Obama Assails Arizona Immigration Law [Archive]

ArmyStrong

04-23-2010, 23:59

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/24/obama-assails-arizona-immigration-law/

Apr. 23: Supporters of the illegal immigration enforcement law rallied at the state Capitol in Phoenix.

In an unusual White House attack on state legislation, President Barack Obama harshly criticized an Arizona measure to crack down on illegal immigration and made clear Friday that he is looking for an election-year fight over the volatile issue.

Hours later, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the nation's toughest immigration law, making illegal immigration a state crime and requiring police to question people about their immigration status if officers suspect they are in the U.S. illegally.

Brewer, a Republican, said the state action was forced by Washington's failure to secure the U.S. borders and solve the nation's thorny illegal immigration problem. "Decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation," she said.

The president said it was the state that was "misguided" and that the Arizona measure would "undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans."

Obama said he instructed the Justice Department to "examine the civil rights and other implications" of the new law. Justice officials said they were considering their options, and it wasn't clear Friday what they might do. Regardless, the law seemed certain to be challenged in court by opponents.

Apr. 23: Standing in front law enforcement officers, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer talks about signing the immigration bill in Phoenix.
Among the constitutional questions raised by the law, according to current and former government officials and legal experts, are provisions that may violate protections against unreasonable searches, for example, by asking police to stop people solely to prove their immigration status.

Arizona and other states allow police to check immigration status if a person is under investigation for another crime.

The president's comments, delivered during a Rose Garden naturalization ceremony for members of the armed forces, was a forceful sign that Obama planned to push the immigration issue before the November elections, responding to frustration among Hispanic voters and their advocates over inaction.

The Reaper

04-24-2010, 07:21

abc_123

04-24-2010, 08:15

Ahh, yes.

The Federal government, criticizing the state government for doing the job the Feds should be doing.

Permanently secure the borders, Mr. President. Then we can talk immigration policy.

TR

TR... but with the Federal government so busy with issues previously left to the states, local governments, and individuals ...it's good to see Arizona stepping up to the plate and helping out. :rolleyes:

Team Sergeant

04-24-2010, 18:41

What's mexico going to do, start a border war?:D

I'm thinking the worse they can do is stop all drug shipments.
(That would hurt a whole lot of left-wing wackos or put them in withdrawal.)

Defender968

04-24-2010, 19:36

What's mexico going to do, start a border war?:D

I'm thinking the worse they can do is stop all drug shipments.
(That would hurt a whole lot of left-wing wackos or put them in withdrawal.)

I was thinking the same thing, what are they going to do stop accepting our cash, not allow their citizens to illegally enter our country....or maybe they'll write us a really nasty letter please....I mean I like Calderon but come on really....what are they going to do :p

GratefulCitizen

04-24-2010, 19:50

Among other things, what the law does:

A.R.S 13-1509

13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception; classification
A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).
<snip>
G. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS:
1. A CLASS 3 FELONY IF THE PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION WHILE IN POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
(a) A DANGEROUS DRUG AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-3401.
(b) PRECURSOR CHEMICALS THAT ARE USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF METHAMPHETAMINE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3404.01.
(c) A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-105. (d) PROPERTY THAT IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING AN ACT OF TERRORISM AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-2308.01.
2. A CLASS 4 FELONY IF THE PERSON EITHER:
(a) IS CONVICTED OF A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION.
(b) WITHIN SIXTY MONTHS BEFORE THE VIOLATION, HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1229a OR HAS ACCEPTED A VOLUNTARY REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1229c.

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

So at minimum, it's a class 1 misdemeanor.
Combine this with A.R.S. 13-3884 and it could get interesting here in Arizona.
(Disclaimer: this should not be construed as a recommendation!)

13-3884. Arrest by private person
A private person may make an arrest:
1. When the person to be arrested has in his presence committed a misdemeanor amounting to a breach of the peace, or a felony.
2. When a felony has been in fact committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it.

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03884.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

longrange1947

04-24-2010, 20:47

I like the way the Feds figure it is alright to order you to have health insurance, but it is wrong to have to carry ID.

Smokin Joe

04-24-2010, 20:54

All the law does is allow officers to enforce laws that are already on the books.

Washington is just pissed because they are too gutless to do what we are willing to do ourselves. I wonder how Obama feels having a Governor step to the plate because he is unwilling to?

We can soon carry concealed without a permit and we now protect our own borders.... Oh and did I mention we are a Class III state too. So, who is moving here? :D

LarryW

04-25-2010, 05:45

Is this law an extension of the ICE 287(g) Program AZ is already a signatory to? Sounds like it could be. Doubt if BHO will alienate himself by filing against the AZ law, at least not right now. Down the pike, however, standby for the DHS to change the ICE 287(g) MOAs, and then the AG file some sort of motion against the communities (not the states) who supported the ICE 287(g) Program. Slipping friends the shank in the prison yard...it's the Chicago way.

kgoerz

04-25-2010, 06:29

Gypsy

04-25-2010, 06:32

In an unusual White House attack on state legislation, President Barack Obama harshly criticized an Arizona measure to crack down on illegal immigration and made clear Friday that he is looking for an election-year fight over the volatile issue.

Oh, so are we Mr. President...so are we.

Ambush Master

04-25-2010, 07:06

We can soon carry concealed without a weapon :D
SJ,
Please explain!?!?!:D:munchin

levinj

04-25-2010, 07:48

Team Sergeant

04-25-2010, 08:06

Can't believe the POTUS doesn't get that we're all tired of it. If this isn't a clear message to him that I don't know what would be.

Most socialists do not think like we do.

Goggles Pizano

04-25-2010, 08:14

Kgoerz,

I'm not sure how it works in Arizona, but that's currently the case in Texas. We can be detained for not having an ID on us, and I've been stopped a number of times just to check to see if I'm carrying mine.

Police officers already have the right to detain in an effort to identify someone. To do so still requires resonable suspicion. Once identified if there is no probable cause for arrest for any crime then the officer is required to set that someone free immediately. This is not new.

The Reaper

04-25-2010, 08:36

Can't believe the POTUS doesn't get that we're all tired of it. If this isn't a clear message to him that I don't know what would be.

Oh, I don't know, public opposition to the health care bill, cap and trade, immigration reform, financial bail-outs, spending increases, tax increases, etc., etc. that he and the Dim leadership have chosen to ignore already?

TR

Defender968

04-25-2010, 09:06

Police officers already have the right to detain in an effort to identify someone. To do so still requires resonable suspicion. Once identified if there is no probable cause for arrest for any crime then the officer is required to set that someone free immediately. This is not new.

Exactly, this is a great law IMO, and any professional LEO will know how to use it as tool, is there the possibility for abuse, sure as there is with nearly any law, the opposition to it IMHO comes from those bleeding hearts who do not understand the legalities of enforcing our laws to begin with and are simply offended by any discussion of enforcing our laws because they have their own race issues.

Here is an example of an easy way to enforce. Officer X goes to a 2 car accident, one of the 2 parties is Hispanic, speaks no English, his car is unregistered with no insurance, and he presents a Mexican drivers license, under this law it appears that it would allow the officer to make a custodial arrest of the person for being an illegal alien. And for those of you who are wondering this happens all the time. Now technically speaking in SC one could have arrested that person for driving w/o a license and insurance, however if an officer does that only to those he thinks are illegal he/she could be opening himself up to lawsuits saying he was racially profiling....in order to protect himself he would have to make custodial arrests of people of every demographic for the same offense, i.e. taking folks to jail for failing to have a license on them…. and for the most part that would be a waste of time as 9 out of 10 times you can determine if someone has a license or not without physically taking them to jail.

My only question with this law is are the legislators of Arizona going to pressure ICE to actually deport everyone they arrest under this new statute, my issue as I have stated before was that we could arrest them all day long, but they were allowed to bond out, and melt back into the population then what’s the point. If ICE doesn't take them after they're arrested then the law is a waste of time IMHO. I think there is a chance that BHO and his idiot appointees will refuse to actually follow through with deporting these people, especially when they happen to have a kid who is a citizen because they were born here.

To the Governor of Arizona....GOOD JOB thanks for stepping up, I hope other Governors will follow suit.

Smokin Joe

04-25-2010, 11:06

SJ,
Please explain!?!?!:D:munchin

LOL, oops, fixed...

Sigaba

04-25-2010, 11:27

All the law does is allow officers to enforce laws that are already on the books.Does the law allow or force officers to enforce existing laws?A PERSON 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 TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.IMO, this provision is problematic because it allows any Tom, Dick, or Henrietta to second-guess the professional judgment of LEO agencies as well as the political decisions of specific communities. As a hypothetical example, what happens if a defendant in a criminal trial points out that LEOs did not check on the residency status of its informants and key witnesses?

FWIW, The Economist offers a critical take on the legislation in the newspaper's current edition. Source is here (http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=15954262).Arizona's immigration law

Hysterical nativism
Apr 22nd 2010 | LOS ANGELES
From The Economist print edition

A conservative border state is at risk of becoming a police state

RUSSELL PEARCE is the quintessential Arizona Republican. He wears stars-and-stripes shirts and has clips of John Wayne and Ronald Reagan on his website. He loves guns, his family, his Mormon faith, his country and the law, which he enforced for many years as deputy sheriff of Maricopa County. He jokes that being Republican, and thus not having a heart, saved his life when he got shot in the chest once. But his main passion is illegal immigrants, whom he calls “invaders”. He loathed them even before his son Sean, also a sheriff’s deputy, got shot by one. But now it is personal.

Mr Pearce, a state senator, has sponsored an Arizona law that, if enacted, would be the toughest in the country. It is so brazen it has caused outrage. This week it passed the last hurdles in the state legislature. As The Economist went to press, it was awaiting the signature of Arizona’s Republican governor, Jan Brewer.

Illegal immigration is a federal crime. Mr Pearce’s law, however, would also make it a state crime and would require the police, as opposed to federal agents, to make arrests and check the immigration status of individuals who look suspicious to them. Citizens who think their cops are not vigilant enough would be encouraged to sue their cities or counties, and no city or county may remain a “sanctuary” where this law is not enforced.

In Mr Pearce’s opinion his law merely “removes the handcuffs” from the police and sheriffs’ deputies so they can do their work. To a great many other people, however, it screams racial profiling. Arizona is an overwhelmingly white state, and virtually all illegal immigrants—perhaps about half a million in the state—are Hispanic. Whom else would cops suspect and arrest but the brown ones? Even American Latinos who happen to be out without their driving licence might be at risk.

“Illegal is not a race; it is a crime,” Mr Pearce likes to retort. And many Arizonans agree with him. Arizona has become the main crossing point for Mexicans, some of whom have brought Mexico’s drug violence with them. A few weeks ago a prominent white rancher near the border was killed, possibly by a smuggler or illegal immigrant. Republicans run Arizona and are now in a state of hysteria, competing with one another to deal most toughly with the threat. Even Arizona’s senior senator, John McCain, who once resisted demonising illegal immigrants but is now facing a challenge in the primaries for his seat, has come out in favour of Mr Pearce’s law.

Arizona’s Latinos, by contrast, have not mobilised politically. They make up 30% of the state’s population but only 12% of the electorate. And many are from families that have been American for generations, no longer speak Spanish and are ambivalent toward the new arrivals. They are thus very different from Latinos in Texas and California. During the 1990s attempts to turn back illegals at the border complied with voter initiatives against undocumented immigrants in California motivated Latinos there to become a political force which Republicans fear to cross. Arizona, however, may still be a generation behind.

Nonetheless, the Republicans are playing with fire. The entire country is now watching. Roger Mahony is archbishop of America’s largest, and very Hispanic, archdiocese, Los Angeles, and will soon be succeeded by a Latino. He calls Mr Pearce’s bill “the country’s most retrogressive, mean-spirited and useless anti-immigrant law” and wonders whether Arizonans are “now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques”.

DJ Urbanovsky

04-25-2010, 11:53

Sigaba

04-25-2010, 12:57

Learn the history. Learn the culture. Assimilate into our society and become a contributing member to it. That's not a lot to ask. You don't wish to do these things? Then get the fuck out.Whose history should they learn? To whose standard--yours? Mine? Which culture should they learn? To whose model of assimilation should they conform?

Is it possible that the rampant disregard of America's laws reflects a knowledge of North American history rather than an ignorant disregard of the past?
When my great grandfather brought his family over from Sicily in 1921, they wanted to know who was meeting him here, did he have work waiting for him, was he sick or not, and did he have $20 in his pocket. FWIW, in the first quarter of the twentieth century, Americans were saying of Southern Europeans what some of us are saying of Latin Americans today. Your fore-bearers' prospects for entering America would have been much dimmer had they left the old country but a few years later <<LINK (http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5078/)>>.

¡Mark my words! The more the debate over immigration today becomes a debate over the history of immigration and immigration policy, the less likely we are to get the kinds of reform many rightly advocate.

Richard

04-25-2010, 13:20

SSDD - http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/immigration_chron.cfm

And so it goes...

Richard

Pete

04-25-2010, 14:01

SSDD - http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/immigration_chron.cfm

And so it goes...

Richard

"................
1995 California voters enact Proposition 187, later declared unconstitutional, which prohibits providing of public educational, welfare, and health services to undocumented aliens.

1996 The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act strengthens border enforcement and makes it more difficult to gain asylum. The law establishes income requirements for sponsors of legal immigrants.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, Congress makes citizenship a condition of eligibility for public benefits for most immigrants.

1997 Congress restores benefits for some elderly and indigent immigrants who had previously received them.

1998 The Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act and the the Noncitizen Benefit Clarification and Other Technical Amendments Act restore additional public benefits to some immigrants.
The American Competitiveness and Work force Improvement Act increases the number of skilled temporary foreign workers U.S. employers are allowed to bring into the country............"

It is interesting to note that for the last 20 years it has been a back and forth over legals and illegals. Benefits vs no benefits.

I don't think most people have a problem with legal immigration. It's the illegal immigration that needs to be shut down.

dfirsty

04-25-2010, 14:16

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Is this new rule saying Police can stop anyone they want without PC? They just have to think the person they are detaining is illegal? Then ask them for ID. Then run their names thru the data base?

Sir, like Defender958 said the law makes it so that when we have a lawful reason to contact someone we can ask immigration status and take action if appropriate. Unlike what the media is saying we are not able to stop based on someone being hispanic.

Does the law allow or force officers to enforce existing laws?IMO, this provision is problematic because it allows any Tom, Dick, or Henrietta to second-guess the professional judgment of LEO agencies as well as the political decisions of specific communities. As a hypothetical example, what happens if a defendant in a criminal trial points out that LEOs did not check on the residency status of its informants and key witnesses?

From what I've been told so far that section is in there to make sure departments cannot make policies that prohibit officers from being allowed to enforce this law. Further into the bill it indemnifies individual officers from lawsuits and puts it on the department.

Derek

Richard

04-25-2010, 15:13

And honestly, the things we expect from immigrants seem reasonable to me. Learn the language. Learn the history. Learn the culture. Assimilate into our society and become a contributing member to it. That's not a lot to ask. You don't wish to do these things? Then get the fuck out.

When my great grandfather brought his family over from Sicily in 1921, they wanted to know who was meeting him here, did he have work waiting for him, was he sick or not, and did he have $20 in his pocket.

Jesus, I'm so god damned tired of this shit.

Probably the same thoughts the inhabitants had when my ancestors came from Scotland and entered through Middle Plantation, Province of Maryland, in 1650.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Defender968

04-25-2010, 15:43

Does the law allow or force officers to enforce existing laws?IMO, this provision is problematic because it allows any Tom, Dick, or Henrietta to second-guess the professional judgment of LEO agencies as well as the political decisions of specific communities. As a hypothetical example, what happens if a defendant in a criminal trial points out that LEOs did not check on the residency status of its informants and key witnesses?

FWIW, The Economist offers a critical take on the legislation in the newspaper's current edition. Source is here (http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=15954262).

Sigaba I think you're misunderstanding that section, I read it to mean that anyone can bring suit against an agency that restricts an LEO's ability to enforce the law, which gives anyone standing to sue. What I think they were trying to do is prevent liberal minded chiefs from making policies saying people couldn't arrest for the new law because the citizens could then sue them, and by the way those kinds of things do happen, though I've always seen it go the other way.

My dept made officers do custodial arrests for weed, when state law said that we could simply write a summons, basically like writing a traffic ticket, it's still an arrest, but without the hassle of taking a minor criminal to jail. IMO state law had it right, but our dept wanted to get a cut of the money so if we made the arrest we had to take them in, sometimes you did, other times you didn’t situation dependant

I also don’t see anything that takes away officer discretion as of yet, though I haven’t read the whole thing yet, I would be surprised if that were the case.

As for the article, it was clearly slanted and written by a "journalist" who either failed to do his research or is just ignorant of how the law is enforced. Let's say I am a racist cop, and I stop a citizen of Hispanic decent, they show me a license, I've got nothing to charge them with, if they fail to provide me a license or id, and I take them to jail, they still get to see a judge, where they can present an id and it all goes away. The worst case all people will have to make sure to have id on them, which I think they should have anyway. But people need to understand LEO’s aren’t going to go arresting any Hispanic they see, but it’s not hard to tell who’s legal and who’s not with about 3 questions. The first of which is may I see your ID, when they give you a Mexican, Peruvian, or any other non US license there’s a pretty good chance they’re not here legally, the next question is green card/visa please. Oh no visa/green card…Ding ding ding, hook em up….and book em Dano.

Also understand under current law in my AO if I can't determine a suspect’s identity I can take them to jail to definitively determine their identity, it's just something you don't have to do all that often because 9 times out of 10 you can determine a person’s identity without taking fingerprints.

Dozer523

04-25-2010, 15:57

. . . it's about the FUCKING LAW.
. . . Then get the fuck out.
. . . I'm so god damned tired of this shit. Ease up.

Gypsy

04-25-2010, 16:00

W To whose model of assimilation should they conform?

Easy. The American model of assimilation. Come here legally, be prepared to learn English as best you can so you can communicate and get a job so you can support yourself and your family. Don't expect a handout or "press 1 for English" for starters.

My maternal grandmother and grandfather came from Sicily when they were kids...my paternal family arrived from Ireland and Germany. Not one of them expected to go on welfare when they arrived, nor did they expect to have free health care, or any other various handouts.

Good on AZ, may more states follow their lead. The feds are doing jack shit and this problem is out of hand.

Don

04-25-2010, 16:15

The president talks about fairness? FAIRNESS!?!? For someone who's an alleged legal and constitutional specialist, he ought to know the important distinction between fairness and law. The law states that there are certain protocols that need to be followed if you're going to enter our country legally. That's the law. It's not about fairness, it's about the FUCKING LAW.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/24/obama-assails-arizona-immigration-law/
In an unusual White House attack on state legislation, President Barack Obama harshly criticized an Arizona measure to crack down on illegal immigration and made clear Friday that he is looking for an election-year fight over the volatile issue.

The first thing I can't believe I read is, "President Barack Obama harshly criticized an Arizona measure to crack down on illegal immigration." Wow. If it was a crack down on legal immigration...got it.

You know it has to be all about a new voter block. I think almost everyone but the hardcore leftist radicals believe the DEMs are in a whole heap of doo-doo come mid-term elections. How about appealing to a whole new group? ...and my, my, my, he's making it an election year issue.

BTW…"Stop and Frisk" (Terry v. Ohio) allowed for a Police officer to stop and question/frisk a person he felt, thru his/her experience, might be doing something illegal. Reasonable suspicion instead of probable cause.

Richard

04-25-2010, 16:59

And so it goes...;)

Richard

Utah Bob

04-25-2010, 17:08

And so it goes...;)

Richard

:D:D:D:

Green Light

04-25-2010, 17:38

And so it goes...;)

Richard

your point?

Sigaba

04-25-2010, 17:49

Sigaba I think you're misunderstanding that section, I read it to mean that anyone can bring suit against an agency that restricts an LEO's ability to enforce the law, which gives anyone standing to sue....though I haven’t read the whole thing yet, I would be surprised if that were the case.FWIW, my concern stems from reading the entire bill and listening to/reading the comments of others who have as well.

There's intent and then there are unintended consequences. (You and I are on the same page regarding the former.) My concern centers around the latter.

This bill not only provides new tools to LEOs, the clause under discussion allows anyone to insist that the tools be used to enforce specific laws. There may be situations in which LEOs make a decision based upon professional judgment alone to take a DADT approach to residence status. Source is here (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arizona-immigration14-2010apr14,0,832428,print.story).
But police were deeply divided on the matter, with police unions backing it but the state police chief's association opposing the bill, contending it could erode trust with immigrants who could be potential witnesses.Now, anyone and everyone can cry "politics!" if they don't like certain configurations of policy. Are the courts really the best place to settle these kinds of issues?As for the article,Is the article about the enforcement of the new law or is it about the politics behind the new law and the political implications of its passage?Easy. The American model of assimilation.Maybe not so easy. The model you sketch out is but one among many. It proved largely unsuccessful in the decades after Frederick Douglass suggested it in the late 1840s.

One can find myriad examples ranging from the War of American Revolution to GWOT in which various groups of immigrants and Americans have done everything in their power to assimilate and still found themselves on the outside looking in. Yet we are aghast when some take a skeptical view of 'assimilation.' Just because we say "the past is in the past" doesn't make it so.

Don

04-25-2010, 17:58

your point?

I take it to mean my comments on immigration reform establishing a new voter bloc was ...implausible? Maybe he was referring to something else.

Gypsy

04-25-2010, 18:33

The model you sketch out is but one among many. It proved largely unsuccessful in the decades after Frederick Douglass suggested it in the late 1840s.

One can find myriad examples ranging from the War of American Revolution to GWOT in which various groups of immigrants and Americans have done everything in their power to assimilate and still found themselves on the outside looking in. Yet we are aghast when some take a skeptical view of 'assimilation.' Just because we say "the past is in the past" doesn't make it so.

What proved unsuccessful? Worked ok for my families and many of the families I grew up around.

I didn't say assimilation was easy. However, it's annoying as hell when people come to this country and demand their customs trump all and I have to press 1 for English. :rolleyes: Or they cry foul when asked to prove they belong here. Social programs for illegals are draining our taxes and I'm sick of paying for people who are here and shouldn't be. Hell, your state is bankrupt thanks to that in part, no doubt.

This is about AZ taking care of their state and constituents. If someone is here illegally I have no sympathy for their "trials and tribulations". They can go back where they came from.

Defender968

04-25-2010, 18:39

FWIW, my concern stems from reading the entire bill and listening to/reading the comments of others who have as well.

Ok just finished reading the bill, and as I figured there is nothing in it that takes away officer descresion.

From the bill which can be read here. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY 21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS 22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS 23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, 24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

Further if you read when it speaks of making arrests throughout the bill the word MAY is always used, and in legal terms that grants authority but does not require action. If action were required by law it would say MUST.

This bill is well written IMHO, if even provides that LEO's must be defended by their agencies should a law suit arise based on their applying this law.

This bill not only provides new tools to LEOs, the clause under discussion allows anyone to insist that the tools be used to enforce specific laws. There may be situations in which LEOs make a decision based upon professional judgment alone to take a DADT approach to residence status.

That will likely happen, but not because of this bill IMHO, it will happen because there are lots of lazy people on this planet and some of them happen to wear a badge, that's not to say I'm in favor of arresting everyone every time they commit any crime, but if I had this law in SC my stats would have been through the roof.

Source is here (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arizona-immigration14-2010apr14,0,832428,print.story)

Not sure what you mean with the above link, what did catch my eye was these two statements which make me want to disregard the rest of the article....

Opponents, however, raised the specter of officers untrained in immigration law being required to determine who is in the country legally. They noted that though the bill says race cannot solely be used to form a suspicion about a person's legality, it implicitly allows it to be a factor.

Now I know I'm not a Harvard trained lawyer, and I don't have any special training in immigration law, but when a guy doesn't speak English, doesn't have an id or a green card or a visa, and/or more often than not has an id from another country, has a car that is not registered with no insurance the likelihood is that guy is not here legally.

Then there is this.

"A lot of U.S. citizens are going to be swept up in the application of this law for something as simple as having an accent and leaving their wallet at home," said Alessandra Soler Meetze, president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.

Based on this statement I think Mrs. Meetze is an oxygen thief, LEO's never have to deal with people who don't have ID, we have no idea what to do, as a matter of fact if a guy doesn't have an ID we just run screaming.....:rolleyes: or maybe we could ask name and date of birth and have control check them for an current license, then we could maybe ask them for the address on their license and check the biometric data that's on the license to ensure we've got the right person.

Mrs. Meetze do us all a favor and leave maters of law enforcement to the professionals, someone with common sense or at least someone with a clue, another shining example of the fine work done by the ACLU.

Crue

04-25-2010, 19:56

How would a police officer verify immigration status? I know more than a few States do not require you to be legal to get a drivers license (IL being one).

Sigaba

04-25-2010, 20:12

What proved unsuccessful?For starters, Douglass's strategy of assimilation failed to secure the abolition of slavery through a political settlement alone. From there, his vision of assimilation as well as competing visions propagated by B.T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois did little to enhance the ability of freedmen and other blacks to exercise their rights as American citizens or to receive respectful treatment in 'mainstream' American culture.* ("Go back to where you came from" is a catcall that echoes back almost two centuries.)[Assimilation] worked ok for my families and many of the families I grew up around.Is there a one-size fits all formula for success in America? To what extent does viewing the past through our own achievements (and shortcomings) help and hinder our ability to understand others in their own terms?I didn't say assimilation was easy.The question for many is not "Is it easy?" For Douglass and countless others, the fact that it was difficult made it worthwhile. Instead, the question raised by the harsh lessons of experience is "Is it possible?" (DuBois despaired that it was not.) And from there, the question "Is it desirable?" (Many radicals believe not.) My answers to those questions work for me but they may not work for others.

You say:This is about AZ taking care of their state and constituents.But also you say:
However, it's annoying as hell when people come to this country and demand their customs trump all and I have to press 1 for English. :rolleyes: Or they cry foul when asked to prove they belong here.And Social programs for illegals are draining our taxes and I'm sick of paying for people who are here and shouldn't be. Hell, your state is bankrupt thanks to that in part, no doubt.andIf someone is here illegally I have no sympathy for their "trials and tribulations". My friend, these statements eloquently testify to the notion that immigration reform is a complicated issue that strikes at how we as Americans view the present in the context of our collective history and individual experiences. As we live in a nation in which the rule of law is critically important, it is nothing less than outrageous to see those laws being flouted.

From this complex interplay comes a core question: To what extent does the sense of outrage help or hinder America's ability to find solutions to this problem that are sustainable strategically, politically, economically, psychologically, and culturally?

__________________________________________________ _
* To clarify, this 'top down' summary deliberately privileges rhetorical clarity over a nuanced thumbnail of the complexities of African American political, intellectual, cultural, religious, and social history.

Richard

04-26-2010, 04:01

your point?

A station break for a GB 'whether' report - we're experiencing another high-pressure front in which we're likely to see continuing cloudy issues throughout with a strong chance of stormy opinions, gale force long-windedness and isolated pockets of slightly relevant hyperbole followed by brief periods of clear insight and gentle disagreement. Periodic rays of bright insight will randomly appear and readers are advised to ensure they take their hypertension meds, avoid KWIH*, and - despite the government's recent warnings - large grains of salt may be required to aid in digestion of contents.

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

*KWIHS - Keyboarding While Intoxicated or Hypertensive

Dozer523

04-26-2010, 06:41

What if you were Born In East LA? (Maaaaaa-n?)

AZ's plan didn't work in the movie (and everyone was laughing) Nobody's going to be laughing, this time around . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQxfBBTWoNU

Sten

04-26-2010, 09:20

For the record, "press one for English" is mostly a business decision for customer service. So to make a law preventing a business from servicing who they see as their customers, as they see fit is really asking the Government to add regulations to the most blessed and already oppressed job creators.

ZonieDiver

04-26-2010, 10:15

And many are from families that have been American for generations, no longer speak Spanish and are ambivalent toward the new arrivals.

Many of the people I personally know who fit your description are anything but "ambivalent" about this issue. They see them as lawbreakers, destroyers of some neighborhoods, and a "blight on their good name." I teach with a Latino guy who is pretty far to the left on this issue (as he is on all issues), but his brother (and most of the rest of his family) are waaaaay to the other side, and support this law, as they did the Employer Sanctions Law, etc.

As for all the "racial profiling" comments being tossed about by Sharpton, et al -isn't that already done? I drive to San Diego from Phoenix quite often and on the trip I usually pass through 3 or 4 Border Patrol checkpoints on I-8. All cars stop, or slow til waved through. Often a dog "works" the vehicle. I am always waved through. Most that I see are waved through. It seems that the Border Patrol has established some criteria for actually stopping vehicles for further investigation. I have no doubt that Arizona's professional law enforcement agencies will do the same (and most probably already have). "Sanctuary Phil" Gordon and his double-dipping Police Chief-Public Safety Manager will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into this brouhaha.

In the end... it really won't have much effect IMHO. To some extent it is already being done. As our school's SRO told me as we watched students from two of our "sister schools" walk by last Thursday on their way to the state capital (they walked over 9 miles, one way, to do it - PE at last!), "If anyone thinks that this law is going to change the way the average street cop does his job, they don't know much about policing." As someone said, "another tool in the tool box."

IF this law finally forces the feds to DO something... like maybe get a DHS head whose head is not firmly up her 4th Point of Contact... or build the damned fence... or finish the "virtual fence" that she cancelled... and come up with some kind of immigration policy (but NOT until the border is secured)... then, good on SB 1070.

Phoenix's Channel 12 (NBC) had this exchange on its "Sunday Square Off" last Sunday in regard to this law. The Latino guy on the left (fittingly) is a former Democrat state legislator and a member of my district's school board. The guy in the midddle is a former Republican state legislator. (He is now a "political consultant" and a former student of mine - God, I am old - who ran for Congress from District 6 against Jeff Flake in 2004 on a platform that included "Secure the Border".) The guy on the right is a Republican political consultant.

http://www.azcentral.com/video/79830342001

sf11b_p

04-26-2010, 12:45

Interesting...

"Our potential competition appears almost unlimited as thousands upon thousands of green carders pour across the border during peak harvest seasons. These are people who, though lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence, have not now, and probably never had, any bona fide intention of making the United States of America their permanent home. They come here to earn American dollars to spend in Mexico where the cost of living is lower. They are natural economic rivals of those who become American citizens or who otherwise decide to stake out their future in this country. - Navy Veteran, Yuma Arizonan, Cesar Chavez

Chavez and his UFW lobbied for stricter border control and marched against the hiring of illegal immigrants in 1969. Chavez and his UFW actually reported illegal immigrant workers to the INS.

Chavez UFW in 1973 set a "wet line" along the border to block crossings of illegal immigrants. The UFW, believing the Border Patrol unresponsive to reported border crossings, set outposts to stop illegal immigrants. Beatings and weapons were reported.

Only in late 1973 under pressure from the Chicano movement did Chavez begin to relent, as the UFW was losing support.

Still...

"most of the [Chicano] left attacking us has no experience in labor matters. They don't know what a strike is." "They don't know," he continued, "because they're not workers. They don't know because they've never felt the insecurity of being on strike. And they don't know because really they haven't talked to the workers." - Chavez

... and as late as 1979 the UFW organized "wet patrols" along the border, again complaining the Border Patrol wasn't doing it's job.

orion5

04-26-2010, 14:05

Napolitano takes aim at Arizona immigration law
Posted: April 26th, 2010 01:16 PM ET

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told ABC News Monday Arizona’s new immigration law is ‘misguided.’

(CNN) - Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is taking aim at the new controversial law passed in her home state of Arizona dealing with illegal immigration, telling ABC News it is "not a good law in any number of reasons."

"That one is a misguided law. It's not a good law, good enforcement law," said Napolitano, who served as governor of Arizona before being joining President Obama's administration last year. "But beyond that, what it illustrates is that other states now will feel compelled to do things." [Damn straight.]

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a bill Friday that requires police in her state to determine whether a person is in the U.S. legally – a measure critics say will foster racial profiling. But supporters argue the law will help crack down on illegal immigration. The law requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect that they're in the country illegally. It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.

In her interview with ABC broadcast Monday, Napolitano said the law is evidence a comprehensive federal immigration plan is needed. [You think?]

"You will have this patchwork of laws where we need a federal immigration system that meets our security needs, that recognizes where we need to go in this 21st century and gives us a better framework on which to stand," she said.

After appearing to be put on the back burner, the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats have now indicated passage of immigration reform legislation is a top priority before the close of the 111th Congress. [Safety first...ya'll don't hurt yourselves thinking too much up there in Washington. There's always the 112th Congress...........]

LINK (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/26/napolitano-takes-aim-at-arizona-immigration-law/?fbid=fVM5qIboucB)

Smokin Joe

04-26-2010, 18:13

Does the law allow or force officers to enforce existing laws?

I'm not sure because I have not read the entire bill.. But I'm pretty sure the bill does not abolish officer discretion.

The real question will be what type of policies individual agencies adopt and how passively or aggressively they choose to enforce the laws. In concert with that will be how passively or aggressively individual County Attorney's choose to prosecute these crimes. Because believe me I have had many rock solid cases dismissed for "prosecutor discretion" with the real reason being that the prosecutors office was too busy to prosecute a case or it "lacked jury appeal". With budget cut backs, it is just worse now... So unless the law forces the prosecutors office to pursue and actively prosecute these cases I doubt you will see a huge increase in these cases. Why you may ask? Because it lacks jury appeal!

Truth be told the cities, counties, and state do not have the funds nor infrastructure to deal with prosecuting everyone of these potential cases. After the dust settles you will see it being used as another tool by LEO's to solve specific problems.

Just my .02 cents, YMMV

Defender968

04-26-2010, 19:00

I'm not sure because I have not read the entire bill.. But I'm pretty sure the bill does not abolish officer discretion.

The real question will be what type of policies individual agencies adopt and how passively or aggressively they choose to enforce the laws. In concert with that will be how passively or aggressively individual County Attorney's choose to prosecute these crimes. Because believe me I have had many rock solid cases dismissed for "prosecutor discretion" with the real reason being that the prosecutors office was too busy to prosecute a case or it "lacked jury appeal". With budget cut backs, it is just worse now... So unless the law forces the prosecutors office to pursue and actively prosecute these cases I doubt you will see a huge increase in these cases. Why you may ask? Because it lacks jury appeal!

Truth be told the cities, counties, and state do not have the funds nor infrastructure to deal with prosecuting everyone of these potential cases. After the dust settles you will see it being used as another tool by LEO's to solve specific problems.

Just my .02 cents, YMMV

Smokin Joe the law says MAY, it does not take away any discretion. It will make arrests easier as officers will have a state statute to charge people with. The law also gives anyone the ability to sue over restrictions placed on LEO's in applying this policy, so I don't see any policies being officially placed on the books in regard to the new law.

The key as others have said will be how ICE reacts. Clueless Janet Reno has already come out against the new law...shocker....but I think it would make a hell of a statement if the local depts rounded up a couple hundred illegal’s using the new law, then announced they were going to bus them over to their local ICE station, and got the media to cover the event, kind of force ICE to play, I'm guessing there would be significant backlash if ICE said they didn't want them.

I bet Sheriff Joe would be up for it...maybe I'll drop the idea to him via email :D

Smokin Joe

04-26-2010, 20:10

Smokin Joe the law says MAY, it does not take away any discretion. It will make arrests easier as officers will have a state statute to charge people with. The law also gives anyone the ability to sue over restrictions placed on LEO's in applying this policy, so I don't see any policies being officially placed on the books in regard to the new law.

Oh, so you mean like briefing policies... meaning what is written on the books is one thing; and what is said in briefing behind closed doors is another.... jeez I never thought an administration would do such a thing... ;) My old agency took it one step further, they never updated policy and just issued memo's on what we should or should not do. It was awesome let me tell you. :rolleyes: Because when the SHTF those memos and briefings suddenly disappeared...

The key as others have said will be how ICE reacts. Clueless Janet Reno has already come out against the new law...shocker....but I think it would make a hell of a statement if the local depts rounded up a couple hundred illegal’s using the new law, then announced they were going to bus them over to their local ICE station, and got the media to cover the event, kind of force ICE to play, I'm guessing there would be significant backlash if ICE said they didn't want them.

I bet Sheriff Joe would be up for it...maybe I'll drop the idea to him via email :D

Joe will do it a couple of times, I would almost bet my next commission check on it. You don't even need to waist the bandwidth on the e-mail.

Utah Bob

04-26-2010, 20:12

Smokin Joe the law says MAY, it does not take away any discretion. It will make arrests easier as officers will have a state statute to charge people with. The law also gives anyone the ability to sue over restrictions placed on LEO's in applying this policy, so I don't see any policies being officially placed on the books in regard to the new law.

The key as others have said will be how ICE reacts. Clueless Janet Reno has already come out against the new law...shocker....but I think it would make a hell of a statement if the local depts rounded up a couple hundred illegal’s using the new law, then announced they were going to bus them over to their local ICE station, and got the media to cover the event, kind of force ICE to play, I'm guessing there would be significant backlash if ICE said they didn't want them.

I bet Sheriff Joe would be up for it...maybe I'll drop the idea to him via email :D

We used to round up illegals by the dozen. Border Patrol would tell us they Somebody did call the local media one day and lo and behold, they sent a bus.

I'm not sure who called.
That's my story and I'm stickin to it.:rolleyes:

Defender968

04-27-2010, 16:09

[COLOR="Pink"]Joe will do it a couple of times, I would almost bet my next commission check on it. You don't even need to waist the bandwidth on the e-mail.

I know but I've been meaning to shoot him an email to thank him for his hard work anyway. I'm going to let him know that we the law abiding citizens of this nation do appreciate his efforts. I know he doesn't need it, but it never hurts to hear it.

Gypsy

04-27-2010, 17:02

For starters, Douglass's strategy of assimilation failed to secure the abolition of slavery through a political settlement alone. ?

__________________________________________________ _
* To clarify, this 'top down' summary deliberately privileges rhetorical clarity over a nuanced thumbnail of the complexities of African American political, intellectual, cultural, religious, and social history.

Except we're not talking about slavery or African American political, intellectual, cultural, religious, and social history.

Sigaba

04-27-2010, 17:15

Many of the people I personally know who fit your description are anything but "ambivalent" about this issue. They see them as lawbreakers, destroyers of some neighborhoods, and a "blight on their good name." I teach with a Latino guy who is pretty far to the left on this issue (as he is on all issues), but his brother (and most of the rest of his family) are waaaaay to the other side, and support this law, as they did the Employer Sanctions Law, etc.The ambivalence can stem not from a commitment to upholding the law but rather how some aspects of the political rhetoric paint with ever broadening brush strokes certain groups.

IMO, we are using 'talking points' from some of the most controversial chapters in America's past. My hope is that we can find a combination of twenty-first century 'talking points' that allow us to address this and other issues in a way that more and more people come to the table with ideas.

To me, a central theme is "scofflawism." If America were to have a discussion about scofflawism we might be able to kill more birds with fewer stones. I want the collegian in her dormitory, high on Adderall who is downloading episodes of Gossip Girl as she cuts and pastes her term paper off 'teh internets' the dad in his study deciding he doesn't need a building permit for his renovations, the homeboy from around the way selling bootleg DVDs out of the trunk of his car, the developer in her corner office applying a 'fudge factor' to some spreadsheet as she thumbs the cash she's going to pay her nanny under the table, the small business owner standing in line at Starbucks, reading a newspaper he has no intention of buying, and thinking about ways to cut overhead by hiring 'a friend of a friend of a friend', and a person of ambiguous residential status waiting in the ER, to all look in the mirror and ask "How am I part of the problem?"

By focusing on common behaviors, we can send an ever clearer message. It isn't about your skin color, or your accent, or your occupation, or where you live. It is about respecting the law and about not accepting goods or services for which you've not paid.

My $0.02.

Does that sound bitter?

Sigaba

04-27-2010, 17:27

Except we're not talking about slavery or African American political, intellectual, cultural, religious, and social history.Who are "we"? Why are we not? Are we really not? (Is African American history unrelated to debates over immigration, immigration policy, and "assimilation"?)

Why do "we" make these broad references to some parts of American history (the debate over the constitution and immigration policy) and not others (slavery and the Atlantic world, the history of the working classes, Reconstruction, and America's "rise to globalism")?

What might be different today if we took a more comprehensive look at our yesterdays? (I'd bet we would not have our current president--IMO, he's deliberately playing to the blind side of America's historical memory.)

Peregrino

04-27-2010, 18:39

----------To me, a central theme is "scofflawism." If America were to have a discussion about scofflawism we might be able to kill more birds with fewer stones.

I respectfully submit that "scofflawism" is a symptom, not the problem. The problem is a decayed and degenerate social contract. It started with intrusive government and the gradual usurpation/surrender of personal freedom and responsibility. It ends in anarchy.

One of the first lessons of leadership is not to give orders you know will be disobeyed. Every time such an order is given and people rightly ignore it, respect for all orders is eroded. Eventually even good orders are ignored and the social contract is rendered null and void. The mindless proliferation of "malum prohibidum" laws and their zealous enforcement distorts/obscures the nature of "malum en se" acts truely deserving sanction. There is no duty to obey a bad law.

The Federal Government has a duty to protect the border. As a retired Soldier, I have a strict and classical definition of duty. The Federal Government (both parties) has failed to uphold its end of the contract. I wish AZ every success as it attempts to do its duty.

Sigaba

04-27-2010, 19:08

I respectfully submit that "scofflawism" is a symptom, not the problem. The problem is a decayed and degenerate social contract. It started with intrusive government and the gradual usurpation/surrender of personal freedom and responsibility. It ends in anarchy.For what my two cents are worth, I think your take on the problem offers a superior 'big picture' than 'scofflawism.'

I wonder if your big picture may be too abstract for too many people for it to reach 'critical mass.' And even then, how might America repair this social contract? (Can it even be repaired or would it have to be re-imagined?) Would a constitutional convention that put everything on the table help solve the issue?

Peregrino

04-27-2010, 20:22

For what my two cents are worth, I think your take on the problem offers a superior 'big picture' than 'scofflawism.'

I wonder if your big picture may be too abstract for too many people for it to reach 'critical mass.' And even then, how might America repair this social contract? (Can it even be repaired or would it have to be re-imagined?) Would a constitutional convention that put everything on the table help solve the issue?

My .02 only - you're right, it's too abstract to be a flashpoint. I've spent many years on "Hadrian's Wall" with nothing better to do than contemplate my navel. My understanding of the social contract is formed almost entirely out of my life experience as a professional Soldier. That is a perspective shared by less than one percent of the population.

I'm not sure the social contract can be repaired. I'm doubtful because we (Americans) have devolved from an independant to a dependant culture. For any contract to work, it has to be perceived to be fair and equitable - everybody has to have "skin in the game". Simple business/legal maxim. Right now we have a significant and growing percentage of our population with no investment and less interest in the betterment of this country. Creeping socialism will only exacerbate the apathy. What happens when 51% of the populace no longer pays even minimal taxes?

I certainly DO NOT want a Constitutional Convention. BTW - to my way of thinking, the Constitution is not the Contract. It is a physical manifestation of an aspect of it, but it is by no means its entirety. The Constitution was written to establish, define, and limit government. Our changing national character has been eroding those limits since at least the early 1900s (I submit the War of Northern Aggression was the first blow, YMMV :p). I can only shudder in fear at what an unconstrained CC would do today given the nature of the controlling political parties.

If I want to lose even more sleep, I only need look as far as the vitriol lavished on anyone/anything espousing conservative principles and limited government. "If you would destroy them, first discredit them." Even though I should know better, I'm still disturbed at the efforts the administration is expending to steamroll dissent and demonize efforts like Arizona's.

Richard

04-27-2010, 20:24

I certainly DO NOT want a Constitutional Convention.

Ayyy-effin-men! Meanwhile...

"Over the weekend, tens of thousands of illegal immigrants rallied across the country demanding a path to citizenship. Don't we already have a path to citizenship? It's called the San Diego Freeway." -Jay Leno

"The liberals are saying that this guest worker program is really just a way to depress wages and create a permanent underclass of exploited labor. To which the big corporations said, 'And the problem is?'" -Bill Maher

"Happy TGIF! Do you know what TGIF stands for? The Greencard Is Five grand." -Jay Leno

"The Associated Press says that many of the Mexican people in Mexico are against this new immigration bill. Oh, man. Let's hope they don't boycott coming here." -Jay Leno

"Even though the Mexican President has only been in the United States two days, today the INS said they have no way to find him." -Jay Leno

"Immigration is the big issue right now. Earlier today, the Senate voted to build a 370-mile fence along the Mexican border. Experts say a 370- mile fence is the perfect way to protect a border that is 1,900 miles long." -Conan O'Brien

"The National Guard was called to patrol the U.S./Mexican border. The guards will track down and find illegals. That's not their job. They're trained to defend our country - not track down and find people. Let's be honest: the Guard couldn't even track down and find President Bush when he was in the National Guard." -Jay Leno

"It looks like the Senate and the president have finally agreed on an immigration bill. This one looks like it could become law and, of course, nobody likes it. The conservatives say the bill gives amnesty to the illegals. The liberals say it doesn't go far enough to protect the hard working immigrants here in America. And the L.A.P.D. doesn't know who to beat up." -Bill Maher

"No matter what other nations may say about the United States, immigration is still the sincerest form of flattery." -Kramer

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02 :munchin

craigepo

04-28-2010, 09:16

A law Arizona can live with

By George F. Will
Wednesday, April 28, 2010

"Misguided and irresponsible" is how Arizona's new law pertaining to illegal immigration is characterized by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She represents San Francisco, which calls itself a "sanctuary city," an exercise in exhibitionism that means it will be essentially uncooperative regarding enforcement of immigration laws. Yet as many states go to court to challenge the constitutionality of the federal mandate to buy health insurance, scandalized liberals invoke 19th-century specters of "nullification" and "interposition," anarchy and disunion. Strange.

It is passing strange for federal officials, including the president, to accuse Arizona of irresponsibility while the federal government is refusing to fulfill its responsibility to control the nation's borders. Such control is an essential attribute of national sovereignty. America is the only developed nation that has a 2,000-mile border with a developing nation, and the government's refusal to control that border is why there are an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona and why the nation, sensibly insisting on first things first, resists "comprehensive" immigration reform.

Arizona's law makes what is already a federal offense -- being in the country illegally -- a state offense. Some critics seem not to understand Arizona's right to assert concurrent jurisdiction. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund attacks Gov. Jan Brewer's character and motives, saying she "caved to the radical fringe." This poses a semantic puzzle: Can the large majority of Arizonans who support the law be a "fringe" of their state?

Popularity makes no law invulnerable to invalidation. Americans accept judicial supervision of their democracy -- judicial review of popular but possibly unconstitutional statutes -- because they know that if the Constitution is truly to constitute the nation, it must trump some majority preferences. The Constitution, the Supreme Court has said, puts certain things "beyond the reach of majorities."

But Arizona's statute is not presumptively unconstitutional merely because it says that police officers are required to try to make "a reasonable attempt" to determine the status of a person "where reasonable suspicion exists" that the person is here illegally. The fact that the meaning of "reasonable" will not be obvious in many contexts does not make the law obviously too vague to stand. The Bill of Rights -- the Fourth Amendment -- proscribes "unreasonable searches and seizures." What "reasonable" means in practice is still being refined by case law -- as is that amendment's stipulation that no warrants shall be issued "but upon probable cause." There has also been careful case-by-case refinement of the familiar and indispensable concept of "reasonable suspicion."

Brewer says, "We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent or social status." Because the nation thinks as Brewer does, airport passenger screeners wand Norwegian grandmothers. This is an acceptable, even admirable, homage to the virtue of "evenness" as we seek to deter violence by a few, mostly Middle Eastern, young men.

Some critics say Arizona's law is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" prevents the government from taking action on the basis of race. Liberals, however, cannot comfortably make this argument because they support racial set-asides in government contracting, racial preferences in college admissions, racial gerrymandering of legislative districts and other aspects of a racial spoils system. Although liberals are appalled by racial profiling, some seem to think vocational profiling (police officers are insensitive incompetents) is merely intellectual efficiency, as is state profiling (Arizonans are xenophobic).

Probably 30 percent of Arizona's residents are Hispanic. Arizona police officers, like officers everywhere, have enough to do without being required to seek arrests by violating settled law with random stops of people who speak Spanish. In the practice of the complex and demanding craft of policing, good officers -- the vast majority -- routinely make nuanced judgments about when there is probable cause for acting on reasonable suspicions of illegality.

Arizona's law might give the nation information about whether judicious enforcement discourages illegality. If so, it is a worthwhile experiment in federalism.

Non-Hispanic Arizonans of all sorts live congenially with all sorts of persons of Hispanic descent. These include some whose ancestors got to Arizona before statehood -- some even before it was a territory. They were in America before most Americans' ancestors arrived. Arizonans should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Hispanics are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants, not with illegal immigrants passing through their back yards at 3 a.m.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/27/AR2010042702741.html

georgewill@washpost.com

badshot

04-28-2010, 10:27

"Misguided and irresponsible" is how Arizona's new law pertaining to illegal immigration is characterized by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

As usual the idiots in DC didn't read the bill...it mimics the federal law...lol, guess the Fed law sucks too and is unconstitutional...way to go and GJ Speaker. The bill also makes it a state crime, and makes clear that LEO contact be initiated by another infraction or crime.

I've never heard of a LEO letting anyone walk w/o ID until your identity can be verified, citizen or not. Exception: Sanctuary Cities

badshot

04-28-2010, 10:54

Mexican authorities unhappy with AZ Law? See below

How Mexico Treats Illegal Aliens
By Michelle Malkin
April 28, 2010

-- The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics." How's that for racial and ethnic profiling?

-- Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years' imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years' imprisonment.

-- Law enforcement officials at all levels -- by national mandate -- must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens' arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

Full Story Here:
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/mmalkin/2010/mm_04281.shtml

echoes

04-28-2010, 11:52

LarryW

04-28-2010, 13:27

Holy crap, Holly...now I have to get started on my Bail Out Box/Bag/Bundle/Barge/Boxcar...again!

One thing I feel is certain is that BHO is one slippery and devious person. That applies to everyone in his admin. I've lived thru 11 Presidents and I fear this one more than any of the others.

BTW, isn't he gone a lot...always on the road. You think his mother-in-law is behind all this??

(Tin hat on square...zombie gun loaded and cocked.)

The Reaper

04-28-2010, 14:18

Maybe the illegals will boycott Arizona and move elsewhere?

Which will be the last state to take action to protect their border?

I suspect California. That will not bode well for their economy.

TR

Green Light

04-28-2010, 14:45

There will be many who will just pack up and go, either to Mexico or another state. But there is an element that will stay and fight IMO. These are the traffickers of humans, drugs, etc. They will fight for turf - this is what is going on south of the border right now.

IMO we are in for a fight. Don't worry about Chicago going under martial law. Arizona is first, then Texas.

Sigaba

04-28-2010, 14:49

Which will be the last state to take action to protect their border?

TRI think focusing on the interior may be an alternate way to go rather than focusing on the border alone. A minor tweaking of municipal parking regulations (specifically on-street parking in residential areas) along with greater enforcement of existing building and zoning codes could really shake things up and generate revenue for beleaguered cities.

While this approach would generate immediate political controversy, IMO that controversy could be managed with less risk of 'fall out' than what the state of Arizona is experiencing now.

echoes

04-28-2010, 16:29

Maybe the illegals will boycott Arizona and move elsewhere?

Which will be the last state to take action to protect their border?

I suspect California. That will not bode well for their economy.

TR

TR Sir,

While flying out of Phoenix on Tuesday, I noticed the considerable absence of, well, people! Honestly, we were the only folks going throught the southwest D terminal security checkpoint:confused:...and they were actually nice to my step-mom, who was in a chair....weird!!!!:eek:

In any case, look-out folks! IMHO, TR is correct, Cali is next, and it will not be good for their economy=not good for local businesses=not good for tax revenues=not good for city=NOT good for residents=..." fill in the blank here..."

p.s.....Larry, man, grab the bag and go with it!!!:o

Holly:munchin

LarryW

04-29-2010, 03:40

There's a culture in So Cal that lends itself to riots, from Rodney King back to the '65 Watts Riot. The SDGO County constabulary allows little quarter for criminal activity, and it wouldn't be a surprise to see them pushing back against any riotous behavior. That being said, IMO you can bet the dyke will break in So Cal and will start with riots in TJ followed by a spill over into SDGO County. Arnold or his successor won't be able to sit back and watch.

Anyone have any data re: the change in volume of traffic btwn TJ and SDGO on a daily basis these days? A lot of commuters from TJ into SDGO every day.

Don

04-29-2010, 06:10

Maybe the illegals will boycott Arizona and move elsewhere?

Which will be the last state to take action to protect their border?

I suspect California. That will not bode well for their economy.

TR

I heard a discussion this morning that, after reading your post, made those slow grinding wheels in my brain begin to move.

Remember the Boat People of the '80s? Wasn't that the big immigration problem highlighted by the media then? Heard a passage from a Regan speech where he told the following story:

One of the boats, packed with immigrants from Indochina was encountered by a US Naval vessel. As the passengers from the boat were being shuttled to the Ship via launch...one of the boat people, upon seeing a Sailor on the deck yelled to him, "Hello American Sailor! Hello Freedom-man!"

They came for freedom from oppression and to become American. This current flood of immigrants are coming here for economic reasons. I don’t hear much about how these immigrants are coming here to become American…just that they are coming here to escape poverty and fill those jobs that Americans won’t do.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

People are making a stand on economical principles instead of our founding principles.

I am not saying freedom from oppression is the only reason that is acceptable. What I am saying is, any reason to want to come to America is fine (other than to destroy us), as long as the end result is to become an American. If someone is here for economic opportunity in order to send the money to their “home” country, while holding the belief that parts of this country need to be reclaimed by Mexico…or demand that the culture of the country they came from be instituted here, I have a problem. Keep your heritage (that is what makes us unique), but change your loyalty.

The argument can go any way anyone wants to take it…Potato famine…Irish immigration. Why did they not go to France or Germany? It was much, much closer. Well, because we are the land of opportunity, and they were willing to give up their citizenship, become Americans, and move here to contribute. Assimilating was probably really, really hard for Mom and Pop…but not so bad for the kids. I am 3rd generation Czech, but other than throwing down on some Pierogi and Svičková at Ba-ba’s (grandma’s) house…no one would know or care.

…and then there is the whole ILLEGAL thing…

Sigaba

04-29-2010, 15:24

Heard a passage from a Reagan speech.I remember that speech. It was President Reagan's farewell address to the nation on 11 January 1989.

FWIW, my take on that anecdote is that Reagan used it to underscore the role of American sea power in the resurgence of American morale during his presidency. This resurgence lead to “a rediscovery of our values and our common sense.” This common sense “…told us that to preserve the peace, we’d have to become strong again after years of weakness and confusion. So, we rebuilt our defense, and this New Year we toasted the new peacefulness around the globe.”*

In short, the president used the anecdote to take a parting shot at his immediate predecessors (but especially Carter) and to offer an interpretation of his administration's historical legacy. (One might compare Reagan's vision of American sea power and his presidency's legacy to the one Frank Miller offered three years earlier.**)

I think President Reagan spoke more directly to your point later on in his address. He said:Finally, there is a great tradition of warnings in Presidential farewells, and I've got one that's been on my mind for some time. But oddly enough it starts with one of the things I'm proudest of in the past 8 years: the resurgence of national pride that I called the new patriotism. This national feeling is good, but it won't count for much, and it won't last unless it's grounded in thoughtfulness and knowledge.

An informed patriotism is what we want. And are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world? Those of us who are over 35 or so years of age grew up in a different America. We were taught, very directly, what it means to be an American. And we absorbed, almost in the air, a love of country and an appreciation of its institutions. If you didn't get these things from your family you got them from the neighborhood, from the father down the street who fought in Korea or the family who lost someone at Anzio. Or you could get a sense of patriotism from school. And if all else failed you could get a sense of patriotism from the popular culture. The movies celebrated democratic values and implicitly reinforced the idea that America was special. TV was like that, too, through the mid-sixties.

But now, we're about to enter the nineties, and some things have changed. Younger parents aren't sure that an unambivalent appreciation of America is the right thing to teach modern children. And as for those who create the popular culture, well-grounded patriotism is no longer the style. Our spirit is back, but we haven't reinstitutionalized it. We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom-freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs production [protection].

So, we've got to teach history based not on what's in fashion but what's important-why the Pilgrims came here, who Jimmy Doolittle was, and what those 30 seconds over Tokyo meant. You know, 4 years ago on the 40th anniversary of D-day, I read a letter from a young woman writing to her late father, who'd fought on Omaha Beach. Her name was Lisa Zanatta Henn, and she said, "we will always remember, we will never forget what the boys of Normandy did." Well, let's help her keep her word. If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual.

And let me offer lesson number one about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail 'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.IMO, what remains problematic about Reagan's advocacy of a certain interpretation of American history is that while I find it very compelling as a nationalist, the past gets increasingly complicated as one looks at it more and more closely.

In regards to immigration (voluntary and otherwise), some groups have been allowed to assimilate completely while others only partially and a few hardly at all. There are many works in a wide range of disciplines that argue persuasively that the standards for assimilation mirrored the hierarchies of class, race, and culture that took root in the colonial era, were codified during the early republic, metastasized during the antebellum years, and became increasingly virulent in the succeeding decades.

In short, during over 150 years of our history the "melting pot" was not an option for countless millions of Americans. (And many others simply choose not to "melt" in--they instead moved west or pursued policies that preserved and extended their sectional interests.) How do we communicate to those who remember their histories that this option is now available to all?

__________________________________________________ __________
* Ronald Reagan, Farewell Address to the Nation, 11 January 1989, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Reagan, 1981-88, 15 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1982-1991), 15: 1719. Or, one can just go here (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29650&st=&st1=).
** Frank Miller, Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, book three, “Hunt the Dark Knight,” 15-16, 26, 31, 35, as printed in The Complete Frank Miller Batman, Dean Motter, designer (Stamford: Longmeadow Press, 1989).

Sigaba

04-29-2010, 15:25

There's a culture in So Cal that lends itself to riots, from Rodney King back to the '65 Watts Riot.And what "culture" would that be? Does it date back to 1965? Or to 1943? Or to 1871?

Richard

04-29-2010, 15:27

More Americans Favor Than Oppose Arizona Immigration Law. Among those who have heard of the law, 51% favor and 39% oppose it.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127598/Americans-Favor-Oppose-Arizona-Immigration-Law.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics

And so it goes...

Richard

Bebop

04-29-2010, 23:23

LarryW

04-30-2010, 03:16

And what "culture" would that be? Does it date back to 1965? Or to 1943? Or to 1871?

Sorry if I was obtuse, Sigaba. The best answer to your question would probably be all the above. Maybe "condition" would have been a better choice of words, or "short fuzed" unless that adds just more confusion. I grew up in So Cal (Orange County) from 5y/o to arthritis. The Watts Riots was my introduction to a steep learning curve about racial frustrations that my background and ignorance had insulated me from. Of course there were riots in Long Beach in the '40's and I'm sure 1871 was no cake walk either based on your mention of it.

So Cal, esp SDGO, is IMHO a congested area with a wide spread of poverty and plenty. It just reminds me of what South Central LA was economically and culturally like in the mid-60's, and if I were making any bets I'd expect SDGO to be next. I'd further bet the cartels in TJ would love to see it.

My 0.02 worth anyway.

Sigaba

04-30-2010, 03:58

Entire post.Gotcha!:)

FWIW, my own take is that L.A.'s "fuse" burns very slowly--there will be widespread agreement in some circles that trouble is brewing but we'll address the issues in a husband and wife fashion.

Then, we'll act very surprised while the tofu is hitting the fan. (Kind of like how we're surprised, year after year, by the weather in May and June or the Santa Anas in the fall.)

Later, in the aftermath, we will act as if we knew the answers to the issues all along. But our solutions will seem half-hearted and the fuse will start the slow burn again.

Hopefully, this Saturday's march will go off without too much rancor. (Although a better barometer may come in June--if the Lakers win another championship and the city cannot afford a parade and rally.)

LarryW

04-30-2010, 04:18

FWIW, my own take is that L.A.'s "fuse" burns very slowly--

Agree 100%. Maybe it's the "lay-back" phenomena. IMO, the difference in the setting is, if the Lakers win/lose and LA can't afford a prom then the riots would look a lot like South Central LA. If the conflag happens in SDGO the cartels will build more tunnels, bring in tons of mary-jane, and win some turf. The MSM would have a field day, regardless, and there'd be more hysterical talking heads to put up with.

Thank goodness for NETFLIX...

incarcerated

05-01-2010, 22:38

And what "culture" would that be? Does it date back to 1965? Or to 1943? Or to 1871?

Probably the guys who wore the T-shirts with the graphic of a cop’s silhouette in the crosshairs.
You won’t find them at the library.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlNUlpqT-F0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMssMKCwuuc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-LB94Kwlws&feature=related

Sigaba

05-01-2010, 23:20

Probably the guys who wore the T-shirts with the graphic of a cop’s silhouette in the crosshairs.
You won’t find them at the library.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlNUlpqT-F0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMssMKCwuuc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-LB94Kwlws&feature=relatedWe must be using different definitions of "culture"--and different search engines.

http://www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/la/la_riot.html

http://www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/cityinstress/

http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/K-0513/excerpts/excerpt_2528.html

http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/search.php?q=riots

Richard

05-03-2010, 05:42

And so it goes...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/opinion/02rich.html?src=me&ref=general

Richard

incarcerated

05-04-2010, 01:57

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704302304575214613784530750.html

The Big Alienation

Uncontrolled borders and Washington's lack of self-control
By PEGGY NOONAN
OPINION: DECLARATIONS
MAY 1, 2010
We are at a remarkable moment. We have an open, 2,000-mile border to our south, and the entity with the power to enforce the law and impose safety and order will not do it. Wall Street collapsed, taking Main Street's money with it, and the government can't really figure out what to do about it because the government itself was deeply implicated in the crash, and both political parties are full of people whose political careers have been made possible by Wall Street contributions. Meanwhile we pass huge laws, bills so comprehensive, omnibus and transformative that no one knows what's in them and no one—literally, no one—knows how exactly they will be executed or interpreted. Citizens search for new laws online, pore over them at night, and come away knowing no more than they did before they typed "dot-gov."

It is not that no one's in control. Washington is full of people who insist they're in control and who go to great lengths to display their power. It's that no one takes responsibility and authority. Washington daily delivers to the people two stark and utterly conflicting messages: "We control everything" and "You're on your own."
All this contributes to a deep and growing alienation between the people of America and the government of America in Washington.

This is not the old, conservative and long-lampooned "I don't trust gummint" attitude of the 1950s, '60s and '70s. It's something new, or rather something so much more broadly and fully evolved that it constitutes something new. The right never trusted the government, but now the middle doesn't. I asked a campaigner for Hillary Clinton recently where her sturdy, pantsuited supporters had gone. They didn't seem part of the Obama brigades. "Some of them are at the tea party," she said.

None of this happened overnight. It is, most recently, the result of two wars that were supposed to be cakewalks, Katrina, the crash, and the phenomenon of a federal government that seemed less and less competent attempting to do more and more by passing bigger and bigger laws.

Add to this states on the verge of bankruptcy, the looming debt crisis of the federal government, and the likelihood of ever-rising taxes. Shake it all together, and you have the makings of the big alienation. Alienation is often followed by full-blown antagonism, and antagonism by breakage.

Which brings us to Arizona and its much-criticized attempt to institute a law aimed at controlling its own border with Mexico. It is doing this because the federal government won't, and because Arizonans have a crisis on their hands, areas on the border where criminal behavior flourishes, where there have been kidnappings, murders and gang violence. If the law is abusive, it will be determined quickly enough, in the courts. In keeping with recent tradition, they were reading parts of the law aloud on cable the other night, with bright and sincere people completely disagreeing on the meaning of the words they were reading. No one knows how the law will be executed or interpreted.

Every state and region has its own facts and experience. In New York, legal and illegal immigrants keep the city running: They work hard jobs with brutal hours, rip off no one on Wall Street, and do not crash the economy. They are generally considered among the good guys. I'm not sure New Yorkers can fairly judge the situation in Arizona, nor Arizonans the situation in New York.

But the larger point is that Arizona is moving forward because the government in Washington has completely abdicated its responsibility. For 10 years—at least—through two administrations, Washington deliberately did nothing to ease the crisis on the borders because politicians calculated that an air of mounting crisis would spur mounting support for what Washington thought was appropriate reform—i.e., reform that would help the Democratic and Republican parties.

Both parties resemble Gordon Brown, who is about to lose the prime ministership of Britain. On the campaign trail this week, he was famously questioned by a party voter about his stand on immigration. He gave her the verbal runaround, all boilerplate and shrugs, and later complained to an aide, on an open mic, that he'd been forced into conversation with that "bigoted woman."

He really thought she was a bigot. Because she asked about immigration. Which is, to him, a sign of at least latent racism.

The establishments of the American political parties, and the media, are full of people who think concern about illegal immigration is a mark of racism. If you were Freud you might say, "How odd that's where their minds so quickly go, how strange they're so eager to point an accusing finger. Could they be projecting onto others their own, heavily defended-against inner emotions?" But let's not do Freud, he's too interesting. Maybe they're just smug and sanctimonious.

The American president has the power to control America's borders if he wants to, but George W. Bush and Barack Obama did not and do not want to, and for the same reason, and we all know what it is. The fastest-growing demographic in America is the Hispanic vote, and if either party cracks down on illegal immigration, it risks losing that vote for generations.

But while the Democrats worry about the prospects of the Democrats and the Republicans about the well-being of the Republicans, who worries about America?

No one. Which the American people have noticed, and which adds to the dangerous alienation—actually it's at the heart of the alienation—of the age.

In the past four years, I have argued in this space that nothing can or should be done, no new federal law passed, until the border itself is secure. That is the predicate, the common sense first step. Once existing laws are enforced and the border made peaceful, everyone in the country will be able to breathe easier and consider, without an air of clamor and crisis, what should be done next. What might that be? How about relax, see where we are, and absorb. Pass a small, clear law—say, one granting citizenship to all who serve two years in the armed forces—and then go have a Coke. Not everything has to be settled right away. Only controlling the border has to be settled right away.

Instead, our national establishments deliberately allow the crisis to grow and fester, ignoring public unrest and amusing themselves by damning anyone's attempt to deal with the problem they fear to address.

Why does the federal government do this? Because so many within it are stupid and unimaginative and don't trust the American people. Which of course the American people have noticed.

If the federal government and our political parties were imaginative, they would understand that it is actually in their interests to restore peace and order to the border. It would be a way of demonstrating that our government is still capable of functioning, that it is still to some degree connected to the people's will, that it has the broader interests of the country in mind.

The American people fear they are losing their place and authority in the daily, unwinding drama of American history. They feel increasingly alienated from their government. And alienation, again, is often followed by deep animosity, and animosity by the breaking up of things. If our leaders were farsighted not only for themselves but for the country, they would fix the border.

JAGO

05-04-2010, 09:23

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-no-celebratory-shooting-20100504,0,287512.story

Ocoee police are reminding citizens not to shoot into the air during Cinco de Mayo celebrations this week.

Shooting a gun into the air is illegal and is punishable by up to a year in prison, police said. If a bullet fired in the air comes back down and kills someone, the person who fired the bullet will be charged with murder, police said.

Bullets that are fired into the air could climb up to two miles and then fall back down at a rate of 300 to 700 feet per second.

"Remember, what goes up will come down," Sgt. Randy Conyers said in an e-mail.

My fellow citizens, please behave on May 5th:cool:

wch84

05-04-2010, 11:26

Richard

05-08-2010, 08:40

I know how I'd be voting if faced with such a choice...con los pies! ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Team Sergeant

05-08-2010, 09:48

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-no-celebratory-shooting-20100504,0,287512.story

Ocoee police are reminding citizens not to shoot into the air during Cinco de Mayo celebrations this week.

Shooting a gun into the air is illegal and is punishable by up to a year in prison, police said. If a bullet fired in the air comes back down and kills someone, the person who fired the bullet will be charged with murder, police said.

Bullets that are fired into the air could climb up to two miles and then fall back down at a rate of 300 to 700 feet per second.
"Remember, what goes up will come down," Sgt. Randy Conyers said in an e-mail.

WOW, bullets in Ocoee, Fla. are breaking the laws of gravity. :rolleyes:

Utah Bob

05-08-2010, 11:04

WOW, bullets in Ocoee, Fla. are breaking the laws of gravity. :rolleyes:

The rules are different in Florida.
Spook Hill Florida (http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2058)

bluebb

05-08-2010, 11:42

Paslode

05-08-2010, 12:29

We are a sovereign country, we are allowed to control our borders. We are allowed to set the rules to enter and stay in our country. This is not about race, there are illegals from all over the world here, it is about safety and security. If the Federal Government can’t get the job done then the State will.

There is no room in this discussion about anything except the rule of law. The law is in place and it will be either judged constitutional or not.
The people of Arizona are the only ones this law effects, the rest of the country should just STFU and tend to their own state’s business.

Sigaba and Richard must be part of SAG (no not the screen actors guild but rather Satan’s Advocate General Corp) And I want to punch Richard in the nose even more so now (playing Satan’s advocate is a tough job Richard)

Rambling and incoherent I am sure but that’s what you get with a GED.

Blue

If the Arizona stick to there guns there are likely other states that will start thinking for themselves as well, and that is just what DC, their campaign donors in the Slave Labor Market and Latino Special Interest don't want to happen.

I would be curious to see the reaction of Feds if they won in the courts and Arizona continued to hold their ground on the Illegals and the Border issue.

Would Obama send in his QRF of goons to quell the rebellious State? Arrest the radical Governor, the Legislature, Sheriff Joe and all that won't submit?

Don

05-08-2010, 13:29

And I want to punch Richard in the nose even more so now [/COLOR]

Rambling and incoherent I am sure but that’s what you get with a GED.

Blue

See....see...another violent teabagger!!! :D

Richard

05-08-2010, 14:45

It's a tough job...and the truth be known, it's a BIG issue... ;)

Richard

Defender968

05-08-2010, 14:54

If the Arizona stick to there guns there are likely other states that will start thinking for themselves as well, and that is just what DC, their campaign donors in the Slave Labor Market and Latino Special Interest don't want to happen.

Already happening, I heard it mentioned on a Spanish news channel, googled it and here you go. Hopefully most of the border states will follow suit.

http://standardspeaker.com/news/pa-lawmakers-to-look-into-new-immigration-law-1.755153

Pa. lawmakers to look into new immigration law

Arizona's new immigration law may get a hearing in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, on Tuesday plans to introduce an immigration bill modeled on the law in Arizona.

The Arizona law allows police to investigate the immigration status of people whom they suspect lack permission to live in the United States. Harboring illegal immigrants or impeding traffic while stopping to give a ride to day laborers are prohibited. If the state and local governments fail to enforce the law, Arizona residents can sue them.

Pennsylvania Sen. David Argall, R-29, of Tamaqua thinks Arizona's law is headed for a constitutional challenge. But in Pennsylvania he thinks there is "considerable support to do something to tighten our immigration policy."

"Many people believe the federal government has failed on that front," Argall said.

Four years ago, the Pennsylvania Legislature enacted a law that strips state funding from projects for which companies knowingly employ illegal immigrants. Former state Rep. Bob Allen of Pottsville sponsored the legislation after immigration officials raided a warehouse under construction in Schuylkill County.

"I don't believe anyone has ever challenged our right to do that," Argall said.

Sen. Raphael Musto, D-14, doesn't know how Pennsylvania's lawmakers would vote on a proposal like Arizona's law.

"I do know what Arizona is doing. Arizona wants to drive attention to the problem for the whole nation, and it is a big problem. No question about it. All the social agencies, the hospitals, the schools - they're breaking," Musto said. "What Arizona is telling the world is ... what the problems really are. We experienced that in Hazleton for a number of years."

House Majority Leader Todd Eachus, D-116, who represents Hazleton, said an Arizona-style law would add duties to understaffed state and local police.

Recently, 400 Pennsylvania State Police retired, he said, and the class of new recruits has 100 instead of 200 because of budget woes.

Shifting the job of immigration enforcement to state and local police, Eachus said, would squeeze state taxpayers.

"I don't know what's in the water in Arizona, but our taxpayers aren't going to drink it," he said.

- Kent Jackson

Don

05-08-2010, 15:04

Interesting and humorous rant on illegal immigration...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_ylVIcoWRo

alright4u

05-08-2010, 16:14

ZonieDiver

05-08-2010, 17:14

dadof18x'er

05-08-2010, 19:03

Interesting and humorous rant on illegal immigration...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_ylVIcoWRo

here's a not so humorous rant, UCLA prof calling for the overthrow of USA, piss off alert:mad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGqPo5ofk0s:(

Don

05-08-2010, 19:09

here's a not so humorous rant, UCLA prof calling for the overthrow of USA, piss off alert:mad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGqPo5ofk0s:(

Oh...you are right. Not humorous at all.

kgoerz

05-08-2010, 19:32

I just don't understand why they don't protest their own country. Thats the reason they come here after all. Never a News Story about the Mexican Health Care System.

SF-TX

05-08-2010, 19:32

here's a not so humorous rant, UCLA prof calling for the overthrow of USA, piss off alert:mad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGqPo5ofk0s:(

"Our enemy is the same enemy as Hugo Chavez. Our enemy is the same enemy that keeps Africa poor. Our enemy is the same enemy that keeps Asia poor. Our enemy is capitalism and imperialism!" What a cute little Marxist. :rolleyes: He also mentions Che Guevara. Perhaps he is not familiar with how Che met his fate.

dr. mabuse

05-08-2010, 21:08

T-Rock

05-09-2010, 04:29

This type of thing really irks me when this kind of rubbish is peddled to our kids - I can only imagine what the indoctrination is like in this guys classroom :mad:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGqPo5ofk0s

"Where we now stand is stolen, occupied Mexico"...We are revolutionary Mexican organization here. We understand that this is not just about Mexico. Its about a global struggle against imperialism and capitalism At the forefront of this revolutionary movement is La Raza. We will no longer fall for these lies called borders. We see America as a northern front of a revolutionary movement Our enemy is capitalism and imperialism..."

Contact info here, if interested:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/202378.php

Edited to add:

It appears Mr. Ronald Gochez is a “Social Justice” faculty member.

If you want to give Ronald a shout out, here is his email form :-)

http://www.santeefalcons.org/apps/email/index.jsp?e=42354247421341214117411341174135422342 014241423742074099422742094239&n=Ronald+Gochez&rn=3012175

Pete

05-09-2010, 07:32

Somebody should tell the la raza crowd that "Spanish" is not a native language of the Americas.

So just who was doing the conquesting - and when? At what point do you hit the reset button?

There are no native Americans - just an arguement about who got here first.

I guess "time in country" gives certain people special rights.

Richard

05-09-2010, 10:36

Some interesting stats on Señor Gochez's campus - SANTEE EDUCATION COMPLEX:

California Standards Tests (CST)

...percent of students achieving at the Proficient or Advanced level (meeting or exceeding the state standards).

- History-Social Science 8% (2008-2009)

CAHSEE Results by Student Group - Most Recent Year

...percent of students, by group, achieving at each performance level in English-Language Arts and Mathematics for the most recent testing period.

Hispanic or Latino (which is 91.8% of student body)

- English/Language Arts: Not Proficient-81.0%; Proficient-14.0%; Advanced-5.1%
- Mathematics: Not Proficient-77.2%; Proficient-19.0%; Advanced-3.8%

http://search.lausd.k12.ca.us/cgi-bin/fccgi.exe?w3exec=p_sarc4&which=8716

Seems to me as if Señor Gochez should be doing more teaching and less preaching - it might make a difference.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

SF-TX

05-09-2010, 11:02

If "Revolutionary Rhetoric" were a measurable statistic, the percentages would likely be reversed: Not Proficient-5.1%; Proficient-14.0%; Advanced-81%

ZonieDiver

05-09-2010, 12:04

Seems to me as if Señor Gochez should be doing more teaching and less preaching - it might make a difference.

This same kind of crapola is going on in the Tucson Unified School District. It has been in the high schools for years. Any teacher who opposes it, even Latino teachers, are branded as rascists. They violate district policies and state laws with impunity. They now wish to spread their Aztlan revolutionary bs to the middle and elementary schools.

To quote Susan Powter - "Stop the insanity!"

alright4u

05-09-2010, 21:41

Oh...you are right. Not humorous at all.

This is clearly treason and inciting others to overthrow this Government. What does Obama's DOJ do?

SMP9168

05-09-2010, 22:46

Gov. Brewer's campaign posted this YouTube video in response to Pres. Obama's ill-thought-out remarks at the Washington dinner...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLgZ1LWLlko

Way to go, Governor Brewer!

Maybe President Obama should read up on the Arizona Revised Statutes. If you are a white man stopped for a traffic violation in AZ and you don't have ID, guess where you go? Jail.

incarcerated

05-09-2010, 23:18

here's a not so humorous rant, UCLA prof calling for the overthrow of USA, piss off alert:mad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGqPo5ofk0s:(

This is clearly treason and inciting others to overthrow this Government. What does Obama's DOJ do?

I wouldn’t expect much from this Administration. The people of Arizona certainly do not, and are taking matters into their own hands:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/30/arizona-legislature-passes-banning-ethnic-studies-programs/

Arizona Legislature Passes Bill to Curb 'Chauvanism' in Ethnic Studies Programs

FOXNews.com
After making national headlines for a new law on illegal immigrants, the Arizona Legislature sent Gov. Jan Brewer a bill Thursday that would ban ethnic studies programs in the state that critics say currently advocate separatism and racial preferences.
Updated April 30, 2010
After making national headlines for a new law on illegal immigrants, the Arizona Legislature passed a bill Thursday that would ban ethnic studies programs in the state that critics say currently advocate separatism and racial preferences.
The bill, which passed 32-26 in the state House, had been approved by the Senate a day earlier. It now goes to Gov. Jan Brewer for her signature.
The new bill would make it illegal for a school district to teach any courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."
The bill stipulates that courses can continue to be taught for Native American pupils in compliance with federal law and does not prohibit English as a second language classes. It also does not prohibit the teaching of the Holocaust or other cases of genocide.
Schools that fail to abide by the law would have state funds withheld.
State Superintendent for Public Instruction Tom Horne called passage in the state House a victory for the principle that education should unite, not divide students of differing backgrounds.
"Traditionally, the American public school system has brought together students from different backgrounds and taught them to be Americans and to treat each other as individuals, and not on the basis of their ethnic backgrounds," Horne said. "This is consistent with the fundamental American value that we are all individuals, not exemplars of whatever ethnic groups we were born into. Ethnic studies programs teach the opposite, and are designed to promote ethnic chauvinism."
Horne began fighting in 2007 against the Tucson Unified School District's program, which he said defied Martin Luther King's call to judge a person by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Horne claimed the ethnic studies program encourages "ethnic chauvanism," promotes Latinos to rise up and create a new territory out of the southwestern region of the United States and tries to intimidate conservative teachers in the school system.
But opponents said the bill would prevent teachers from using an academically proven method of educating students about history. They also argued that the Legislature should not be involved in developing school curriculum.

LarryW

05-10-2010, 02:25

But opponents said ...

I often wonder who these "opponents" are. You see this a lot. "Opponents say..." and I've come to the conclusion that they're a unique species of creature...kind of a gay Klingon.

Richard

05-10-2010, 05:57

Looks like Michigan wants to join Arizona in getting on the POTUS's 'rotten radish' list...;)

Richard

Lawmaker hopes to give Michigan an immigration law like Arizona's
DetFreePress, 10 May 2010

A Michigan lawmaker said she believes the state's law enforcement officers need the authority to arrest illegal immigrants and is drafting legislation similar to Arizona's new immigration law.

Rep. Kim Meltzer, R-Clinton Township, said her bill would allow police to request proof of citizenship from people who are stopped and questioned on another offense, such as a traffic violation or selling fraudulent identity documents. Officers would have the authority to arrest people who can't prove their legal status.

"We have borders in place for a reason," Meltzer said. "Everyone should play by the rules."

Meltzer, a candidate for state Senate in the August primary election, said racial profiling -- a key fear among opponents of Arizona's law -- would not be tolerated. She said a driver's license would be reasonable proof that a person was living in the U.S. legally.

The Arizona law approved last month empowers local police to question anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally. It has triggered a heated national debate, touched off protests and prompted some states to look at their own laws.

Meltzer said that when the federal government ignores its border patrol responsibilities, it presents "a financial liability for our states, local communities and schools."

Her plan has already garnered strong reaction.

"This is absolutely unacceptable," said Emily Diaz-Torres, executive director of the new Macomb Hispanic and International Service Center in New Haven.
"If it's anything like the Arizona law, we will definitely fight it."

Shelli Weisberg, legislative director for American Civil Liberties Union in Michigan, said the group would fight Meltzer's bill in the Legislature, and in court, if necessary.

"We don't want an Arizona-style bill. It encourages racial profiling," Weisberg said.

But Ken Grabowski, legislative director for the Police Officers Association of Michigan, said a law giving local police more authority is "probably something that needs to be done."

http://www.freep.com/article/20100510/NEWS05/5100421/1322/Lawmaker-hopes-to-give-Michigan-an-immigration-law-like-Arizonas

incarcerated

05-10-2010, 09:24

I often wonder who these "opponents" are. You see this a lot. "Opponents say..." and I've come to the conclusion that they're a unique species of creature...kind of a gay Klingon.

http://www.fox11az.com/home/Students-protest-bill-that-would-ban-ethnic-studies-93081864.html

Students protest bill that would ban ethnic studies

Fox 11
Posted on May 7, 2010 at 10:35 AM
Updated Friday, May 7 at 12:00 PM
If state lawmakers have their way the Tucson Unified School District's Ethnic Studies program will be shut down -- for good.
Lawmakers feel ethnic studies programs promote the overthrow of the U.S. Government among other things.
Tucson high school students are upset about it.
Tucson high school students began standing in front of their school at 4 P.M. They plan to be standing on the same corner by 4 P.M. Friday -- protesting Arizona House Bill 2281.
If Gov. Jan Brewer signs the bill, it could soon force the Tucson Unified School District to shut down its ethnic studies department -- a program students and teachers here feel is vital.
It's a chance for people to learn new cultures and learn things about other people that they didn't know before.
Several state legislators disagree -- not only with the idea of Ethnic Studies in schools, but what it does in TUSD.
State superintendent of schools, Tom Horne, has been publicly speaking out against TUSD's program in particular, "It's just like the old south. They got everybody divided up by race. It's a terrible thing to do."
Under HB 2281, any school district promoting the overthrow of the U.S. Government, resentment toward a race or class of people, or designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group, could lose 10% of monthly state aid.
Superintendent Horne believes TUSD's program does all those things.
Sean Arce, director of TUSD's Mexican American studies disagrees, "We have no intentions of doing that. That is just crazy."
Arce says data collected through the program shows students -- particularly Latino students -- are more successful because of the program.
"There are those in the state legislature, there are those in political office that are using this as a political platform for their personal gain," says Sean Arce.
"...and I think anything that connects young people to going to school, involved with their community, their family, and their education is not wrong," continues Arce.
Governor Jan brewer is expected to sign House Bill 2281. If she does, it'll take effect December 31st.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::

See also:
(I don’t want to hot-link this here: remove the spaces in the middle of this url and paste in into your browser to make it work)
http:// uprisingradio .org/home/?p=13666

Richard

05-10-2010, 09:36

...bill that would ban ethnic studies...

So...they want to ban World History now? :confused:

IMO - as with any subject - it's less the topic than how it's taught and by whom.

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Pete

05-10-2010, 10:53

So...they want to ban World History now? ......

How about just good 'ol American History. If you teach it you will hit just about every ethnic group you can think of.

Those that were here, those that came in the first couple of waves and then all the waves since then.

Each wave has added it's own flavor to our country. It's when you try and focus on just one that you loose the mix that makes us - US.

As a point - the Civil War is now "Bad" - just a few lines here and move on - yet come Black History Month and a couple of days will be spent watching the movie Glory.

Hey, how about the First North Carolina Colored Volunteers (35th USCT) and their stand at Olustee? Lost 230 men in the space of a couple of hours defending the Union Force's retreat. They also fought at Honet Hill, SC. Who talks about them or the other USCT Regiments raised in NC during the war?

Their history is our history is American History.

You don't need to go ethnic - the real history of all of us an open book. You just have to read it.

How about the 369th in WW I - the Harlem Hellfighters?

incarcerated

05-10-2010, 22:55

So...they want to ban World History now?

No, just Western Civ, and they’ve already accomplished that!

:rolleyes::D

Richard

05-11-2010, 08:10

And so it goes... :rolleyes:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Peregrino

05-11-2010, 18:16

Maybe it's time to hear what the persons who felt it necessary to pass this legislation have to say about the matter.

STATE SENATOR (AZ) SYLVIA ALLEN

State Senator Sylvia Allen responds to SB1070

I’m Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen. I want to explain SB 1070 for which I voted yes. Rancher Robert Krentz was murdered by the drug cartel on his ranch a month ago. I participated in a senate hearing two weeks ago on the border violence, here is just some of the highlights from those who testified.
The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the Arizona/Mexico Border have for years been terrorized and have pleaded for help to stop the daily invasion of humans who cross their property . One Rancher testified that 300 to 1200 people a DAY come across his ranch vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles and property, cutting down his fences, and leaving trash. In the last two years he has found 17 dead bodies and two Koran bibles. Another rancher testified that daily drugs are brought across his ranch in a military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in front, 1/2 mile behind are the guards fully armed, 1/2 mile behind them are the drugs, behind the drugs 1/2 mile are more guards. These people are violent and they will kill anyone who gets in the way. This was not the only rancher we heard that day that talked about the drug trains. One man told of two illegal’s who came upon his property one shot in the back and the other in the arm by the drug runners who had forced them to carry the drugs and then shot them. Daily they listen to gun fire during the night it is not safe to leave his family alone on the ranch and they can’t leave the ranch for fear of nothing being left when they come back.
The border patrol is not on the border. They have set up 60 miles away with check points that do nothing to stop the invasion. They are not allowed to use force in stopping anyone who is entering. They run around chasing them, if they get their hands on them then they can take them back across the border. Federal prisons have over 35% illegal’s and 20% of Arizona prisons are filled with illegal’s. In the last few years 80% of our law enforcement that have been killed or wounded have been by an illegal. The majority of people coming now are people we need to be worried about. The ranchers told us that they have seen a change in the people coming they are not just those who are looking for work and a better life.
The Federal Government has refused for years to do anything to help the border states . We have been over run and once they are here we have the burden of funding state services that they use. Education costs have been over a billion dollars. The healthcare cost billions of dollars. Our State is broke, $3.5 billion deficit and we have many serious decisions to make. One is that we do not have the money to care for any who are not here legally. It has to stop.
The border can be secured. We have the technology and we have the ability to stop this invasion. We must know who is coming and they must come in an organized manner legally so that we can assimilate them into our population and protect the sovereignty of our country. We are a nation of laws. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens and to protect the integrity of our country and the government which we live under. I would give amnesty today to many, but here is the problem, we dare not do this until the Border is secure. It will do no good to give them amnesty because thousands will come behind them and we will be over run to the point that there will no longer be the United States of America but a North American Union of open borders. I ask you what form of government will we live under? How long will it be before we will be just like Mexico , Canada or any of the other Central American or South American country? We have already lost our language, everything must be printed in Spanish. We have already lost our history, it is no longer taught in our schools, and we have lost our borders.
The leftist media has distorted what SB 1070 will do. It is not going to set up a Nazi Germany. Are you kidding? The ACLU and the leftist courts will do everything to protect those who are here illegally, but it was an effort to try and stop illegal’s from setting up businesses, and employment, and receiving state services and give the ability to local law enforcement when there is probable cause, like a traffic stop, to determine if they are here legally. Federal law is very clear, if you are here on a visa you must have your papers on you at all times. That is the law. In Arizona all you need to show you are a legal citizen is a driver license, MVD identification card, Native American Card, or a Military ID. This is what you need to vote or get a hunting license. So nothing new has been added to this law. No one is going to be stopped walking down the street. The Socialists who are in power in DC are angry because we dare try and do something.The Socialists wants us to just let them come. They want the “Transformation” to continue.
Maybe it is too late to save America . Maybe we are not worthy of freedom anymore. But as an elected official I must try to do what I can to protect our Constitutional Republic . Living in America is not a right just because you can walk across the border. Being an American is a responsibility and it comes by respecting and upholding the Constitution, the law of our land, which says what you must do to be a citizen of this country. FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.
Senator Sylvia Allen .

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

ZonieDiver

05-11-2010, 18:38

Peregrino

05-11-2010, 19:01

Even a blind hog will find an occasional acorn. Trust me to know - I work with some real geniuses. :rolleyes: Speaking for myself, cracked doesn't mean irredeemably wrong about everything (though I did enjoy the vitriol of the blog comments - when the left hates, they go all out!).

GratefulCitizen

05-11-2010, 22:30

Info on AZ Rep Sylvia Allen:

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/MembersPage.asp?Member_ID=124&Legislature=49

Of course, then there is this:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/07/06/arizona-is-6000-years-old/

You decide.

Used to believe in Uniformitarianism and the rest of it, just like I was taught.
Once my understanding of mathematics was sufficient, the science was revisited.

I decided.
Found the "young Earth" model to be more consistent with the hard science.
("hard" = areas less subject to interpretation)

People will believe what they want.
Ad hominem fallacies do not refute valid arguments.**
YMMV.

**
There are plenty of "educated" types who find the young Earth model valid.
Here's a list of some Ph D's (and D Sc's) who have written on the science in support of a young Earth:

(John R. Baumgardner's stuff is particularly compelling, Walt Brown's is quite thorough and rigorous.)

Jeremy L. Walter
Jerry R. Bergman
John K.G. Kramer
Paul Giem
Henry Zuill
Jonathan D. Sarfati
Ariel A. Roth
Keith H. Wanser
Timothy G. Standish
John R. Rankin
Bob Hosken
James S. Allan
George T. Javor
Dwain L. Ford
Angela Meyer
Stephen Grocott
Andrew McIntosh
John P. Marcus
Nancy M. Darrall
John M. Cimbala
Edward A. Boudreaux
E. Theo Agard
Ker C. Thomson
John R. Baumgardner
Arthur Jones
Walt Brown

T-Rock

05-11-2010, 22:56

Ad hominem fallacies do not refute valid arguments.

It appears Dr. Walt Brown has a standing offer for a strictly scientific, written, and publishable debate - Does the scientific evidence favor creation or evolution? - with few takers. He has an interesting CV...a retired Air Force full colonel, West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper.

"Because I am not a theologian, I will not debate those topics. My focus is on the scientific evidence relating to origins"
~Dr. Walt Brown~

Interesting...

Paslode

05-12-2010, 06:57

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nation/un-human-rights-experts-say-arizona-immigration-law-could-violate-international-standards-93510164.html

UN human rights experts say Arizona immigration law could violate international standards
By: ELIANE ENGELER
Associated Press
05/11/10 10:50 PM EDT

GENEVA — Arizona's new law on illegal immigration could violate international standards that are binding in the United States, six U.N. human rights experts said Tuesday.

The basic human rights regulations, signed by the U.S. and many other nations, relate to issues such as discrimination and the terms under which a person can be detained, the experts said.

"A disturbing pattern of legislative activity hostile to ethnic minorities and immigrants has been established with the adoption of an immigration law that may allow for police action targeting individuals on the basis of their perceived ethnic origin," the experts said.

Arizona's new sweeping law targeting illegal immigration has provisions that include requiring police enforcing another law to question a person about his or her immigration status, if there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the United States illegally. It also makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.

In America, critics have said the law violates the U.S. Constitution's provisions against unreasonable search and seizure and will result in racial profiling of Hispanics. Supporters deny that and say the law will pressure illegal immigrants to leave the country on their own.

In their statement, the six U.N. experts said: "States are required to respect and ensure the human rights of all persons subject to their jurisdiction, without discrimination.

"Relevant international standards require that detention be used only as an exceptional measure, justified, narrowly tailored and proportional in each individual case, and that it be subject to judicial review," the experts said.

The law could result in potential discrimination against Mexicans, indigenous peoples and other minorities in Arizona, the U.N. officials said.

"If the Arizona law violates international standards, then so does the federal law upon which it is based," said Paul Senseman, a spokesman for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the bill April 23.

The UN experts also said they are concerned about the enactment of a law prohibiting Arizona school programs featuring the histories and cultures of ethnic minorities because everyone has the right to learn about his own cultural and linguistic heritage.

The six U.N. human rights experts, who are unpaid, are:

_Jorge Bustamante of Mexico, special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants.

_Githu Muigai of Kenya, special rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

_James Anaya of the United States, special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people.

_Farida Shaheed of Pakistan, independent expert in the field of cultural rights.

_Vernor Munos Villalobos of Costa Rica, special rapporteur on the right to education.

_Gay McDougall of the United States, independent expert on minority issues.

Sigaba

05-14-2010, 16:55

Entire postQP Pete--

I do not know if we can teach a fully integrated history of the U.S without first understanding better the historiographical segregation of the past. Who wrote what, using which sources, how did he (or she) write, and why?

Until we as a nation take informed ownership of the causes and consequences of these divisions we may well end up back where we started a hundred years from now. Even if we were to embrace a fuller vision of our yesterdays, the political, social, and cultural ramifications today may lead to unimaginable unintended consequences.

blue02hd

05-14-2010, 18:10

QP Pete--

I do not know if we can teach a fully integrated history of the U.S without first understanding better the historiographical segregation of the past. Who wrote what, using which sources, how did he (or she) write, and why?

Until we as a nation take informed ownership of the causes and consequences of these divisions we may well end up back where we started a hundred years from now. Even if we were to embrace a fuller vision of our yesterdays, the political, social, and cultural ramifications today may lead to unimaginable unintended consequences.

The way I see it, we need more people to call it the way they see it. Too many look to second and third order effects that simply are not present and ignore the common sense reality of the cold hard truth. In this case Sig, I completely disagree with your opinion.

Sigaba

05-14-2010, 18:39

The way I see it, we need more people to call it the way they see it. Too many look to second and third order effects that simply are not present and ignore the common sense reality of the cold hard truth. In this case Sig, I completely disagree with your opinion.Is there an objective truth or is the truth a generally agreed upon construct? Do we see what we see or do we see what we're conditioned to see?

To paraphrase Foucault, just because we cannot see the cat behind that smile doesn't mean there's no cat behind that smile.

Within the context of America's past, history books do not write themselves. People have biases, agendas, limited access to resources, varying degrees of training, divergent interests, and different audiences.

The focus on the founding fathers in textbooks is not just because they were great men standing at the crossroads of history but because the initial histories of this country were written by New Englanders who saw themselves as the focal point of British colonial America and the early Republic.

One of the reasons why the ongoing debates over the causes of the American Civil War do not center around the political activities of African Americans is because this focus would undermine fatally the myth of a contest between the "free" north and a "slave" south.

In the decades following World War II, the military history of that conflict faded into the background in favor of narratives that emphasized diplomacy, grand strategy, and 'great captains' because a scholarly focus on operations would have undermined the tenets of the Consensus School.

And the fact that feminist scholars still ask "Where are the women?" about every phase of American history tells us as much about ourselves as it does about those asking the question

blue02hd

05-14-2010, 18:50

Opinion not changed, PM sent.

Peregrino

05-14-2010, 21:39

Sigaba - I'm with Blue02hd. Perfect is the enemy of good enough. History doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. Testing a workable hypothesis to destruction makes for great scientific inquiry; however, it's lousy practical application (on the social side - personal opinion :p). A belief in exceptionalism created the world's only current superpower. Hand wringing and searches for meaning, inclusion, diversity, etc. are eroding that greatness and accelerating our decline; literally creating the inevitability component our detractors have been preaching for decades. Have you ever considered "Social Darwinism"? The practical aspect of it is "Strength breeds success". Strength starts with belief. Questioning everything means never getting out the gate.

The Reaper

05-14-2010, 23:48

Sigaba

05-15-2010, 09:17

Entire post.Peregrino--

I understand your point. My take is that it the process is not one of either/or but of finding a sustainable balance between theory and application. As I'm a very low speed guy with an extraordinarily thick skull, I need to think things through in order to keep up.

Sometimes, I'll end up down a rabbit hole while folks are laughing and waiting for me to catch up.:o Other times, those same folks will find themselves agreeing with a point I had been making for years.:D (In those situations, people are invariably glad that I'm not the type of person to say "I told you so." No, wait a minute. That's exactly the type of person I am.)

Yes, there are moments when decisive action is needed. At such times, guys like me need to get out of the way of guys like you. At others, the chirping from back benchers can broaden the discussion, build consensus, lead to the realization that slide #45 in the PPT is inconsistent with slide #4, and provide moments of bewilderment as folks look at me and think (if not actually say) "What the [expletive deleted] are you talking about?"

blue02hd

05-15-2010, 10:00

Sig, as always you make very solid points. I also enjoyed our PM's and can see importance of "thinking twice/ cutting once" ( or is that measuring twice,, oh nm).

As stated prior, this entire episode is political theatrics. A waste of time that allows the uneducated masses to throw in their two cents while the Administration continues to avoid action and responsibility.

It still baffles me that Mr. Eric Holder, not to mention our POTUS, can publicly denounce AZ and then weakly announce possible legal action against AZ prior to actually reading the Bill that the Administration is so fired up about. Really? (But yes, American's are morale cowards. Thanks Mr. Holden. I love that guy!)

How can it be unconstitutional to ALLOW local and state LEA's to enforce Federal law?

This country needs more "Doing" and less "Thinking" when it comes to our Nations Security and Laws.

T-Rock

05-20-2010, 00:35

It still baffles me that Mr. Eric Holder, not to mention our POTUS, can publicly denounce AZ and then weakly announce possible legal action against AZ prior to actually reading the Bill that the Administration is so fired up about. Really? (But yes, American's are morale cowards. Thanks Mr. Holden. I love that guy!)

How can it be unconstitutional to ALLOW local and state LEA's to enforce Federal law?

This country needs more "Doing" and less "Thinking" when it comes to our Nations Security and Laws.

Has an American President ever joined with a foreign leader to criticize an American State? He is siding with a foreign power against an American State, something he swore an oath not to do :confused:

Calderon today took the unusual step of criticizing Arizona's new immigration law from the White House -- twice.

President Obama concurred ....

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/immigration-debate-looms-large-mexican-president-felipe-calderons/story?id=10693869

Smokin Joe

05-20-2010, 02:16

From T-Rocks web link
President Obama concurred and said the law has the potential of being applied in a "discriminatory fashion."

Hey POTUS you f***ing Retard, ANY LAW can be applied in a "discriminatory fashion" Any officer can stop any person at any time and violate the living shit out of their civil rights for no reason what so ever. But generally they won't.... because they are officers who swore an oath, and unlike you they live and die by that oath!

Wow, I'm legitimately pissed at POTUS right now....

wuuuusaaaaa wuuusaaaaaa is that how that calming breathing goes... lol

ZonieDiver

05-20-2010, 07:40

I had to turn off the TV. I got in the car to go to work and they were speaking on the radio. Had to turn it off.

Pissed, that barely describes it!

Hell, I am even rooting for the Lakers because Phil Jackson's statement about this law is one of the few by a "celebrity" that makes any sense. And, they didn't wear stupid "Los Lakers" uniforms!

Los Suns suck...

echoes

05-20-2010, 09:20

Has an American President ever joined with a foreign leader to criticize an American State? He is siding with a foreign power against an American State, something he swore an oath not to do :confused:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/immigration-debate-looms-large-mexican-president-felipe-calderons/story?id=10693869

Just heard this, and am having one of those, "Can this really be happening?," moments.:eek::mad:

Am hoping that this is just political...i.e., for votes.

I say that only because the alternative is just, plain, scary, shit....:confused:

Holly

Streck-Fu

05-20-2010, 09:25

I wonder if the particulars of Mexican immigration law came up in the discussion.

glebo

05-20-2010, 10:18

I wonder if the particulars of Mexican immigration law came up in the discussion.

Funny you should ask..
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/20/calderon-criticism-arizona-law-overlooks-mexicos-tough-immigration-policy/

I can't believe this piece of mierda is critising a US state on our on our soil, in our Nations Capitol......with the POTUS even....who seems to agree with it.

Something is really, really WRONG.:mad:

dr. mabuse

05-20-2010, 11:11

ZonieDiver

05-20-2010, 11:21

Something like this?

Streck-Fu

05-20-2010, 11:32

Something is really, really WRONG.:mad:

That is disgusting...:eek:

I am embarrassed to the point of speechlessness.

greenberetTFS

05-20-2010, 11:41

Something like this?

Zonie,

Your right on target ! ;):D;)

Big Teddy :munchin

Richard

05-20-2010, 11:44

Seems to me as if nearly everyone has the same problems - no matter the nationality, immigration laws only work on those who are law abiding minded to begin with and seem to work less well for countries who are perceived to be 'economic magnets of opportunity'.

Ask a Native American how well their policies worked for them.

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

glebo

05-20-2010, 12:03

That is disgusting...:eek:

I am embarrassed to the point of speechlessness.

what do you find disgusting?? Mexicos immigration laws...or my comment??

dr. mabuse

05-20-2010, 13:03

Sigaba

05-20-2010, 13:35

Hell, I am even rooting for the Lakers because Phil Jackson's statement about this law is one of the few by a "celebrity" that makes any senseConsidering the timing of Jackson's remarks, I cannot but help wonder if they're really meant to serve a different goal. In any case, he may be sleeping on the couch these days as Jeannie Buss is not happy.

Los Suns suck...That's Amare!

Utah Bob

05-20-2010, 13:52

Funny you should ask..
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/20/calderon-criticism-arizona-law-overlooks-mexicos-tough-immigration-policy/

I can't believe this piece of mierda is critising a US state on our on our soil, in our Nations Capitol......with the POTUS even....who seems to agree with it.

Something is really, really WRONG.:mad:

And he got a standing ovation from half of the house.:mad:
http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/president-calderon/

Richard

05-20-2010, 16:29

Some great humor from the We Heart Arizona Facebook pages:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?op=1&view=all&subj=117127478307346&aid=-1&pid=334283&id=1822823334&oid=117127478307346#!/pages/We-Heart-Arizona/117127478307346?v=photos

Meanwhile - Texas has been put on alert! :D

And so it goes...;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

dr. mabuse

05-20-2010, 16:57

GratefulCitizen

05-20-2010, 19:29

It seems the president will appease any foreign leader who might be angry with us.

/rant on
The current office-holder isn't cleverly undermining the nation in order to establish his socialistic utopia,
he's just incompetent and weak!

Awww, Mr. President...is that a tear I see?
IS DADDY'S LITTLE GIRL GONNA CRY!?!

The man is an incompetent weakling and is unfit to lead.
/rant off

Got rid of cable prior to the election.
Haven't seen him on tv since then.

Judging by the reaction of some on this board, I'm glad he isn't invading my living room.

ArmyStrong

05-25-2010, 22:14

Couldn't find this video on here yet. I'm glad someone in congress had the backbone (does it really take that much these days to stand up for your own country?:() to say something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcwF_UO_cBE&feature=related

ZonieDiver

06-13-2010, 18:36

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeau is asking Pres. Obama for 3,000 troops, stating that local law enforcement is outmanned and outgunned in a battle with drug cartel smugglers "3 counties from the border." It was in Pinal County where a deputy sheriff was shot in an ambush by smugglers he was tracking. Two apparent smugglers were killed near that spot recently. Check the artilce and video (note the warning sign in the video):

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_central_southern_az/other/mexican-drug-cartels-now-control-parts-of-arizona

Location of Pinal County:

incarcerated

06-22-2010, 23:27

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10386190.stm

Mexico joins Arizona immigration lawsuit

Wednesday, 23 June 2010 03:02 UK
Mexico joins Arizona immigration lawsuit
Page last updated at 02:02 GMT, Wednesday, 23 June 2010 03:02 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version The law has provoked angry protests Mexico has joined a legal challenge to a controversial new immigration law in the US state of Arizona.

In papers submitted to a US federal court, the Mexican government argues that the law is unconstitutional and would damage bilateral relations.

It says it is concerned that it could lead to unlawful discrimination against Mexican citizens....

PedOncoDoc

06-23-2010, 04:41

incarcerated

04-09-2011, 11:31

Via e-mail:

Judicial Watch Wins Motion in SB 1070 Lawsuit!

This week, let’s start with a big Judicial Watch victory.

On Wednesday, April 5, our client, the Arizona State Legislature, was granted permission to intervene as a defendant in the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuit against SB 1070, Arizona’s get-tough illegal immigration law. Judge Susan Bolton granted Judicial Watch’s motion over the objections of the Obama DOJ. Here’s a quick squib from the order, which was short and sweet:
On February 7, 2011, Arizona Governor Janice K. Brewer signed into law Senate Bill 1117 (“S.B. 1117”), which provides that “the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate may direct counsel to initiate a legal proceeding or appear on behalf of their respective chambers or on behalf of the Legislature in any challenge in a state or federal court” to S.B. 1070. The Legislature now seeks permission of the Court to intervene as a Defendant in this action…permitting the Legislature to intervene at this time will not unduly delay or prejudice the original parties…the Court in its discretion finds that the Legislature should be permitted to intervene as Defendant at this time.

Now, the Legislature joins the State of Arizona, Governor Brewer and the author of the law, Arizona State Senate President and Judicial Watch client Russell Pearce, for the purpose of defending its enactment of SB 1070 in the interests of the people of Arizona.

You may recall that Judicial Watch filed its “Motion to Intervene,” on February 11, 2011, with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona stating: “The Legislature…has a paramount interest in seeing that [SB 1070’s] enactment is upheld.” At the same time, we also filed an “Answer in Intervention” with the court on behalf of the Arizona State Legislature. And here are our main arguments:

“[The Arizona Legislature] has a right to protect its citizens.”
“Arizona has a right to self defense under the Constitution, particularly when the federal government fails to protect it.”
“[The Arizona Legislature] complied with all relevant federal, state, and local laws, including the Arizona Constitution and the [U.S.] Constitution” in crafting SB 1070.
“SB 1070 is not preempted by federal law or the Constitution. SB 1070 does not conflict with federal law, does not constitute an improper regulation of immigration, and Congress has not fully occupied the field.”
Fortunately, thanks to Judge Bolton’s ruling, the Arizona Legislature will have the opportunity to make this case in court....