He has a mexican last name so I cant believe what he says. Hes only an educated expert on immigration. What would he know:?:. I dont think you would argue physics with UCSDs physics professor. If you look into it every person educated on the history of this subject most of them agree with me. And everyone who doesnt has no legs to stand on when it comes to this argument. All you can say is illegal is illegal and that isnt constructive. Almost everyone arguing with me claims to be conservative but this law isnt conservative at all. It is legislation for the sake of making a point and it is a waste of money and the police in Arizonas time.
How is enforcing the law a waste of the police forces time? Isn't that what we pay them to do??? I know you say “illegal is illegal” isn’t a valid argument, but it really is….So say I smoke pot (which I don’t, I have enough trouble climbing without adding lung issues…) in the privacy of my own home for recreational use. I grow the plant myself, do not sell any of it or give it away…. So it is a 100% victimless crime… would it be a waste of the cops time to stop me? What if it was crack or heroin? Bottom line, if you’re not here legally, you shouldn’t be here at all. Every day they use goods/services paid for by the taxpayers, not by them. Schools, hospitals, roads ect. all paid for by legal citizens, in a roundabout way, they are stealing from us. And yes, I know that is a stretch, but it is how I and many others see it. I get it, they do the crappy jobs that people don’t like to do, manual labor, food service and such, but that’s because we let them And I know I come off like the “racist white guy” but its not only them who I think should be punished. The businesses that employ them should be fined out of existence as far as I'm concerned. Yes, I know crushing blow to economy, but again, the world wouldn’t stop spinning. The company I work at has over 120,000 employees, and 25,000 in SoCal alone, not a single employee is here illegally…not even the ones who clean the toilets or cut the grass. So it CAN be done, may cost a little more up front but the fact that we will be saving BILLIONS of dollars in the long run outweighs that in my opinion. AZ is taking that first important step in the right direction by not making it so easy for them to waltz right in and start making money to support another countries economy. Again, GO AZ!
No actually it is the our job to disobey laws that are unjust and victimless. Drug use is one of the many areas where illegal is illegal makes no sense. We need to get real about what is a waste of money. Immigration is alot like the war on drugs no matter how much money you spend on it the problem will persist so the way you deal with it is you tolerate it and regulate it the best you can. And the reason using law enforcement to handle immigration is a waste is because they are two seperate things. Immigration needs to be handled by those that we give billions of dollars to ie (border patrol). Law enforcement is there to protect citizens from theft and violent crime they are not immigration officers. Being conservative means you dont waste money on things that wont make changes. Im probably the most liberal guy in this forum right now but I sound the most conservative.
You mean I can't say I hope I'm not in Minnesota if they start crackin' down on Swedish immigration? I'm gonna be profiled for sure. Or what about having to carry papers from my doctor to prove I have permission to eat one small order of fries a week from McDonald's. (I imagine something like that once the new health care laws get rolling.. ) On a serious note, I've always believed that breaking more than one law at a time is just asking for trouble. So if nothing else, maybe the possibility of having to prove legal status if stopped for a traffic violation will cut down on speeding, dui's, etc. among our undocumented guests. Vaya con perros.
what a relief.......I can go ride in Sedona now and I don't need to bring my stinking passport due to my accented English and my pre-desposition for speeding........ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_arizona_immigration
Judge blocks parts of SB1070 by Bob Richardson Fox 11 Posted on July 28, 2010 at 11:17 AM Updated today at 12:05 PM Related: Feds oppose merger of immigration challenges Official SB 1070 order by Judge Susan Bolton (pdf) In a huge legal victory for opponents of the law, a federal district judge in Phoenix has blocked key portions of SB1070, the tough new immigration law scheduled to take effect at midnight tonight. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, in an interview with Fox 11 reporter Delane Cleveland moments after the ruling was issued, called it a "bump in the road". Judge Susan Bolton issued her ruling this morning after presiding over three hearings of legal challenges last week. The law will still take effect Thursday, but without many of the provisions that angered opponents -- including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. The judge also put on hold a part of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places. Judge Bolton put those controversial sections on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Opponents say the law will lead to racial profiling and is trumped by federal immigration law. The judge said Arizona's interest do not "trump" the right of the federal government to manage immigration issues. First reaction to the ruling came from Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, generally expected to be Governor Jan Brewer's opponent in the November general election in the race for Governor. Goddard said, "Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost. Rather than providing the leadership Arizona needs to solve the immigration problem, Jan Brewer signed a bill she could not defend in court which has led to boycotts, jeopardized our tourism industry and polarized our state." State Senator Russell Pearce of Mesa, who sponsored the legislation in the Arizona Legislature, told reporters immediately after the ruling that the state will appeal "immediately".
Blocked does not mean that The Court won't eventually rule on those parts. It is a complex decision that needs time...one month is not long enough for the Court to rule on all parts of the law. Some of the parts that where blocked: carrying proof of citizenship, asking if they are citizens, not soliciting for work...ect. some I support some I don't. As we know the Police have a way to get to the end game many different ways. Instead of site and release on people they suspect being illegal they will just arrest and set bail knowing that ICE checks immigration status on in custodys. Dean
In support of arizona I think Ill plan a mtn biking trip over there.....Looks like a fun place to ride....What time of year is the best time to ride over there?
say what you will ..this is what it sounds like.. [video=youtube;KLni3wbndls]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLni3wbndls[/video]
Great....here they come...#-o In a sign of the international interest in the law, about 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into cheers when speakers told them about the federal judge's ruling. The demonstrators had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer on the stage. The crowd clapped and started chanting, "Migrants, hang on, the people [illegal aliens] are rising up!"
I wonder if the protesters would be as happy if a Mexican judge blocked enforcement of Mexico's immigration laws at its southern border.:-k
i'd rather focus on the millions of people on this side of the border who are happy that our basic rights aren't being squashed just because some folks in AZ need a scapegoat. the state has already lost 100's of $ millions because of event cancellations. and the gop has lost the hispanic vote (again). time to call it a draw...
Here who come? The people who would bend and/or create news to support their agenda? They're already here, Lee. For example, the insertion of "[illegal aliens]" in the above quote. It's not part of the original piece, and completely skews its meaning. More appropriate would have been, "Great...here we go...again...#-o"
I understand your arguments and I respectfully disagree. However, I do continue to find it amusing that the blatant hypocrisy on the part of the Mexican government is seemingly being ignored by the left (and thus the main stream media) simply because its and the Mexican government's interests happen to be aligned with respect to this issue. I am, of course, disappointed with the ruling but I am not surprised. As I have posted elsewhere, I have always thought this law was on shaky ground vis-a-vis the doctrine of federal preemption.
^^ thanks for being respectful (fading art). but a heads-up about a new rule on str: you have to post at least one mtbing comment per month to enter the pub...:lol: (about time to hit the santa monica's again)
Square brackets [] are for putting notes in quotations. If the write had used ( and ) then the parenthetical remark would be in acceptable form. I don't find the meaning skewed in either case.
The ruling will be appealed. The illegal alien sympathizers/cheer leaders should not celebrate just yet. If American businesses... mom and pop establishments to NYSE traded corporations and everything in between... would verify the status of applicants/workers we wouldn't have illegals. Another area that hardly ever, ever gets talked about is the large amount of Europeans that over stay their visas (illegals ) each and every year. While everyone focuses on the southern border there are people from ALL OVER the world sneaking in through the front door. Our government is a joke!
:-k ..news flash kids, we've always been here :bang: [video=youtube;7APYVtWDTFM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7APYVtWDTFM[/video]
