be there.

Illegals of any ethnicity HAVE no constitutional right to violate that law... or any other law for that matter, just because geographiclly most in a certain physical place ARE a certain ethnic group means nothing.

And incidentally... exactly what law exempts illegals from having to comply with ANY American law? Latinos are no more special than Chinese or Russian illegals just to name two as an example.

They can apply for legal immigration just like everyone else has to. Why are they special enough to not follow the rules and the law and wait their turn.

Which incidentally violates the rights of those who do comply... and follow the law.

I think Arizona should deport all the illegals they catch to the sanctuary city by the bay .I think that's a perfect idea. Let them and their residents pay all the costs to educate, treat in hosipitals and feed them.

See how long they remain a sanctuary city that's violating federal law.

How about we ask San Francisco why they don't offer sanctuary to all the nations child molesters too. What makes the Illegals any more special than American citizens anyway. I'd love for them to answer that question.


Los Angeles and San Fran want to boycot anything from Arizona... how about we all boycott everything from California since THEY are not paying for the true costs of the nations illegals THEY are trying to shield from the law.

What's good for the Goose is good for the Gander. See who has more to lose?

How about we ask San Francisco why they don't offer sanctuary to all the nations child molesters too. I'd love for them to answer that question. Hello again, smoothy:

I don't know. To ME, there's a difference between somebody who wants to blow your leaves, and somebody who wants to blow your children. YOU? Not so much.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

I dunno. To ME, there's a difference between somebody who wants to blow your leaves, and somebody who wants to blow your children. You, not so much.

exconThose Illegals KILL many on the highways every year (we had two high profile ones in the news locally this year)... Inflict grave financial damage to others as most drive without a License or insurance.

Or they rape and kill people... a large percentage of gang members are illegals... I can name any number... and barely scratch the surface, besides any number of OTHER law violations..

Hmmm that or some dumb rebellious teenage girl wanting to sleep with a loser that can't get a woman his own age...



Gee... which of those is worse. Besides ALL of them being against the law.


Using their OWN words... (calling latino's BROWN people).


Why should "Brown" people be above the law everyone else has to follow.

Why should Latinos be allowed to break the law that lets say Europeans (or Even Canadians) have to follow.

And President Blowhard in Mexico... ask him how do THEY treat illegals from south of THEIR border? See I know the answer to that... and they are particularly harsh on them.

There are plenty of times we as Americans are asked to show identiy, and they check for outstanding warrants etc.. whats wrong with checking immigration status as well... I have no problem with that. Why should illegals be above the law. And that IS what the Arizona Law is about... not the "walking while Brown" claims.

Incidentally... if you have EVER spent much time in another Country... you would know its very common for them to do that very thing (checking your papers), I've had it happen in at least 8 different countries I remember. I didn't get all indignant about it.

Ex, as repetitive as this is it doesn't matter if they're just here to blow your leaves. It has been federal law for some 70 years that non-citizens have been required to carry their papers on them at all times, has it not?

We citizens are expected to present identification to do just about anything; cash a check, open a bank account, get a hotel room, go to a bar or a doctor, get on an airplane, buy a pair of socks with a debit card or some Sudafed at the pharmacy - and yes, when we get pulled over by the cops. Should illegal aliens be exempted?

Hello again, smoothy:

I dunno. To ME, there's a difference between somebody who wants to blow your leaves, and somebody who wants to blow your children. YOU?? Not so much.

excon

ROFL :p:p:p:p:p
We don't agree on much but your wit does make me laugh .

ROFL :p:p:p:p:p
We don't agree on much but your wit does make me laugh .

You think that was funny,Tom I think ex's remark was pathetic and racial profiling at its worst. What he is saying is you have eleven million hispanic pedophiles in the USA

Then you didn't read the smoothy comment he was replying to.

You think that was funny,Tom I think ex's remark was pathetic and racial profiling at its worst. What he is saying is you have eleven million hispanic pedophiles in the USA

Thank you, Reverend Sharpton. This type of race-baiting is what has made the entire question of ethnicity so vitriolic. It shows the writer's racism much more than it attacks anyone else's

Hello:

I wonder if the right wing knows that Mexicans were in Arizona LONG before the white man came?? Nahhh, they don't care about that.

excon

You think that was funny,Tom I think ex's remark was pathetic and racial profiling at its worst. What he is saying is you have eleven million hispanic pedophiles in the USA

OK, I thought it was funny, too. Ex does make me laugh for reasons other than his opinions :D

Hello:

I wonder if the right wing knows that Mexicans were in Arizona LONG before the white man came??? Nahhh, they don't care about that

Uh, actually it was inhabited by Indians, then explored by Spaniards who established missions and presidios until it became a part of Mexico in 1821. After the US-Mexican war, which you can debate if you like, the U.S. paid $15 million under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo for most of the territory and then purchased the rest in the Gadsden Purchase. The land belongs to the U.S. under treaty, with agreed upon compensation and an outright purchase. So what's your point?

I wonder if the right wing knows that Mexicans were in Arizona LONG before the white man came?? Nahhh, they don't care about that.


And the natives were there even earlier .

The truth is that the land in Arizona was sparsely populatedfor most of the 19th Century.

Mexico has not owned the territory in the State of Arizona since the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago and the Gadsen Purchase .The illegal immigrants have no claim on the land ;despite the Reconquista movement .

But you make an interesting observation . The Mexicans looking for people to do the work Mexicans wouldn't do invited the Gringos into their terrirtory and did not do anything to try to prevent or control this immigration wave until it was too late . Do we want history to repeat ?

and did not do anything to try to prevent or control this immigration wave until it was too late . Do we want history to repeat ? Hello again, tom:

Let's get down to it. The WAVE isn't the issue, although we can discuss WHY it takes up to a decade for visa to be obtained... But, forgetting THAT for a moment, what do you want to to with the millions that are already here? Send 'em back, or leave 'em alone?

excon

Send them back... tell them to make their applications from their home country like everyone else has to do. That's the law, that's the process. Its our country, IF they wish to come here they will follow OUR law, and OUR rules.

IF the do.. they will be welcomed. If they don't they will not only be tossed out, but they will lose any right to apply in the future.

That provides the incentive for them to leave voluntarily. If they do they can apply. If we catch them and throw them out they will never be allowed back legally, (we will have biometrics to catch anyone who tries to use a different name after being tossed out) and should have any assets seized and sold and jail time as a disincentive to breaking the law.

And too bad about them having to wait... this isn't Burger King.

Send them back...tell them to make their applications from their home country like everyone else has to do. Thats the law, thats the process. Hello again, smoothy:

Couple things. The process takes up to ten years, and lots of money they don't have. You'll be breaking up families forever, because the children are citizens and the parents are not. I don't know how that sits with the right wing screed about family values. But, I think you mean WHITE family's. I don't think you care what happens to the brown ones.

Before you begin again about crime, I categorically REJECT the notion that illegals commit crimes in a greater proportion than their share of the population. Yes, I'll show you the studies if I must.

But, from an anecdotal perspective, you should be able to debunk this crap yourself, in your own brain, WITHOUT seeing the data. You DO know that Irish immigrants were the bad guys once. They were accused of committing MORE than their share of crime too. But, it turned out not to be so. The Italians too, were wrongly accused. When the Deutchmark collapsed and there were no jobs, the Germans blamed the Jews, and we know how that turned out.

Unless you're a bigot, you cannot believe that any particular people are predisposed to crime.

excon

Lets go back to some more history for reference.

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986... Ronald Reagan signed it into law a one time amnesty under the promise that it would grant legal status to illegal immigrants, crack down on employers who hired illegal workers and secure the border once and for all.

We were lied to . There were fraudulent applications and fraudulent documents ;employers continued to hire illegals and no effort to control the border was seriously attempted .

Fool me once...



Here is what Marco Rubio ,son of Cuban immigrant/exiles ,and possibly the next Governor of Florida says about the 1986 shamnesty :

“In 1986 Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million people,” Rubio said. “You know what happened, in addition to becoming 11 million a decade later? There were people trying to enter the country legally, who had done the paperwork, who were here legally, who were going through the process, who claimed, all of a sudden, 'No, no no no , I'm illegal.' Because it was easier to do the amnesty program than it was to do the legal process.”

Rubio says that if you give them the idea that they can cross the border illegally and just play prevent defense to buy sufficient time until they are legal knowing we will let them stay,that there will be no incentive to do immigrate legally.

Like me ;he thinks you have to demonstrate you can control the border and enforce existing laws and /or create a legal immigration /visa system that works before you consider what is to be done with the illegals that are here.
If employers are sufficiently fined for hiring them ,and tamper proof residency cards and green cards created ,then,not being able to find work;by attrition alone, the number of illegals will be reduced.

I see no reason why legal immigrants and Hispanic -Americans would oppose this .
Back to the history lesson.

Caesar Chavez ;who has been designated as a hero of the Reconquista movement was a champion of migrant worker's rights. He organized the AFW to make them a force.

In 1979 he testified to Congress that "... when the farm workers strike and their strike is successful, the employers go to Mexico and have unlimited, unrestricted use of illegal alien strikebreakers to break the strike. And, for over 30 years, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has looked the other way and assisted in the strikebreaking. I do not remember one single instance in 30 years where the Immigration service has removed strikebreakers. ... The employers use professional smugglers to recruit and transport human contraband across the Mexican border for the specific act of strikebreaking..."

Prior to that he led marches to the Mexican border to protest illegal immigration. He marched side by side with Sen. Walter Mondale and Ralph Abernathy .Back then ,before the Dems decided to exploit the illegals as a potential voting block they were more concerned with the rights of poor workers who were here legally... now... not so much.

Hello again, smoothy:

Couple things. The process takes up to ten years, and lots of money they don't have. You'll be breaking up families forever, because the children are citizens and the parents are not. I dunno how that sits with the right wing screed about family values. But, I think you mean WHITE family's. I don't think you care what happens to the brown ones.

Before you begin again about crime, I categorically REJECT the notion that illegals commit crimes in a greater proportion than their share of the population. Yes, I'll show you the studies if I must.

But, from an anecdotal perspective, you should be able to debunk this crap yourself, in your own brain, WITHOUT seeing the data. You DO know that Irish immigrants were the bad guys once. They were accused of committing MORE than their share of crime too. But, it turned out not to be so. The Italians too, were wrongly accused. When the Deutchmark collapsed and there were no jobs, the Germans blamed the Jews, and we know how that turned out.

Unless you're a bigot, you cannot believe that any particular people are predisposed to crime.

excon

You better produce those studies then because I'm waving the BS flag on THAT claim... because EVERY single illegal is guilty of at least ONE crime... if they have a fake Idea then there are several more... Not to mention Violation of tax laws on top of that... Laws requireing Drivers licenses to operate vehicles... which they can not legally get. Then driving uninsured etc... And the list keeps growing.

Most Latino gang members ARE illegals... Most Triad and Russian Mob members are illegals.


So YOUR claim that Illegals are the most upstanding bunch on the planet is total BS.

And "Studies" by "La Raza" or "Casa di Maryland" or other groups that think Illegals are above the law do not count as credible.

I see the crime illegals commit every day... I see the carnage illegals cause on the highways... I see the high cost illegals cause legal US residents every single day. In the emergency rooms WE have to pay for... in HIGHER property taxes WE have to pay to educate their basterd offspring they don't pay for... the Food stamps liberals give to the illegals to subsidize their crimes, and it keeps going on and on.

What I fail to see is ANY reason why these CRIMINALS deserve to be exempt friom the law.

Illegals ARE Criminals... Illegals commit a DISPORPORTIONATEly HIGH amount of crime.

You must live in San Francisco because you seem unable to grasp the reality the rest of the population sees every day.


And incidentally... Latinos have NO more right to any land here than any white person has... Central America was essentually stolen from the Indians by the Spanish. Where the latinos get off thinking they have some ancesteral right to anything is beyond comprehension by any thinking person.

Let them stay in their OWN country if they ccan't follow the law..

And if they can break that law... then we can break the law by shooting them on site.

After all, its only a law, right?

You must live in San Francisco because you seem unable to grasp the reality the rest of the population sees every day.Hello again, smoothy:

I don't know. We have highways. We have illegals.

excon

Impacts of Illegal Immigration: Crime Summary
While this report has attempted to put a personal face on the collateral damage of illegal alien crime, note that many of the links in this report detailing some of the crime are dependent on the archiving time of some of the various sources making their articles available. Once taken down, many of the crimes simply "disappear" from American consciousness.

As an example, I'm willing to bet that most people living outside of the Denver metro are not aware that in the fall of 1999 five Asian gang members, illegal aliens as it was reported many years latter, kidnapped and gang raped a University of Colorado coed. Initiation rites were involved and they specifically targeted a "white woman."

If it wasn't for the archiving efforts of some groups fighting illegal immigration general knowledge of such incidents would be lost to all but the most serious researcher. Even with the internet it is very difficult to track down and report the participation level of illegal aliens in crime because NOBODY IS KEEPING TRACK! However, as this report has detailed and documented, it is quite considerable and is the direct consequence of our unfettered immigration policy, porous borders, sanctuary cities, and lack of enforcement.

In recent Testimony of District Attorney John M. Morganelli before the House Subcommittee on immigration, Border, Security and Claims he stated:

"Unfortunately, the majority of illegal aliens who are here are engaged in criminal activity. Identity theft, use of fraudulent social security numbers and green cards, tax evasion, driving without licenses represent some of the crimes that are engaged in by the majority of illegal aliens on a daily basis merely to maintain and hide their illegal status.
In addition, violent crime and drug distribution and possession is also prevalent among illegal aliens. Over 25% of today's federal prison population are illegal aliens. In some areas of the country, 12% of felonies, 25% of burglaries and 34% of thefts are committed by illegal aliens."


Ignoring the "minor crime" such as ID theft and property crimes being committed by illegal aliens, here is a summary on some of the collateral damage reaped in crimes as a result of tolerating illegal aliens in the USA:

•In Los Angeles, 95% of some 1,500 outstanding warrants for homicides are for illegal aliens. About 67% of the 17,000 outstanding fugitive felony warrants are for illegal aliens.
•There are currently over 400,000 unaccounted for illegal alien criminals with outstanding deportation orders. At least one fourth of these are hard core criminals.
•80,000 to 100,000 illegal aliens who have been convicted of serious crimes are walking the streets. Based on studies they will commit an average of 13 serious crimes per perpetrator.
•Illegal aliens are involved in criminal activities at a rate that is 2-5 times their representative proportion of the population.
•In 1980, our Federal and state facilities held fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens but at the end of 2003, approximately 267,000 illegal aliens were incarcerated in U.S. correctional facilities at a cost of about $6.8 billion per year.
•At least 4.5 million pounds of cocaine with a street value of at least $72 billion is smuggled across the southern border every year.. .
•56% of illegal aliens charged with a reentry offense had previously been convicted on at least 5 prior occasions.
•Illegal aliens charged with unlawful reentry had the most extensive criminal histories. 90% had been previously arrested. Of those with a prior arrest, 50% had been arrested for violent or drug-related felonies.
•Illegal aliens commit between 700,000 to 1,289,000 or more crimes per year.
•Illegal aliens commit at least 2,158 murders each year – a number that represents three times greater participation than their proportion of the population.
•Illegal alien sexual predators commit an estimated 130,909 sexual crimes each year.
•There may be as many as 240,000 illegal alien sex offenders circulating throughout America. Based on studies, they will commit an average of 8 sex crimes per perpetrator before being caught.
•Nearly 63% of illegal alien sex offenders had been deported on another offense prior to committing the sex crime.
•Only 2% of the illegal alien sex offenders in one study had no history of criminal behavior, beyond crossing the border illegally.
•In Operation Predator, ICE arrested and deported 6,085 illegal alien pedophiles. Some studies suggest each pedophile molests average of 148 children. If so, that could be as many as 900,580 victims.
•Nobody knows how big the Sex Slave problem is but it is enormous.
•The very brutal MS-13 gang has over 15,000 members and associates in at least 115 different cliques in 33 states.
•The overall financial impact of illegal alien crimes is estimated at between $14.4 and $81 billion or more per year. Factor in the crime as a result of the cocaine and other drugs being smuggled in and the number may reach $150 billion per year.
Still think illegal immigration is a "victimless crime" and we don't need to control our borders? Remember, about 60% of the crimes being committed are by illegal aliens who were previously deported.

Allowing our borders to be disregarded coupled with little national commitment about doing anything about it has resulted in growing mayhem by illegal alien criminals, not a "victimless crime."

As the previous sections have detailed, the dark side of illegal immigration includes a lot of horrific crime being perpetrated by the hard core criminal element of the illegal alien population. In the cost-benefit tradeoff of tolerating illegal immigration, how much collateral damage are we willing to accept?

In tolerating illegal immigration, how many Americans do YOU accept being molested, raped and murdered each year to save ten cents on a head of lettuce?

From..

Impacts of Illegal Immigration: Crime Summary (http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_crime_summary.html)

Hello again, smoothy:

I dunno. We have highways. We have illegals.

excon

If you love the illegals so much... give us a shipping address... we will send them all out your way, free of charge.

But we accept no returns.

Hello smoothy:

That's what THAT guy said. It's no better than YOU saying it. It's anecdotal with some right wing vigor thrown in.

Here's a STUDY (http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cacounts/CC_208KBCC.pdf), with RESEARCH to back it up. The following is from the summary:

Crime, Corrections, and California What Does Immigration Have to Do with It?

By Kristin F. Butcher and Anne Morrison Piehl
With research support from Jay Liao


Few issues are as contentious as immigration and crime. Calls to curtail immigration, particularly illegal immigration, appeal to public fears about immigrants' involvement in criminal activities.

Are such fears justified?

In our assessments, we use measures of incarceration and institutionalization as proxies for criminal involvement. We find that the foreign-born, who make up about 35 percent of the adult population in California, constitute only about 17 percent of the adult prison.

Thus, immigrants are underrepresented in California prisons
Compared to their representation in the overall population. In fact, U.S. born adult men are incarcerated at a rate over two-and-a-half times greater than that of foreign-born men. The difference only grows when we expand our investigation. When we consider all institutionalization (not only prisons but also jails, halfway houses, and the like) and focus on the population that is most likely to be in institutions because of criminal activity (men ages 18–40), we find that, in California, U.S.-born men are institutionalized at a rate that is 10 times higher than that of foreign- born men (4.2% vs. 0.42) %). And when we compare foreign-born men to U.S.-born men with similar age and education levels, these differences become even greater.

excon

Hello smoothy:

That's what THAT guy said. It's no better than YOU saying it. It's anecdotal with some right wing vigor thrown in.

Here's a STUDY (http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/cacounts/CC_208KBCC.pdf), with RESEARCH to back it up. The following is from the summary:

Crime, Corrections, and California What Does Immigration Have to Do with It?

By Kristin F. Butcher and Anne Morrison Piehl
with research support from Jay Liao


Few issues are as contentious as immigration and crime. Calls to curtail immigration, particularly illegal immigration, appeal to public fears about immigrants' involvement in criminal activities.

Are such fears justified?

In our assessments, we use measures of incarceration and institutionalization as proxies for criminal involvement. We find that the foreign-born, who make up about 35 percent of the adult population in California, constitute only about 17 percent of the adult prison.

Thus, immigrants are underrepresented in California prisons
compared to their representation in the overall population. In fact, U.S. born adult men are incarcerated at a rate over two-and-a-half times greater than that of foreign-born men. The difference only grows when we expand our investigation. When we consider all institutionalization (not only prisons but also jails, halfway houses, and the like) and focus on the population that is most likely to be in institutions because of criminal activity (men ages 18–40), we find that, in California, U.S.-born men have an institutional- ization rate that is 10 times higher than that of foreign- born men (4.2% vs. 0.42) %). And when we compare foreign-born men to U.S.-born men with similar age and education levels, these differences become even greater.

excon
Total BS... your statsmust originate from the DNC propaganda wing. THe White house owns that Domain.

I suppose all the illegals in our schools... in our jails... are all figments of everyone's imagination...

Have you ever even spoken to a cop before? Obviously not. Ever sit into a courtroom? Funny how that a group that as YOU claim commits no disporportionate amount of crime is so so HIGHLY disporportionate on any court Docket... which reflects MY statistics... not yours.

Its easy to check... they are posted in the courts. And its easy to sit in on them as well. If YOUR stats were accurate it would mean over 70% of the population where I live would be either black or hispanic. Based on the people in front of the court... and that is so NOT the case.

You know... We've seen this before... was it the Wizard of Oz... "Pay no attention to the man behinds the curtain...."

The only place where Latinos (illegals for the most part) and blacks are NOT a lions share of offenders would be Alaska.

[B]
Impacts of Illegal Immigration: Crime Summary (http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_crime_summary.html)

With statistics like those how come the US hasn't declared war on illegal aliens, it took far less to declare war on terrorists in foreign places.

Ah, I understand, you don't want urban warfare in the US but from these statistics you have it already

then you didn't read the smoothy comment he was replying to.

I read it so what you are telling me is you were endorsing ex's insult to smoothy as well as confirming his opinion of hispanics

With statistics like those how come the US hasn't declared war on illegal aliens, it took far less to declare war on terrorists in foriegn places.

Ah, I understand, you don't want urban warfare in the US but from these statistics you have it alreadyTrust me in certain areas it does seem that way.

You can't get a job in construction if you don't speak spanish... and the average wage in that field has dropped over 50% in the last 25 years. And that's NOT adjusted for inflation. The hourly wage was twice as high before it became dominated with cheap illegal labor. Its far worse than that adjusted for inflation.

We don't hate foreigners... we hate people that think the law doesn't apply to them. And I'm sure Australia has its share of illegals. They just happen to be from a different place.

And Incidentally... Ex as well as the liberals pretend to make this appear to be racist and anti-hispanic. Illegals are illegals... not all are hispanic... and none of them deserve to be above the law. Its OUR country... not theirs.

And Mexican President Calderon is a biggoted blowhard. Do some research about how harsh his country (Mexico) treats illegals from Central America... a Turkish Prison would seem like a vacation. How does he get off demanding HIS people have a right to invade OUR country.

We don't hate foreigners...we hate people that think the law doesn't apply to them. And I'm sure Austrailia has its share of illegals. They just happen to be from a different place.

.

Yes and just as for you our experience is that these people are foriegners. Ours are not quite so lawless but they have similar tendencies like running drug cartels and exploiting and killing each other

Yes and just as for you our experience is that these people are foriegners. Ours are not quite so lawless but they have similar tendencies like running drug cartels and exploiting and killing each other

Well, what I meant, while most of ours are central and south American due to proximity... yours are likely from the Asian region for the same reason. But isn't limited to any single group exclusively. We have quite a few illegal Asians... and Indians as well as Russians etc. Just Latinos make up the major portion here. And Democrats feel the Latinos should have specoial status above any and every other ethnic group that wishes to come here.

Funny that nobody else thinks they should be exempt from an ID check when stopped by Police... or that checks for outstanding Warrants are run... But Latinos are special... they should never be stopped, never be asked for ID... never have checks run on them... JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE LATINO. Its only OK to pick on the rest of us for all of that.

With statistics like those how come the US hasn't declared war on illegal aliens, it took far less to declare war on terrorists in foriegn places.

Ah, I understand, you don't want urban warfare in the US but from these statistics you have it already

Who says it can't happen here?

Special army unit ready to be deployed on American soil just before Nov. elections (Update) (http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m4d13-Special-army-unit-ready-to-be-deployed-on-American-soil-just-before-Nov-elections)

Well, what I meant, while most of ours are central and south American due to proximity...yours are likely from the Asian region for the same reason. But isn't limited to any single group exclusively. We have quite a few illegal Asians...and Indians as well as Russians etc. Just Latinos make up the major portion here. And Democrats feel the Latinos should have specoial status above any and every other ethnic group that wishes to come here.

Funny that nobody else thinks they should be exempt from an ID check when stopped by Police....or that checks for outstanding Warrants are run ....But Latinos are special...they should never be stopped, never be asked for ID...never have checks run on them....JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE LATINO. Its only ok to pick on the rest of us for all of that.

Our criminal gangs are mainly lebanese, refos we were stupid enough to take pity on, but Indians are becoming a problem, we got a lot of those from Fiji and they think they are special. What I don't like about these groups is they tend to take over neighbourhoods

our criminal gangs are mainly lebanese, refos we were stupid enough to take pity on, but Indians are becoming a problem, we got a lot of those from Fiji and they think they are special. What I don't like about these groups is they tend to take over neighbourhoods

Same things happen here, just different ethnic groups. They don't try to assimilate at all, they feel they are ENTITLED to do what they want, when they want... they feel any attempt to hold them to the standards everyone else has to live with is a personal attack on them.. and cry rascism.

And expecting them to learn our language is somehow violating THEIR rights.


HELLO... if you move to France for example.. expect to learn French... move to Germany, expect to learn German... etc.

Hell, if I moved to Australia... I'd expect to have to learn the intricacies of your Australian Dialect. I wouldn't expect everyone there to have to learn the American Dialect to suit me. And I am sure you know the many differences between our dialect and yours... or even Queens English which would be far less different to you.

Take a look at what we each call car parts for example... and how different they are.

Hello:

Some of us have presented evidence that illegals DON'T commit crimes beyond their proportion of the populace. Others have presented polar opposite data.

You, the reader, have a CHOICE of which position you believe. It's not surprising to me which one you have chosen, but CHOOSE you did.

excon

Nobody here has presented ANY evidence of that Illegals do NOT commit disporportionally HIGH crimes of every tiype. when all the proof they DO exists in every courthouse and every prison in the nation.

WHen in fact Every single illegal IS a criminal. Illegals have a 100% crime rate... of AT LEAST one crime.. most commit many more.

Being in this country without legal papers IS a crime in and of itself.

Liberals who ignore proof every day even when its in their face... do so because they want to be a good party member. Just like in Stalins day.

Nobody here has presented ANY evidence of that Illegals do NOT commit disporportionally HIGH crimes of every tiype., when all the proof they DO exists in every courthouse and every prison in the nation.Hello again, smoothy:

SAYING it doesn't make it so. Presenting EVIDENCE might.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

SAYING it doesn't make it so. Presenting EVIDENCE might.

excon

You have presented NONE...

I have... IF what you claim had ANY merit at all, the Hispanic Polulation of the Prisons would not excede the percentage of legal Hispanics in this country.

WHich You are incapible of doing.

There IS a law requiring papers to reside in this country if you are NOT a citizen.

THat makes 100% of the illegal population a criminal.

Prove otherwise.

THat makes 100% of the illegal population a criminalHello again, smoothy:

That's why I LOVE arguing with you. You move the goalposts all the time. But, I'm going to agree with you - ALL the illegals are here illegally.

But, that isn't what you said earlier... It's OK. That's why I'm here.

excon

Really... is 100% of the American public criminals, if so of what crimes?

Because even elementery school students who understand fractions at all will understand that if 100% of a certain group do something... and another group ( just pulling a number out of the air on this one... ) has 24% percent doing it too, that first group IS disporportionatly represented.

Hello again, smoothy:

Keep going. You're making MY argument for me.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Keep going. You're making MY argument for me.

excon

What world are you living on...

Its clear to everyone you are the one who is blowing smoke on this topic.

100% of one group Proves they have a disporportionatly HIGHER representation than 25% of another group. 4-1 higher in fact.


NOT what you are arguing at all.

Illegals are NOT the law abiiding nice people that exist in your world.


And in case its not abundently clear to you... Illegals are NOT the same as Legal immigrants.

NOT what you are arguing at all.Hello again, smoothy:

You DO know that people can READ what we've written. Even you can go back, if that'll help. But, it's OK. I'll remind everyone WHAT this argument is about, and that will be my LAST word on THAT.

YOU proposed that illegals commit MORE crime than their representative proportion of the community as compared to citizens. To be CLEAR, you were NOT simply speaking about their status as illegal. You were speaking about OTHER crime.

When you were presented with statistics from a STUDY rather than your right wing web sites, you CHANGED your tune. Now, you're saying they're criminals simply because they're in the country illegally.

Everybody who can READ, can see for themselves HOW you move the goalposts without missing a beat. But, that's OK. That's why I'm here.

excon

Lawmakers in Arizona have made a few changes (http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Arizona-lawmakers-OK-several-changes-to/qNpxW7Jonkm9shejhnkiSQ.cspx) to the law "just to take away the silly arguments and the games, the dishonesty that's been played."

One change is they've replaced the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest."

So ex, are you OK with asking for ID after a "lawful stop, detention or arrest?"

One change is they've replaced the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest." So ex, are you OK with asking for ID after a "lawful stop, detention or arrest?"Hello again, Steve:

Not really. It'll take some more tinkering before it'll pass constitutional muster... And, I don't know exactly how that's going to play out.. But, I'll bet it'll be about the term "reasonable suspicion" as opposed to the constitutional standard of "probable cause", and the idea that people can sue the cops if they don't think the cops hassled enough Mexicans. THAT part of the law is truly bizarre, even for Arizona.

My reservations are also about how the law is carried out, although Joe Arpio has NEVER cared much about the law anyway. He makes regular sweeps, and he only messes with the brown skinned people. I don't think you can consider the constitutionality of the law WITHOUT considering the actions of Sheriff Joe. They ARE related.

excon

PS> (edited) What I think is even more bizarre than the Arizona law, is the congress thinking the time isn't right to consider immigration reform. What??

... as oppsed to all those legal applicants for immigration who are forced to provide all types of details about themselves before admission.

Hello again, tom:

It doesn't surprise me that you equate being required to provide information before you're let in, to being required to provide information because you don't want to be thrown out.

Don't be confused by my response. Had the federal government enforced our laws, there WOULDN'T be established FAMILY'S here, and it's the breaking up of those family's that I object to. On the other hand, if the government HAD secured the border, there wouldn't BE any long standing family's here, and I'd have NO objection to throwing the recently arrived illegal OUT.

I've often times spoken about the legal concept of estoppal. It means, in essence, that if a wrong goes unrighted, after the person/entity is put on notice of the wrong, and doesn't DO anything about it, the wrong, isn't wrong anymore.

It applies here.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

You DO know that people can READ what we've written. Even you can go back, if that'll help. But, it's ok. I'll remind everyone WHAT this argument is about, and that will be my LAST word on THAT.
YOU proposed that illegals commit MORE crime than their representative proportion of the community as compared to citizens. To be CLEAR, you were NOT simply speaking about their status as illegal. You were speaking about OTHER crime.

When you were presented with statistics from a STUDY rather than your right wing web sites, you CHANGED your tune. Now, you're saying they're criminals simply because they're in the country illegally.

Everybody who can READ, can see for themselves HOW you move the goalposts without missing a beat. But, that's ok. That's why I'm here.

exconIllegals DO commit MORE than their representative share of crime. THere are countless statistics out there as to the huge numbers of criminals in prison that have committed other crimes... and have been caught. You choose to ignore that because the Democrat party is telling you to ignore the facts and believe their hype.

THe fact YOU sit here post after post and Claim illegals are essentually the most innocent bunch of people on the face of the earth is completely unsuportible.

All Illegals are crimninals... not all legal residents and citizens are criminals.

THat right there Proves your claim they commit crime in no higher percentages than any other group of people is completely false.

You find anywhere I have ever said being here illegally is NOT a crime... it IS a crime.. and has been a crime for a very long time.

Illegal Latinos are NOT a special group above the law any more than Illegal Russians, Illegal Chinese or Illegal Indians are.

YOU are the one making that claim... provide a link to the post and make reference to the post number. Neither of us are moderators and can go back and edit old posts either way once they lock.

Otherwise it shows that all you say is essentually made up and as fraudulent as that claim.

Your messiah the current Commander and thief has no moral ground here since most of Obamas appointees and staff are criminals themselves.

How many Tax cheats does he have on staff as proof. If YOU cheated on your taxes like they did do YOU think you would have gotten off so easy and still been offered a big job after the fact? I seriously doubt it.

Status has NOTHING to do with your claims...

THey violated US law... they have in fact committed a crime. A Federal Crime... as well as state Crime in same places... many have committed far more crimes too.

False Id's are a crime... false ID's using another real persons SSI is yet another crime, driving without a Valid drivers license is a crime... and yes, they can send you to jail for that. Illegals can't get a legal drivers license under the law. And so on.

Just who died and appointed Latinos gods chosen people anyway.

Hello again, smoothy:

We've been here before. You say this, and I say that. You say you didn't say it, and I say you did. I ain't going to do 4th grade stuff with you, smoothy.

excon

You CAN'T back up your claim of what I said because its as Bogus and full of Bu**it as Obama is.

Because IF there was a shred of proof... you could easily dig it up and refer to it. After all, neither of us can go back and edit or delte last weeks, or last months threads because neither of us has godlike powers here.

Admins or Moderators (if the Admin allows it) can do it... we however can't.

Thus present a previous claim that's beyond our edit window... or just admit you lied and made it up.

..or just admit you lied and made it up.Hello again, smoothy:

Now we've regressed to 2nd grade. I ain't playing.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Now we've regressed to 2nd grade. I ain't playing.

excon

YOU made a false claim, you can't and won't prove directed specifically at ME.. be man enough to admit YOUR mistake... and we can let it drop.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.

Verify at: The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR): Immigration and Welfare (http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7fd 8)


2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.

Verify at: The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget | Center for Immigration Studies (http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML)

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

Verify at: The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget | Center for Immigration Studies (http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML)

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt..0.HTML

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnncom/%20TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.CNN.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML http://cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML%3E;"; rel="nofollowcnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML%3E;

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.

Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML

9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSC%20RI%20PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn..com/TRANscriptS/0606/12/ldt..01.HTML <" href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0606/12/ldt.. 01.HTML%3E; target=_blank" href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0606/12/ldt.. 01.HTML%3E; rel="nofollowhttp://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0606/12/ldt.. 01.. HTML%3E

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries.. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the US from the Southern border.

Verify at: Homeland Security Report:


12. The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'

Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute..org/PDF/deportation.PDF

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin.

Verify at: http://www..rense.com/general75/niht.htm <" href="http://www.rense.com/general75/nihthtm%3E; target=_blank" href="http://www.rense.com/general75/nihthtm%3E; rel="nofollowhttp://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm%3E ;

14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .'

Verify at: http: // www.drdsk.com/articleshtml <%20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml <" href="http://20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml%3E; target=_blank" href="http://20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml%3E; rel="nofollowhttp://20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml%3E
The total cost is a whopping $ 3383 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS $338,300,000,000.00 WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.

Ex, you think it's OK for the guy who just wants to blow your leaves to stick around, right? Then why won't the Dems let farmers in the central California valley have some water instead of letting it just go out to sea (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=531662) so the guy who just wants to pick a few almonds can have a job?

http://www.investors.com/image/ISS2b0429_ph100428_345.jpg.cms

They don't care, their 'compassion' is more for some delta smelt than that brown-skinned family just trying to have a better life.

Hell, if I moved to Australia...I'd expect to have to learn the intricacies of your Austrailian Dialect. I wouldn't expect everyone there to have to learn the American Dialect to suit me. And I am sure you know the many differences between our dialect and yours....or even Queens English which would be far less different to you.

Take a look at what we each call car parts for example... and how different they are.

It's strange you know, because we have been inundated with American film, hell since the FTA we even have your ads on TV, we understand the American dialect. Sienfeld even does ads over here, can't get work in the states I guess. We have a little difficulty with your humour since we tend to mature in our twenties, but we understand you without difficulty and I would like to dispel the idea we don't use the Queen's english although a well modulated voice is harder to find these days. I expect you have some difficulty with bonnets and boots on cars but no well dressed car should be without them and surprise, we do have cars that run on gas, but what do you call that stuff you put in cars that run on CNG..

The big cultural difference between us is Gun Culture, it is foreign to our nature to reach for a gun or to carry a weapon, aside from being illegal

It's stange you know, because we have been inundated with American film, hell since the FTA we even have your ads on TV, we understand the American dialect. Sienfeld even does ads over here, can't get work in the states I guess. We have a little difficulty with your humour since we tend to mature in our twenties, but we understand you without difficulty and I would like to dispell the idea we don't use the Queen's english although a well modulated voice is harder to find these days. I expect you have some difficulty with bonnets and boots on cars but no well dressed car should be without them and surprise, we do have cars that run on gas, but what do you call that stuff you put in cars that run on CNG..

the big cultural difference between us is Gun Culture, it is foriegn to our nature to reach for a gun or to carry a weapon, aside from being illegal

For us here in the U.S. CNG is Compressed Natural Gas.(CNG). There is another gas product here that we use called propane. It's a liquid to gas product and many homes and cars run on it. Maybe that's what you were thinking of in looking for a different name?

It's stange you know, because we have been inundated with American film, hell since the FTA we even have your ads on TV, we understand the American dialect. Sienfeld even does ads over here, can't get work in the states I guess. We have a little difficulty with your humour since we tend to mature in our twenties, but we understand you without difficulty and I would like to dispell the idea we don't use the Queen's english although a well modulated voice is harder to find these days. I expect you have some difficulty with bonnets and boots on cars but no well dressed car should be without them and surprise, we do have cars that run on gas, but what do you call that stuff you put in cars that run on CNG..

the big cultural difference between us is Gun Culture, it is foriegn to our nature to reach for a gun or to carry a weapon, aside from being illegalOh trust me... I learned all the british automotive terminology from a Bently manual many years ago.. when I owned a British Sports car.. thank god for photos the let me learn what they really were.

That and writing a lease for an Apartment with a guy from England. Boy THAT was fun... since it was a furnished apartment and the entire inventory was listed in it.

For us here in the U.S. CNG is Compressed Natural Gas.(CNG). There is another gas product here that we use called propane. Its a liquid to gas product and many homes and cars run on it. Maybe thats what you were thinking of in looking for a different name?Yeah... Propane = LPG , CNG = VERY high pressure natual gas in a tank.

For us here in the U.S. CNG is Compressed Natural Gas.(CNG). There is another gas product here that we use called propane. Its a liquid to gas product and many homes and cars run on it. Maybe thats what you were thinking of in looking for a different name?

You call the fuel you put in cars "gas", which we call petrol, so what do you call the gas you in put in cars that run on CNG or propane, no, I was just looking for the collogual term because I had never heard it or is it that cars run on gas no matter what form it takes? The gas we use for fuel in homes is called natural gas when reticulated and LNG when bottled. Just trying to understand linguistic differences

CNG or Propane are the correct terms for those types of gases. Maybe what provides confusion is in the gasoline we use there are 3 different grades. And the old name for premium gas was called ethyl. Ive heard the term pertrol for gasoline and benzene referring to diesel. Fuel. CNG isn't real popular yet here but propane is fairly common. We also run Natural gas (unliquified) into homes for heating cooking etc.

For cars in general they run on gas (gasoline) or diesel most commonly. Others run on propane and so does a lot of industrial equiptment like forklifts and such. It comes in a bottle as liquid and then gets converted to low pressure so the engine can consume it. Last is CNG. That is still faily rare here. It too is kept in a bottle and is liquid then converted to low pressure for the engine to use.

Each is its own independent fuel.

Oh trust me....I learned all the british automotive terminology from a Bently manual many years ago..when I owned a British Sports car..thank god for photos the let me learn what they really were.

That and writing a lease for an Appartment with a guy from England. Boy THAT was fun....since it was a furnished appartment and the entire inventory was listed in it.

I've always been confused about what an apartment actually is. I have come to the conclusion it might be what we call a unit or a semi. We also have flats which you might term a bed sit or is that an english term. You see for us, a unit is something you own and a flat is something you rent. Very confusing. We have the added confusion that what you call a house always appears to be multi-storied whereas what we term a house you call a bungalow, a term that has disappeared from our language. Adding to the confusion we don't have basements or attics, just don't have that much stuff I guess

I've always been confused about what an apartment actually is. I have come to the conclusion it might be what we call a unit or a semi. We also have flats which you might term a bed sit or is that an english term. You see for us, a unit is something you own and a flat is something you rent. Very confusing. We have the added confusion that what you call a house always appears to be multi-storied whereas what we term a house you call a bungalow, a term that has disappeared from our language. Adding to the confusion we don't have basements or attics, just don't have that much stuff I guess

Ill see if I can't add to your confusion a little :)

Here a "house" is a stand alone dwelling. It can be single story or multi story. From there they are broken down into style of home. Bungalow, ranch, estate etc.

An apartment is a dwelling attatched to other units. If there are only 2 units its called a duplex (but each single unit is still called an apartment). In the case of side by side units that are more then one story but only 2 dwellings those can be called townhouse. They share 1 common wall. Usually in the middle.

Ill see if I can't add to your confusion alittle :)

Here a "house" is a stand alone dwelling. It can be single story or multi story. From there they are broken down into style of home. bungalow, ranch, estate etc.

An apartment is a dwelling attatched to other units. If there are only 2 units its called a duplex (but each single unit is still called an apartment). In the case of side by side units that are more then one story but only 2 dwellings those can be called townhouse. They share 1 common wall. Usually in the middle.

Yes you certainly have not clarifed the usage. We would agree that a house is a stand alone dwelling. We wouldn't describe style in that manner so ranch or estate would have no meaning to us in describing a house. Our descriptions would be more related to period, such as contemporary, victorian, colonial, federation, which probably have no meaning to you, and anything bigger than an suburban block might be termed acerage or a property. An estate is a group of houses usually developed for lower income families or just a subdivision of a suburban area. What you call a duplex we would call semi detached, a row of attached buildings is called a terrace and a townhouse is something that has only crept in recently as a form of development. Basically townhouses are separated by garages whilst terraces are older and might not have a garage. Multi story unit developments are called simply units or a block of units

It is very interesting how usage differs from place to place and yet we can still understand each other

Yes you certainly have not clarifed the usage. We would agree that a house is a stand alone dwelling. We wouldn't describe style in that manner so ranch or estate would have no meaning to us in describing a house. Our descriptions would be more related to period, such as contemporary, victorian, colonial, federation, which probally have no meaning to you, and anything bigger than an suburban block might be termed acerage or a property. An estate is a group of houses usually developed for lower income families or just a subdivision of a suburban area. What you call a duplex we would call semi detatched, a row of attached buildings is called a terrace and a townhouse is something that has only crept in recently as a form of development. basicly townhouses are seperated by garages whilst terraces are older and might not have a garage. Multi story unit developments are called simply units or a block of units

It is very interesting how usage differs from place to place and yet we can still understand each other

It funny how some is almost the same but different. We also use these three as descriptive to a style of home; contemporary, victorian, colonial.

Also terms like salt box and art deco. Go figure. Lol.

It funny how some is almost the same but different. We also use these three as descriptive to a style of home; contemporary, victorian, colonial.

Also terms like salt box and art deco. Go figure. lol.

I very much doubt if colonial means the same to you as it does to me. Might be a separation of a couple of hundred years there. And of course revolutonary would have a very different meaning. Can't imagine a salt box but we do have some very nice art deco theatres. In houses I could only imagine something with round windows, odd angles, and a black and white colour scheme. Here's one that might throw you, sand stock, referring to convict made, and probably recycled, bricks and of course, we don't have adobe unless it is very contemporary

Yes you certainly have not clarifed the usage. We would agree that a house is a stand alone dwelling. We wouldn't describe style in that manner so ranch or estate would have no meaning to us in describing a house. Our descriptions would be more related to period, such as contemporary, victorian, colonial, federation, which probally have no meaning to you, and anything bigger than an suburban block might be termed acerage or a property. An estate is a group of houses usually developed for lower income families or just a subdivision of a suburban area. What you call a duplex we would call semi detatched, a row of attached buildings is called a terrace and a townhouse is something that has only crept in recently as a form of development. basicly townhouses are seperated by garages whilst terraces are older and might not have a garage. Multi story unit developments are called simply units or a block of units

It is very interesting how usage differs from place to place and yet we can still understand each other

We also call houses; contemporary, victorian, colonial, brown stone, stucco. Etc however it primarily refers to the architecture/design of the house.

W also call houses; contemporary, victorian, colonial, brown stone, stucco. etc however it primarily refers to the architecture/design of the house.

Some of those terms don't have equivalents here and I suspect some have very different meanings which is what we were really discussing, the different meanings or understandings applied to the same word. To me victorian means something with multi stories, multiple fronts, and steep roofs or follies like turrets. Colonial would date from about 1800 and have high ceilings and large verandahs

Some of those terms don't have equivalents here and I suspect some have very different meanings which is what we were really discussing, the different meanings or understandings applied to the same word. to me victorian means some thing with multi stories, multiple fronts, and steep roofs or follies like turrets. Colonial would date from about 1800 and have high ceilings and large verandahs

Sorry ex for hijacking it here.

This may help as a picture is worth 1000 words and easier to type :)

Check this link for home views for you comparisons.

Ref:

Home Style Guide - Home Styles and Home Architecture (http://architecture.about.com/od/housestyles/tp/housestylesindex.htm)

Sorry ex for hijacking it here.

This may help as a picture is worth 1000 words and easier to type :)

check this link for home views for you comparisons.

Ref:

Home Style Guide - Home Styles and Home Architecture (http://architecture.about.com/od/housestyles/tp/housestylesindex.htm)

Good post Dad.

Sorry ex for hijacking it here.

This may help as a picture is worth 1000 words and easier to type :)

check this link for home views for you comparisons.

Ref:

Home Style Guide - Home Styles and Home Architecture (http://architecture.about.com/od/housestyles/tp/housestylesindex.htm)

Yes dad there is a big difference as I said
New Homes - Complete Home (http://www.completehome.com.au/new_homes/new_homes?cid=12239&pid=2067894)

As dad threads only get hijacked when they become boring