Michelle Malkin and Immigration

Funny video. Francisco made a total fool out of himself. Why would the President be against controlling illegal immigration?? :-k #-oNothing is going to get done.
 
Hannity bugs the crap out of me, but that chick's game is swinging!
 
Folks,

So much attention has been given to the "Amnesty Activists", yet 70% of AZ residents support this legislation. This will not cause racial profiling. This will help local law enforcement agents question the legal status of ONLY those arrested for criminal activity. The AZ residents are sick and tired of the Fed Gov doing nothing about the open border situation. Criminals, drug smugglers, and gang members are literally crossing the border with no reservation through land owner's back yards. There is nothing racist here.

By the way, I am an American that happens to be of full Mexican decent.

Sincerely,

Mr. Gutierrez
 
I don't get the big deal (well, I do and it has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with some positive PR (finally) after the health care debacle by playing the race card). When you are getting killed in the polls, nothing like accusing the other side of racism to solidify your position and buy, in this case, the Latino vote for the next billion years...

If you are American, irrespective of your race, you will break out your drivers license or passport when you get pulled over, just like everybody. But there will be no more refusing to provide evidence of citizenship to avoid deportation.

When I am in a foreign country, I always carry proof of my right to be there (e.g., passport with the visa stamped in it). And if I get stopped in a foreign country, I have every expectation I will be asked to provide proof as to my right to be there or be sent on the next plane home. Why should illegal aliens here be any different?

And on a side note, maybe racial profiling has a place in our society (although I will probably be pilloried for saying this). I am not saying we should build interment camps, but I am saying that extra scrutiny should be paid in the airport security line to the guy wearing robes and reading the Koran, given that odds are that if somebody is going to take a plane down in 2010, it is a Muslim. Or that an illegal in California is probably from Central America. Or that the guy saying "eh" in Montana is a Canadian, etc.
 
breaking the law is illegal. they should have to leave the country.

(they = the employers that hire undocumented workers).

btw- 70% of the people in the south used to support slavery. i'm glad they didn't get to vote on it.

also- follow the money; the group that helped write this law is all about eugenics and white supremacy.
 
As much as I can't stand Hannity or Malkin, worse is someone who makes them look good.

Also, this guy Hernandez was specificly hand picked for the show. Hannity would never be foolish enough to have a knowledgeable guest to counter with.

As for the legislation, I'm all for it. Some of my ancestors were the original people here on this continent, the rest had to go through the legal process of getting into this country - so I have no problem with getting rid of anyone who can't be bothered by following the rules and waiting their turn in line to get through the gate legally. It would also take care of the associated problems and costs of anchor babies as well.

Why is it some groups feel they are not only entitled to bypass the law, but are also entitled to a cut to the front of the line?

The costs of illegal immigration are extremely burdensome, especially to the states. With this legislation, the Feds are now forced to deal with the very real issue of immigration and border security. Something every previous administrivia has basically ignored.

The legal residents of AZ have spoken loud and clear to the issue of trying to keep their border secure. They are no longer willing to wait on the Feds to take the initiative. The message to the Feds; if you are not going to take of it, we will do it for you.
 
dirtvert said:
breaking the law is illegal. they should have to leave the country.

(they = the employers that hire undocumented workers).

btw- 70% of the people in the south used to support slavery. i'm glad they didn't get to vote on it.
Click to expand...


undocumented workers = illegal immigrants
 
people can't be illegal, only their actions can. but misusing language is a great way to make people seem sub-human.

again--why aren't the employers being punished? maybe because they're mostly white? maybe because we really want cheap labor, we just don't want those people to have any rights, and if we make them live in the shadows it makes it easier for us to sleep at night?
 
Edit: off the main topic. I'll leave that one for another day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dirtvert said:
people can't be illegal, only actions can. but misusing language is a great way to make people seem sub-human.
Click to expand...

I see, so there is no such thing as a poacher on trails that are illegal to ride. Or does a poacher not equal an illegal rider? The term illegal alien doesn't mean the person is illegal, but that their immigration status is the result of an illegal act.

By the way, I think you are absolutely right that we ought to ping employers who hire illegal immigrants -- Arizona has also been doing that for quite awhile with success.
 
Its just another battle that cant be one.. You cannot control the amount of people that want to come into our country just as you cant control drugs or terrorism you can only deal with it. These problems cannot be fixed no matter how much money you throw at them.. If you make legal avenues to enter the country more realistic you will save money any more people will come legally. But you will never end illegal imigration.
 
dirtvert said:
people can't be illegal, only actions can. but misusing language is a great way to make people seem sub-human.

again--why aren't the employers being punished? maybe because they're mostly white? maybe because we really want cheap labor, we just don't want those people to have any rights?
Click to expand...


The people, in reference, are not illegal. However, their status as immigrants to this country is.

Misusing language is also a great way to make actions that are illegal seem "ok".

Sort of like having your bike locked in the back of your truck, then someone "unlocks the bike and borrows it indefinitely".
 
dirtvert said:
breaking the law is illegal. they should have to leave the country.

(they = the employers that hire undocumented workers)
Click to expand...

Dirt

I completely agree with you there needs to be strong consequences for the employers who hire them.
 
This law will not stop illegal immigration. People will endure any amount of suffering if they think it will lead to a better life. Throw them out and they will just come back, and enforcement will just be a burden that already strapped State resources can't afford. This is just divisive, election year BS. You want to solve illegal immigration, then find a way to improve Mexico's economy, otherwise you're just spinning your wheels.
 
Punk Sanders said:
This law will not stop illegal immigration. People will endure any amount of suffering if they think it will lead to a better life. Throw them out and they will just come back, and enforcement will just be a burden that already strapped State resources can't afford. This is just divisive, election year BS. You want to solve illegal immigration, then find a way to improve Mexico's economy, otherwise you're just spinning your wheels.
Click to expand...

I disagree for at least four reasons:

1. The hassle factor will be huge for the workers -- every time they come across it costs them money that they are no longer earning (to live or to hire a mule). Not to mention that crossing the Sonoran desert can be dangerous, particularly in the summer.

2. As workers get displaced they must be replaced by the employer. Not only has the work force been reduced, but employers lose money when they have to retrain, etc. Employers are better off at some cost point hiring employees that are not likely to just disappear tomorrow.

3. As Arizona becomes less friendly to illegals, illegals will be more cautious using services for fear of being caught and deported, which will reduce a portion of the strain on the budget (although this could be a wash or a negative loss due to the costs of deporting these people). Or they will simply go elsewhere voluntarily -- i.e., California, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Colorado.

4. The illegals have to cross through the war zone now known as northern Mexico. That alone might be a deterrent.

All things considered, I think these intangible factors will have some effect -- the question is whether the effect will be worth the cost.
 
I will be watching for celebrities, businesses, and governments that announce a boycott of Arizona, and I will organize to boycott them.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 17 (members: 0, guests: 17)
Robots: 19

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
63,881
Messages
979,779
Members
16,214
Latest member
Ron Barkin
Back
Top