Hello:

Since my "Let's talk" thread has turned into home decorating, I thought I'd start this one. It's OK, because I want to make an outlandish suggestion. I say outlandish, because I know how radical my solution sounds to you... I, on the other hand, I believe YOUR solution (the drug war/prohibition) to be an outlandish idea - especially since we HAVE a history with it. Yes, we HAVE a history with it. It actually HAPPENED right here, in the good ole US of A. It's NOT just a liberal idea.

The drug war has been intensifying for the last 30 years. Every time we "crack down", drug warriors are SURPRISED that it didn't work. Given that the drug cartels have TAKEN over Columbia, it should be NO surprise that the war is advancing northward. Yet, the drug warriors in the US, who started the whole thing, ARE surprised, and they KEEP on being surprised...

I don't know. What surprises me, is the surprise of the drug warriors. We DO have a history. SOME of us remember it.

Like I've suggested MANY times on these pages, in recent times, when we identify an enemy, we immediately shoot somebody else. If the reason you support the Arizona law is because of the drug war, you're shooting in the WRONG direction...

excon

What, precisely, was the suggestion?

Do you suspect some supporters of the Arizona law of only supporting it because of the drug war?

I support it because it authorizes local law enforcement to enforce Federal laws already on the books. Having read through it, it looks like that's all the Arizona law does.

What, precisely, was the suggestion?

Do you suspect some supporters of the Arizona law of only supporting it because of the drug war?Hello Cats:

Sorry, I thought it was obvious. Ending the drug war.

FEAR is what drove the law in Arizona. FEAR is what drives our drug laws. I suggest if we END the drug war, the border war would END of its own accord. Hence, there would be no NEED for the Arizona law.

excon

Not much room for debate here. Prohibition doesn't work. Never has. Never will.

The downside is that if we ended it, all those DEA agents would have to go back and finish high school.

Not much room for debate here.Hello again, Cats:

Oh, no?? Just you wait... They'll say, all we need to do is "crack down". Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

PS> You DO know that Americas toughest sheriff, Joe Arpio, who believes that assaulting the masculinity of his prisoners is a GOOD law enforcement tool, WAS a DEA agent before he was elected. I wonder if there's a connection... Hmmmm...

PS> You DO know that Americas toughest sheriff, Joe Arpio, ... WAS a DEA agent before he was elected.

I did not know that. It does explain his disregard of "traditional" corrections theory. Then again, theories that led to Attica back in the day kind of scream for a re-examination anyway.

theories that led to Attica back in the day kind of scream for a re-examination anyway.Hello again, Cats:

As noted earlier, we really DON'T seem to learn from our past... After Attica there was a complete reinventing of our correctional system geared more toward rehabilitation instead of punishment. But, that ended in 1988 with the Willie Horton episode, and get tough on crime has been the mantra ever since. It's turned us into the worlds largest jailer.

I don't know. We seem to get that if you poke a wild animal with a stick while he's caged up, you'd better NEVER let him out. But, we poke sticks at virtually every one of our prisoners, and then let 99% of 'em go. Then we're surprised to find out they're pissed off. What's up with THAT?

On the positive side, Senator Jim Webb from Virginia, has introduced a bill that'll change it all. It hasn't passed, but the conversation has begun.

excon

Hello again, Cats:

As noted earlier, we really DON'T seem to learn from our past... After Attica there was a complete reinventing of our correctional system geared more toward rehabilitation instead of punishment. But, that ended in 1988 with the Willie Horton episode, and get tough on crime has been the mantra ever since. It's turned us into the worlds largest jailer.

I dunno. We seem to get that if you poke a wild animal with a stick while he's caged up, you better NEVER let him out. But, we poke sticks at virtually every one of our prisoners, and then let 99% of 'em go. Then we're surprised to find out they're pissed off. What's up with THAT?

On the positive side, Senator Jim Webb from Virginia, has introduced a bill that'll change it all. It hasn't passed, but the conversation has begun.

excon

Have you got a link for that bill?

My theories/beliefs/feelings on criminality are by and large too outre` for public consumption. I think that prison is an insult to my dignity as a part of society. Jails are needed short term but warehousing people is stupid and ineffective.

Hello again, Cats:

I can't find a link to the specific bill, but here's (http://webb.senate.gov/search.cfm?q=+crime+bill&site=webb&num=10&filter=0)a link to his senate webpage about it.

excon

PS> (edited) I suspect that once we agreed on exactly what IS crime, our solutions wouldn't be so different.

Sure spend time locking up the ones caught up in the organized greed for profits, and let the money flow.

Makes as much sense as chasing people who want work, and ignoring the ones who give them jobs, and low wages. They are the ones who benefit.

I agree though that Arizona is reacting to fear, and logic has gone out the window, since sending them back is the knee jerk solution to all their immigration problems. Just like locking up the users of the drugs, that make criminals so dangerous, and rich.

I would hate to see what would happen if employers had to pay a fair wage to legal immigrants, and how much drugs would stop being smuggled, and how empty the jails would be, if drugs were decriminalized, and taxed.

Ya think Arizona could afford to guard their own borders? Without profiling? I mean who walks through the dessert knowing they can't get work??

I agree though that Arizona is reacting to fear,

Here we disagree. From everything I've seen Arizona is acting out of disgust that the Feds won't do their job enforcing immigration laws already on the books.

We can debate that, as it seems pretty clear that this new law was enacted after events that have instilled a fear into the law abiding citizenry, but the fact remains that the feds have indeed stepped up their border enforcement, as far as man power, and money. Its not enough.

But the history of any immigration reforms, has been fought tooth and nail, by big money interests for years. More so, what most don't know is not only the effects of drug trafficking on border states, but the business policies of many top echelon corporations that have laid off workers, and shuttered factories in the U.S. built them within the Mexican border, and exploited the cheaper labor cost by essentially turning them into sweat shops, then they closed those for a more profitable third world country.

The new law targets people looking for money any money, but does nothing for the reasons they sneak over here, somebody will give them a few bucks to work all day and make them some big cash.

Take away those that lure them here, you take away the motive to take a risk, and sneak here. Not the entire solution, but one that separates a working person from a criminal, as with the passing of recent events, as the shooting of a rancher, and I submit to you prevent the lumping of criminals, with those looking for work.

This new law is a direct reaction to the criminal element of illegal immigrants, but targets all who are illegal.

You think you're going to round up half a million men, women, and children, in Arizona, and not have serious blow back from the community they come from??

Think again, as there is a financial cost to the state for such an undertaking, if in nothing else but bus fare, and feeding, that many to get them back to the other side.

Not only is it fear of the criminal element, this new law doesn't even begin to address all the complex phases of securing the border, catching the criminals, rounding up half a million people, and moving them. That makes it illogical, not very well thought out, and chance of success almost zero.

That's because the federal law is vague, and unsustainable, and very hard to enforce. Just the way I see it though. I have been know to be wrong. But I wonder why Arizona chose to enact a bad law, rather than get the feds to participate on a greater level? Why is the crime rate actually going down in the places most affected by illegal immigrants? Why are these facts not brought out by the officials who wrote the law? I can only guess its because the progress made so far has been overshadowed greatly by the political climate and the looming elections.

Politicians have a way of making their case for reelection by putting a face on a boogy man they can oppose, that scares the hell out of their constituents. That's why I think fear and not pragmatism is the reason why we have what we have in Arizona, and I see the same thing happening here in Texas very soon. As I said FEAR!!

Don't get me wrong, we all should be up in arms against criminals, but do we have to take it out on the woman and children too? That's what the new law is all about.

Hello:

Since my "Let's talk" thread has turned into home decorating, I thought I'd start this one. It's ok, because I want to make an outlandish suggestion. I say outlandish, because I know how radical my solution sounds to you... I, on the other hand, I believe YOUR solution (the drug war/prohibition) to be an outlandish idea - especially since we HAVE a history with it. Yes, we HAVE a history with it. It actually HAPPENED right here, in the good ole US of A. It's NOT just a liberal idea.

The drug war has been intensifying for the last 30 years. Every time we "crack down", drug warriors are SURPRISED that it didn't work. Given that the drug cartels have TAKEN over Columbia, it should be NO surprise that the war is advancing northward. Yet, the drug warriors in the US, who started the whole thing, ARE surprised, and they KEEP on being surprised.....

I dunno. What surprises me, is the surprise of the drug warriors. We DO have a history. SOME of us remember it.

Like I've suggested MANY times on these pages, in recent times, when we identify an enemy, we immediately shoot somebody else. If the reason you support the Arizona law is because of the drug war, you're shooting in the WRONG direction.....

excon



First, immigration laws are about that - law. A law and a policy that is suppose to support and enforce national sovereignty. What other country in the world does not have its own immigration laws? Does any other country have an open border policy? Does Mexico? Why should someone who immigrates legally have to go through a painstaking process that takes years and costs thousands of dollars. Is it, to use the liberal catchword for every debate, FAIR to the legal immigrant?



G&P

Well said, in. Why is it OK to violate Title 8 but not the other ones? If these same people came from Honduras into Mexico they would serve at least 2 years and have everything confiscated and then be sent back.

Hi ex what gets me about this "war" on drugs is the US has demonstrated it has the capability to take out with drones whoever it pleases in Pakistan and yet it's advisaries in this war are alive and well and yet they are even more dangerous to the US population than the Taliban. I guess this is another case for the US of they gave a war and no one came

Colombia is ruled by a democratically elected ,and very popular President ,Alvaro Uribe ,who is fighting and defeating narco-terrorist insurgents in his country.

The war on drugs is poorly named . It is simply law enforcement . If you don't like the laws change them . Funny ;with this wide spread support for making every drug legal you would think it would be easy to changes the laws . Maybe the people of the country think the risk of legalization are greater than the efforts needed to fight the crime.

This argument about prohibition makes no sense . Tobacco and alcohol are prohibitted for people under the age of 18 . Does that prevent underaged users from illegally getting tobacco and alcohol ? No. Gee ;maybe then we should surrender and place no age limits . No ;everyone would say that is an absurd conclusion.

Just because a law is difficult to enforce ;it doesn't mean that quid pro quo it is not worth having such a law.

Hello tom:

If they told you that from this day forward, you couldn't own or possess safety pins, would it be a "crime" if you had one? Or, would you consider the law to be the crime? Would you rid your house of safety pins? Would you speak to your children of the dangers of safety pins? Would you support cracking down if people didn't get rid of their safety pins? Would you come on a website like this to tell an exconvict to STOP yelling about safety pins - because it's the LAW? Do you believe what the government tells you WITHOUT question?

Do you intrinsically KNOW what crime is? Does somebody have to tell you that murder is wrong, that stealing is wrong, that rape is wrong? Why not? Would you, upon running into your first dealer, instinctively KNOW that pot is WRONG and SHOULD be against the law? What would be your first clue?

As a good Christian man, WHY do the cops NEED to tell you what IS and ISN'T against the law?

I suspect the above is a little too subtle for you.

excon

Subtle ? More like absurd ;unless you think the large majority of the American population equate the dangers associated with legalized drugs the equivalent of a pin prick.

Unlike you, ex, I don't associate everything with "the war on drugs."

subtle ? more like absurd ;unless you think the large majority of the American population equate the dangers associated with legalized drugs the equivalent of a pin prick.Hello again, tom:

Then you BELIEVE there is an intrinsic danger in drugs, that is absent from safety pins. Frankly, I find THAT absurd. In fact, I believe your position stems from a MORAL perspective, rather than a legal one. Because if it didn't, you would surly be calling for the prohibition of alcohol. Unless, of course, you believe that illegal drugs are MORE dangerous than alcohol.

excon

PS> I believe the American people are dumbed down SHEEP, willing to be scared if somebody tells them to be.

Unlike you, ex, I don't associate everything with "the war on drugs."Hello again, Steve:

Then maybe you better open those right wing baby blues.

excon

The war on drugs is poorly named . It is simply law enforcement . If you don't like the laws change them . Funny ;with this wide spread support for making every drug legal you would think it would be easy to changes the laws . Maybe the people of the country think the risk of legalization are greater than the efforts needed to fight the crime.

This argument about prohibition makes no sense . Tobacco and alcohol are prohibitted for people under the age of 18 . Does that prevent underaged users from illegally getting tobacco and alcohol ? No. Gee ;maybe then we should surrender and place no age limits . No ;everyone would say that is an absurd conclusion.

Just because a law is difficult to enforce ;it doesn't mean that quid pro quo it is not worth having such a law.

Tom you completely avoided the question, which was why doesn't the US use its technological and military superiority to solve the problem, if it is good enough to bomb the crap out of a few misquided religious maniacs in Pakistan surely it is just as useful to take out the drug cartels and help their loyal ally in Columbia, Mexico, etc. you want law enforcement, step it up to the next level. If Tobacco and alcohol was produced in Columbia you wouldn't have any problem with outlawing it.

I'm not avoiding the problem.
Our military actively combats the cartels . That is no secret.

PS> I believe the American people are dumbed down SHEEP, willing to be scared if somebody tells them to be.

Like maybe Randolph Hearst and the most effective propaganda machine ever devised?

Unless, of course, you believe that illegal drugs are MORE dangerous than alcohol.


They absolutely are . A small percentage of alcohol user's end goal is to become intoxicated. The same cannot be said for drug users .An intoxicating high is the aim of the drug user.


In fact, I believe your position stems from a MORAL perspective, rather than a legal one.

Many laws are derived out of a sense of moral responsibility . So that is pretty much an irrelevant point.
But I'd say it is more a matter of defending America's general welfare ,and the considering both the safety of users and non-users.

You may make a better argument for marijuana I guess . But you can't tell me the stoned pcb,crack ,crystal meth user is not a danger to more than just themselves.

No more dangerous than drunk drivers are and we know what they can do. When was the last time a stoned PCB,crack ,crystal meth user wiped out a family??

That doesn't count because its legal??

You ignore the fact that it is only a small percentage of drinkers who's aim is to get stone cold drunk ;and fewer still who get behind the wheel drunk.

And of course the obvious flaw in your argument is that the person drunk behind the wheel committed a criminal act. In the case of the driver "wiping out a family " it's homicide.

You may make a better argument for marijuana I guess . But you can't tell me the stoned pcb,crack ,crystal meth user is not a danger to more than just themselves.Hello tom:

Couple things... In the first place, pcb, crack, meth and all sorts of illegal drugs ARE available in the marketplace, their illegality notwithstanding. The drug war has done NOTHING to abate their availability. Therefore, it's time to try something else.

Drug warriors lie a lot, so it's difficult to tell WHEN to believe them. But, the fact is, addiction to the drugs you named IS as bad as you think it is. I suggest that MOST addicts know that, and WANT to quit. But without treatment, it AIN'T going to happen. I wonder if you think that addiction to alcohol is LESS ugly.

Given those facts, it's my view, that if those drugs were legalized and regulated, AND we offered the addict treatment on demand, there would be a NET REDUCTION in drug use. Yes, there are a few who would take it up... But, I suggest that more addicts would quit, than people who would experiment...

If that were to happen, the danger to society that addicts pose, and I include addiction to alcohol, heroine, pcp, meth, and whatever else you want to include, to be the same...

That is unless you think that a drunk causes LESS damage to society than other addicts do, and/or you believe that if one takes a hit of cocaine, one is compelled to rob a 7/Eleven. Frankly, I think that's what you believe.

I also challenge your assertion that most people who drink, don't do it to get buzzed. I believe that's EXACTLY why they drink.

excon

Couple things... In the first place, pcb, crack, meth and all sorts of illegal drugs ARE available in the marketplace,


Most of those were developed because of the drug war. The "designer drugs" are attempts to stay ahead of criminal law and the FDA. By the way, it's PCp. Pcb is a dielectric fluid.


I also challenge your assertion that most people who drink, don't do it to get buzzed. I believe that's EXACTLY why they drink.

This one I disagree with. Booze, maybe, but beers and wines simply taste better than the water in lots of places. Historically they're also safer to drink so there's a traditional aspect in there too.

I'm not avoiding the problem.
Our military actively combats the cartels . That is no secret.

Really? Is this a secret war? We don't hear reports of how a drone took out this group or that group

Hello again, Steve:

Then maybe you better open those right wing baby blues.

My baby blues could use a new pair of glasses. Makes it easier to find the beer I like so I can catch a b... I mean, makes it easier to read those wine labels.

Hillary thinks they just might demand your papers in AZ if you have a New York accent (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/02/clinton_arizona_immigration_law_invites_racial_pro filing_questions_legality.html). Last I checked it was legal to be from New York wasn't it?

Hillary thinks they just might demand your papers in AZ if you have a New York accent (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/02/clinton_arizona_immigration_law_invites_racial_pro filing_questions_legality.html). Last I checked it was legal to be from New York wasn't it?

Legal - yes

Reasonable suspicion - yes (sarcasm)

Hillary thinks they just might demand your papers in AZ if you have a New York accent (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/02/clinton_arizona_immigration_law_invites_racial_pro filing_questions_legality.html). Last I checked it was legal to be from New York wasn't it?

I'd better not go there then they might think I'm from the south

HEY!! Watzup with that ? We don't have no frikin accent in nuyawk!

Evita has reached her personal peter principle plateau .

Exie, I'm amazed that you would somehow link the Arizona rhubarb with drugs.

If a person is in a country illegally they are a criminal period. Why can't you wrap your head around that fact?

No other country in the world permits and condones illegal aliens residing in their country like the USA does on a regular basis. If you were in a European country long after your visa ran out you'd be there illegally and be a criminal subject to arrest and deportation. So what's so different about being in the USA if your visa ran out or you entered the country illegally? You would still be a criminal subject to arrest and deportation.

Try this baloney in Switzerland or Bosnia or Italy or Germany or Russia or Israel and you will find yourself arrested and detained for YEARS in a deportation camp awaiting enough other Americans to be detained and sent back in order to make it worth their while to spend the money on you and them. Some people have been in these deportation camps for literally years with no recouse to be either freed or mailed back to their original country.

Drugs are just a byproduct of the illegal alien problem.

Oh, I almost forgot. Why don't you try sneeking into North Korea? You'll be either shot, electrocuted by the electrified fences or blown up or torn up by their razor wire. And if you somehow make it through all that and want to live there illegally, you'll be arrested and detained for who knows how long. You'll be lucky if they give you anything to eat let alone a phone call back to the USA or even deported out of their hell hole prison.

Why not go to Iran and live there illegally and claim your rights there. They will caputure you and declare you are a spy. Regardless of whether you are a spy they will insist that you are. Then what?


The other countries of this world do NOT put up with illegal aliens living in their country. They don't "hug" illegal aliens and tell them they have "rights". What rights? They are treated as the criminals they are entering the country illegally or overstaying their visas.

Please name for me a sanctuary city in any other country other than the USA where illegal aliens can commit crimes and go "hide" without fear of arrest or deportation?

Hello tom:


Given those facts, it's my view, that if those drugs were legalized and regulated, AND we offered the addict treatment on demand, there would be a NET REDUCTION in drug use. Yes, there are a few who would take it up... But, I suggest that more addicts would quit, than people who would experiment....


excon

Legalized drugs, like hydrocodone or oxycodone or alprazolam or ritalin, are also abused. People think that just because they are not illegal, or that you could get them from a doctor or a parent's medicine cabinet, means they are safe to use however one pleases.

Alcohol is legal and regulated, I doubt that the percentage of people in a population that are addicted has changed since prohibition ended.


G&P

Twinkie,

It is easy to avoid the question of law regarding immigration and why it is not being adequately enforced at the federal level.

It is so much easier to divert with side issues like racism or drug war.


G&P

Alcohol is legal and regulated, I doubt that the percentage of people in a population that are addicted has changed since prohibition ended.

It may have come down a bit, but not a great deal. Joe has a lot of friends.

Twinkie,

It is easy to avoid the question of law regarding immigration and why it is not being adequately enforced at the federal level.

It is so much easier to divert with side issues like racism or drug war.


G&P


IntheBox - I see that you are the only other rational person answering on here that can truly see the issue at hand without all the flowery fluff that some other folks like to indulge in.

I'm still politely waiting for someone on here to address the questions that I posed earlier.

1. What other country in the world allows/condones illegal aliens living in their country other than the USA?

2. Where are the other sanctuary cities in the world that allows/condones illegal aliens other than in the USA?

I'll probably drop dead long before anyone can truthfully answer those questions.

I'm still politely waiting for someone on here to address the questions that I posed earlier.

1. What other country in the world allows/condones illegal aliens living in their country other than the USA?

2. Where are the other sanctuary cities in the world that allows/condones illegal aliens other than in the USA?

I'll probably drop dead long before anyone can truthfully answer those questions.Hello twink:

I'm a pretty truthful guy, and I'll answer your questions. However, I'll answer them in the context of the current situation, which you conveniently ignore.

1. No other country does that. However, no other country has placed a help wanted sign at their border, like we did.

2. There are no other sanctuary cities in the world, because most other countries enforce their borders, and don't INVITE illegal aliens in. WE, on the other hand, and for the last 50 years, have INVITED them in with the aforementioned help wanted signs. Consequently, the illegal aliens HERE, have established families that will be broken up if you had your way, IF there weren't sanctuary cities, and thank God there are.

That's as truthful as I can get. I'll wait patiently for you to address the salient points I make.

But, while we wait, let me ask you this. 1. How do you propose to (a) find 12 million illegal aliens, and (b) to throw them out?

Now, I realize that is the knee jerk reaction to illegal aliens being here. It's just not physically nor politically possible. Given that we're NOT going to throw them out, I propose that we do, what Charles Krauthammer said we should do, and that's to secure the border, license the illegals, tax them, fine them, and put them at the end of the line for CONSIDERATION for citizenship.

excon

PS> If you want to know WHY I have sympathies for them, I'll tell you that too. Yes, they committed a crime. But, they did it for the most American and the most honorable of intentions. And that's to find a job, work hard, and support their family.

Krauthammer says to secure the border 1st as a prerequisite to the reforms he proposes.

He is saying nothing that hasn't been said before by those of us accused of being xenophobic racists .

He is of course correct . Unless the Feds take border security seriously then they should not criticize the States for taking rear guard action on their own.

Ex, which other crimes can we excuse on good intentions?

ex, which other crimes can we excuse on good intentions?Hello again, Steve:

Well, I wouldn't personally, but you seem to excuse torture, rendition, indefinite detention. Illegal spying, not going after the CIA agents, the telephone companies, the presidents and vice presidents who VIOLATED the law, ALL under the guise that they had the purest of intentions... But, that's you.

Me? I wouldn't do that.

excon

PS> (edited) Pssst. Did you see the part above where I said FINE them. Some criminals pay FINES. It's OK with me if they do to.

****Bangs head on computer keyboard******

Exie - just what part of them being a criminal don't you comprehend? Geeesh. This keeps going way over your head...

Yes, we've put a help wanted sign out but that was for seasonal workers - not for folks to come here and literally live all year round on our welfare dime and bring their families along to bask in our largess and money fountain as they have been doing for years.

It's okay that they come here and then go home in a timely fashion. What part of this don't they understand? All of it.

Anchor babies don't come here due to some help wanted sign..! Nor do the drug dealers and gang members come here due to the help wanted sign. No, they come here to exploit our cities and population and fleece us of all our money.

Consider the fact that for each illegal alien in this country that holds a job (whether taxes are taken out or not from the wages paid) this means that one legal American is denied a job and a means to support his family.

Recently an Albanian cargo ship was stopped in the Russian coastal waters. Onboard was approximately 25 prostitutes. At least 12 had AIDS, 5 Hep C, and the rest were riddled with a veneral disease. All these women were human sex slaves that were trafficked aboard a stolen vessel. These women will all be deported but will sit for at least 3 to 8 years before they are deported.

How to solve this problem? Do like Russia did. They mailed back so many illegal aliens for years that they finally have few to none left in their country. Yes, it was costly and it worked in the end. It did drive up the price of food, gas, etc. but it did get done. Russia does not print fiat money like the USA does.

Don't just "fine" the illegals. Arrest them and deport them. So what's so hard about that?

As far as breaking up families - I don't think so. The legal ones who actually went through the properr immigration steps can definitely stay. But their illegal relatives must go through the same legal steps to come here legally.

In Switzerland the border guards carefully watch the mountain passes for hikers coming into their territory and will radio those closest to the "hikers" and have them stopped and produce their paperwork. You'd be surprised just how many people try to sneak into Switzerland this way every year. They don't put up with illegal aliens and stop them dead in their tracks on the mountain passes. Just why can't the USA do the same on our borders with planes spotting the illegal aliens and the ground personnel stopping them?

P.S. Steve, you're still cute and are a great dancer.

Exie said "But, they did it for the most American and the most honorable of intentions. And that's to find a job, work hard, and support their family."


Exie, your above comment is pointless. If these poor people from other countries just stayed in their country and changed THEIR country and uplifted THEIR country economically then they would have no reason to come here. America is not the end all to end all as it was a hundred years ago.

If you feel that way then why don't we just import all the poor peoples of say Somalia, Kenya, Haiti, South Africa, China, etc. since they can't "find a job, work hard and support their families" in their own countries.

Your argument is hollow and without merit.

Please explain where the honorable intentions part comes into play when an Arizona rancher is murdered on his own property by an illegal alien?

Hello twink:

I'm a pretty truthful guy, and I'll answer your questions. However, I'll answer them in the context of the current situation, which you conveniently ignore.

1. No other country does that. However, no other country has placed a help wanted sign at their border, like we did.





What do you mean "help wanted ?" Is that LEGAL help wanted or illegal help wanted?

My father, a physician, was recruited here LEGALLY in the 1960s and became a naturalized citizen in the 1970s LEGALLY. My parents had a good life and family, but moved halfway across the world for a better life here. Help has been requested LEGALLY for jobs in IT or healthcare.

Who exactly is wanting "ILLEGAL HELP?"

Is it big corp?
Is it the agri business?
Is it the rich that want nannies to pay cheaply and off the books?





2. There are no other sanctuary cities in the world, because most other countries enforce their borders, and don't INVITE illegal aliens in. WE, on the other hand, and for the last 50 years, have INVITED them in with the aforementioned help wanted signs. Consequently, the illegal aliens HERE, have established families that will be broken up if you had your way, IF there weren't sanctuary cities, and thank God there are.

That's as truthful as I can get. I'll wait patiently for you to address the salient points I make.

But, while we wait, let me ask you this. 1. How do you propose to (a) find 12 million illegal aliens, and (b) to throw them out?


Lets start with those illegals in prison. Why do American citizens have to pay for them. They already committed at least 2 crimes. As to the other illegal aliens, we tell them that there are current sanctuary cities willing to have them and that they should move there. Or Arizona should transport all the illegals, at the border, directly to DC, or San Francisco, or New York City, or Los Angeles.

Sanctuary Cities and States Protecting Illegal Aliens in the United States - Undocumented Workers (http://www.sanctuarycities.info/)





Now, I realize that is the knee jerk reaction to illegal aliens being here. It's just not physically nor politically possible. Given that we're NOT going to throw them out, I propose that we do, what Charles Krauthammer said we should do, and that's to secure the border, license the illegals, tax them, fine them, and put them at the end of the line for CONSIDERATION for citizenship.

Excon

PS> If you want to know WHY I have sympathies for them, I'll tell you that too. Yes, they committed a crime. But, they did it for the most American and the most honorable of intentions. And that's to find a job, work hard, and support their family.


Most Americans would agree also, but that also means doing something now about current and future illegal immigration.




G&P

As far as breaking up families - I don't think so. The legal ones who actually went thru the properr immigration steps can definitely stay. But their illegal relatives must go thru the same legal steps to come here legally.Hello again, twink:

Proper, as in being BORN here. Yup, the baby is a citizen, and the parents are not. They'll BE split up. Come on, twink. Think about the PEOPLE, not the politics. But, you, like smoothy, want to focus on the few who ARE bad guys - not the many who only want to wash your dishes and burp your child while you're at work.

I do, again, challenge your assertion that illegal aliens commit MORE crime than their proportionate representation in the community.

excon

I just read this very interesting article by Frosty Wooldridge that sums up what Inthebox and I have been saying about this topic.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS A HAPPY INVASION

By Frosty Wooldridge
May 6, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

This week, in the Huffington Post, Bill Clinton said we need more immigrants to offset our federal deficit.

Post reporter Dan Froomkin said, “Former President Bill Clinton enthusiastically weighed into the blistering national debate on immigration today with a resounding assertion that America needs more immigrants -- not fewer -- to ensure its long-term fiscal future.”

"I don't think there's any alternative for us but increasing immigration," Clinton said. "I just don't see any palatable way out of this unless that's part of the strategy."

I don't know what those people smoke in Washington, DC, but it causes total loss of intellectual and mental aptitude. It's beyond my rational understanding how anybody can think that adding millions of additional immigrants to this country will do anything but swamp the country. We already suffer 20 million Americans out of work and 35 million subsisting on food stamps. We're $12 trillion in debt and Clinton wants to add more immigrants. Go figure!

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS A HAPPY INVASION

But it doesn't end there! In a round-house discussion on TV last week, the imminent and inane journalist Eleanor Clift, totally out of touch with reality, said of illegal immigration into America, “It's a happy invasion.”

In the same moment, former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan told the round table, “There are more illegal aliens in Arizona than Americans serving in the United States Army. That's an invasion.”

“It's a happy invasion!” blurted Clift.

One of the other speakers exclaimed, “If we don't have English as a unifying language, we could lose our American culture.”

Eleanor Clift shows exactly why this country simmers, boils, rots, seethes and disintegrates before our eyes. Such elites don't possess the brains that God gave a goose. They don't understand the boiling factors now undermining this country on multiple levels.

They don't understand why more Americans than ever before own guns to protect their communities and homes. Clift and others like her don't get it!

If it's a 'happy invasion', do you see anyone celebrating 9/11 with those immigrants that drove planes into the Twin Trade Towers? How about the 'happy invasion' of an immigrant by the name of Nadal Hasan who shot 42 Americans at Fort Hood, Texas and killed 13? If it's so 'happy an invasion' why do we all have to press '1' for English and '2' for Spanish? If it's a 'happy invasion' why do we suffer honor killings, beheadings, female genital mutilation, arranged marriages and a growing number of killings such as the sniper attacks by John Muhammad?

Does that 'happy invasion' include four officers shot in the back of their heads last year in a town near Seattle, Washington as they drank coffee on break by Muslim Clarice Clemmons? Does that 'happy invasion' include Denver, Colorado bomber Najibullah Zazi attempting his blowing up New York subways? Or, how about that Faisal Shahzad trying to blow up Times Square this week? Is that a happy invasion?

Just what does Clift mean by 'happy invasion'? How about the $100 billion drug smuggling annually by 'happy invaders'? What about the 57,000 cars stolen in Arizona annually by more of those 'happy invaders'? Did Clift know that Arizona boasts the nation's new kidnapping capitol? How happy can that be? Or, yes, MS-13 gangs now operating in 44 states to deal drugs to our kids must be a 'happy invasion'! Wow! How happy can you get Ms. Clift?

Does that mean that Detroit, Michigan's 76 percent dropout rate from their high schools dominated by immigrants provides Americans there a 'happy invasion' of educational excellence? Or, that city's 50 percent illiteracy rate as reported by NBC's Brian Williams? How about 400,000 anchor babies 'happily invading' our hospitals to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars annually? To be exact: $346 billion annually of citizens' money to pay for illegals across 15 federal agencies. Happy Ms. Clift?

You and your 'happy invasion' go over like somebody poured the Gulf of Mexico oil spill onto a McDonald's Happy Meal. Americans want to throw-up when they hear such balderdash from Washington insiders like Ms. Clift.

Next time you attend another round-table Washington DC discussion, Ms. Clift, give us more examples of your version of this 'happy invasion' by Muslims, Mexicans and other 'happy invaders' so we can understand your deeper meanings.

Mr. Clinton: go smoke another joint, and please inhale this time!



Frosty has been speaking about all the illegal aliens in this country for years and years. Nothing would please him more than if the USA would stop allowing/condoning all this criminal activity. He documents how these individuals are a DRAIN upon the USA's economy - not a HELP to our economy.

Hello again, twink:

Proper, as in being BORN here. Yup, the baby is a citizen, and the parents are not. They'll BE split up. Come on, twink. Think about the PEOPLE, not the politics. But, you, like smoothy, want to focus on the few who ARE bad guys - not the many who only want to wash your dishes and burp your child while you're at work.

I do, again, challenge your assertion that illegal aliens commit MORE crime than their proportionate representation in the community.

excon


As for anchor babies - they were "granted" instant citizenship due to being born here. There is no other country in the world that does this instant citizenship if you are born there. Not one. We need to treat the anchor babies as noncitizens as their parents are not citizens. The anchor baby law must be changed.

As for breaking up families - the parents CHOSE to come here and have the kid here. The kid is the victim here, not the parents. As for breaking up families - so be it. The mother and her kid can choose to go "home" and not stay here. What's so hard about that?

As for your second assertion that illegal aliens commit more crime - I'll be back later to post numerous citings of such statistics which prove my statement to be correct.

As for your second assertion that illegal aliens commit more crime - I'll be back later to post numerous citings of such statistics which prove my statement to be correct.Hello again, twink:

Just make sure you don't quote FAIR as your source, like smoothy did. Besides, I don't want citings and statistics. I want STUDIES. Bring me one of THEM, and we can talk.

excon

Okey Dokey how about this quote:

To give you an idea of "how much crime," as noted in Illegal Alien Crime Wave in Full Swing, in April 2005, the GAO released a report on a study of 55,322 illegal aliens incarcerated in federal, state, and local facilities during 2003. It found the following:

Of the 55,322 illegal aliens studied, researchers found that they were arrested a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien.

They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien.
49% had previously been convicted of a felony, 20% of a drug offense; 18% a violent offense, and 11%, other felony offenses.
81% of the arrests occurred after 1990
56% of those charged with a reentry offense had previously been convicted on at least 5 prior occasions.
Defendants 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.
Note the last two points – they mean the perpetrators were "previously deported." Regardless, ALL those crimes would have never happened, i.e. were preventable, with serious deportation of the illegal aliens already here and proper border security to prevent both entry and re-entry.

In reviewing those numbers, note that the study only sampled about 21% of the incarcerated illegal aliens. To get the full extent of the collateral damage, we need to extrapolate the average number of offenses out across all 267,000 incarcerated illegal alien criminals. Doing so results in some 1,288,619 crimes!

Don't the MSM and illegal alien supporters continually tell us that illegal immigration is a "victimless crime" and that they are only here to do the work Americans don't want to do? Since each crime has a victim, 1,288,619 sounds like a lot of victimization to me. Maybe they are also referring to doing the "work" that American criminals don't want to do. Also keep in mind that the 1,288,619 crimes are only the ones committed by the hard core illegal alien criminals that were finally caught and incarcerated. The ones not caught and the new criminals crossing daily are committing more crime every day.

One of the problems in identifying the involvement of illegal aliens in crime, is that NOBODY TRACKS IT as a particular demographic statistic. While the INS keeps track of all sorts of demographic data for the illegal aliens that were actually arrested and deported and puts it in the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, the judicial system does not track it. As noted in Cop murder spotlights crisis of killer aliens - No government agency tracks crimes by illegals, not even attacks on police so nobody really knows how many illegal alien criminals there are or how many crimes they are actually committing. Many simply fall through the cracks.

If we assume illegal aliens commit crime at the same rate as citizens in the general population, an assumption that may grossly underestimate their involvement as we will see later, we can estimate the number of crimes being committed by illegal aliens. To do this, we note the number of illegal aliens in the population and apply the percentage representation in the population to the total number of crimes committed.

The current population of illegal aliens ranges from a generally accepted low of 12 million to a few estimates in the 25-30 million range. For the purposes of this discussion, I will use a relatively lower estimate of 15 million in a population of 300 million which is a 5% representation. It is worth noting that many official government figures use a bit lower number. If in fact accurate, a lower number of illegal aliens in the general population would actually increase their disproportionate involvement, something that is probably occurring anyway as we shall see latter.

According to FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), Crime in the United States (CIUS) 2005, for the Estimated Number of Arrests and applying a straight 5% illegal alien participation component we now get:

CRIMES (actual arrests) Number In USA by illegal aliens
Total 14,094,186 704,709
Murder & non-negligent manslaughter 14,062 703
Forcible rape 25,528 1,276
Offenses against family & children 129,128 6,456

The last column is the estimated criminal collateral damage being inflicted by illegal aliens for 2005 as a straight proportional percentage basis of the population. Similar collateral damage would have been inflicted in 2006 and you can expect about as much in 2007.

Using a simple cost-benefit analysis, is this much crime acceptable to save ten cents on a head of lettuce?

You probably wouldn't think so if you were one of the 704,709 victims. Again, keep in mind, this is the collateral damage being inflicted PER YEAR with a 5% participation rate. If the number of illegal aliens is greater than 15 million the number of crimes goes up. If the participation rate is greater, the number of crimes goes up.

Continued below...

In trying to figure out who is actually committing the crimes and whether the 5% straight participation is valid, interestingly, as noted in The Tarpit blog, Hispanics/Latinos, by far the largest component of illegal aliens, become "White, Caucasian, or Other" perpetrators in Arizona. The same thing in Colorado, Florida, New Jersey, New Mexico, and probably other states as well. Even the FBI doesn't seem to want to know as neither the nationality of the perpetrator nor a Hispanic/Latino category is even present in either their Uniform Crime Reports or Victims and Offenders Supplement.

When I inquired of Justice Department as to why they didn't want to know if Hispanics or foreign nationals were committing any crime, their response was:

"The Uniform Crime Reporting Program was mandated by Congress to collect and publish the crimes that are reported to police agencies for statistical purposes, not investigative purposes.
The elements of race and ethnicity built into the UCR Program adhere to the guidelines established by DIRECTIVE NO 15, RACE AND ETHNIC STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL STATISTICS AND ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTING. Those guidelines are set by the Office of Management and Budget, and as federal agency in the capacity of overseer of the UCR Program, the FBI is required to abide by those guidelines. For UCR purposes there are four racial categories: White; Black; American Indian or Alaskan Native; and Asian or Pacific Islander. The term Hispanic is an indicator of ethnicity, and the UCR Program does not currently collect information on ethnicity."


I also asked the Justice Department what categories the foreign national terrorists and the 2,752 Americans killed by foreign nationals on 9-11-2001 fell into but did not get a response.

While the Justice Department tracks nearly every conceivable aspect of crime, evidently, Congress only wants to know what crimes "White, Black, American Indian, and Asian" Americans are committing Interestingly, however, ethnicity is very important for establishing minority status and preferences but totally unimportant for determining who is committing crimes. Crimes being committed by illegal aliens, aka foreign nationals, are not tracked.

While we are on the subject of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), Jim Kouri notes in Crime Statistics and the Itsy Bitsy Yellow Polka Dot Bikini:

"Yet the public is generally unaware that the UCR system is essentially a voluntary system; there is no federal legislation that requires States or local jurisdictions to report their crime data to the FBI.
The voluntary nature of the UCR, of course, affects the accuracy and completeness of the data. Although the FBI devotes a great deal of attention to the quality of the data it publishes in CIUS, it cannot mandate agencies to provide data on time (or at all)."


Thus, if anything, the FBI underreports crime.


Continued below...

In any case, it would appear that other than what the INS reports when foreign nationals are deported, NOBODY IS TRACKING CRIMES COMMITTED ON US SOIL BY FOREIGN NATIONALS. Given the serious of the crimes and large participation by mostly Hispanic, illegal alien, a.k.a. foreign national, criminals it almost seems as if the various government agencies don't want you to know. Also, I could not find any investigative reporting by the MSM on the issue. If even a small number of those 704,709 crimes were committed against members of the media or politicians maybe we would have heard something but the silence is deafening.

As noted in a September 2006 article, Cop murder spotlights crisis of killer aliens, in WND

"While no government agencies specifically track crimes by illegal aliens, there have been some efforts to quantify the loss. Last December, Mac Johnson set out to investigate the number of homicides perpetrated by illegal aliens. Since the federal government would not provide any useful information, he contacted all 50 statehouses. Three months later, he had fewer than a dozen responses. Only one state, Vermont, provided any useful information.
He then set out to statistically estimate the number of murders by illegal aliens based on available crime data and conservative estimates of the actual number of illegal aliens in the country – which, of course, nobody really knows.

He found that between 1,806 and 2,510 people in the U.S. are murdered annually by illegal aliens. If he's right, that would represent between 11 percent and 15 percent of all murders in the U.S.":


Using the mean of Mr. Johnson's range, that means there are 2,158 murders committed annually by illegal aliens – crimes that never would have happened if they weren't here. This is part of the collateral damage of tolerating illegal immigration.

Note that at 2,158 murders that would be 15.3% of all the murders reported by the FBI, which would be about three times the representation of illegal aliens in the general population. Whether illegal aliens are committing three times as many of the other crimes as well is unknown because NOBODY IS TRACKING IT. Regardless, keep that "three times" in mind because it will come up again.

At this point it is worth noting that Representative King states in Biting the Hand That Feeds You , referenced in the INTRODUCTION and often quoted all over the internet, that illegal aliens are responsible for 4,380 murders. I believe Congressman King based his numbers on two GAO reports (d05337r and d05646r) on the number of incarcerated illegal aliens and the total number of incarcerated prisoners and applying the resulting percentage to the FBI's reported number of crimes. Based on this estimate, illegal aliens would be responsible for about 31% of the murders, a rate that is about 6.2 times their representation in the population. While there are indications that this number may be more accurate, nobody really knows because NOBODY IS TRACKING IT.

Returning to the FBI's crime list and a straight 5% prorated share committed by illegal aliens, some 704,709 yearly crimes, each of these crimes has both a personal and economic impact. You can easily imagine the personal devastation on the individual and families as they ask "why me?" Since all these crimes would not have happened if there were no illegal aliens in the country, the unfortunate answer is that "because we as a nation and people have tolerated, and in many cases aided and abetted, illegal immigration."

The economic burden which these crimes impose on their victims and society have costs. As noted earlier there has been a tremendous increase in the law enforcement budgets and each caught criminal needs to be incarcerated at about $25,000 per year. How much more law enforcement is spending as a direct consequence of illegal aliens is unknown but reviewing the expenditure graphs, note that the rate of the expenditures increases after around 1989 which correspond with the large increase in the illegal alien population.

In any case, with 267,000 illegal aliens incarcerated, as of 2003, just the incarceration costs at $25,000 per inmate per year is $6.7 BILLION per year. I'll take a wild guess that you didn't realize we were spending that much. Do you have any better ideas on what we could be spending $6.7 billion a year on rather than providing three meals a day and color TV to a bunch of illegal alien prisoners? While you think about that, here is anther one to ponder: how much money would we have saved since 1980 if there were still only 9,000 incarcerated illegal aliens rather than 267,000?

As extensive as these direct costs are, there are also indirect costs imposed on the victims, including loss of income and property, uncompensated hospital bills, and treatment for resulting emotional and psychological trauma.

As noted in the abstract of the report Victim costs of violent crime and resulting injuries, by Miller, Cohen, and Rossman:

"This DataWatch estimates the costs and monetary value of lost quality of life due to death and nonfatal physical and psychological injury resulting from violent crime. In 1987 physical injury to people age twelve and older resulting from rape, robbery, assault, murder, and arson caused about $10 billion in potential health-related costs, including some unmet mental health care needs. It led to $23 billion in lost productivity and almost $145 billion in reduced quality of life (in 1989 dollars). If associated deaths and cases resulting in psychological injury only are included, costs average $47,000 for rape, $19,000 for robbery, $15,000 for assault, and $25,000 for arson. Considering only survivors with physical injury, rape cost $60,000, robberies $25,000, assaults $22,000, and arson $50,000. Costs are almost $2.4 million per murder. Lifetime costs for all intentional injuries totaled $178 billion during 1987-1990."
Note that those costs are in 1989 dollars. Using the CPI index to adjust for 2006 dollars, multiply those numbers by 1.62 which means each rape costs society an average of $76,140 and each murder costs some $3.9 million. Thus just the 2,158 murders committed by illegal aliens burdened our society with $8.4 BILLION in costs.

The report tabulates the various costs for each crime as follows:


You may find similar summarized totals from the Justice Dept. in a summary Cost of Crime.

Again, applying the CPI increase, the total costs in 2006 dollars would be $289 BILLION. If illegal aliens were responsible for just 5% of it then that would be $14.4 BILLION.

For a comprehensive look at the cost of crime, see a report by Professor David Anderson, The Aggregate Burden of Crime, which reports that the net annual burdened costs of crime is actually far higher. The report notes that in 1999 the costs exceeded $1 trillion. In 2006 dollars that would be $1.62 TRILLION. 5% of that would be in excess of $81 BILLION.

I cannot copy all of this article as it is too long. But do me a favor, Exie, please read this entire article and THEN we'll talk, OK? It does refer to the US studies done by our government... the GAO. I guess maybe that's not good enough a source, huh?

http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_crime.html

Your friend,
Twink

Hello my friend, twink:

I read the article. It's not a study. It's biased. It's the opinion of its author P.F Wagner and somebody by the name of Dan Amato. It's not authoritative. The author is NOT a researcher, nor an academic. The website gives NO credentials of these individuals. They're just people with opinions similar to your own.

Nope, it doesn't convince me. I'm surprised it convinces you.

excon

CRIMES (actual arrests) Number In USA by illegal aliens
Total 14,094,186 704,709


Not that I have any sympathy for illegal aliens but that statistic you quoted seems to have too many naughts that is 14 trillion arrests. That is one million arrests for every illegal alien in The US. No wonder your police forces are busy.



Crimes being committed by illegal aliens, aka foreign nationals, are not tracked

Are we to conclude then that the statistic give above is ficticous?

Hello again, twink:

Proper, as in being BORN here. Yup, the baby is a citizen, and the parents are not. They'll BE split up. Come on, twink. Think about the PEOPLE, not the politics. But, you, like smoothy, want to focus on the few who ARE bad guys - not the many who only want to wash your dishes and burp your child while you're at work.

I do, again, challenge your assertion that illegal aliens commit MORE crime than their proportionate representation in the community.

excon


It is that attitude that is actually harmful to these illegal immigrants:

1] As illegals do they have the protections that citizen workers have?
- are there OSHA regulations, unemployment, disability, mandated breaks during a work day for those illegals doing back breaking labor in the fields to provide fresh vegetables? Are they modern day slaves picking fruit instead of cotton?

2] Does minimum wage apply to nannies and farm labor?

3] If an illegal has been working here for years do they qualify for social security?

4] Do these illegals really fair better under the "coyotes?"

As an aside, tell me what other country deems you a citizen due to your birthplace, despite the fact that your parents are illegal? I don't know the answer, I have not looked it up yet.




G&P

It is true that an amendment designed to address the citizen status of former slaves and their families has been perverted and is used as a loophole to bypass the legitimate rules established for immigration. (1st paragraph amendment 14)

This actually makes rational reform of the immigration laws more difficult . If illegals knew they couldn't game the system by coming here ,and by having children ,thus making themselve deportation proof ,perhaps there would be less incentive to break the immigration rules.

You make a good point Ex ;clearly we are not in the same world as we were in 1865. There are no more children of slaves alive to concern ourselves about . Perhaps the 14th Amendment itself needs amending .

Like I said in your other posting ;naturalization is not a constitutional issue .We have frequently amended ,loosened and tightened the rules depending on the needs of the country . This 14th amendment requirement impedes our ability to make a rational immigration policy. Illegals know they can game the system because ;as you correctly point out ,we will not break up families . (Quite the opposite... we will consign a newly freed child to a life in the gulag of Cuba rather than separate him from his father )


That issue will be a major factor in any reform that would allow expanding work permits.

Ps . I also can discuss how article one of the 14th amendment was perverted by the courts

Hello again, tom:

It may surprise you that I'm all for getting rid of the anchor baby provision.

excon

I did some more reseach on it ,and there is no need for amendment IF originalist priciples were applied to the 14th.

The author of the citizenship clause was Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI).

During the debate he made it clear that it was a provision for the former slaves and their families .

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and also author of the Thirteenth Amendment inserted the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" into the clause . He explained his reason for doing so.

[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Unfortunately the black robed oligarchs in SCOTUS badly mangled their interpretation of the citizenship clause in a series of decisions that are now considered "precedence".

Get over it, Tom, when you have a statute on the books people will apply it, times change and what you have just admitted is that the sacrosanct constitution needs to change to preserve the liberty of the real americans. Either persons born in the US and eltitled to become President are citizens or they are not and that other pecular rule needs to go too. You have to decide which side you are on, the rights of the native born to life love and liberty and the presidicency or the rights of the "citizens" of convenience

Get over it, Tom, when you have a statute on the books people will apply it, times change and what you have just admitted is that the sacrosanct constitution needs to change to preserve the liberty of the real americans. Either persons born in the US and eltitled to become President are citizens or they are not and that other pecular rule needs to go too. You have to decide which side you are on, the rights of the native born to life love and liberty and the presidicency or the rights of the "citizens" of convenience

1. I never said I was opposed to amending the constitution when necessary. That is why the founders added the amendment process.

2. The Constitution says that only natural born Americans can be President . It doesn't say that everyone born on our shores are automatically citizens . That is a faulty interpretation by SCOTUS . I just demonstrated that the intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment never meant that the citizenship clause of the amendment applied to everyone born here .

You know ex, it sure looks like Holder can give Alberto Gonzales a run for his money. Actually I think this administration is looking more like the real dufuses. Our illustrious AG, like our Secretary of State (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/02/clinton_arizona_immigration_law_invites_racial_pro filing_questions_legality.html) and probably the president, has been criticizing a law he hasn't read (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/holder-hasnt-read-ariz-law-he-criticized/).


Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. who has been critical of Arizona's new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn't yet read the law and is going by what he's read in newspapers or seen on television.

Mr. Holder is conducting a review of the law, at President Obama's request, to see if the federal government should challenge it in court. He said he expects he will read the law by the time his staff briefs him on their conclusions.

"I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is," Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee.

This weekend Mr. Holder told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the Arizona law "has the possibility of leading to racial profiling." He had earlier called the law's passage "unfortunate," and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.

Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could have those opinions if he hadn't yet read the legislation.

"It's hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven't even read the law," the Texas Republican told the attorney general.

Let's see, if I've read right the Obama administration's position is the law is racist and unconstitutional, they're not going to cooperate on enforcement and they're going to challenge it in court. But they haven't actually read it yet, they're basing policy on hearsay.

You know ex, it sure looks like Holder can give Alberto Gonzales a run for his money.Hello Steve:

If you're looking for disagreement over here, you ain't going to find any.

excon

I find it interesting that the conversations around immigration usually are either 1) about the pros and cons of "amnesty" or 2) the anchor baby issue. It seems to me that these are secondary issues, the primary issue is securing the borders (all of the borders) against unlawful entry into the US.

Honestly, I'm less concerned by the mexican fruit picker or maid that wants to come and work and make a better life for his/herself and their family than I am about the cartel member, al qaeda operative or general criminal coming across.

Whenever anyone discusses border security it seems the immediate thought is whomever is talking about it is a radical conservative dressed in camo and walking the desert in Arizona with a gun.

It's like a leak in a dyke, forst you plug it with your finger and then you mop up the water--not the otherway round.

I blame the Democrats and the republicans for our lack of border security and I would think that anyone who supports the mexican nationals (who want to come and work here) rights would cast a thought to the poor person in Mexico who can't pay the coyotes (people who transport illegals across the border) the cost of the trip and would rather come legally. Then the anchor baby provision would be less of an issue and ICE could focus on dealing with the problem that exists, without worrying about a tidlewave of new illegals.

Whenever anyone discusses border security it seems the immediate thought is whomever is talking about it is a radical conservative dressed in camo and walking the desert in Arizona with a gun.Hello ad:

You're right. The idea that we have to "secure" the border FIRST before we talk about the people already here, is NUTS. Well, it's not nuts. It's smart, as long as you can hoodwink the other guy into believing you. In fact, it's a great political tactic if you don't want to deal with immigration reform at all.

I say that, because I don't know what "secure" the border means. Do you? Does that mean we wait until NOBODY can get in?? Is that what a secure border is?

That ain't going to happen. If we have to wait for that before we do anything about it, nothing will get done. I don't know why the wingers want that.

excon

Hello ad:
In fact, it's a great political tactic if you don't want to deal with immigration reform at all.



You're right ex, it is all a political nonsense. There is no reason why you cannot enforce the laws you now have excepting you would come to know what full employment is and this would be very embarrassing for industries that enjoy cheap labour, in fact some industries would have no labour force and of course you would have to have a secure border otherwise you are back where you started. So politically it is better to do nothing, it costs less

Hello ad:

You're right. The idea that we have to "secure" the border FIRST before we talk about the people already here, is NUTS. Well, it's not nuts. It's smart, as long as you can hoodwink the other guy into believing you. In fact, it's a great political tactic if you don't want to deal with immigration reform at all.

I say that, because I don't know what "secure" the border means. Do you? Does that mean we wait until NOBODY can get in???? Is that what a secure border is?

That ain't gonna happen. If we have to wait for that before we do anything about it, nothing will get done. I dunno why the wingers want that.

excon

Actually, I do know what a more secure border is... I mean no one can truly secure the borders completely, but we can do a hell of a lot better job than we do now!

I say, Walls north and south 50-100 feet high and deep woth ground penetrating radar and video and significantly more border agents. Ports, containers and coast guard... 2-3% of shipping containers are actually checked... seriously? That is ridiculous, who thinks that's actually acceptable?

I absolutely think that the borders need to be secured first. Next, a simple immigration system. Step one, you want to come in, Finger print, DNA, Photo, facial recognition on everyone. If you are coming for work, cool, you have to have a job, employer who vouches for you, you receive a temporary work card with a GPS locator in it--random checks by ICE. If you are a tourist, same setup and if you overstay your visa or travel somewhere you aren't cleared for zip your out and banned from reentry.

I know that it may seem draconian, but I don't want to see another plane crash into a building or some slightly smarter guy actually explode a bomb in time square (yes I know he was actually a naturalized citizen--thats a whole other reform discussion).

The Constitution is meant to protect Citizens and arguably those here as guests of the US, not wartime enemies (see Quirin) They certainly do not apply to alien nationals prior to their arrival on US soil so the precautions which would be "violations" of multiple Amendments of the Constitution are not since they are prerequisites to entry. A lot of work for us, yes... but worth it, I think.

you're right ex, it is all a political nonsence. There is no reason why you cannot enforce the laws you now have excepting you would come to know what full employment is and this would be very embarrassing for industries that enjoy cheap labour, in fact some industries would have no labour force and of course you would have to have a secure border otherwise you are back where you started. So politically it is better to do nothing, it costs less

Again, the penalties on businesses are far too lenient to be effective, even when they are enforced. If the fine were, $10,000 per day, per employee... well maybe you would make a dent.

It is a circular argument that the politicians have had us wrapped up in so we wouldn't see the real problem, that we are doing nothing. Republicans cry secure the borders, illegals out... but we can't do that until we agree no amnesty for the illegals here... the Dems say the opposite... and each side is polarized and refuses to work together until the question is answered (which they know it never will be).

There are a few basic issues that people need to suck their emotions out of... abortion, gay marriage, and the other hot button issues.

Abortion is a right, nothing you can do about it, its not going to change... you can't get 2/3rds of the congress and 3/4's of the states to agree to a Constitutional amendment against it, so it will remain a states rights issue.

Gay marriage, against it? Why? If it's a religious issue for you... fine, don't allow them to marry in your church. Don't associate with them. But don't ask the Federal Government to start taking religious law into account, dear Gods please don't do that--What if next time its not your religion the law is from? Law and religion should have nothing whatever to do with each other... I am a man married to a woman and could care less if 2 guys/girls want to marry each other, what I do care about is wasting tons of tax money on discussing and fighting about it.

Once you get past those 2 issues... I think, I think... people can find some common ground... maybe?

Doesn't everyone want to be secure? Have a tax code that makes some kind of sense? Get the budget under some control? Fix the economy? I mean I'm just throwing this stuff out there off the top of my head, but it makes sense to Me anyway.

Again, the penalties on businesses are far too lenient to be effective, even when they are enforced. If the fine were, $10,000 per day, per employee...well maybe you would make a dent.

It is a circular argument that the politicians have had us wrapped up in so we wouldn't see the real problem, that we are doing nothing. Republicans cry secure the borders, illegals out...but we can't do that until we agree no amnesty for the illegals here....the Dems say the opposite...and each side is polarized and refuses to work together until the question is answered (which they know it never will be).

There are a few basic issues that people need to suck their emotions out of....abortion, gay marriage, and the other hot button issues.

Abortion is a right, nothing you can do about it, its not gonna change...you can't get 2/3rds of the congress and 3/4's of the states to agree to a Constitutional amendment against it, so it will remain a states rights issue.

Gay marriage, against it? why? If its a religious issue for you...fine, don't allow them to marry in your church. Don't associate with them. But don't ask the Federal Government to start taking religious law into account, dear Gods please don't do that--What if next time its not your religion the law is from? Law and religion should have nothing whatever to do with each other...I am a man married to a woman and could care less if 2 guys/girls want to marry each other, what I do care about is wasting tons of tax money on discussing and fighting about it.

Once you get past those 2 issues...I think, I think...people can find some common ground...maybe?

Doesn't everyone want to be secure? Have a tax code that makes some kind of sense? Get the budget under some control? Fix the economy? I mean I'm just throwing this stuff out there off the top of my head, but it makes sense to Me anyway.

This problem needs some lateral thinking, you already have NAFTA so be like Europe and issue a North American citizenship and secure the border south of Mexico and in Canadian ports and allow free access within. Without citzenship, no work, no permanent accommodation. Everyone not entitled to citizensship goes home. Build up your industries within and stop the bleed to China. You conquered Mexico once why you didn't keep it then is beyond me.

As to these other issues these are moral issues

This problem needs some lateral thinking, you already have NAFTA so be like Europe and issue a North American citizenship and secure the border south of Mexico and in Canadian ports and allow free access within. Without citzenship, no work, no permanent accommodation. Everyone not entitled to citizensship goes home. Build up your industries within and stop the bleed to China.

Yeah that Euro thingy has really worked out well. I think if you asked a German you'ld get a different view of that .
They thought they were all going to get the euro and instead they all got the drachma .

Yeah that Euro thingy has really worked out well. I think if you asked a German you'ld get a different view of that .
They thought they were all going to get the euro and instead they all got the drachma .

Very droll Tom but in fact they bought Greece for 100 billion, nothing really. Now all they need to do is send the Turks home and employ Greeks.

The Obama administration has taken the new Arizona law on its global apology tour, apologizing to CHINA for the law (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/05/026310.php) in talks on human rights.

Are you kidding me?? I agree with Powerline, "this is unfreakingbelievable, even for the Obama administration."

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know. I LIKE accountability and truth from my politicians. You don't. S'cool. I like chocolate and I'll bet you like vanilla.

excon

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -Henry Louis Mencken

That's my take on the Arizona law. Bred by fear, and a political quick fix, in an election year. Make it so bad, the Governor has signed a new law banning minority optional education,

Arizona schools superintendent pushes ban on ethnic studies (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGklodVPFL7WgAxopXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEybGIxYms 0BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA00wMDJfODk-/SIG=1322sr46s/EXP=1274193309/**http%3a//www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/06/12/20090612ethnicbanON0612.html),

As breeding hatred, and insurrection against white people.

That's exactly what we need, another over reaction designed to scare people, in an election year.

Hello again, Steve:

I dunno. I LIKE accountability and truth from my politicians. You don't. S'cool. I like chocolate and I'll bet you like vanilla.

I like accountability, let's start with holding the Democrats accountable for the ever-increasing costs of that health care bill they rammed through Congress, not a law that has yet to take effect that no one has apparently even read (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/holder-hasnt-read-ariz-law-he-criticized/)?

Democrats don't raise insurance company premiums, insurance companies due. And I doubt they consult with democrats, or republicans before they do.

Thats my take on the Arizona law. Bred by fear, and a political quick fix, in an election year. Make it so bad, the Governor has signed a new law banning minority optional education,

Have you read the law (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf)? You have it backwards see, the law is the response to a real problem due to inaction on the part of the federal government. The knee-jerk reaction to the law is what's made up of imaginary hobgoblins designed to keep the populace alarmed.

Democrats don't raise insurance company premiums, insurance companies due. And i doubt they consult with democrats, or republicans before they do.

I said nothing about insurance companies raising rates, I'm speaking entirely of the lies and shenanigans pulled by Congress and this administration in passing the legislation resulting in an ever-increasing price tag for the bill (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37081.html).

You have it backwards see, the law is the response to a real problem due to inaction on the part of the federal government. The knee-jerk reaction to the law is what's made up of imaginary hobgoblins designed to keep the populace alarmed.Hello again, Steve:

You've BOTH got it right. The law IS a response to the feds doing NOTHING, and it IS a bad law based on fear.

You tell me, Steve, how many times did we hear about that rancher near the border who got himself killed by illegals?? Then you have the cojones to say that the REACTION to this racist law is what's causing the fear... Dude!

excon

The rancher's murder may have contributed to the passage of the law, but it was not the basis of law. I stand on my comments and still await your holding the administration responsible for apologizing to one of the world biggest human rights violators in the world for a law that hasn't been read and hasn't violated one person's rights.

Have you read the law (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf)? You have it backward see, the law is the response to a real problem due to inaction on the part of the federal government. The knee-jerk reaction to the law is what's made up of imaginary hobgoblins designed to keep the populace alarmed.

Yes I have read the law, and stop, and think given the lowered crime rate over the last 3 years, and additional funding, and training of local police to deal with the problem, why make a law in fear and panic rather than just address the problem, put some of those low paying employers in jail for hiring illegals in the first place. Would you risk your life on going somewhere where you couldn't make a dime? Not fair to hang a carrot out, and get mad when a rabbit comes to eat it.


I said nothing about insurance companies raising rates, I'm speaking entirely of the lies and shenanigans pulled by Congress and this administration in passing the legislation resulting in an ever-increasing price tag for the bill.

The article you quoted also says,


"Just like other authorized programs, the discretionary programs in health reform will need to compete for funds within set budgetary limits,” the aide said. “Republicans fighting to repeal reform can say what they want, but the bottom line is that CBO says reform will reduce the deficit and slow the growth of health care costs — period.”

Read more: CBO ups health care cost projections - Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37081.html#ixzz0oCfN6vYr)

So that's another wild claim by republicans, when the facts are not in evidence yet. What is the republican plan to address this issue, and why didn't it get done when they had the house, senate, and the white house?? More so, why is the bill that has half the amendments adapted, proposed by republicans, still opposed? Tell you why, ELECTIONS ARE HERE FOLKS, and that's all its about, not working together for solutions.

Fear has always been a great republican tactic, because conservatives are always scared of losing something. Doesn't matter the rest of the world is starving, as long as they have theirs its cool, and conservative don't share, the take, and then holler because everyone else wants a piece of pie to.

End of rant!

Yes I have read the law, and stop, and think given the lowered crime rate over the last 3 years

What "lowered crime rate" are you referring to?


and additional funding, and training of local police to deal with the problem, why make a law in fear and panic rather than just address the problem,

What fear and panic? The only fear and panic I see is that coming from the left over a law they haven't read. We have an administration that hasn't read the law which is not in effect, volunteering it as an example of our human rights abuses in apology to a regime that's murdered millions of its own people.


Not fair to hang a carrot out, and get mad when a rabbit comes to eat it.

Tell the feds to enforce their own laws instead of dangling carrots.


So that's another wild claim by republicans, when the facts are not in evidence yet.

And an aide's word is facts in evidence?


Fear has always been a great republican tactic, because conservatives are always scared of losing something

Excuse me, but after discussing a reasonable law that's been compared to Nazism and Soviet-style repression (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jWw4D1TRkoQxGISoQYYkXhQ2z8gwD9FMRDQO0) I find that quite amusing.

Fear and Panic is a democrat talking point that is meaningless.
The truth is that the law is tempered and a reasonable reaction to the Federal Government's abrogation of responsibility in defending the borders .

Fear and Panic is a democrat talking point that is meaningless. The truth is that the law is tempered and a reasonable reaction to the Federal Government's abrogation of responsibility in defending the borders .Hello again, tom:

Spoken like a true believer. Any law, however, that targets illegal aliens for deportation WITHOUT addressing the circumstances of their arrival, which is that we INVITED them, isn't reasonable at all. Laws must be made in CONTEXT.

In fact, as I've mentioned before, the doctrine of ESTOPPEL makes the Arizona law illegal on its face:

"Estoppel by laches precludes a party from bringing an action when the party knowingly failed to claim or enforce a legal right at the proper time. This doctrine is closely related to the concept of statutes of limitations, except that statutes of limitations set specific time limits for legal actions, whereas under Laches, generally there is no prescribed time that courts consider "proper." A defendant seeking the protection of laches must demonstrate that the plaintiff's inaction, Misrepresentation, or silence prejudiced the defendant or induced the defendant to change positions for the worse."

excon

Chart: Arizona crime statistics - latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com/la-na-arizona-crime.eps-20100503,0,936829.graphic)

Both sides in Arizona's immigration debate use crime argument - Los Angeles Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/03/nation/la-na-arizona-crime-20100503)

Hard to argue facts fellows as crime is DOWN across the country. More so in Arizona, so what's up with the fear? Okay more needs to be done, but even though 70% are supporting this bill, the 30% who don't are making an awful lot of noise. Bet this changes after the election, when you don't need the right wing all revved up and willing to do anything for a vote.

Hello again, tom:

Spoken like a true believer. Any law, however, that targets illegal aliens for deportation WITHOUT addressing the circumstances of their arrival, which is that we INVITED them, isn't reasonable at all. Laws must be made in CONTEXT.

In fact, as I've mentioned before, the doctrine of ESTOPPEL makes the Arizona law illegal on its face:

"Estoppel by laches precludes a party from bringing an action when the party knowingly failed to claim or enforce a legal right at the proper time. This doctrine is closely related to the concept of statutes of limitations, except that statutes of limitations set specific time limits for legal actions, whereas under Laches, generally there is no prescribed time that courts consider "proper." A defendant seeking the protection of laches must demonstrate that the plaintiff's inaction, Misrepresentation, or silence prejudiced the defendant or induced the defendant to change positions for the worse."

exconThe Arizona law is crafted on and parallels the Federal law.

Why "Brown" people think they have any god given right to violate OUR laws is beyond comprehension. AND its not just Latinos... Illegals come from other places too... and they aren't above the law by virtue they speak spanish as a first and sometimes only language any more than any other illegal is.

There is a law on the books. Just because someone decides to not enforce it to collect the equivalent of bribes to look the other way doesn't render it unenforcible by someone not on the take.

Same with drug addicts... Heroin, Crank, Crack... pot.


All illegal... and for good reason.

Originally Posted by tomder55
Fear and Panic is a democrat talking point that is meaningless. The truth is that the law is tempered and a reasonable reaction to the Federal Government's abrogation of responsibility in defending the borders .

What has been unclear is what does Arizona really want, beside a very conservative election outcome. For proof of fact, just watch McCain keep pandering further to the right. Don't worry, when the election is over there will be no more fear mongering. But the taxes will go up. State taxes from lost revenues because of all the boycotts from the 30%!

I'm on lawyer, but that sure sounds to me like that would only possibly apply (if it could apply at all) if someone was charged for violating the old law but prosecuted under the new law. Even then, current law says immigrants must carry their papers at all times. So how exactly would this apply?

Hello again, Steve:

ANY law that pretends that we didn't invite them in, employ them, let them settle here and start families, and then for the last 50 years totally ignored their presence here, is AGAINST the doctrine of laches.

excon

The law didn't invite them in, the law didn't employ them, the law didn't let them settle here and start a family, they've been breaking the law all along. If they've entered the country illegally since the last amnesty was granted they're breaking the law. I think you're going to have a tough time selling that one. But don't worry, as soon as Obama gets all his empathetic judges in place folks will start getting justice based on something besides the law.

The law didn't invite them in, the law didn't employ them, the law didn't let them settle here and start a family, they've been breaking the law all along.Hello again, Steve:

That's the idea. If they were breaking the law all along, as you say, yet the federal government DIDN'T do anything about it, that's when laches attaches. It'll fly too. It's the same idea regarding the statutes of limitations... They weren't written to give a criminal a pass. No, they were written because they realized that passing time DOES alter context.

excon

Doctrine of laches... the principle that says I can squat on someone else's property and then claim it as mine because the person hasn't actively kicked me off the property.

In the case of Arizona they have ruled that "laches may not be imputed to a party for mere delay in the assertion of a claim."

I would also think that a claim of laches would have to be submitted before it ever was invoked.

I would also think that a claim of laches would have to be submitted before it ever was invoked.Hello again, tom:

There has to be a case first. So, the time to assert laches is right after one is arrested.

Look. I'm no lawyer, and I didn't receive any emails telling me what the illegals are going to do. They probably won't follow my advice - but they SHOULD. No, I ain't no lawyer, but I can read..

excon

When you were stopped the last time for any traffic offense... did you tell the cop to piss off when he asked for your ID (if you had the balls to do so what happened?). Why should Latinos be exempt.

After all everyone else has to produce an ID... they all get run for outstanding warrants etc...

What makes Latinos (Russians, Chinese, Indians "not native Americans", etc) special in not being checked for immigration status as well.


After all, 43 states require you to have some for of legal ID... and 100% of motor vehicle operators are required to do so.

they were written because they realized that passing time DOES alter context.

Now if San Francisco decided to crack down on illegals I can see your point.

Speaking about Ranchers defending their property rights...

A group of 16 illegal aliens are suing rancher Roger Barnett for $32 million because he allegedly violated their "civil rights " when he stopped them from crossing over the border on his property at gun point ,and turning them over to local authorities .

Barnett began rounding up illegals in 1998 and turning them over to the authorities after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.

Since then he has personally stopped 12,000 illegals from crossing his property .

A District Judge ,the skunk John Roll ruled that Barnett's request to drop the charges should be denied because there was sufficient evidence in the illegal's case to present before a jury . Barnett's lawyer argued that illegals don't have the same rights as citizens . I agree.

In a 2002 interview with the Washington Times Barnett said
"This is my land. I´m the victim here," ... "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."

When the state breaks the compact between citizens and the state to provide them security it is the right of the citizen to protect home ,family and property from a foreign invasion or any criminal attempt on same.

When the state breaks the compact between citizens and the state to provide them security it is the right of the citizen to protect home ,family and property from a foreign invasion or any criminal attempt on same.Hello tom:

I don't disagree at all... Except for your characterization of illegal immigrants. You think they're here to steal your money and sell drugs. I think they're here to pick your lettuce.

If Arizona passed an immigration law based on the FACTS as they actually ARE, instead of FEAR, I wouldn't oppose it. But, you guys ain't got it right yet.

excon

They isn't here to just pick lettuce .

This is the equivalent of outsourcing . But instead of moving the jobs to the cheap labor ,this is bringing the cheap labor in. It is still exploitive and even worse ;it drives wages down here and denies real jobs to citizens.

It never ceases to amaze me how this is justified by the same people who decry slave labor overseas .

It never ceases to amaze me how this is justified by the same people who decry slave labor overseas .Hello again, tom:

I don't decry those things. I don't believe in a minimum wage either, because it increases unemployment instead of helping the poor. I'm a market wage kind of guy.

But, even IF the wages paid to your lettuce pickers were LESS than market rates, they're HEAPS more than the market wages in Mexico, where the money is going to be spent. By that barometer, they're substantially OVERPAID. They're getting wealthy picking our grapes.

So, no. I don't feel sorry for 'em - except for the fact that you want to throw 'em out.

excon

What you want is cheap grapes off the back of exploited workers. But it isn't just produce ,it is every industry they infiltrate... And that is what increases the unemployment rate of the poor. Illegals do take jobs away from unskilled American workers. That is undeniable.

Illegals do take jobs away from unskilled American workers. That is undeniable. .Hello again, tom:

It IS undeniable. But, that's the free market at work. I thought, as a dedicated right winger, you'd like that.

By the way, have you ever thought about going after the employers? Why only the brown skinned people?

excon

Why hasn't the Governor, the state AG, or the legislature gone after the employers? Hmmmm!

Hello again, tom:

It IS undeniable. But, that's the free market at work. I thought, as a dedicated right winger, you'd like that.

By the way, have you ever thought about going after the employers?? Why only the brown skinned people?

excon

There's that word again, free, used to justify every thing from exploitation to murder.

This problem needs some lateral thinking, you already have NAFTA so be like Europe and issue a North American citizenship and secure the border south of Mexico and in Canadian ports and allow free access within. Without citzenship, no work, no permanent accommodation. Everyone not entitled to citizensship goes home. Build up your industries within and stop the bleed to China. You conquered Mexico once why you didn't keep it then is beyond me.

As to these other issues these are moral issues

I am going to go with no thanks--It's bad enough we seem to be following in the footsteps of some of europes bad ideas, I don't think we need anymore.

Hello again, tom:

Spoken like a true believer. Any law, however, that targets illegal aliens for deportation WITHOUT addressing the circumstances of their arrival, which is that we INVITED them, isn't reasonable at all. Laws must be made in CONTEXT.

In fact, as I've mentioned before, the doctrine of ESTOPPEL makes the Arizona law illegal on its face:

"Estoppel by laches precludes a party from bringing an action when the party knowingly failed to claim or enforce a legal right at the proper time. This doctrine is closely related to the concept of statutes of limitations, except that statutes of limitations set specific time limits for legal actions, whereas under Laches, generally there is no prescribed time that courts consider "proper." A defendant seeking the protection of laches must demonstrate that the plaintiff's inaction, Misrepresentation, or silence prejudiced the defendant or induced the defendant to change positions for the worse."

excon

That is as good a definition of latches as I have seen... Though I don't think it's the issue in this particular law.

The main issue in the Arizona law is that the Congress has plenary power over the area of alienage and all state laws will be immediately preempted. The politicians in Arizona knew that, they made the law to 1) play to their base and 2) to try and force the administration to enforce the laws already on the books.

I see this has fallen into the same democrat v republican talking point back and forth that usually stalemates these discussions. Someday people will look beyond the party line and realize its not us (dem or rep) against them (republcans or dems) but us (the people) against them (the politicians who are beholding to the money handlers of both parties).

[QUOTE=tomder55;2355690]speaking about Ranchers defending their property rights...

A group of 16 illegal aliens are suing rancher Roger Barnett for $32 million because he allegedly violated their "civil rights " when he stopped them from crossing over the border on his property at gun point ,and turning them over to local authorities .

Barnett began rounding up illegals in 1998 and turning them over to the authorities after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.

Since then he has personally stopped 12,000 illegals from crossing his property .

A District Judge ,the skunk John Roll ruled that Barnett's request to drop the charges should be denied because there was sufficient evidence in the illegal's case to present before a jury . Barnett's lawyer argued that illegals don't have the same rights as citizens . I agree.

But the Supreme Court doesn't so you lose, they get rights the min their feet hit the US side. Now, that is a broad statement and not entirely acurate to the Courts long and obtuse holding, but it essentially makes the point. (not saying I agree with the court either).

Why hasn't the Governor, the state AG, or the legislature gone after the employers?? Hmmmm!

Simple, where do you think they get their campaign contributions from? Though, I am sure you knew that already.

I am gonna go with no thanks--It's bad enough we seem to be folowing in the footsteps of some of europes bad ideas, I don't think we need anymore.

So what you are saying is you are content with your own bad ideas, which you happily export to the rest of the world, just sharing the misery around. But what goes around, comes around and now you are drowning in your own misery of inadequate regulation, inadequate enforcement and just plain lazy.
The not made here syndrome works for a while until you realise that sometimes others have workable ideas

Hello again, tom:

It IS undeniable. But, that's the free market at work. I thought, as a dedicated right winger, you'd like that.

By the way, have you ever thought about going after the employers? Why only the brown skinned people?

Excon

I have been very clear about my position on the employers who knowingly hire them. They are as criminal as the illegals . Both need to be held to the rule of law.

That is definitely not the free market unless you believe the free market operates in a lawless environment . But to have a civil society you need enforceable rules. Illegal aliens in the market place distort the market place.


Why only the brown skinned people?
You really don't have a clue . I absorb these snipes constantly ,but they hold no weight. I live my life surrounded by, and working closely with people of all colors. This is the last time I'll respond to this implication that race is a determining factor in the positions I take.

Illegal aliens in the market place distort the market place.

More than banks, oil companies, insurance companies, drug companies and private contractors?

More than banks, oil companies, insurance companies, drug companies and private contractors?


to have a civil society you need enforceable rules.

That applies to all industry .But yes ;from the perspective of the unskilled laborer ,indeed the illegals distort the market place much more .There are thousands of American workers who have lost opportunities because they have been priced out of the market in their own country by illegals (mostly minority workers )

banks, oil companies, insurance companies, drug companies All provide hundreds of thousand of real jobs in this country... as do the contractors who live within the rule of law and find that their business suffers due to the illegal activity of the contractors who exploit illegal aliens .

to have a civil society you need enforceable rules.

Now I get it. Thanks. Illegals should give more money to either change the rules, or hire a lobby to buy a politician. That makes perfect sense.

They already have a lobby .It's called Democrat politicians who could care less about the workers rights they claim to support ;and are more interested in bringing in indentured servants for their political base ;who they seduce with the promises of the nanny state.
What is really sad was that at one time liberal politicians like Walter Mondale and Ralph Abernathy walked arm in arm with Cesar Chavez protesting the use of illegal aliens employed by ranchers to break the UFWA . Back then the Democrats cared about American workers. Now ,beyond paying lip service and sleeping with the corrupt labor union management ;they couldn't give a sh*t about the plight of the legal labor force.

Here is the Chavez testimony to Congress in 1979 :

“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 …”

If Arizona passed an immigration law based on the FACTS as they actually ARE, instead of FEAR, I wouldn't oppose it. But, you guys ain't got it right yet.

Isn't that how you should feel about Obamacare?

They already have a lobby .It's called Democrat politicans who could care less about the workers rights they claim to support ;and are more interested in bringing in indentured servants for their political base ;who they seduce with the promises of the nanny state.

If they cared about workers rights they'd allow water to flow through the central California valley again instead of protecting some little fish or whatever their excuse of the day is - because there ain't no lettuce to pick there any more.

Isn't that how you should feel about Obamacare?Hello again, Steve:

Not exactly. If there was any fear being thrown around during that debate, it was YOUR side doing the throwing. THAT law, however, is a good first step. It moves the conversation in the RIGHT direction... The Arizona law, on the other hand, is a step BACKWARDS. It moves the conversation in exactly the WRONG direction.

excon

Not exactly. If there was any fear being thrown around during that debate, it was YOUR side doing the throwing.

You say that as if BOTH sides didn't do their fair share of fear mongering on that issue as well as this issue. The facts then were the majority of Americans OPPOSED Obamacare, the majority of Americans were happy with the way things were, and it was rammed through anyway.

The facts now show illegal immigration IS a serious problem and the overwhelming majority SUPPORT Arizona's law. You are the one that has things backwards.

You are the one that has things backwards.Hello again, Steve:

I admit that my ideas are not popular. Clearly, the majority of Americans think something else. However, as my mentor D*ck Cheney, said, so?

Interestingly, our Constitutional rights are not based on popularity or majority rule. Ifin they were, we wouldn't have any. Certainly, you'da lost your favorite. If you realized that, you might be a bit more supportive of the ones you don't like for fear of losing the ones you do.

But, you don't.

excon

Actually, I just don't get why you'd support the law if wasn't allegedly based on fear. To me that says you agree with the law.

Actually, I just don't get why you'd support the law if wasn't allegedly based on fear. To me that says you agree with the law.Hello again, Steve:

I agree with the idea that people have a right to control their borders and to know WHO is in their country. IF the Arizona were part of a THREE pronged approach, I'd have no problem with it. A three pronged approach would indicate to ME, that it's an attempt to SOLVE the problem. This law, all by itself, doesn't solve the problem. It exacerbates it.

The three prongs?? (1) Prosecution of BOTH sides of the equation - the worker AND the employer. (2) Amnesty. (3) Identifying who is who - the Arizona law.

If we DID that, we wouldn't have to "secure" the border (which is an impossibility), because if there weren't jobs here, the Mexicans wouldn't come.

excon

PS> Secure border?? Dudes! Look northward. See a map. Use your eyeballs. Think...

if there weren't jobs here, the Mexicans wouldn't come...

PS> Secure border????? Dudes! Look northward. See a map. Use your eyeballs. Think....

What? If we secure the southern border "the Mexicans" will start entering via Canada?

I think we should invite lets say 20 million highly skilled Chinese to Washington State, Oregon and California.. under the condition they never leave the west coast.. help drive down wages... see how well that goes over in the bastions of liberal idealism when it's their jobs at risk.

After all, it's a myth that ALL illegals are either uneducated or unskilled.

Even paper pushers can be replaced by an illegal who will work for 1/2 what they made. Might be Latino... might be Indian, Russian or even Chinese as several examples.

In fact there are droves of College educated eastern Europeans that would jump at the chance that don't even speak spanish.

The left is trying to make it look like rascism directed at Latinos to sucker them into support... when reality is far from the lefts propaganda.


To show the hypocrisy of the people crying about Arizonas law...


Why aren't they crying about pasports and customs at every other port of entry to the USA?.


Hmmmmm. THey WANT Mexicans to come as they wish... but want to stop every other nationality... the reeks of rascism to me.

You say that as if BOTH sides didn't do their fair share of fear mongering on that issue as well as this issue. The facts then were the majority of Americans OPPOSED Obamacare, the majority of Americans were happy with the way things were, and it was rammed through anyway.

The facts now show illegal immigration IS a serious problem and the overwhelming majority SUPPORT Arizona's law. You are the one that has things backward.

A majority of Americans are not affected by Obamacare, just those who can't afford it, or for some reason get canceled by the insurance company, or were denied medical procedures that insurance didn't want to pay for. Or just don't want healthy insurance for whatever reason.

It also standardizes states with varying regulations to make it more affordable for those that have it, by opening up the competition across states, and giving all of us options where we had little or none before. And seniors get their doctor visits for their after care consults PAID for, and it closes the donut whole that left them thousands of dollars short in prescription options, and

If you still don't buy insurance or don't want it, cool, because the only penalty is you don't get TAX CREDITS for having it. There are no civil, or criminal penalties for not having health insurance, and no death panels, and only your primary physician makes decisions on the procedures HE deems necessary. So what's wrong with that?? You may even find, as I am finding, that I can afford to upgrade my insurance policy!!

Change I can believe in, plus I don't listen to fear mongers trying to scare me into dumb personal decisions. So NO, I don't get facts from the FOX.

It's the same thing with the Arizona law, it picks at the low hanging fruit, but the tree still stands, because they have the law ignoring their contribution to the problem. Questions.

How many buses do you need to send 420 million people back to their country?

How many national guardsmen to patrol the borders?

How many people to round up 20 million to get them on the buses?

How much will it cost the state to feed, clothe, and water 20 million people in detention, when you do round them up, and the cost of where you detain them till the bus comes?

Forget how much, just tell me where the money is going to come from??

Forget the fear, lets look at the facts before we get the handcuffs out, considering everyone we send back, will turn around, and be back next week!! Who pays for that??

What? If we secure the southern border "the Mexicans" will start entering via Canada?
I think we should invite lets say 20 million highly skilled Chinese to Washington State, Oregon and California..

why aren't they crying about pasports and customs at every other port of entry to the USA?....


Hmmmmm. THey WANT Mexicans to come as they wish....but want to stop every other nationality.....the reeks of rascism to me.Hello steve and smoothy:

So, it's the MEXICANS you want to keep out, huh, Steve? Not concerned about the illegals coming in from the North? Smoothy is. By the way, smootho, with our 3,000 miles of UNSECURED border with Canada, we ARE inviting those people in. Why do you think I pointed that out? It ain't no different than when we invited the Mexicans in...

By the way, smoothy, you really should stop making stuff up. I'll argue for the things I SAID - not the things you say I said, but didn't.
The three prongs???? (1) Prosecution of BOTH sides of the equation - the worker AND the employer. (2) Amnesty. (3) Identifying who is who - the Arizona law. I don't want the Mexicans to come in... I said so in the post right above. I was very clear. You should read it.

excon

so what you are saying is you are content with your own bad ideas, which you happily export to the rest of the world, just sharing the misery around. But what goes around, comes around and now you are drowning in your own misery of inadequate regulation, inadequate enforcement and just plain lazy.
The not made here syndrome works for a while until you realise that sometimes others have workable ideas

I don't really follow what you are trying to say.

So, it's the MEXICANS you want to keep out, huh, Steve?

Ex, you're the one that profiled "the Mexicans."

A majority of Americans are not affected by Obamacare,

Do you read, watch, listen to the news? Businesses are already weighing the benefits of dropping health care coverage (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36926.html) and paying the penalty instead. I know for a fact it will be cheaper for my employer to pay the penalty and I foresee him doing so, so don't tell me Obamacare only affects a small percentage pf people. It will affect EVERY American one way or another, when only a small percentage of Americans NEEDED assistance, which you acknowledge. So why then didn't they address ONLY those who needed help and leave the rest of us alone?

Back to the Border Wars, fresh on the heels of the Obama administration apologizing (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/border-wars-468406-8.html#post2354584) to one of history's worst human rights violators for a law not yet in force that our top law enforcement official hasn't read, we now learn the lady in charge of Homeland Security has been critical of a law she hasn't read (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/17/napolitano-im-not-comfortable-with-this-arizona-law-that-i-havent-read-yet/) either.

Hasn't anyone noticed a pattern here? Shouldn't the people in charge have to read what they're ranting about or hey, how about the laws they keep passing?

I think the Obama adm is littered with illiterates . I can understand not reading in totality Obamacare . I hear the bills being crafted for "financial reform" and cap and tax are even more ponderous.
But reading and comprehending the Arizona law can be accomplished in 15 minutes by remedial readers .

Do you read, watch, listen to the news? Businesses are already weighing the benefits of dropping health care coverage (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36926.html) and paying the penalty instead. I know for a fact it will be cheaper for my employer to pay the penalty and I foresee him doing so, so don't tell me Obamacare only affects a small percentage pf people. It will affect EVERY American one way or another, when only a small percentage of Americans NEEDED assistance, which you acknowledge. So why then didn't they address ONLY those who needed help and leave the rest of us alone?

That's the point, if your job drops you, you have other options. And it's a fact that employers may be rattling their sabers a bit, they also have tax incentives that make it better to NOT drop their coverage because they can actually save YOU, and THEM, some money, and get a better plan. All Americans making under $88,000 a year for a family of 4 will get subsidies, and tax breaks. And better options.

"If you like what you have, and your happy with it, then you keep what you have"- The president has said this numerous times, and the fact is you may want to upgrade.

(1) Prosecution of BOTH sides of the equation - the worker AND the employer. (2) Amnesty. (3) Identifying who is who.

If we DID that, we wouldn't have to "secure" the border (which is an impossibility), because if there weren't jobs here, the Mexicans wouldn't come.

excon

PS> Secure border????? Dudes! Look northward. See a map. Use your eyeballs. Think....

I agree with prongs 1 and 3 prosecute those breaking the laws and knowing who is here. Prong 2-- why is this necessary? If there are no jobs, they will leave right that's what you said, so... why do they need amnesty?

I am sorry excon, If we can put men into space and create pex tubing there is no reason we can not put up a wall along our northern and southern borders.

Back to the Border Wars, fresh on the heels of the Obama administration apologizing (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/border-wars-468406-8.html#post2354584) to one of history's worst human rights violators for a law not yet in force that our top law enforcement official hasn't read, we now learn the lady in charge of Homeland Security has been critical of a law she hasn't read (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/17/napolitano-im-not-comfortable-with-this-arizona-law-that-i-havent-read-yet/) either.

Hasn't anyone noticed a pattern here? Shouldn't the people in charge have to read what they're ranting about or hey, how about the laws they keep passing?




[Assistant Secretary of State Michael] Posner said in addition to talks on freedom of religion and expression, labor rights and rule of law, officials also discussed Chinese complaints about problems with U.S. human rights, which have included crime, poverty, homelessness and racial discrimination.

He said U.S. officials did not whitewash the American record and in fact raised on its [sic] own a new immigration law in Arizona that requires police to ask about a person's immigration status if there is suspicion the person is in the country illegally.

Show me the apology please.


National Review, The American Enterprise, American Experiment Quarterly,

The writer of the piece you quoted above are all right leaning bloggers and we all know they only represent a particular opinion, and there are as many that don't agee with them, basically me.

I think the Obama Adm is littered with illiterates . I can understand not reading in totality Obamacare . I hear the bills being crafted for "financial reform" and cap and tax are even more ponderous.
But reading and comprehending the Arizona law can be accomplished in 15 minutes by remedial readers .

That's exactly why I say it panders to fear, and does nothing to address the problem of illegal immigration. Election year pandering to be seen as doing something, like putting a child's band-aid on a shotgun wound and charging the victim. Oh, At the former Governor of Arizona, vetoed similar bill twice, but she hasn't read this one but no doubt her staff is tearing it apart. Results to come, but for now, I doubt the 70% who support this rubbish have read the bill either. Fear WILL be replaced with facts, and common sense though, so no worries. Especially when they have to raise the Arizona state taxes. Then everyone will read the darn thing. HMMMM, is that why they wrote it? For cover on other things to come? Like banning all voluntary ethnic classes in the public schools??

Better take a better look at Arizona, before you jump on the band wagon, as they seem to have an agenda to me.

A majority of Americans are not affected by Obamacare, just those who can't afford it, or for some reason get canceled by the insurance company, or were denied medical procedures that insurance didn't want to pay for. Or just don't want healthy insurance for whatever reason.

It also standardizes states with varying regulations to make it more affordable for those that have it, by opening up the competition across states, and giving all of us options where we had little or none before. And seniors get their doctor visits for their after care consults PAID for, and it closes the donut whole that left them thousands of dollars short in prescription options, and

if you still don't buy insurance or don't want it, cool, because the only penalty is you don't get TAX CREDITS for having it. Their are no civil, or criminal penalties for not having health insurance, and no death panels, and only your primary physician makes decisions on the procedures HE deems necessary. So whats wrong with that???? You may even find, as I am finding, that I can afford to upgrade my insurance policy!!!!!!

Change I can believe in, plus I don't listen to fear mongers trying to scare me into dumb personal decisions. So NO, I don't get facts from the FOX.

Its the same thing with the Arizona law, it picks at the low hanging fruit, but the tree still stands, because they have the law ignoring their contribution to the problem. Questions.

How many buses do you need to send 420 million people back to their country?

How many national guardsmen to patrol the borders?

How many people to round up 20 million to get them on the buses?

How much will it cost the state to feed, clothe, and water 20 million people in detention, when you do round them up, and the cost of where you detain them till the bus comes??

Forget how much, just tell me where the money is going to come from???

Forget the fear, lets look at the facts before we get the handcuffs out, considering everyone we send back, will turn around, and be back next week!!! Who pays for that???

You may want to check your facts and read the actual law. I agree there are no death panels, no pro-abortion rules and generally it is a generic law that empowers an executive agency to make regulations. There is however not a loss of tax credits it's a fine of your tax refund that is in the balance up to a certain amount. The obama bill is very much like the MA law, and that's the rule here as well.

The problem is that when you delegate to an executive agency the power to make regulations they can take on a whole other life of their own (IRS and the FCC just to name a couple) and become powerful burecratic monsters.

That's the point, if your job drops you, you have other options.

Uh, no it isn't. You said "A majority of Americans are not affected by Obamacare." That's not true, and that's the point.


"If you like what you have, and your happy with it, then you keep what you have"- The president has said this numerous times, and the fact is you may want to upgrade.

Yeah? When the majority of businesses drop their health care coverage just exactly how are we going to be able keep what we were happy with when we're going to get forced into one of the government approved exchanges?

I am sorry excon, If we can put men into space and create pex tubing there is no reason we can not put up a wall along our northern and southern borders.Hello again, ad:

Yes there is.

Even if we DID build a 3,000 mile long fence up there, and a 1,500 mile one down south - let's make it 20' high, and I'll even spot you a bunch national guard troops on the fence too - we ain't going to keep people out.

Why do I know that?? I know it, because there are some who actually believe that we can keep drugs out of the country, if we only "cracked down" (build a fence?? ). The ultimate expression of cracking down on drugs, would be level 5 federal penitentiary. It has a wall, and several fences. It has guard towers. It has guards. Visitors are searched.

There's drugs in there. Lots of 'em.

So, it doesn't take a great leap of faith to assume, that whatever fence you want to put up, somebody will get around it. Maybe even lots of people.

excon

DemConWatch:: Obama Executive Order on Health Care (http://www.demconwatchblog.com/diary/3293/obama-executive-order-on-health-care)

Warning it's a tedious read!

I think the Obama adm is littered with illiterates . I can understand not reading in totality Obamacare . I hear the bills being crafted for "financial reform" and cap and tax are even more ponderous.
But reading and comprehending the Arizona law can be accomplished in 15 minutes by remedial readers .

These cities in California voting to boycott AZ? They apparently haven't read California law (http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/may/15/audio-interview-la-city-councilman-attacks-ariz-la/).


(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. (b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status. (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States. (3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity. (c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

Man, that sounds an awful lot like Arizona's law doesn't it?

Originally Posted by adthern
I am sorry excon, If we can put men into space and create pex tubing there is no reason we can not put up a wall along our northern and southern borders.

Build it, and they will figure out a way to get around it.

Nobody has told me where the money comes from?

Build it, and they will figure out a way to get around it.

Nobody has told me where the money comes from??

Cutting off welfare, education and emergency medical care to Illegals would more than cover it.

Cutting off welfare, education and emergency medical care to Illegals would more than cover it.

I can agree to a point, but would never cut emergency medical care for any human that needs it.

These cities in California voting to boycott AZ? They apparently haven't read California law (http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/may/15/audio-interview-la-city-councilman-attacks-ariz-la/).



Man, that sounds an awful lot like Arizona's law doesn't it?

Except the part about being sued by any one who says they are not enforcing the new law. Many In Arizona law enforcement, already follow federal guidelines, and state procedures for law enforcement, and only question those with no ID, or means to verify identity. That's already a procedure on the books. So why right this duplication> An election year?

QUOTE by speechlesstx;
Uh, no it isn't. You said "A majority of Americans are not affected by Obamacare." That's not true, and that's the point.I should have specified "adversely affected".



When the majority of businesses drop their health care coverage just exactly how are we going to be able keep what we were happy with when we're going to get forced into one of the government approved exchanges?
Are you afraid it might happen, or will happen? Right now there is no evidence that it has, or will happen, and every indication is companies are already restructuring to meet the new guidelines, that give you more options than what you liked before. And saves THEM money (Or makes them even more). So what are your fears (points with no FACTS) even based on.

You know, what will you say if you find what you like even cheaper? My health insurance through my company has already gone down and I have the notice to prove it. $34 bucks a month, deducted from my monthly check. Fact overcome fear.

Don't wish to hijack Ex's border posting so I will provide a link to Obamacare on the Obamacare thred

Hello again, ad:

Yes there is.

Even if we DID build a 3,000 mile long fence up there, and a 1,500 mile one down south - let's make it 20' high, and I'll even spot you a bunch national guard troops on the fence too - we ain't gonna keep people out.

Why do I know that???? I know it, because there are some who actually believe that we can keep drugs out of the country, if we only "cracked down" (build a fence???). The ultimate expression of cracking down on drugs, would be level 5 federal penitentiary. It has a wall, and several fences. It has guard towers. It has guards. Visitors are searched.

There's drugs in there. Lots of 'em.

So, it doesn't take a great leap of faith to assume, that whatever fence you wanna put up, somebody will get around it. Maybe even lots of people.

excon

Hey ex,

Wall not fence--and I never said my wall wasn't going to have machine gun towers in it, because it does!

Also, no doubt drugs will still come through the boarders, that's not what Im trying to keep out. Many of the drugs that come through the prison are in body cavities--I am fairly sure, though I know a few people who could, no one is going to carry a fully grown illegal immigrant farm worker in their body cavity--well except this one girl...

Build it, and they will figure out a way to get around it.

Nobody has told me where the money comes from??

Everyone is so against a wall... why is that? If it doesn't work--it doesn't work, we spend a few hundred million maybe a billion to at least give it a try... hell we spend more than that on hair gel for obama!

But seriously, the money comes out of the taxes, yup its on the back of the american working person--and normally I am very against taxes, but this one I would gladly pay for--hell I bet if you had a telethon for the wall you would get enough money!

I can agree to a point, but would never cut emergency medical care for any human that needs it.

Just as a matter of law--No one is ever denied emergency medical care in any hospital or clinic in the United States. Period. I know this because I am a nurse and am bound by that particular law every time I work in an ER.

It is undeniable that a wall would work . Would it be 100 %effective ? Probably not ;but would it prevent the unimpeded border invasion ? Absolutely . Perhaps with some controllable numbers here a rational policy could be attempted. But amnesty without border control ? Been there done that.

Hello again, ad:

From an article you can read here (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/mexico-wall.htm). "... Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said a wall running the length of a border would cost too much. A 2,000 mile state-of-the-art border fence has been estimated to cost between four and eight billion dollars."

That covers the Mexican border... One up north will cost at least 10 billion more... But, it's only taxpayers money...

excon

Hello again, ad:

From an article you can read here (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/mexico-wall.htm). "... Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said a wall running the length of a border would cost too much. A 2,000 mile state-of-the-art border fence has been estimated to cost between four and eight billion dollars."

That covers the Mexican border... One up north will cost at least 10 billion more... But, it's only taxpayers money...

excon

Ex you are looking at this all wrong, look at the economic stimulus package this represents and most of the work has to be done in areas where there isn't much work available so it has a bonus effect. The stimulus flows into steel, concrete, trucking, construction, so take back the money from those banks who didn't want it anyway and put some of those unemployed to work. Hell you could even subcontract it out to cheap labour from Mexico. You would have no shortage of takers and it might even lure some of those illegals back to the other side of the border. Not only that you will get a thing of lasting beauty, a new wonder of the world. If little Israel can build their wall surely the US isn't to be outdone by a tiny nation

Now we are talking, building a wall the banks, insurance companies, and the drug industry has to pay for. Where do I sign up, and how high. Heck lets throw in big OIL, and build it with cameras on top, and a REC center for the guards.

I think Arizona would be better off modeling its law off Mexicos Illegal immigration law.

Lets see the Mexicans squirm out of THAT one the next time the two faced bigot President Calderon sugests OUR law is unfair to his people. Then justify THEIR law... they do vigerously enforce on their southern border.

Abject poverty brings out the worst in us humans sometimes.

Commissioner Gary Pierce of the Arizona Corporate Commission sent LA's mayor a response (http://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/letter-azcc-villaraigosa.pdf.pdf) to their decision to boycott AZ:


Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,

I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).

You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)

I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.

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

Sincerely,

Commissioner Gary Pierce

He should have also asked him if he understood California's own similar laws.

Abject poverty brings out the worst in us humans sometimes.

All a result of corrupt public officials compounded over decades. Not a result of a lazy people in general. Most LAZY people aren't in the third world, they walk among us here in ours.

Rather than staying home and fighting to solve their own problems their coming here and violating OUR laws does nothing to fix their problems at home.

Rather than staying home and fighting to solve their own problems their coming here and violating OUR laws does nothing to fix their problems at home.

Indeed . Emigration to the United States is a safety valve to the nations that do not practice free enterprise . The bonus for the corrupt and inefficient nations is that the remittances become an important revenue source. Mexico for one encourages these population migrations as the remittances are as large a revenue source as the national oil trade.

Just as a matter of law--No one is ever denied emergency medical care in any hospital or clinic in the United States. Period. I know this because I am a nurse and am bound by that particular law every time I work in an ER.


Maybe not in your area but I have investigated malpractice claims, particularly one where someone in the ER was advised to go to a County hospital due to the lack of health insurance - and died on the way.

It shouldn't happen but - like a lot of other things - it does.

In case you haven't seen it, here's The majority of the U.S. Congress giving a standing-O to Mexico's president for criticizing Arizona's immigration law:

gLt3GgDQgVY

Among those standing in applause were Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano, who didn't bother to read the law before voicing their own criticisms. Apparently this Congress and this administration have no shame, and of course neither does Calderon. Whose flagellation are they going to cheer next in our own House chamber, Castro (http://www.ktar.com/?sid=1296375&nid=46)?

Apparently this Congress and this administration have no shame, and of course neither does Calderon.Hello again, Steve:

I share their viewpoint. I'm not ashamed of it. I'm actually kind of proud of it. After all, I'm on the side of right, and good, and Americanism. Your side is the one who should be ashamed.

It's good to hear that, had I been making a speech before congress espousing my views, they would have given ME a standing ovation too.

But, your outrage perplexes me. You and your leaders don't criticize other nations laws? No? Not even European nations? Really? Dude!

excon

I share their viewpoint. I'm not ashamed of it. I'm actually kind of proud of it.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.


After all, I'm on the side of right, and good, and Americanism. Your side is the one who should be ashamed.

I know, I must be racist for thinking we should protect our borders, detest human trafficking and discourage slave labor.


But, your outrage perplexes me. You and your leaders don't criticize other nations laws? No? Not even European nations? Really? Dude!

I've never been invited to dump on them in their own legislative house as president of the country responsible for the problem whose solution I'm criticizing.

Hello again, Steve:

I share their viewpoint. I'm not ashamed of it. I'm actually kinda proud of it. After all, I'm on the side of right, and good, and Americanism. Your side is the one who should be ashamed.

It's good to hear that, had I been making a speech before congress espousing my views, they would have given ME a standing ovation too.

But, your outrage perplexes me. You and your leaders don't criticize other nations laws?? No? Not even European nations? Really? Dude!

excon

Really... explain how and where in any US document that forgeign nationals are allowed to enter our country, violate our laws... kill our people... steal our money... and explain how those actions are american.


Obviously Washington State doesn't have the illegal latino problem other states have. Maybe they just can stand all the rain.

And exactly where does the blowhard President of Mexico get off running his stupuid mouth with the corruption and problems Mexico has... and the arrogant son-of-a-b!tch has the gaul to think WE are supposed to pay for THEIR problems? I hope the stupid SOB catchs AIDS. After all, look at how Perfect his coutry is to go around Lecturing others how HIS citizens have the right to trespass on their lands and violate any laws they wish. Because to that brain dead buffoon Being "Brown" entitles you to do whatever you wish.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon is a brain damaged Moron.

I think WE should adopt the same laws Mexico has on the books right now dealing with illegals from south of their border.


What? Don't think anyone knows about how THEY treat illeglas from Central and south America?

I personally think they should declare an open season on illegals... Any discovered without papers on US soil can be claimed... held and kept as personal slaves to the finder.


Hey... this is the USA. OUR rights trump theirs. Their rights end at the border.

Can you imagine the reaction if GW Bush went to the legislature of one of our allies and told them which laws they should repeal and which ones they should adopt ? That would've fed the legacy media enough fodder for 3 weeks.

I think we should protect our borders like Calderon's Mexico does. He and President Obama must 've been fed an extra helping of rhetorical nonsense for breakfast causing them to belch pablum.

Can you imagine the reaction if GW Bush went to the legislature of one of our allies and told them which laws they should repeal and which ones they should adopt ? Hello again, tom:

It's no different than he got for kissing 'em, and holding hands. I think talking to 'em about their laws is better.

excon

I think talking to 'em about their laws is better.

They all use the same script (Dems/libs/progressives, Calderon and leftist dictators), so isn't that like talking to yourself?

Hello again, tom:

It's no different than he got for kissing 'em, and holding hands. I think talking to 'em about their laws is better.

excon

We don't have the video of Obama bumpin bottoms with Calderon in the coat closet. But we are pretty sure what was happening.

Here is a response to the city of LA sent from Gary Pierce, a commissioner to the utility regulation panel, to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of laLA land about their threatened boycott of Arizonza.


You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)

I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.

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

Sincerely,
Commissioner Gary Pierce

http://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/letter-azcc-villaraigosa.pdf.pdf

Hello t:

Aren't politicians silly? What if Hollywood said Arizona ain't going to get any more movies, or TV. I'd LOVE to see where THIS fight ends. Arizona ain't got NOTHING LA needs.

excon

In the home of the free and the brave, actions based on fear, is unacceptable.

That's not who we are!! No matter what politicians try to stir up to get re-elected.

The law is the law. You do the crime you pay the price. As long as the laws are not enforced then nothing will change. All Az is doing is enforcing the laws that have been on the federal books for years. All the law they passed did was serve notice that the law will now be enforced and clear conditions under which circumstances it would be done. America is the home of the free and the brave not the undocumented

The law is the law. You do the crime you pay the price. As long as the laws are not enforced then nothing will change. All Az is doing is enforcing the laws that have been on the federal books for years. All the law they passed did was serve notice that the law will now be enforced and clear conditions under which circumstances it would be done. America is the home of the free and the brave not the undocumented

Hello t:

Aren't politicians silly? What if Hollywood said Arizona ain't going to get any more movies, or TV. I'd LOVE to see where THIS fight ends. Arizona ain't got NOTHING LA needs.

Excon


Ex




In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.



BTW, who needs hollywood, when there is the internet, you tube, etc.



G&P

Obama is sending 1200 troops to control the border. What a show their orders are to control the flow of guns into the United States. Not the flow of people. Guess it's OK to come in with out papers as long as your not armed. He also wants to yet again increase the size of government by creating 1200 new desk jobs to help. Unless he's going to line them up end to end in the places where the fence is not yet built I see no purpose except to make even more people dependent of the government for a job. Government spends it does not produce. Capitalist produce and reinvest. "American's must be fed socialism bit by bit until they become Communist" Nikita Khrushchev

Obama is sending 1200 troops to control the border. What a show their orders are to control the flow of guns into the United States. Not the flow of people. Guess it's ok to come in with out papers as long as your not armed. He also wants to yet again increase the size of government by creating 1200 new desk jobs to help. Unless he's going to line them up end to end in the places where the fence is not yet built I see no purpose except to make even more people dependent of the government for a job. Government spends it does not produce. Capitalist produce and reinvest. "American's must be fed socialism bit by bit until they become Communist" Nikita Khrushchev

BO is about to create a new growth industry, border protection, which will have the effect of stemming the tide, protecting jobs and creating new ones. It is a great pity this will be funded by government and so become just another program.

The border wars have reached the bluest of blue Bay State .

With one lawmaker citing President Lincoln’s respect for the rule of law, the Massachusetts Senate passed a far-reaching crackdown this afternoon on illegal immigrants and those who would hire them, going further, senators said, than any immigration bill proposed over the past five years. …

The measure, which passed on a 28-10 vote as an amendment to the budget, would bar the state from doing business with any company found to break federal laws barring illegal immigrant hiring. It would also toughen penalties for creating or using fake identification documents, and explicitly deny in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants.

The amendment would also require the state’s public health insurance program to verify residency through the Department of Homeland Security, and would require the state to give legal residents priority for subsidized housing

Mass. Senate passes crackdown on illegal immigrants - Local News Updates - MetroDesk - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/05/mass_senate_pas.html)
I wonder if there will be a boycott Massachusetts movement ?

However ,even though the Senate briefly returned to reality ,this measure still has to clear the MA House and the inevidible veto by Gov. Deval Patrick.

Hello again, tom:

Because I oppose the Arizona law, doesn't mean I oppose ALL immigration laws... There's a couple different ways people can attack a problem. That would the RIGHT way or the WRONG way.

Arizona is WRONG. Massachusetts is RIGHT. I suspect you can't tell the difference.

excon

I think they are both right. But ;if you think it's right then you will speak out against Duval if he vetoes ?

Hello again, ad:

From an article you can read here (http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/mexico-wall.htm). "... Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said a wall running the length of a border would cost too much. A 2,000 mile state-of-the-art border fence has been estimated to cost between four and eight billion dollars."

That covers the Mexican border... One up north will cost at least 10 billion more... But, it's only taxpayers money...

excon

Sorry for the late reply, finals and summer classes...

First, I never thought, nor said that a wall would be inexpensive. If it was, it probably would have been done already.

Next, your starting at a presumption that I would take the word of any politician over common sense... any barrier is better than no barrier and 20 or even 30 billion dollars would be recouped in a single year with the decreased crossover and subsequent taxpayer payments, medical care, penal costs, and that doesn't even begin to take into account the priceless increase in national security.

Lastly, using the "it's only taxpayers money" line is really lost on me since I am more of a rational libertarian, meaning no government spending is impossible and extremely limited gov spending is impractical, but limiting gov spending to essential functions like; national security, imfrastructure maintanence, and the like while eliminating the welfare system we are propagating internationally and at home not only makes sense, but is critical to the survival of the US.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem giving people or other countries taxpayer monies so long as the taxpayers reap a significant and tangible benefit.

Maybe not in your area but I have investigated malpractice claims, particularly one where someone in the ER was advised to go to a County hospital due to the lack of health insurance - and died on the way.

It shouldn't happen but - like a lot of other things - it does.

If this is a true claim, then it was indeed in violation of the law. For which, there are remedies at law.

However, I doubt that the case is as simple as you make it out to be--Life and the law are far more complex than you try to make them appear-this is a disagreement we have had in various threads.

Just a side note... Duval is not long for this state... thank Gods...

Hopefully, his will hit the pavement in the next election!