Obama rips pending Arizona immigrant law ! (politics)

[SteamWake]

Such legislation could "threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans," the president said during a naturalization ceremony for members of the United States Armed Services.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36735281

"Fairness" . . How about the immigrants start paying some taxes? That sounds fair to me.

[ivank]

He is an idiot.
Illegal is ILLEGAL!!

[AVGWarhawk]

"Fairness" . . How about the immigrants start paying some taxes? That sounds fair to me.

Agreed.....

[Freiwillige]

Well its now signed into law! :yep: Thank goodness.

[ivank]

Well its now signed into law! :yep: Thank goodness.

:yeah:

[Tribesman]

Obama called the Arizona bill "misguided"
It is certainly that.
Wow they are going to have to work out a policy they can use and then retrain all law enforcement officials in how to apply the law without bringing in a pile of lawsuits they would have no chance of winning.
So thats going to be expensive, expensive and very very very expensive.
Isn't it funny that those who seem to be so in favour of this populist knee jerk legislation are those who complain about paying more in taxes.

He is an idiot.
Illegal is ILLEGAL!!
Its the Unabomber again:rotfl2:
So ivank, how wise is it to call somone an idiot when you demonstrate that you don't understand the topic or what was said?

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you're all white males, and have never been profiled in your lives.

If you're a law abiding American citizen and happen to be Hispanic, would you be annoyed if you constantly got pulled over by the cops just because of how you look?

[Tribesman]

would you be annoyed if you constantly got pulled over by the cops just because of how you look?
But they can't do that as it would be illegal, and remember illegal is illegal which is why they have left themselves open to a rash of lawsuits.

I like the bit that they can't legally ask a person born in America for their status, but can legally ask an American citizen who was not born there their status and can legally ask an illegal alien.
How are they going to train the officers how to determine who they can ask for proof of status and who they can arrest for not complying with that request.
Some muppets in politics in Arizona really didn't think this populist crap through did they:rotfl2:

[SteamWake]

Its the Unabomber again:rotfl2:

Well that dident take long.

Honestly cant you find some new tactics other than name calling?

[Ishmael]

This law effectively mandates that police can stop ANYBODY to determine their citizenship status at any time. If you can't PROVE your citizenship, you can be arrested. So my question is this.

What if the Pima or White Mountain Apache Tribal Police were to start stopping every white person they saw and make them prove THEIR citizenship status?

Both reservations are in Arizona. The governor already said the law would not be an excuse for racial profiling, so targeting only brown-skinned people is illegal.

If I were a member of the Tribal Police, I'd probably do it just for fun. When the people I stopped got Irate and belligerent, my answer would be,

"We've been Americans for 11,000 years. When did YOU Wetbacks show up?"

[Tribesman]

Well that dident take long.
True, it didn't take long to see why this new move to control illegal immigration in Arizona was a pile of crap.

Honestly cant you find some new tactics other than name calling?
Its makes the point doesn't it.
Its pretty evident that the majority of the time when someone uses Caps Lock to emphasise their point it ends up that their point is bollox.

Since Theo was famous for using Caps Lock when he was just ranting nonsense its quite appropriate.

Though then again, given the legal complications of the new State legislation (which isn't actually legal yet) and the old state legislation and problems trying to mix and match them with Federal legislation so that the laws and the enforcements of the laws are legal not illegal even though illegal is illegal and legal is legal and legal can be illegal then maybe ivank was doing a really clever joke and laughing at the legislators down Arizona way and paying a backhanded compliment to Obama as he was an idiot calling this legislation "misguided", he should have called it "stupidity" instead.

[SteamWake]

So a law to control illegal activity is a pile of crap?

Wow.. I'm going back to bed. I woke up in an alternate universe.

Not to worry though your man is on the case !

http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-04-23/obama-calls-for-immigration-law-overhaul-after-misguided-arizona-action.html

[Tribesman]

So a law to control illegal activity is a pile of crap?

Writing a law that cannot really work legally is a waste of paper.
Trying to enforce a law that cannot really work legally is a waste of taxpayers money when they have to pay up for all the inevitable lawsuits.

Wow.. I'm going back to bed. I woke up in an alternate universe.
You just havn't thought about the issue in hand which is why you can't understand it:rotfl2:
In fact it could be said that you are just having a knee jerk reaction to what is really a knee jerk piece of legislation.

Not to worry though your man is on the case !

He's your man steamwake , like it or not.
As for him being on the case??????
errr........Nice link , did you even read the link you started the topic with? Or was that just a knee jerk reaction you had while skimming headlines?

[SteamWake]

Yea pretty sure that article is related.

Anyhow the time has come to quit arguing.

[baggygreen]

Question.

Why is it not okay to build a fence to keep the illegals out of the US, not to mention the drug runners, but it is also not ok to take steps to remove the illegal immigrants from your country?

Frankly, to me as an outsider to your situation, the fact that there are 600,000 illegals in one state alone is terrifying. Since when has it become such a bad thing for people to want to keep their state or country secure, and to control who comes into the country or state and when?

We face the same issues here, in that the illegal immigrants keep arriving by boat from indonesia and malaysia. Some people don't recognise that the boat people are not true refugees. With the average cost of a boat fare around $10,000 per person, how can they be seen as a genuine, desperate refugee by anyone?

We take a large number of legitimate refugees from UN-run camps in a quota endorsed by the UN. What people don't realise is that these economic migrants arriving by boat are taking up a spot from someone who is busy languishing in a camp.

A quiet (not silent) majority want our borders secure and to decide who comes to Oz, but we're being shouted down by the minority - just for a change.

So why is it so wrong to want to control your borders?

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes sir, everyone hates the new law but it is all good to have guns and drugs running into the country. Folks being killed over it and more people on the rolls for free goodies. It's all good because well, these illegals have rights....at least their protest signs say that...no wait, protesting legally under the law but being illegal all the same. Gosh life is good......

[tater]

The border drug wars are unreal right now. And I do mean wars. Thousands have been murdered.

Mexico does less than nothing, they in fact aid people coming across illegally.

I have no problem with legal immigration from Mexico. I know many people from Mexico. My best friend's mom lives in the DF.

The perfect solution would be, IMHO:

1. Harshly penalize hiring illegals nationwide.

2. Lock the border shut by whatever means required. Shoot to kill a few times if a wall is not practical, ideally some drug runners—publish the Apache guncam videos on youtube, create a "chilling effect." (should be possible, they sometimes have running gun battles with rivals on the border after all)

3. Let FAR more people in legally. Some with a path to citizenship, along with an expansive guest worker program. Give a test in english, and the better you do, the closer tot he front of the line you get to be.

4. Require illegals here now to leave the US and come in legally to have any status—remember, this is combined with #3, so far more get in (long term illegals here speak english at some level, so they go to the front of the line).

I really have no problem with enforcing the law. Illegals are by definition criminals, and any time they interact with the government, they should have to prove identity or get booted.

[AVGWarhawk]

Mexico does less than nothing, they in fact aid people coming across illegally.



Yep, watched in on the news today.

[tater]

The Mexican government publishes pamphlets with instructions on how to safely sneak across the border that they give away. They do nothing at all to prevent people from starting to cross on their side.

Can't wait to see more outraged posts by people in other countries, or who don't experience the problems of a border State.

Illegals cost the US many billions of dollars. Even if legal, they don't even pay their fair share of taxes (a per capita fair share being the budget divided by the population—any family not paying maybe 12 grand a head per year is a net loss, which is fine for citizens, but not fine for people wanting to come in.

[Tribesman]

Why is it not okay to build a fence to keep the illegals out of the US
Surely the question is..... Do fences work?

but it is also not ok to take steps to remove the illegal immigrants from your country?

The problem with the legislation in question is that it isn't going to work, is going to cost a fortune and infringes heavily on the rights of US citizens.

With the average cost of a boat fare around $10,000 per person, how can they be seen as a genuine, desperate refugee by anyone?

How much did it cost to get smuggled out of Nazi Germany?

[AVGWarhawk]

Can't wait to see more outraged posts by people in other countries, or who don't experience the problems of a border State.


Like I said tater, the world sees drugs, guns, killings and a system already brimming with issues as we are experiencing on our borders as ok.

[Tribesman]

Tater, some of your points there in your solution are very good.:up:

[AVGWarhawk]

Surely the question is..... Do fences work?



Patrolled, electrified with barbwire is a great start to see if they work. Place some mines also. Why not go full bore? Plus, it give folks jobs. That's what the Obama administration is all about :up: No wait....


The problem with the legislation in question is that it isn't going to work, is going to cost a fortune and infringes heavily on the rights of US citizens.



May not work but it sure the hell woke the country up to what is happening in AZ. No? When do we say as a country that enough is enough? Plus, bring this issue to the table during the mid term elections....it will get ugly for some.


How much did it cost to get smuggled out of Nazi Germany?


What does Germany have to do with this?

[SteamWake]

One thing I dont get.. if I understand it correctly Arizona is simply adopting the federal law on a state level seeing as the Fed's do not enforce their law. Now Arizona may enforce the law on a state level and try to do something about the conditions there finally.

So why all the fuss?

[AVGWarhawk]

One thing I dont get.. if I understand it correctly Arizona is simply adopting the federal law on a state level seeing as the Fed's do not enforce their law. Now Arizona may enforce the law on a state level and try to do something about the conditions there finally.

So why all the fuss?


Because it is against human rights!!! Everyone should be able to run amuck killing and dealing drugs! After all, raping and pillaging is a human right.

[Tribesman]

Because it is against human rights!!! Everyone should be able to run amuck killing and dealing drugs! After all, raping and pillaging is a human right.
So you are unable to address the issue

[AVGWarhawk]

So you are unable to address the issue


Me specifially? No sir. This is why we pay taxes like we do. It is supposed to be handled at a Federal and local level. But when the powers that be start enforcing the law everyone(the world) complains like a baby who had it's lollipop taken away. So what is the point of your question?

[Tribesman]

So what is the point of your question?
The point of the question is why did you write nonsense like.....
Because it is against human rights!!! Everyone should be able to run amuck killing and dealing drugs! After all, raping and pillaging is a human right.

But when the powers that be start enforcing the law everyone(the world) complains like a baby who had it's lollipop taken away.
Most people are complaining that the new legislation cannot work legally.

[AVGWarhawk]

The point of the question is why did you write nonsense like.....



Most people are complaining that the new legislation cannot work legally.

Oh, raping and pillaging is nonsense....got it. Drugs, murder and other illegal activities such as raping and pillaging is nonsense...got it.

No, most people are complaining about human rights....Al Sharpton is heading to AZ to protest for human rights...not that this will not work. Recheck the complaint. :up:

[GoldenRivet]

He is an idiot.
Illegal is ILLEGAL!!

correct.

One of the basic responsibilities of the United States Government is to protect national sovereignty through protection of our borders.

This is ONE MORE THING the US Government has failed at miserably...

guess they are too concerned with how much salt is in a bowl of Noodle soup and what kind of light bulbs people buy :doh:

The unrelenting march into the abyss continues

ever onward morons!

[Turbografx]

Halt! Papieren bitte. Keine papieren? GEGEN DIE MAUER! SCHNELL! KINDERN AUCH DABEI!

Seriously though, what naivety to think that racial profiling won't be involved. Of course it will.

I have no problem with immigrant/guest workers being issued relevant papers and identification, that's reasonable.

What I take issue with is the blanket approach taken in this bill which affects the treatment and rights of citizens of the United States. It puts the burden of proof on the citizen to prove that he is indeed what he is. Why should a citizen be subject to delay, detainment or arrest resultant from government sanctioned racial profiling? Racial profiling is subconscious and natural and, enabled by these new powers, will lead to the harassment of legal hispanic citizens.

[AVGWarhawk]

Halt! Papieren bitte. Keine papieren? GEGEN DIE MAUER! SCHNELL! KINDERN AUCH DABEI!

Seriously though, what naivety to think that racial profiling won't be involved. Of course it will.

I have no problem with immigrant/guest workers being issued relevant papers and identification, that's reasonable.

What I take issue with is the blanket approach taken in this bill which affects the treatment and rights of citizens of the United States. It puts the burden of proof on the citizen to prove that he is indeed what he is. Why should a citizen be subject to delay, detainment or arrest resultant from government sanctioned racial profiling? Racial profiling is subconscious and natural and, enabled by these new powers, will lead to the harassment of legal hispanic citizens.


I think the use of probable cause would be used quite a bit concerning this bill. Sadly the probable cause is you look Mexican. Thus the profiling.


What is your suggestion to the problem?

[Turbografx]

I think the use of probable cause would be used quite a bit concerning this bill. Sadly the probable cause is you look Mexican. Thus the profiling.


What is your suggestion to the problem?

I would require businesses to keep records of employees IDs (like bar tenders/waiters must already do) and would do random checks on these (like ABC already do), would require some kind of proof or ID to enroll your kids in school, have doctor checkups etc. Basically, I would make the services very hard to take advantage of.

Then, I would introduce harsher penalties for illegal immigrants who are caught. Labor, deportation or something (hey! you finally get to work!)

Finally, I would open up and improve avenues for legal immigration. Including assistance with language learning and cultural integration.

[AVGWarhawk]

In the state of MD employeers are responsible for not hiring illegals. When they do and are caught fines are pressed. Usually the business is closed. However, when this happens it is the usual profiling and civil right (for illegals mind you). It is the same old song and dance. As far as penalites...deport. Go through the proper channels for citizenship.

Something needs to be done. This law in AZ is just the wake up call to the Feds and the rest of the country. Lets face it, the killing and drugs are out of hand. Nothing is being done. I understand that the White House was contacted 5 times concerning AZ and a personal visit was made by the Senator of AZ (Brewer?). Nothing was done.

[AVGWarhawk]

And so it goes. Run for the border before 2012!


"It is impossible for me and any other serious Democrat to get this body to move forward until we prove to the American people we can secure our borders," Mr. Graham told Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who was testifying at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
"I believe we can do it by 2012 if we're smart," he said.




http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/27/gops-graham-no-immigration-bill-until-2012/

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you're all white males, and have never been profiled in your lives.

If you're a law abiding American citizen and happen to be Hispanic, would you be annoyed if you constantly got pulled over by the cops just because of how you look?

Cute how no one really replied to that post. Could it be you have nothing?

[tater]

Cute how no one really replied to that post. Could it be you have nothing?

I'll answer, "white" male that I am.

Yeah, you'd be annoyed. The question is WHO you should be annoyed at. The choices are those trying to protect YOU, and your tax dollars, or the illegals who forced this by their criminal act.

That's it. That's the choice. My buddy Pablo makes me look like a bleeding heart commie. He'd absolutely fall in this category, and I KNOW (I'll ask him tomorrow when I see him to be sure) that he'll have ZERO problem with this, and will complain they didn't do it years ago.

According to the US census, there are ~45 million hispanics in the US. About 12 million are illegal.

Read that again. ^^^^

Almost 1/3 are illegal.

Be mad at the 12 million criminals, not the police. When northern European types in the US are 1/3 criminals, heck, even 20% criminal aliens, I'll happily carry my passport around.

[AVGWarhawk]

Cute how no one really replied to that post. Could it be you have nothing?

Not really, as I posted in another thread to you, my dad was always searched at the airport. He was in his 70's and still searched....every time. Let profile old white guys today! The old man was searched all the time. Christ, he could hardly walk.


My boss with a last name is Sanchez is on the terrorist watch list?

Does any of it make sense?

[GoldenRivet]

My boss with a last name is Sanchez is on the terrorist watch list?

Does any of it make sense?

4 airline captains i used to fly with regularly were on the terror watch list.

:doh::o:doh::o

its a waste of time and resources.

coming out of every overnight the TSA, FBI and the airline all had to agree to let the captain on the airplane in the morning.

go figure

your tax dollars at work

[AVGWarhawk]

Of course it is a waste GR....we are all security cleared with the government in my office!!! LOL.

[Tribesman]

Oh, raping and pillaging is nonsense....got it. Drugs, murder and other illegal activities such as raping and pillaging is nonsense...got it.

Yes, simple isn't it. If no one is saying all that crap is OK then your statement against it was just nonsense.

No, most people are complaining about human rights....Al Sharpton is heading to AZ to protest for human rights...not that this will not work. Recheck the complaint.
Most people are talking about civil rights, the legality and the constitutionality.
Al Sharpton is certainly not most people, but what did he say?
errrrr ....oh yeah civil rights:up:
organise freedom walkers for civil rights(thats like the freedom riders of the civil rights movement but without buses):up:
Forcing wrongful arrest by refusing to hand over documentation....thats a civil right as only citizens can really refuse that request and thus be wrongfully arrested:up:
Perhaps you had better recheck yourself.
In fact if you recheck the two topics that deal with this here the only people even mentioning "human rights" are people like yourself.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes, simple isn't it. If no one is saying all that crap is OK then your statement against it was just nonsense.


Most people are talking about civil rights, the legality and the constitutionality.
Al Sharpton is certainly not most people, but what did he say?
errrrr ....oh yeah civil rights:up:
organise freedom walkers for civil rights(thats like the freedom riders of the civil rights movement but without buses):up:
Forcing wrongful arrest by refusing to hand over documentation....thats a civil right as only citizens can really refuse that request and thus be wrongfully arrested:up:
Perhaps you had better recheck yourself.
In fact if you recheck the two topics that deal with this here the only people even mentioning "human rights" are people like yourself.



Errrrrr........

[CaptainHaplo]

Argue with a stop sign AVG - its still a stop sign....

As for this - the reality is that it will be so freakin funny if the DOJ comes up and says this is unconstitutional. Because it mirrors federal law! That means that federal immigration law will have to be deemed unconstitutional - and I don't think any career politician wants to go there.

I have no problem with this - but I do think there are better ways to solve the problem. Instead of requiring proof of citizenship/legal immigrant status, what should be done is the following

#1) Deny illegals any form of social safety net through the government. This means no welfare, food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid, etc. Provide proof of legal status, and you get the benefits of the taxpayer funded net.

#2) Require proof of legal residence from parents enrolling children in schoos.

#3) Hold employers accountable - not only with fines, but with imprisonment, for intentional or consistent hiring of illegals, or any lack of due diligence in ascertaining proper legal status. This means if an employer does their job, and an illegal makes it into the workforce, they are not punished, mistakes happen - but when it is a policy - it needs to be hammered down on.

Realize that many illegals do work - but they do so under the table. By not paying taxes, they rob the system. They also avail themselves of the social safety net, taking even further (because they have no "job" - they get significant benefits - while earning money) from the rest of society by double dipping as it were. Then add in the jobs that they have....

12 Million illegals. Pretend only 1/3 of them work for a moment. Now - if all the illegals were not able to collect social net benefits, and couldn't find work, that would be a HUGE burden lifted off the government dole system, as well as would free up 4 Million jobs for the current, legal workers in the country....

Of course, that makes too much sense, so we can't enforce the existing laws and cut off the illegals access to freebies.

[tater]

Haplo, even if they work it doesn't matter, the whole lot together don't pay in enough taxes to even notice, even assuming all 12 million work (average per capita illegal income is around 8 grand a year, so even just the FICA if all paid would be chump change.

Also, they send a large fraction of their incomes back home—which is why Mexico enables illegal immigration.

Your points are excellent, though.

[CaptainHaplo]

Tater - at 8k a year - they could file taxes and get not only what they paid in (if they actually did) - but would qualify for all the EIC handouts too! I totally agree they are a draining regardless, it just amazes me that somehow this is more about civil rights of people illegally here - than it is about the civil rights of the legal citizen to not have his wallet robbed by illegals on welfare, have his job stolen by illegals, and not have his streets safe to walk because of illegals who also happen to be pushing drugs, raping and killing US citizens.

What about OUR civil rights?

[Tribesman]

it just amazes me that somehow this is more about civil rights of people illegally here
And its amazing that it isn't about that at all, the problem is the legislation as envisaged to deal with illegals will be infringing on the civil rights of American citizens.
Plus of course its gonna cost the tax payers in arizona a fortune.

Its amazing how people can be so vocally in favour of legislation about a problem they are rightly concerned about when the legislation is not really going to do anything about the problem.

[tater]

And its amazing that it isn't about that at all, the problem is the legislation as envisaged to deal with illegals will be infringing on the civil rights of American citizens.
Plus of course its gonna cost the tax payers in arizona a fortune.

Its amazing how people can be so vocally in favour of legislation about a problem they are rightly concerned about when the legislation is not really going to do anything about the problem.

I haven't read the exact bill, but right now, local law enforcement authorities and agencies are NOT ALLOWED to ask immigration status, or indeed do anything about it if they suspect illegals. A law to allow this, so that any normal law enforcement (or other State/city enforcement activity) activity requires a citizenship check would be sensible. A DUI checkpoint? DL, and proof of citizenship or get hassled. Get pulled over for a broken tail light? Fine, citizenship check. Pulling someone over for having dark hair? Not cool.

IMO, any interaction with government at all should require proof of citizenship. Go to the ER? You get stabilized, then citizenship or insurance is established. If you are not a US citizen, after you are stabilized you get repatriated. Get a traffic ticket and you're illegal? Buh bye, off you go back to Mexico (face it, we have a mexican illegal immigration problem). Anyone crossing the border armed is not an immigrant, they are an invader. ROE should allow leathal force on anyone IDed with a weapon crossing. If tax people, or some sort of business inspection happens, it should always include holding the employees, and checking their immigration status vs their W-4s. Illegals should be deported, and if anyone has falsified a SSN, they should go to PRISON, then get repatriated. Census workers? Yeah, they should absolutely be spies to check status. Cops should follow the census people around arresting people.

Again, once we have some reasonable laws in place, AND we shut down the border to illegal crossing, THEN we should massively increase the legal immigration (including some sort of guest worker program). In the case of a path to citizenship, we should perhaps allow what we do already as open to anyone, then make sure that a certain % of the increase goes to people who can prove they have the means to not be a burden. That means perhaps putting money in escrow for insurance (along with a waiver of any government care), or a job contract, etc.

[mookiemookie]

Mighty interesting:

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2010/04/Ready-Pearce_39e1d.JPG

Right: AZ State senator and author of immigration bill Russell Pearce. Left: J.T. Ready

And then there's this:

Second from right: J.T. Ready at a Neo-Nazi rally in Nebraska:

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2010/04/JTReady_c0a49.JPG

This bill from the same Russell Pearce who circulated an email containing articles written by a Neo-Nazi group: http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2006/10/09/daily22.html?surround=lfn

[tater]

Mighty interesting:

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2010/04/Ready-Pearce_39e1d.JPG

Right: AZ State senator and author of immigration bill Russell Pearce. Left: J.T. Ready

And then there's this:

Second from right: J.T. Ready at a Neo-Nazi rally in Nebraska:

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2010/04/JTReady_c0a49.JPG


I have no idea, myself, but what does such a picture mean? Some guy wearing flags comes up and asks a state rep to take a picture with him, and that connects them? Looking where you link from they make the claim he used info from some POS newsletter, which is certainly a problem. OTOH, this guy is just a state legislator, any goon can get that job. That he might be a POS doesn't make the bill bad by itself. Requiring the arrest of illegals is of course GOOD, since they are, duh, criminals by definition.

BTW, if this is a real problem, would you have a problem with any politician being pals with a domestic terrorist?

[Tribesman]

I haven't read the exact bill,
Don't you think you should?
After all it is rather hard to talk about a document you havn't read.
Then again as Jan Brewer said it is unlikely to stand up in its current form maybe it isn't worth reading.

local law enforcement authorities and agencies are NOT ALLOWED to ask immigration status, or indeed do anything about it if they suspect illegals.
Yes they are.

[tater]

Don't you think you should?
After all it is rather hard to talk about a document you havn't read.
Then again as Jan Brewer said it is unlikely to stand up in its current form maybe it isn't worth reading.

I'm not in Arizona, doesn't matter much to me.

You posted about the US health care bill, and I'm confident you have not read the 2800 page document, plus every single law it updates or references. Heck, no one who voted for it had done that. Not one, I guarantee.

[tater]

Here ya go:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

The part that most relates to the claim of profiling (bold is my emphasis):

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS 21
STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS 22
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, 23
WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE 24
PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 25
PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). 26


And later:
J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL 35
PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES 36
CITIZENS. 37

[CaptainHaplo]

Gee whiz - a politician got his picture taken with someone - then that someone showed up at a neo-nazi rally - or maybe had been there beforehand - so the politician must be a neo-nazi too right?

Well what does that say about Obama? Ya know him and his buddy Bill Ayers have had a picture or two made.... guess Obama is a closet bomb building terrorist out to kill cops now? Or what about Jeremy Wright? Surely the then senator and his pastor have been photographed, so Obama must be an anti-white racist, a hate everything american bigot. His marching in the Million Man March with Farrikan must mean he really is a muslim too!

I could go on and on - but the fact is politicians never know every detail about every person they are photographed with. Trying to link the "writer" (when in reality it is written by numerous staffers in many different offices) to a nutball on the basis of a photo shows how desperate some are to find any way to stop the 70% of the LEGAL CITIZENS who support this law from standing up for their rights.

[AVGWarhawk]

Mighty interesting:

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2010/04/Ready-Pearce_39e1d.JPG

Right: AZ State senator and author of immigration bill Russell Pearce. Left: J.T. Ready

And then there's this:

Second from right: J.T. Ready at a Neo-Nazi rally in Nebraska:

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2010/04/JTReady_c0a49.JPG

This bill from the same Russell Pearce who circulated an email containing articles written by a Neo-Nazi group: http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2006/10/09/daily22.html?surround=lfn


Looks photo shopped to me. Hey guys, you wear the tan shirts sporting the swastika and well, I'll just hang out in my gray suit. :up:

[tater]

That second image is disgusting.

Least they're honest about their politics (read the sign).

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah, this JT Ready is a real piece of work....geez.....he is like a rash all over the internet.

[tater]

BTW, while perfectly legal, associating with Nazis should be disqualifying from public life. Not by any statute, but by public or party outrage.

The same should also be true of anyone associating with communists.

The latter would be rough on the current administration

[mookiemookie]

You knew something like this was coming. Bonus points for style. :rotfl2:

Investigators are looking into a case of vandalism at the state Capitol, sparked by the newly signed anti-illegal-immigration law.

Capitol police arrived on the scene at about 6 a.m., after a swastika was found smeared on the glass doors of the (Arizona) House and Senate buildings. While it first looked like mud on the doors, it turned out be refried beans.
http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Swastikas-painted-with-beans-found-on-Capitol-grounds-92091314.html

[mookiemookie]

Well what does that say about Obama? Ya know him and his buddy Bill Ayers have had a picture or two made.... guess Obama is a closet bomb building terrorist out to kill cops now?

To read some of the posts that were made here during the 08 campaign, that's precisely the conclusion many here came to.

I was posting that simply to prove what's good for the goose is good for the gander. :03:

[Platapus]

1. I think the Federal Executive Branch needs to stay out of this. If and only if there is an actual case should the Federal Judicial Branch get involved; not before.

2. I think everyone can agree that this Arizona law has the potential for misuse. But having the potential for misuse is not the same as a certainty of misuse. The solution is not to kill the law, but to ensure that the proper safeguards and oversight is in place to ensure that this law is not misused.

Since the Judicial Branch does not rule on hypothetical cases, we will have to wait until this law is actually misused, as determined by judicial review, before thinking of overturning this law.

I am not convinced this is going to be an effective law and I hope Arizona has considered any unintended consequences concerning the enforcement of this law. But from what I have read about the law, I don't think there is any merit that this law violates any part of the Constitution.

A State can't have a law that is unconstitutional. But there is no requirement that the laws of any State have to be effective or even make sense.

[CaptainHaplo]

Mookie - you make a good point - but a single picture does not a connection make. However, attending a church for 20 years tends to make a stronger bond with the message that church sends. Posing for a picture is one thing, calling a man your long time friend means your a bit more tied to him.

Alot of the '08 - and current - views on O stem from his long time associations, as well as his own written words and his speeches.

[tater]

You knew something like this was coming. Bonus points for style. :rotfl2:


http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/Swastikas-painted-with-beans-found-on-Capitol-grounds-92091314.html

Wow, criminals smearing swastikas is "style." Gotcha. I assume it's also just "style" to you if some redneck POS does it on a synagogue as well? Or burns a cross on someone's lawn?

Yeesh.


:roll:

[mookiemookie]

Wow, criminals smearing swastikas is "style." Gotcha. I assume it's also just "style" to you if some redneck POS does it on a synagogue as well? Or burns a cross on someone's lawn?

Yeesh.


:roll:

The beans is what did it for me. Yes, the message is a bit :roll: but...to do it in refried beans, man!

Mookie - you make a good point - but a single picture does not a connection make. However, attending a church for 20 years tends to make a stronger bond with the message that church sends. Posing for a picture is one thing, calling a man your long time friend means your a bit more tied to him.

Alot of the '08 - and current - views on O stem from his long time associations, as well as his own written words and his speeches.

Twasn't just the picture. The past history of forwarding emails written by these neo-Nazi groups is what establishes the history of intolerance and hate.

[tater]

So would writing anti-islamic hate be cool with refritos (think of the LARD :) ) or letters made out of bacon?

If you are one of those that believes in thought crime, erm, hate crimes, then that is clearly a hate crime, no?

It's interesting that the AZ protests have been far more unruly than the tea party people.

You'd think that the so-called "working people" (as if people who make much more while working 60-80 hours a week don't "work") would be against illegals since they are directly in competition for jobs that are even more limited now.

Illegals here don't work crap jobs like picking fruit, they work construction, etc.

A link to the version actually signed (there were 3 versions, and many on the left are attacking a bill that was not signed, apparently). Just in case the one I posted was not correct:

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/adopted/h.1070-se-maps.doc.htm

17% of the illegals arrested while crossing in the Chiricahua corridor of AZ have criminal records in the US already. Not for previous crossing, but for actual crimes.

I think that there are legitimate concerns WRT to violating rights of citizens, however. The basic idea of actually enforcing immigration laws is a very good one, but this might need some tweaking.

Interesting article by a leading pollster:
SCOTT RASMUSSEN
Immigration is one of the least understood issues in the country today. The political class thinks the major question is how to legalize the status of undocumented workers already in the country. However, most voters say those already in the country are a secondary issue. The real issue is how to stop or reduce illegal immigration.

And that’s the next point of misunderstanding. To the political class, the distinction between legal and illegal matters little. To most voters, it matters a lot. In fact, while seven voters out of ten say border enforcement is a higher priority than legalizing undocumented workers, most also favor a welcoming immigration policy. Nearly six out of ten say we should allow anyone in except criminals, national-security threats, and those who want to take advantage of the welfare system. By the way, Republicans are a bit more supportive than Democrats of a welcoming immigration system.