[speechlesstx]

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.

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[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.

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...

[speechlesstx]

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?

[smoothy]

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.

[talaniman]

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??

[excon]

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

[adthern]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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

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

[speechlesstx]

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 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?

[speechlesstx]

Back to the Border Wars, fresh on the heels of the Obama administration apologizing 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 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?

[tomder55]

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 .

[talaniman]

Do you read, watch, listen to the news? Businesses are already weighing the benefits of dropping health care coverage 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.

[adthern]

(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.

[talaniman]

Back to the Border Wars, fresh on the heels of the Obama administration apologizing 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 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.

[talaniman]

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.

[adthern]

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.