"Poll: Most favor controversial Ariz. immigration law
From a new Ipsos/McClatchy poll:
As you may know, the state of Arizona recently passed a new law that once police stop a person, requires local law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of people they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally. Do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose this new Arizona State law.
61% Favor, 36% Oppose
The survey of 1,016 adults was taken May 6-9. The margin of error was 3.1 percent."
Replies (94)
How legal U.S. citizens feel about Arizona's illegal immigration bill is irrevelant to the politicians.
The only relevency to the politicians is how illegal immigrants feel about it.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, May 19, 2010, at 9:21 AM
I don't like Arizona's law. It won't be long until its unconstitutional. And trust me, people are going to go out of there way to prove it.
I prefer enforcing current laws.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, May 19, 2010, at 10:36 AM
I don't like Arizona's law.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, May 19, 2010, at 10:36 AM
Lumber,
Wht part of it don't you like?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, May 19, 2010, at 11:53 AM
The libs want to fight this Constitutional law to get the illegals' votes when they get amnesty. For those who think that this law is unconstitutional, post something from the Constution that is violated. Until then don't say a word otherwise.
-- Posted by mynameismud on Wed, May 19, 2010, at 12:41 PM
Arizona may counter the LA boycott by offering to restrict electric power distribution to California. LA can make up the loss by selling tarballs to the EPA lovers in Florida.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, May 19, 2010, at 12:51 PM
The citizens may just find the politicians remaining in office as being irrelevant and dismiss them at the next election.
-- Posted by voyager on Wed, May 19, 2010, at 1:00 PM
Talk about racial profiling. If I got pulled over I would not have anything proving I am an American Citizen. I was born here.
Luckily I am a white girl so they would not ask me for proof. But what about Mexican girl who was also born here.
-- Posted by Sunnyday on Wed, May 19, 2010, at 3:34 PM
Sunnyday,
I brought that point up a week or so ago as I have Hispanic friends born in Texas, but the consensus seemed to be I was unpatriotic for even asking questions.
I have not read the bill, so I really can't say much about it one way or the other.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Wed, May 19, 2010, at 4:06 PM
Sunnyday - if you were driving and got pulled over - you would have proof of citizenship, it's called a driver's license. And your Mexican friend that was born here would have one too. A driver's license is proof of citizenship because you need a valid birth certificate to get one in the first place.
If you were pulled over and you don't have a driver's license, then you have committed a crime and the officer can ask you questions as to why you don't have one. If you tell him you do have one, give him your name and he'll verify it -- BUT, if you don't give him a name, and can't produce a valid driver's license, well then, you got problems.
-- Posted by gomer on Wed, May 19, 2010, at 7:10 PM
Arizona is choosing to enforce a law that is already on the books. The feds seem to think they don't have that right.
YET, when California passes state laws re; medical marijuana, the FEDS come in and raid.
As far as profiling, ask any boy under 25 who drives down the road with a couple of friends in the car. These kids are like magnets to the police. Profiling can't be helped I guess.
I still think it's the ridiculous drug war that is creating border violence, not the mexicans per se.
BUT, you see; while we are all arguing about Mexicans, Gays, Abortion and Sarah Palin we are being robbed blind at every turn.
Look at this snip of a story from Apr. 30th 2010 in San Diego... yes sir, the same Feds that are chiding Arizona publicly. We're being SET UP, AGAIN! Sold a bill of goods.
As we know their "war on drugs" is a HUGE money maker, taking peoples houses,ruining young kids lives, confiscating cars and cash, while shooting their dogs in front of the children. (Columbia Mo. just last week)
It's a bit much!!
What I see happening is they really would like to take what they want in their shiny new "war on immigration" just like the drug war.
Anybody who thinks this is all about some illegal Mexicans is sorely fooled.
As the laws pile higher and deeper will the ultimate result be that if you allegedly break a law you lose EVERYTHING?
If they take your assets I guess you would be asking too much for them to leave a little behind so you can give what you have left to an attorney?
If all else fails you just end up in the ever expanding privatized prison system, where you finally get a job because for once your salary can compete with those in other countries that have your job now.
As usual follow the money.
~~~~~~~~~~~
In an indictment released last week, the government said it wants the property where the iconic restaurant has done business since 1979.
That move makes the case against The French Gourmet more than a simple immigration enforcement case. Prosecutors could have several reasons for seeking the property, legal experts said. They may want to make a prominent example of the restaurant as they pursue businesses that hire illegal workers. Or perhaps they want to increase the stakes and the pressure to get guilty pleas.
Whatever the reason, such a move is a rare and maybe even unprecedented wrinkle in the federal government's enforcement program that for the past year has focused on employers who hire illegal workers.
Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said she was unaware of any other instances in which a business was seized as the result of a work-site violation criminal case.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Attorney's Office unsealed the indictment charging owner Michel Malécot, the restaurant corporation that he heads and manager and pastry chef Richard Kauffmann with knowingly hiring undocumented workers.
The indictment seeks criminal forfeiture of the two land parcels the business occupies, which records show have an assessed value of more than $1.3 million.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sunny Day you do not have to be a citizen to get a driving license.
You don't have to be a citizen to work in this country either.
You just have to be here legally and have all your paperwork done correctly.
When you get your green card you are required to carry it with you at all times. No matter what country you are from.
-- Posted by VictoriaD on Wed, May 19, 2010, at 7:50 PM
Mak'i, "wetback"?? That's not very nice.
-- Posted by Turnip on Wed, May 19, 2010, at 10:11 PM
It would be interesting to compare our immigration laws to Mexico's immigration laws. I've been trying to find their laws but no luck so far.
-- Posted by Mowrangler on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 7:05 AM
Can anyone tell me what papers that the Ariz. law requires that are not already required by the federal gov't?
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 7:49 AM
DTower, aren't drivers' licenses issued by the individual states rather than the federal government? (Although judging the feds grab for power and control over everything else, one wonders how long states will retain control.)
-- Posted by voyager on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 7:58 AM
Can anyone tell me what papers that the Ariz. law requires that are not already required by the federal gov't?
-- Posted by DTower on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 7:49 AM
I am not aware of any "papers required" by the federal government which you must produce to preclude incarceration. As I have said repeatedly, I often carry no identification what so ever and don't want to have to.
I haven't read the AZ law, so I can't say that I oppose or support it; just don't want to lose any more freedom than we have already.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 8:07 AM
I wish more human-rights laws were based on opinion of the majority, don't you guys?
Maybe they could successfully bring back slavery in the Old South. "Back by popular demand!" they could say.
-- Posted by FriendO on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 9:01 AM
Maki, I always thought that term refered to people of latino/hispanic descent, illegals or not. I use to hear some people call one of my childhood friends that name. It really hurt his feelings and I would hate for anyone else to feel that way. We are all just people. No more, no less.
-- Posted by Turnip on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 9:12 AM
Turnip you are correct, that term is used just like the n-word and for the same reason. Some people still think whites are superior and would like to return to the "good 'ol days.
-- Posted by concerned4all on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 9:24 AM
The Federal Govt has the power to regulate immigration not the states. This alone makes the Ariz. law illegal. It may be that the feds aren't doing a proper job of enforcing the exsisting laws but that doesn't give the states the right to harass "brown" people. This is simply another form of discrimination. All you right wingers can try to put more lipstick on this pig...but it's still a pig.
-- Posted by riregrist on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 9:49 AM
I thought all you right wingers were for "family values"? Yet, everyone of you seem hellbent on breaking up and destroying Latino families. Hypocrisy or just plain stupidity?
-- Posted by riregrist on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 10:01 AM
Reading this morning's comments, might make one think Cape had a local Democratic Committee meeting last night and handed out talking points.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 10:13 AM
vulcan2004,
How about if you are a passenger or pedestrian.
In all of the training I had, the constant refrain was always, "It's all in how you write the report."
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 12:15 PM
Speaking of reasonable suspicion. Obviously a lot of this is going to depend on the officer making the stop.
Reminds me of the night a drunk hit a parked car 1/2 block from my house. I, as did most of the neighbors who were still awake, came out to see what happened.
Well the police officer shows up and asks someone in the group who owned the car, which was now over the curb and halfway onto the sidewalk. Someone told who and which house they lived in. The officer knocked on the door and the lady opened it a minute later, rubbing her eyes as she was already in bed sleeping. His first command... let me see your driver's license. The lady wasn't amused but the nosey neighbors, including me, sure got a kick out of it. And the officer kind of dropped his head. He knew that probably was not his best opening question/command.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 12:43 PM
@riregrist, and the left wing socialists would rather you kill the baby so you don't have to mess with that pesky family values issue.
-- Posted by vulcan2004 on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 10:05 AM
And the right wingers would rather force their moral agenda on women. I believe that a woman's body is her own. She can do what she wants with it. Personally, I'm against abortion but I realize that this is still a free country(mostly). Just because your viewpoint isn't being reflected in the current law does not mean that you have the right to force everyone to follow it.
-- Posted by riregrist on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 12:51 PM
I suspect reasonable suspicion is determimed by reasoning. Suspicion is not a product of a formula, but an expected probability based on opinion and past experience. Reasonable would mean not out of the parameters of common logic.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 1:04 PM
Lumber,
Wht part of it don't you like?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, May 19, 2010, at 11:53 AM
The part where US citizens have to prove their citizenship at all times or be detained.
I like the idea of the law, up until they violate basic protected rights. A US citizen, born or immigrated, should not have to PROVE they have a right to be hear or be detained.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 1:20 PM
Red,
I've been a passenger in a car and got asked for my I.D. Does that mean my rights were violated?
-- Posted by SpankTheTank on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 12:23 PM
No, but you were not locked up until you could prove who you were and that is my concern.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 1:23 PM
The libs want to fight this Constitutional law to get the illegals' votes when they get amnesty. For those who think that this law is unconstitutional, post something from the Constution that is violated. Until then don't say a word otherwise.
-- Posted by catfish63755 on Wed, May 19, 2010, at 12:41 PM
Ok, how about the 4th amendment?
Fourth Amendment -- Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 1:23 PM
The part where US citizens have to prove their citizenship at all times or be detained.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 1:20 PM
Lumber,
That statement has no basis in fact. If the law is enforced the way I understand is written, you should never have to show anything, if you keep your nose clean... so to speak.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 1:32 PM
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 1:23 PM
Does this then say I cannot be stopped or detained in a routinely set up alcohol checkpoint?? Since I have not been drinking and have been detained until they work their way down to me... can I sue someone?? Yeah, I know you can sue anybody.
Or can a police officer set in a parking lot close to an event serving alcoholic beverages and at will arbitrarely pick out drivers showing no evidence of drinking and detain them. It does happen you know.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 1:37 PM
Does the "people to be secure" refer to citizens?
Is the law "Oathe or affirmation?
I think this law reqires law enforcement to determine illegal before detainment. As in the federal practice, those not determined are released with a promise to appear for later confirmation of status unless otherwise charged with breaking a local law.
I think this is what the folks are saying about it being unconstitutional. Until an instant on the spot technique is devised to make that determination, it is unreasonable to incarserate without being certain the suspect is indeed here illeaglly.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 1:46 PM
Or can a police officer set in a parking lot close to an event serving alcoholic beverages and at will arbitrarely pick out drivers showing no evidence of drinking and detain them. It does happen you know.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 1:37
Like I said before, it all depends on how the report is written.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 1:54 PM
Red,
I am not for taking any more rights away from citizens, but the cat was out of the bag on the enforcement of one law only when you broke another one a long time ago.
The state government dictates a driver and front seat passenger (citizens) has to wear a seat belt. Common sense perhaps dictates that they should do so. Intrusive on rights, I think so, others don't. But they started out a long time ago with enforcement only if you were stopped for another violation, now I believe they can stop you whenever.
I don't see much difference in the Arizona law. Perhaps I am wrong.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:07 PM
Lumber,
That statement has no basis in fact. If the law is enforced the way I understand is written, you should never have to show anything, if you keep your nose clean... so to speak.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 1:32 PM
Unfortunatly, its not written that way. You have to prove your your legal right to be here. So your missouri drivers licences is also not enough.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:08 PM
Does this then say I cannot be stopped or detained in a routinely set up alcohol checkpoint?? Since I have not been drinking and have been detained until they work their way down to me... can I sue someone?? Yeah, I know you can sue anybody.
Or can a police officer set in a parking lot close to an event serving alcoholic beverages and at will arbitrarely pick out drivers showing no evidence of drinking and detain them. It does happen you know.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 1:37 PM
It has nothing to do with being stopped. But rather illegaly detained.
And if you are arrested, its under the suspesion of alcohol.
Just being darker is not a resonable excuse to detain somebody.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:11 PM
Lumber,
Since you seem to know exactly what the Arizona law says, could you post that portion of it that states what you are saying.
My Missouri Driver's license, which until I am age 65, I have to show a birth certificate to obtain, is not proof. Somehow, if I have a valid, not counterfeited Missouri license it would appear as proof of citizenship. Please show me the part that says that is not true.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:14 PM
Does the "people to be secure" refer to citizens?
Is the law "Oathe or affirmation?
I think this law reqires law enforcement to determine illegal before detainment. As in the federal practice, those not determined are released with a promise to appear for later confirmation of status unless otherwise charged with breaking a local law.
I think this is what the folks are saying about it being unconstitutional. Until an instant on the spot technique is devised to make that determination, it is unreasonable to incarserate without being certain the suspect is indeed here illeaglly.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 1:46 PM
Actually, the law allows them to detain immediatly. And if it were to read they you mention, then it is pretty ridiculous. Because the illegal will not show up, and the citizen could be sighted for doing nothing wrong?
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:15 PM
Have_Wheels_Will_Travel,
I agree about the cat being out of the bag and I often ran counter to my colleagues in law enforcement with my opinions as I oppose seat belt laws, helmet laws, sobriety check points and a lot others.
I often carefully choose my words in my posts as while a law may not technically infringe on our rights it significantly does so on our freedoms. I am close to your age and mourn the loss of the way of life I was able to have when growing up and raising my family; a life my kids and grand kids will never know.
As you know, my son is a Police Officer as well as former military as is my son in law. Sometimes we disagree, sometimes not.
Like I said earlier, I don't know enough about the Arizona law to support or attack it, only raise possible concerns.
I have relatives in Arizona and they support it in theory.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:17 PM
lumbrgfktr
perhaps u would feel differently if u lived in Arizona and had to deal with the issues instead of the midwest where there are no foriegn borders .
-- Posted by *Rick* on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 1:48 PM
Perhaps you would feel differently if you had friends of different national origin.
Are you saying its ok to ignore the constitution because Arizona borders mexico?
Or how about instead of creating unconstitutional laws, we fix the stuff that makes it easier to identify alians. Like making sure only legit people can get state documentation.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:18 PM
It has nothing to do with being stopped. But rather illegaly detained.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:11 PM
Lumber,
If I am held against my will, when I really wish to be somewhere else, I am being detained, legally or illegally. The color of my skin has nothing to do with it.
People always want to throw race into the equation.
The facts are, there are many more dark skinned people stopped, arrested, jailed or whatever in North St. Louis on any given night than there are light skinned people. Want to know why that is.... there are more dark skinned people by far living there. Make any sense to you?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:25 PM
Or how about instead of creating unconstitutional laws, we fix the stuff that makes it easier to identify alians. Like making sure only legit people can get state documentation.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:18 PM
Lumber you state this is an unconstituional law. That is nothing more than your opinion, it is not a fact since no court has ruled on it.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:27 PM
Lumber,
Since you seem to know exactly what the Arizona law says, could you post that portion of it that states what you are saying.
My Missouri Driver's license, which until I am age 65, I have to show a birth certificate to obtain, is not proof. Somehow, if I have a valid, not counterfeited Missouri license it would appear as proof of citizenship. Please show me the part that says that is not true.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:14 PM
You are missing the point.
Your Missouri Driver's license is only proof that you can leagally drive in missouri. It is not proof of citizenship, nor recognized by other states as such.
All states are difrernt. Some don't require any proof of citizenship. Heck, in california they almost made it legal to allow illeagals to legally obtain a DL.
In missouri, there is no reference check. all you need is to verbally tell them a SS#. Plus, I beleive you can still use an ITIN.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:32 PM
Red,
Yes, I knew you were in law enforcement and that your son is a police officer.
I have the utmost in respect for the profession. Over the years, I have known and been friends with a number of officers, including relatives. There are some real loosers in that profession as there are in any, but by far the most are good people and try to do what is right.
Heck, as upright and outstanding as the HVAC trade is, we had some first class thieves working among us. ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:33 PM
Lumber,
If I am held against my will, when I really wish to be somewhere else, I am being detained, legally or illegally. The color of my skin has nothing to do with it.
People always want to throw race into the equation.
The facts are, there are many more dark skinned people stopped, arrested, jailed or whatever in North St. Louis on any given night than there are light skinned people. Want to know why that is.... there are more dark skinned people by far living there. Make any sense to you?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:25 PM
People are throwing race into because now you can be legally detained because of your race.
And there might be more dark skinned people stopped, arrested and jailed. But what makes this law different is that you can be doing nothing wrong and be detained.
The law is proorly written and will end up doing more harm than good because it will get thrown out, which will make the issuance of any similar, more enforcable laws much harder to pass.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:37 PM
In missouri, there is no reference check. all you need is to verbally tell them a SS#. Plus, I beleive you can still use an ITIN.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:32 PM
Lumber,
If you are talking about renewing your driver's license you might want to read up on what is now required or I assure you, your next trip there is going to require you go home and then make a 2nd trip. You need a birth certificate to renew your driver's license unless you are 65 years of age or older.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:37 PM
Wheels,
Not talking about renewing. Why would I be renewing If I don't have one? You don't have to produce a birth certificate if you were not born in the US.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:44 PM
vulcan,
You have to give riregrist time to catch up with the trend, but he is progressing as evidenced by this statement where he is using Sarah Palin's words from the last Presidential race:
All you right wingers can try to put more lipstick on this pig...but it's still a pig.
-- Posted by riregrist on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 9:49 AM
Shoot by the time 2012 rolls around, he will probably be holding Fund Raisers for her campaign.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:48 PM
Not talking about renewing. Why would I be renewing If I don't have one? You don't have to produce a birth certificate if you were not born in the US.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:44 PM
Lumber,
What were you talking about if you were not talking about renewing a Missouri license, since that is what we were talking about?
Since you haven't chosen to post the part of the Arizona Law you are claiming knowledge of, would you answer me this. Have you read the Arizona Law?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:52 PM
Heck, as upright and outstanding as the HVAC trade is, we had some first class thieves working among us. ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel
I am shocked I tell you shocked and amazed ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
Have a good day, I am going over to the tractor and ATV/UTV forums where I have a little actual knowledge on the subject and I emphasize "little".
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:54 PM
Bye Red!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:57 PM
vulcan2004,
I think I have said this before, but will repeat it. I haven't read the law and may be all wet on this. I have no objection to questioning a person about their immigration status, I just don't like it if a person is going to be incarcerated if they can't prove they are a citizen by providing on the spot such papers/proof.
Again, I can't support or oppose something of which I don't know not only the specifics, but reasoned arguments. I have also spent enough time in law libraries and court to know that a statute doesn't always mean what it says, only what in the end the courts determine it means.
Now off to more fun stuff.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 3:10 PM
Bye Wheels, keep em at bay as best as you can.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 3:12 PM
@riregrist, that baby is an individual in my book. I don't want to see them killed anymore than I want to see your child murdered.
-- Posted by vulcan2004 on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 2:40 PM
Babies and embryos are two very different things. You can put an embryo into the freezer for awhile, then pull it out, thaw it and it's perfectly OK. You can't do that with a baby and have it come out in the same condition that it went in. No one here is suggesting killing babies. Regardless of your rhetoric, you do not have the right to enforce your moral beliefs on women.
-- Posted by riregrist on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 3:14 PM
Wheels, if she would promise to run in the 2012 election as a republican, I would definitely donate to her campaign. I didn't know she held the patent on the pig comment. BTW, if you actually think Caribou Barbie was the person who thought up the pig and lipstick comment, you are dumber than I thought.
-- Posted by riregrist on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 3:20 PM
Wheels,
You are the one who brought up renewing a lincence for what ever reason. But it gets back to my whole point. Lets federaly mandate identification requirements. i don't like the Idea of california issuing a DL to an illegal imigrant. Also, according to most circumstances, a licence from another state is an acceptable form of identification. I know many prefer to let remain a state's rights, but we have are a point now where a state's ID transends bordrs.
As far as part of the law I don't like, it doesn't dictate how a person can be approached. So 2 guys waiting for a bus...Or me and my coworker traveling to a business meeting. Then on top of it, possibly detaining people, for the end result of nothing more than fine since Arizona can't deport them?
Now i did read somewhere that there is a house bill that is not as demanding, but i have not read it.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 3:32 PM
Wheels, if she would promise to run in the 2012 election as a republican, I would definitely donate to her campaign. I didn't know she held the patent on the pig comment. BTW, if you actually think Caribou Barbie was the person who thought up the pig and lipstick comment, you are dumber than I thought.
-- Posted by riregrist on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 3:20 PM
Nope riregrist, didn't think she invented the comment and have heard it many times before. Just thought it was interesting that you were using the same termonology. Thought you might be coming around to her way of thinking. Thst's all.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 3:45 PM
Wheels,
You are the one who brought up renewing a lincence for what ever reason. But it gets back to my whole point. Lets federaly mandate identification requirements. i don't like the Idea of california issuing a DL to an illegal imigrant. Also, according to most circumstances, a licence from another state is an acceptable form of identification. I know many prefer to let remain a state's rights, but we have are a point now where a state's ID transends bordrs.
As far as part of the law I don't like, it doesn't dictate how a person can be approached. So 2 guys waiting for a bus...Or me and my coworker traveling to a business meeting. Then on top of it, possibly detaining people, for the end result of nothing more than fine since Arizona can't deport them?
Now i did read somewhere that there is a house bill that is not as demanding, but i have not read it.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 3:32 PM
Lumber,
Federally mandating means nothing if the dumb**** in Washington do nothing as they have for the past 10 -20 years. I don't know how long.
And as I suspected you haven't read the law or you would say so. So you really do not know anything more than what you have heard, just like the rest of us.
In fact we are all in the same position that moron Holder was in the other day when he said he was against the law and then as attorney general had to admit he had not read it and knew little about what it actually contained. The only thing he knew for sure was he did not like it.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 3:50 PM
Wheels,
I agree about washington. Which is why we have the problems with immigration and why it's difficult to infource. Arizona is piggy backing on an already screwed up system.
And wheels, I have read the law we are discussing. SB 1070. The part I mentioned I havn't read is a arizona house bill.
My issues deal mainly with line 16 through 26.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 4:04 PM
Wheels, has Holder even read and understood the existing FEDERAL law in regard to illegial aliens, do you suppose?
-- Posted by voyager on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 5:02 PM
Regarding Arizona law violating fourth amendment: Brown vs Texas establishes that LEO violates fourth if there is no witness or reasonable suspicion of a crime committed.
The Arizona law complies with this and recognizes that a person cannot be detained indefinately.
The law also deals with the question of an officer suspecting a person is committing a crime by trespassing or being here illegally. That is why LEO must have cause or witness of state/local law violation before contact and continuing with detainment for determination of citizenship.
It is unlawful in Az for a person to enter your car for the purpose of negotiating for employment and transportation away from the area "if" your vehicle impedes the normal flow of traffic due to stopping. Several other laws aimed at illegals give officers probable cause.
I expect it will take an incident leading to a court test to sort it all out.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 6:48 PM
Wiff:
Do you think George Bush or any presidents that preceeded him actually read a complete bill? That's what they have all these staffers for.
-- Posted by howdydoody on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 9:12 PM
I betcha, Howdy, a heck of a lot of them never came close to the number of pages as Obama's healthcare bill. Short sentences, paragraphs, and few pages make better reading. A lot quicker,too.
-- Posted by voyager on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 10:35 PM
Wheels, has Holder even read and understood the existing FEDERAL law in regard to illegial aliens, do you suppose?
-- Posted by voyager on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 5:02 PM
Voyager,
He probably has by now, but a few days past, when he was under questioning, I believe in Congress, had to admit that he had not read it. But he knew he was against it. I think the bill that was signed into law in Arizona was 12 pages long, and our chief law enforcement office had not found time to read it. Wonder if he gets called on to defend Obamacare, he will find the time to read a couple thousand pages plus.
Been gone all evening, I was off to my Grandson's high school graduation.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 11:02 PM
Wheels,
I agree about washington. Which is why we have the problems with immigration and why it's difficult to infource. Arizona is piggy backing on an already screwed up system.
And wheels, I have read the law we are discussing. SB 1070. The part I mentioned I havn't read is a arizona house bill.
My issues deal mainly with line 16 through 26.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 4:04 PM
Lumber,
I have not previously read Arizona's Law which is SB1070 I believe. Tonight I have skimmed every page of the copy I found on the internet however and find it to be 16 pages, not 12 as was reported somewhere, plus a cover and if you had read it you would know there are lines 16 thru 26 on each of those 16 pages., Which page are you concerned about?
From what I read, they do not say specifically what you have to produce to prove citizenship, rather they refer to what federal law says. A good portion of this bill deals with businesses under Arizona's jurisdiction, and all of the bad things that are going to happen to them if they hire people without proper documentation.
Lumber, regarding Arizona piggy backing on an already screwed up system. How do we know a system is screwed up if enforcement of said laws or system has not been tried by the Feds. The problem is again Washington. I don't blame Arizona and if Holder and Obama don't like the fact that Arizona is trying to protect their own turf, then do something about it... enforce the law you swore to uphold. No excuses from the past, Bush did not do his job, Clinton did not do his, and how many more?
So far as you being targeted on a business trip, I would bet if you show them a valid driver's license from your home state, the immigration issue will be mute. You may however get a ticket for running a red light.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 11:46 PM
Just scrolling through, and saw this:
" "wetback"?? That's not very nice."
Wetback isn't necessarily a derogatory term. It was coined decades ago (heck, maybe even longer ago than that), because Mexican citizens coming to America illegally had to cross the Rio Grand River in order to get here ... thus the term 'wetback' was used to describe them (because those who had the proper papers to come didn't have to wade the river).
Anyone know how difficult it might be for a Mexican citizen to apply for and receive a 'green card?' It really wasn't a very big deal in the past. It gives them permission to live and work here, but if I recall they had to go back to their home country every 6 months and renew their card.
It's sort of that way in Mexico: non-citizens must have a permit to live there, and have to go to a border crossing every 6 months to have it renewed. The difference is ... non-citizens are not allowed to work in Mexico (think there's an exception for those working for American companies there).
Doesn't seem quite fair, does it?
-- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, May 21, 2010, at 3:54 AM
gurusmom, I'm sure the people who came up with chinx (sp.), towelhead, honkey or sandni**er were also well-intentioned, thoughtful people who were just trying to describe one's nationality. I mean afterall, they do live in the dessert and do appear to have some type of cloth wrapped around their head. Right? Sorry, I'm not buying it. It is deragatory and cruel.
On a side note, Maki apologized which is good enough for me.
-- Posted by Turnip on Sat, May 22, 2010, at 12:33 PM
Now how do we get the Obama administration to enforce with vigor the Feberal immigration laws already on the books? Don't think they're going to do it.
Maybe after November 2 elections and the new Congress convenes in January, Obama should be told point blank enforce the immigration laws or be impeached. Derelection of duty should easily fall within "High Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Why wait until 2012 to rid ourselves of this incompetent loser.
-- Posted by voyager on Sat, May 22, 2010, at 12:55 PM
We get them to enforce the immigration laws the same way Bush did. It's all political BS from both sides. Did you ever see a politician do what was best for the people? No, they do what is best to get re-elected. So, Voy, don't expect anything soon to erupt. If we impeached every POTUS that didn't enforce laws, we would never have one make it until Feb 1st following their inauguration. Don't get me wrong I'm not taking up for Obama, but let's not get ridiculous talking impeachment.
-- Posted by howdydoody on Sat, May 22, 2010, at 1:24 PM
Don't get me wrong I'm not taking up for Obama, but let's not get ridiculous talking impeachment.
-- Posted by howdydoody on Sat, May 22, 2010, at 1:24 PM
Why not Howdy. You guys wanted to impeach Bush, for one reason because he wouldn't close the borders. This clown is Bush on steroids.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, May 23, 2010, at 8:44 AM
Wheels:
You have BS running out your ears. You never, ever heard me say I wanted to see Bush impeached,never, for any reason. So stick your opinion about where I stood on Bush where the sun don't shine. Prove that I wanted to see him impeached or shut up. I call 'em like I see 'em, black,white,Dem or Repub, liberal or conservative.
So, shove it!!!
-- Posted by howdydoody on Sun, May 23, 2010, at 9:28 AM
I'm part Native American. You're all illegal immigrants as far as I'm concerned.
-- Posted by Professor_Bubba on Sun, May 23, 2010, at 9:52 AM
Professor_Bubba,
Unless you or your relatives were the very first across the land bridge, so are you.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Sun, May 23, 2010, at 10:16 AM
Part Native American? In such case you are part illegal immigrant.
By the way, Native Americans' crossed from Asia to this continent. Illegal immigrants also?
-- Posted by voyager on Sun, May 23, 2010, at 10:20 AM
-- Posted by Lumpy on Sun, May 23, 2010, at 12:46 PM
Y'all don't consider the line with Arkansas a foreign border?
-- Posted by voyager on Sun, May 23, 2010, at 1:16 PM
Vandeven, Walter Williams is saying what many of us have said.
I can not understand why the polititians, as clever as they are, would feel threatened by this approach. They can always take credit for the "widening the gate" part to get the votes they seek; All the while blaming opponents for the "tough love" part.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, May 23, 2010, at 5:02 PM
OJ,
Dr. Williams is well respected by libertarians. I disagree with him in this matter, but I still respect him. And you too.
I was viewing a video of a Senatorial debate last week. I am watching these things not for fun, but because I am going to be participating in some debates in Rolla at the end of June.
One of the questions referred to the "immigration crisis".
I gotta feeling that my answer regarding the "immigration crisis" is going to raise some eyebrows.
IMHO there aren't enough immigrants, and that is a crisis.
-- Posted by Lumpy on Sun, May 23, 2010, at 8:54 PM
Vandeven, I am in favor of widening the gate, but feel there should be incentive to come through the gate.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, May 23, 2010, at 8:59 PM
They want to work, and employers want to employ them.
Good enough for me.
-- Posted by Lumpy on Sun, May 23, 2010, at 9:06 PM
WHY NOT, Totaly off subject, but may I ask? E.P. Coleman ring a bell? I'm still trying to learn about Trailback.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, May 23, 2010, at 9:22 PM
Howdy,
Dang man, you're too excitable!
There was screaming and shouting for Bush's impeachment. So with your liberal slants I lumped you in with the rest of them. If you weren't then I apologize. ☻ ☻ ☻
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, May 23, 2010, at 10:07 PM
Lumber,
I have not previously read Arizona's Law which is SB1070 I believe. Tonight I have skimmed every page of the copy I found on the internet however and find it to be 16 pages, not 12 as was reported somewhere, plus a cover and if you had read it you would know there are lines 16 thru 26 on each of those 16 pages., Which page are you concerned about?
From what I read, they do not say specifically what you have to produce to prove citizenship, rather they refer to what federal law says. A good portion of this bill deals with businesses under Arizona's jurisdiction, and all of the bad things that are going to happen to them if they hire people without proper documentation.
Lumber, regarding Arizona piggy backing on an already screwed up system. How do we know a system is screwed up if enforcement of said laws or system has not been tried by the Feds. The problem is again Washington. I don't blame Arizona and if Holder and Obama don't like the fact that Arizona is trying to protect their own turf, then do something about it... enforce the law you swore to uphold. No excuses from the past, Bush did not do his job, Clinton did not do his, and how many more?
So far as you being targeted on a business trip, I would bet if you show them a valid driver's license from your home state, the immigration issue will be mute. You may however get a ticket for running a red light.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 11:46 PM
Wheels,
The copy I read was provided by the state and numbered each section.
However, when dealing with my rights and the law, vagueness may work for you, but not me. They do not say specifically what you have to produce to prove citizenship? Might be alright with an out of state Drivers license? None of that is spelled out, but they still want to detain.
Its funny how people change their beliefs. If you are so trusting in how laws should be enforced, would you be ok with a gun law that says all former criminals found with guns can be confiscated? Sure they MEANT violent felons, but hey I see a jay walking ticket so I can take your guns. Would you be ok with such a law? I know I would not be. This is the same situation. I am sure that police will detain regular citizens, but I don't want to give the legal means to do such.
I actually can't believe more people don't have a problem with this law. It allows for legal, born in the USA citizens to be detained against their will and people are OK with it.
Parts of this bill I agree with. But it goes too far. You should not be able to simply pick somebody up on a whim, which is what is allowed here. And people WILL test this law and it will probably get thrown out, which is sad because it has some good parts.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, May 24, 2010, at 3:41 PM
How do you fight illegal immigration...
Well first you develop national standards for identification.
(ex: If you have a Missouri drivers license, here is what you have to provide.... Make it the same for every state. If California wants to allow illegals to have a drivers license, that is fine. Make a California only license. Missouri should not have to honor illegal citizens).
Stop allowing federal tax ID#s as social security numbers
Create a national data bank that can cross reference all of this.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, May 24, 2010, at 3:48 PM
lumbrgfktr ,
first off , i have a neice was is latino , why would this make a difference ?
secondly , what unconstitutional laws are you refering to?
and last..you don't live in Arizona , you have no idea what those folks down there are going thru..
-- Posted by *Rick* on Sun, May 23, 2010, at 10:27 AM
And you don't live in Arizone either, so I guess you also have no opinion on the subject either. What I am is a US citizen, so the law does effect me.
Listen, you may be ok with your niece being picked up and detained for no good reason. However, I am not.
I also work with american born hispanics and have american born hispanics in my family and I don't want to see them detained in Arizona either.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, May 24, 2010, at 3:59 PM
I betcha, Howdy, a heck of a lot of them never came close to the number of pages as Obama's healthcare bill. Short sentences, paragraphs, and few pages make better reading. A lot quicker,too.
-- Posted by voyager on Thu, May 20, 2010, at 10:35 PM
Now that we know global warming doesn't exist, i guess its ok to kill trees.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, May 24, 2010, at 4:01 PM
º¿º
-- Posted by Turnip on Mon, May 24, 2010, at 4:49 PM
James, Do you disagree with streamlining our immigration process or enforcing the laws?
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, May 24, 2010, at 6:00 PM
Laws against immigration, perhaps not; laws regulating immigration, yes absolutely.
-- Posted by voyager on Tue, May 25, 2010, at 12:12 AM
dam son , you are thick !
that is my opinion -- if u don't live in Arizona and don't have to deal with it , why worry about it..
don't worry about my niece !
-- Posted by *Rick* on Mon, May 24, 2010, at 5:02 PM
Again, its not just arizona. It's anybody who goes to arizona.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, May 25, 2010, at 8:28 AM
Why is it something we can do nothing about?
Now They are telling their hispanic teachers that have spanish accents to speak proper english or get out of the class room.
What is next?
-- Posted by futile_rant on Tue, May 25, 2010, at 1:06 PM
Do any of you bleeding hearts who are crying crocadile tears for the illegals even know a legal alien or a naturalized citizen? If you do, have you ever asked them what they think of the illegal problem? Well, I do. I have a friend in Arkansas who immigrated to the U. S. when he was a child. When we met him we knew right away that he was not the typical Arkansan, but we couldn't figure out where he was from. We decided he was either biracial, hispanic, or a particular sing song quality to his voice made me think he might be Indian. However, he did not fit my preconcieved ideas of what an Indian should look like. In my, not very extensive experience, Indians are short, slight people. That description did not fit Terry. He is over six feet tall and sturdily built.When my husband asked him where he was from, he smiled and said Minnesota. As it turned out, his grandfather was from Punjab and his family name wa Singh. His grandfather immigrated from India to British Guiana. Then, Terry's parents and family immigrated from British Guiana to Minnesota when he was a baby.His family has lived the immigrant's dream. Their father made sure his children were educated. Terry was an engineer and his siblings are doctors, nurses and attorneys. Terry has no sympathy for the illegals. Just today he sent me an email about immigration. It is very interesting and I would be glad to share it with anyone who would like to see it. If anyone is interested in this, just email your email adress to marygoodlad@yahoo.com and I will send it to you.
-- Posted by mitziesmomma on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 12:54 PM
Rant, it is high time to enforce the speaking of English in the classroom. Ultimately, the students are going to be working in an English speaking environment.
Learn English or leave.
-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 1:09 PM
Linda Sanchez in California has it figured out. She says the Arizona's crackdown on immigration is fueled by white supremist groups based in Arizona.
I wonder if she will still have favor when LA has it's first brown out.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jun 4, 2010, at 1:16 PM
This is perhaps dreging up an abandoned thread but thought this little tidbit I received from a friend this morning relates.
Menu
Funny how so many politicians don't agree with the Arizona immigration bill that the majority of Americans agree with.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitic...
"Poll: Most favor controversial Ariz. immigration law
From a new Ipsos/McClatchy poll:
As you may know, the state of Arizona recently passed a new law that once police stop a person, requires local law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of people they reasonably suspect of being in the country illegally. Do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose this new Arizona State law.
61% Favor, 36% Oppose
The survey of 1,016 adults was taken May 6-9. The margin of error was 3.1 percent."
Replies (94)