The facts about Arizona's SB1070

[FalconAngel]

Here are the facts;

SB1070 does nothing to violate anyone's civil rights. Copyright laws prohibit me from posting the article, but a "cliff's notes" version, with links to the entire bill can be found at the following:

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/jenksr/may-21-2010/read-it-here-every-detail-arizona-enforcement-law-originally-sb-1070.htm?jid=515574&lid=9&rid=3526&tid=805762

So anyone concerned that Arizona is wrong for enacting SB 1070, the facts are available.

[vittoria]

This is all I have to say... for now ;-) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgWFxFg7-GU)

[Hephaestion]

Looks a piece of well intentioned legislation rife with difficulty.

Specifically one is forbidden to stereotype but one should recognize in some fashion in order to suspect. Is the suspect then a person that wears a convenient label saying 'I am an illegal immigrant'?

Is the legislation intended to rein in the unruly elements of law enforcement?

The portent is woe betide any tourist that has an 'air' about them and does not carry 'acceptable documentation'

.

[TwylaTwobits]

I'm torn about this...on one hand it brings back the things most people hated about the Patriot Act, on the other it will help our flagging economy to have illegal aliens deported so that jobs are open for Americans.

But even with that, if you look at a lot of jobs that illegal aliens are taking to make money in this country. You will find things like chicken processing plants and domestic duties. If illegal immigrants were removed who is to say that Americans will actually step in and do the "dirty jobs". That's why there was a vacuum in the first place, people thinking they were too good to do an honest day's work.

It's a sign of things wrong with our country, a country founded on immigration. A melting pot is never full, yet we seem to forget in our rush to push aside anyone who is different or doesn't speak the language. Our history is rich with the contributions made my immigrants to progress. The Atlantic and Pacific Railroad is a major one that would not have been completed without immigrant laborers.

They are here illegally but how much do they contribute to the economy versus just taking money from America and sending home to Mexico? They have to eat, they have to have a place to stay. They are paying for that and putting money into the towns and cities they live in.

I don't think there is any easy answer and closing our borders is something that has been advocated but so far denied.

[azirish]

Do you know what the Mexican police and government officers do with their "illegal" aliens from places like Guatemala/El Salvador? Do you also know Mexican law dictates that someone must produce immigration "papers" upon demand? (Profiling anyone?) Do you also know that under Mexican law Mexican citizens can detain "suspected" illegal aliens? Do you also know that if someone is found to be "illegal" in Mexico you are subject to up to two years in a Mexican jail? Do you also know that "non Mexican" citizens can not own land etc. etc.



I'm torn about this...on one hand it brings back the things most people hated about the Patriot Act, on the other it will help our flagging economy to have illegal aliens deported so that jobs are open for Americans.

But even with that, if you look at a lot of jobs that illegal aliens are taking to make money in this country. You will find things like chicken processing plants and domestic duties. If illegal immigrants were removed who is to say that Americans will actually step in and do the "dirty jobs". That's why there was a vacuum in the first place, people thinking they were too good to do an honest day's work.

It's a sign of things wrong with our country, a country founded on immigration. A melting pot is never full, yet we seem to forget in our rush to push aside anyone who is different or doesn't speak the language. Our history is rich with the contributions made my immigrants to progress. The Atlantic and Pacific Railroad is a major one that would not have been completed without immigrant laborers.

They are here illegally but how much do they contribute to the economy versus just taking money from America and sending home to Mexico? They have to eat, they have to have a place to stay. They are paying for that and putting money into the towns and cities they live in.

I don't think there is any easy answer and closing our borders is something that has been advocated but so far denied.

[TaylorMade]

This was an act of understandable frustration by a state irritated by a Federal Government that WILL NOT DO ANYTHING. From what I'm told by other Zonies - -people are getting hurt, and killed by people who run when the law comes for them. It isn't a perfect solution, but - - they were up against the wall. So this time, I'm gonna agree with Falcon Angel IN PART. It is not a perfect law, but a VERY understandable situation for it.

And when you consider that other countries (Mexico?) will just straight up throw your ass in prison for a good long stretch...it's merciful. My parents didn't wait in line in Kingston for someone to skip over them.

*Taylor*

[TwylaTwobits]

Do you know what the Mexican police and government officers do with their "illegal" aliens from places like Guatemala/El Salvador? Do you also know Mexican law dictates that someone must produce immigration "papers" upon demand? (Profiling anyone?) Do you also know that under Mexican law Mexican citizens can detain "suspected" illegal aliens? Do you also know that if someone is found to be "illegal" in Mexico you are subject to up to two years in a Mexican jail? Do you also know that "non Mexican" citizens can not own land etc. etc.

No, and that has not a thing to do with my post really. I posted my thoughts and feelings about my country and how things are handled here. It doesn't matter to me what they do in Mexico with their illegal immigrants. That is Mexico's problem. This is the US's problem.

[Pasadenacpl2]

It matters, a bit, actually. The president of Mexico just stood before our Congress decrying this law, all the while his own nation is rather horrific when dealing with their own illegal immigrant population.

Pasa

[azirish]

Of course it matters, you implied that the US was some type bigoted, mean society for not "allowing" illegal immigrants to go without recourse. When the one pointing the "finger" (ie the recent press conference with the president of Mexico) is as guilty if not more guilty of much more non-humane treatment of "illegals" then this needs to be brought the attention of the public, not just "hidden" and not spoken of. The truth is Mexican immigration policies are more severe than anything the US has on in its laws regarding immigration policy.


No, and that has not a thing to do with my post really. I posted my thoughts and feelings about my country and how things are handled here. It doesn't matter to me what they do in Mexico with their illegal immigrants. That is Mexico's problem. This is the US's problem.

[TwylaTwobits]

Okay let me say it again it doesn't matter to ME. Me, as in my personal opinion. ME.

[azirish]

Taylor,

you would be very "lucky" to only get thrown in prison you would be very lucky indeed. When the Mexican police arrest and "detain" suspected "illegals" you can bet they don't get invited over for nice dinner of cheese quesadilla's and refried beans..and a cold cerveza I assure you. I wish people would look more deeply into something than just the NY times or MSNBC to find the real truth.


This was an act of understandable frustration by a state irritated by a Federal Government that WILL NOT DO ANYTHING. From what I'm told by other Zonies - -people are getting hurt, and killed by people who run when the law comes for them. It isn't a perfect solution, but - - they were up against the wall. So this time, I'm gonna agree with Falcon Angel IN PART. It is not a perfect law, but a VERY understandable situation for it.

And when you consider that other countries (Mexico?) will just straight up throw your ass in prison for a good long stretch...it's merciful. My parents didn't wait in line in Kingston for someone to skip over them.

*Taylor*

[TaylorMade]

It matters, a bit, actually. The president of Mexico just stood before our Congress decrying this law, all the while his own nation is rather horrific when dealing with their own illegal immigrant population.

Pasa

That's another thing that bothers me. The POTUS just took the side of a foreign head of state AGAINST his own people.

I just can't respect that.

*Taylor*

[just4mefc]

Actually there are some very important Constitutional issues. I have read the legislation and there are major issuee that will be over-turned no doubt.

The link you provide is for a PRO SB 1070 so to say it is no big deal is really not true.

Constitutional experts are suing to stop SB 1070 by alleging infringements to the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments (as well as the Pre-emption Clause).

Just a few key points before you all freak out...

The Pre-emption clause basically states that no state may have any law that super cedes the federal law. This is part of our Constitution. The document that we all hold so dear. Additionally no state may enter into any regulation regarding international treaty and national borders are an international issue.

For over 100 years the supreme court has repeatedly said immigration status (citizenship) DOES NOT limit the 14th amendment "The amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions. This clause later became the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States." So imagine a woman who does not have papers is raped and by coming forward is then deported? wtf. This is a dangerous setup.

In one point of sb 1070 it places relief from warrant. then states that an officer MUST check ID with probable cause. However since the warrant restriction is removed, simply driving while brown would fall under the definition of probable clause. This little end around is why so many lawyers are freaking out.

I personally feel our borders must be secure, however bad law is worse then no law. The federal government must do its duty as outlined by our constitution. So lets spend our energy on getting our representatives to do their jobs!

There are other concerns here as well, the economic impact to AZ will likely force the state into bankruptcy. In addition, if you look up various economic studies showing the total financial impact, immigration plays a major POSITIVE role in our economy. I know it does not seem that way but you must consider that even non tax paying ppl contribute to the economy in which they live and of course they provide cheap labor.

Oh and the argument of well other countries treat ppl worse, well I live here for that very reason! I don't give a rats ass what they do in Mexico. This is akin to saying to your parents "timmy stole something too"

now if you have want to see a more detailed response by someone far smarter then I check this link.... he is in Law enforcement in AZ and does an amazing job breaking down the Myth's of SB 1070.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=389426530921&id=735875426&ref=mf

BTW Falcon one of the main Republican opponents of SB 1070 is your very own Governor Jeb Bush. Just saying.

Oh and the reason for the "apology" to another nation comes down to one of our states entering into the international treaty issue. Again this is an illegal act based on OUR constitution, paramount to the southern states pre revolution attempts to find foreign support. The reason for the international clause was to show the world a UNITED STATES. If another nation were to think a treaty with the USA only applied to 49 states then we would no longer be seen as one powerful nation. I hope you can see that is a very bad idea!!! Another example: the European union can not stop one of its members from aligning on trade issues with lets say an african nation. They are not ONE nation, they are a loose union. We decided long ago when we bacame the USA that we would not be a loose collection of independent nations but to be one great union, ONE nation!

So there are complications of course but we exist because of our constitution. Lets not be so quick to throw it out for one states frustration.

Everyone loves the constitution when it meets their issues but hates it when it does not.

Again I say to all of you take your bias out, read the constitution, then get pissed at your congress to make changes.

one last thing before you blast me... I am an independent so that will save you all the "you dem's are so full of.." business.

I know everyone's passions are all up but in my opinion "passion is the enemy of reason" or as my friend once said "right string, wrong yoyo"

[vittoria]

Actually there are some very important Constitutional issues. I have read the legislation and there are major issuee that will be over-turned no doubt.

The link you provide is for a PRO SB 1070 so to say it is no big deal is really not true.

Constitutional experts are suing to stop SB 1070 by alleging infringements to the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments (as well as the Pre-emption Clause).

Just a few key points before you all freak out...

The Pre-emption clause basically states that no state may have any law that super cedes the federal law. This is part of our Constitution. The document that we all hold so dear. Additionally no state may enter into any regulation regarding international treaty and national borders are an international issue.

For over 100 years the supreme court has repeatedly said immigration status (citizenship) DOES NOT limit the 14th amendment "The amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions. This clause later became the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States." So imagine a woman who does not have papers is raped and by coming forward is then deported? wtf. This is a dangerous setup.

In one point of sb 1070 it places relief from warrant. then states that an officer MUST check ID with probable cause. However since the warrant restriction is removed, simply driving while brown would fall under the definition of probable clause. This little end around is why so many lawyers are freaking out.

I personally feel our borders must be secure, however bad law is worse then no law. The federal government must do its duty as outlined by our constitution. So lets spend our energy on getting our representatives to do their jobs!

There are other concerns here as well, the economic impact to AZ will likely force the state into bankruptcy. In addition, if you look up various economic studies showing the total financial impact, immigration plays a major POSITIVE role in our economy. I know it does not seem that way but you must consider that even non tax paying ppl contribute to the economy in which they live and of course they provide cheap labor.

Oh and the argument of well other countries treat ppl worse, well I live here for that very reason! I don't give a rats ass what they do in Mexico. This is akin to saying to your parents "timmy stole something too"

now if you have want to see a more detailed response by someone far smarter then I check this link.... he is in Law enforcement in AZ and does an amazing job breaking down the Myth's of SB 1070.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=389426530921&id=735875426&ref=mf

BTW Falcon one of the main Republican opponents of SB 1070 is your very own Governor Jeb Bush. Just saying.

Oh and the reason for the "apology" to another nation comes down to one of our states entering into the international treaty issue. Again this is an illegal act based on OUR constitution, paramount to the southern states pre revolution attempts to find foreign support. The reason for the international clause was to show the world a UNITED STATES. If another nation were to think a treaty with the USA only applied to 49 states then we would no longer be seen as one powerful nation. I hope you can see that is a very bad idea!!! Another example: the European union can not stop one of its members from aligning on trade issues with lets say an african nation. They are not ONE nation, they are a loose union. We decided long ago when we bacame the USA that we would not be a loose collection of independent nations but to be one great union, ONE nation!

So there are complications of course but we exist because of our constitution. Lets not be so quick to throw it out for one states frustration.

Everyone loves the constitution when it meets their issues but hates it when it does not.

Again I say to all of you take your bias out, read the constitution, then get pissed at your congress to make changes.

one last thing before you blast me... I am an independent so that will save you all the "you dem's are so full of.." business.

I know everyone's passions are all up but in my opinion "passion is the enemy of reason" or as my friend once said "right string, wrong yoyo"

You rock

[TwylaTwobits]

Agreed, Just4meC, however, you might want to think about the fact the Constitution protects American citizens. This bill is aimed at illegal immigrants and they are just not covered under the amendments you cite. As I said there are problems with this that relate back to the Patriot Act and it's one more freedom denied. I can see if they assume someone is illegal it would be a court case like nothing else on earth. I can see a lot of challenges coming from this legislation and already we have division in the states. California slams Arizona over this, Arizona's response is to threaten to turn off the power. It's gonna be one big mess and everyone will wind up suffering.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Actually there are some very important Constitutional issues. I have read the legislation and there are major issuee that will be over-turned no doubt.

The link you provide is for a PRO SB 1070 so to say it is no big deal is really not true.

Constitutional experts are suing to stop SB 1070 by alleging infringements to the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments (as well as the Pre-emption Clause).

Just a few key points before you all freak out...

The Pre-emption clause basically states that no state may have any law that super cedes the federal law. This is part of our Constitution. The document that we all hold so dear. Additionally no state may enter into any regulation regarding international treaty and national borders are an international issue.

For over 100 years the supreme court has repeatedly said immigration status (citizenship) DOES NOT limit the 14th amendment "The amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions. This clause later became the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States." So imagine a woman who does not have papers is raped and by coming forward is then deported? wtf. This is a dangerous setup.

In one point of sb 1070 it places relief from warrant. then states that an officer MUST check ID with probable cause. However since the warrant restriction is removed, simply driving while brown would fall under the definition of probable clause. This little end around is why so many lawyers are freaking out.

I personally feel our borders must be secure, however bad law is worse then no law. The federal government must do its duty as outlined by our constitution. So lets spend our energy on getting our representatives to do their jobs!

There are other concerns here as well, the economic impact to AZ will likely force the state into bankruptcy. In addition, if you look up various economic studies showing the total financial impact, immigration plays a major POSITIVE role in our economy. I know it does not seem that way but you must consider that even non tax paying ppl contribute to the economy in which they live and of course they provide cheap labor.

Oh and the argument of well other countries treat ppl worse, well I live here for that very reason! I don't give a rats ass what they do in Mexico. This is akin to saying to your parents "timmy stole something too"

now if you have want to see a more detailed response by someone far smarter then I check this link.... he is in Law enforcement in AZ and does an amazing job breaking down the Myth's of SB 1070.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=389426530921&id=735875426&ref=mf

BTW Falcon one of the main Republican opponents of SB 1070 is your very own Governor Jeb Bush. Just saying.

Oh and the reason for the "apology" to another nation comes down to one of our states entering into the international treaty issue. Again this is an illegal act based on OUR constitution, paramount to the southern states pre revolution attempts to find foreign support. The reason for the international clause was to show the world a UNITED STATES. If another nation were to think a treaty with the USA only applied to 49 states then we would no longer be seen as one powerful nation. I hope you can see that is a very bad idea!!! Another example: the European union can not stop one of its members from aligning on trade issues with lets say an african nation. They are not ONE nation, they are a loose union. We decided long ago when we bacame the USA that we would not be a loose collection of independent nations but to be one great union, ONE nation!

So there are complications of course but we exist because of our constitution. Lets not be so quick to throw it out for one states frustration.

Everyone loves the constitution when it meets their issues but hates it when it does not.

Again I say to all of you take your bias out, read the constitution, then get pissed at your congress to make changes.

one last thing before you blast me... I am an independent so that will save you all the "you dem's are so full of.." business.

I know everyone's passions are all up but in my opinion "passion is the enemy of reason" or as my friend once said "right string, wrong yoyo"

My passions are not up. My medical bills are up. My insurance (medical and car) is up. My taxes are up. My schools are over-full and under-funded. I can go on, but you get the point.

Our nation is affected positively by immigration. It is sucked dry by illegal immigration.

While I completely think that the person who rapes any woman should be caught and dealt with, one of the risks of being here illegally should be that social services, almost all social services come with incredible risk of deportation. There are consequences for breaking the law.

And, that is equal protection. EVERYONE in the borders of this nation must be here legally. That's equal protection. NO ONE in the borders of this nation should be here illegally, and if they are found, they should be shown the door.

I've read your link. I'm unimpressed. Someone has to do something. The AZ law doesn't do anything but enforce pre-existing federal law. Something the federal government is unwilling to do.

When your federal government does not uphold it's constitutional responsibility to protect our nation, then we have a duty to do it for ourselves. Don't like it? Then get the fed to handle it. Until then? Arizona is well within it's rights to say 'you must be legal to be here.'

Pasa

[ricocourious]

I don't remember any one from Mexico involved in 9/11 or OK federal building but thats just my opinion.

[FalconAngel]

I'm torn about this...on one hand it brings back the things most people hated about the Patriot Act, on the other it will help our flagging economy to have illegal aliens deported so that jobs are open for Americans.

The problems with the patriot act is that it clearly and blatantly violates more than a few of our Constitutional protections without even a hint at justifiability to anyone that understands the reasons for those rights.

Immigration is simple; either you came here in accordance with the law, or you did not.


But even with that, if you look at a lot of jobs that illegal aliens are taking to make money in this country. You will find things like chicken processing plants and domestic duties. If illegal immigrants were removed who is to say that Americans will actually step in and do the "dirty jobs". That's why there was a vacuum in the first place, people thinking they were too good to do an honest day's work.

Have you looked at all of the people out there that need work? Not just the official numbers (those receiving unemployment) but the ones who's benefits ran out as well?

There are enough legal immigrants and US citizens out there willing to work, if given the chance to make a living wage.
And don't discount the homeless population, either. There may be a lot that don't want to work or are incapable of working, but there are also plenty that want to work and will, if offered any job that will pay enough for a room and 3 squares a day (it beats living in the streets).


It's a sign of things wrong with our country, a country founded on immigration. A melting pot is never full, yet we seem to forget in our rush to push aside anyone who is different or doesn't speak the language. Our history is rich with the contributions made my immigrants to progress. The Atlantic and Pacific Railroad is a major one that would not have been completed without immigrant laborers.

That is a false argument, Twyla. When immigrants first started coming over, there were no immigration laws. They were established 40 years or so after the Revolutionary War. After that there was still plenty of room for expansion and even then, the immigration flow was nowhere near as bad as it is today.

We have no room for this nation to legally expand to, now......unless we want to invade and conquer Mexico (we couldn't screw it up any more than it already is).

The people that came here then was, in the largest part, people who came here legally, in accordance with the existing laws.

It isn't immigration that is the problem; the problem is illegal immigration. All of the facts point to the reality that someone who will break the law to get here will not obey the laws once they are here. "Sanctuary" cities have already proven that with huge increases in the capitol crime and other lesser felony crimes by illegals that cannot be deported or properly prosecuted because they are in those sanctuary cities.


They are here illegally but how much do they contribute to the economy versus just taking money from America and sending home to Mexico? They have to eat, they have to have a place to stay. They are paying for that and putting money into the towns and cities they live in.

Let's see how much they contribute:

Here illegally, so no SSN in order to file taxes. (tax evasion, 1 count per year per person working)

Paid under the table, so no taxes paid to file for. (also tax evasion, 1 count per year per person working)

They get free (your tax dollars) medical that you, as a taxpayer, do not get any of (you have to pay it back, they do not).

Working under the table, the companies that hire them get tax breaks, reduction in medical coverage expenses and a host of other benefits, because they are not official employees, but normally listed as "day labor".

Being illegals and working for pennies on the dollar, they drive down wages in all other areas, for legally employable/employed citizens and those immigrants who worked and waited and struggled to be a part of this nation in compliance with the law.

None of that sounds like any kind of contribution to our nation or our society.


I don't think there is any easy answer and closing our borders is something that has been advocated but so far denied.

I don't believe that closing our borders will work, but we do need to fully enforce the immigration laws and stop giving up our tax dollars for those that want to be rewarded for breaking those federal laws.

We would not reward other criminals for breaking the law, so why reward illegals for breaking the laws?

The fact that they are willing to break our laws to get here means that they do not respect our citizens or our laws.

And those types of people never make good citizens.

[Hephaestion]

Interesting reading folks.

Haven't kept upto date with the issue in the UK but here we are talking about amnesties for illegal immigrants and that is stirring up a little trouble.

.

[Pasadenacpl2]

I don't remember any one from Mexico involved in 9/11 or OK federal building but thats just my opinion.

And?

Pasa

[BiBedBud]

I think if anyone believes any measly law is going to remedy the problem of illegal immigration; they are deluding themselves in grand fashion. Arizona’s SB1070 is a misguided, politically-motivated band-aid “solution” – when what is needed is a well-conceived, cogent, fundamental solution that will correct the deeply troubled situations surrounding illegal immigration.

We have laws against all manner of things that still go on all the time, so we should not expect that Arizona’s SB1070 is going to solve the problem of illegal immigration either. I have every expectation that it will cause all kinds of other problems, and the unintended consequences will only make many things much worse. Consider that many of these illegal “aliens” are walking across the desert for days-on-end, risking their very lives to enter the USA. Very often, vicious criminal gangs are involved in the transit. A puny Arizona law that threatens a bus ride back home is not going to deter these people from trying to enter the USA for work. If thirsty, sun-baked deserts, deadly canal crossings and murderous ‘coyote’ human traffickers are not enough of a reason, SB1070 will never provide any kind of deterrence. In all likelihood, SB1070's only direct impact will be to increase the number of illicit border crossings, and the death toll of failed attempts.

SB1070 does not address the root of the problem strongly enough – and I don’t mean the illegal “aliens” who might encounter law enforcement officers while in public (which is where SB1070 seems to focus). The roots of the problem on the US side of the border are all of those employers who hire illegal workers. To be effective at addressing the problem of illegal immigration, enforcement action should be focussed squarely on all those who profit from hiring illegal workers, who frequently pay them below the minimum wage, and employ them under sub-standard conditions, with no safety equipment or labour standards. These employers should face punitive fines that destroy any profit motivation that they have, and enforcement action must be both routine and unpredictable. At present, what ‘employer-targeted enforcement’ does go on, always seems to occur the day before pay-day, which means these companies can benefit from essentially free illegal labour for almost two weeks, before ICE deports them – which is hardly a deterrent for these unscrupulous employers!

On the ‘upside’, Arizona’s SB1070 gives the public the (false) impression of “tackling” the issue; of “protecting” Arizona; of “defending the border” – which makes it a political winner for those politicians who rely on certain segments of voters who are easily confused about the difference between substance and form. If SB1070 was – miraculously – effective, it would mean that Arizonans and Americans more broadly, will have to pay more for their restaurant meals, hotel rooms, foodstuffs, maintenance contracting, housecleaning, landscaping, construction, childcare, healthcare, et cetera. Nobody should complain about paying a legal wage, but believe me, if they ever had to, they would.

I could write a whole essay on this very important topic, including the grievous unconstitutionality of SB1070, but I don’t have the time. I’ll just close off this post by offering a couple of related thoughts.

Illegal immigration is caused by economic disparity. Accordingly, the only fundamental solution to the problem of illegal workers crossing into the USA from Mexico; is for there to be bona fide economic development in Mexico. Unfortunately, many American-championed initiatives cause or deepen the problems of poverty south of the border, most notably NAFTA and GATT, wherein heavily subsidized American corn is dumped into Mexican markets, putting hundreds of thousands of Mexican farmers out of work, who must then cross into the USA to earn enough to feed their families. There are many other examples, but this is the biggie (notwithstanding the pathetically low, “business-friendly” minimum wage in Mexico, which also benefits many American companies with plants in Mexico). Not until Mexicans can earn a living wage in their own country, will they stop sneaking across the border into the USA. No law or fence will do what only economics can.

As a Canadian, I would be remiss if I didn’t add; that not until Americans have equal access to affordable health care, will they stop sneaking across the border into Canada, fraudulently seeking medical attention in my country.

[FalconAngel]

Actually there are some very important Constitutional issues. I have read the legislation and there are major issuee that will be over-turned no doubt.

The link you provide is for a PRO SB 1070 so to say it is no big deal is really not true.

Constitutional experts are suing to stop SB 1070 by alleging infringements to the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments (as well as the Pre-emption Clause).

Yes, the site is pro-1070, but the analysis is right on the mark.


Just a few key points before you all freak out...

The Pre-emption clause basically states that no state may have any law that super cedes the federal law. This is part of our Constitution. The document that we all hold so dear. Additionally no state may enter into any regulation regarding international treaty and national borders are an international issue.

SB 1070 does not supercede federal law, just adds it to state law enforcement of federal law, since the fed has been none too interested in enforcing their own border security laws, particularly after 9-11.

SB 1070 does not infringe upon international treaty obligations, but does force local law enforcement to report illegals that they catch to the correct and proper ICE and/or BPE offices. In the end, it gives BPE and ICE more of an ability to serve the people of both their state and the nation.
It does not give local LE any additional authority, but it does give them additional responsibility that are within the scope of their normal duties.

SB 1070 does nothing more than replicate, at the state level enforcement of existing border protections. It does nothing regarding the actual borders, outside of enforcement of the existing border patrol laws.



For over 100 years the supreme court has repeatedly said immigration status (citizenship) DOES NOT limit the 14th amendment "The amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions. This clause later became the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States." So imagine a woman who does not have papers is raped and by coming forward is then deported? wtf. This is a dangerous setup.

SB 1070 does not change anyone's rights, in any way, shape or form. Since state laws, nationwide, require citizens and legal immigrants to carry proper ID, as issued by state or federal agencies (state DL/ID card, Federal ID, Military ID, Passport, etc.), there is no violation of rights there. One either has it or they do not. If they have it, but not on them, then it is a simple matter for a police officer to call up their information and photo from government records to determine if the detainee is legit or not. There is no increase or change in police authority to act; that remains unchanged. They still need reasonable suspicion or probable cause to take action. Furtive behavior qualifies as probable cause to stop and detain.
Did anyone know that it is a crime to lie to law enforcement officers, when one is stopped, detained or questioned by a law enforcement officer? They can arrest on that alone, should they so choose.
And the Miranda act still equally applies, as well, for those that might think differently.



In one point of sb 1070 it places relief from warrant. then states that an officer MUST check ID with probable cause. However since the warrant restriction is removed, simply driving while brown would fall under the definition of probable clause. This little end around is why so many lawyers are freaking out.

Relief from warrant is exactly what probable cause is.
Probable cause means that a warrant is not needed for an officer to investigate suspicious behavior, pull over speeders and other offenders and arrest suspects that are accused of a crime while in the course of their normal patrol duties.

Imagine how congested our courts would be if a warrant had to be issued for every single suspicion that police officers had to handle; or worse, how many crimes would go unpunished if a warrant were needed for every single traffic stop, bank robbery, et al.


I personally feel our borders must be secure, however bad law is worse then no law. The federal government must do its duty as outlined by our constitution. So lets spend our energy on getting our representatives to do their jobs!

On this we absolutely agree, but if the Fed is not doing it's job, then the people must find alternative, preferably by legal (as opposed to vigilantist) means. States giving their LE personnel the responsibility of detaining and reporting, to an overburdoned and under-manned federal enforcement agency, give relief to the federal agents in the field by lending a hand where one is desperately needed. Border patrol and ICE are, beneath it all, not much more than police agencies themselves, just focused on a specific area of law enforcement; not unlike the FBI, in a very real way. They handle a specific aspect of federal law.



There are other concerns here as well, the economic impact to AZ will likely force the state into bankruptcy. In addition, if you look up various economic studies showing the total financial impact, immigration plays a major POSITIVE role in our economy. I know it does not seem that way but you must consider that even non tax paying ppl contribute to the economy in which they live and of course they provide cheap labor.

Those studies are in complete error. Yes, the additional cost of enforcement is a problem, but that will be corrected when companies are forced to comply with federal law and hire legal aliens and citizens in place of the illegals that work below minimum wage and do not contribute to the tax burdon that all legal aliens and citizens must do.

Any possible aid to the economy is almost non-existent when compared to the loss of tax dollars and the medical expenses that they get for free, at taxpayer expense.

One hospital visit is enough to financially surpass what the supposed "contribution to the economy" of a single illegal immigrant.


Oh and the argument of well other countries treat ppl worse, well I live here for that very reason! I don't give a rats ass what they do in Mexico. This is akin to saying to your parents "timmy stole something too"

Again we agree, but let me add that, not only do I not care what or how they do things in Mexico, but I do not appreciate them exporting those problems to my country.
Castro did that with the merialito boat lift; just emptied his prisons and sent them here.


now if you have want to see a more detailed response by someone far smarter then I check this link.... he is in Law enforcement in AZ and does an amazing job breaking down the Myth's of SB 1070.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=389426530921&id=735875426&ref=mf

BTW Falcon one of the main Republican opponents of SB 1070 is your very own Governor Jeb Bush. Just saying.

Don't blame me for Jeb....he was only slightly more competent and more corrupt than his idiot brother.

And it is former governor and good riddance to him.



Oh and the reason for the "apology" to another nation comes down to one of our states entering into the international treaty issue. Again this is an illegal act based on OUR constitution, paramount to the southern states pre revolution attempts to find foreign support. The reason for the international clause was to show the world a UNITED STATES. If another nation were to think a treaty with the USA only applied to 49 states then we would no longer be seen as one powerful nation. I hope you can see that is a very bad idea!!! Another example: the European union can not stop one of its members from aligning on trade issues with lets say an african nation. They are not ONE nation, they are a loose union. We decided long ago when we bacame the USA that we would not be a loose collection of independent nations but to be one great union, ONE nation!

AZ did not enter into any treaty with Mexico at all. If it had, then there would be no need to give the illegals over to BPE or ICE. They could just ship them back on their own, without any help from the fed.


So there are complications of course but we exist because of our constitution. Lets not be so quick to throw it out for one states frustration.

Everyone loves the constitution when it meets their issues but hates it when it does not.

Tyrants hate the Constitution. The rest of us love it, but the Constitution is not the totality of the law. If it had been, then we wouldn't have that damnable Patriot act which puts all of us at risk, citizen or not.



Again I say to all of you take your bias out, read the constitution, then get pissed at your congress to make changes.

I agree, but for the fact that our politicians don't do what they are supposed to, anymore. They seek power at any and all costs, which is why things are as bad as they are.



one last thing before you blast me... I am an independent so that will save you all the "you dem's are so full of.." business.

I am also an independent, and a moderate. And have been acussed by the left of being right wing and by the right of being left wing. People just don't get those of us that can see both sides for what they are.

[BiBedBud]

The Bill of Rights

Article VI

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Repeated SCOTUS rulings confirm that this is not restricted to US citizens, but is rather extended to everyone within the borders of the USofA.

"Papers? We don't need no stinking papers!"

Dear FalconAngel; Could you please provide a reference to back up your assertion that "state laws, nationwide, require citizens and legal immigrants to carry proper ID". I know of no such law, and as a frequent visitor to the US, who happens to have a dark complexion, I would like some clarification. Thanks! BBB

[Pasadenacpl2]

Umm...nothing in this law violates that.

It is not an unreasonable search to confirm that a person is legal to be in this nation. We have this as confirmation as the Border Patrol checkpoints have been operating for 40+ years all along the southern border.

They ask two very simple questions. "Is everyone in the vehicle a US citizen?" and "Where are you headed today?" How you respond, and what people in the car do, and what they see in the car all affect how the rest of the conversation goes.

There is nothing the AZ law does that is not already being done by our government.

To answer your question about carrying ID, a few states already do require that. However, in no state will not identifying yourself to an officer get you anything but 24 hours in the local jail while they figure out who you are. If anyone doubts this, please feel free to test this the next time you are pulled over.

Pasa

[dkw181]

I really cannot frgure out why so many people in our country and in our government do not know the meaning of "ILLEAGLE" No other country in the world would put up with this BULL SHIT going on at our southern borders!!!!

[Pasadenacpl2]

Especially Mexico, ironically enough.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/21/lets-adopt-mexicos-fair-and-respectful-immigration-policy/

Pasa

[BiBedBud]

Certainly, it is entirely reasonable to ascertain identity when crossing an international border -- otherwise, what's the point.

Similarly, driving a motor vehicle is a priviledge, not a right, so the police have de facto right to stop any motor vehicle and determine if the driver is licensed (and insured) to drive the motor vehicle. No arguements from me about crossing borders or driving cars.

I think where people like me question the legality of SB1070, is its implied provisions to empower LE to stop anyone, even people just walking down the street, and demand identification, on pain of imprisonment without trial, and deportation.

CASE IN POINT: I am a Canadian. I frequently travel to the United States, for both business and pleasure. Very often -- like when I go for a jog -- the only piece of paper I have on me is my Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance card, which does not have a picture on it. I leave my passport and all of my other ID back at the hotel, because I don't want to get it all sweaty and whatnot. Moreover, I don't have a proper pocket in my running shorts. I can't tell you how many times I've done this. Now, if I were to do this in Arizona, and some LE officer were to demand to see my ID; would I end up in Mexico after 30 days in jail? WTF? I thought the US was supposed to be a free country, and the demand for papers is the kind of thing we used to jeer at the Soviets for.

I forget who said this, but I'm sure it was an American...
Anyone who trades a liberty for a security, shall have neither.

Dear Pasadenacpl2; Please provide links to enacted legislation backing up your assertion that "carrying ID, a few states already do require that". There are a lot of people presenting their opinions as facts, and I really want to know the specific truth on this issue in particular.

[Hephaestion]

BiBedBud ".......I forget who said this, but I'm sure it was an American...
Anyone who trades a liberty for a security, shall have neither.............."

According to Wiki it's a paraphrase of one Benjamin Franklin (17 January 1706 – 17 April 1790) an American inventor, journalist, printer, diplomat, and statesman.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Certainly, it is entirely reasonable to ascertain identity when crossing an international border -- otherwise, what's the point.

No, I'm afraid you do not understand the facts, here. Our Border Patrol has checkpoints hundreds of miles from the border on all highways leading outbound from all border and near border cities. Try going from Las Cruces New Mexico to Alamogordo New Mexico sometime. Better have an ID handy.

That is not 'crossing the border.' That is going from point A to point B within our borders. And that has been the case since before I was born (I'm 40).


Similarly, driving a motor vehicle is a priviledge, not a right, so the police have de facto right to stop any motor vehicle and determine if the driver is licensed (and insured) to drive the motor vehicle. No arguements from me about crossing borders or driving cars.

And in what capacity do police contact people in over 90% of their routine day?


I think where people like me question the legality of SB1070, is its implied provisions to empower LE to stop anyone, even people just walking down the street, and demand identification, on pain of imprisonment without trial, and deportation.

It doesn't do this. It says they have the responsibility to check immigration status in the normal course of their duties. Stopping someone for 'driving while brown' is not in the normal course of their duties. This, like scenario that opponents bring up that I've seen, is simply not what the law says.


CASE IN POINT: I am a Canadian. I frequently travel to the United States, for both business and pleasure. Very often -- like when I go for a jog -- the only piece of paper I have on me is my Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance card, which does not have a picture on it. I leave my passport and all of my other ID back at the hotel, because I don't want to get it all sweaty and whatnot. Moreover, I don't have a proper pocket in my running shorts. I can't tell you how many times I've done this. Now, if I were to do this in Arizona, and some LE officer were to demand to see my ID; would I end up in Mexico after 30 days in jail? WTF? I thought the US was supposed to be a free country, and the demand for papers is the kind of thing we used to jeer at the Soviets for.

Actually, it is the kind of thing France does. And Italy. And Germany. And most of Europe. Oh...AND MEXICO.

But, no, you wouldn't wind up anywhere. You simply say "My ID is in the hotel." They can, legally, ask you to go to the hotel to prove this. They can also detain you until you do (police can detain anyone for 24 (48 in some states) without charging them already). But, every scenario that results in a person who is supposed to be here being deported is sheer fantasy. This isn't Born in East LA.


Dear Pasadenacpl2; Please provide links to enacted legislation backing up your assertion that "carrying ID, a few states already do require that". There are a lot of people presenting their opinions as facts, and I really want to know the specific truth on this issue in particular.

I'll do the research later, going to karaoke now.

Pasa

[TheBisexualProfessor]

I read it ... and found it unobjectionable.

[just4mefc]

Agreed, Just4meC, however, you might want to think about the fact the Constitution protects American citizens. This bill is aimed at illegal immigrants and they are just not covered under the amendments you cite. As I said there are problems with this that relate back to the Patriot Act and it's one more freedom denied. I can see if they assume someone is illegal it would be a court case like nothing else on earth. I can see a lot of challenges coming from this legislation and already we have division in the states. California slams Arizona over this, Arizona's response is to threaten to turn off the power. It's gonna be one big mess and everyone will wind up suffering.

Supreme Court has maintained that cases involving “aliens” be decided solely upon the 14th Amendment principal of “equal protection under the law. this has been the case for over 50 years :-)

[just4mefc]

too those who say we have to carry ID. WRONG!!!

the Supreme Court disagrees: In Terry v. Ohio (1968), it decided no state may make it a crime for a pedestrian to refuse identification in the absence of “reasonable suspicion” (the belief that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed).Furthermore, the Court also limited police powers by stating no officer may arrest a suspect for failing to identify himself, if the request for ID isn’t related to the original authority to detain.

So in fact based on federal law and the Supremacy clause any state law that try to arrest or hold a citizen for merely not having ID is against the constitution of the USA.

[_Joe_]

As someone who has been waiting for the government to "fix" the immigration issue for nearly two decades, I know what Arizona is really trying to do, and sadly it's come to this because our government keeps passing the buck for the next office to fix it and it's been #$(#$#$ ENOUGH.

What's funny is folks see only one side of this whole deal, not knowing what's the real big deal.

[just4mefc]

My passions are not up. My medical bills are up. My insurance (medical and car) is up. My taxes are up. My schools are over-full and under-funded.... Our nation is affected positively by immigration.

It is sucked dry by illegal immigration.


And, that is equal protection. EVERYONE in the borders of this nation must be here legally. That's equal protection. NO ONE in the borders of this nation should be here illegally, and if they are found, they should be shown the door.

I've read your link. I'm unimpressed. Someone has to do something. The AZ law doesn't do anything but enforce pre-existing federal law. Something the federal government is unwilling to do.

When your federal government does not uphold it's constitutional responsibility to protect our nation, then we have a duty to do it for ourselves. Don't like it? Then get the fed to handle it. Until then? Arizona is well within it's rights to say 'you must be legal to be here.'

Pasa

OK I see you are upset and you feel that the guy down the street making $20 a day is destroying your income. BUT You might not like it but study after study of economic impact (by both rep and dems) on this issue does not prove you right. In fact AZ will likely go bankrupt if they continue down this road.

So you will throw out your constitution based on a bad state law? I agree something has to change but not like this. Again “Supremacy Clause” states the “Constitution and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” This means of course, that any federal law trumps any conflicting state law.

I am not trying to debate if we should do something, but do it the right way! If you want to have change then start with your representatives. Don't forget Bush the 2nd even tried to make change but was blocked.. by his own party! So vote them out and put in people who will do the job!

[just4mefc]

SB 1070 does not supercede federal law, just adds it to state law enforcement of federal law, since the fed has been none too interested in enforcing their own border security laws, particularly after 9-11.

SB 1070 does not infringe upon international treaty obligations, but does force local law enforcement to report illegals that they catch to the correct and proper ICE and/or BPE offices. In the end, it gives BPE and ICE more of an ability to serve the people of both their state and the nation.
It does not give local LE any additional authority, but it does give them additional responsibility that are within the scope of their normal duties.

SB 1070 does nothing more than replicate, at the state level enforcement of existing border protections. It does nothing regarding the actual borders, outside of enforcement of the existing border patrol laws.

Again states cannot add the fed law for enforcement of immigration issues. The constitution clearly states that immigration is a Federal/international issue. Therefore the state is attempting to super cede the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

SB 1070 does not change anyone's rights, in any way, shape or form. Since state laws, nationwide, require citizens and legal immigrants to carry proper ID, as issued by state or federal agencies (state DL/ID card, Federal ID, Military ID, Passport, etc.), there is no violation of rights there.
Incorrect, as I already pointed out in my earlier post

One either has it or they do not. If they have it, but not on them, then it is a simple matter for a police officer to call up their information and photo from government records to determine if the detainee is legit or not. There is no increase or change in police authority to act; that remains unchanged. They still need reasonable suspicion or probable cause to take action. Furtive behavior qualifies as probable cause to stop and detain.

Relief from warrant is exactly what probable cause is.
Sorry but once again I disagree. Probable cause IS THE WARRANT.

Those studies are in complete error. Yes, the additional cost of enforcement is a problem, but that will be corrected when companies are forced to comply with federal law and hire legal aliens and citizens in place of the illegals that work below minimum wage and do not contribute to the tax burdon that all legal aliens and citizens must do.

Any possible aid to the economy is almost non-existent when compared to the loss of tax dollars and the medical expenses that they get for free, at taxpayer expense.

One hospital visit is enough to financially surpass what the supposed "contribution to the economy" of a single illegal immigrant.

this is fear based hogwash
A RAND study in 2006 found that the "burden" of treating undocumented aliens in U.S. health facilities was about $11 per household. http://www.rand.org/news/p

ress.06/11.14.html
And Tamar Jacoby of the Manhattan Institute found that Latino immigrants in North Carolina cost the state $61 million (with an m) for a variety of benefits, but were responsible for $9 billion (with a b) in economic growth in the state. http://bit.ly/9XSdTl

]Don't blame me for Jeb....he was only slightly more competent and more corrupt than his idiot brother.

And it is former governor and good riddance to him.
agreed :)

AZ did not enter into any treaty with Mexico at all...
NO they did not. But once again by entering into the realm of immigrant status they entered into foreign affairs and therefore are attempting to violate the federal law. We are a united nation and must have ONE international voice! This is the same type of issue that the south did pre civil war. they began to enter into separate foreign agreements.

Bad law is not the way to fix a problem

[just4mefc]

Hephaestion posted Anyone who trades a liberty for a security, shall have neither!!!! Ben Franklin

AWESOME!

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

Then they list "illegal alien" as probable cause. Hence the end around language.

what makes the Arizona law so bad is that the officer can pull you over on suspicion of being an undocumented alien, whether or not he has any probable cause. The way it's being interpreted, the only people who "look" like they might be undocumented are Hispanics, so in effect an officer can pull someone over simply for having a dark complexion. This is contrary to the 4th Amendment, which requires probable cause and since the supremacy clause states that Fed trumps state

supporting what is in essence a rogue state is NOT the right way to go about this. The governor of AZ steamed rolled this legislation to be on the books before the November elections. Her approval rating was at approx. 40% pre sb1070. The government is once again getting all of us with divide and conquer. We are arguing over AZ and the constitution and nothing is getting down in the mean time. I guarantee the leaders of AZ are hoping 1070 is squashed so they can still have power in the state AND not go bankrupt.

if you read the various economic reports from around the nation by both republican and democrats sponsorship you see the overwhelming consensus shows illegal immigrants are a huge positive part of our economy. Big business special interests have fought against any real reform for this very reason. To me the answer is amnesty and a secure border. The problem is most illegal aliens do not make even the minimum wage. So if we were to try and use legal residents to do the same jobs we have to pay them minimum wage so now what? So we remove minimum wage for certain types of "labor" but then in essence we are sponsoring a sub class of americans. 14th amendment then pops up again. (equal protection under the law) This is why the various administrations have not acted on these issues. This has been the ultimate don't ask don't tell for at least 40 years.

A RAND study in 2006 found that the "burden" of treating undocumented aliens in U.S. health facilities was about $11 per household. http://www.rand.org/news/press.06/11.14.html

And Tamar Jacoby of the Manhattan Institute found that Latino immigrants in North Carolina cost the state $61 million (with an m) for a variety of benefits, but were responsible for $9 billion (with a b) in economic growth in the state. http://bit.ly/9XSdTl

I know we are all very concerned about illegal immigration but we must fight the good fight for our Constitution. It is an amazing document and we must IMHO hold ourselves and our leaders to its guidance. We don't get to select and choose. The freedom act was a crime against the constitution so using it as some form of validation is just wrong.

If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins.
Benjamin Franklin

[Pasadenacpl2]

OK I see you are upset and you feel that the guy down the street making $20 a day is destroying your income. BUT You might not like it but study after study of economic impact (by both rep and dems) on this issue does not prove you right. In fact AZ will likely go bankrupt if they continue down this road.

No where, at anytime, did I say anything remotely like this. You have attempted to construct a straw man argument, but I will not allow this position to be foisted upon me. Sorry.

My position has little to do with economics (other than the economic impact on schools and medical care, which we spent a trillion dollars to "fix").

Would you like to try again, and actually address what I've actually said?

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

To me the answer is amnesty and a secure border.

These are mutually exclusive concepts.

Pasa

[TaylorMade]

These are mutually exclusive concepts.

Pasa

Amnesty is like spousal abuse... every time we do it, we think... It's not gonna happen again...and know we are lying.

*Taylor*

[just4mefc]

No where, at anytime, did I say anything remotely like this. You have attempted to construct a straw man argument, but I will not allow this position to be foisted upon me. Sorry.

My position has little to do with economics (other than the economic impact on schools and medical care, which we spent a trillion dollars to "fix").

Would you like to try again, and actually address what I've actually said?

Pasa

Sorry if I misunderstood your argument but you seemed to be saying and still seem to be saying that illegal immigration is the cause of this trillion dollar fix???? If not then what are you saying and I will try to address it? I am not attempting to thrust anyhing upon you (unless that is an offer ;))

[just4mefc]

These are mutually exclusive concepts.

Pasa

they can be that is true. But I don't think they have to be

[just4mefc]

Amnesty is like spousal abuse... every time we do it, we think... It's not gonna happen again...and know we are lying.

*Taylor*

Of course it will happen again. We need cheap labor to avaoid having to pay $5 for one freakin strawberry

[just4mefc]

So Taylor and PAS,

I posted links, points of law etc... to address what you said in your posts. I have provided data from both the right and left wings, constitutional law and have said nothing to disrespect anyone. Yet you come back at me as though I am personally against you? what's up with that? it is just data and points of debate don't take it personally.

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. - Mark Twain

[Pasadenacpl2]

Sorry if I misunderstood your argument but you seemed to be saying and still seem to be saying that illegal immigration is the cause of this trillion dollar fix???? If not then what are you saying and I will try to address it? I am not attempting to thrust anyhing upon you (unless that is an offer ;))

Could be an offer :)

I'm saying that one HUGE reason we needed a "fix" was that our hospitals are overcrowded trying to care for the illegals. That far too much free care being given out, the fed not paying for it etc... That care, btw, equates to far more than the 12 bucks per family. Notice our insurance rates going up, and the deductibles going up as well? The hospitals jack up their rates to the insurance to cover all the people who didn't pay their bill.

Want some proof? I don't have much other than what my doctor tells me, but here's a recent experience. My wife needed a sleep study. The cost to use the Insurance would be 1700. That's our cost. The insurance would be billed 2500. Cash, however, would be 800. Why? because the cash price is never the price billed to insurance. Why? Because the overage makes up for people who don't pay.

Is it the only cause? No. Not at all. It is one major cause. But it IS the cause of 8-10 hour ER visits being pretty standard unless you have a GSW or are missing a limbs.

Hospitals are actually not the economic drain that is the biggest problem, however. Schools and social services like welfare and food stamps, however, are.

We need to stop paying for Mexico's children to be educated. It costs us a fortune, it swells class sizes, it (verifiably) lowers the achievement level of all students in the school. In every way, it's bad for us.

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

Of course it will happen again. We need cheap labor to avaoid having to pay $5 for one freakin strawberry

This might be true. Economists disagree on it, with great frequency. So, it might also not be true. What is true is that due to government interference as well as an overinflated workforce, our prices are artificially low. This hurts us in the long run, and hurts farmers as well. There is a reason that farms go out of business.

There are plenty of Americans who would do farm labor if farmers would be willing to pay them a living wage. There are plenty of farmers who would pay that wage if the food market weren't being tampered with keeping prices down incredibly low. If these actors (illegal workers/federal tampering) were removed, we would pay more at the grocery store, but we would have better unemployment rates, which would bolster the economy, which would enable us to pay more at the grocery store, which would enable farmers to pay more (or employ more people) which would bolster the economy, which would enable us to pay more at the grocery store....

Moral to the story: Federal interference + illegal aliens = bad for America.

Pasa

[Hephaestion]

It is universally true that costs going up for treatment is not 100% down to increase in usage (whether by legals or illegals). We have the same claim about illegals in the UK.

A significant part of the increase in costs is through awarded pay rises along the constituant paths to treatment. These can all most certainly be traced back to wages (researchers, chemists supplying, physicists developing, doctors and their hierarchy).

Competition is high in all aspects of science but the professions (plural) exist in a world where the bankers award themselves telephone figure amounts with impunity and that starts to drag costs upwards. The concept of relative poverty comes into play and costs start spiralling.

IN the UK, once upon a time we had graduated tax to try to stem this but the awards climbed in compensation. When the tax burden was relieved, costs did not come down but the elevated wages not only stayed but increased as the rich and powerful consolidated their stranglehold. So much so that whereas manufacuting industry was seen as 'lame ducks' asking for handouts when the overpaid unburdoned banking profession screwed up the nation baled them out albeit under duress, putting the UK in debt for years to come.

Part of the problem is that there is a flaw in the free market principle where international standards of competition are inflicted upon the trapped inhabitants of countries.

[BiBedBud]

Recommended reading for anyone following this thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify

[lv69cpl69]

http://www.breitbart.tv/arizona-governor-has-serious-video-message-for-president-obama/ "THATS ALL I HAVE TO SAY"

[darkeyes]

It is universally true that costs going up for treatment is not 100% down to increase in usage (whether by legals or illegals). We have the same claim about illegals in the UK.

A significant part of the increase in costs is through awarded pay rises along the constituant paths to treatment. These can all most certainly be traced back to wages (researchers, chemists supplying, physicists developing, doctors and their hierarchy).

Competition is high in all aspects of science but the professions (plural) exist in a world where the bankers award themselves telephone figure amounts with impunity and that starts to drag costs upwards. The concept of relative poverty comes into play and costs start spiralling.

IN the UK, once upon a time we had graduated tax to try to stem this but the awards climbed in compensation. When the tax burden was relieved, costs did not come down but the elevated wages not only stayed but increased as the rich and powerful consolidated their stranglehold. So much so that whereas manufacuting industry was seen as 'lame ducks' asking for handouts when the overpaid unburdoned banking profession screwed up the nation baled them out albeit under duress, putting the UK in debt for years to come.

Part of the problem is that there is a flaw in the free market principle where international standards of competition are inflicted upon the trapped inhabitants of countries.

A flaw...????????:eek: Moren a bloody flaw Heph.... much much more....

[darkeyes]

Of course it will happen again. We need cheap labor to avaoid having to pay $5 for one freakin strawberry

No hun..we need it cos thats wot big biz an small biz alike tell us we need..its wot capitalist economics tell us we need... its wot lotsa bloody peeps who r conned by the system think we need cos they r told so.. course..

[just4mefc]

Could be an offer :)

I'm saying that one HUGE reason we needed a "fix" was that our hospitals are overcrowded trying to care for the illegals. That far too much free care being given out, the fed not paying for it etc... That care, btw, equates to far more than the 12 bucks per family. Notice our insurance rates going up, and the deductibles going up as well? The hospitals jack up their rates to the insurance to cover all the people who didn't pay their bill.

Want some proof? I don't have much other than what my doctor tells me, but here's a recent experience. My wife needed a sleep study. The cost to use the Insurance would be 1700. That's our cost. The insurance would be billed 2500. Cash, however, would be 800. Why? because the cash price is never the price billed to insurance. Why? Because the overage makes up for people who don't pay.

Is it the only cause? No. Not at all. It is one major cause. But it IS the cause of 8-10 hour ER visits being pretty standard unless you have a GSW or are missing a limbs.

Hospitals are actually not the economic drain that is the biggest problem, however. Schools and social services like welfare and food stamps, however, are.

We need to stop paying for Mexico's children to be educated. It costs us a fortune, it swells class sizes, it (verifiably) lowers the achievement level of all students in the school. In every way, it's bad for us.

Pasa

First, I apologize for any mis representation on my part of your words. In terms of medical cost we could make an argument that the biggest drain on our medical cost are the retired elderly. Those over 65 experience the highest number of health issues while simultaneously contributing the least to our overall economy. I would be against this argument for the record. But of course we would then have to look at other issues to discover there total economic impact. Well of course they provide medical science and economic stimulus for the entire medical community. Get rid of them and we would save huge amounts on the spending side BUT lose huge amounts in the advancement of science and many doctors, nurses etc would lose their jobs. These doctors would of course stop buying cars and houses etc.... further diminishing the economy. See I am only pointing out the domino effect of only one group.

Correct me if I am wrong but you said "That care, btw, equates to far more than the 12 bucks per family" Based on what?

Well based on the 2000 US Census there were 105 Million households at that time with a projection 115 million by 2010. Using the 2000 numbers (105m times $12) equals $1.25 Billion dollars. Remember the studies I shared with you before were only looking at the ILLEGAL population. The vast majority of non-paying or underpaying are US Citizens (and other legal residents) So in my opinion this just leads us to the need for universal health care... and I really don't have the strength to get into yet another fight with someone. Where is the love man?

My gut feeling is you are right about the strain on the education system. However I personally feel, we are not educating Mexico's children. In fact we are educating USA undocumented children. the majority of illegal immigrant children were most likely born in the usa. They tend to stay in the usa when they grow up. Also as they grow up, tend to assimilate with USA culture. This also occurs in the Asian immigrant population. I don't have a lot of data on these points just my experience (I live in Los Angeles area). If we look at the immigration and eventual assimilation of Irish and Italian American populations the same things happened (many if not most were illegal immigrants hence terms like WOP - with out papers). They came and of course they stayed! They did not take their education and run back home. In fact they became the major driving economic forces of the time. BUT at first they were hated and segregated they brought down the schools etc. But once the assimilation process hit its stride and "real" Americans accepted them things changed. The new immigrants started to open business buy land etc.

Now all that being said. I personally feel we do need reform. We need to understand the positives and the negatives of the current immigrant population. Perhaps if were to understand that they are not the murdering- lazy-good for nothing-Pariah people we are told they are we could at least drop the hatred of the people them selves. Then free of personal persecution we could start to make reforms. I truly believe this is a vital group to our economy and we need them as much as they need us. BUT there are lots of problems to be addressed. Doing nothing just allows it to get worse. There is clearly a group of really bad people hiding within our Illegal immigrant population. That need to be sorted through.

I share many of your concerns and I am truly not trying to be against you in my arguments. I am only trying to share the facts. Regardless of where we stand on the issues of immigration, that we get our leadership to make changes in the right way.

Now about that offer..... :three:

[just4mefc]

No hun..we need it cos thats wot big biz an small biz alike tell us we need..its wot capitalist economics tell us we need... its wot lotsa bloody peeps who r conned by the system think we need cos they r told so.. course..

Well I can't argue with your statement, but sadly we all live in a capitalist society. One definition of value in capitalism is willing buyer/willing seller. Competition has its down sides. But I don't think we can simply say ok no more capitalism that cow left the barn a long time ago and of course a whol new topic and can of worms

[just4mefc]

This might be true. Economists disagree on it, with great frequency. So, it might also not be true. What is true is that due to government interference as well as an overinflated workforce, our prices are artificially low. This hurts us in the long run, and hurts farmers as well. There is a reason that farms go out of business.

There are plenty of Americans who would do farm labor if farmers would be willing to pay them a living wage. There are plenty of farmers who would pay that wage if the food market weren't being tampered with keeping prices down incredibly low. If these actors (illegal workers/federal tampering) were removed, we would pay more at the grocery store, but we would have better unemployment rates, which would bolster the economy, which would enable us to pay more at the grocery store, which would enable farmers to pay more (or employ more people) which would bolster the economy, which would enable us to pay more at the grocery store....

Moral to the story: Federal interference + illegal aliens = bad for America.

Pasa

IMHO, unemployment rates do not bolster the economy in and of themselves. Let me explain my point. If you have a nation of 10 people with unemployment being zero and each person has a total economic impact of $10. That nation has $100 economy. BUT if I have a nation of 100 people with a rate of 10% unemployment with same $10 impact, that nation has a $900 economy. So I see the rate as only an indicator of an economy.

Of course ven if we throw out every single illegal immigrant (estimate from homeland security of 10 million people) there are currently 15 million unemployed (bureau of labor statistics) so even if could exit all illegals we would not have enough jobs for our people. We would lose the economic positives of the illegals without the major benefit we would hope for.

Plenty of americans would farm? Perhaps. Dig trenches in the hot sun for minimum wage? Well I can tell you from working in the construction trades around southern calif they WON'T. Native born americans have become increasingly lazy. In socal it is next to impossible to hire a US citizen for a day job of any kind. When you do find one they are slow and lazy as all hell. perhaps over time if we only had us citizens it would balance out. But the short term might just bankrupt us all. We are the titanic and this ships turns slowly we can't just make a sudden u-turn. We need patience and diligence and to hold or leadership accountable at the polls!!!

[Pasadenacpl2]

You are incorrect. Amerivans aren't lazy. They just expect that if they are ging to do backbreaking labor that they will be making a good living wage.

Illegals work for almost nothing. Businesses take advantage of the ability to pay criminally low wages. The problem in that equation is not American workers.

But none of that really matters. What matters first is: ILLEGALS are criminals. Their very presence is a crime. Get rid of them, by force if needs be. RFID tag them begore sending them back home so we can easily track them dwn if they try it again.

If you can't come here legally then stay home. If someone broke into my home, I'd shoot them. How is this any different?

Pasa

[just4mefc]

You are incorrect. Amerivans aren't lazy. They just expect that if they are ging to do backbreaking labor that they will be making a good living wage.

Illegals work for almost nothing. Businesses take advantage of the ability to pay criminally low wages. The problem in that equation is not American workers.

But none of that really matters. What matters first is: ILLEGALS are criminals. Their very presence is a crime. Get rid of them, by force if needs be. RFID tag them begore sending them back home so we can easily track them dwn if they try it again.

If you can't come here legally then stay home. If someone broke into my home, I'd shoot them. How is this any different?

Pasa

I gave you all that feedback and all you respond to is my opinion on day laborers I have personally worked next too? Well I can't be wrong considering what I gave you was opinion. Based on My experience and I stand by what I said. I even said to you that perhaps American workers would overtime do as you suggest.

Speeders are criminals too but I won't shoot them. It is the magnitude of the crime here. I guess we have to just let it go and agree to disagree.

[just4mefc]

I want reform. But not through some unconstitutional state bill. I wish we could all drop the hyperbole and just look at the facts. Political leaders are so good at flaming the fire of passion. We are living in the land of OZ and the politicians are the wizard saying don't look behind the curtain.

[Pasadenacpl2]

I gave you all that feedback and all you respond to is my opinion on day laborers I have personally worked next too? Well I can't be wrong considering what I gave you was opinion. Based on My experience and I stand by what I said. I even said to you that perhaps American workers would overtime do as you suggest.

And you ignored the actual point I was making. Your point was that they do jobs Americans won't do. I actually agreed with you. Americans won't do them, not at the pay you are offering. That's not the same as being lazy.

To say that Americans are lazy is to miss the point. Americans aren't lazy. They just won't work for 20 bucks a day. And neither should illegals, but they don't have much choice. YOU, as someone who has hired illegals are a criminal, btw. And your crime not only affects illegals, but American workers.

It's quite simple: If employers were willing to pay a living wage, Americans would be all over those jobs. That goes for construction, day labor, farm work, and anything else you can think of.

Example: A friend of mine had a sheetrock company. They started out being able to charge $.30/sq.ft. Well, a company hiring only illegals moved in and started bidding out at $.20/sq ft. So, my friend lowered his bids as well, and cut 20% of his labor force. When he lowered his price, the illegal hiring company did as well...to $.08. My friend went out of business.

We have companies who use illegal labor specifically to be able to undercut American labor. And, interestingly, they do so by exploiting the illegals. While I'm not too concerned about that, anyone who says they are for the 'rights' of the illegals sure should be.

So, the next time you think they are a positive impact, I call bullshit. They actually fuck up the labor force in our nation.


Speeders are criminals too but I won't shoot them. It is the magnitude of the crime here. I guess we have to just let it go and agree to disagree.

Speeders are not guilty of federal crimes. Speeders did not invade our nation. Speeders are not insurgents. You are right, it is the magnitude of the crime. They need to leave, forcibly if they resist. They have no right to be here.

If they want to be here, there is a very nice person at the border check point that will assist them in getting the applicable paperwork taken care of. If they don't wish to do that, oh well. The consequences should be severe.

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

I want reform. But not through some unconstitutional state bill. I wish we could all drop the hyperbole and just look at the facts. Political leaders are so good at flaming the fire of passion. We are living in the land of OZ and the politicians are the wizard saying don't look behind the curtain.

It is hyperbole to call the state LAW (not bill) unconstitutional.

1. The police will be doing the same thing the Border Patrol does hundreds of miles from the border, which is already deemed constitutional by SCOTUS.
2. The police will be enforcing already established federal law.
3. The police will not do so except in the normal course of their jobs.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Pasa

[just4mefc]

It is hyperbole to call the state LAW (not bill) unconstitutional.

1. The police will be doing the same thing the Border Patrol does hundreds of miles from the border, which is already deemed constitutional by SCOTUS.
2. The police will be enforcing already established federal law.
3. The police will not do so except in the normal course of their jobs.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Pasa

OK Pasa,

You have clearly intrenched yourself to your fight so good luck with all of that.

For the record I have never hired an illegal so I am no more a criminal then you. I said "I have worked along side" many people in construction. So cool your jets.

I gave you facts, constitutional law and you had no reply just your opinion which of course you are entitled too. But in the face of all this instead of coming back with your counter points and support for your position you lash out at me. Cool I get it most people do lash out as they worry they might be losing an argument. Simple seldom is, but if you choose to throw out the US Constitution for the sake of simple then there you go.

I have covered all three points of yours as they apply to the argument and the constitution. You came back with "I am not passionate etc... " therefore I thought you were open to at least pondering these thoughts. Sorry to have been wrong.

Falcon presented a post titled "the facts of sb1070" so I posted some facts. You asked me about different things regarding are illegals good or bad I answered thinking we were having a healthy discussion. My first post here was only a comment on the constitutionality of SB1070.

Have your opinion on the impact either way. Take what I wrote as pure hogwash it is not my place to tell you what or how to think. Hate illegals... shoot them on site... love them... harbor them... none of that is my actual point. So I say once again...

Protect our Constitution. Is that simple enough?

Simple outline...

“Supremacy Clause” states the “Constitution and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” This means of course, that any federal law trumps any conflicting state law

the “rule of law” in this country is a Constitution that prohibits states from “preempting” federal enforcement (or lack thereof). Article 1, Section 8 holds that “Congress shall have power… to establish a uniform rule of naturalization

AZ places a law sb1070 that violates Article 1, section 8. immigration is an international law

therefore AZ is breaking the chain established by the constitution. Hence UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[Pasadenacpl2]

I have not lashed out at you, nor have I attacked you in any way. If you feel you have been attacked, I'm sorry for that. But, this is nothing and has been very civil. If you think this has been lashing out, you either need a thicker skin, or you need to quit hanging out in internet forums. This has been downright polite, especially by this particular forum's standards.

Following your simple outline:

1. This does nothing to violate the supremacy clause. It enforces existing federal law and does so in a manner already deemed constitutional by the federal government (ref. every time I've directed your attention to the Border Patrol).

That, btw, looks like it already has SCOTUS support as a result of an earlier case.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/strong-supreme-court-precedent-in-support-of-arizona-immigration-law-94597834.html

2. This does nothing to preempt the federal government. Unless, of course, you think that local/state law enforcement arresting people for felonies does so.

3. Immigration is NOT international law. Nor is it a treaty. It is a set of rules that dictate how anyone may enter this country legally, and the penalties for violating such law. It is US law. That's it. We aren't even a party to the ICCPR, as the Senate hasn't ratified it, and it doesn't look like we will be, because the US is not beholden to "international law." Remember that we are, and always have been, beholden to none but our own nation. No organization holds sway over the US. I know those not in the US will consider that incredibly arrogant, and that may be, but it is what it is. We don't ratify treaties that put others in charge of us. We just don't.

Yeah...not unconstitutional in anyway. And, by the time the SCOTUS decides on it (probably many, many years) we'll see AZ become an ILLEGAL free zone. If it weren't for the climate and all of the retirees, I'd move there.

Pasa

[coyotedude]

[Steps up on soapbox]

The law in question won't solve the problems involved with illegal immigration, because it doesn't address the real problems. It's feel-good legislation designed to make Americans feel better about the influx of brown-skinned people from Mexico and beyond.

If you really want to know who's at fault for illegal immigration, don't point your finger at the government or across the border. Just look in the mirror.

Human beings are not risking life and limb and worse to cross the border just for the hell of it. They come here because we hire them to be here. We hire them to do the jobs we don't want to do for wages we wouldn't accept. We want them to pick our fruit and veggies and work in our sweatshops and build our houses and serve our fries and wipe our kids' noses and butts. And we want them to do it for cheap cheap cheap.

We just don't want to admit it.

Which makes all of us a damn lot of hypocrites, as far as I'm concerned.

[Steps down from soapbox]

Peace

[JP1986UM]

I have a fail safe solution. Round up all the illegal aliens in Arizona, put them on a bus, and deliver them to



San Francisco.


It they want to be a sanctuary city, there is nothing unconstitutional about finding the illegal aliens via lawful mechanisms and just dumping them in SF.

Problem solved and no international treaty is violated.

Let the SF govt fuckin take care of them. They love them so much....lets see how big their hearts are then. I am sure the mayor will buy them all lunch down by the wharf....

[FalconAngel]

Recommended reading for anyone following this thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify

Wikipedia is so notoriously full of disinformation, error and so full of blatant and wild inaccuracies...........I cannot believe that anyone is still actually using it for a reference for something as important as this issue.

[Pasadenacpl2]

I use it all the time. There are several great things about wiki, and many of the issues that used to plague it have been at least minimized. Those issues not withstanding, wikipedia is, currently, the largest single storehouse of information that the world has ever seen, is inter-indexed, and is pretty well hawked by people who are passionate about their particular issues, on the lookout for people hijacking their entries.

Beyond all of that, wiki is a wonderful source of sources if you look at the bottom of each entry.

Pasa

[FalconAngel]

The Bill of Rights

Article VI

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Repeated SCOTUS rulings confirm that this is not restricted to US citizens, but is rather extended to everyone within the borders of the USofA.

What the 6th Amendment is talking about is police searches in your home and/or vehicles (yes a horse drawn wagon is a vehicle). since you do not understand the law at all, then it can be explained again, for you specific benefit.

Based on your argument, you appear to subscribe to the "free country means that I can do what I like" theory. That's great for anarchy, but not good for a successful nation.

Police DO NOT NEED A WARRANT to pull over your vehicle and ask for identification, when there is reasonable suspicion or due cause to pull you over or stop you on the street.
They need your permission to search your vehicle, unless they have due cause to search, such as finding illegal substances or weapons on your person or within plain sight in your vehicle. That is called "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion".

AZ SB1070 does not violate the 6th Amendment.



Dear FalconAngel; Could you please provide a reference to back up your assertion that "state laws, nationwide, require citizens and legal immigrants to carry proper ID". I know of no such law, and as a frequent visitor to the US, who happens to have a dark complexion, I would like some clarification. Thanks! BBB

You seem like a smart guy. Look it up in your own state's website. Or you could just call the non-emergency number to Sheriff's office, the local or state police and ask an officer/deputy.

I know a few LE personnel (both current and former) and they all say the same thing that I told you; that every adult is required to carry proper ID.

The statues are there for all to read. Look them up for your state.

The reason that we issue ID to people is to identify them for personal safety, to catch ID theft and to insure that they belong where they are at.
It is a particularly useful tool when someone suspicious is loitering in a neighborhood where they don't know anyone, don't live anywhere near and behave in a furtive manner.

Don't you want police to be able to identify criminals from citizens?

[FalconAngel]

I really cannot frgure out why so many people in our country and in our government do not know the meaning of "ILLEAGLE" No other country in the world would put up with this BULL SHIT going on at our southern borders!!!!

It is the same stupidity that lets those same illegals and the others that are too lazy to learn our language and try to force their language and customs on our society and culture.

They came here, they should accommodate our culture, not the other way around.

After all, if where they came from is so horrible, then it makes no sense to make here like there.

And you are right. We are the only doormat of a country that would put up with that, except for maybe France.

[FalconAngel]

Especially Mexico, ironically enough.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/21/lets-adopt-mexicos-fair-and-respectful-immigration-policy/

Pasa

EXCELLENT ARTICLE!!!!!!!

Everyone who is opposed to SB1070 should read that article and the actual law before they start opening their mouths about what it does and does not do.

[Doggie_Wood]

Do you know what the Mexican police and government officers do with their "illegal" aliens from places like Guatemala/El Salvador? Do you also know Mexican law dictates that someone must produce immigration "papers" upon demand? (Profiling anyone?) Do you also know that under Mexican law Mexican citizens can detain "suspected" illegal aliens? Do you also know that if someone is found to be "illegal" in Mexico you are subject to up to two years in a Mexican jail?
Do you also know that "non Mexican" citizens can not own land etc. etc.

Not so. Non Mexican citizens can own small parcels of land in Mexico. I am currently looking at property in the Morelia, Michoacan de Ocampo.


I don't remember any one from Mexico involved in 9/11 or OK federal building but thats just my opinion.

Maybe not Mexican citizens directly, but (see below) . . . . .

Channel 2 Investigates U.S. Border Security Part 1 - Video - WSB Atlanta
Part 1 http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html

Channel 2 Investigates U.S. Border Security Part 2 - Video - WSB Atlanta
Part 2 http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438712/index.html

I personally have no problem what so ever with any state enforcing federal law at a state level. Any state may mirror any federal law currently active on the slates.

Doggie :doggie:

SECURE OUR BORDERS - NOW!!

[Slide n]

I must admit reading through the posts to this thread, I agree that Az. has the right to find out who is in their state. If you don't like it or think it's a bad idea. Then all I can say is, go live in Az. for two years on the southern border.

[just4mefc]

I have not lashed out at you, nor have I attacked you in any way. If you feel you have been attacked, I'm sorry for that. But, this is nothing and has been very civil. If you think this has been lashing out, you either need a thicker skin, or you need to quit hanging out in internet forums. This has been downright polite, especially by this particular forum's standards.

Following your simple outline:

1. This does nothing to violate the supremacy clause. It enforces existing federal law and does so in a manner already deemed constitutional by the federal government (ref. every time I've directed your attention to the Border Patrol).

That, btw, looks like it already has SCOTUS support as a result of an earlier case.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/strong-supreme-court-precedent-in-support-of-arizona-immigration-law-94597834.html

2. This does nothing to preempt the federal government. Unless, of course, you think that local/state law enforcement arresting people for felonies does so.

3. Immigration is NOT international law. Nor is it a treaty. It is a set of rules that dictate how anyone may enter this country legally, and the penalties for violating such law. It is US law. That's it. We aren't even a party to the ICCPR, as the Senate hasn't ratified it, and it doesn't look like we will be, because the US is not beholden to "international law." Remember that we are, and always have been, beholden to none but our own nation. No organization holds sway over the US. I know those not in the US will consider that incredibly arrogant, and that may be, but it is what it is. We don't ratify treaties that put others in charge of us. We just don't.

Yeah...not unconstitutional in anyway. And, by the time the SCOTUS decides on it (probably many, many years) we'll see AZ become an ILLEGAL free zone. If it weren't for the climate and all of the retirees, I'd move there.

Pasa

My skin is just thick enough but you were the one who said I am a criminal etc. The state may not execute existing FEDERAl law regarding issue of the border again go READ the constitution. Immigration as I already gave you reference to the constitution saying that congress control naturalization. Did you read anything I posted at all? You keep repeating the same thing over and over. So once again the problem is with the state putting into law that which falls under federal jurisdiction based on the constitution of the USA. So it does not matter if it mirrors the federal to the absolute letter it is a matter of the constitution and will be overthrown. Ok well I am done with repeating myself. I have listed plenty of references and you have shared your opinion. I will never change your mind and I don't really care. I have my view and all my pesky facts. You have your chest pounding and opinion. Neither of us are getting anywhere. So unless you have something based in fact and can rebuttal any of the Constitutional law I have quoted then I respectfully bow out of this with you.

[just4mefc]

What the 6th Amendment is talking about is police searches in your home and/or vehicles (yes a horse drawn wagon is a vehicle). since you do not understand the law at all, then it can be explained again, for you specific benefit.

Based on your argument, you appear to subscribe to the "free country means that I can do what I like" theory. That's great for anarchy, but not good for a successful nation.

Police DO NOT NEED A WARRANT to pull over your vehicle and ask for identification, when there is reasonable suspicion or due cause to pull you over or stop you on the street.
They need your permission to search your vehicle, unless they have due cause to search, such as finding illegal substances or weapons on your person or within plain sight in your vehicle. That is called "probable cause" or "reasonable suspicion".

AZ SB1070 does not violate the 6th Amendment.




You seem like a smart guy. Look it up in your own state's website. Or you could just call the non-emergency number to Sheriff's office, the local or state police and ask an officer/deputy.

I know a few LE personnel (both current and former) and they all say the same thing that I told you; that every adult is required to carry proper ID.

The statues are there for all to read. Look them up for your state.

The reason that we issue ID to people is to identify them for personal safety, to catch ID theft and to insure that they belong where they are at.
It is a particularly useful tool when someone suspicious is loitering in a neighborhood where they don't know anyone, don't live anywhere near and behave in a furtive manner.

Don't you want police to be able to identify criminals from citizens?

Falcon

the Supreme Court disagrees: In Terry v. Ohio (1968), it decided no state may make it a crime for a pedestrian to refuse identification in the absence of “reasonable suspicion” (the belief that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed).Furthermore, the Court also limited police powers by stating no officer may arrest a suspect for failing to identify himself, if the request for ID isn’t related to the original authority to detain.

So in fact based on federal law and the Supremacy clause any state law that try to arrest or hold a citizen for merely not having ID is against the constitution of the USA. Not having ID is not in and of itself a crime!

I do agree with you whole heartedly on the issue of wikipedia. In fact my kids school will not accept any ref from wikipedia for even their homework. You can however use the links sometime provided by wiki to the actual references.

I also agree with regarding the issues of assimilation any immigrant should learn the language and laws of the land.

I will read your ref link and comment later.

best to you

[just4mefc]

EXCELLENT ARTICLE!!!!!!!

Everyone who is opposed to SB1070 should read that article and the actual law before they start opening their mouths about what it does and does not do.

That article just speaks of what a hypocrite Calderon is. I really don't care if is or not. I already know he is an idiot. Not one relevant fact relating too the constitutionality of SB1070.

As a fellow independent don't you think a lot of this is just rep/dem political in fighting? Look here is my point on this. The rep of AZ pass a law that they know will cause trouble but also know will not last. They get to look like the good guys and the dems look the ass. They force the executive office to save them from the financial suicide that 1070 would be. And in so doing win huge political advantage. They get to stand and beat their chest "see we would have saved you but THEY stopped us" (although they blocked every effort Bush made on this issue)

The whole thing is crazy. Like I said before I want reform too. Just seems like more mis-direction. In the burden of proof to the constitution the overwhelming precedence is against sb1070. I think there are some potential good ideas in sb1070 but they need to come from the fed. So at best this is a very complicated issue. Bad law is not the way to fix such complications. I say take sb1070 think of it as a first draft and then send it fed for potential ratification. Yes it will take awhile but at least would be constitutional presentation.

[Pasadenacpl2]

My skin is just thick enough but you were the one who said I am a criminal etc. The state may not execute existing FEDERAl law regarding issue of the border again go READ the constitution. Immigration as I already gave you reference to the constitution saying that congress control naturalization. Did you read anything I posted at all? You keep repeating the same thing over and over. So once again the problem is with the state putting into law that which falls under federal jurisdiction based on the constitution of the USA. So it does not matter if it mirrors the federal to the absolute letter it is a matter of the constitution and will be overthrown. Ok well I am done with repeating myself. I have listed plenty of references and you have shared your opinion. I will never change your mind and I don't really care. I have my view and all my pesky facts. You have your chest pounding and opinion. Neither of us are getting anywhere. So unless you have something based in fact and can rebuttal any of the Constitutional law I have quoted then I respectfully bow out of this with you.

That's fine. I provided facts as well. Your interpretation of 'constitutional' is...quaint.

States can, and do, mirror federal law on a regular basis. States can, and do, go against federal law on a regular basis. I give you medical marijuana as a great example of states going against the fed. Just because the constitution says that the fed can have jurisdiction over immigration doesn't mean that states cannot ALSO protect themselves, and indeed enforce federal law. If you disagree with this, perhaps you would like to tell that to prisons full of convicts because state or even municipal authorities not only arrested, but investigated crimes that are federal in nature. To say that states cannot arrest people for violating federal law is to completely ignore 200 years of jurisprudence.

Continuing to beat your chest screaming that this is unconstitutional is pretty pointless, I agree. It doesn't violate the constitution as you claim. The SCotUS has even already upheld part of this in an earlier ruling. I posted that pesky little fact earlier.

I will apologize for calling you a criminal. I apparently misread what you had posted.

Enjoy watching Arizona do this and no one even getting to the SCotUS for many years. Let me know how shouting that this is unconstitutional goes for ya.

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

the Supreme Court disagrees: In Terry v. Ohio (1968), it decided no state may make it a crime for a pedestrian to refuse identification in the absence of “reasonable suspicion” (the belief that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed).Furthermore, the Court also limited police powers by stating no officer may arrest a suspect for failing to identify himself, if the request for ID isn’t related to the original authority to detain.

You do realize that 'arrest' and 'detain' are two completely different concepts, right? Under Terry v. Ohio there were no restrictions placed upon officers detaining persons who are later released with no arrest filed.

Further, the SCotUS in 2005 held in Mueler v Mena that questioning someone regarding their immigration status is not a violation of Fourth Amendment rights - provided that person is already lawfully detained.

The specific wording is that "the officers’ questioning of the occupant about her immigration status was not an intrusion requiring independent reasonable suspicion."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/strong-supreme-court-precedent-in-support-of-arizona-immigration-law-94597834.html



So in fact based on federal law and the Supremacy clause any state law that try to arrest or hold a citizen for merely not having ID is against the constitution of the USA. Not having ID is not in and of itself a crime!

You are right. Detaining, however, is perfectly legal. Ever refused to do as the nice policeman asks? It gains you 48 hours for him to waste your time. In the mean time, he can check you out, investigate you, and figure out why you didn't just want to comply with his very reasonable requests.

If you think that this isn't the way things happen now, already, in every state in the union, you are mistaken. The AZ law didn't change any of that. Checking to see if you are a federal criminal is step 1 when they bring you in under 'detention.'

Pasa

[just4mefc]

That's fine. I provided facts as well. Your interpretation of 'constitutional is...quaint.

States can, and do, mirror federal law on a regular basis. States can, and do, go against federal law on a regular basis. I give you medical marijuana as a great example of states going against the fed.

Continuing to beat your chest screaming that this is unconstitutional is pretty pointless, I agree. It doesn't violate the constitution as you claim. The SCotUS has even already upheld part of this in an earlier ruling. I posted that pesky little fact earlier.

I will apologize for calling you a criminal. I apparently misread what you had posted.

Enjoy watching Arizona do this and no one even getting to the SCotUS for many years. Let me know how shouting that this is unconstitutional goes for ya.

Pasa

Going great so far. It appears for at least one minute even you might have given thought to another point of view! Quote from the Big Lebowski "Calmer then you"

My comment was regarding international law not state rights type of laws (i.e. med marijuana) and mostly I try to get people to stop and actually think for themselves. Win some, lose some.

Your failure to read my posts and links (I read yours btw and it does not counter any of my points) just makes my point on american laziness.

Time will tell and in all honesty I hope you are right. Because if you are wrong then AZ will go bankrupt for nothing. The smoke and mirrors of our leaders will continue to accomplish nothing and 4 years from now you and I can have this debate all over again. peace

[just4mefc]

Passion is the enemy of reason!

[Pasadenacpl2]

Your failure to read my posts and links (I read yours btw and it does not counter any of my points) just makes my point on american laziness.

I read everything you posted. I don't tend to do the point by point responses because they become a wall of text. I tend to pick out one or two bits and focus there. I find that it helps to keep the discussion focused.

Pasa

[Hephaestion]

I use it all the time. There are several great things about wiki, and many of the issues that used to plague it have been at least minimized. Those issues not withstanding, wikipedia is, currently, the largest single storehouse of information that the world has ever seen, is inter-indexed, and is pretty well hawked by people who are passionate about their particular issues, on the lookout for people hijacking their entries.

Beyond all of that, wiki is a wonderful source of sources if you look at the bottom of each entry.

Pasa


Agreed Pasa.

If there is any doubt on the veracity of an entry - chase it up. The moderators are quite prepared to judge matters on the presentation of sound evidence / immutable facts.

[Hephaestion]

Pasa
"....You do realize that 'arrest' and 'detain' are two completely different concepts, right?...."

Are hairs not being split here?

Both result in the loss of freedom. One may allow less paperwork and therefore allow less justification in your system. The main distinction would appear relevant in the duration and legal follow on. That should require justification in the course of prosecution. Certainly, there is also arrest which does not result in prosecution.

.

[BiBedBud]

Dear FalconAngel, et al.,


Wikipedia is so notoriously full of disinformation, error and so full of blatant and wild inaccuracies...........I cannot believe that anyone is still actually using it for a reference for something as important as this issue.

Please take another look at this wikipage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify because it has numerous links to actual legislation posted by real-life US state legislatures / governors. If these aren’t the correct links to the real laws; then you can complain. Otherwise, you just seem keen to dismiss Wikipedia out-of-hand, without due consideration, which is an inadequate response for “something as important as this issue”.

Please also re-read my post in this thread of May 22, 2010, 7:05 PM; wherein I explained how I have often gone for a jog while in the US, carrying nothing but my health insurance card, which is just a flimsy piece of paper with my policy number on it. (Also, picture me lying on a US beach, having left my passport and wallet in the hotel for safekeeping, because I don’t want it getting wet and I can’t watch it full-time while trying to relax in the sun.) What if I were to get questioned by the police? Would I get sent to jail just for being brown in public without having the proper ID? You’ve said I would, and others have suggested I must always carry proper ID while in the US. So let’s say I’ve followed the advice that was offered; and I happen to have my Canadian passport and Ontario driver’s license on me – will this satisfy the police, even though foreign passports and driver’s licenses from far-flung jurisdictions are not included in the list of approved ID as per SB1070?

ALSO: What about those US states that do not verify citizenship or immigration status when granting driver’s licenses? What about a bona fide US citizen (or an illegal alien) who holds such a real driver’s license from one of these (many) US states? How would an Arizona LE officer know what to do? If said LE officer gets it wrong, is some third-party Arizonan going to sue them, as SB1070 empowers them to do? This prospect just gave me a brilliant business idea: Hire an illegal to fake-out an Arizona LE officer using a real US driver’s license, then when he/she gets past the officer, sue said LE officer for big bucks, and pay-off the illegal alien with a couple hundred! KA-CHING!

MORE IMPORTANTLY: Please re-read my post of May 22, 2010, 3:46 PM; wherein I tried to make the following four points:

1) I wholeheartedly agree that Arizona and indeed the entire USA needs “a well-conceived, cogent, fundamental solution” to the problem of illegal immigration – every sovereign country does. Please don’t presume that because I dislike SB1070, that I am some kind of anarchist who would like to see nothing done, because I am certainly not.

2) IMHO, and in light of numerous examples: Laws are generally poor at prevention and are often worse at providing a remedy to the ills of society, sometimes causing more problems than they solve. “In all likelihood, SB1070's only direct impact will be to increase the number of illicit border crossings, and the death toll of failed attempts”, and in the final summation will not do much to curb the problem of illegal immigration. Moreover, it will incur a moral cost. Nobody should be happy about people dying while crossing a border. Legalities are mere technicalities when lives are at stake. This does not mean I support the cause of undocumented workers – it means I would like to see a world where people do not risk their lives to cross borders in search of exploitative employment. The question is how best to get there, and I would strongly argue that it’s not via SB1070. This does not mean that I support undocumented workers!

3) “SB1070 does not address the root of the problem strongly enough”… being “all of those employers who hire illegal workers”. “These employers should face punitive fines that destroy any profit motivation that they have”. “At present, what ‘employer-targeted enforcement’ does go on, always seems to occur the day before pay-day, which means these companies can benefit from essentially free illegal labour for almost two weeks, before ICE deports” the illegal workers “which is hardly a deterrent for these unscrupulous employers!” SB1070 WILL NOT STOP ILLEGAL ALIENS from entering the United States, and it IT WILL NOT STOP AMERICAN EMPLOYERS FROM HIRING UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS, because doing so is still profitable and comes without significant risk.

4) PLEASE follow my chain of thoughts before you decide to disagree with me:

A) Illegal aliens cannot vote, and they are too poor to give campaign contributions to politicians. Yet, most of these politicians have ignored the problem of illegal aliens for years, so ‘Why do you think that is?’;

B) I’ll tell you why; It’s because of American business interests and lobbyists from the agricultural sector, the hotel and restaurant industry, the construction industry, the ‘corrections’ industry, et cetera – they have paid politicians to look the other way! There is no other explanation!

C) Politicians are beholden to well-moneyed business interests, because it takes millions of dollars to run a political campaign in the United States, and they just cannot raise that cash from individual citizens. Surprise, surprise: Politicians follow the money! (Oink! Oink!)

D) Once they get elected, they do not serve their citizen constituents the way they are supposed to do in a real democracy; they do what the lobbyists tell them to do! Open your eyes – that’s a fact!

E) These lobbyists make sure that the politicians in their pockets will carry on with a state of affaires that provides them with a steady stream of illegal workers, because it’s cheaper and it also helps to hold-down wages for legitimate American workers. They also win enormous, multi-billion dollar subsidies for their industries – corn is a major example – and they strongly influence international trade negotiations such as NAFTA and GATT, which means that subsidized American corn is dumped into the Mexican market, putting hundreds of thousands of Mexicans out of work in Mexico, ravaging the Mexican economy.

F) Rather than starve in Mexico, many Mexicans and other South Americans have exercised the only option for survival available to them – they go to the United States in search of work so they can feed their families. No amount of enforcement action, no fence and no law on the US side of the border will deter them, because they have no other choice in their home countries, and they are willing to risk their lives so that their children will not starve on account of policies proffered by American business interests, which are supported by American politicians – including that smiling P.O.S. you probably voted for – the one with the nice TV commercials.

G) If you want to put an end to this mess, you should do six things:

i) Demand campaign finance reform.

ii) Don’t vote for well-financed politicians, especially if they are an incumbent and didn’t tackle this issue during their first term in office.

iii) Demand punitive fines for employers who hire illegal workers, and make sure that the bulk of enforcement action is directed at the employers (who are inherently easier to find than 7Million undocumented "aliens"), not the illegal aliens who take their jobs. In fact, if law enforcement ensured that these undocumented workers get at least the minimum wage and that payroll taxes are paid (before deportation), in addition to levying a *HEAVY FINE* for the employer, believe me, no employer would hire illegal workers.

iv) Demand an end to farm subsidies, among other industrial subsidies, and allow poor countries like Mexico to impose tariffs on subsidized American exports, so that Mexicans can earn a living in their own country. Only then will they stop trying to cross the border.

v) At first stroke, this would seem to raise prices for American consumers on a number of levels, in that agricultural subsidies would make foodstuffs more expensive, on top of added labour costs from paying legitimate agricultural workers a living wage, BUT there should be significant savings when multi-billion dollar subsidies are ended and when the border is respected and social services (including law enforcement) are reserved for those legally in the United States. On top of which, the cost of food in the United States is abnormally low, on a world market basis, but this does not seem to translate into the higher well being of Americans, who seem to suffer from obesity, diabetes, coronary artery disease, et cetera, much more so than any other national population on earth. Cheap food is bad for Americans – you should be willing to pay a fair price that supports a decent wage and does not cause starvation in Mexico and other places.

vi) Please recognize that; if you have ever voted for a well-funded, mainstream politician, or; bought a food item because it was cheaper than another food item, or; selected a hotel based in part on its low price, or; done any number of other things to maximize your short-term economic interests, that YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM TOO! Folks, we have seen the enemy, and it is us!

MOST IMPORTANTLY: Keep America Free! Don’t trust any politician who tells you to bend or abandon your rights – not for anything – and especially not for a money-made problem like illegal immigration.

[BiBedBud]

Please don't argue against my above post unless you have read it very carefully. I took the time to make some solid arguments, and it is a shame when someone counter-posts without addressing my arguements, or worse; when they mischaracterize what I've written.

Thanks,
BiBedBud

[FalconAngel]

Falcon

the Supreme Court disagrees: In Terry v. Ohio (1968), it decided no state may make it a crime for a pedestrian to refuse identification in the absence of “reasonable suspicion” (the belief that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed).Furthermore, the Court also limited police powers by stating no officer may arrest a suspect for failing to identify himself, if the request for ID isn’t related to the original authority to detain.

And all of that is where you are failing in your Constitutional argument against SB1070.

Have you read the actual law?
SB1070 does not give police the power to arbitrarily stop anyone.
SB1070 does not suspend the requirement for reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
SB1070 specifically states that the police must have reasonable suspicion or probable cause, just like any other time that they stop or detain a person.

They can stop and ID a drunk (dunk and disorderly laws). If he is an illegal, then they send a report to ICE and BPA. They take it from there.
They can stop someone who is disturbing his neighbors or disrupting business (disturbing the peace laws), breaking other laws or who exhibits furtive behavior. Again, if he is an illegal, then the police sends a report to ICE and BPA and they take it from there.

SB 1070 does not extend police authority beyond Constitutional bounds, as you have been led to believe.

Read the actual law in question. It is all right there.


So in fact based on federal law and the Supremacy clause any state law that try to arrest or hold a citizen for merely not having ID is against the constitution of the USA. Not having ID is not in and of itself a crime!

But not having ID when stopped can be an excuse for police to arrest you. and when the police stop someone for something, even something as simple as a headlight out, then not having ID can be reasonable cause to search your vehicle.

By the way, the "I don't have any ID on me" excuse does not wash with police. It increases their suspicion unless you can give them the information that can verify who you are. A credit card, btw, is not legitimate ID.

There is a story from one of my police friends about a guy who they stopped at the end of their shift, when he was a new officer.
(cliffs notes version - but it's funnier with all of the details) Nothing major (burned out tail light bulb), but when they stopped him, he did the "no habla English" thing. They spent time (after the initial ten minutes into the stop) waiting for an interpreter (30 minutes), having the interpreter explain that they needed his license and registration (apparently, registration and registration, and license and license, mean something different between Spanish and English:banghead:), which he then produced. But when he opened up the glove box for the registration, it puked out tickets like it was ready to explode.

At that point, they told the interpreter to tell the guy that he was under arrest and the guy's reaction (before the interpreter could translate)? He said "WHAT??? WHY??".

Criminals lie. They lie all the time. And any law enforcement officer will tell you that. Carrying an official ID is the best, and simplest law enforcement tool for identifying and differentiating citizens from criminals. Without them Identity theft is much easier, hiding from police is much easier and it give the bad guys all of the advantages.



I do agree with you whole heartedly on the issue of wikipedia. In fact my kids school will not accept any ref from wikipedia for even their homework. You can however use the links sometime provided by wiki to the actual references.

best to you

I will never use wikipedia as anything but a way to find sources of information, only in the event that I do not know where to look for something. But with all of the different causes and groups that I am on, there is little reason for me to to use Wikipedia at all.

[just4mefc]

And all of that is where you are failing in your Constitutional argument against SB1070.

Have you read the actual law?
SB1070 does not give police the power to arbitrarily stop anyone.
SB1070 does not suspend the requirement for reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
SB1070 specifically states that the police must have reasonable suspicion or probable cause, just like any other time that they stop or detain a person.

They can stop and ID a drunk (dunk and disorderly laws). If he is an illegal, then they send a report to ICE and BPA. They take it from there.
They can stop someone who is disturbing his neighbors or disrupting business (disturbing the peace laws), breaking other laws or who exhibits furtive behavior. Again, if he is an illegal, then the police sends a report to ICE and BPA and they take it from there.

SB 1070 does not extend police authority beyond Constitutional bounds, as you have been led to believe.

Read the actual law in question. It is all right there.



But not having ID when stopped can be an excuse for police to arrest you. and when the police stop someone for something, even something as simple as a headlight out, then not having ID can be reasonable cause to search your vehicle.

By the way, the "I don't have any ID on me" excuse does not wash with police. It increases their suspicion unless you can give them the information that can verify who you are. A credit card, btw, is not legitimate ID.

There is a story from one of my police friends about a guy who they stopped at the end of their shift, when he was a new officer.
(cliffs notes version - but it's funnier with all of the details) Nothing major (burned out tail light bulb), but when they stopped him, he did the "no habla English" thing. They spent time (after the initial ten minutes into the stop) waiting for an interpreter (30 minutes), having the interpreter explain that they needed his license and registration (apparently, registration and registration, and license and license, mean something different between Spanish and English:banghead:), which he then produced. But when he opened up the glove box for the registration, it puked out tickets like it was ready to explode.

At that point, they told the interpreter to tell the guy that he was under arrest and the guy's reaction (before the interpreter could translate)? He said "WHAT??? WHY??".

Criminals lie. They lie all the time. And any law enforcement officer will tell you that. Carrying an official ID is the best, and simplest law enforcement tool for identifying and differentiating citizens from criminals. Without them Identity theft is much easier, hiding from police is much easier and it give the bad guys all of the advantages.




I will never use wikipedia as anything but a way to find sources of information, only in the event that I do not know where to look for something. But with all of the different causes and groups that I am on, there is little reason for me to to use Wikipedia at all.

My inability to communicate with you is the failure on my (our) part. The points of law are not my argument they are directly from our constitution and are not my opinion. In fact I personally hate many of the double edge sword amendments but they are what they are. Perhaps you would consider going back and reading the various laws with and open mind this time. When we write laws we have to be careful of how they interact with other laws or even other key points within the same law.

In summary the concern is... By removing the implied warrant of probable cause.... by saying Suspect might be illegal... you have created a loop hole and end around that would in fact allow a double speak of well he was brown and looked kinda shady to me. Now since being illegal is a crime and he looks brown I have cause to check him out. Now American citizens and legal residents can be questioned for fitting the "brown profile" so even if you disagree with the 14th amendments application to illegals (supreme court says to DOES), it certainly still applies to citizens does it not?

Regarding the ID issue I am not debating that it happens I am debating your claim that your are required to have and show ID EVEN if you have not committed nor are suspect of a crime. It does happen but then the person can have the evidence thrown out in court (this happens all the time go ask your cop friends about that screwed up event) Many a bad guy has walked free from this type of abuse of the federal law. I hate it. I too have lots of cop friends and more then a few attorneys in my circle of life and when more and more layers of crap land on the officer it actually hinders his ability to do his job. He does a great job of catching a bad guy only to see him walk for a simple screw up that is then tied to miranda or right to contain in the first place. I am not defending the alien here. I am not pro crime in any way what so ever. I live in socal and have seen many an egregious event related to illegal's. The separation of state and federal rights exist to protect the interest of the NATION as a whole. I feel we must work within our system. We are America. We rightfully stand so proud of our freedom's and our constitution. Yet we are quick to undermine it when something is not right. Once again we all seem to agree that something is wrong. Instead of under-cutting the foundation of our country we should be growing the constitution. One beauty part of this document is its built in ability to grow. BUT it will not grow if not supported.

Here is a another danger to all this and you might feel it is far fetched but...

Between 1933 and 1934, Nazi policy was fairly moderate, not wishing to scare off voters or moderately-minded politicians ... The Nazi Party used popular anti-semitism to gain votes. Using the “stab-in-the-back legend”, they blamed poverty, unemployment, and the loss of World War I all on the Jews and the left-wing. ... In 1933, persecution of the Jews became active Nazi policy. It only became worse with the years, culminating in the Holocaust, or so-called “Final Solution”, which was decided by Hitler during World War II and made official at the January 1942 Wannsee Conference.
On April 1, 1933,... the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service was passed, banning Jews from government jobs... These laws meant that Jews were now indirectly and directly dissuaded or banned from privileged and superior positions reserved for “Aryan Germans”. From then on, Jews were forced to work at more menial positions, becoming second-class citizens or to the point they are "illegally residing" in Nazi Germany... to this end a national ID program for the discovery and removal of jews was implemented. One could be stopped for simply appearing jewish.

Will that happen here, I hope not. But this is a very slippery slope

[just4mefc]

The other problem with bad law is it makes people think the problem is fixed and they can move on to other things. Then years later when it comes up again they say "I thought we fixed that" BUT and here is the killer part. Removing a bad law is very very difficult. Ask yourself this, if you have a huge fight with your spouse do you go out in the heat of anger and apply for a divorce? Or do you step back, take a deep breath and try to figure it all out. Now you might still decide that divorce is the way to go but at least you have taken the time to weigh the options and the consequences. AZ1070 is a knee jerk fear based law. There are far better more cohesive solutions.

[just4mefc]

BiBedBud,
"MOST IMPORTANTLY: Keep America Free! Don’t trust any politician who tells you to bend or abandon your rights – not for anything – and especially not for a money-made problem like illegal immigration."

Excellent post. Freedom is a very frail object and we must protect it! I don't necessarily agree with all your solutions but I certainly think you are on the right track

[Pasadenacpl2]

Pasa
"....You do realize that 'arrest' and 'detain' are two completely different concepts, right?...."

Are hairs not being split here?

Yes. But that's what law is about. They are words that have two very different legal definitions. The Supreme Court was very careful of their choice of words. Specificity is key.

Pasa

[Hephaestion]

Yes. But that's what law is about. They are words that have two very different legal definitions. The Supreme Court was very careful of their choice of words. Specificity is key.

Pasa

I understand what you are saying but in reality the effects are the same and both avenues may have the same outcome.

Again we diverge in the use of English and Law. One cannot be detained until one has been arrested i.e stopped and then kept (and of course both must be justified in both our societies)

To be detained without arrest is simply to be kept waiting whereas there is talk of a night or two in jail.

H.

[Pasadenacpl2]

I don't think we're communicating. This is not splitting hairs because of language or the common vernacular. This is splitting hairs because 'detain' and 'arrest' have two different legal definitions. They are two separate concepts.

When police detain you, certain rules apply.
When police arrest you, a completely different set of rules apply.

They are two different actions, defined differently by law. So, when it says that the police may not arrest you for not showing your ID, this might be true. However, they may legally detain you while they figure out why you refused. This might shed light on your status, it might also just simply waste your time. But guaranteed that they will detain you.

And guaranteed that asking your immigration status is ok when they are detaining you, according to SCotUS.

Pasa

[Hephaestion]

Thanks Pasa for the illumination.

H.

[FalconAngel]

My inability to communicate with you is the failure on my (our) part.

I completely understand what you are saying, but you have ignored what the law has said about probable cause.

I fully understand SB 1070 as well as understanding the US Constitution and what is called the Bill of Rights (the amendments to the Constitution).


The points of law are not my argument they are directly from our constitution and are not my opinion. In fact I personally hate many of the double edge sword amendments but they are what they are. Perhaps you would consider going back and reading the various laws with and open mind this time. When we write laws we have to be careful of how they interact with other laws or even other key points within the same law.

And I have addressed those points from SB1070 in a clear and precise manner.

You have insisted that SB 1070 is superseding the 6th Amendment.
It does no such thing.
It reinforces that an officer must have probable cause to stop or detain anyone. It does not change or affect the 6th amendment protections.


In summary the concern is... By removing the implied warrant of probable cause....

As I have said before, the 6th Amendment protections are unaffected by this bill.
"Looking like an illegal" is not probable cause. Behaving in a furtive or suspicious manner is probable cause. Every officer knows this and it has been reinforced within SB1070.


by saying Suspect might be illegal... you have created a loop hole and end around that would in fact allow a double speak of well he was brown and looked kinda shady to me.

I will repeat this:
The 6th Amendment protections are unaffected by this bill.
"Looking like an illegal" is not probable cause. Behaving in a furtive or suspicious manner is probable cause. Every officer knows this and it has been reinforced within SB1070.


Now since being illegal is a crime and he looks brown I have cause to check him out. Now American citizens and legal residents can be questioned for fitting the "brown profile" so even if you disagree with the 14th amendments application to illegals (supreme court says to DOES), it certainly still applies to citizens does it not?

Okay.....you really and truly need to read and understand the limits to this law. So far, you are saying the same things that those who have not read the law have been saying.

What you are claiming that this law allows police to do can be applied to any one for any reason. It is just plain not the facts.


Regarding the ID issue I am not debating that it happens I am debating your claim that your are required to have and show ID EVEN if you have not committed nor are suspect of a crime.

So other than carrying ID with you, as we all should do, what better method do you have to allow police and others to identify that you are who you say you are, for general, day to day circumstances?

If you ave neither committed or are suspected in a crime, then the police have no reason to stop you, but having ID with you allows you to prove that you are who you are. That comes in very handy when using your credit cards or passing a bank check. Your argument doesn't pass muster as even remotely realistic.


It does happen but then the person can have the evidence thrown out in court (this happens all the time go ask your cop friends about that screwed up event) Many a bad guy has walked free from this type of abuse of the federal law. I hate it. I too have lots of cop friends and more then a few attorneys in my circle of life and when more and more layers of crap land on the officer it actually hinders his ability to do his job. He does a great job of catching a bad guy only to see him walk for a simple screw up that is then tied to miranda or right to contain in the first place.


[QUOTE=just4mefc;169915] I am not defending the alien here. I am not pro crime in any way what so ever. I live in socal and have seen many an egregious event related to illegal's. The separation of state and federal rights exist to protect the interest of the NATION as a whole. I feel we must work within our system. We are America. We rightfully stand so proud of our freedom's and our constitution. Yet we are quick to undermine it when something is not right. Once again we all seem to agree that something is wrong. Instead of under-cutting the foundation of our country we should be growing the constitution. One beauty part of this document is its built in ability to grow. BUT it will not grow if not supported.

Actually, the most egregious and unconstitutional law is that fascist "Patriot Act".

This law does nothing to any of the Constitutional protections. Like I said; read the actual law and what it actually says, rather than just assuming the pro-illegal/pro-amnesty crowd claims is what the law says.


Here is a another danger to all this and you might feel it is far fetched but...

Between 1933 and 1934, Nazi policy was fairly moderate, not wishing to scare off voters or moderately-minded politicians ... The Nazi Party used popular anti-semitism to gain votes. Using the “stab-in-the-back legend”, they blamed poverty, unemployment, and the loss of World War I all on the Jews and the left-wing. ... In 1933, persecution of the Jews became active Nazi policy. It only became worse with the years, culminating in the Holocaust, or so-called “Final Solution”, which was decided by Hitler during World War II and made official at the January 1942 Wannsee Conference.
On April 1, 1933,... the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service was passed, banning Jews from government jobs... These laws meant that Jews were now indirectly and directly dissuaded or banned from privileged and superior positions reserved for “Aryan Germans”. From then on, Jews were forced to work at more menial positions, becoming second-class citizens or to the point they are "illegally residing" in Nazi Germany... to this end a national ID program for the discovery and removal of jews was implemented. One could be stopped for simply appearing jewish.

Will that happen here, I hope not. But this is a very slippery slope

I am infinitely aware of that portion of our planet's history.

Unfortunately, for your argument, that kind of thing stopped under the changes in race relations laws of the late 1950's and 1960's. A police or law enforcement officer is forever prohibited from stopping a person just on his racial appearance. Did you miss the post-911 ethnic paranoia and how it was addressed?

Like I said before, the Constitutional protections are not affected by SB 1070 and police authority is not affected in any way. Police officers, even under SB1070, must have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop or detain a person who has not been caught in an obvious violation of criminal or traffic laws.

In plain terms, unless the officer has a legitimate reason, under the law, they cannot just stop anyone just because they "look" a certain race. Just read the actual law as written and approved.

Like you, I saw the potential for abuse under the law, but when I read the final approved version, it was a real eye opener and a lesson in just believing what we are told.

And using what Hitler did in Germany to this present bill is not only an unfair comparison but clouds the real issue.

What Hitler did was to "create" an enemy that did not exist.

SB1070 addresses a real issue with a real, and legal solution.

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
Verify at: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7fd 8


2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML


3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML


4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English! Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt..0.HTML


5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent on education for the America born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML


7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.CNN.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML <http://transcripts/..

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML ;

9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSC%20RI%20PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML


10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US . Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn..com/TRANscriptS/0606/12/ldt..01.HTML
<
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries.. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the US from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report:


12. The National policy Institute, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period. 'Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute..org/PDF/deportation.PDF ;


13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin.
Verify at: http://www/..rense.com/general75/niht.htm <<>

14.. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.'
Verify at: http: // www.drdsk.com/articleshtml <%20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml <The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 billion dollars.

[Hephaestion]

FalconAngel ".....What Hitler did was to "create" an enemy that did not exist...."

This is not true. Hitler was not as spontaneous as we say he was. That is historical Black and White. Certainly he was monsterously obscene in his actions and persecutions or rather there was a rush of individuals who generated that reality for him.

.

[darkeyes]

FalconAngel ".....What Hitler did was to "create" an enemy that did not exist...."

This is not true. Hitler was not as spontaneous as we say he was. That is historical Black and White. Certainly he was monsterously obscene in his actions and persecutions or rather there was a rush of individuals who generated that reality for him.

.

I agree with you Heph sort of.. but 2 some degree Falcie has a point.. many enemies were figments of the imagination of the prejudiced.. centuries old animosities were played on and used.. against Jew, Roma, homosexuals, Slav, Poles and others... but he also made enemies of people and organisations which were not considered the enemy by very many.. opponents maybe.. but not enemy.... (the Church for one, Social Democracy, arguably Socialism, Liberalism and moderate conservatism others.. not to mention any German who disagreed with him for whatever reason...... who is against me is my enemy was his philosophy.. ).. arguably also the British Empire and the United States (people with whom he would rather be friends)... So Falcie is not entirely wrong..:)

[FalconAngel]

FalconAngel ".....What Hitler did was to "create" an enemy that did not exist...."

This is not true. Hitler was not as spontaneous as we say he was. That is historical Black and White. Certainly he was monsterously obscene in his actions and persecutions or rather there was a rush of individuals who generated that reality for him.

.

I never said that what Hitler did was an "overnight" thing. In order for it to work, he had to use a social evolution process; a build up, if you will, that would allow his "final solution" to be acceptable enough to keep the people from opposing it overtly.

Still, the comparison of Hitler's "final solution" is nowhere near to a fair comparison of this law.

The problem of illegal immigration is a very real problem that the federal government either could not or would not enforce, so all that AZ did was add their personnel to the mix of enforcement agencies.

[BiBedBud]

WARNING FOR ARIZONA VISITORS

Are you a foreign (non-US) citizen travelling to Arizona, whether for business, tourism or to study?


OR
Are you a US citizen from a state that does not verify US residency status before issuing state IDs?

In Arizona, you may be considered guilty of immigration offenses until you can prove your innocence! This may result in your detention in a federal prison for as long as 30 days, without access to legal representation or a court of law, or anything resembling ‘due process’ in a democracy.

ACCORDING TO SB1070, “A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:


1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating (sic) identification license.
3. A valid Tribal Enrollment (sic) card or other form of Tribal Identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States Federal, State or Local government issued identification.”
This means, if you are a foreigner legitimately travelling through Arizona, your foreign passport and foreign driver’s licenses will not be considered as proper ID in the state of Arizona. This also means that if you are a bona fide American citizen, but you do not hold any Arizona ID, and your home state does not require proof of legal presence in the US before issuance, you may also be incarcerated as per SB1070.

Because of other provisions in SB1070, an Arizona law enforcement officer has essentially no discretion in his or her application of this unconstitutional law, because the officer may be sued by any Arizonan who feels the officer has not properly ascertained your immigration status.

If you are a business traveller to Arizona, your competitors may now have a new tool to scuttle your business dealings in the state of Arizona. If you are a tourist to Arizona, you had better be extra nice to every Arizonan, because they can compel LE officers to arrest and imprison you while your status is ascertained. If you are a foreign student studying in the state of Arizona, you had better not anger any Arizonan, because you too can be subject to arrest and incarceration.

[Annika L]

WARNING FOR ARIZONA VISITORS

Interesting...but in the context of the current discussion, I think we all need to know what the source of this is. Was this released by the *state* of Arizona? An independent legal group? By political opponents of SB1070? By some other group hoping to hyperbole people into a frenzy?

Please let us know.

[FalconAngel]

4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States Federal, State or Local government issued identification.”[/INDENT][/COLOR]

That would be the well known "Greene card", which is no longer green, btw, which all legal immigrants are required by immigration laws, to carry.

That means that the law is being enforced and no Constitutional protections are being violated.

Nice try, but that is nothing but quote-mining and it proves my earlier points.



This means, if you are a foreigner legitimately travelling through Arizona, your foreign passport and foreign driver’s licenses will not be considered as proper ID in the state of Arizona. This also means that if you are a bona fide American citizen, but you do not hold any Arizona ID, and your home state does not require proof of legal presence in the US before issuance, you may also be incarcerated as per SB1070.

Actually, a foreign passport would have the federal issued authorization already......it is called a "travel visa", "immigration visa", "work visa" or "student visa" and is issued by the country that the immigrant is visiting.

Really; You really need to understand these laws before you argue against them.

Your own quote of the law:"any valid United States Federal, State or Local government issued identification". (highlights are mine)

When issued, a visa of any kind becomes a valid part of the identification. So your statements are ignoring the realities of federal immigration law and requirements for legal immigrants and lawful foreign visitors.


Because of other provisions in SB1070, an Arizona law enforcement officer has essentially no discretion in his or her application of this unconstitutional law, because the officer may be sued by any Arizonan who feels the officer has not properly ascertained your immigration status.

So show us all the part of the law that unquestioningly gives law enforcement authority to violate 6th amendment protections against unreasonable detention, search and seizure.


If you are a business traveller to Arizona, your competitors may now have a new tool to scuttle your business dealings in the state of Arizona. If you are a tourist to Arizona.........

Refer to my earlier statements on visas and passports. What you are doing is not arguing with facts, but with disinformation. In the end, those arguments will fail under the facts of the law.


........, you had better be extra nice to every Arizonan, because they can compel LE officers to arrest and imprison you while your status is ascertained. If you are a foreign student studying in the state of Arizona, you had better not anger any Arizonan, because you too can be subject to arrest and incarceration.

Again, your arguments are panicked and inaccurate, based on disinformation and uneducated conjecture created by the pro-amnesty/anti- immigration enforcement crowd.

And refer to the previous statements about visas and Greene cards.

When one understands the inter-related immigration laws, all of your above arguments disappear. Those arguments were made before and are not supported by the facts.

And the real truth of this all, is the fact that the fed has refused to invest in proper enforcement, for more than 20 years, which would have prevented this all from happening in the first place.

At least Arizona is making an effort that the fed has yet to do. And it will be effective.

You won't get much sympathy for illegals from the folks here. The illegals want to be rewarded for breaking the law and we are sick of it. Illegal immigration is costing this nation and it's people far more than we can afford or are willing to put up with any longer.

[BiBedBud]

Please allow me to clear the air:

I am a Canadian citizen. I have travelled throughout much of the United States, on business and for pleasure, for over twenty years. I have gone through US Customs at least a couple of hundred times. In fact, at times, I cross the Canada/US border at least once a week, in both directions, on my way to and from various client sites. I know about crossing the border, and my most frequent crossing has been for business purposes, whereupon I usually go through US Customs checks at Pearson International Airport here in Toronto. (Yes, we have US Customs Agents at the airport in Toronto, and they handle thousands of Canadians every day.) I have also driven across the border more than a few times.

When a Canadian (among many other nationalities), travels to the United States for touristic purposes, he or she does not require or receive any kind of visit visa. Most often, there isn’t even a stamp made in the passport. When travelling for business purposes, if the reason for the visit is just a one day, exploratory (negotiations/sales) meeting, again, there may not even be a stamp entered into the passport. If the business travel is longer than one day, then a Canadian like me will need to receive a visa. If the conduct of business amounts to no more than meetings and discussions and such, then I’ll need to get a B-1 visa (for an authorized business traveller), which will consist of a piece of paper stapled into my passport, along with a stamp and a file number. If my business amounts to more than just meetings and discussions (which it frequently does), then I’ll need a TN-1 visa (for a NAFTA-exempt professional). Over the years, I have received many B-1 and TN-1 visas.

REGARDING MY POST #94 ABOVE, which I made at 2:05 PM today: I wrote the whole thing myself, except for the blue text, which is taken verbatim from SB1070. I REPEAT: The blue text is taken directly from SB1070, and I found it by following the link provided by FalconAngel’s very first post #1 in this thread.

REGARDING ‘GREENE CARDS’: Those are only for people who want to live in the United States long term. I never have. I never wanted to immigrate to the United States, even when I was working in the US five days a week – I almost always flew home on the weekends. There are thousands of Canadians who do that, and I dare say the US economy wouldn’t be what it is without large pools of foreign expertise bringing what they have to offer to US businesses (or NASA, for another example). Dear FalconAngel, as for me engaging in “nothing but quote-mining”; well, I put it in quotes for a reason, and what I was quoting (with that point numbered “4”), was taken word-for-word from SB1070.

As I have explained, not every legal, legitimate traveller to the United States is issued a visa when crossing the border. For Canadians like me, very often there isn’t even a stamp made in our passports.

REGARDING PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES: As per SB1070 point number four (already quoted above); “4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States Federal, State or Local government issued identification.” This would not seem to include my Canadian passport, nor my Ontario drivers license, because neither are issued by any United States Federal, State or Local government, and moreover, nobody checked if I may enter the United States before they issued me my Canadian passport or Ontario drivers license. FOR THE RECORD: I am not trying to be flippant here. I am trying to point out what IMHO is a major problem with SB1070. I am not trying to take anything out of context – I am quoting the statute itself and using the most straightforward interpretation of it, as per my understanding of the English language, which as you may hopefully agree; I don’t have too much difficulty using. From my reading of the four types of approved documents that remove the presumption of guilt, it would seem on the face of it; that neither my Canadian passport nor my Ontario drivers license will be enough to satisfy an Arizona LE officer, if he or she intends to follow SB1070 to the full letter of the law, even more so if my passport has not been stamped and has no stapled visa papers in it.

WITH REGARDS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION: As proof of my earlier assertion that “an Arizona law enforcement officer has essentially no discretion in his or her application of this unconstitutional law”; I offer the following two verbatim quotes from SB1070, which I found by following the link in FalconAngel’s original post, to the draft version of the law itself http://www.numbersusa.com/content/files/SB1070-HB2162.pdf.

“H. A person who is a legal resident of this state may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws, including 8 United States Code sections 1373 and 1644, to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. If there is a judicial finding that the entity has violated this section, the court shall order that the entity pay a civil penalty of not less than five hundred dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to this subsection.”

… AND…

“J. The court may award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person or any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that prevails by an adjudication on the merits in a proceeding brought pursuant to this section.”

IMHO, these are the two clauses that most tightly bind the hands of Arizona law enforcement officers, essentially requiring them to spend the time to ascertain the immigration status of whoever they may have (an undefined) “reasonable suspicion” is guilty of the third-class misdemeanour of being illegally present in the United States. They must exercise this ‘duty’ to “the full extent permitted by federal law”; on top of everything else a police officer has to do, like deal with felonies. Don’t just rely on my interpretation of this law, read what was written in Time Magazine and The Washington Post:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1986080,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/29/AR2010042904970.html?hpid=artslot


IN CLOSING, LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE: I am not inclined to side with any “pro-amnesty/anti- immigration enforcement crowd”. PLEASE DON’T SMEAR ME LIKE THAT because it’s neither fair nor true. I always conduct myself within the limits of the law, wherever I am, and I expect others to do so as well. But, I cannot support any kind of smoke-and-mirrors legislation, especially if it’s unconstitutional in the jurisdiction in which it is enacted (i.e. unlawful under the US Constitution), as is Arizona’s SB1070. Moreover, I cannot support SB1070 because I don’t think it will solve the problem of illegal immigration, for reasons I've outlined in an earlier post in this thread. Most importantly, I cannot support any law which may very likely result in unjust detentions -- especially an unjust detention of me.

[Annika L]

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Hephaestion]

I never said that what Hitler did was an "overnight" thing. In order for it to work, he had to use a social evolution process; a build up, if you will, that would allow his "final solution" to be acceptable enough to keep the people from opposing it overtly.

Still, the comparison of Hitler's "final solution" is nowhere near to a fair comparison of this law.

The problem of illegal immigration is a very real problem that the federal government either could not or would not enforce, so all that AZ did was add their personnel to the mix of enforcement agencies.

Hitler was voted in and he merely exploited pre-existing prejudices in the majority of cases. This was also fuelled by the moral majority point of view to remove undesireables from society then guided by the misunderstood science of the day to leave only the deserving.

Reminder that everytime medical science intervenes to prevent Darwinian selection and allow indiscrimate breeding the gene pool THEORETICALLY weakens. Should I be here today writing?

The Nazi movement then embarked upon a positive discrimination path to breed the right kind of people (it didn't do too baddly with the dark haired one in ABBA although technically she was a failure with the dark hair).

I take your points about the comaprisons and the gravity of the situation being debated. However, there are so many slippery paths.

.

[FalconAngel]

Please allow me to clear the air:

I am a Canadian citizen. I have travelled throughout much of the United States, on business and for pleasure, for over twenty years. I have gone through US Customs at least a couple of hundred times. In fact, at times, I cross the Canada/US border at least once a week, in both directions, on my way to and from various client sites. I know about crossing the border, and my most frequent crossing has been for business purposes, whereupon I usually go through US Customs checks at Pearson International Airport here in Toronto. (Yes, we have US Customs Agents at the airport in Toronto, and they handle thousands of Canadians every day.) I have also driven across the border more than a few times.

The laws regarding Canadian citizens and US citizens are somewhat different that the treaty between US and Mexico. Mostly because immigration between our two countries has never been a problem that created so much economic downturn for either country.

Mexico is a different situation and even the border crossings on the US side of the US/Canada border have been tightened more than they ever have.



When a Canadian (among many other nationalities), travels to the United States for touristic purposes, he or she does not require or receive any kind of visit visa. Most often, there isn’t even a stamp made in the passport. When travelling for business purposes, if the reason for the visit is just a one day, exploratory (negotiations/sales) meeting, again, there may not even be a stamp entered into the passport. If the business travel is longer than one day, then a Canadian like me will need to receive a visa. If the conduct of business amounts to no more than meetings and discussions and such, then I’ll need to get a B-1 visa (for an authorized business traveller), which will consist of a piece of paper stapled into my passport, along with a stamp and a file number. If my business amounts to more than just meetings and discussions (which it frequently does), then I’ll need a TN-1 visa (for a NAFTA-exempt professional). Over the years, I have received many B-1 and TN-1 visas.

But that is the thing, those visas were the "authorized ID" that the AZ law is talking about.


REGARDING MY POST #94 ABOVE, which I made at 2:05 PM today: I wrote the whole thing myself, except for the blue text, which is taken verbatim from SB1070. I REPEAT: The blue text is taken directly from SB1070, and I found it by following the link provided by FalconAngel’s very first post #1 in this thread.

That link, if you had noticed, took you to a page that explained the facts about the law in plain English. There were also links on that page taking you directly to the actual language of the law; the actual law, itself.



REGARDING ‘GREENE CARDS’: Those are only for people who want to live in the United States long term. I never have. I never wanted to immigrate to the United States, even when I was working in the US five days a week – I almost always flew home on the weekends. There are thousands of Canadians who do that, and I dare say the US economy wouldn’t be what it is without large pools of foreign expertise bringing what they have to offer to US businesses (or NASA, for another example). Dear FalconAngel, as for me engaging in “nothing but quote-mining”; well, I put it in quotes for a reason, and what I was quoting (with that point numbered “4”), was taken word-for-word from SB1070.

Did you also notice that I additionally made mention of student visas, work visas and the ever popular tourist visas? Those are ALL temporary visas set up for a specific period of time. All of those fall into that ID that I was talking about.


As I have explained, not every legal, legitimate traveller to the United States is issued a visa when crossing the border. For Canadians like me, very often there isn’t even a stamp made in our passports.

Again, there is a lot of relaxing of the laws for our northern neighbor and closest ally because there has never been any problems between us that even comes close to the immigration issue with Mexico (a country that actually encourages it's people to sneak across the border into the US). So the laws between those borders and our border with Canada are a whole lot less problematic.

Don't confuse the border that Canada has with the US and the border that we share with Mexico. The economic and legal dynamics are quite different.


REGARDING PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES: As per SB1070 point number four (already quoted above); “4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States Federal, State or Local government issued identification.” This would not seem to include my Canadian passport, nor my Ontario drivers license, because neither are issued by any United States Federal, State or Local government, and moreover, nobody checked if I may enter the United States before they issued me my Canadian passport or Ontario drivers license. FOR THE RECORD: I am not trying to be flippant here. I am trying to point out what IMHO is a major problem with SB1070. I am not trying to take anything out of context – I am quoting the statute itself and using the most straightforward interpretation of it, as per my understanding of the English language, which as you may hopefully agree; I don’t have too much difficulty using. From my reading of the four types of approved documents that remove the presumption of guilt, it would seem on the face of it; that neither my Canadian passport nor my Ontario drivers license will be enough to satisfy an Arizona LE officer, if he or she intends to follow SB1070 to the full letter of the law, even more so if my passport has not been stamped and has no stapled visa papers in it.

Again, you are comparing two different sets of legal precedent, as I said above, our agreement with Canada is different than our agreement with Mexico, and mexico is the one that has been and continues to be a problem.



WITH REGARDS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION: As proof of my earlier assertion that “an Arizona law enforcement officer has essentially no discretion in his or her application of this unconstitutional law”; I offer the following two verbatim quotes from SB1070, which I found by following the link in FalconAngel’s original post, to the draft version of the law itself http://www.numbersusa.com/content/files/SB1070-HB2162.pdf.

All you are doing now is agreeing with what you had argued against earlier.


IN CLOSING, LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE: I am not inclined to side with any “pro-amnesty/anti- immigration enforcement crowd”. PLEASE DON’T SMEAR ME LIKE THAT because it’s neither fair nor true.

I didn't even come close to smearing you, but everything that you said is the same thing that those groups and sites say and none of them are factual or true. I said that what you were saying was the same crap that those pro-amnesty/pro-illegal immigration groups say. I never said that you were part of that, but that you were using the same inaccurate and false data that they use.

When your data is fatally flawed, then so is your argument.


I always conduct myself within the limits of the law, wherever I am, and I expect others to do so as well. But, I cannot support any kind of smoke-and-mirrors legislation, especially if it’s unconstitutional in the jurisdiction in which it is enacted (i.e. unlawful under the US Constitution), as is Arizona’s SB1070. Moreover, I cannot support SB1070 because I don’t think it will solve the problem of illegal immigration, for reasons I've outlined in an earlier post in this thread. Most importantly, I cannot support any law which may very likely result in unjust detentions -- especially an unjust detention of me.

When did I ever even suggest that you didn't conduct yourself within the law when here?

And the actual bill does nothing of the sort that you have suggested.

If you want smoke and mirrors legislation, then take a good long look at SSA Title IV, D and Title IV, E.
Now that is some seriously un-Constitutional legislation.

AZ SB1070 is in complete compliance with our Constitution, and, no offense, but if you are not a US citizen or a US Lawyer or member of our nation's judiciary, then you really have little comparative knowledge to judge our Constitution or laws by.

My wife, a former attorney, has read the law and it is in complete compliance with the US Constitution. Your interpretation is, clearly from a factually flawed, probably pro-illegal alien, source. Like I said before, read the actual law, even though it is written in legalese.

[BiBedBud]

Dear FalconAngel, et al.,

Please try to follow closely what I am attempting to explain to you:

1. If I cross into the US for a day-long business meeting, or for a two week vacation, my Canadian passport might not even get a stamp in it, and it certainly won’t have a visa endorsement – so what am I supposed to show an inquisitive Arizona LE officer? If I have nothing to show him or her, and he or she is keen to follow SB 1070 to-the-nines (fearing a lawsuit if otherwise); then I’m going to get detained until ICE or BCP gives me the thumbs-up – and how long that takes is entirely beyond my control. ASK: Is this possible, under SB 1070 as it is currently written? Could this make me late for a business meeting? Might that kind of delay kill a business deal? HONEST ANSWERS: ‘Yes’, ‘Yes’ and ‘Yes’.

2. I understand that you think SB 1070 is targeting illegal immigrants from Mexico, but IF YOU READ THE LAW (as closely as I have), you will discover that Mexico and Mexicans are not mentioned at all, and therefore it is entirely possible that all kinds of different people could get caught up in detention, including legitimate business travellers (who might not have a passport stamp or visa endorsement), and even bona fide American citizens who cannot present a piece of identification that numbers among the list of four options as detailed in SB 1070. I understand that you think SB 1070 is well targeted at the problematic people that you want out of your country, but I am telling you that it casts a far wider net than just illegal Mexicans, wide enough to ensnare honest Canadians like myself, or even upstanding Americans who don’t have any Arizona ID, nor any ID that requires proof of legal presence in the US before issuance. That’s the law, as per SB 1070. But don’t take my word for it – read it yourself, just as I have.

3. Helllooo! McFly! Are you paying attention (FalconAngel)? Yeah, I did notice the links provided by your post #1 in this thread (as I’ve noted). I followed them. I read both the plain English explanations of SB 1070, and I also took the time to read the entire draft legislation linked-to at the bottom of that very same web page. I even quoted directly from the legislation, and provided the very same link to the PDF file before doing so – so, yeah, I did notice. Question is: Did you?

4. Please show me where in SB 1070 there is an exemption for Canadians. Where is it? How does SB 1070 distinguish between ‘illegal’ Mexicans and ‘legal’ Canadians? If you can show me that, I will stop arguing this point. (Of course, you won’t find such an exemption, because it’s not there – I’ve looked.) So therefore, SB 1070 is a piece of ‘blanket legislation’ and it casts a very wide and very fine net. Legitimate business travellers and tourists from what the Government of the United States refers to as “friendly countries” may get caught up in SB 1070, as might actual American citizens who cannot provide the kinds of ID expressly listed in SB 1070 – and I am guessing that would include most Americans. Please don’t argue this point with your opinion. I have read the law and I understand every word of it, perfectly well, largely because my English is ‘top-notch’ and also because ‘legalese’ is not entirely foreign to me, even though I do not have a law degree. Why are you so determined not to comprehend this major flaw of SB 1070?

5. FOR THE RECORD: I have not even looked at any information regarding SB 1070 from any of “those pro-amnesty/pro-illegal immigration groups”. I am not using any kind of “inaccurate” or “false data”. I have read the law itself, what you pointed to in your post #1, plus the links off that webpage, and also the official, signed and *ENACTED VERSION* that I found on the Arizona Governor’s website http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/SB_1070_Signed.pdf. (I also read the amendments that were passed a week after SB 1070 was signed.) I have directly quoted it to you in my earlier posts in this thread (usually in blue text). If you refuse to understand what I’m telling you; what I am quoting to you from the text of SB 1070 itself – then I don’t know how else to convince you that SB 1070 is grossly imperfect legislation that will make an even greater mess of things. THIS DOES NOT MAKE ME PRO-AMNESTY. It makes me a realist. I am not suggesting that nothing should be done. What I am saying is that SB 1070 is very poorly conceived, unenforceable, unconstitutional and deeply flawed, not the least of which because it creates an unfunded mandate – so something else should be done. (Kindly refer to my earlier posts in this thread, for specific, actionable, practical measures that would hold back the tide of illegal immigrants to the US, without trampling your constitution.)

6. Please ask your wife, who you say is a “former attorney”, who you say “has read the law”, and who you say has rendered her qualified legal opinion that “it is in complete compliance with the US Constitution”; please ask her the following questions:

i) Do the words “innocent until proven guilty” ring a bell? (They should; they derive from English common law.)
ii) How does she interpret the following words (shown here in blue text), that are taken, word-for-word, from SB 1070:


“A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid Tribal Enrollment card or other form of Tribal Identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States Federal, State or Local government issued identification.”

I take this to mean; that if I (or anyone else), who might be in Arizona LAWFULLY, YET without the ability to provide any ID to satisfy one of these four categories of acceptable ID, that I would be detained, because SB 1070 WILL PRESUME THAT I AM AN UNLAWFUL ALIEN – which is another way of saying ‘GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT’! (REMEMBER, a Canadian like me might not have any stamp in my passport nor any visa endorsement to show an Arizona LE officer – but that does not make me an illegal alien, as a matter of course.) This presumption of guilt until proven innocent is ‘prima facie’ unconstitutional, regardless of what you say your wife tells you (which, BTW, is ‘hearsay’ – as if I care, since I don’t recognize your wife, the former attorney, to be a qualified arbiter of such matters – since I presume she does not sit on the SCOTUS). If your wife maintains her opinion that SB 1070 is not unconstitutional, then I would respectfully suggest that she should go back to law school and study harder this time.

7. If you want to entirely discount my opinions and my experience because I am not; a US Citizen, a US Lawyer, or a US Judge – then please do me a favour and don’t counter-post any of my arguments in this thread. Instead, whenever I post something you feel is wrong, just repeat the refrain; “You’re not a Citizen! You’re not a Lawyer! You’re not a Judge!” That should be easier for you. (While you’re at it, you might want to throw in a course or two of; “Naa! Naa! Naa! Naaaaa! Naaaaa! I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you!”, while sticking your fingers in your ears.) You’d be technically correct to do so; but hardly responsive to any of my points of contention against SB 1070 – which would be par for the course, really.

8. If you feel that I am being insulting or disrespectful, then I hope you can appreciate how insulted or disrespected I would feel if I ever were detained (or even worse, locked-up), while some Arizona LE officer jumped through the hoops of SB 1070 to check-out my ‘immigration status’, which was already done at the border by someone who had the skills and information that are necessary to do so properly. The way SB 1070 is currently written (including the amendments in House Bill 2162, which you can read at http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/HB_2162Signed.pdf, just as I have); and in light of the fact that I may not be able to produce any ID to satisfy the legislation (through no fault of my own), it is entirely within the realm of possibility that innocent people may be detained, and even strip-searched and locked-up, thanks to SB 1070. Wait for it – it will happen, and it will be an injustice when it does (and probably not very good for business or tourism in the state of Arizona). I sincerely hope that you are not too partisan to consider if maybe some of the opponents of SB 1070 might have a valid point or two or three or four, or many more.

9. FURTHERMORE: While I am admittedly not an expert in US Constitutional Law, I know enough to see that neither is anyone else who has posted in this thread so far. It’s obvious, even to a clueless Canuck like me. In fact, the only expert in US Constitutional Law that I can even name, is Barack Obama, and he’s said SB 1070 is “misguided”: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

LASTLY: Dear FalconAngel; “In order to grow, one must seek truth and accept it, no matter where it goes. To hide the truth, even from one's self is a great tragedy and a disservice to yourself and your descendants.” These are enlightened words, and I would very much like to see you live up to them WRT Arizona’s SB 1070.

[FalconAngel]

Dear FalconAngel, et al.,

Please try to follow closely what I am attempting to explain to you:

1. If I cross into the US for a day-long business meeting, or for a two week vacation, my Canadian passport might not even get a stamp in it, and it certainly won’t have a visa endorsement – so what am I supposed to show an inquisitive Arizona LE officer? If I have nothing to show him or her, and he or she is keen to follow SB 1070 to-the-nines (fearing a lawsuit if otherwise); then I’m going to get detained until ICE or BCP gives me the thumbs-up – and how long that takes is entirely beyond my control. ASK: Is this possible, under SB 1070 as it is currently written? Could this make me late for a business meeting? Might that kind of delay kill a business deal? HONEST ANSWERS: ‘Yes’, ‘Yes’ and ‘Yes’.

2. I understand that you think SB 1070 is targeting illegal immigrants from Mexico, but IF YOU READ THE LAW (as closely as I have), you will discover that Mexico and Mexicans are not mentioned at all, and therefore it is entirely possible that all kinds of different people could get caught up in detention, including legitimate business travellers (who might not have a passport stamp or visa endorsement), and even bona fide American citizens who cannot present a piece of identification that numbers among the list of four options as detailed in SB 1070. I understand that you think SB 1070 is well targeted at the problematic people that you want out of your country, but I am telling you that it casts a far wider net than just illegal Mexicans, wide enough to ensnare honest Canadians like myself, or even upstanding Americans who don’t have any Arizona ID, nor any ID that requires proof of legal presence in the US before issuance. That’s the law, as per SB 1070. But don’t take my word for it – read it yourself, just as I have.

3. Helllooo! McFly! Are you paying attention (FalconAngel)? Yeah, I did notice the links provided by your post #1 in this thread (as I’ve noted). I followed them. I read both the plain English explanations of SB 1070, and I also took the time to read the entire draft legislation linked-to at the bottom of that very same web page. I even quoted directly from the legislation, and provided the very same link to the PDF file before doing so – so, yeah, I did notice. Question is: Did you?

4. Please show me where in SB 1070 there is an exemption for Canadians. Where is it? How does SB 1070 distinguish between ‘illegal’ Mexicans and ‘legal’ Canadians? If you can show me that, I will stop arguing this point. (Of course, you won’t find such an exemption, because it’s not there – I’ve looked.) So therefore, SB 1070 is a piece of ‘blanket legislation’ and it casts a very wide and very fine net. Legitimate business travellers and tourists from what the Government of the United States refers to as “friendly countries” may get caught up in SB 1070, as might actual American citizens who cannot provide the kinds of ID expressly listed in SB 1070 – and I am guessing that would include most Americans. Please don’t argue this point with your opinion. I have read the law and I understand every word of it, perfectly well, largely because my English is ‘top-notch’ and also because ‘legalese’ is not entirely foreign to me, even though I do not have a law degree. Why are you so determined not to comprehend this major flaw of SB 1070?

5. FOR THE RECORD: I have not even looked at any information regarding SB 1070 from any of “those pro-amnesty/pro-illegal immigration groups”. I am not using any kind of “inaccurate” or “false data”. I have read the law itself, what you pointed to in your post #1, plus the links off that webpage, and also the official, signed and *ENACTED VERSION* that I found on the Arizona Governor’s website http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/SB_1070_Signed.pdf. (I also read the amendments that were passed a week after SB 1070 was signed.) I have directly quoted it to you in my earlier posts in this thread (usually in blue text). If you refuse to understand what I’m telling you; what I am quoting to you from the text of SB 1070 itself – then I don’t know how else to convince you that SB 1070 is grossly imperfect legislation that will make an even greater mess of things. THIS DOES NOT MAKE ME PRO-AMNESTY. It makes me a realist. I am not suggesting that nothing should be done. What I am saying is that SB 1070 is very poorly conceived, unenforceable, unconstitutional and deeply flawed, not the least of which because it creates an unfunded mandate – so something else should be done. (Kindly refer to my earlier posts in this thread, for specific, actionable, practical measures that would hold back the tide of illegal immigrants to the US, without trampling your constitution.)

6. Please ask your wife, who you say is a “former attorney”, who you say “has read the law”, and who you say has rendered her qualified legal opinion that “it is in complete compliance with the US Constitution”; please ask her the following questions:

i) Do the words “innocent until proven guilty” ring a bell? (They should; they derive from English common law.)
ii) How does she interpret the following words (shown here in blue text), that are taken, word-for-word, from SB 1070:


“A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid Tribal Enrollment card or other form of Tribal Identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States Federal, State or Local government issued identification.”

I take this to mean; that if I (or anyone else), who might be in Arizona LAWFULLY, YET without the ability to provide any ID to satisfy one of these four categories of acceptable ID, that I would be detained, because SB 1070 WILL PRESUME THAT I AM AN UNLAWFUL ALIEN – which is another way of saying ‘GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT’! (REMEMBER, a Canadian like me might not have any stamp in my passport nor any visa endorsement to show an Arizona LE officer – but that does not make me an illegal alien, as a matter of course.) This presumption of guilt until proven innocent is ‘prima facie’ unconstitutional, regardless of what you say your wife tells you (which, BTW, is ‘hearsay’ – as if I care, since I don’t recognize your wife, the former attorney, to be a qualified arbiter of such matters – since I presume she does not sit on the SCOTUS). If your wife maintains her opinion that SB 1070 is not unconstitutional, then I would respectfully suggest that she should go back to law school and study harder this time.

7. If you want to entirely discount my opinions and my experience because I am not; a US Citizen, a US Lawyer, or a US Judge – then please do me a favour and don’t counter-post any of my arguments in this thread. Instead, whenever I post something you feel is wrong, just repeat the refrain; “You’re not a Citizen! You’re not a Lawyer! You’re not a Judge!” That should be easier for you. (While you’re at it, you might want to throw in a course or two of; “Naa! Naa! Naa! Naaaaa! Naaaaa! I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you!”, while sticking your fingers in your ears.) You’d be technically correct to do so; but hardly responsive to any of my points of contention against SB 1070 – which would be par for the course, really.

8. If you feel that I am being insulting or disrespectful, then I hope you can appreciate how insulted or disrespected I would feel if I ever were detained (or even worse, locked-up), while some Arizona LE officer jumped through the hoops of SB 1070 to check-out my ‘immigration status’, which was already done at the border by someone who had the skills and information that are necessary to do so properly. The way SB 1070 is currently written (including the amendments in House Bill 2162, which you can read at http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/HB_2162Signed.pdf, just as I have); and in light of the fact that I may not be able to produce any ID to satisfy the legislation (through no fault of my own), it is entirely within the realm of possibility that innocent people may be detained, and even strip-searched and locked-up, thanks to SB 1070. Wait for it – it will happen, and it will be an injustice when it does (and probably not very good for business or tourism in the state of Arizona). I sincerely hope that you are not too partisan to consider if maybe some of the opponents of SB 1070 might have a valid point or two or three or four, or many more.

9. FURTHERMORE: While I am admittedly not an expert in US Constitutional Law, I know enough to see that neither is anyone else who has posted in this thread so far. It’s obvious, even to a clueless Canuck like me. In fact, the only expert in US Constitutional Law that I can even name, is Barack Obama, and he’s said SB 1070 is “misguided”: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

LASTLY: Dear FalconAngel; “In order to grow, one must seek truth and accept it, no matter where it goes. To hide the truth, even from one's self is a great tragedy and a disservice to yourself and your descendants.” These are enlightened words, and I would very much like to see you live up to them WRT Arizona’s SB 1070.

You have chosen to ignore so very much of the facts that have been in my last few posts. and instead, recited/recycled the same personal opinions, based in a Canadian perspective of US law. A weak position at best.

You do not, in the slightest, understand the real world application of these, or other US laws on this subject.

As stated before, something that you have clearly missed, The US and Canada have a very different application and treaty, as regards our borders, than we have with Mexico.
Stated in a different manner:
We do not have the same border treaty with Canada as we do with Mexico.

HELLOOOOOO. McFLY!! Are you paying attention?

The relationship between the US and Canada has always been friendly. Not counting when it was under British rule prior to the American Revolution, but when it became a self-governing independent nation.
Not so with Mexico.
Ever heard of a little skirmish at a place called the Alamo? The Mexican Campaign? Either of those ringing any bells for you? If not, then look them up.
To the best of my knowledge, the US and Canada have never been in a state of war with each other......not so with Mexico. Matter of fact, as I

Different circumstances, so different border treaties.

The reason that Mexicans are not specifically named is because Mexico is also a favored route for terrorists to sneak into this country undetected and unmonitored.

The anti-1070 protest in front of McCain's office netted two illegals that were Islamics from the middle east. Whether they had terrorist ties or not is not necessarily the case, but they were there to undermine efforts to force immigration to enforce the border security laws between Mexico and the US.

And as I had said in an earlier post, ever since 9-11, even the Canadian/US border has been tightened up a lot.
If you had been crossing the border as much as you say that you have, you would have noticed that long before now.

Obama is opposed to this law because he supports amnesty OVER enforcement. That is something that this country can ill afford. Bush supported amnesty over enforcement, and tied the hands of ICE and BPA, as did Clinton before him. They hurt immigration enforcement so badly that the troops now guarding our southern borders are not even allowed to be armed. If armed illegals cross the US/Mexico border, our warriors are under orders to allow the armed incursion to go unanswered.
In addition to that, two BP officers are spending time in prison for performing their assigned duties, within regulations.

And you have to wonder why the American people are sick of the problem!? Like I said, you do not have the perspective on the problem that we in the US do.

You are neither from nor living under US laws and do not have the perspective of them that we, here in the US have.

Your attitude and claimed knowledge of our laws reminds me of a situation that I ran into in my younger days. I was a security officer for a hotel and there were two teenagers that were trespassing.
They said that they could go where they pleased "because it's a free country", but I had to explain to them, as they were being escorted off property, that they still have to obey the laws and respect property that is not theirs and that hotels are not "public" property as they believed.

Knowing the laws and understanding their spirit/intent are two very different things.

Any good judge or lawyer will be able to tell you that. You do not understand the spirit of the law and that is just one key to your lack of understanding of it.

YOU are concerned that , as a Canadian citizen, you will automatically be detained and deported, but did you know that a check for a record of you crossing the border legally only takes about the same time as it does for a cop to write a traffic ticket?

Did you know that the reason that a cop would have to stop you (under 1070) would be the same as if you were a citizen of the US? You have to have gotten the unwanted, yet warranted, attention of the officer in the same way that anyone gets the negative attention of law enforcement.

Sadly, you have been far too slow on the uptake to have grasped that, either.

As far as my tag line is concerned, I live up to those words every day. You choose not to see it. But then, you do not know enough about me to make that determination. Talk about prejudice.....

Simply put, the illegals broke the law to get here; they will continue to break the law while they are here by not paying income taxes, falsifying ID (mostly through identity theft - a felony in the US) to try to pay income taxes as a means of faking their legitimacy (falsifying an identity is also a felony crime in the US, related to ID theft), as well as other crimes and misdemeanors.

Interesting that no one complains about illegal immigration from Canada. Can you guess why? It is because we don't get enough for it to be a problem. Less than 1/4 of 1&#37;, if I recall correctly.

Your perspective on this problem is uniquely not a US resident perspective, so you cannot properly fathom the issues that have driven SB1070 in the way that we here do. Just as we in the US cannot properly fathom internal Canadian specific problems.
So stop acting as if you can understand our internal issues when you are not in a position to do so. As an occasional visitor, either personal or business, you cannot understand local issues in the same way or with the same depth as locals do.

The rules that govern both our nations, while similar, are not the same, nor are the laws that either of our nations have within the provinces/states within our own borders.

Illegal immigration has been an issue for more than 40 years in this country and has finally come to a head.

Illegal immigration takes jobs away, drives wages down below the living wage and aids in the ruination of the quality of American products produced by companies that hire illegals in their production facilities and factories.

[TwylaTwobits]

Go read your history, Falcon, the US and Canada have been at war or did you not read anything Tenni or anyone else posted in the other thread? Sheesh. Stop telling everyone they are wrong because they are not American, and for that matter stop telling Americans they are wrong. People may not agree with you but that's life, get used to it.


http://www.lutins.org/1812.html

[TaylorMade]

You have chosen so very much of the last few posts.

You do not, in the slightest, understand the real world application of these, or other laws.

As stated before, something that you have clearly missed, The US and Canada have a very different application and treaty, as regards our borders, than we have with Mexico.
Stated in a different manner:
We do not have the same border treaty with Canada as we do with Mexico.

HELLOOOOOO. McFLY!! Are you listening?

The relationship between the US and Canada has always been friendly. Not so with Mexico. Ever heard of a little skirmish at a place called the Alamo? To the best of my knowledge, the US and Canada have never been at war with each other......not so with Mexico.

Different circumstances, so different border treaties.

The reason that Mexicans are not specifically named is because Mexico is also a favored route for terrorists to sneak into this country undetected and unmonitored.

The anti-1070 protest in front of McCain's office netted two illegals that were Islamics from the middle east. Whether they had terrorist ties or not is not necessarily the case, but they were there to undermine efforts to force immigration to enforce the border security laws between Mexico and the US.

And as I had said in an earlier post, ever since 9-11, even the Canadian/US border has been tightened up a lot.
If you had been crossing the border as much as you say that you have, you would have noticed that long before now.

Obama is against this law because he supports amnesty OVER enforcement. That is something that this country can ill afford.

You are neither from nor living under US laws and do not have the perspective of them that we, here in the US have.

Your attitude and claimed knowledge of our laws reminds me of a siuation that I ran into in my younger days. I was a security officer for a hotel and there were two teenagers that were trespassing. They said that they could go where they pleased "because it is a free country", but I had to explain to them, as they were being escorted off property, that they still have to obey the laws and respect property that is not theirs and that hotels are not "public" property.

Knowing the laws and understanding their spirit are two very different things.

Any good judge or lawyer will be able to tell you that. You do not understand the spirit of the law and that is just one key to your lack of understanding of it.

As far as my tag line is concerned, I live up to those words every day. You choose not to see it because I want my country to survive this politician supported invasion of our country by illegals.

Simply put, they broke the law to get here; they will continue to break the law while they are here by not paying income taxes, falsifying ID (identity theft - a felony) to try to pay income taxes as a means of faking their legitimacy as well as other crimes and misdemeanors.

Interesting that no one complains about illegal immigration from Canada. Can you guess why?

Your perspective on this problem is uniquely not a US resident perspective, so you cannot properly fathom the issues that have driven SB1070.
Illegal immigration has been an issue for more than 40 years and has finally come to a head.

Um... Canada technically has been at war with the US as a principality of Britain, during the war of 1812. We even invaded Canada at one point, but it was a clusterfuck. Some days, I wish we'd of pulled it out. Some days... not.

Just sayin.


*Taylor*

[Pasadenacpl2]

Well, we did sort of have a war with Canada. That little old war in 1812.

Pasa

[Long Duck Dong]

November 3, 1775 the first time that the us tried to take on canada
can the US say D'oh? (http://www.historynet.com/invasion-of-canada-during-the-american-revolutionary-war.htm)

in 1812 the us said, if at first you do not succeed..... fail again....

is that in the US history books or not???

[Pasadenacpl2]

Yes, it is. BUT, usually they go over that about midyear in 9th grade and people tend to forget.

Pasa

[Hephaestion]

Looks a piece of well intentioned legislation rife with difficulty.

Specifically one is forbidden to stereotype but one should recognize in some fashion in order to suspect. Is the suspect then a person that wears a convenient label saying 'I am an illegal immigrant'?

Is the legislation intended to rein in the unruly elements of law enforcement?

The portent is woe betide any tourist that has an 'air' about them and does not carry 'acceptable documentation'

.


.....

[BiBedBud]

Dear FalconAngel,

A famous Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, once described the Canadian/American relationship like this:


“Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.”

&#171; &#202;tre votre voisin, c'est comme dormir avec un &#233;l&#233;phant; quelque douce et placide que soit la b&#234;te, on subit chacun de ses mouvements et de ses grognements.&#187;


Addressing the Press Club in Washington, D.C. (March 25, 1969)


You might be surprised to know that most Canadians consume enormous amounts of US media, and many of us, like me, are self-described news junkies. I myself watch CNN at least a little bit every day, including ‘Anderson Cooper 360’, and until recently, ‘Campbell Brown’ (Wolf Blitzer’s ‘Situation Room’ is just too ridiculous). I also watch the ‘PBS Newshour’ five days a week. On the weekends I almost always watch CNN’s ‘Fareed Zakaria GPS’, then ‘Amanpour’ and in the evenings ‘60 Minutes’. I also listen to ‘Coast to Coast AM’ quite a lot, and have done so for over 15 years. While he was on-air, I watched CBS news every day with Peter Jennings (did you know he was Canadian?). These days, I also flip to Diane Sawyer on the ‘CBS Evening News’ if the ‘PBS Newshour’ doesn’t interest me in its second half hour.

So, yeah, I am well aware of the problems surrounding illegal immigration to the United States. I never said it was not a problem. All I said was that SB 1070 is far from the perfect solution to these problems, and that it might actually make things worse. But, I am done arguing this point with you. The law comes into effect on July 28, 2010, and I’m sure I’ll have much more to point to after that date (unless it’s quashed before it comes into force, which is a definite possibility on grounds of unconstitutionality).

I know there are several legal challenges in the works against SB 1070, and perhaps that’s the entire point of this Arizona Senate Bill (SB 1070) and the Arizona House Bill (HB 2162) that amended SB 1070 a week after signing. (Quick amendments have never been the mark of good legislation.) It may be that the real purpose of these bills is for Republicans to score political points, playing-up an air of doing something while the Democrat-led Feds drag their feet, and challenge SB 1070 in court. Sadly, it would seem that many Americans don't understand their own constitution and don't value their freedoms the way they say they do.

QUESTION: Can a Canadian Citizen (as one example), legally enter the United States without a visa and without receiving a stamp in his or her Canadian passport? ANSWER: Yes – we do all the time, probably most of the time (unless we’re a business traveller, when we often require a visa, but not always).

QUESTION: How would an Arizona LE officer verify the ‘immigration status’ of a passport-carrying Canadian Citizen who lacks an entry stamp or I-94 visa endorsement in his or her passport? ANSWER: We shall see – but I don’t think it will be pretty. (I can already see the Canadian newspaper headlines.)

QUESTION: How would an Arizona LE officer verify the ‘immigration status’ of a US Citizen who lacks any of the IDs spelled-out in the actual text of SB 1070? ANSWER: Yikes! (I guarantee that we’ll all be reading about this when it happens.)

FWIW, I have visited the US many times since 9/11, and yes, I have noticed some changes, but none of them impact on anything that I’ve written.

__________________________________________________ ________

Dear TwylaTwobits, TaylorMade, Pasadenacpl2, and Long Duck Dong,

Jeepers creepers you guys!:eek: Are you trying to get the elephant angry at us? We Canadians would much rather that our American brothers and sisters forget about all that unpleasantness (which culminated in ‘The Burning of Washington’).

Besides, I think the whitewash on the White House actually looks better than the original decoration, on top of which, it’s ironically apropos.:2cents:

[TaylorMade]

Yes, it is. BUT, usually they go over that about midyear in 9th grade and people tend to forget.

Pasa

I got it again in Jr. English, oddly enough. Private school worked for ME*! :D




*Taylor*


*results may vary

[darkeyes]

Ultimately there are only two answers to the problem of illegal immigration.. we either create a world which is so perfect everyone is happy and doesnt want to move... unrealistic at this stage in human development... or we allow the free movement of people accross borders to live and work where they please.. more realistic but very problematical... and its what we should be aiming for in the longer term... few agree with me but that doesnt make me wrong...

..an interesting thing is that the people of my country are quite happy to accept immigration, and quite large immigration from other, what are termed white anglo-saxon countries, or are white English speaking, of British stock from places such Zimbabwe, South Africa and other old Commonwealth countries.. similarly France and the Netherlands are quite happy to accept white people who speak their language from their old empires.. I know what that says to me about immigration.. illegal or otherwise... not to mention peoples tolerance levels..

[mariersa]

Good point Fran, maybe the US should start thinking of immigration as an International Issue, rather than a US problem???. :2cents:

[darkeyes]

Good point Fran, maybe the US should start thinking of immigration as an International Issue, rather than a US problem???. :2cents:

The US is not the only country with huge immigration issues. Much of Europe does as well, including Germany, Britain and France and they are pretty serious. Other nations around the world have immigration issues and also emigration issues.. my country has both losing much needed skills to the likes of Australia, the US, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand as well as the EU and other countries around the world.

It is an international problem, yet countries like the US and Britain seem to think it is only they who have a problem.. that no one wants to go anywhere else. In the next century it is likely to get much worse as climate change creates deserts out of paradise as fresh water becomes a real issue, sea levels rise with an almost certain increase in both the frequency of conflict and its seriousness, and population gets out of control (as it already has). All of these and more will create population movement.. and national borders will prove no barrier against its swell. It is an international issue but no one is taking it with seriousness it deserves...

[MarieDelta]

Ultimately there are only two answers to the problem of illegal immigration.. we either create a world which is so perfect everyone is happy and doesnt want to move... unrealistic at this stage in human development... or we allow the free movement of people accross borders to live and work where they please.. more realistic but very problematical... and its what we should be aiming for in the longer term... few agree with me but that doesnt make me wrong...

..an interesting thing is that the people of my country are quite happy to accept immigration, and quite large immigration from other, what are termed white anglo-saxon countries, or are white English speaking, of British stock from places such Zimbabwe, South Africa and other old Commonwealth countries.. similarly France and the Netherlands are quite happy to accept white people who speak their language from their old empires.. I know what that says to me about immigration.. illegal or otherwise... not to mention peoples tolerance levels..

Interesting that you should mention that... I wonder if the reverse holds true? Do you think that white folks have trouble emmigrating to a country like Zimbabwe or Pakistan?

[darkeyes]

Interesting that you should mention that... I wonder if the reverse holds true? Do you think that white folks have trouble emmigrating to a country like Zimbabwe or Pakistan?

I have no idea Marie, but that doesnt change my basic premise except I think Zimbabwe the state wouldnt welcome them at this time I dont think.. they are too busy trying to get whites to leave.. and just how many white people would wish to emigrate to either I would think is pretty low considering their present situation.. and their present plights do not make my premise wrong either.. just as for any other nation you care to mention irrespective of their situation.. so far white people have tended to emigrate to big empty lands stealing it from their native inhabitants.. they cant do that any more so they tend to move to lands where their kind and language, and to a great extent culture, predominate.. Oz, NZ, Canada and the US, with SA being possibly the exception at least in the case of Britons.. it is though an interesting question you pose...

[MarieDelta]

I have no idea Marie, but that doesnt change my basic premise except I think Zimbabwe the state wouldnt welcome them at this time I dont think.. they are too busy trying to get whites to leave.. and just how many white people would wish to emigrate to either I would think is pretty low considering their present situation.. and their present plights do not make my premise wrong either.. just as for any other nation you care to mention irrespective of their situation.. so far white people have tended to emigrate to big empty lands stealing it from their native inhabitants.. they cant do that any more so they tend to move to lands where their kind and language, and to a great extent culture, predominate.. Oz, NZ, Canada and the US, with SA being possibly the exception at least in the case of Britons.. it is though an interesting question you pose...

Not saying it does. Just as Mexico's treatment of foreign immigrants shouldn’t have anything to do with the way we treat Mexican immigrants to our country.

I was asking more out of curiosity than anything else.

[darkeyes]

Not saying it does. Just as Mexico's treatment of foreign immigrants shouldn’t have anything to do with the way we treat Mexican immigrants to our country.

I was asking more out of curiosity than anything else.

Are you right in that claim, Marie? Shouldn't immigrants be treated fairly and justly in whichever country they move to? It doesnt matter their immigration status, what matters is that they are treated decently and properly.. it is debatable whether immigrants to my country are treated fairly and decently whether or not they are legal and is at best patchy.. I suspect much the same could be said of yours... one problem is of course what is considered fair, just, decent and proper varies from country to country.. therein my darling, lies the rub...

[MarieDelta]

Are you right in that claim, Marie? Shouldn't immigrants be treated fairly and justly in whichever country they move to? It doesnt matter their immigration status, what matters is that they are treated decently and properly.. it is debatable whether immigrants to my country are treated fairly and decently whether or not they are legal and is at best patchy.. I suspect much the same could be said of yours... one problem is of course what is considered fair, just, decent and proper varies from country to country.. therein my darling, lies the rub...

I think that immigrants need to be treated fairly.

I know, however that Mexico has a really crappy way of treating immigrants. Why should we let that affect how we treat immigrants from mexico here?

Shouldnt we treat all immigrants equally?

Illegal immigrants are another story entirely. There have been lives lost due to "coyotes" who haul outrageous amounts of people through the desert in full summer heat without air conditioning or ventilation.

However, Mexico is socialist (at least in name.) Their economy is in the toilet, and has been for I-dont-know-how-many years. I cant think of a time when we didnt have immigrants coming from Mexico.

That doesnt excuse treating honest hardworking people crappy, however. Many people who come up here are just looking for a way to survive. Most people want the same things, a job, a house, and food on the table.

[darkeyes]

I think that immigrants need to be treated fairly.

I know, however that Mexico has a really crappy way of treating immigrants. Why should we let that affect how we treat immigrants from mexico here?

Shouldnt we treat all immigrants equally?

Illegal immigrants are another story entirely. There have been lives lost due to "coyotes" who haul outrageous amounts of people through the desert in full summer heat without air conditioning or ventilation.

However, Mexico is socialist (at least in name.) Their economy is in the toilet, and has been for I-dont-know-how-many years. I cant think of a time when we didnt have immigrants coming from Mexico.

That doesnt excuse treating honest hardworking people crappy, however. Many people who come up here are just looking for a way to survive. Most people want the same things, a job, a house, and food on the table.

We aren't really disagreeing much are we? I don't know much of the politics of Mexico, but I'm glad you said Socialist in name.. Looking at its present Senate, Congress and President it actually it seems to be a mish mash alliance of social democratic, liberal and peasant alliances...with a large right wing opposition.. the President is a conservative and head of government so how it operates.. God knows.. very haphazardly I would imagine.. not so different from other large democracies really is it?

There is no excuse for treating immigrants badly.. whether they are legal or not.. there may be different rules for the different status of the two, but dignity and respect for both should be the order of the day..

We too have had loss of life caused by cowboys trying to smuggle people into the country in a similar way to yourselves.. its a risk immigration law runs.. there will always be bandits trying to "earn a buck" to use an American phrase.. and to hell with the consequences and the cost of human life..

We all have immigration problems, but while it is important to understand why we have them, and to accept that we are decent to all immigrants, the international community has yet to sit down and even make any attempt at attacking the issue and solving it. It will require a real effort to make any headway. Efforts such as they are have always been piecemeal, populist and often tinged with an element of racism and always avoid the real issues which have a good bit to do with how the west uses, or rather misuses its economic power. Its about bloody time people got round the table and started addressing those and maybe we can begin to make the world a little bit nicer place in which to live!

[Pasadenacpl2]

Borders, language, culture. These are what define a nation. Any nation not willing to defend these, will ultimately lose their nation to others.

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

That doesnt excuse treating honest hardworking people crappy, however. Many people who come up here are just looking for a way to survive. Most people want the same things, a job, a house, and food on the table.

It doesn't matter how hardworking you are. If you aren't here legally, you don't belong here. It's just that simple. That's not treating them crappy. That's holding them up to the same law everyone else is held to.

Pasa

[FalconAngel]

QUESTION: Can a Canadian Citizen (as one example), legally enter the United States without a visa and without receiving a stamp in his or her Canadian passport? ANSWER: Yes – we do all the time, probably most of the time (unless we’re a business traveller, when we often require a visa, but not always).

For the second time, since you tend to IGNORE the facts. It does not take very long at all, about 30 minutes or so, for them to check if there is a record of you crossing the border.
In this day and age, with so many things going paperless and considering the existing border treaty with Canada (something that you also choose to ignore) being different than the one with Mexico, it is far more simple than you give it credit for.

How long does it take Canadian authorities to verify that a US citizen has legally crossed into Canada?




QUESTION:QUESTION: How would an Arizona LE officer verify the ‘immigration status’ of a passport-carrying Canadian Citizen who lacks an entry stamp or I-94 visa endorsement in his or her passport? ANSWER: We shall see – but I don’t think it will be pretty. (I can already see the Canadian newspaper headlines.)

Second time in this response/third time responding to this issue:
See above, RE: Canadian citizens entering without a visa.

You need to respond to the answers to the issues you have brought up, not just repeat them as if you ignored them before.

This makes at least three times that I have addressed this issue and you still choose to ignore them. Do you believe that ignoring the responses means that the answers were never given? Because the answers to those issues were given multiple times and you have acted as if I stayed silent on them.
I did answer them and your choice to ignore those answers does not make the responses I made disappear.



QUESTION:QUESTION: How would an Arizona LE officer verify the ‘immigration status’ of a US Citizen who lacks any of the IDs spelled-out in the actual text of SB 1070? ANSWER: Yikes! (I guarantee that we’ll all be reading about this when it happens.)

In the case of a US citizen, as stated before, we have to carry ID issued from the state that we live in; if you get behind the wheel without your license, it's legality can be verified by either giving the officer your license number, if you have it memorized (like I do), or by giving the officer your name, address and other data that is verifiable in the state records.

And with mobile fingerprint readers and many states going to a system of fingerprinting all people applying for ID cards and Licenses, it will, very soon, be simple enough to take a fingerprint sample at the scene and verify a citizen is, in fact a citizen.

Keep up with the technology, man. Not difficult on the internet, and requires very little effort.



QUESTION:FWIW, I have visited the US many times since 9/11, and yes, I have noticed some changes, but none of them impact on anything that I’ve written.

And none of this law will impact anything that you have believed it will.

Like I said, two different countries; two different border treaties; two different issues. One a problem and the other, not a problem.

[IndyBiFun]

Go Arizona!

Our country is slipping away due to PC. We need to take America back.

And don't even get started on the deficit!

[FalconAngel]

It doesn't matter how hardworking you are. If you aren't here legally, you don't belong here. It's just that simple. That's not treating them crappy. That's holding them up to the same law everyone else is held to.

Pasa

AMEN to that. Hard working people that are not paying taxes, like legal immigrants and citizens, are still not paying taxes and not contributing to anything but themselves.

In order to be here legally, they need to have gone through the legal processes. Anything less and they are a criminal; and we have had enough of them both times that Castro emptied his jails and sent them all over here in "boatlifts".

[Doggie_Wood]

Actually, a foreign passport would have the federal issued authorization already......it is called a "travel visa", "immigration visa", "work visa" or "student visa" and is issued by the country that the immigrant is visiting.

Additionally, their foreign passport will have been "stamped", with the date and entry point, by Customs upon legal entry into the US. Which they will also have to carry with them at all times while in the US.

[TwylaTwobits]

Well as someone who has come back to the US after some time abroad, I can tell you that it is far different coming in to the US than it was going to NZ. Getting to NZ, I had to fill out one form, and since the Swine Flu was bad, a medical form stating I wasn't sick. Dropped off any food, including what they gave us on the plane and moved on, no worries.

Coming back to the US.... I was exhausted and just followed my plane mates and wound up in the line for entry back to US. Guy says why didn't you get in the other line it would have been quicker, I just said I spent 13 hours on a plane with them I guess I can stand to be around them a bit longer in a line. I wasn't fingerprinted, like the others were, I just had my passport scanned got a "Welcome Home" and moved on. But what amused me the most were the forms that were handed out on the plane by Homeland Security. One form if you were returning citizen, but vistors from other countries had two or three forms to fill out additionally.

I was advised to keep passport handy when I was in NZ, and I did. But I didn't carry it with me everywhere, I just knew exactly where it was if I needed it. Yet, if the Patriot Act had been successful in getting that law passed where we had to have national ids or the very least a passport to pass from state to state let alone from US to Canada or Mexico, it might be a very different story here.

Last time I went to Canada, I was a kid. I was told by the trip officials that we should at least have a certified copy of our birth certificate in case we were asked. We weren't :)

Might be different now since the heightened security but that doesn't bother me. Hello, progress. What does bother me is the constant denigration of non US posters in this thread.

Bibed has posted his EXPERIENCE, yet he's told he knows nothing cause he's not American.

I'm an American, I traveled abroad but not extensively. I live near an area where we feel the heightened alerts a little more than they can be felt in Florida. Why? Ft. Knox. A target for terrorists.

Now let's get this back to the bill. Nothing about this bill says that American citizens will be treated differently. It does, however, allow racial profiling. Something that has been stated and ignored. Exactly how many generations does an American citizen who is descended from Mexican immigrants have to be here before he "looks" American?

Get real. I posted I was torn, I want people to be able to move here, but I want them here legally. Illegal immigration is a drain on our country's resources. The problem with this bill is that it is turning state against state. My state's motto is "United we stand, divided we fall" Get the point now?

[Hephaestion]

Borders, language, culture. These are what define a nation. Any nation not willing to defend these, will ultimately lose their nation to others.

Pasa

Quite right Pasa - but as in the city state having been outmoded, is this now not true of nations? One factor being the free market economy and unfettered international businesses who can dictate to national governments.

[darkeyes]

Quite right Pasa - but as in the city state having been outmoded, is this now not true of nations? One factor being the free market economy and unfettered international businesses who can dictate to national governments.

No wonder I love you Heph.. daft but not daft if you know what I mean. The day of the nation state may not yet have passed, but is in the early stages in the process of passing.. the signs are all around us if we care to open our eyes.. all that Pasa says may come to pass about culture and language.. but it is already happening now.. and borders? As we know them, all they seem to cause is trouble and misery. But none of it need be with the passing of the nation state..

[FalconAngel]

Additionally, their foreign passport will have been "stamped", with the date and entry point, by Customs upon legal entry into the US. Which they will also have to carry with them at all times while in the US.

You are right. I failed to clarify that , earlier. Thanks for catching it.

[FalconAngel]

Well as someone who has come back to the US after some time abroad, I can tell you that it is far different coming in to the US than it was going to NZ. Getting to NZ, I had to fill out one form, and since the Swine Flu was bad, a medical form stating I wasn't sick. Dropped off any food, including what they gave us on the plane and moved on, no worries.

That is common, particularly when there is a major outbreak of any disease.


Coming back to the US.... I was exhausted and just followed my plane mates and wound up in the line for entry back to US. Guy says why didn't you get in the other line it would have been quicker, I just said I spent 13 hours on a plane with them I guess I can stand to be around them a bit longer in a line. I wasn't fingerprinted, like the others were, I just had my passport scanned got a "Welcome Home" and moved on. But what amused me the most were the forms that were handed out on the plane by Homeland Security. One form if you were returning citizen, but vistors from other countries had two or three forms to fill out additionally.

Again, that covers the legal entry into the country that I had made mention of (repeatedly for some).
Homeland Security has made travel, not just internationally, but domestically as well, more difficult and burdensome than it probably needs to be.


I was advised to keep passport handy when I was in NZ, and I did. But I didn't carry it with me everywhere, I just knew exactly where it was if I needed it. Yet, if the Patriot Act had been successful in getting that law passed where we had to have national ids or the very least a passport to pass from state to state let alone from US to Canada or Mexico, it might be a very different story here.

I believe that all travelers in foreign nations are instructed to keep their passports either on their person or "handy".....it is the only serious proof that you are a citizen of where you claim.

As I recall, the idea came up before 9-11 as a national driver's license, which would serve the important purpose of standardizing the driver standard across the country. The down side to that is the whole "big Brother" thing, but the up side is that being licensed under that would insure that you would not have to get a new driver's license when moving from one state to another, as well as allowing police to not spend so much time checking other states records when stopping someone from out of state.


Last time I went to Canada, I was a kid. I was told by the trip officials that we should at least have a certified copy of our birth certificate in case we were asked. We weren't :)

It used to be like that getting to or from most of the Caribbean as well. 9-11 changed that as well.


Might be different now since the heightened security but that doesn't bother me. Hello, progress. What does bother me is the constant denigration of non US posters in this thread.

It isn't a denigration. It is a fact that local people know local laws better than people who are not living in that locality.

Someone from Canada, England, Ireland, Germany, Switzerland, (pick a country) would not know US laws and how they work anymore than a US citizen would know the laws in all of those countries as well as the people who live in those countries.

BiBed has as much right to have their opinion on US law as anyone, but having an opinion on US law, looking from the outside in, does not mean that they understand our laws.

We cannot give the same validity to the opinions, as regards our laws, to foreign nationals as we can to US citizens (natural or naturalized).

The same applies to US citizens when we comment of foreign nations' laws.
The foreign national knows more about their nation's laws than we do, here in the US.

Does that make any sense to you?


Bibed has posted his EXPERIENCE, yet he's told he knows nothing cause he's not American.

Because he is not living in this country. Which country's laws are you more qualified to make an educated comment on; US law or (pick a nation)'s law. Which do you live in? When you live in a country, it is expected to learn that nation's laws and customs, but when you are only visiting, you primary concern is to not violate the traffic laws and to treat others as you would want to be treated.
That insures that you do not break any but the most obscure laws. The people wh are citizens of and live in a nation know the laws far better than any visitor/tourist would. I know that when Florida got reciprocity with Canada, there were a lot of Quebecois that were rather shocked when their traffic tickets started to follow them home.


I'm an American, I traveled abroad but not extensively. I live near an area where we feel the heightened alerts a little more than they can be felt in Florida. Why? Ft. Knox. A target for terrorists.

really? We live just under 60 miles from the nuclear power plants at Turkey point and I am here to tell you that we have plenty of targets for terrorists to attack. Far more than there are in Kentucky.

With hundreds of corporate/Executive airports, more than a dozen international airports, more than 1/2 a dozen seaports, 5 nuclear power plants in the state, Cape Canaveral, Kennedy Space Center, Coast Guard bases, Naval stations, Air Force bases, Camp Blanding (National Guard A.T. base) and all of our tourist attractions, we present a lot of soft targets as well as a few hard targets for terrorists.

And terrorists prefer soft targets, like tourist attractions and such, to hard targets, such as military bases.

And I have been stationed at Ft. Knox, so I know just how hard a target that base is.


Now let's get this back to the bill. Nothing about this bill says that American citizens will be treated differently. It does, however, allow racial profiling. Something that has been stated and ignored. Exactly how many generations does an American citizen who is descended from Mexican immigrants have to be here before he "looks" American?

That is mostly correct.
The bill limits the police power to the same standard that they have always operated under. They have to have a lawfully justified reason to stop people just like before, but now, they have the authority to detain any undocumented persons that they find and turn them over the the proper immigration/Border Patrol authorities.
Before this bill, the local authorities could do very little when an illegal was arrested after the commission of a crime. Now they have the authority to arrest them for being illegally in the country.

Any law can be used to justify racial profiling, but that is not the intent of this bill, nor is it expected to be enforced that way......any more than any other law.


Get real. I posted I was torn, I want people to be able to move here, but I want them here legally. Illegal immigration is a drain on our country's resources. The problem with this bill is that it is turning state against state. My state's motto is "United we stand, divided we fall" Get the point now?

I agree with this, whole-heartedly, but we also need to be realistic.

As long as we have such a weak border patrol policy with a nation who's leadership has repeatedly bashed our nation, who has a history of aggression against us, who complains about this law (as well as any other law that gets tough on illegals), yet has even tougher laws than we ever have, or ever will, regarding illegal immigration, then laws like 1070 are not only justified, but necessary to secure our nation's security, economic growth and safety of our citizens and legal immigrants.

Canada will, very likely, never need this kind of border protection. They have proven themselves both a friend and ally.
Mexico, on the other hand has promoted, through their policies, illegal immigration into the US and has done nothing to stop terrorists from using their country as a gateway to the US through their illegal immigrant corridors.

[FalconAngel]

Quite right Pasa - but as in the city state having been outmoded, is this now not true of nations? One factor being the free market economy and unfettered international businesses who can dictate to national governments.

While you make a good point, on the surface, we also have to consider that it is the people of the nations that have given international businesses that power. And we can, if we the people so choose, take that power away; not just here in the US, but in every nation.
Maybe not by the same means, but it can be done.

Each country has it's own identity, but when we allow foreign nationals to enter and push their cultural identity on or take over another culture, then that nation loses it's identity.

The US has been very guilty of that in every nation that we have defeated in war or that we have had a large military or major corporate presence. It was the cause of the "ugly American" complex that developed.
No, I am not trying to justify that, but just giving an example. It is too late to fix that, but not to late to save others from making the same mistake.

[Hephaestion]

I think that it is already too late to prevent nations from losing their identity.

There is such a mix in almost every commercially oriented country around the world. In existing Federations the ruse is that there is friendly variation amongst the states (countires).

Many companies are so powerful that they metamorphose. If the tax regime or labour costs are too high then there is always somewhere else that is prepared to accept the humiliation so that's where the company moves to. They may even take their preferred labour force with them and flout any immigration restrictions.

What we the people can do is very limited. Our domastic infrastructure is almost certainly owned by a foreign national and our impotent governments tell of welcome foreigh investments. Sometimes I doubt seriously whether I own the knickers I wear.

Santander a Spanish Bank openly broke EU trading rules by giving their domestic shareholders a better return than those in other EU states. We the people compalined, the (almost US)E(U) found in our favour and the Spanish stuck fingers up our noses. Santander own several of the Building Society come Banks in the UK. As a collective the Banks charge 15% on loans but 0.5% on investments. Leap up and down and something about that through the balot box.

There was a stand off between Microsoft and the govt of the USA and also in (the almost US)E(U). One wonders what kind of compromise deal was done in the background to get MS to back down overtly. Reminder of the Cuban missile crisis and the deal on US missiles in Turkey.

.

[richarddennis]

"IF" Arizona SB1070 holds up in the courts, it will be, otherwise, it won't.

Expect the courts to find it unconstitutional, unAmerican and simply what it is: racial profiling!

What we do know is the US Supreme Court is at present right wing bias! This is fact.
When/"IF" USPC finds Arizona SB1070 to not hold up, whom will you blame then>

Poor economical times ALWAYS have a scapegoat, this is no different than the great depression. Take your whipping boy, organized labor, illegals, anyone getting a pension,whatever.

but..we won't know until the courts either accept or reject SB1070!

btw, WHY is this never a John McCain issue? We know that 75&#37; of ALL illegals have for DECADES entered USA by way of sunny Arizona, which McCain has been an elected official since 1982, he may be a great war hero, but he's failed miserably with "legal immigration reform", you know, something with teeth in it that will allow our employers to obtain sufficient "legal" workforce to build a stronger US economy!

ALL else is really conjecture and mostly unsubstantiated.

[Pasadenacpl2]

"IF" Arizona SB1070 holds up in the courts, it will be, otherwise, it won't.

Expect the courts to find it unconstitutional, unAmerican and simply what it is: racial profiling!

No, it isn't. And anyone who actually reads the law will see that. The only folks who I have found who have said it fail to understand even the basics of the law other than someone on some talking head news show told them it was.


What we do know is the US Supreme Court is at present right wing bias! This is fact.

Actually, the SCotUS at present is fairly moderate with a slight liberal bent, based not upon who nominated them, but upon how their decisions have come down in the past decade. It is true that the number of 5-4 decisions has increased, with those decisions coming down on the conservative side most often. BUT, overall, the court is fairly moderate.

I find that those who make claims about the court usually do so to support their own personal outlook on life. Conservatives complain about the liberal decisions, and liberals do likewise.


When/"IF" USPC finds Arizona SB1070 to not hold up, whom will you blame then>

Blame? for what, exactly? Unlikely that the SCotUS will be hearing any case on 1070 anytime in this next session, and probably not for a few sessions afterword. The court, according to those who are SCotUS watchers, seems to want to wait several years to let passions die down to hear any cases, if ever.




I don't think illegals are a whipping boy. This issue has been contentious even in the boom times. Economics plays a part, yes. But, not in the manner you suggest. The people supporting this law (law, not bill) are generally those with jobs who contribute to society. This isn't the torch and pitchfork crowd as you try to paint them.

[quote]but..we won't know until the courts either accept or reject SB1070!

btw, WHY is this never a John McCain issue? We know that 75% of ALL illegals have for DECADES entered USA by way of sunny Arizona, which McCain has been an elected official since 1982, he may be a great war hero, but he's failed miserably with "legal immigration reform", you know, something with teeth in it that will allow our employers to obtain sufficient "legal" workforce to build a stronger US economy!

We'll know July 1st, actually. The courts won't be weighing in anytime soon, and this law goes into affect then. And thank God. I hope Texas and New Mexico does the same. I think they will once all the illegals leave Arizona and go to elsewhere. I wonder how California will deal with a host of new welfare recipients?

And why isn't this McCain's issue? Well, mostly because he's not president. He lost. When you lose, you don't get to also get the blame. As Senator, McCain did try to have something with teeth. Several times. He was forced by the liberals to include things like amnesty to get anything done. He is only one vote, after all, in the Senate.


ALL else is really conjecture and mostly unsubstantiated.

This is the first thing in your post I have agreed with. It was nearly 100% conjecture and unsubstantiated.


Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

No wonder I love you Heph.. daft but not daft if you know what I mean. The day of the nation state may not yet have passed, but is in the early stages in the process of passing.. the signs are all around us if we care to open our eyes.. all that Pasa says may come to pass about culture and language.. but it is already happening now.. and borders? As we know them, all they seem to cause is trouble and misery. But none of it need be with the passing of the nation state..

I will fight to my dying breath, and teach my children to fight, the concept of a one world government. If we can't trust a government to run a small part of the world, why would we want one that runs the whole place?

Pasa

[darkeyes]

I will fight to my dying breath, and teach my children to fight, the concept of a one world government. If we can't trust a government to run a small part of the world, why would we want one that runs the whole place?

Pasa
Until 1945 Europe was perennial warfare more or less.. from then until now there has been no war within the entire European Union.. thats the value of a unified state..Europe isnt quite a state but it will be.. the warfare or 1914-18 and 1939-45 so scared the people of Europe that the union was created to prevent just such conflicts.. the EU isnt perfect..but it is committed to peace in a way that no single nation on this earth is... one member nation threatens its intent and its security.. I am ashamed to say I live in it..you fight till your dying breath Pasa.. its people like you with your nationalism who actually create the conditions for conflict.. you may not agree..I dont expect you to.. but it is the reality...

[Pasadenacpl2]

The conditions for conflict come about when people see what X has and decide that they want it. Whether that X is a nation, or a person, the condition is the same. To blame the person/nation who has it, and is willing to defend it is ludicrous.

The only reason the conflict in Europe escalated is because people like Hitler wanted what you had, and Chamberlain wanted everyone to 'just get along.' That turned out well. The fact of the matter is that there will always be someone wanting to take what we have by force. And no amount of singing Kumbaya will ever, ever change that.

As for Europe being one state in the future? Somehow this experiment seems to have failed. Unlike the United States, where every colony had essentially the same history and culture, you are trying to mash together extremely different cultures with different values into one 'state.' Just like we are seeing with the downfall of the Euro, the idea will probably never come to fruition. For which I'm thankful.

Pasa

[JP1986UM]

"IF" Arizona SB1070 holds up in the courts, it will be, otherwise, it won't.

Expect the courts to find it unconstitutional, unAmerican and simply what it is: racial profiling!

What we do know is the US Supreme Court is at present right wing bias! This is fact.
When/"IF" USPC finds Arizona SB1070 to not hold up, whom will you blame then>

Poor economical times ALWAYS have a scapegoat, this is no different than the great depression. Take your whipping boy, organized labor, illegals, anyone getting a pension,whatever.

but..we won't know until the courts either accept or reject SB1070!

It makes you wonder if anyone has actually READ the phucking bill rather than what some idiot on PMSNBC says they think it says.

Witness massatoochettes instituting the same farking bill and you didn't bother to say shit about it.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/05/mass_senate_pas.html

Guess you don't have a take on that since Olberdork hasn't told you what to think?

There is NO RACIAL profiling going on. The police can't stop someone for being hispanic. They can stop someone for driving a van with expired/STOLEN plates, and carrying 25 people in it who all immediately run. I don't think the bill goes far enough. If they run, shoot first, ask questions later.

Its an ILLEGALITY which too many people fail to realize. mexico should be taking care of its own, not encouraging them to come here and send money back.

Fuck the one world govt shit. There is a reason we have the second amendment codified as a TRUE right.

[FalconAngel]

Facts are facts, folks.

And this issue does remind me of the words from a song from the sixties....."you can't please everyone, so you have to please yourself.".

No matter what happens with this law, someone is not going to be happy. Pick a side and a reason, realistic reason or not.

Fact is that the bleeding heart types hate the law, the tight-assed ultra conservatives wish it were tougher and the moderates are satisfied with it.

The reality is that something has been needed to be done and finally someone did do something that our own federal government has, intentionally or not, failed to do.

I have no sympathy for criminals; entering this country in violation of the law is a major crime and it is about time that it is addressed seriously by someone.

[Hephaestion]

Pasa "....As for Europe being one state in the future? Somehow this experiment seems to have failed. Unlike the United States, where every colony had essentially the same history and culture, you are trying to mash together extremely different cultures with different values into one 'state.' Just like we are seeing with the downfall of the Euro, the idea will probably never come to fruition. For which I'm thankful......."


Nota Bene

1) the glory of Rome (actually the Greco-Roman Empire(s)) in which the peoples of Europe, the middle East and Northern Africa were citizens under a single banner. Incidentally Hardian's Wall varied in its function between defensive border and trading area. Eventually the Francs (formerly enemeis) took over the western side of the Empire under Charlemagne (his was the 1st Reich - guess who's was the 3rd Reich in trying to re-create the glory). In the present melding of peoples under the EU the European side of things works very well. There are occasional difficulties but these are often associated with the former colonies of the individual memebers.

2) Wasn't the USA originally owned by the native Indians; then bits taken away and divided between the English influenced east coast, the French east-central corridor (New Orelans to Quebec), the Spanish south west? Later on, wasn't there a tremendous and continued influx of Europeans with their wide and varied backgrounds? North AMerica has usually been described as a melting pot of nationalities. Isn't that why the USA now has citizeneship exams (and now we emulate you)? Didn't California pass a law a while back making English the offical language to counter the effects of the almost majority hispanics?

You are a teacher Pasa and almost certaily aware that there is a danger with simplification to the point where it ignores reality and starts to preach propaganda.

This is not to say that there isn't an immigration problem there (and here) but ill judged laws are not helpful in solving this. Perhaps this debate is part of the counterbalance essential in a 'free' society (what's left of it).

Regards

[darkeyes]

The conditions for conflict come about when people see what X has and decide that they want it. Whether that X is a nation, or a person, the condition is the same. To blame the person/nation who has it, and is willing to defend it is ludicrous.

The only reason the conflict in Europe escalated is because people like Hitler wanted what you had, and Chamberlain wanted everyone to 'just get along.' That turned out well. The fact of the matter is that there will always be someone wanting to take what we have by force. And no amount of singing Kumbaya will ever, ever change that.

As for Europe being one state in the future? Somehow this experiment seems to have failed. Unlike the United States, where every colony had essentially the same history and culture, you are trying to mash together extremely different cultures with different values into one 'state.' Just like we are seeing with the downfall of the Euro, the idea will probably never come to fruition. For which I'm thankful.

Pasa

Sometimes Pasa you show your prejudice against things European. The European dream remains alive.. it currently has serious problems but all great organisations and nations have them.. the EU has not failed.. on the contrary.. there remain quite a few nations who wish to belong and will in time.. no one seriously wishes to leave .. the move to true European union continues.. yes we have different languages and cultures and that is both a weakness and a strength. The Euro as a currency is not dead either and it will recover.. as often you do.. you talk without understanding.. and your xenophobia shines brightly...

[darkeyes]

It makes you wonder if anyone has actually READ the phucking bill rather than what some idiot on PMSNBC says they think it says.

Witness massatoochettes instituting the same farking bill and you didn't bother to say shit about it.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/05/mass_senate_pas.html

Guess you don't have a take on that since Olberdork hasn't told you what to think?

There is NO RACIAL profiling going on. The police can't stop someone for being hispanic. They can stop someone for driving a van with expired/STOLEN plates, and carrying 25 people in it who all immediately run. I don't think the bill goes far enough. If they run, shoot first, ask questions later.

Its an ILLEGALITY which too many people fail to realize. mexico should be taking care of its own, not encouraging them to come here and send money back.

Fuck the one world govt shit. There is a reason we have the second amendment codified as a TRUE right.

.. the little Englander sympton is alive and well in the USA indeed...

[darkeyes]

Facts are facts, folks.

And this issue does remind me of the words from a song from the sixties....."you can't please everyone, so you have to please yourself.".

No matter what happens with this law, someone is not going to be happy. Pick a side and a reason, realistic reason or not.

Fact is that the bleeding heart types hate the law, the tight-assed ultra conservatives wish it were tougher and the moderates are satisfied with it.

The reality is that something has been needed to be done and finally someone did do something that our own federal government has, intentionally or not, failed to do.

I have no sympathy for criminals; entering this country in violation of the law is a major crime and it is about time that it is addressed seriously by someone.

...isn't it Falcie??:(

[Pasadenacpl2]

.. the little Englander sympton is alive and well in the USA indeed...

Wow, Fran. I know most people here in the states wouldn't understand that little quip, but I do. Just a tad bit of venom to go with your toddy tonight, eh?

Again, it's not nationalism that causes problems. It's people wanting what others have that is the problem. Whether that's corporate or national, or personal.

A corporation using it's influence to take what others have is just as bad as a government trying to take what I have to give to others, which is just as bad as illegal immigrants trying to take what is not theirs, which is just as bad as nations trying to take from other nations. And they are all symptoms of the same things.

Hoping that we will all join hands and the world will be a happier place is naive. There will always be someone trying to take what someone else has. Always. And we need to protect ourselves from those people. Protection comes in the form of the military, border patrols, INS, police officers, courts (to protect from corporations) and personally being willing to protect yourself (rather than depending on others to provide 100&#37; of your protection). I note that you regularly have quips against nearly all of those things.

*********

For the record, I love Europe...as a place to visit. I wouldn't want to live there again. I'm not anti-Europe. I am against certain individuals who constantly act as if they are so much more evolved than Americans. I am against any move towards a one world government. That it's European is really not the point.

There have been several stories lately about the Euro and how Greece will likely mean it's demise. I know most folks in England didn't want to do that in the first place (Tony Blair, as I recall, took a lot of heat for it). Then you have Fitch downgrading Spain this week for, of all things, cutting the budget and reducing the national debt. Apparently, those are bad things.

Then there is Germany who is taking the biggest hit in the Greece fiasco. They have to buy out Greece's debt or watch the entire union crumble as one weak market is eaten by the next weakest and so on. I doubt Merkel will survive it, quite frankly. The German people are already upset about losing the Mark to the Euro, and they are even more upset about their national debt skyrocketing to save Greece.

For those watching the dollar and thinking this is similar to last year's lowering in valuation of the dollar...it's not. The US isn't trying to eat itself from the inside. There isn't a Texas market and a Utah market where currency is concerned. Yes, California is having issues, but New Mexico isn't having to shoulder that burden. The US has had a rough two years, and will probably have another rough two ahead of it due to Obama's policies increasing our debt by many trillions a year. BUT, we are only seeing fluctuations of value as is normal in any economic downturn. What Europe is seeing is the world asking if the Euro is stable in the first place. And as more and more instability and unrest shows itself, fewer and fewer people will want to invest their long term money in the EU marketplace. I'd bet that the Euro goes away in the next few years. No way is Germany going to want to have to bolster up any more failed economies in the future, and I don't see England doing that either.

Y'all have a serious problem over there. That's not anti-EU sentiment. That's economics. That's nearly every news agency who reports on EU issues screaming to the rest of the world that the ship is sinking. Though, I suppose claiming that it's just my nationalism speaking is one way of looking at it. Not an effective way, but a way.

Here is an interesting article in Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agwHp5N5FXA8 It's not the only one saying essentially the same thing.

Pasa

[Doggie_Wood]

I will fight to my dying breath, and teach my children to fight, the concept of a one world government. If we can't trust a government to run a small part of the world, why would we want one that runs the whole place?

Pasa


One World Government - One World Order - Illuminatti - The Work of Lucifer

Absolute Power Corrupts - Absolutely

Doggie :doggie:

[TaylorMade]

I will fight to my dying breath, and teach my children to fight, the concept of a one world government. If we can't trust a government to run a small part of the world, why would we want one that runs the whole place?

Pasa


Exactly. I like other people, I like other countries, I just don't want them running my shit.

*Taylor*

[Hephaestion]

Pasa ".....Y'all have a serious problem over there. That's not anti-EU sentiment. That's economics. That's nearly every news agency who reports on EU issues screaming to the rest of the world that the ship is sinking. Though, I suppose claiming that it's just my nationalism speaking is one way of looking at it. Not an effective way, but a way........."

The problem of living beyond one's means belongs not just to Greece but to much of the capitalist world. Capitalism has failed these countries in much the same way that Communism has failed elsewhere.

There is this idiotic notion that economies will always expand and get richer. This is nonsense as richer is a relative term and is obvioulsy a variable thing. The reality is economies in resonance. As one gets richer so another must yield to that dominance and accept the concomitant poverty (then the internal systems kick in to cement the prols and oligarchs in their place)

The USA is as broke as Greece is. Why isn't the USA in the same sort of crisis?

a) it has been able to feed itself
b) for now the USA can power itself
c) No one can cope with the concept of the dollar being worth toilet paper.
d) the USA looks better than toilets elsewhere and the occupants feel good for now.

Of these #c is the most important factor.

The UK is in a worse situation as it is deficient in #a #b #c (for dollar read pound) and #d (our one time influx of cheap labour is begining to find that things look better elsewhere). The EU has greater resilience than the UK although #b is a potential problem. The Euro will not collapse - the 'failed' members will have their membership conditions reviewed.

Germany remains slightly sensitive to having to shoulder a greater load as they had to deal with the burden of re-unification a while back.

Essentially Captialism functions on faith. It is no suprise that economists in competing areas should point a finger and say 'their faith is weaker than ours'. This is better known as the "God is on our side" syndrome. Meanwhile the UK is bent on being a godless society as well as a goldless one. Thank you Mrs T and the grinning ninny.

.

[lv69cpl69]

copy paste and send it on. PLEASE!!!

SOCIAL SECURITY CHANGES

It does not matter if you personally like or dislike Obama. You need to sign this petition and flood his e-mail box with e-mails that tell him that, even if the House passes this bill, he needs to veto it. It is already impossible to live on Social Security alone. If the government gives benefits to 'illegal' aliens who have never contributed, where does that leave those of us who have paid into Social Security all our working lives?

As stated below, the Senate voted this week to allow 'illegal' aliens access to Social Security
benefits.
Attached is an opportunity to sign a petition that requires citizenship for eligibility to that social service.

Instructions are below. If you don't forward the petition and just stop it, we will lose all these names..

If you do not want to sign it, please just forward it to everyone you know.

Thank you!

To add your name, click on 'forward'. Address it to all of your email correspondents, add your name to the list and send it on.

When the petition hits 1,000, send it to comment@whitehouse.gov

PETITION for President Obama:

Dear Mr. President:
We, the undersigned, protest the bill that the Senate voted on recently which would allow illegal aliens to access our Social Security. We demand that you and all Congressional representatives require citizenship as a pre-requisite for social services in the United States .

We further demand that there not be any amnesty given to illegal aliens, NO free services, no funding, no payments to and for illegal immigrants.

[darkeyes]

Wow, Fran. I know most people here in the states wouldn't understand that little quip, but I do. Just a tad bit of venom to go with your toddy tonight, eh?

Again, it's not nationalism that causes problems. It's people wanting what others have that is the problem. Whether that's corporate or national, or personal.

A corporation using it's influence to take what others have is just as bad as a government trying to take what I have to give to others, which is just as bad as illegal immigrants trying to take what is not theirs, which is just as bad as nations trying to take from other nations. And they are all symptoms of the same things.

Hoping that we will all join hands and the world will be a happier place is naive. There will always be someone trying to take what someone else has. Always. And we need to protect ourselves from those people. Protection comes in the form of the military, border patrols, INS, police officers, courts (to protect from corporations) and personally being willing to protect yourself (rather than depending on others to provide 100&#37; of your protection). I note that you regularly have quips against nearly all of those things.

*********

For the record, I love Europe...as a place to visit. I wouldn't want to live there again. I'm not anti-Europe. I am against certain individuals who constantly act as if they are so much more evolved than Americans. I am against any move towards a one world government. That it's European is really not the point.

There have been several stories lately about the Euro and how Greece will likely mean it's demise. I know most folks in England didn't want to do that in the first place (Tony Blair, as I recall, took a lot of heat for it). Then you have Fitch downgrading Spain this week for, of all things, cutting the budget and reducing the national debt. Apparently, those are bad things.

Then there is Germany who is taking the biggest hit in the Greece fiasco. They have to buy out Greece's debt or watch the entire union crumble as one weak market is eaten by the next weakest and so on. I doubt Merkel will survive it, quite frankly. The German people are already upset about losing the Mark to the Euro, and they are even more upset about their national debt skyrocketing to save Greece.

For those watching the dollar and thinking this is similar to last year's lowering in valuation of the dollar...it's not. The US isn't trying to eat itself from the inside. There isn't a Texas market and a Utah market where currency is concerned. Yes, California is having issues, but New Mexico isn't having to shoulder that burden. The US has had a rough two years, and will probably have another rough two ahead of it due to Obama's policies increasing our debt by many trillions a year. BUT, we are only seeing fluctuations of value as is normal in any economic downturn. What Europe is seeing is the world asking if the Euro is stable in the first place. And as more and more instability and unrest shows itself, fewer and fewer people will want to invest their long term money in the EU marketplace. I'd bet that the Euro goes away in the next few years. No way is Germany going to want to have to bolster up any more failed economies in the future, and I don't see England doing that either.

Y'all have a serious problem over there. That's not anti-EU sentiment. That's economics. That's nearly every news agency who reports on EU issues screaming to the rest of the world that the ship is sinking. Though, I suppose claiming that it's just my nationalism speaking is one way of looking at it. Not an effective way, but a way.

Here is an interesting article in Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agwHp5N5FXA8 It's not the only one saying essentially the same thing.

Pasa

Why does this remind me of "I like black people but I wouldnt like my son or daughter to marry one?" You're not alone in feeling as you do.. but narrow nationist feeling does that to people I am afraid.

Never make the mistake as many do, of confusing sadness and regret for venom, Pasa darling. There are many in my own country who make that fundamental error about things I say. No nationalism is not to blame in istelf but nationalism. like religion often brings the worst out in people because it is so easy to manipulate.. therefore it bears its responsibility.. the worst blame lies squarely at the feet of the greedy and selfish in their desire for power and riches..

[TaylorMade]

Why does this remind me of "I like black people but I wopuldnt like my son or daughter to marry one?" You're not alone in feeling as you do.. but narrow nationist feeling does that to people I am afraid.

Never make the mistake as many do, of confusing sadness and regret for venom, Pasa darling. There are many in my own country who make that fundamental error about thing I say. No nationalism is not to blame in istelf but nationalism. like religion often brings the worst out in people because it is so easy to manipulate.. therefore it bears its responsibility.. the worst blame lies squarely at the feet of the greedy and selfish in their desire for power and riches..

You're comparing it to RACISM? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

That is a bridge too far. I am sorry. You've said things that do merit a rolled eye or two, but this? Oh hell nawl.

*Taylor*

[darkeyes]

You're comparing it to RACISM? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

That is a bridge too far. I am sorry. You've said things that do merit a rolled eye or two, but this? Oh hell nawl.

*Taylor*

Yes Taylor I am. Don't agree.. thats up to you but nationalism, xenophobia and racism are inextricably linked.. and there is plenty more where that came from to keep the Taylor eyes rolling...;)

[darkeyes]

Yes Taylor I am. Don't agree.. thats up to you but nationalism, xenophobia and racism are inextricably linked.. and there is plenty more where that came from to keep the Taylor eyes rolling...;)

Got a bollocking of a couple of me m8s for saying this.. they are Scottish Nationalist an seem 2 have misunderstood.. why is a mystery to me cos they should know me well enough but let me clear it up.. I am not saying Nationalists are necessarily xenophobes or racist.. I am not sayin xenophobes are necessarily racist or even nationalist.. and am not saying racists are necessarily xenophobes or nationalist.. am saying that they are inextricably linked because each tends to encourage the others in many people.. arguably the majority, but certainly a very sizeable minority.. now peeps may not like it and can deny it until the cows come home.. but that is a very unpleasant reality.

[FalconAngel]

Yes Taylor I am. Don't agree.. thats up to you but nationalism, xenophobia and racism are inextricably linked.. and there is plenty more where that came from to keep the Taylor eyes rolling...;)

Americans are no more xenophobic than any other nation. Our problem, except for a few real racists, was never with foreign nationals coming into the country; it is foreign nationals coming into the country illegally that we oppose.

Realistically, any one nation can only afford to support so many people. There are natural resources, the ability to produce enough food (did anyone know that 75% of Russia's wheat came from the US during the Cold War), the availability of jobs to support the people (all of the people) and a failure of those who come here illegally (as well as a growing portion of legal immigrants, mostly Latino) to assimilate to our culture.

Even many of the legal immigrants, as often as not, refuse to take advantage of the free English classes that my Mom's German great grandparents had NO access to (had they been available, they would have taken those classes in order to be a better part of this nation.

So the problem is that many are refusing to assimilate to the culture of the country that they chose to go to. Now most of us understand that there are folks that are just not capable of learning a second language; it is a reality that we must face, but it does not mean that they have no responsibility to assimilate to the culture.

THAT is the problem that we have; and it is a normal human reaction in every country that has large numbers of illegal immigrants.

This is the short version of that particular discussion, looking at ONLY legal immigration numbers; Not addressing the illegal immigration problem.
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/resources/video/recommended/immigration-gumballs.html

And this is part one of a longer presentation in two parts.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyTmClBU7nA&feature=PlayList&p=CE2C3BD572C3E3A1&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=21

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t976q6CeN8Q&feature=related

And he is just talking about legal immigrants, not even discussing the 11 million + illegals that enter the country, in violation of our laws, every year.

We just cannot support the entire 3rd world without becoming a 3rd world nation ourselves.

[darkeyes]

Americans are no more xenophobic than any other nation. Our problem, except for a few real racists, was never with foreign nationals coming into the country; it is foreign nationals coming into the country illegally that we oppose.

I havent said that they are Falcie..

When it comes to immigration, I actually dont care how many come to my country.. I believe in free movement of peoples.. changing culture and language is something which has always happened, and I dont think that is too great a price to pay for a better world. Of course it is debatable whether or not your way or mine is best or any other way.. what is however certain is that your country is much better able to absorb large numbers of immigrants than is mine.. you have vastly greater land space, immensely greater natural resources and are vastly richer (even allowing for the current world economic cock up). Yet I have no objection to immigration on a large scale to my country. We need it to grow and it has historically always made us more vibrant and has helped us grow as a people. I believe in open borders and while there may be real problems,for I cant deny that there would be, it is a principle which every state should move toward and we are bright enough as a species to resolve those problems if only we have the will. Which of course would mean that illegal immigration would essentially become a thing of the past. But then there are lots of people for whom illegal immigration is a great and valuable tool with which to scare the pants off the resident population..

[FalconAngel]

I havent said that they are Falcie..

When it comes to immigration, I actually dont care how many come to my country.. I believe in free movement of peoples.. changing culture and language is something which has always happened, and I dont think that is too great a price to pay for a better world. Of course it is debatable whether or not your way or mine is best or any other way.. what is however certain is that your country is much better able to absorb large numbers of immigrants than is mine.. you have vastly greater land space, immensely greater natural resources and are vastly richer (even allowing for the current world economic cock up). Yet I have no objection to immigration on a large scale to my country. We need it to grow and it has historically always made us more vibrant and has helped us grow as a people. I believe in open borders and while there may be real problems,for I cant deny that there would be, it is a principle which every state should move toward and we are bright enough as a species to resolve those problems if only we have the will. Which of course would mean that illegal immigration would essentially become a thing of the past. But then there are lots of people for whom illegal immigration is a great and valuable tool with which to scare the pants off the resident population..

Sadly, the comparison between your country and ours is not a truly fair comparison, and like the US, your country also has limited resources with which to support a population without expanding into other, sovereign nations. That was the plan laid out by Hitler in Mein Kampf and his unpublished sequel (expand, grow, expand). It cannot work in a finite space with finite resources.

To just say "hey all of you folks that don't like your country, come here" is a very short-sighted thing to do, as well as opening your nation up to some serious social issues.

Using an example from here, we have a huge Haitian immigrant problem. Almost 30% are here illegally, since Haiti does not have the benefit of the "wet-foot - dry-foot" policy that the Cubans (and only the Cubans) have.

Now that influx, starting in only the last 20 years (worse since the quake in Haiti). They have brought into this country, their culture and social customs, often ending up in our jails for doing so.
Why, you might ask?
Because Haiti has developed a culture of self-destruction and mob mentality. Ever since Toussaud's rebellion (1780's - 1804), they have not had a stable government, over 200 years of social/government instability and a developed and ingrained culture of poverty and gang violence.

I for one do not want that imported into my country.......we have enough of it already: particularly the gang violence.

But the core issue is the nation's ability to support so many. It is better to teach them to make their own country more productive than they are than to just let them all come and place the burdon on this nation, bringing with them all of the flaws that their failing countries instilled in them.

And with a lack of assimilation, those flaws never go away and eventually become part of our culture. Just look at the history of the Mafia, here in the US. It started with the Italian immigrants not letting go of their ways and failing to properly assimilate. The Japanese Yakuza is the same thing.

Not that there are all bad things in any of those cultures, but we would prefer the good things stayed and the bad was left behind. Supposedly they came here to get away from it.
You do not get away from the bad until you leave it behind and never return to it.

[Pasadenacpl2]

Why does this remind me of "I like black people but I wouldnt like my son or daughter to marry one?" You're not alone in feeling as you do.. but narrow nationist feeling does that to people I am afraid.

Never make the mistake as many do, of confusing sadness and regret for venom, Pasa darling. There are many in my own country who make that fundamental error about things I say. No nationalism is not to blame in istelf but nationalism. like religion often brings the worst out in people because it is so easy to manipulate.. therefore it bears its responsibility.. the worst blame lies squarely at the feet of the greedy and selfish in their desire for power and riches..

I don't know why it reminds you of racism. It doesn't even resemble racism.

I've lived in Europe. I had a good time. I don't' want to go back there to live. Sorry, it's not racism. It doesn't even resemble it. It is simply a preference of where I'd like to live. I've lived in Japan and the Middle East, too. Don't want to go back to either of those places to live, either. Racism? Nope. Just a preference. Too many things the US offers that I value that other nations do not. That, and I've been willing to die to defend my nation. Living in another nation just seems silly at that point.

Nationalism does not bring anything out in people. It is simple: when someone tries to take what other people have by force, those people will defend themselves.

I defend myself by voting when the government tries to take things by force from me.

I defend myself with my firearms when individuals try to take things by force.

Nationalism is the willingness to defend our nation from those who would take things from our nation by force. Whether that force is governmental, individual, criminal, or corporate doesn't matter.

People who are proud and willing to defend their nation are not racists for that pride and willingness. And I get fairly tired of having to defend against this accusation.

Just because Germany took nationalism to new heights does not mean that it is the blueprint. One can defend one's nation without it. At least, we can over here. I don't know about Europe. ;)

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

nationalism, xenophobia and racism are inextricably linked..

This statement is false.

Pasa

[FalconAngel]

Nationalism is the willingness to defend our nation from those who would take things from our nation by force. Whether that force is governmental, individual, criminal, or corporate doesn't matter.

Actually, Pasa, Nationalism is "my nation, right or wrong, over all others", while patriotism is "My nation; it isn't perfect, but I am willing to protect it, even from itself."


People who are proud and willing to defend their nation are not racists for that pride and willingness. And I get fairly tired of having to defend against this accusation.

I am completely with you on that. People love to throw that word racism around just because they can, particularly when they do not have any more than a superficial understanding of the idea.

Pasa, the rest of this is not meant for you, but to address the issue of racism that has been broached here by others.

Addressing the issue of racism, as this law applies, that others have claimed:

In the case of 1070, the problem is that it appears, superficially, to be racist, but the problem is not based in racism. It isn't the Chinese, the Japanese, Hatians, Canadians, or anyone in South America or the rest of the world that is the problem. It is the illegals from Mexico pouring in by the hundreds, every day, that are the problem. Not the others.

The others trickle in by dozens a year, versus hundreds per day of Mexicans who enter illegally.

So the question is this: In order to not be called racist, should we go after everyone but the Mexicans? If the Mexican border and illegal Mexican immigrants are the problem, then handling that specific case is not racism.

Crying racism, when dealing with illegal immigration becomes a very tenuous slippery slope argument against effective immigration enforcement.

[darkeyes]

This statement is false.

Pasa

Really? Not that I would expect you to say anything else, Pasa.. but I think I will stick with it..:)

[darkeyes]

I don't know why it reminds you of racism. It doesn't even resemble racism.

I've lived in Europe. I had a good time. I don't' want to go back there to live. Sorry, it's not racism. It doesn't even resemble it. It is simply a preference of where I'd like to live. I've lived in Japan and the Middle East, too. Don't want to go back to either of those places to live, either. Racism? Nope. Just a preference. Too many things the US offers that I value that other nations do not. That, and I've been willing to die to defend my nation. Living in another nation just seems silly at that point.

Nationalism does not bring anything out in people. It is simple: when someone tries to take what other people have by force, those people will defend themselves.

I defend myself by voting when the government tries to take things by force from me.

I defend myself with my firearms when individuals try to take things by force.

Nationalism is the willingness to defend our nation from those who would take things from our nation by force. Whether that force is governmental, individual, criminal, or corporate doesn't matter.

People who are proud and willing to defend their nation are not racists for that pride and willingness. And I get fairly tired of having to defend against this accusation.

Just because Germany took nationalism to new heights does not mean that it is the blueprint. One can defend one's nation without it. At least, we can over here. I don't know about Europe. ;)

Pasa

You may not think it resembles racism..but it does in my view... is it racist? Not of itself . But some who expound similar views to yours are racist.. some expound them not because they dislike or hate other peoples but for love of "King and Country" and can live quite happily alongside those of a different ethnicity or origin and have the greatest affection and respect for them. Some are racist even although they would deny it till they were blue in the face.. it happens in every country Pasa.. yours isnt so special on that score.. just because people deny what is, as I am probably much to fond of saying.. doesnt stop it being so..:)

[Pasadenacpl2]

Oh..I finally get it.

It is not the character of a man, nor his actions, nor his words that make him racist. Disagreeing with your worldview makes him racist.

Thanks, I get it now.

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

Really? Not that I would expect you to say anything else, Pasa.. but I think I will stick with it..:)

You go ahead. But, as you put it, just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it so. Patently false, your assumption and definitions in this matter are.

Pasa

[richarddennis]

If you're not an hispanic, it's doubtful you'll ever feel the wrath of SB1070.

Meanwhile, the GOP has more or less sealed their fate by backing this bill. They may not know it, but they just lost 25% of the southwest USA VOTERS.

ALL national elections in USA are decided by the huge hispanic block vote, thinking hispanics don't vote will be the undoing of the GOP that sadly has walked away from the cause of the people[VOTERS]and taken BigBusiness as their means to an end.

While minor gains in regions that are GOP dominated, they'll hang on, in other area, the GOP will falter without support of the strong hispanic block VOTERS.

If the GOP can't get a moderate agenda that will win elections, they're gonna be doomed to watching actions take place in DC from the outside looking in.

The evil Demos, as foolish as ever, however managed to elect an unknown black man that few outside of Chicago had even heard of 3 years ago!

The recent presidential mandate wasn't caused by the good of the evil Demos, but from the party of NO that simply lost touch with the average VOTER.

"IF" SB1070 holds up in the US Supreme Court, the GOP will have a mandate and backing of VOTERS, "IF" SB1070 fails to pass US Supreme Court adjudication, the GOP is in real trouble!

Meanwhile, Latinos in sunny Arizona understand which political party played them as villains in a state that will be hispanic VOTER dominated within the lifetime of anyone reading this!

Strange, the elephant, a sign of the once great GOP has forgotten who is feeding it in sunny Arizona.

As the GOP retirees wither and pass away, they are being rapidly replaced with young, hispanics that will VOTE!

The southwest USA NEED legal immigration reform NOW!

We know one of the standard bearers of the conservative GOP, Reagan once "legalized" many illegals!

BOTH Obama & McCain pledged during their recent election runs to do the SAME!

While some of the GOP elephants have a revisionist memory when it comes to facts...the evil Demos are just grin'n and know they can win elections even easier!

GOP: PLEASE get a moderate agenda, a one party system, like when Bush II was in office didn't work and the present version with Obama is not much different!

[Pasadenacpl2]

If you're not an hispanic, it's doubtful you'll ever feel the wrath of SB1070.

Meanwhile, the GOP has more or less sealed their fate by backing this bill. They may not know it, but they just lost 25&#37; of the southwest USA VOTERS.

ALL national elections in USA are decided by the huge hispanic block vote, thinking hispanics don't vote will be the undoing of the GOP that sadly has walked away from the cause of the people[VOTERS]and taken BigBusiness as their means to an end.

While minor gains in regions that are GOP dominated, they'll hang on, in other area, the GOP will falter without support of the strong hispanic block VOTERS.

If the GOP can't get a moderate agenda that will win elections, they're gonna be doomed to watching actions take place in DC from the outside looking in.

The evil Demos, as foolish as ever, however managed to elect an unknown black man that few outside of Chicago had even heard of 3 years ago!

The recent presidential mandate wasn't caused by the good of the evil Demos, but from the party of NO that simply lost touch with the average VOTER.

"IF" SB1070 holds up in the US Supreme Court, the GOP will have a mandate and backing of VOTERS, "IF" SB1070 fails to pass US Supreme Court adjudication, the GOP is in real trouble!

Meanwhile, Latinos in sunny Arizona understand which political party played them as villains in a state that will be hispanic VOTER dominated within the lifetime of anyone reading this!

Strange, the elephant, a sign of the once great GOP has forgotten who is feeding it in sunny Arizona.

As the GOP retirees wither and pass away, they are being rapidly replaced with young, hispanics that will VOTE!

The southwest USA NEED legal immigration reform NOW!

We know one of the standard bearers of the conservative GOP, Reagan once "legalized" many illegals!

BOTH Obama & McCain pledged during their recent election runs to do the SAME!

While some of the GOP elephants have a revisionist memory when it comes to facts...the evil Demos are just grin'n and know they can win elections even easier!

GOP: PLEASE get a moderate agenda, a one party system, like when Bush II was in office didn't work and the present version with Obama is not much different!

Do you have anything resembling facts to go with all of that propaganda?

In Arizona, the voting populace overwhelmingly supports this law. So, there goes your theory about the voters being upset. BTW, the LEGAL Hispanic population in AZ supports this law with something like 70% approval. This mirrors the 70% approval that the rest of the nation shares.

I enjoy political rhetoric as much as the next guy. But, I also discount it when we're trying to say what 'will' happen. Your last statement, however, I completely agree with.

Pasa

[lv69cpl69]

The Austin City Council and all of Austin’s liberal/leftist lock steppers should be ashamed of themselves. Scroll down to see why.



---

Again, a picture says a thousand words!

-----



Hey everyone out there!

We, in Arizona, know you're boycotting us -- but you really should come out here and see our Beautiful Sonoran Desert.

It's just gorgeous right now! We know you'd love it and maybe you can share what you saw with the rest of the country so they can love it too!




This is on an 'illegal super - highway' from Mexico to the USA (Tucson) used by human smugglers.

This area is located in a wash, approximately 1.5 miles long, just south of Tucson, Arizona. If a flood came, all this would be washed to the river and then onto the sea!



It is estimated over 5,000 discarded backpacks are in this wash. Countless water containers, food wrappers, clothing, feces, including thousands of soiled baby diapers. And as you can see in this picture, fresh footprints leading right into it.



As we kept walking down the wash, we thought for sure it was going to end, but around every corner was more and more trash!



And of course the trail leading out of the wash in our city, heads directly NORTH to Tucson, then leads to your town tomorrow.



They've already come through here. Isn't Arizona just beautiful, America?

Why would you boycott us???

Our desert has basically been turned into a landfill.



The trash left behind by people illegally crossing our border is another Environmental Disaster to hit the USA.

If these actions had been done in one of our Northwest Forests or Seashore National Parks areas, there would be an uprising of the American people.....but this is the Arizona-Mexican border.

You won't see these pictures on CNN, ABC, NBC or the Arizona Republic Repugnant newspaper. Nor will they mention the disease that comes from the uncovered human waste left in our desert.

However, with respect to CNN, ABC & NBC, they do offer us "Special Reports" on cheating celebrity spouses....

This information needs to be seen by the rest of the country.

[darkeyes]

You go ahead. But, as you put it, just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it so. Patently false, your assumption and definitions in this matter are.

Pasa

No it doesnt.. just because I say so. Patently false? I dont think so.. I live in the midst nationalism every day.. I hear and endure xenophobia every day.. and listen to blatant racism every day. The three are not quite the same but are sufficiently similar to know they are linked. The denial by many that they are any or all of those things here sickens me as they elucidate and try to justify wy we are so much better thna anyone else, why our values are so superior, why non whites should be repatriated, why slavs are rapists and dirty, why Poles came over here and took our jobs, why they dont like the French or the Germans, or indeed Americans, who are loud arrogant and think they own the world, why we should withdraw from Europe, why they loathe the English, why immigrants must learn English, why the Welsh are all so insular and rude, why the Irish are drunken bombers (yes even now), why we dont want any immigration at all.. all of it adds up to a nasty taste in the mouth. No everyone is not like that entirely, but most have some or all of those traits, and though they deny it they are all tarits of xenophobia and racism and usually tinged with a healthy dose of nationalism.. if you are unable to see it Pasa.. its a pity.. but its at least as valid, in my view more so, and sensible as anything you tell the world..

[Pasadenacpl2]

Umm...none of those things are the case here. At least not with the immigration issue.

We want people to follow the law. We want the opportunity to know who is entering our nation. That's it. No, your opinion of whether we should have open borders is not relevant to this particular discussion. The fact is that we do, and we have a right to protect them. I have yet to hear you acknowledge that illegal immigrants (it's not PC to call them aliens anymore) are illegal, breaking the law, in violation of federal crimes etc.

Oh...we do expect people to learn English. If our nation is so good that you decided to leave your home, then you have a duty to assimilate into our nation. That's holding high expectations. Not racism. That's expecting that I don't have to spend billions a year in printing fees to print government documents in every language known to man. It's also a way of ensuring that we all have at least one thing in common. It makes living in harmony far easier.

All of that other stuff seems to be pretty English centric. Are we perfect? No, of course not. But we don't have what you describe other than a few old folks here and there that refuse to give up the old ways. Even the word nigger has lost it's power here. I see the students I teach and they just couldn't give a shit about race. And I live and work in the next step up from the true ghetto.

Also, when you use the term 'nationalism' and when I do, we are using it differently, methinks. How you are using it does not describe me, my stance, or the Arizona immigration law in the slightest. It seems like you are projecting the problems of England onto America, and don't project your problems with small Englanders onto me (though, I do think England should pull from the EU. It will be an economic albatross until you do.)

Pasa

[richarddennis]

Funny how those that don't live in Arizona seem to know everything about it, OK...

The latinos in Arizona that I've met don't share your "70% support SB1070", maybe 70% of the white retirees could be, OK...

You don't support legal immigration reform, OK...

You think John McCain has nothing to do with this issue, OK...

You don't wanna believe Reagan "legalized" many illegals, OK...

You don't wanna believe both Obama & McCain said during the recent presidential election they'd BOTH "legalize" many illegals, OK...

While Sheriff Joe in Phoenix backs SB1070, many other law enforcement in Arizona don't, OK, ...

You don't believe the GOP will lose power because of backing SB1070, OK...

You believe these statements are propaganda, OK...

We'll see what happens...should be interesting

[richarddennis]

The facts are as long as jobs are offered, they'll entice illegals!

QUIT hiring illegals!

FINE ALL employers $100,000 per illegal and see how long illegals are hired...

Thinking those that look for a job are the problem are naive.

The problem is the LACK of legal immigration reform that simply can't supply our employers will sufficient legal employees to help USA build a strong economy!

[BiBedBud]

^^^^
BRAVO richarddennis!

This is what I've been saying (or trying to): As long as there is gainful employment offered to illegals on the American side of the border, desperate people from south of the border will illegally cross into the United States. NO PUNY SB 1070 CAN STOP THIS!

It's already difficult to track-down undocumented aliens, and nothing in SB 1070 will fix that, expecially since it does not include any funding for enforcement operations. ASK YOURSELF, wouldn't it be easier to target employers? Wouldn't they be easier to fine? Could these fines amount to enough to eventually solve the whole problem? ANSWERS: Yes! Yes! And Yes!

AS PER SB 1070: The very weak penalties for employers who hire illegals are limited to suspension of state operating licenses. That means what, exactly? That an employer's 'Landscaping License' will be yanked? (There's no such thing!) What about that Arizonan who hires an illegal nanny? Will the State of Arizona yank that 'Nanny License'? (There's no such thing?) What about that fruit picker, or the janitor? Will the State of Arizona yank their 'fruit picking license' or their 'janitorial license'? (There's no such thing!) What about the car washers? The flooring installers? The roofers? Will the State of Arizona pull their car washing/ floor installing / roofing licenses? (There are no such things!)

ONLY by undertaking serious enforcement that is targetted at employers, and which includes PUNITIVE FINES will the United States ever have the slightest chance of stemming the tide of illegal aliens. Anything short of this is mere window dressing, designed for political reasons to whip-up support from the 'fed-up masses'!

[MaybeSayMaybe]

Why is everybody getting so upset over this Sb1070? If you want to get upset over something, I say get upset over a law called S3081, the latest concoction of Senators McCain and Lieberman. This law takes dead aim at our Magna Carta rights.

http://www.examiner.com/x-48328-Phoenix-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m5d12-New-legislation-sponsored-by-McCain

At the very least nobody will accuse these lawmakers of thinking small.

[darkeyes]

It seems like you are projecting the problems of England onto America, and don't project your problems with small Englanders onto me (though, I do think England should pull from the EU. It will be an economic albatross until you do.)

Pasa

It does rankle you know. As with so many people around the world they refer to the state to which I belong as "England". England is but one part (albeit by far the largest and richest part in population and geographical area) of a state known as The United Kingom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am not of that one part, but from quite another. My mother is from that part and I am neither proud or ashamed of that part of my family history and heritage. The part to which I do belong is in theory at least, if not in reality, an equal partner with England, Wales and Northern Ireland of the state to which I referred earlier and I am neither proud or ashamed of that part to which I do belong. We are four nations united in one state.

Now, I say the above not out of nationalist sentiment, but because it is quite apparent that either you are unaware of what our state is called, or you have insufficient manners to address it and its people properly. It is impolite to the 10 million plus non English British people of our state who are from what is known as the Celtic fringe.. and indeed many of the millions who are immigrants to this country and have accepted British citizenship yet do not consider themselves English.. it is a small thing to ask is it not, to have what we are in the context of any discussion addressed properly?

..and if you truly believe that the United States has no problems equivelant and to those of the UK regarding racism, nationalism and xenophobia, then I suggest you whip your head out of the sand PDQ..

[Hephaestion]

Re Pasa

Wasn't the albatross good luck until someone killed it?

England is most likely to join the USA, while the remaining countries of the UK (or even the British Isles) will remain with the EU (meeting of EU ambassadors - recorded on TV).

England contributes to the Union Jack with its red orthogonal cross on a white background. Northern Ireland the diagonal red cross on a white background, Scotland the white diagonal cross on a blue background (Saltyre). Wales could have been represented as a gold cross on a black background but has since chosen the red dragon. The gold cross with a black lining could have nestled on / within the red cross of England.


Re MaybeSayMaybe

One of the most important aspects of Magna Carta was the embracing of the concept of habeas corpus - the kind of thing that was thrown out of the window with extraordinary rendition. So useful - No wonder the rights are being targeted

[darkeyes]

Your almost right Heph darlin'.. Ireland contributed the Cross of St Patrick in 1801 when Ireland formally was absorbed into the union. When the Irish Free State was created in 1922 it was decided to retain this part of the flag because of the fact that part of Ireland (Northern Ireland) was still part of the union.

Flying the Union flag or (Jack on a ship) upside down is a sign of distress I believe.. probably about right in this day and age..

One thing I do think you would be right in.. England is more likely than any other part of the Union to leave the EU for it is the most xenophobic of the four countries. I don't want to see the UK break up.. nor the EU.. I think you know where I stand on the issue.. and I am pretty sure they will not.. Pasa is making a little joke.. tee hee.. well, at least I am treating his statement about "England" leaving the EU as a little joke.. be better off? We would be bankrupt within 6 months.. or more accurately.. even more bankrupt..

.. mind you..maybe we wouldnt be bankrupt within 6 months at all.. the USA can bail us out.. o yea..forgot..they are near as makes no difference bankrupt an all.;)

[Pasadenacpl2]

It does rankle you know. As with so many people around the world they refer to the state to which I belong as "England". England is but one part (albeit by far the largest and richest part in population and geographical area) of a state known as The United Kingom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am not of that one part, but from quite another. My mother is from that part and I am neither proud or ashamed of that part of my family history and heritage. The part to which I do belong is in theory at least, if not in reality, an equal partner with England, Wales and Northern Ireland of the state to which I referred earlier and I am neither proud or ashamed of that part to which I do belong. We are four nations united in one state.

Now, I say the above not out of nationalist sentiment, but because it is quite apparent that either you are unaware of what our state is called, or you have insufficient manners to address it and its people properly. It is impolite to the 10 million plus non English British people of our state who are from what is known as the Celtic fringe.. and indeed many of the millions who are immigrants to this country and have accepted British citizenship yet do not consider themselves English.. it is a small thing to ask is it not, to have what we are in the context of any discussion addressed properly?

..and if you truly believe that the United States has no problems equivelant and to those of the UK regarding racism, nationalism and xenophobia, then I suggest you whip your head out of the sand PDQ..

Doesn't matter what I call your nation. Someone always gets bitchy about it. You are the third person to try to correct me, all for different names. Some don't like GB, some don't like UK, and some don't like England. I'm sure there is some other way to address your nation that will upset a particular fringe. I'll be honest, it makes me laugh. You complain about people not being open and welcoming and such. And yet, you can't even decide what to be called. Fragmentation of the nation. Over here, we're just Americans. No one calls me a Texan (except a few folks on this board), or a Nebraskan when I lived there, or a New Mexican etc... We do to identify where we live, and we even take pride in it, but we are proud of being American above all. Boggles my mind that the UK can't figure that out for itself. Just an example of problems y'all have that we don't.

And, to be clear, I didn't say we have no problems. But I did say that we certainly don't have them on the level that you describe in your nation (reading precisely what I write is helpful). So, either you were getting into some serious hyperbole, making the situation in your nation sound worse than it is, or I was right.

I don't know how things are in GB. All I have to go on is what you posted. I do know what's going on here. And, according to your descriptions, they are not the same. I'll say this again, it seems that you are projecting the problems of your nation onto ours. I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that. We aren't the same nation. Not even close.

Pasa

[Pasadenacpl2]

Re Pasa

Wasn't the albatross good luck until someone killed it?

Yes. And it was hung about their neck.


England join the US? Umm...no. We love y'all over there. But, I can't ever see that happening. We haven't even had Puerto Rico or Guam come on board and we've had them for nearly a hundred years.

Pasa

[Hephaestion]

1) Well it is the UK for the collective left even after EIRE took its independence.

The constituent countries are England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales. Then there are several affiliated islands - e.g. Isle of Man, Channel Islands.

The aggregated islands are known as the British Isles. Britain is reserved for the largest island on which is found the greater parts of England Scotland and Wales.

Great Britain is a legacy name and many of us feel that the term 'Great' is inappropriate. However GB is to be found on vehicle identity plates to this day.

Hope that helps.

2) Usually it happens in the USA first and then it seems it find its way to the UK - whatever it is. So it is more correct to say that we are visited by your problems, even though the problems may be unjustified.

.

[Hephaestion]

Pasa "....England join the US? Umm...no. We love y'all over there. But, I can't ever see that happening. We haven't even had Puerto Rico or Guam come on board and we've had them for nearly a hundred years...."


When GW and the Grinning Ninny were engaged - we waited for it.

[darkeyes]

Doesn't matter what I call your nation. Someone always gets bitchy about it. You are the third person to try to correct me, all for different names. Some don't like GB, some don't like UK, and some don't like England. I'm sure there is some other way to address your nation that will upset a particular fringe. I'll be honest, it makes me laugh. You complain about people not being open and welcoming and such. And yet, you can't even decide what to be called. Fragmentation of the nation. Over here, we're just Americans. No one calls me a Texan (except a few folks on this board), or a Nebraskan when I lived there, or a New Mexican etc... We do to identify where we live, and we even take pride in it, but we are proud of being American above all. Boggles my mind that the UK can't figure that out for itself. Just an example of problems y'all have that we don't.

And, to be clear, I didn't say we have no problems. But I did say that we certainly don't have them on the level that you describe in your nation (reading precisely what I write is helpful). So, either you were getting into some serious hyperbole, making the situation in your nation sound worse than it is, or I was right.

I don't know how things are in GB. All I have to go on is what you posted. I do know what's going on here. And, according to your descriptions, they are not the same. I'll say this again, it seems that you are projecting the problems of your nation onto ours. I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that. We aren't the same nation. Not even close.

Pasa

*laughs* the usual effort I see at trying to understand.. none whatsoever.. merely a load of blow.. it is not we who do not know how to call ourselves, and when to call ourselves British or Irish, Welsh or Scots.. just as I know when I am Scots and when I am British, the other peoples of the UK know when to make the differentiation as it refers to them. It depends on the scope of the issue Pasa.. just as u would consider yourself a Texan on matters Texas and American on matters USA.. I would consider myself Scots on matters Scottish and British on Matters concerning more than my own part of the UK.

..and no we arent the same nation Pasa. But the difference is that I wish to be.. whether we call a united world a nation I doubt but if you like a United States of Earth where all nations as equal states work together for the good of all people.. you of course do not wish to touch that idea with a 12 foot barge-pole..

..and no, nothing I have said is hyperbole.. but a lot of what you say is bullshit because you do not care to learn or to understand.. you are simply unable to see what is in front of your face.. you have a hugely insular view of the world and as we would say "a guid conceit." We would call it bollox...

[FalconAngel]

Darkeyes, I think that you and Pasa have gone off on a tangent that is really making it difficult for both of you to find the common ground that he has been trying to get at; that I have been getting at as well.

Does Scotland have the problem of foreign language speakers coming into Scotland and expecting Scotland to change to suit them and their language?

The US does; from both Central and South America, Cuba and Haiti. They all expect us to kowtow to their demands for everything to be printed in Spanish, Creole, or some other language. They are also the only ones that do that. The Asian immigrants come here and make real efforts to assimilate. The emigres from the old Com-Block countries make the effort; the emigres from all over Europe do so as well. Middle Eastern emigres have some difficulties, but at least they give the effort.

Mexico holds us to a standard for illegal immigration enforcement that is far lower than their standard and then complains when we actually have the audacity to enforce our own immigration laws and return the illegals that they encouraged to cross the border illegally (it is against their laws as well) in the first place.

This is the real problem. Not that it is any specific group, but the specific group in question is the primary group entering illegally.

As a nation and as citizens, we want people that come here to live and raise families, build a life, etc. to come here, but to do so legally.

Why does enforcement of the laws protecting that have to be seen as racist or unconstitutional? We are enforcing it on the specific perpetrators that are the problem. And if that is racist, Nationalistic or whatever, then you are not understanding the problem.

Saying that it is xenophobic goes against what everyone has said about this bill. We want to insure that the people finding work here and living here are here legally.
What is wrong with that?

Calling the bill racist is both unreasonable and very short-sighted.
If a black man robs you, would you tell the police to look for a white man? Of course not.
1070 is the same application. Illegals in this country and particularly in AZ are primarily Mexican. If it is not enforced on illegals that are Mexicans, then the problem will not go away, but get worse. And certainly, we will catch others in the process.

It is the illegals that are the problem, not the race as a whole. That is as clear as anyone can make it.

[Pasadenacpl2]

*laughs* the usual effort I see at trying to understand.. none whatsoever.. merely a load of blow.. it is not we who do not know how to call ourselves, and when to call ourselves British or Irish, Welsh or Scots.. just as I know when I am Scots and when I am British, the other peoples of the UK know when to make the differentiation as it refers to them. It depends on the scope of the issue Pasa.. just as u would consider yourself a Texan on matters Texas and American on matters USA.. I would consider myself Scots on matters Scottish and British on Matters concerning more than my own part of the UK.

Yes, I am a Texan on matters Texan. But, there isn't much we get in a snit about when someone calls us the US, USA, USofA, America, Yanks, etc.. We are Americans first, and we don't spend much time worrying about labels. As an aside, how do you refer to Japan?


..and no we arent the same nation Pasa. But the difference is that I wish to be.. whether we call a united world a nation I doubt but if you like a United States of Earth where all nations as equal states work together for the good of all people.. you of course do not wish to touch that idea with a 12 foot barge-pole..

12 feet would be far too close. I would nuke that idea from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. You should understand that governments are less efficient and more corrupt the bigger they get. I certainly do. I also value cultural differences. I don't want to be in the same nation as Italy. Nice folks (even my first love) over there. But I don't want to be Italian. Nor do I wish to be German, or French, or Japanese or Guatemalan or anything but American. I think being different is good.


..and no, nothing I have said is hyperbole.. but a lot of what you say is bullshit because you do not care to learn or to understand.. you are simply unable to see what is in front of your face.. you have a hugely insular view of the world and as we would say "a guid conceit." We would call it bollox...

It's not insular at all. I know what's going on in my nation. I am also pretty well aware of world politics. I've lived in far more of Europe than I'm betting you have, as well as more of the Orient and the Mid-East, too. Fran, I've seen, and I understand just fine. I understand that your hippy love-in ideals don't work in the real world. I operate in that real world.

If what you've described isn't hyperbole, then you have far bigger racial tension issues than the US does. Saying that if I don't agree with you, I must be blind is a very typical tactic from you. "None so blind as them that won't see." Patronizing, and an excellent way to insulate yourself from having to defend your accusations by providing facts.

Finally, I feel odd saying this, but I agree with everything Falcon Angel posted. And that's pretty much true of everything he's posted in this thread.

Pasa

[darkeyes]

I am not accusing the law on immigration as being racist Falcie.. sometimes they are sometimes not.. sometimes there are elements of racism contained within the law.. sometimes not.. is this bill racist with racist intent? Probably to some extent, but my argument has been simply that I believe in the free movement of people top live and work wherever they choose. Like so many things it will not be achieved overnight, but I do believe that the world should be working towards it.

What other countries do and how they deal with immigration is no reason for us to lower ourselves to the depths which they do.. every country has its specific problems and deals with those problems in their own way.. often they are blatantly racist about it, often a bit more subtly so. Sometimes race does not enter the equation.. but less so than we often think.. in the west governments respond to groundswells of opinion and follow the people rather than lead them.. often this is a good thing, but often as is in the case of some countries, loss of culture, fear of job loss, language, housing to the incomer makes governments respond in ways which are not appropriate and so accusations of racism can be levelled at them.. yes we have the language issue Falcie.. and people before gaining citizenship are supposed to have a basic grasp of the language and efforts are made to deal with it.. this is not in itself a race issue yet it is used as a club by many who claim not to be racist with which to beat those incomers, and the government about the head. To learn the language of the country in which we live seems sensible to me just to make life easier for everyone, but particularly for the immigrant..

.. the law applies to all citizens (except in the UK were the crown cannot prosecute the crown) and all who reside in or visit a country (well maybe not diplomats) I accept that. In theory equally though not so in practice. The use of law to bonk particular certain groups of immigrants or citizens over the head exposes an element of institutionalised racism which no on should excuse. We live in an imperfect world and often we simply do not try hard enough to iron out those imperfections.

The point I was making therefore Falcie is not whether or not law or a bill is racist or xenophobic or nationalist.. the point was simply the general one from observation that these three little words which are what I believe to be ills live in the minds of millions are inextricably linked. Being one does not make a person necessarily either or both of the others.. it does however make it more likely that she or he will be so.

[Hephaestion]

Is it possible that the border between Mexico and the USA needs to be made physically more difficult to traverse?

One could see parallels elsewhere. The Great wall of China, Hadrian's Wall (although that one seen as having been more as a trading area nowadays); Berlin Wall; the Israeli partitions; the NI partitions.

The signals can be a little embarrassing for any nation that bombs others into submission for the PERCEIVED ethnic cleansing aspects that any partitioning may bring, be it physical or legal based.

The problem wih a legal based system of within border selection is that it tends to encourage a racist attitude when peoples are physically different, whatever the original intentions. In the extreme, the concept that coalesces is one of abused apartheid on the most subtle of differences with reciprocating retributions.

Gang warfare has been mentioned as attendant to immigrants (should this not read self-preservation in the face of identity conflicts). Gang warfare has been around long before 'problem immigrants' were identified. The difference is that the present day protagonists may be identified physically where as before it might only be through colours.

The problems of lack of assimilation are well understood in the UK. We do have redistribution of immigrants (assylum seekers) far and wide. Our forms are written in about 20 non-EU languages. We are used to seeing EU packaging in over 8 languages. The extra 20 adds to the experience. It is strange to see Africans walking down the road dressed only in colourful curtain-cloth and sandals (sometimes) with a suitcase perfectly balanced on their heads.

At times it can feel a bit like living in the film "Blade Runner". However, the melting pot that co-exists is uplifting. The realisation that the 'foreign' cultures are not so different and are as family oriented, enjoying the same pleasures and suffering the same set-backs. Joy of joys to see Indian subcontinent teenagers openly holding hands and kissing.

The 'numbers' side of things versus resources is a worry to us all - world population is something that needs to be addressed before nature claims victims. Yet we have crticised China's original intentions to curb its own poulation growth. India needs to review its position; what is clear is that its internal system of hierarchy is just as much of a problem although there are signs that it is being eroded by external influence of returning immigrants.

The real answer might lie in a a cascade of wealth and standards (thus residence desireability) from rich to poor. The USA has tried to influence the trading standards between all of the American countries (for a variety of reasons). The latest manifestaiton has been the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Associaiton) partly to counterbalance the EU. Maybe that will work eventually.

What is needed is a reduciton of the 'in your face prosperity' internally to any country, so that the poor are employable and have a degree of honest hope and the rich are not immune from the rigours that affect the rest (we have our share of snouts in the trough but they are being picked off slowly).

The USA has a real problem. Europe has one similar. As other areas prosper, they will inherit the same.

It is suggested here that we put this thread to rest for now and see what the outcome is within the USA. Good luck.

[darkeyes]

Yes, I am a Texan on matters Texan. But, there isn't much we get in a snit about when someone calls us the US, USA, USofA, America, Yanks, etc.. We are Americans first, and we don't spend much time worrying about labels. As an aside, how do you refer to Japan?



12 feet would be far too close. I would nuke that idea from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. You should understand that governments are less efficient and more corrupt the bigger they get. I certainly do. I also value cultural differences. I don't want to be in the same nation as Italy. Nice folks (even my first love) over there. But I don't want to be Italian. Nor do I wish to be German, or French, or Japanese or Guatemalan or anything but American. I think being different is good.



It's not insular at all. I know what's going on in my nation. I am also pretty well aware of world politics. I've lived in far more of Europe than I'm betting you have, as well as more of the Orient and the Mid-East, too. Fran, I've seen, and I understand just fine. I understand that your hippy love-in ideals don't work in the real world. I operate in that real world.

If what you've described isn't hyperbole, then you have far bigger racial tension issues than the US does. Saying that if I don't agree with you, I must be blind is a very typical tactic from you. "None so blind as them that won't see." Patronizing, and an excellent way to insulate yourself from having to defend your accusations by providing facts.

Finally, I feel odd saying this, but I agree with everything Falcon Angel posted. And that's pretty much true of everything he's posted in this thread.

Pasa

I think being different is good also Pasa.. about that we can agree. I do not accept your view that being a united world necessarily would make us different. That rather depends on how we do it. In the EU, being European makes me no less British than I am, and certainly no less Scots. Indeed being European actually gives me protections which were I simply British I would not have. It has also recognised the status of my language in a way that being simply British would not have. It recognises and assists my culture in ways which being British would not have. It does not make a Frenchman or Czeck, Hungarian or German any less what they are. There are many drawbacks no doubt about it.. it is overbearing at times and does things which are stupid, but then so does my own British Government, the Scottish Government and even my own City Council. It is quite possible if the will is there to create a government which remains small no matter how large the entity Pasa. Administrative units would remain and culture language and identity wouldnt change that much. That depends on us does it not, how we want it to be and what we are prepared to do to get it?

This century will be the most challenging in human history. Arguably the problems the world faces could see us with population collapse and a struggle simply to survive. Water alone threatens the stability of the world and will create tensions which no single nation can deal with. Such are the problems of our world that 190 nations all pulling in different directions will never be able to solve... and so you would nuke world unity into oblivion? I trust that is hyperbole Pasa. I am 30 years old and may have another half century to live on this world. That things will change there is no doubt. That in that half century the nation state will continue to wither and the movement to greater world unity will continue.. none of it will ever make you Italian Pasa, darling. It will make you a better American human being from Texas, with your own language and culture, both progressing and adapting vibrantly in much the same way it does now.

..and I have not been patronising Pasa. You have accused me of it in the past and sometimes with justice on your side. I just hate to see supposedly intelligent human beings close there minds to what can be a wonderful future and feel desperately frustrated and sad that they are cutting their noses of to spite there faces and that does get to me quite often. What is will not always be, Pasa. That is one thing that is certain.. none of us can halt change. If we fail to change we do wither and die as societies.

.. and on the issue of nationalism, racism and xenophobia? I remain as convinced as I have always been that I am right. Many articulate their views on on such issues in ways to disguise their true meaning.. it is alas the way of what we call democratic debate.. I wish it were other..

..and how do I refer to Japan? Usually as Japan.;)

[darkeyes]

Pasa, First a wee apology. I'm sorry if I have sounded tetchy over the last few posts for I have been. Between that time and an appointment I have been dreading as I always do my mood has been somewhat irritable. Your not the only one I have acted thus with. I am still tetchy but with luck later today tetchy will go back under its rock.

..and to go back to something you said earlier.. we are not a single nation in the UK. I thought I had made that clear. We are 4 nations, in theory equal partners in a union which has a central Government with devolved government to the 3 smaller of them. When referring to the UK we are British, not English and I would appreciate it if you would give us our proper title. The little Englander phrase is one which was wrong coined to refer to all of the UK but the 3 smaller nations of the union are much more outward looking and less hostile to the outside world in general and the EU in particular than our larger neighbour. Indeed my own country (Scotland) has always been extremely outward looking long before the union, much although not all of which has to do with our long historical conflict with our present day southern partner and friend.

.. just for information Pasa, I am a Barnton girl first (the district in which I was raised, although why I really don't know.. if you knew Barnton you would understand), and an Edinburgh girl second if we debate indentity. Scots, British and European. My ancestry is white Scots (some Celtic, some Norse, some Angle) and English (some Norse, some huguenot, some Dutch) probably with a million other little drops of humanity mixed in. But before any of those, all must fall before my true identity as a human being. Thats what I am before anything else. Its that which makes me believe in the things I do.

..and Heph... I assume the Eire in caps was a dig at lil ole me, but was established originally as the Irish Free State until some time in the mid 1930's when it changed its name to Ireland.. when it became Eire I don't know but I think probably when it left the commonwealth in the late 1940s. No doubt you can Google it and let me know, sweetie pie...

[Pasadenacpl2]

..and how do I refer to Japan? Usually as Japan.;)

To the Japanese, their nation is called Nippon. Only roundeyes call it Japan.

Pasa

[darkeyes]

To the Japanese, their nation is called Nippon. Only roundeyes call it Japan.

Pasa

I am aware of that Pasa, which is why presumably the Japanese were until relatively recently referred to as "Nips". Many nations, cities and peoples are called something quite different from one language to another.. Germany is not Germany in German, nor is France France in French (well not quite). Scotland is Alba in the Gaelic (which is also the old pre Roman British word for Britain). England is not England in many languages. Cymru is Wales in English. Even good old USA is Etats Unis in French, and Royaume Uni is the UK, and Scotland Ecosse, Germany Allemagne. The city of Beijing for instance used to be called Peking in English until quite recently also and Moscow isnt Moscow in the Russian.. Before we knew the languages of other cultures our ancestors had to call them something or change the foreign sounding names to make them understandable to our own people in our own language and so grew up the mish mash of names for the same place which exists from language to language.

Now its not a trick question.. but where did the name Japan come from?? A misunderstanding of how the Japanese pronounced Nippon? Or from the Portuguese because I believe they were the first Europeans to deal with Japan properly back in the 16th century. I am honestly interested.. as I am in many things..:)

[FalconAngel]

Now its not a trick question.. but where did the name Japan come from?? A misunderstanding of how the Japanese pronounced Nippon? Or from the Portuguese because I believe they were the first Europeans to deal with Japan properly back in the 16th century. I am honestly interested.. as I am in many things..:)

The name Nippon, which was previously Nihon, means "the place where the sun rises", it was later mispronounced and spread, as you suspected, by the Portugese.

[Hephaestion]

Darkeyes ".......and Heph... I assume the Eire in caps was a dig at lil ole me, but was established originally as the Irish Free State until some time in the mid 1930's when it changed its name to Ireland.. when it became Eire I don't know but I think probably when it left the commonwealth in the late 1940s. No doubt you can Google it and let me know, sweetie pie..."

Sorry. No dig intended. I have a habit of writing Eire in upper case from long term database entry etc of the same. Put it down to a 'lapsus calami'

Wiki has a complete page on the name and its possible derivation. Eire having Celt origins is the simplest of these and aludes to the 'matron goddess of the land' (fine by me). The subtle difference between what I wrote and what the Irish use is in the leading E having a diacritic above - universal English avoids diacritics (supported here for computer simplicity).

I have observed the wisdom of not using Ireland or Southern Ireland for Eire (simple capitalisation does not feel right as I type) as there is a possbility of ruffling feathers in the present arrangement. It is appropriate to use N.Ireland for the six counties and those from Eire are usually understanding as recognition of the name Eire is accorded simultaneously.

.

[darkeyes]

Darkeyes ".......and Heph... I assume the Eire in caps was a dig at lil ole me, but was established originally as the Irish Free State until some time in the mid 1930's when it changed its name to Ireland.. when it became Eire I don't know but I think probably when it left the commonwealth in the late 1940s. No doubt you can Google it and let me know, sweetie pie..."

Sorry. No dig intended. I have a habit of writing Eire in upper case from long term database entry etc of the same. Put it down to a 'lapsus calami'

Wiki has a complete page on the name and its possible derivation. Eire having Celt origins is the simplest of these and aludes to the 'matron goddess of the land' (fine by me). The subtle difference between what I wrote and what the Irish use is in the leading E having a diacritic above - universal English avoids diacritics (supported here for computer simplicity).

I have observed the wisdom of not using Ireland or Southern Ireland for Eire (simple capitalisation does not feel right as I type) as there is a possbility of ruffling feathers in the present arrangement. It is appropriate to use N.Ireland for the six counties and those from Eire are usually understanding as recognition of the name Eire is accorded simultaneously.

.

oops..silly ole me.. sowwy sweetie pie.. kissie;)

[richarddennis]

About the only thing that bisexuals have in common is sex.

Politics NOT!

Most say "vote ALL the incumbents OUT", but they really mean vote out the incumbents that are not my political affiliation.

This "voting blind party line and voting for the "least" harm candidate" guarantees the two big parties will be in power for ever!

The real answer is TERM LIMITS!

The US president is limited to two terms, make ALL political offices the same ASAP!

[FalconAngel]

About the only thing that bisexuals have in common is sex.

Politics NOT!

Most say "vote ALL the incumbents OUT", but they really mean vote out the incumbents that are not my political affiliation.

This "voting blind party line and voting for the "least" harm candidate" guarantees the two big parties will be in power for ever!

The real answer is TERM LIMITS!

The US president is limited to two terms, make ALL political offices the same ASAP!

Some of us do want to vote out all incumbents of both parties.

As it pertains to this thread, our own government, from both parties have been against enforcement of our immigration laws.

Term limits are good, but not enough at this point.

If both parties really wanted this issue to go away they would address the following facts;

For decades, immigration authorities have alerted ("no-match-letters")[59] employers of mismatches between reported employees' Social Security cards and the actual names of the card holders. On September 1, 2007, a federal judge halted this practice of alerting employers of card mismatches.[60]

Illegal hiring has not been prosecuted aggressively in recent years: between 1999 and 2003, according to The Washington Post, “work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[61] Major employers of illegal immigrants have included:

* Wal-Mart. In 2005, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $11 million to settle a federal investigation that found hundreds of illegal immigrants were hired by Wal-Mart's cleaning contractors.[62]

* Swift & Co.. In December 2006, in the largest such crackdown in American history, U.S. federal immigration authorities raided Swift & Co. meat-processing plants in six U.S. states, arresting about 1,300 illegal immigrant employees.[63]

* Tyson Foods. This company has also been accused of actively importing illegal labor for its chicken packing plants; however, the jury acquitted the company after evidence was presented that Tyson went beyond mandated government requirements in demanding documentation for its employees.[64]

* In 2005 the government of Yucatan produced a handbook and DVD about the risks and implications of crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. The guide told immigrants where to find health care, how to get their kids into U.S. schools, and how to send money home. Officials in Yucatan said the guide is a necessity to save lives but some American groups accused the government of encouraging illegal immigration.

* In 2005 the Mexican government was criticized for distributing a comic book which offers tips to illegal aliens emigrating to the United States.[46] That comic book recommends to illegal immigrants, once they have safely crossed the border, "Don't call attention to yourself. ... Avoid loud parties. ... Don't become involved in fights." The Mexican government defends the guide as an attempt to save lives. "It's kind of like illegal immigration for dummies," said the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, Mark Krikorian.

In 2003, then-President of Mexico, Vicente Fox stated that remittances "are our biggest source of foreign income, bigger than oil, tourism or foreign investment" and that "the money transfers grew after Mexican consulates started giving identity cards to their citizens in the United States." He stated that money sent from Mexican workers in the United States to their families back home reached a record $12 billion.[29] Two years later, in 2005, the World Bank stated that Mexico was receiving $18.1 billion in remittances and that it ranked third (behind only India and China) among the countries receiving the greatest amount of remittances.

[SophiaBee]

For decades, immigration authorities have alerted ("no-match-letters")[59] employers of mismatches between reported employees' Social Security cards and the actual names of the card holders. On September 1, 2007, a federal judge halted this practice of alerting employers of card mismatches.[60]

.

No Match letters actually hurt transpeople by outing them to employers. They are then let go for a variety of "reasons."

[FalconAngel]

No Match letters actually hurt transpeople by outing them to employers. They are then let go for a variety of "reasons."

I can feel your pain on this, since in many places people still get fired because of being Pagan and/or Bisexual as well, but that issue is one of many that need to be addressed by the same people that have, to date, not addressed any of these issues.

That is why voting all of the career politicians out of office and replacing them with people that remember that they work for the people, not their party.

If we can fix that, then the other problems become less of a problem.

[Pasadenacpl2]

No Match letters actually hurt transpeople by outing them to employers. They are then let go for a variety of "reasons."

I thought you were ok with outing people. You were in the other thread.

This is, however, why we need ENDA. It is not a good reason not to do No Match letters. It is a FANTASTIC reason to end employment discrimination in any manner for anyone legal to work in the US.

Pasa

[SophiaBee]

I thought you were ok with outing people. You were in the other thread.

This is, however, why we need ENDA. It is not a good reason not to do No Match letters. It is a FANTASTIC reason to end employment discrimination in any manner for anyone legal to work in the US.

Pasa


I'm ok with outing hypocritical lawmakers, especially since their jobs and retirements are secure. Outing someone who is trying to put food on their table is another deal, think about it. How many tranny hookers do you think the world needs?

[richarddennis]

Fine ALL employers $100,000 per illegal and see how long illegals are hired.etc.etc.etc...

Put your money where you mouth is: DON'T do business with companies you listed that hire illegals.

Expecting the poor looking for work to not take a job offered is naive!

The problem is LEGAL immigration reform that will enable our employers to obtain sufficient workforce to build/prosper.

[FalconAngel]

This law is racist and promotes racial profiling and it gives the police any excuse they want to stop you and search you based on your race or the color of your skin that's not white.

More American citizens should be outraged since every day more and more of their rights get taken away by laws such as this one.

I hope this law bites Arizona in the ass.

One question.....have you read the actual law or are you just parroting what so many pro-amnesty groups have said?

The law, as stated, repeatedly before, does not extend police powers to detain and search. Their powers are as limited as they used to be.

Read the actual law.

[FalconAngel]

Fine ALL employers $100,000 per illegal and see how long illegals are hired.etc.etc.etc...

Put your money where you mouth is: DON'T do business with companies you listed that hire illegals.

Expecting the poor looking for work to not take a job offered is naive!

The problem is LEGAL immigration reform that will enable our employers to obtain sufficient workforce to build/prosper.

Another option to add to that is also to deny illegals a place to live here. Enact legislation that requires realtors and landlords to get proof of legal residence before renting or selling to foreign nationals.

Florida has already enacted legislation requiring proof of legal residency to get or renew your licenses, which includes having your birth certificate or US passport in order to show legal status.

Now if only they could raise the driver qualifications standard.

[FalconAngel]

I have read the law.

What makes you think that this law is somehow not founded on racial profiling and that white Arizona police and state troopers are not going to really use this as an excuse to pull over and search and possibly detain whoever they want that is Latino?

It isn't. Perhaps you missed the part where the largest numbers of illegal immigrants come from Mexico?

So instead of looking at latinos, we should be looking at the Chinese, perhaps, since the latinos are the main culprits? Perhaps we should be looking at the Canadians, since the Latinos are the main culprits.

Do you see the fallacies of your argument that it is profiling?


A lot of police and state troopers do already do racial profiling. Ever hear of the term driving while black?

Yes, I have. Have you asked these law enforcement professionals why they do it? It is because it works. I know that isn't very PC for you, but the facts are not PC.

If a person breaks the law and there is a description put out on them. Race approximate height/weight, etc. Should the police look for people not of the race of the culprit for fear of being accused of racism?

Think long and hard about where you take the "profiling" argument.


Since you're white have you ever been to an all black or Latin neighborhood and then been told by police how you're not supposed to be there because you are clearly not from there and are only there to presumably buy drugs?

Yes, I have. How about you? I have also been accused of suspicion of dealing, thinking I was one of the Outlaws M.C.


You can claim all you want that this law is not racist or based on racial profiling but until you have had racial profiling or actual discrimination done to yourself or a friend or family member you do not know what it's like.

It is about catching and removing illegal aliens. Since, in AZ, the main perpetrators are Latino, then how is it racist to focus on the Latino community?

If it were Whites that were the illegal immigration problem, the law would focus on Whites.

It is simple and infallible logic.


The police can already pretty much pull you over and search you in some states for whatever reason they want and now with this law it makes it even easier for them to do this.

Actually, they cannot.
There MUST BE probable cause or a violation of the law committed for them to stop you.
Have you noticed that when you get pulled over, no matter how minor the violation, you will always get a ticket and never a warning? There is a reason that they do that. It is to make perfectly clear that they had a real, lawful reason to pull you over.


Have you ever been arrested? Or had your body, car, or house searched without your permission?

This law is a huge step backwards for civil rights, personal rights, and human rights.

Yes, I have been arrested. Minor license issue. And the police can search your vehicle under those circumstance.

It is called "Probable cause". But here is the thing that you are ignoring; If you are not being arrested for the commission of a crime (put in handcuffs), they have a lawful obligation to ask your permission to search your vehicle, property or person, which you do not have to consent to.

Clearly, your lack of understanding of the restrictions placed on police is lacking. Maybe you had some bad associations that have colored your opinion. It makes no difference, because if you do not know the laws then all you end up being a "jailhouse lawyer", and it is safe to say that listening to one of those will not keep you out of trouble.

Either way, the law is aimed, primarily towards the Mexican illegals, but in order to not be racist, then who would you suggest that they look at instead of the primary perpetrators; in order to not be racist?