Real World Event Discussions

Stand with Arizona

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Sunday, May 16, 2010 21:28
VIEWED: 16072
PAGE 2 of 2

MOMCARP

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 5:42 AM (P)

I'm to the left of center. I've always worked my ass off, but now I work my ass off for less money, and yeah, I resent that.
I do my own yard work, wash my own truck (and my Volvo P 1800), and when I do a remodel, I hire legal subs, and I'll take less money so that they can be paid what they're worth.
Capitalism made this country great, and now it's f'ing it up, big time.
The "righties" love to scream about illegals, while they hold open the back door for their illegal maid.
Some kind of equilibrium needs to be reached, and it's not by opening the border, as the "bleeding hearts" so wish for.

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 6:56 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
If I say I don't have any easy solutions, does that mean we should automatically jump to the worst "solution"? If memory serves, weren't you of the "do nothing" persuasion when it came to healthcare reform? What was YOUR solution to that issue? Since you didn't have an easy, workable solution, can we assume that you approve fully of the insurance mandate? Or can we deduce that while you might not know what the answer IS, you know what answer you DON'T WANT?

dont you remember, my answer was 'get the government out of the way!', let doctors and patients decide their healthcare. atleast im consistent.. i want the government OUT OF EVERYTHING! it is you people who will not compromise

Quote:
You're offering a false dichotomy, a non-choice. "If you don't like this, then what?" That's rather like telling someone they have terminal cancer, 6 months to live, and then handing them a .45 and telling them if they don't have a better solution, they really should shoot themselves. Now. Sooner would be better, because we need the room and the medicine for people who aren't needlessly wasting oxygen.

no im not, i was actually asking for a solution? the problem is, no one wants to address the wellfare state.. so there are no real clear solutions, as evidenced

Quote:
It's not racist to want an orderly immigration policy. That's where you're conflating the issues. Applying one set of standards TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO COMES INTO THE COUNTRY is not the issue. If it were, there'd be no issue at all. We're talking about this because there's a new law on the books that is NOT treating everyone equally, and is designed from its inception to single out a particular group of people based solely on their appearance.

no, its based on citizenship. look im not advocating rounding up and exporting all non-citizens! i dont think Arizona lawmakers are either. i think they want a policy where if you are stopped, you will be required to prove citizenship. if you are an illegal immigrant from scandavia, that means you too! how is that based on racial profiling of skin color? and again, this isnt my ideal policy. but show me one that addresses the burdens of wellfare/entitlements/business regulation and employment and ill gladly listen. otherwise, what solution is their but a compromise on ideals?

i would rather see enforcement of current law, then support a policy that allows anyone and everyone who comes here to become citizens, just as long as they contribute to the wellfare state; i want to get rid of the wellfare state! i say, get rid of the wellfare state, and we'll talk about letting anyone and everyone in

Quote:
And as I've pointed out before, do you REALLY want to make the case for America by pointing out how bad Mexico is? Really? Pointing out how tough their rules are, as a way to show how tough ours should be, doesn't seem like the smart choice.

Let's take gun ownership, for instance. It's damned near impossible to legally own a gun in Mexico. Should we do that here? Wouldn't it cut down drastically on crime, both here AND there, if guns weren't so easily obtainable here?

[note to Frem: I'm *NOT* arguing that or going down that road; I'm merely using that ludicrous example as being illustrative of the kind of arguments that line of logic can take you through.]

i agree.. i dont neccessarily believe we should measure our laws by those of our neighbors. but if its a 'human right' to come here and live, why isnt it true going the other way across the border? all this sanctimonius outrage.. and none of it is directed at these peoples home countries.. the ones who are the real 'human rights' violators

Quote:

So your logic is that, since we don't have a libertarian paradise, the next closest thing is to have a right-wing fascist police state? If you don't have your libertarian society, how does passing ever-more-intrusive laws regulating who and where people can be move you in any way CLOSER to that libertarian i

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 10:17 AM (P)

Hmm, so to you they're unpersons ? subhuman ?

Careful - your true colors are shining through.

Previous suggestions made here:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=43137
And as expected, the moment they were, POOF, no one wanted to discuss it no more...
(And yet they'll create a new thread where those suggestions aren't around to chew their arguments to shreds, won't they now ?)

And if you wanna talk welfare, let's talk bailouts, lets talk about blood and carnage for little purpose other than propping up the Mil-Industry complex - fuck, for what it takes to feed that beast for a single goddam week, you could cover a million immigrants for a month and still have dosh left over, so as long as were pouring our lifeblood into the war machine for no gain but the well-justified hatred of the world, don't whinge to me about how horrific it would be to spend pennies by comparison in a humanitarian way.

But no, it's all ok to blow pyschotic amounts of dosh on slaughter, you know, killing them "other" folk, but it's such a horror and a crime to spend a damn bit of humanitarian effort on em, yeah, I see how it is...

Fuckin-A, people, why not just quit pretending, go ahead and suggest death camps, it's what you really wanna do anyway, you just don't wanna LOOK bad - but you know, that shit is meaningless to someone who can see right through your paper thin facades, ok ?

-F

KWICKO

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 1:51 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by momcarp:
I'm to the left of center. I've always worked my ass off, but now I work my ass off for less money, and yeah, I resent that.
I do my own yard work, wash my own truck (and my Volvo P 1800), and when I do a remodel, I hire legal subs, and I'll take less money so that they can be paid what they're worth.
Capitalism made this country great, and now it's f'ing it up, big time.
The "righties" love to scream about illegals, while they hold open the back door for their illegal maid.
Some kind of equilibrium needs to be reached, and it's not by opening the border, as the "bleeding hearts" so wish for.

We're in broad agreement on SOME of your points, but you're flat-out nuts if you think I'm arguing for completely open borders.

I've asked repeatedly in this thread (go back and read it all, and you'll see) HOW y'all plan to close the borders completely and make them airtight. Especially given the hatred of folks like Rappy and Anti to things like, oh, y'know... GOVERNMENT SPENDING!

Show me a way to close the borders that costs not one penny of tax money. Go ahead. I'll wait. Conversely, show me in writing that you'll give the federal government carte blanche to spend whatever it takes to secure our borders, and you'll never, ever bitch about the cost, because it's what you deemed the most important national crisis we've faced since 9/11.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 2:58 PM (P)

Mexiphobia bubble to the surface again. Just give them the forclosed housing developments in AZ, and say, here, start a new colony, and then, sure, give them a bailout. The sooner people get over this sense of justice the better. No one needs to be punished. Let's just collectively try to do the right thing, and watch out very carefully for whose nose might get bumped along the way.

But no, Arizona, it's no skin off your nose. It's a giant state with very few people in it, and 1/3 of them or so are already mexicans, and have been for 1000s of years, long before it was delineated as such and before we were here. It's not a big mexican conspiracy, it's us, having conquered there land, now living in it.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 3:03 PM (P)

"I've asked repeatedly in this thread (go back and read it all, and you'll see) HOW y'all plan to close the borders completely and make them airtight. Especially given the hatred of folks like Rappy and Anti to things like, oh, y'know... GOVERNMENT SPENDING!

Show me a way to close the borders that costs not one penny of tax money. Go ahead. I'll wait. Conversely, show me in writing that you'll give the federal government carte blanche to spend whatever it takes to secure our borders, and you'll never, ever bitch about the cost, because it's what you deemed the most important national crisis we've faced since 9/11."

Ill take a crack at it.

This, btw, is also a states rights issue. Arizona (and Arizonians sp?) have the right to shut their borders if they feel like it. Remember, we are a collection of States, united.

Now, as to how to pay for it ect.

Isn't the unemployment rate at 10%? Well, right there you have a pool of workers to draw from.

Each state, again, has the right to secure its borders. However, its also one of the few jobs that the federal government was meant for.

So. I propose using the tax money that the federal government spends on "diversity" programs to be used towards this.

We can also cut the billion/trillions sent overseas, and reroute it here.

Not to mention cutting down (but not out) the money spent on the mil-industrial stuff.

Just my 2 cents, but this could easily be payed for, and overseen, without raising any taxes.

MOMCARP

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 3:37 PM (P)

I never said that illegal immigration was our most pressing issue.

Some complete moron found (fabricated) justification for starting a ludicrously expensive, drawn out war that has caused irreparable damage to the world peace process, created 8 million terrorists, and like the Hydra,when the head of one group is cut off, 100 more fringe terrorist organizations spring up, where before, there were a couple thousand guys hanging out in the desert waiting for a cell phone call from some rich guy in Saudi Arabia to set a jihad in motion.

No one knows what the rehabilitation costs will be to try to "fix" untold thousands of soldiers who have been f'd up mentally and/or physically by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. This is the most gut wrenching aspect of this f'd up mess.

The billions that have been thrown at Iraq could have been used to build a fence 100 ft tall completely around the US, the CIA and FBI would have the resources to stay on top of every terrorist group in the world, and every legal citizen of America would have life time health care.

Taxes aren't bad. The revenues that fill up the govs coffers have been abused and corrupted.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 4:07 PM (P)

"Show me a way to close the borders that costs not one penny of tax money. Go ahead. I'll wait."

Hello,

We currently deploy

27k troops in South Korea,
32k troops in Japan,
10k troops in the UK,
1k troops in Spain,
57k troops in Germany,
______
127k troops currently deployed overseas in friendly territories.

Shut down their bases, recall them, and set them up on border patrol.

You'll save money.

Never mind the troops in Iraq.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

HERO

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 6:55 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Find in there where it says "reasonable suspicion" and a "lawful contact" are enough to search and/or seize someone.

Its in the 14th Amendment. Reasonable suspicion, like its cousin probable cause, is from the "Due Process" family.

Reasonable suspicion is enough to detain someone for limited reasons...such as a traffic stop or to conduct an investigation (such as an OVI investigation). I'm not sure it will be enough in the case of this Arizona law to conduct an immigration check.

More likely they will detain someone for another reason, such as a traffic stop. If the person detained cannot produce an ID then they can be further detained to determine who they are. Once that determination is made (or if it can't be made) then they may have reasonable suspicion to conduct an immigration investigation.

I don't see any scenario that just allows a cop to stop you for the sole purpose of demanding to see certain 'papers' under this law. They will need to have reasonable articulable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances that some crime has been committed. Absent racial profiling, which is expressly barred by statute, I'm note sure what such suspicion will be unless in the context of some other investigation.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 11:41 PM (P)

Hello Hero,

I hope that the law enforcement officers of Arizona are as unbiased, unsoiled, and unimaginative as you. Then, no matter what law is passed, they will never find ways or cause to abuse them.

I suspect, however, that such an appraisal is overly optimistic.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NIKI2

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 4:05 AM (P)

My gawd, I go away for two days and look what happens! (Internet/phone problems...gawd I missed this place!)

I’m with Anthony (way back up most of you have forgot:

Quote:
My freedom is worth more to me than any 'security' this law claims to provide

Remember the thing about “he who gives up freedom for security gets neither”? We’ve been on that road quite some time now...

I also agree with

Quote:
The intelligent efforts have been aimed at the employers of illegal immigrants, and it is those efforts that are meeting success.

And with Serge, to a point. Borders can be open, but people pouring in has to be dealt with somehow. Just not how we’re doing it now, and CERTAINLY not the way Arizona wants to.

Pizmo, you’re being extremely disingenuous to say no particular race is being targeted. Why would a cop ever detain a blonde, blue-eyed yuppie and ask to see her papers? There’s no question that only ONE race is coming across the border illegally, ergo only people of that race will be asked to show papers. It doesn’t have to be said, it’s OBVIOUS.

But yes, absolutely

Quote:
Time has "Person of the Year" - they should start having "Evil Shitbag of the Year" - Rush Limbaugh, not even close.

Now I know where Crappy got his “bomber was a registered Democrat”—straight out of Rushbaugh’s mouth. And he wasn’t. That man, well, something should be done about him; his audience takes everything out of his mouth as from the bible, and it’s SICK!

Good for you, Canttake, I‘m boycotting them too, and glad to hear SF is working on their part of it. This law is just wrong. All of you saying it’s not about race, and you can’t be detained without cause, etc., etc., are buying into a prefabricated line. IF you look Hispanic in AZ and a cop decides to hassle you, he does, end of story—walking the dog or whatever (how about if you’re walking your dog OFF LEASH? That’s a stoppable offense). They don’t NEED a “stoppable offense”; despite you arguing otherwise, here’s a truth: If cops don’t stop enough people to demand papers, THEY CAN BE SUED. That means a “quote” any way you choose to see it. Ergo, if cops stop people without “reasonable suspicion”, who’s gonna prove there wasn’t any, and do you think the person stopped has a dog’s chance in HELL of suing for unreasonable arrest??? It doesn’t take much brainpower to figure that one out...nitpicking “race” and “cause” and all that crap is just that: Crap.

Ah, I see you made the point before me. Right on. Ooops, and so did Anthony. Nice to see you both

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NIKI2

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 4:05 AM (P)

As to crime, kidnapping, etc., I already posted figures showing crime in AZ has gone DOWN the past few years. Have to look it up again for those who didn’t get it the first time, obviously. So that argument is fallacious. And thank you muchly Frem, for that link to the previous discussion on this; there I cited articles regarding illegal aliens taking jobs, their effect on the economy, and more which relates to things that have been said here as well.

Ahh, Mike,

Quote:
correlation being not equal to causation

Wouldn’t work, and you know it. Remember The Authoritarians? Being able to hold two mutually-exclusive ideas at the same time, etc., etc.? It would never get through.

Ahh, I see the kidnapping statistics are referring to DRUG CARTELS. Yes, well, of course all the drug cartels are Hispanic, there are no American Citizens involved on our side of the border, and of course we all know that ALL Hispanics belong to drug cartels, and that stopping all Hispanics (since they’re the only ones illegal and therefore the only ones involved with drug cartels and make up ALL the drug cartels) will solve the situation...yes indeedee. Excellent logic.

How about this one:

Quote:
A closer look at per capita homicide rates for each state from FBI Uniform Crime Reports Bureau of Justice Statistics indicate that Louisiana's per capita homicide rate has ranked 1st every single year from 1989 to 2008, which is 20 consecutive years.

Southern states had the highest overall crime rates. Crime can also be isolated to one particular part of a state. Lafayette, Louisiana, for instance had 6 murders per 100,000 people in 2004, while New Orleans, Louisiana, had 35 murders per 100,000 people.[46]

Almost all of the nation's wealthiest twenty states, which included northern mid-western and western states such as Wisconsin and California, had crime rates below the national average. In addition to having the country's lowest crime rates, New England states also had the country's highest median household income, while the Southern states have the lowest.

This contrasts starkly to some of the nation's poorer states such as Georgia, Florida or Louisiana. Louisiana had a crime rate 27% and a homicide rate 130.9% above the national average and ranked as the nation's fourth poorest state with a median household income 20% below the national median. While poorer states generally have higher crime rates, several states who fell below the national median for household income such as Maine and Kentucky also had crime rates below the national average, while some wealthier states such as Maryland and Hawaii had crime rates above the national average

Wikipedia. If you want to use crime OVERALL, it appears New Mexico doesn’t even rank; but hey, focus on kidnappings, blame it on illegal immigrants, go for it!

If you want a comparison:
http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics/crime-rate-state.html

As you can see, Arizona’s nowhere near the top. Again, go ahead and focus on kidnapping, it’s obviously the worst and most frequent crime ever committed... By the way, your numbers are outdated. As of Jan 2010:

Quote:
Phoenix police anticipated a drop in kidnapping reports in 2009 compared with the previous year, though with 302 filed through November, the numbers haven't decreased significantly.

2008's total of 359 earned Phoenix the nickname "kidnapping capital" of the U.S.

Phoenix Home Invasion and Kidnapping Enforcement investigators say they have dismantled dozens of small gangs involved in kidnappings and home invasions, which led to a small drop in the overall numbers.

Last month, crime analysts corrected the 2008 total the department shared with Congress and other federal authorities earlier in the year. The number was 368 when politicians used it earlier this year when requesting federal stimulus money to combat border-related violence. Phoenix recently revised the number to 359.

A handful of kidnappings were either classified as other crimes or considered fals

NIKI2

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 4:06 AM (P)

Momcarp,

Quote:
25 years ago in CA, drywall companies started going out of business because their competitors were hiring cheap illegal labor. Then the concrete, tile, plumbing and carpentry trades were basically taken over by illegals.

Quote:
In the city next door to us, there are at least 200,000 "undocumented guests" throwing trash in the street, standing in the parking lot at Home Depot, parking decrepit old cars on their lawns, pushing 4 or 5 kids around in a shopping cart, etc.

Can you show numbers and facts to prove those statements? I live in CA, and I’ve not seen anything like that; I’ve dealt with concrete, tile, and plumbing people—all contractors who had to be licensed, all Caucasian. Where is this happening, do you know, and do you know how all these illegal contractors are getting licensed, please?

Quote:
An American can never become a Mexican citizen (please correct me if I'm wrong) own property, vote, or collect public assistance.

That does happen to be wrong; I know someone who did just that.

Quote:
In America, citizens of other countries march through the streets by the thousands demanding American citizenship

Damn, I missed that march! Bummer, it must have been pretty to see, Germans, French, Spanish, African, Hispanic, Russian, all marching together “demanding” citizenship! Wow, what a sight, sorry I missed it—why didn’t the news media cover it?

Quote:
Have you ever been in close proximity (as in a work situation) to an undocumented, non English speaking person for 8 hours? Or issued directions to workers in Spanish because you were the only person on a jobsite who spoke English?
Many Americans are egocentric in that they believe everyone should speak English; but the same can be said of "immigrants" who refuse to learn English.

Momcarp, that has nothing to do with the question at hand, which is the law Arizona has chosen to pass. There are answers to all those things; detaining a person because he “looks” illegal in some person’s opinion solves none of those thing; what you wrote comes from personal dislike, which appears to be all you have to offer. Trust me, you are not to the “left of center”, unless your stand on other issues is different than how you feel about this one.

On the other hand, I agree with

Quote:
The "righties" love to scream about illegals, while they hold open the back door for their illegal maid.

But being a “bleeding heart”, I disagree with the second statement; all I’m interested in regarding this issue is that a law has been passed which is wrong, which does not solve the problem, which I suspect was passed to push the fed to deal with the issue, and which puts any American citizen in danger of being pulled over and demanded to show their “papers”—which might well happen to me, given the way I dress and the fact that my skin is olive colored and I have brown hair and eyes. I wear sandals 365, I dress in long skirts or ragged shorts and T-shirts. I, or anyone who looks like me, could be accosted on suspicion; that is wrong, pure and simple. Whatever the answer is, this isn’t it.

I also agree with

Quote:
No one knows what the rehabilitation costs will be to try to "fix" untold thousands of soldiers who have been f'd up mentally and/or physically by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. This is the most gut wrenching aspect of this f'd up mess.

and agree it is at least one of the MOST gut-wrenching aspects of this mess...it makes me sick to think of it, tho’ I also think of all those fucked up IN Iraq and Afghanistan—the latter being closer to my heart—at the same time.

Quote:
if a democrat had come up with this, aerator or AURAptor as those who don't have auto spell check on call him, would be picking it apart as an exempt [sic] (did you mean “example”?) of the inherit racism of the democratic party dating back to the Jackson, instead of extolling the virtues of the bill, should there be any

Damn straight, DT, but don’t tell THEM that!!! No, wait, go ahead and tell t

NIKI2

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 4:19 AM (P)

Just to back up the last thing I posted:

Quote:
The son of a decorated Vietnam veteran, Hector Veloz is a U.S. citizen, but in 2007 immigration officials mistook him for an illegal immigrant and locked him in an Arizona prison for 13 months.

Veloz had to prove his citizenship from behind bars. An aunt helped him track down his father's birth certificate and his own, his parents' marriage certificate, his father's school, military and Social Security records.

After nine months, a judge determined that he was a citizen, but immigration authorities appealed the decision. He was detained for five more months before he found legal help and a judge ordered his case dropped.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-07-27/news/17218849_1_judy-rabinovitz-
immigration-laws-illegal-immigrant

Quote:
Hundreds of U.S. citizens have landed in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, struggling to prove they don't belong there.

Some prisoners who are legal U.S. residents have remained locked up for many months because they can't produce the documents to prove their identity, hampered by the fact that immigration detainees don't have constitutional protections such as the right to counsel.

Some who find themselves in the situation were born in other countries and acquired citizenship through a U.S.-born parent, or through a parent who became a naturalized citizen{I am one of those myself}. The American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants Rights Project says others have mental health problems and frequently they are poor.

"These are people who are the most vulnerable," said Judy Rabinovitz, the project's deputy director. "People are being locked up without bond hearings, often for long periods."

"The Constitution is the same that applies to U.S.-born citizens as to naturalized citizens," Sin Yen Ling of San Francisco's Asian Law Caucus told the Chronicle. "Detaining these folks is creating a third category of people with a different set of rights."

http://www.nlada.org/DMS/Documents/1248787448.45/index.html

We want this to happen to even MORE people--American citizens?? It's gonna, this law guarantees it.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:33 AM (P)

niki...

what is the point of you babbling on ( yes, that's what you're doing ) about how " out dated " , by a whole year, the stats from the story I posted are ? Do you REALLY think that a slight drop ( by a few dozen ) in kidnappings when the number is so high ( over 300 - nearly 1 a day - is anything to even bring up and crow about ?

You overlooked also the fact that AZ was also # 1 in property crime as well, but then now I'm just focusing in on THAT statistic as well, right ? It's not as if property crime was the worst thing in the world, now is it ? ( until it's your stuff that's stolen or destroyed... )

You certainly do have the gift of padding your posts with lots of words while not really saying anything at all. You've convinced yourself that there really isn't that much crime caused by the illegals ( there is ) and that the people of AZ haven't had enough of it ( they have ) and all this is just one big over reaction from nervous white folks concerned that there are too many brown skinned folks wandering about.( it isn't )

And if a crime is committed by 1 illegal to another illegal, is it then NOT a crime ? Of course it is! You can't simply wave your hand and dismiss such acts didn't happen, or aren't a big deal, just because it wasn't against a U.S. citizen! That's absurd !! ( and racist, I might add ) If such high rates of crime are committed w/ in the U.S. borders, regardless of to whom, such activity will spread. At beat, innocent citizens will get caught up in the cross fire. This sort of activity can NOT go on unanswered.

This is a good law, and will hold up to a barrage of wasteful, pointless litigation the Left will throw its way. It mirrors the Federal law, and allows local police to more effectively do their job.

I await your predictable parade of pointless emoticons

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 12:01 PM (P)

That all you got, bitch ?

Demonstrably false ramblings intermixed with a bunch of flat out racism, sterotyping, and talking points from the mighty white right - and politicians from both sides who don't wanna solve this issue as much as use it as a wedge to sleaze their way into power, who will do all they can to *insure* it remains a problem (thus blocking any real solutions) because that's what keeps em in power, well, that and playing on the idiotic, ignorant, damnfool throwback racism of morons like you, who hate everyone and everything that isn't just like them.

Well shit, why not just make em wear colored stars, so we know... oh, wait, that didn't work out to well for the last assholes who tried it, and who were they again ?

Oh yeah, people JUST LIKE YOU, Rappy.
Shoe fits, wear it, ya prick.

Law and disorder
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010
/05/09/law_and_disorder/
"We have an illegal immigration problem today only because federal law makes legal immigration so costly and difficult. A concrete-and-barbed-wire wall along the border will not fix that problem, and neither will punitive sanctions on employers who hire illegal aliens. Meaningful immigration reform would focus instead on simply making it easier for low-skilled or unskilled workers to enter the country lawfully."

Quote:
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
~ H. L. Mencken

-Frem

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 12:43 PM (P)

Frem

Omit your childish, irrational profanity laced rants, and what's left isn't worth my time to bother with any sort of a response.

As for Limbaugh and calling Faisal a registered Democrat, he got it wrong. I can't find where he was the source of that piece of information, but he did repeat it.

As for Contessa Brewer, a bonafide news anchorette and reporter, she WAS the source of some blatantly idiotic and biased comments on the Times Square bomber, which only revealed what everyone already knew. The Left wants to demonize the Tea Party Americans more than they want report the truth about Militant Islamic terrorists.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 12:43 PM (P)

Frem,

Godwin's law. If it weren't for that, I would have opened with the same line, because frankly, I csnt think of a better way to describe it. Lemme soft-pedal it for ya...

Okay, here's a counter measure to prevent racial discrimination.

The Friendly America Plan:

Picture of a shining sun with a smiley face and a sombrero... We can simply survey, as part of the census, everyone who *is* a citizen and is also Latino, and put them on a list of registered Latino Americans, only for use by government officials of course.

We also recognize as a practical matter that not all officers would check the list, so we can give each Latino a small patch to wear, if they choose, something that signify to potentially racist authorities that they were in fact a Latino. A sombrero, perhaps. Of course if some precincts had a perpetual problem with unidentified latino-Americans, they could require patch wearing, only for driving, and other public activities.

And yes, we recognize that this policy could encourage spill over from the mexican civil war, and yes, we recognize that the Mexican war is spill over from our war on drugs, by order of the president, and so we will provide "safe zones." Each safe zone will have it's own secure perimeter and security staff to help ensure safety, as well as ready made facilities to ensure the quality of life of the patriotic Americans within it.

Sure, we understand this program will cost money, which is why we've decided to introduce the safe zone jobs program. Like the popular southern Rent-a-Negro government program, we run here in the US, this will provide employment for safe zone residents, to help pay for the program over all. Wages can go to the cost of food, housing, security and administrative costs, as well as to shore up the security accounts we will set up for the workers, just to make sure that none of their prized possessions or family fortune be lost because of the war.

The war here refers to our ongoing war on drugs, or any armed conflict, or series of incidents connected with Latino populations. None of the more serious security measures will be mandatory unless there is a conflict of this kind. Decisions about what kind of work shall be involved, what kind of security, and what constitutes a latino standard of living will have to be determined at the time, based on the security needs of the situation, the labor needed at the time and the work conditions of same, and the standard of living of Latinos in arizona at the time which we can guarantee to be...

Low Low LOW!!!! Buy now kids. Get that latino worker for your home or business by buying in advance! Don't have an anti-Latino environment in your precinct? We can create one for you! Rent-a-Latino today! some restrictions apply, limited while supplies last. Offer not valid in Alaska, Hawaii or Puerto Rico.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 1:12 PM (P)

Rappy, at least it GOT a response, instead of the fucking vapor trail you leave when I start offering practical, feasible, logistically possible solutions.

If you wanna bitch about idiotic and biased comments along with demonisation, you're barking up the wrong tree anyway, since Contessa's just a talking head - and the SPLC is becoming more and more an unofficial policy arm, something which irks me prolly as much as it does you, but for the love of mercy don't go "helping" me kick their ass cause the last thing I need is some blind fanatic idiot like you handing them perfect strawmen like a damn assembly line.

You always seem to forget I hate the left wing authoritarian jackboots as much as I hate the right wing authoritarian jackboots you're always busy polishing with your tongue, but I gave you the only chance you were gonna get at workin with me to help stonewall thier bullshit, all six weeks worth of it, and the whole time you ranting and raving, foaming at the mouth howling about how McCain was gonna slam dunk the election, in hopes of denying the obvious reality your very blind partisan rabidness directly contributed to - in short, YOU assholes left more rational folk like me one hell of a mess, and what did you do right after that ?

Ran like a bitch, hid under a rock and likely bawled yourself to sleep, then came slithering back trying to pretend it didn't happen, pretend you don't share some blame by alienating the very folk you *needed* on your side to stop the Obamination Steamroller - because of your intolerant, racist, fanatic zealotry and denial of even crystal clear realities.

And even *IF* you were to assist me in sticking it to the SPLC, the minute things got any kind of rough, you'd be right back under your little rock, wouldn't you now ?

So exactly what use *DO* I have for you but as a verbal speedbag since you're gutless and clueless, and when actual profitable discussion rears it's head around you, you either try to smash it to bits with your purile hate of anything not identical to you, or the only part of you we see at that point is your ass leaving the thread so fast it'd leave a vaccuum if you actually had any substance.

Now see to your mouth, before you catch a fly ya damn fool - us PEOPLE are having a discussion here.

-Frem

PIZMOBEACH

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 1:12 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Pizmo, you’re being extremely disingenuous to say no particular race is being targeted. Why would a cop ever detain a blonde, blue-eyed yuppie and ask to see her papers? There’s no question that only ONE race is coming across the border illegally, ergo only people of that race will be asked to show papers. It doesn’t have to be said, it’s OBVIOUS.

Niki, I wasn't being disingenuous at all, I don't think you read it the way I meant it. Damn straight it's obvious, I didn't think I would even have to write it the first time, but it seemed like people were so intent on saying racism that they went right past the obvious. I agree, to use your words, "There’s no question that only ONE race is coming across the border illegally." So, if you want to stop illegal immigration across that border whom do you check? That one race, right? If that's racism then by that logic we couldn't even try and enforce immigration with any country because it's racist.

It amazes me how 100+ posts and the conversation has not addressed the responsibility that the illegals have. Why are they getting a pass for their part in this cluster f*ck?

People argue it's not fair because all people should be treated the same... how about all people who try and immigrate to this country should go through the same legal process? Why's that not part of any discussion?

Anthony: Do you think you would have to worry about this law if there weren't close to half a million illegals in your state? We wouldn't be talking about this if their first act toward their new home wasn't an illegal one. They probably pay more to a coyote and risk a hell of a lot more than they would to file the papers.

Niki: I haven't read your stats yet, looking forward to it.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 1:17 PM (P)

frem

can't imagine the level of pride you generate for yourself on such posts as that. while there is the faintest level of intellect there, buried behind all the childish bravado and overbearing profanity, it's only just that... faint.

spent far more time on this already.

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 1:24 PM (P)

*clicks stopwatch and laughs*
And you bought it, didn't you ?
Btw, Thanks for making Gus pay for lunch!

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 3:33 PM (P)

Nah, Rap is right. He wins. You wasted time. Mike, I suspect, wastes the most time, but Niki is a clo competitor, because, even though she types much fast than the rest of us, she also types much more.

DREAMTROVE

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 3:33 PM (P)

Argh, double post.

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 4:18 PM (P)

"It amazes me how 100+ posts and the conversation has not addressed the responsibility that the illegals have. Why are they getting a pass for their part in this cluster f*ck?

People argue it's not fair because all people should be treated the same... how about all people who try and immigrate to this country should go through the same legal process? Why's that not part of any discussion?

Anthony: Do you think you would have to worry about this law if there weren't close to half a million illegals in your state? We wouldn't be talking about this if their first act toward their new home wasn't an illegal one. They probably pay more to a coyote and risk a hell of a lot more than they would to file the papers. http://www.scifiradio.com

"

Hello,

My grandfather and father went through a lengthy, difficult process to become legal citizens. I am not pleased with criminals who take advantage of our generosity and openness to circumvent the legal process when there are other avenues available to them.

But what responsibility do I hold a criminal to? Why, none. A criminal has broken the law. Why should I expect something from them other than self-interest? I'm not sure I understand the statement.

Would I have to worry about this law if there wasn't a crime? Why, no. Of course not. Should I then embrace any preposterous solution to the problem? My God, man, will you welcome any new brand of evil just because it purports to solve a problem?

Do these illegals pay more to the cayote than they'd pay to file paperwork?

Is this a serious query?

Do you think they'd bother with a cayote if they had another efficient means of getting here, trouble-free?

*sigh*

You will never be able to stop criminals until you begin to understand why they commit crimes. Illegal Immigration is not the product of inexpensive, efficient, immigration policy. The major issue is that we would not allow them here in such numbers, period, regardless of expense. We simply would not issue that many legal residency papers.

I can only boggle at the mentality of someone who expects criminals to be responsible on one hand, and then wonders why they risk life, limb, and vast amounts of currency on the other.

Forgive me for saying so, but if you learned more about illegal immigration, you might advocate for ways to stem the tide that do not cause problems for citizens in the process.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 5:25 PM (P)

Quote:

And if a crime is committed by 1 illegal to another illegal, is it then NOT a crime ? Of course it is! You can't simply wave your hand and dismiss such acts didn't happen, or aren't a big deal, just because it wasn't against a U.S. citizen! That's absurd !! ( and racist, I might add ) If such high rates of crime are committed w/ in the U.S. borders, regardless of to whom, such activity will spread. At beat, innocent citizens will get caught up in the cross fire. This sort of activity can NOT go on unanswered.

If a crime (torture) is committed by an American citizen upon a NON-citizen, is it not still a crime? You've argued nonstop that it ISN'T a crime, so long as it's done to non-citizens. Or to people who think different than you do. Or to people you don't like the looks of.

If such acts of torture are committed on U.S. soil, regardless of who they are committed upon, such activity will spread. At best (I *think* you meant "best", not "beat", but ya never know when it comes to your ability to mangle the language...), innocent citizens will get caught up in the cross fire.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

KWICKO

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 5:37 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Frem

Omit your childish, irrational profanity laced rants, and what's left isn't worth my time to bother with any sort of a response.

Wowzer. That's like a freaking glass onion of irony, it's got so many layers! You JUST went off on a childish, petulant irrational temper tantrum of insults directed at Niki, and now you want to whine about Frem doing the same towards you?

And if it isn't worth your time to bother with "any sort of a response"... Why did you bother with a response?

Insanity, thy name is Rappy.

Quote:

As for Limbaugh and calling Faisal a registered Democrat, he got it wrong. I can't find where he was the source of that piece of information, but he did repeat it.

In other words, he lied.

Quote:

As for Contessa Brewer, a bonafide news anchorette and reporter, she WAS the source of some blatantly idiotic and biased comments on the Times Square bomber, which only revealed what everyone already knew. The Left wants to demonize the Tea Party Americans more than they want report the truth about Militant Islamic terrorists.

If you're going to claim that RushBaugh is NOT in the news biz, you really should stop using him as your first, last, and only source of misinformation. You parrot his every talking point, every single day, and you try to claim it as reliable info - until he's proven utterly wrong, at which point you claim it's not his fault, because he was just repeating something that someone else said. Wasn't Dan Rather doing that, too? ;)

And in repeating things that are 100% demonstrably untrue (aka, LYING), isn't RushBaugh just trying to demonize the left more than he wants to report the truth about militant terrorists, whether they come from the middle east or the middle of Michigan?

You really should try holding yourself and your messiah Rush to the same standards you'd like to hold everyone else to. I think you'll find neither of you measure up.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

KWICKO

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 5:46 PM (P)

DT, I don't think your plan has catchy enough names behind it. You need things like "Strength Through Joy", "Work Will Make You Free", and the sickest of all, "The Joy Division" (really, you should look into the history of that particular Nazi horror sometime, and see just how cruel a moniker that really is, and try to fathom the depths of human depravity that could even conceive of such a thing, much less call it by that name).

Republicans think they're pretty good at the clever Naziesque Orwellian word salad kind of names ("Patriot" Act and others come to mind), but they lack the really cruel true sociopathy that the Nazis had down to an art form.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NIKI2

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 6:55 PM (P)

I never said a crime by one illegal against another isn’t important...you’re projecting that from your exchange with someone else. As you have said

Quote:
And that's the sum total of your argument. You can't offer up any substantive, reasonable reply, other than dole out insults and dismissive, personal comments.

My point was that Arizona’s crime rate has gone DOWN—if illegals are such a problem, then why is it going down? Also to point out that you’re wrong, Arizona ISN’T the “crime capital of America”, it was called that in 2009, but it’s not the case. In 2007, D.C. had 4,913 crimes overall; Arizona only 4,140

I showed that Arizona had LESS crime than many other states, tho’ I know you’d rather ignore that. As far as “blabbing”...oh, fuck you Crappy, you blab about things that make no sense, give no facts, then attack others. I was off-line for days and catching up, and what you call “blabbing” is refutation of your “facts” and “assumptions”—you only call it blabbing because it proves you wrong. If you ever change your ways and have something of value to say, THEN talk to me. At least I bother to get the facts, which you virtually never do. You have nothing to say to me.

As to property crime: You’re wrong again. I realize you can’t deal with facts and figures, and don’t bother to read before making your claims, but D.C.’s got Arizona beat by a whole lot:

Property crime for 2008, per 100,000 individuals:
New Mexico: 4,291
D.C.: 5,104.6
Florida: 4,140.8
North Carolina: 4,044.1
South Carolina: 4,234.2
( http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_05.html)

In 2007,
D.C. had 4,913 property crimes overall
Arizona only 4,140

As for total crimes, Arizona at 482.7 hardly rated:
D.C.: 1,414.3
Arkansas: 529.4
California: 522.6
Florida: 722.6
Illinois: 533.2
Louisiana: 729.5
Maryland: 641.9
Nevada: 750.6
South Carolina: 788.3
Tennessee: 753.3
http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics/crime-rate-state.html

Numerous other states come in at 4,000 or nearly that, and many have MORE property crime than New Mexico, but I only used the per capita figures, to be fair.

Ten most dangerous states in the US (regarding murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and motor vehicle theft):

Nevada
Louisiana
South Carolina
New Mexico

So it only comes in FOURTH in the US in 2009. ( http://www.infoplease.com/us/states/most-dangerous-states-2009.html)

As you, yourself, said:

Quote:
Quit making up shit. Either show some evidence or admit you can't

You can’t handle the facts, as someone famous once said. You gloss right over them, parrot FauxNews, and hurl insults in your usual fashion. I posted the above for OTHER people, since I already know you won’t bother to read it and wouldn’t take it in if you even tried.

As to

Quote:
This is a good law, and will hold up to a barrage of wasteful, pointless litigation the Left will throw its way

Is that the emoticon you were hoping for? Time will tell if it holds up, which it won’t. It is patently unconstitutional.

Quote:
allows local police to more effectively do their job

No, it does NOT. I realize you don’t bother to read, but I posted (with cite) the sheriff who said clearly that it will GET IN THE WAY of doing their job, plus putting illegals in his jail rather than turning them over to ICE, as the law states, will COST the people in his area more money in taxes.

In response to your nasty remark to Frem:

Quote:
Omit your childish, irrational profanity laced rants, and what's left isn't worth my time to bother with any sort of a response

I give you your own words back:

Quote:
I'm always amused when the petulant little children pretend they're on the moral high ground and call others petulant children.

As to FauxNews:

Quote:
I can't find where he was the source of that piece of information

What you’ve never gotten is that they DON’T CARE ABOUT SOURC

NIKI2

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 6:56 PM (P)

Pizmo, mea culpa for getting you wrong. But

Quote:
all people who try and immigrate to this country

DO go through the same process; we’ve been debating illegal immigrants, who wouldn’t be allowed to go through the process if they tried, because of quotas.

DT: What’s a “clo competitor”?Yes, I type fast, but I don’t type AS MUCH as Frem overall, I quote cites more than I type my own opinions, partly because the cites represent my opinions, with facts to back them up.

Anthony, in a way you summed up the entire argument with

Quote:
will you welcome any new brand of evil just because it purports to solve a problem?

Because this law will NOT solve the problem, it will merely put American citizens at risk of jail if they can’t produce the proper paperwork.

Mike, yes I’ve come to notice as well of Rappy that:

Quote:
You parrot his every talking point, every single day, and you try to claim it as reliable info

More and more I see him posting what RushBaugh says, without facts to back it up, or even logic. He’s a true representation of the fact that FauxNews sycophants take everything they hear there as gospel and never question it, which is one of the things that is most wrong about our country right now. They truly ARE the tail that wags the dog, they’ve got the Republican party so afraid of them they won’t even mention when FauxNews outright lies, and millions of people in this country are pushed toward hate because of the awful things they come to believe are true. It’s horrendous, and Crappy is our best, most perfect example. We can look to him to show us exactly how FauxNews is succeeding with the right, if we ever need an example, and we can know whatever talking points RushBaugh has come up with lately by his posts.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

PIZMOBEACH

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 8:33 PM (P)

Preface:

ETA Anthony - I see that you have started a new thread about my last item...

=============
Anthony, you are absolutely right, I'm still learning, and there's a lot to learn. The more I look the more I find to dislike about all of it from all sides.

To address your points:
I don't ask for responsibility from criminals - pretty absurd as you suggest. I ask citizens of any country who want to live here to respect our immigration laws. That's clearly too much to ask.

You asked:

"Do you think they'd bother with a cayote if they had another efficient means of getting here, trouble-free?"

So is it about the cheapest way or the quickest way to get here? And not the legal way? So if the legal way costs more and takes longer, then fuck it? That's what it sounds like and that's what it looks like. I think if you understand that you might understand a lot of the frustration that illegal immigration inspires.

I completely agree with your suggestion about serious penalties for employers of illegals. That's essential, and clearly whatever they are now they aren't stiff enough.

We definitely disagree about the point of this law. You see it as pure evil, designed to harass Latino Citizens, even encourage it. I think it was designed more as a deterrent to illegal immigration:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126741982

"[the] hope for the new law is not that it results in a bunch of arrests, but that it makes Arizona such an inhospitable place for illegal immigrants that they go somewhere else."

Nothing else has worked and you can't build a wall, so you get this philosophically evil law.

Like I said, the more I find the worse it gets:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g7t3Rd4wB0IpcRI0xco
iaN4VEA2w

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

ANTHONYT

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 9:00 PM (P)

"We definitely disagree about the point of this law. You see it as pure evil, designed to harass Latino Citizens, even encourage it. I think it was designed more as a deterrent to illegal immigration"

Hello,

Neither of us is in disagreement about the 'point' of the law. I don't think anyone sat down and said, "Hey, let's make a law so that we can harrass people."

What we disagree on is the law's potential for misuse. To my mind, every law should be scrutinized to see how it can be misused, mishandled, and misapplied. Every new law represents a new threat on the freedoms of the citizenry. That threat must be carefully weighed against the benefits provided.

I see ways to get all the same benefits without including that 'proof of citizenship' potentially be attached to any 'lawful contact.'

Laws in Arizona recently became quite harsh on the employers of illegal immigrants. That's just fine with me. Eliminate incentive WITHOUT impacting the freedoms of the citizenry.

And yes, by the way, all black markets (including black market immigration) surface when doing something legally is either difficult, prohibitively expensive, or impossible. There are two ways to eliminate the incentive for this behavior. A) Give the illegals no reason to want to be here, by eliminating their chances for employment. B) Make legal immigration a more open and simple process, so that we can absorb however many applicants wish to come here to work and live otherwise honest lives.

Why not do both? Which part of 'eliminating incentive' requires citizens to whip out a Birth Certificate on command?

It's the wrong angle to take. It's a bad law. A kneejerk reaction instead of a carefully contemplated one. It hasn't been weighed carefully to minimize the impact on citizens. It's a shotgun, when the country needed a rifle.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

KWICKO

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 9:14 PM (P)

Quote:

So is it about the cheapest way or the quickest way to get here? And not the legal way? So if the legal way costs more and takes longer, then fuck it? That's what it sounds like and that's what it looks like.

Maybe we should clap them on the back and wish them a hearty congratulations for figuring out The American Way™ so quickly. After all, that is EXACTLY what corporations here do, day in and day out. Figure out the cheapest, quickest way to make a profit, and fuck the legalities. If you get caught, ask for forgiveness, but NEVER ask for permission beforehand.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, May 12, 2010 9:50 PM (P)

Dream, check the timestamp of the posts - I was sitting next to Gus and bet him the bill for lunch that in under 10 minutes flat, writing the post included, I could wind him up into flaming me.

-F

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, May 13, 2010 4:59 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"We definitely disagree about the point of this law. You see it as pure evil, designed to harass Latino Citizens, even encourage it. I think it was designed more as a deterrent to illegal immigration"

Hello,

Neither of us is in disagreement about the 'point' of the law. I don't think anyone sat down and said, "Hey, let's make a law so that we can harrass people."

What we disagree on is the law's potential for misuse. To my mind, every law should be scrutinized to see how it can be misused, mishandled, and misapplied. Every new law represents a new threat on the freedoms of the citizenry. That threat must be carefully weighed against the benefits provided.

I see ways to get all the same benefits without including that 'proof of citizenship' potentially be attached to any 'lawful contact.'

Laws in Arizona recently became quite harsh on the employers of illegal immigrants. That's just fine with me. Eliminate incentive WITHOUT impacting the freedoms of the citizenry.

And yes, by the way, all black markets (including black market immigration) surface when doing something legally is either difficult, prohibitively expensive, or impossible. There are two ways to eliminate the incentive for this behavior. A) Give the illegals no reason to want to be here, by eliminating their chances for employment. B) Make legal immigration a more open and simple process, so that we can absorb however many applicants wish to come here to work and live otherwise honest lives.

Why not do both? Which part of 'eliminating incentive' requires citizens to whip out a Birth Certificate on command?

It's the wrong angle to take. It's a bad law. A kneejerk reaction instead of a carefully contemplated one. It hasn't been weighed carefully to minimize the impact on citizens. It's a shotgun, when the country needed a rifle.

Anthony - I agree with all of your suggestions with the exception of:

"Make legal immigration a more open and simple process, so that we can absorb however many applicants wish to come here to work and live otherwise honest lives."

The process is slow for a reason - we'd be overwhelmed if it wasn't.

I totally agree with your take on anyone who hires illegals - major penalties - they're doing it to shave costs so fine them, hit them where it hurts the most. We have almost 10% unemployment - illegals are getting the jobs that other should have.

Along those lines:

"The experience of the past two years has shown that migration responds swiftly to changing incentives. The Center for Immigration Studies has tracked monthly census data for young Hispanic males with low levels of education—a good proxy for the illegal immigrant population. Between the summer of 2007 and the first quarter of 2009, that population actually declined. Extrapolating from survey figures, CIS estimates that the illegal population in the U.S. dropped by 1.7 million during the recession. The number of illegals entering the country fell by about one-third while the number returning home doubled ."

It's from an article that is an interesting read on the subject.

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/202381/in-defense-of-arizona

POSTED ON APRIL 28, 2010, AT 4:43 PM

"Will anyone speak up for Arizona and its new immigration law?

The state abused by Jon Stewart as the “meth lab” of democracy has been forced to deal alone with a problem created and then ignored by the national government. Arizona’s answer is not perfect, but it is not unreasonable either—and should jerk the national conscience to attention.

Imagine yourself a landowner in southern Arizona. The border between San Diego and Tijuana is now effectively fenced, so the flow of illegal immigration has been diverted to your front yard. Every morning you wake up to a hillock of garbage: plastic bottles, food remains, human urine and feces. If you try to police your land, you put your life at risk: Last month, Arizona rancher Rob Krentz was murdered on his own property, likely by a

MOMCARP

Thursday, May 13, 2010 5:04 PM (P)

I'm not a "knee jerk" lefty. Some of my friends would like to see free abortion clinics on every corner, and the borders opened, so that every one can have peace, freedom, and prosperity. Hah.

According to Kris Kobach, this law is bulletproof, and the authors made every effort to work within the framework of the Constitution. If it is enforced in a rational manner (possible!), it might achieve the purpose of deterring additional illegal immigration.

The people who have blown this out of proportion have a lot in common with those who were screaming, "health care reform will turn America in to a Nazi state, and end life as we know it!"

I'm in SoCal, and I distinctly remember illegal drywallers marching in the streets of L.A. in the 1990s demanding better wages. During the May 1 rally here in L.A., thousands of Hispanics marched in the streets, carrying signs that said "Legalizacion Ahora!" and the like.

For every legal contractor (I have to carry Liability ins, a bond and keep my license current)there are 10 "under the table" contractors in Los Angeles. Oh, I don't have the statistics for that...I just know that the CSLB is working full time to bust these guys, and the numbers are listed in my quarterly CSLB newsletter.

I'm an old hippie, my daughter is a young hippie, my DH is a jazz musician, and also an old hippie. My job used to support us when he was a starving musician, now I'm a starving carpenter, DH is supporting me (and I have to do all the house and yard work!)

I've been a carpenter for 25 years. I've worked with illegals who were kind people, and hard workers; and some who were scum (once on a job, the painters saw that I didn't have lunch and invited me to share theirs, which was delicious. On another job, the painters working in the next room were having a conversation about that "white bitch" who does she think she was taking "their" job and talking about what they would do to me, until I walked in and asked them in Spanish if they knew where the boss was) It'd be good if people could reserve judgment until they look at both sides

Illegal immigration is a quality of life, common sense issue. The quality of open-mindedness is cool, until it breaks free of the atmosphere of reality. Or something.

"although you're two feet taller than me, once I find a way out of here I will kick your ass" me

NIKI2

Thursday, May 13, 2010 5:31 PM (P)

I'm an aging hippie too, and still hold most of my liberal values. I think one of the best ways to solve the problems you've enumerated is to go after employers hiring illegal workers...which of course the majority of Republicans are against because it would raise prices and stand in the way of "capitalism", sadly.

As to illegal contractors, my experience has been that more often than not, legal ones are just as bad (small snark there not aimed at you). But I thought contractors had to be licensed--I found: "Any contractor doing a job worth $500 or more must be licensed in California" ( http://www.latimes.com/search/dispatcher.front?Query=number+of+illegal
+contractors&target=article), so I think my impression was right.

Aside from people too stupid to check the licensing of their contractor (who, unquestionably, represent quite a number!), how can they compete? And how could illegal drywallers march for better wages if they're illegal? Did you know they were all illegal? It seems strange to me.

No, I disagree that we've blown it out of proportion. If even ONE American citizen is wrongly detained (and hundreds have been, for months, I posted the facts on that), that's unacceptable. The "Nazi state" thing IS absurd, but this is about a real issue regarding things that have happened and are happening today.

Sure, some go overboard (tho' I don't consider it "overboard", I also don't agree on open borders), some always do. But at the very least, those who go overboard are misguided by CARING impulses...same cannot be said of the motives of those convincing the Tea Partiers that healthcare will make a Nazi state.

The other point against the law is also valid: It IS racism, that's real, not a fantasy; when you target specifically one race of people, it's racism, pure and simple. Nobody is being targeted other than those who might "look illegal", since the only people who could look illegal are Hispanics.

There's a huge difference. However wrong or overboard you may view those of us who disagree with the new law, we aren't motivated by our own self-interest, fear or rhetoric by talking heads appealing to our fears. It IS a problem, but the bullshit about horrific crime numbers has been shown false; experts aren't sure whether illegals cost more in social services than they pay in taxes (since they don't get benefits from the SSI taxes most of them have to pay); ripping civil rights away from anyone, legal or illegal, is wrong; and most importantly, the idea that legal American citizens will be affected by this ARE all valid arguments, not just talking points.

As to people looking at both sides before judging, if you're talking about the workers you described, you could be talking about ANY employees anywhere; I've worked all my life and seen both sides of that, and I've never knowingly worked with illegals, having worked in the corporate world. If you mean those of us against the new law should see both sides, I think we DO, we recognize there's a problem, we just want to approach it from a direction that is less racist, more humane and that doesn't endanger innocent people.

However misguided arguments on our side may be, they're motivated by humane beliefs, that may be the biggest difference. You spoke of people here as being "sympathetic"...I think we're sympathetic to both sides, but find this approach definitely NOT sympathetic to anyone (especially innocent, Hispanic-looking people!).

I hope the law falls and it would be nice if this having happened forces the federal government to come up with better solutions to the immigrant problem.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NIKI2

Thursday, May 13, 2010 5:59 PM (P)

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

MOMCARP

Thursday, May 13, 2010 6:03 PM (P)

I hope it stands, and that time will prove that it doesn't result in large numbers of innocents being persecuted.

It is targeting illegals. Plain and simple.

They are showing disregard and disrespect for immigrants who have gone through the legal process.

You're assuming that the law directs officers to stop those who look illegal. That's something the critics have extrapolated.

Have you read the actual bill? Is it really that open to interpretation? Would be a really good idea to read it and then decide.

NIKI2

Thursday, May 13, 2010 6:58 PM (P)

Okay, I already went over this, but given you weren't here then, I'll take the time to do it again

First of all, I HAVE read it. I have read where police who are not doing "enough" in the view of any citizen allows that citizen to SUE the police. That's quotas. You know about quotas? They're inherent in racism.

People HAVE AND ARE being detained because they can't show the proper "papers"...it's a simple fact, and I posted facts on it, with cites.

Despite what Mike said about my long posts containing facts, if you're going to make the remark that I should have read the law, I hope you take the time to read this. It took me quite a while to look up specifics on the two most important aspects: "probable cause" and "public offense", which are two of the things which make the law so egregious and open to misuse.

Fom the specific text: “A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense.”

Wikipedia defines “probable cause” as "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true” and adds “even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source.” In other words, any citizen can say “I saw him...” and it has to be checked out, and the person pointed to’s papers, OR THE POLICE CAN BE SUED>

“Any public offense” can be interpreted many, many ways which enlarge the police’s ability to check papers. Just a few samples of things which come under “public offense” (which is different in each location, city, county, etc.): “possession and/or consumption of any liquor or cereal malt beverages or alcohol on any street, alley, park, public property or any place, building or premises to which the public has access”, “Loitering or other acts in or about schools either on foot or in any vehicle”, “skates or rollerblades or skateboars are prohibited on any roadway or bike lane of a roadway, sidewalk in any portion of this city specifically designated as a business district, too fast for safety under the conditions existing, and must wear protective clothing on hands, knees, elbows and heads.”

That’s just a few samplesfrom around the country. "Public offense" covers a multitude of things, including littering, jaywalking, tampering with a landmark, deposits in public sewers, dogs off leash, curfew, noise, laser pointers, public indecency, disturbing the peace (both of which are defined VERY broadly), and on and on. Then there are the regulations of homeowners’ associations, etc. These are taken as samples from all over the country: ANY one of them can be used as “probable cause” in the officer’s opinion. Anyone calling in a “disturbance of the peace” or “noise violation” can sue the police if they don’t investigate and, while investigating, CHECK FOR PAPERS.

Further, per Wikipedia: “Police may arrest a person if there is probable cause that the person is an alien not in possession of required registration documents; a person arrested cannot be released without confirmation of the person's legal immigration status by the federal government”. If a person is found not to be in compliance with showing appropriate papers, “A first offense carries a fine of up to $100, plus court costs, and up to 20 days in jail; subsequent offenses can result in up to 30 days in jail.” Ergo, an American citizen can be jailed just because they can’t prove they’re legal on the spot OR be jailed/fined even if they can prove it after the fact.

It also “provides that Arizona citizens can sue such agencies or officials to compel such full enforcement. A private citizen who prevails in such a lawsuit may be entitled to reimbursement of reasonable attorney fees and court costs”.

Is that good enough for you? In essence, the police can use a myriad of causes, if they want to, to justify checking a person’s papers; if they don’t

MOMCARP

Thursday, May 13, 2010 7:25 PM (P)

Wow, you do write long posts.

True, probable cause is pretty vague.

Some people think their civil rights are violated by being stopped if they're driving over the speed limit.

If I were driving in Mexico, the police could stop me for any reason, and I'd still need to have ID.
Every person in America for any reason should have ID, at least if they're driving.

My daughter and her husband live in Texas, and they've been pulled over a couple of times just because they have tattoos and drive an old Mercury. Pissed me off when I heard about it. They didn't like it, but it goes with the territory.

I agree with you that if the Feds would enforce the law against employers who hire illegals, would be no problem.

NIKI2

Thursday, May 13, 2010 8:09 PM (P)

Yup, I'm known for posting long (as are Frem and DT and others). It's important to give you ALL the facts, and what they mean. Thank you for reading, if you read it all. Those of us who care need to know the FACTS on issues, not just what our personal experience has led us to believe.

Of course drivers should have an ID. But should only people who "look" Hispanic have papers proving their citizenship on them at all times? Should only people who "look" Hispanic be demanded to show their citizenship papers, if just walking down the street, or standing in the wrong place, or dropping a piece of paper on the sidewalk, or, or, or...

What someone may THINK constitutes their civil rights is one thing; what actually DOES constitute one's civil rights is another: THAT's the point. You say look at both sides; I agree your side has a problem, and I want to see it solved. Can YOU agree the other side has good reason for not wanting this law?

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

KWICKO

Thursday, May 13, 2010 8:42 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by momcarp:
Wow, you do write long posts.

True, probable cause is pretty vague.

Some people think their civil rights are violated by being stopped if they're driving over the speed limit.

If I were driving in Mexico, the police could stop me for any reason, and I'd still need to have ID.

I love this argument. "Mexico is so oppressive. We should be just like Mexico."

Shouldn't you be glad we AREN'T like Mexico, rather than trying to use their abuses and Napoleonic code of law as your template for why we should emulate them? I used to hear that same argument about flag burning: "You can't do that in CHINA!" To which my response was, "Boy, it's a good thing we don't live in China then, isn't it?"

Quote:

Every person in America for any reason should have ID, at least if they're driving.

And proof of insurance, too. But would you advocate walking up on people in line at the movie theatre and demanding to see their insurance paperwork? How about their health insurance coverage? After all, they might be sick, and they're in a public place, so they may be a health hazard. All for your own good, don'tchya know!

Quote:
My daughter and her husband live in Texas, and they've been pulled over a couple of times just because they have tattoos and drive an old Mercury. Pissed me off when I heard about it. They didn't like it, but it goes with the territory.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't "go with the territory", and it pisses me off when people just meekly accept this kind of intrusion. I live in Texas, and I don't accept this kind of bullshit without a fight.

Quote:

I agree with you that if the Feds would enforce the law against employers who hire illegals, would be no problem.

Is it ALL the feds' job? Should local law enforcement share any of the workload in that department?

And did YOU ever turn in any of the "illegal" crews you worked with? If not, why not? Weren't you in effect aiding and abetting at that point, if you didn't alert someone and turn them in?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

MOMCARP

Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:23 PM (P)

I believe that people of Hispanic descent who are legal citizens have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Runaway imaginations are turning blowing this out of proportion. Although the law was only recently signed, there are no reports of masses of hispanics being rounded up and put in death camps.

I respect your intellect, and enjoy reading your posts.
Jen

MOMCARP

Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:30 PM (P)

I told the boss I would no longer work in a house where these yahoos were working.

Never stand next to someone in a supermarket in L.A. who has a bad cough.

If you pick a fight with a trooper in Texas, they'll think of a reason to shoot you.

Different viewpoints are good.

Excuse me, I have to go plant some baby eggplants and squash to feed my family after the government opens the borders and Mexico begins the full scale invasion. :)

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Friday, May 14, 2010 5:14 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by momcarp:
This law is bulletproof, and the authors made every effort to work within the framework of the Constitution.

I've been hearing that if taken to the supreme court it will be reversed because the constitution expresses that protection of borders is a federal, not state, responsibility. A shame if true.

Here in Indiana we are moving to copy the AZ model. A state senator will be introducing identical measures into our general assembly when it reconvenes.

KWICKO

Friday, May 14, 2010 12:07 PM (P)

How very libertarian of you.

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, May 14, 2010 1:20 PM (P)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/holder-hasnt-read-ariz
-law-he-criticized/

After bashing and demonizing Arizona Law for weeks now, and threatening a Federal lawsuit, mentally-challenged AG Eric Holder admitted during the week, and was then challenged on Meet The Press Sunday that he has never actually read Arizona's new law. What a tool! What insane hysteria by the Left over this. Their boycotts will mainly hurt Arizona's Hispanic employees in the tourism and hospitality industries, forcing many of them to re-locate to California. I'm sure Californians don't mind tens of thousands more suckling up to the State teat; after all, they're only a mere $20 billion in debt.

KWICKO

Friday, May 14, 2010 1:29 PM (P)

Jongsie, have YOU read the law?

By the way, sounds like you're all for boycotting Arizona. Thanks for your support!

JONGSSTRAW

Friday, May 14, 2010 1:45 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
By the way, sounds like you're all for boycotting Arizona. Thanks for your support

It does? Man, you're even more delusional than previously thought. As a matter of fact, I changed my vacation plans to now include a trip with the family to the beautiful state of Arizona. Living in Florida, I have a year-round tan, my skin is darker than most white folks' skin, so if the police stop me for running a red light, or if they stop me for suspicion of bank robbery, I will be more than happy to show them ID. No big deal.

MOMCARP

Friday, May 14, 2010 3:35 PM (P)

Hysteria is a good description. Both the knee jerk left and the card carrying Glen Birch Society right trot out the Nazi analogy as suits them.

Health reform was going to turn America into a Socialist (or Facist) state depending on who you talk to, and now a law to expel those who are in a sovereign state illegally will lead to mass violation of (non citizen's) civil rights. Sheesh.

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Friday, May 14, 2010 5:20 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
How very libertarian of you.

I have always maintainted on this board that libertarian values must be tempered with some regulations.

Examples: On the subject of economic liberty, some regulations are needed to prevent unfettered abuse of markets (look to Enron for an example). I'm sure you'd agree.

On the subject of personal liberty, borders need to be monitored and regulated to prevent abuses of human rights (look to reciently murdered ranchers by illegal border crossers). On this I'm certain you do not agree.

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Friday, May 14, 2010 5:25 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
By the way, sounds like you're all for boycotting Arizona. Thanks for your support!

BTW, I'm for "Buy"cotting AZ. Not that I'm going to make a special trip there to spend my money, but there are now some lists appearing on boycott websites that offer decient info on items to purchase. I also found it amusing how Arizona Tea and Arizona Jeans both issued press releases indicating that they are in NY and MI respectively.

So Kwik, are you going to boycott Indiana when we pass similar measures? What about TX and WY who are also making moves that direction? You going to end up boycotting 20 of 50 states before this is all over?

KWICKO

Friday, May 14, 2010 5:36 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
How very libertarian of you.

I have always maintainted on this board that libertarian values must be tempered with some regulations.

Examples: On the subject of economic liberty, some regulations are needed to prevent unfettered abuse of markets (look to Enron for an example). I'm sure you'd agree.

On the subject of personal liberty, borders need to be monitored and regulated to prevent abuses of human rights (look to reciently murdered ranchers by illegal border crossers). On this I'm certain you do not agree.

Thank you for clarifying my positions for me. Without you, I'd have no idea what I was for or against. You have such certainty, but you're certainly wrong.

Thing is, SB 1070 isn't about monitoring borders so much as it's about hassling people and demanding to see their papers, please. Which I notice you're fully in favor of, as long as it's not white people being asked for their papers.

You're all for "human rights", but it seems in your libertarian world, some humans have decidedly more rights than others.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

KWICKO

Friday, May 14, 2010 5:43 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
By the way, sounds like you're all for boycotting Arizona. Thanks for your support!

BTW, I'm for "Buy"cotting AZ. Not that I'm going to make a special trip there to spend my money, but there are now some lists appearing on boycott websites that offer decient info on items to purchase. I also found it amusing how Arizona Tea and Arizona Jeans both issued press releases indicating that they are in NY and MI respectively.

I found it amusing that they want to distance themselves as much as possible from a state with such racist policies and views. I guess they know that economic pressures brought to bear on the state of Arizona are likely to have blowback on thier brands, and want to get out ahead of the issue.

Quote:
So Kwik, are you going to boycott Indiana when we pass similar measures? What about TX and WY who are also making moves that direction? You going to end up boycotting 20 of 50 states before this is all over?

I already boycott Indiana. I've never bought a Jim Nabors album or a Winnebago, and Hoosier racing tires, while grippy, have too short a track life for my tastes. I prefer Kumho or Goodyear race tires for their lower price and longer life, as well as their more progressive breakaway characteristics on the edge of adhesion.

And yes, I'll be boycotting any state that stands with Arizona or follows suit. Are you going to boycott every state that DOESN'T go along with Arizona?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

KWICKO

Friday, May 14, 2010 5:48 PM (P)

By the way, the GOP announced that they AREN'T going to be holding their 2012 convention in Arizona. At last count, the city of Phoenix has already lost over $90,000,000 in contracts and commitments, according to the mayor of the city.

Oh, and Austin (my home) announced yesterday that they'd passed a resolution to boycott Arizona in the wake of this fiasco.

So let's all vote with our wallets, and see how it all shakes out. I'll bet we can get it resolved before any court cases are even decided! My money is on Arizona backing down, especially once the federal government decides to call their bluff; if they want to make border control and immigration a states' rights issue, I'm sure the fed would be happy to pull all its federal agents, support, and funding from the state, and let them pick up the tab for watching their own borders.

NIKI2

Friday, May 14, 2010 6:12 PM (P)

Jen, you’re entitled to your beliefs, but I disagree wholeheartedly with them

Quote:
believe that people of Hispanic descent who are legal citizens have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Runaway imaginations are turning blowing this out of proportion. Although the law was only recently signed, there are no reports of masses of hispanics being rounded up and put in death camps.

The actual fact is that people of Hispanic descent who are legal citizens have a LOT to worry about; if they can’t prove their citizenship immediately upon questioning, they will be JAILED and, once it is proven, fined and possibly jailed again for not carrying the proof with them. That is a FACT, it HAS HAPPENED, you haven’t bothered to read the facts I posted if you can deny that. Nobody has said a damned thing about death camps that I have read, so that’s irrelevant.

Strawman, I HAVE read the law, I have posted portions of it and what it allows and how what it allows can be interpreted. I have no “insane hysteria”, I merely recognize that this law is wrong, unconstitutional and harms what our country is based on, not to mention putting actual citizens in danger. Indiana has my sympathy but has just lost any respect I might have for it.

We have tens of thousands of immigrants in California, they don’t suck up to ANY teat (I’ve also posted about the question regarding whether illegal immigrants cost more in services than they contribute in entitlement taxes they will never benefit from). You won’t see us passing any such law; we may be Crazy Californians, but we understand reality, and the reality is that this is 100% wrong; we also appear to have more common sense and more understanding of our country.

Jen,

Quote:
Hysteria is a good description. Both the knee jerk left and the card carrying Glen Birch Society right trot out the Nazi analogy as suits them.

Health reform was going to turn America into a Socialist (or Facist) state depending on who you talk to, and now a law to expel those who are in a sovereign state illegally will lead to mass violation of (non citizen's) civil rights. Sheesh.

That is so “hysterically” funny it doesn’t need response; however, your beliefs about health reform are both knee jerk and hysteria if you think it will turn us fascist or socialist!

Bluesun: I’ve already put up facts and figures showing the crime rate has gone DOWN in Arizona, despite the “massive influx” of illegal immigrants. There are crimes committed every day in every state; pointing to one crime is fallacious. I happen to agree that “borders need to be monitored and regulated”, but this way of doing so IS an abuse of human rights, citizens’ and illegals’ both.

I, too, will be boycotting any state that passes a racist, anti-human-rights law such as this. And I’ve already begun voting my conscience by boycotting Arizona, not to mention just having bought a gallon jug of Arizona Tea. This law cannot stand, or here’s some equivalent hysteria for you: If it stands, we are on our way to a NAZI state!

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

KWICKO

Friday, May 14, 2010 6:21 PM (P)

Quote:
...and now a law to expel those who are in a sovereign state illegally will lead to mass violation of (non citizen's) civil rights. Sheesh

So I have to ask: In your world, in your America, are there such things as "human rights" and "civil rights" that DON'T apply only to U.S. citizens, that are supposed to be universal for ALL people? Or are those the sole province of the "real" Americans, and non-Americans have no rights at all?

I could've sworn that there was some kind of document written and signed that mentioned something about "unalienable" rights, and kind of hinted that such rights didn't begin and end at the American border.

Maybe that was a dream...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NIKI2

Friday, May 14, 2010 6:28 PM (P)

No, Mike: Arizona is the nightmare!

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

PIZMOBEACH

Friday, May 14, 2010 9:29 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Jen,
Quote:
Hysteria is a good description. Both the knee jerk left and the card carrying Glen Birch Society right trot out the Nazi analogy as suits them.

Health reform was going to turn America into a Socialist (or Facist) state depending on who you talk to, and now a law to expel those who are in a sovereign state illegally will lead to mass violation of (non citizen's) civil rights. Sheesh.
That is so “hysterically” funny it doesn’t need response; however, your beliefs about health reform are both knee jerk and hysteria if you think it will turn us fascist or socialist!

I wish you would read that again Niki in the context that it was meant. Momcarp was saying how both sides say every issue will "Extreme Blank" this country, just as they did with health care (it'll turn us socialist or fascist), and now they are reacting in extremes to this law.

So you guys are going to boycott AZ even though as Jongs mentioned, and I agree, it'll probably hurt the low wage and illegals? Seriously, when money gets tight who do you think feels it first?

"Sorry you lost you job Jose, but I got your human rights covered. Don't know about you but I'll certainly sleep better."

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Friday, May 14, 2010 9:55 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Are you going to boycott every state that DOESN'T go along with Arizona?

Such a foolish question. I'd quite expect it from you.

But I'll make this deal with you Kwik. I'll consider Buycotting any state, city, company, or enterprise you boycott. Beyond that I'll allow the free market to work for itself.

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Friday, May 14, 2010 10:00 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You have such certainty, but you're certainly wrong.

Kwicko: king of the glittering generality.

ANTHONYT

Friday, May 14, 2010 10:49 PM (P)

"So you guys are going to boycott AZ even though as Jongs mentioned, and I agree, it'll probably hurt the low wage and illegals? Seriously, when money gets tight who do you think feels it first?"

Hello,

I agree here. This is why the embargo on Cuba should be lifted. It's not hurting Castro.

If money gets tight in Arizona it will only heighten the hysteria against illegals.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

KWICKO

Friday, May 14, 2010 11:02 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Are you going to boycott every state that DOESN'T go along with Arizona?
Such a foolish question. I'd quite expect it from you.

Let me guess: YOUR question, though essentially identical, was NOT foolish?

Quote:
But I'll make this deal with you Kwik. I'll consider Buycotting any state, city, company, or enterprise you boycott. Beyond that I'll allow the free market to work for itself.

In a free market, am I free to NOT shop where I *DON'T* want to? I thought you didn't like mandates; sounds like you're trying to say that I have to buy Arizonan, even if I don't want to. You are free to buy Arizona, or not, and I should be free to NOT buy from them. You seem to view "free markets" in that uniquely "libertarian" way, in that you feel you should be free to buy from anyone, but I shouldn't be free to NOT buy from those I disagree with.

Hey, maybe you can engineer a big bailout for Arizona when things get really bad because of the boycotts!

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

KWICKO

Friday, May 14, 2010 11:03 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You have such certainty, but you're certainly wrong.
Kwicko: king of the glittering generality.

Isn't that title a glittering generality in itself?

NIKI2

Friday, May 14, 2010 11:09 PM (P)

Ah, my apologies. I read "Glen Birch Society" and wondered ?? Does she mean JOHN Birch?" ...then skipped right over the "right". Mea culpa, Jen.

As far as boycotting, yes, I will. Just as boycotting non-dolphin-safe tuna cost me for years, as I like tuna. Because I can't help it if the Latinos suffer, so will their employers, for one thing. Because if my boycott helps at all, it will help the Latinos. Because I refuse to support something I find so reprehensible.

As said, free market, my decision. The boycott of those bringing in tons more money than I ever could is already hurting them...my little bit follows my conscience.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

KWICKO

Friday, May 14, 2010 11:10 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:

So you guys are going to boycott AZ even though as Jongs mentioned, and I agree, it'll probably hurt the low wage and illegals? Seriously, when money gets tight who do you think feels it first?

That's why I thanked Jongsie for his support of the boycotts. He claimed that boycotting Arizona would force illegals to leave Arizona. From what he's written, I take it that's what he WANTS to happen. So shouldn't y'all be GLAD we're boycotting Arizona, if you want the illegals gone from there? After all, if it hurts them, that makes you smile, right?

As for who feels it first, I'd wager that the lower-wage hourly LEGAL employees would be let go, so the companies that are hemorrhaging money can replace them with lower-paid illegals who they also won't be paying any taxes on.

If, as Reagan lovers like to believe, money spent at the top goes to the bottom, then NOT spending money on Arizona businesses should impact the business owners first, hurting their bottom line. My guess is they'll take it out on the legal workers before they will the illegal ones, because that saves them more money, and historically the risks and fines are so low that it's worth the risk to them.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

ANTHONYT

Friday, May 14, 2010 11:10 PM (P)

"You seem to view "free markets" in that uniquely "libertarian" way, in that you feel you should be free to buy from anyone, but I shouldn't be free to NOT buy from those I disagree with."

Hello Mike,

Please confine your slings and arrows to their intended targets.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, May 15, 2010 1:33 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Mike,

Please confine your slings and arrows to their intended targets.

I'm suddenly struck by the urge to start singing Krokus's Ballroom Blitz!.

You'd have to have seen the video to get the joke though.

-F

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Saturday, May 15, 2010 7:25 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Let me guess: YOUR question, though essentially identical, was NOT foolish?

Um..no. Nope. Not foolish. My question, which by-the-by you have not yet answered, was to inquire if you intend to boycott other states when they pass similar measures. You have already stated you will boycott one state: AZ. This makes my question NOT foolish.

Your question however was foolish because it attempted to hijack my interrogative with a new one: who I won't boycott. I can't see why it matters what I personally will-or-won't do since I asked you first, but I'll answer anyway. I'm not boycotting anybody. I will however choose, like many other like-minded people to buycott where I choose. And there are plenty of resources to choose from to do so, such as: http://www.buycottarizona.com/

So will you answer? Will you boycott other states when they pass similar measures? You going to wrap yourself up in a boycott fever and maintain it?

NIKI2

Saturday, May 15, 2010 7:31 PM (P)

I can only answer for me: Yes, I will. Any and every one of them until either this law is taken down or (gawd forbid) it is made nationwide. I just can't believe that will happen; little as my faith in the American people is, it extends at least that far.

I also agree that his question is not pertinent to what you asked.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Saturday, May 15, 2010 7:33 PM (P)

Here's something to scoff at: The boycotters have a comprehensive list of everyone in AZ including: Todd McFarlane Productions Inc.

Yep. No more Spawn comics. So you better stop reading your spawn comics if you hate Az! *sigh* I never liked Spawn anyway.

I note that Discount Tire is on the list and I've been needing new tires for 4 months now, so forget Wal-mart or Indy Tire (local chain). I guess I'm off to Discount Tire!

NIKI2

Saturday, May 15, 2010 8:16 PM (P)

Bear in mind, this is the state that gave us Barry Goldwater, and had the NFL pull the Superbowl from them because they wouldn't recognize Martin Luther King Day.

For those of you who want to join me, here's a list of some of those to boycott:

- Arizona Diamondbacks, Location: Phoenix, Arizona

- Best Western International, Inc., Headquarters: Phoenix, Arizona

- Cold Stone Creamery. Headquarters: Scottsdale, Arizona

- Grand Canyon

- P. F. Chang’s China Bistro. Headquarters: Phoenix, Arizona

- PetSmart. Headquarters: Phoenix, Arizona

- Sky Mall, Headquarters: Phoenix, Arizona

- U-Haul. Headquarters: Phoenix, Arizona

- US Airways. Headquarters: Tempe, Arizona

- Alcor Life Extension Foundation (Cryonics, the science of freezing gullible dead people). Headquarters: Scottsdale, Arizona

- ClubJenna, Inc. (branded internet porn). Headquarters: Glendale, Arizona

- Go Daddy (Sleezy domain name registry). Headquarters: Scottsdale, Arizona

- TASER International, Inc. Headquarters: Scottsdale, Arizona

- Discount Tire Company (Americas largest tire and wheel retailer). Headquarters: Scottsdale, Arizona

- BeachWare (computer games). Headquarters: Tuscon, Arizona

- Channel Master (TV accessories). Headquarters: Gilbert, Arizona

- Circle K (convenience store chain) Headquarters: Tempe, Arizona

- Dial Corporation (formerly Greyhound Dial Corporation--Dial soap and anti-perspirant deodorant; AromaSense; Armour Star canned
meats; Borateem; Boraxo; Coast soap; Combat insect control; Dry Idea deodorant; Fels-Naptha soap; Pure and Natural beauty products; Purex laundry detergent; Renuzit air freshener; Right Guard deodorant; Twenty Mule Team Borax). Headquarters: Scottsdale, Arizona

- Fender Musical Instruments Corporation (guitars, basses, amplifiers, etc.). Headquarters: Scottsdale, Arizona

- Flying Buffalo, Inc. (game company: board games, card games; Tunnels and Trolls, Nuclear War card game, Death Dice, others). Headquarters: Scottsdale, Arizona

- Ramada Worldwide hotel chain. Headquarters: Phoenix, Arizona

- Shamrock Farms (dairy products: various “Mmmmilk” products; Rockin’ Refuel; “Milk
Essentials” for Kids; various frozen treats) Headquarters: Phoenix

About the only ones I can boycott are PetSmart, Dial and Cold Stone Creamery, but if anyone knows others, please share.

Just a few more things:

Quote:
Law enforcement groups and agents in Arizona and across the country have opposed the legislation. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police this week issued a statement, noting in part, “The provisions of the bill . . . will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner. ” Individual Chiefs of Police across the country, including in Colorado Springs, Raleigh, San Francisco and Sacramento, have also come out in opposition to the bill.

According to an article in Thursday’s New York Times, approximately 85 percent of the calls going in to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s office are being recorded in OPPOSITION to the legislation.

Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony, who heads the nation’s largest Roman Catholic archdiocese with 4.3 million members, spoke for many people of faith when he lambasted the bill on his blog, stating, “The Arizona legislature just passed the country’s most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless anti-immigrant law. The tragedy of the law is its totally false reasoning: that immigrants come to our country to rob, plunder, and consume public resources. That is not only false, the premise is nonsense.”

Sojourners CEO Jim Wallis has also spoken out against the bill, writing in Huffington Post, “[E]nforcement of this law would force us to violate our Christian conscience, which we simply will not do. It makes it illegal to love your neighbor in Arizona.”

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Groups, including the ACLU, the NAACP and the Anti-Defamation League oppose it. “The passage of SB 1070 is a catastrophe

KWICKO

Sunday, May 16, 2010 1:09 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Let me guess: YOUR question, though essentially identical, was NOT foolish?

Um..no. Nope. Not foolish. My question, which by-the-by you have not yet answered, was to inquire if you intend to boycott other states when they pass similar measures. You have already stated you will boycott one state: AZ. This makes my question NOT foolish.

If "not foolish", then certainly dishonest, since I *DID* answer your question, quite explicitly, and you even quoted my answer when you responded to it. So were you not paying attention then, or are you being needlessly obtuse now, or both?

For the record - AGAIN - here ya go, quoted from my very own answer to your question, which by-the-by I have indeed answered, TWICE now:

Quote:

I already boycott Indiana. I've never bought a Jim Nabors album or a Winnebago, and Hoosier racing tires, while grippy, have too short a track life for my tastes. I prefer Kumho or Goodyear race tires for their lower price and longer life, as well as their more progressive breakaway characteristics on the edge of adhesion.

And yes, I'll be boycotting any state that stands with Arizona or follows suit. Are you going to boycott every state that DOESN'T go along with Arizona?

I even underlined the most explicit part of the answer so maybe you can read it this time. Dong ma?

Quote:
Your question however was foolish because it attempted to hijack my interrogative with a new one: who I won't boycott. I can't see why it matters what I personally will-or-won't do since I asked you first, but I'll answer anyway. I'm not boycotting anybody. I will however choose, like many other like-minded people to buycott where I choose. And there are plenty of resources to choose from to do so, such as: http://www.buycottarizona.com/

So will you answer? Will you boycott other states when they pass similar measures? You going to wrap yourself up in a boycott fever and maintain it?

And how is it foolish to worry about who you will or won't boycott, but not foolish at all for you to worry about who *I* will or won't boycott? Are you now the king of the glittering double standard?

Again, why do you consider MY question to you foolish, especially given that I posed it to you AFTER I answered your question?

Further, you claim I tried to hijack your interrogative. How? By answering you, then asking you a question back? In your world, are you the only one allowed to ask questions? (If so, I'm breaking all kinds of rules in your world, aren't I?

)

Now, I don't know what a "boycott fever" is, and I don't intend to wrap myself up in any kind of fever, because that sounds potentially dangerous to one's health, but I intend to boycott Arizona and encourage others to join the boycotts, because in a free market, we should be able to choose with whom we DON'T do business, as well as with whom we DO give our patronage. Wouldn't you agree?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

KWICKO

Sunday, May 16, 2010 1:12 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"You seem to view "free markets" in that uniquely "libertarian" way, in that you feel you should be free to buy from anyone, but I shouldn't be free to NOT buy from those I disagree with."

Hello Mike,

Please confine your slings and arrows to their intended targets.

Anthony,

Sorry if you got hit with unintended friendly fire. I was aiming the "libertarian" snark directly at BSCM, because he claims libertarianism, yet seems to act just like a neocon more often than not. What I should have to him was "in YOUR uniquely 'libertarian' way", so that it would have been clear that I wasn't questioning libertarian viewpoints, just HIS "libertarian" views.

Sorry for the mixup. Mea Culpa, my bad, and all that.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, May 16, 2010 6:12 AM (P)

Hello,

Well, I'm not a very good libertarian myself. Willing as I was to tolerate Public Option health care. And seeing as how I voted Democrat in the last election.

I need to do something Small Government soon or they'll take my voting card.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

PIZMOBEACH

Sunday, May 16, 2010 4:52 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:

So you guys are going to boycott AZ even though as Jongs mentioned, and I agree, it'll probably hurt the low wage and illegals? Seriously, when money gets tight who do you think feels it first?

As for who feels it first, I'd wager that the lower-wage hourly LEGAL employees would be let go, so the companies that are hemorrhaging money can replace them with lower-paid illegals who they also won't be paying any taxes on.

Thanks for clarifying that by boycotting AZ you're completely aware that your actions will likely cost people their jobs. All while you risk absolutely nothing. Ironically, some of these people may be legal immigrants who agree with your position. Nice one!

I'm sorry to disappoint you: I don't hate illegals. Apart from Rush I can't think of anyone I actually might hate. What's the point of hating?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

KWICKO

Sunday, May 16, 2010 6:08 PM (P)

Piz, did you support the auto industry bail-outs, or the Wall Street bail-outs?

PIZMOBEACH

Sunday, May 16, 2010 9:28 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Piz, did you support the auto industry bail-outs, or the Wall Street bail-outs?

Hmmm... trap?

In either yes/no scenario I wouldn't have boycotted the State of Michigan. I've never really liked GM cars that much so no changes there (they are getting better though - amazing what a near death experience will do) and I would never have boycotted Michigan made products.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com