Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Illegal immigration and the state of Arizona

View Poll Results: Do you support Arizona's new immigration law?
Poll Options:
Yes 23 votes (63.89%)
No 13 votes (36.11%)
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll
Illegal immigration and the state of Arizona (Page 4)
Thread Tools
Rumor
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the verge of insanity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2010, 09:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
What law would that be?

Maybe if you are driving you have to carry your driver license.

I go jogging without my wallet.

My 90 something year old grandma goes for a walk every morning. Don't not have an ID and does not speak a word of English.
I may have been wrong.

Originally Posted by http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071003114409AAOBi8n
First, what the United States Supreme Court said. What the United States Supreme Court held in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (2004) 542 U.S. 177, was that a state could make it a crime for a person to refuse to identify himself (i.e., tell the officer his name and address) when lawfully detained for criminal activity. Note that the Supreme Court did NOT say that any kind of identification papers could be required, nor did they say that police officers could ordinarily arrest someone for refusing to identify himself absent a state law permitting that arrest. There is no law in the United States requiring everybody to carry ID, at least not yet.

There is NO law in California requiring anybody to carry identification. There is no law making it illegal for anyone (even someone lawfully detained) to fail to have identification papers or to refuse to identify himself (there was such a law, which was declared unconstitutional). Thus, Hiibel is of no effect in California, since there is no comparable law there. (It is, however, a crime to give a FALSE identification.)

A person CANNOT be arrested just for failing to identify himself or failing to have ID, even with a lawful detention. It is NOT interfering with an officer. The only effect of not having ID occurs if a police officer has probable cause to believe an arrestee has committed a criminal offense. A police officer who could otherwise give an arrestee a citation to appear would instead take the person into custody to appear before a magistrate. But this is ONLY if the officer has probable cause to believe the person has committed a crime--NOT just because the person did not have ID.

Of course, one must have identification in his or her possession when driving, and a police officer obviously can demand to see a drivers license from any driver lawfully detained.
Source(s):
30+ years as a criminal defense attorney
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Uhm, is that a question or a comment ?

-t
It seems I omitted a word that would have made the question understandable. My bad.

Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Many states and municipalites have laws requiring just that. When I was in the USAF in Denver, CO in the early 80s, CO had a law saying that not only were you required to have an ID, but at least $10 on you.IL has a curfew law that requires all people over 18 to be able to prove it, because minors are curfewed after midnight. Gonna cry "agism" now and say THEY are being profiled?
I think I was 18 or 19 in Cal when I was told it was required for me to carry an ID at all times. However, the area I was in had no curfew. Perhaps I was lied to?
I like my water with hops, malt, hops, yeast, and hops.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2010, 09:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Rumor View Post

I think I was 18 or 19 in Cal when I was told it was required for me to carry an ID at all times. However, the area I was in had no curfew. Perhaps I was lied to?
The only time I remember there being a curfew in Los Angeles is during the LA riots. No one under the age of 18 was allow in the streets after 8PM or something like that.


I go jogging without my wallet. Texas Governor Rick Perry goes jogging with a laser-sighted gun. Hopefully he doesn't carry it in his pocket with it cocked.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/04...erry_jogs.html
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2010, 10:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Crash, you've outdone yourself in volume over substance. Your questions are farcical. There is no rational reason to expect that Mexico's and the United States' immigration policies would be the same any more than they would be on any other topic.
The crooks in charge of Mexico are some of the worst offenders in trying to undermine US immigration laws- I of course wouldn't expect you to even know that, let alone ever begin to ask why. They act like the US enforcing it's immigration laws is 'Nazi Germany' (along with their useful idiots here in the states on their behalf) while a look at their own immigration laws clearly reveals that they, like every other country on earth, have their own immigration laws- actually much tougher than the ones they whine about in the US, and they aren't set up to be any other nation's welfare system, and they strictly enforce them. So if this is so terrible, why aren't you down in Mexico protesting their immigration laws? You do realize don't you that we have Mexican citizens here in the US protesting our immigration laws?

I realize all of this is WAY WAY too deep a subject for someone like you that can't look deeper into any issue than what will fit on a bumper-sticker, but so be it.


And it's not hypocrisy for people in the United States to be more interested in U.S. policy than Mexican policy -- that's rational self-interest.
Exactly. Which is why it's far more important to people that the US to enforce its own immigrations laws, in the interests of the United States, than to continue to ignore them, based on the wishes of corrupt fatcats in Mexico (and their willing enablers here in the US) not the bests interests of American citizens and taxpayers.

And the issue is not that "brown-skinned people" are expected to obey the same laws, it's that people think the law in practice will impose a burden in an unfair way based on race. I assume you understand these things.
It's clear you don't understand those things, as you basically just proved my point. You think 'in practice' that it's somehow 'unfair' to expect Mexicans to be able to obey the laws of the United States, and so therefore laws are unfair based on race. So I'll ask you, what is it about someone's race that you think makes it so 'unfair' for them to be able to comply with immigration laws?
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2010, 10:39 PM
 
Crash, I've attacked your argument, not you personally. Give me the same courtesy, and spare the "I wouldn't expect you to understand" crap. It makes it appear that you are not interested in serious conversation.
( Last edited by SpaceMonkey; Apr 28, 2010 at 10:46 PM. )

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2010, 10:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
It's clear you don't understand those things, as you basically just proved my point. You think 'in practice' that it's somehow 'unfair' to expect Mexicans to be able to obey the laws of the United States, and so therefore laws are unfair based on race. So I'll ask you, what is it about someone's race that you think makes it so 'unfair' for them to be able to comply with immigration laws?
Haha... Mexicans don't obey the laws of the US.

Because white folks always obey the law.

I heard most pedophiles are white men.

I say anyone who looks like a pedophile should be questioned and ask for an ID to make sure they are not a pedophile, especially white men.

It's too bad that white men can't keep their hands of young boys.
( Last edited by hyteckit; Apr 28, 2010 at 11:01 PM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2010, 11:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
The crooks in charge of Mexico are some of the worst offenders in trying to undermine US immigration laws
Fine, Crash. But why does that matter with respect to the AZ law? The problems that people see in the AZ law have nothing whatsoever to do with Mexican policy. The law should be criticized and defended on its own merits.

Exactly. Which is why it's far more important to people that the US to enforce its own immigrations laws, in the interests of the United States, than to continue to ignore them, based on the wishes of corrupt fatcats in Mexico (and their willing enablers here in the US) not the bests interests of American citizens and taxpayers.
I'm all for fair, equal, rational, consistent, and effective enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. I think most of the people who criticize this AZ law are of that same opinion. The concern, as I have explained, is that people think the practical effect of the law will be neither fair nor effective in enforcing immigration policy.

It's clear you don't understand those things, as you basically just proved my point. You think 'in practice' that it's somehow 'unfair' to expect Mexicans to be able to obey the laws of the United States, and so therefore laws are unfair based on race. So I'll ask you, what is it about someone's race that you think makes it so 'unfair' for them to be able to comply with immigration laws?
No, Crash, in fact I said explicitly the opposite. I said that the issue is not that people think it is unfair for Mexican immigrants to have to follow the rules. As I tried to explain, the issue is that people have concerns that the law as applied will be unfairly discriminatory against legal immigrants and citizens of Hispanic background.

Please engage my actual points from now on.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2010, 11:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Crash, I've attacked your argument, not you personally. Give me the same courtesy, and spare the "I wouldn't expect you to understand" crap. It makes it appear that you are not interested in serious conversation.
I'm not interested in a serious conversation with you, as I've seen no idication you're capable of one.

By the way, my QUITE SERIOUS question that you convieniently ignored (yeah, real serious conversation) stands: a show of hands of how many people travel to a foreign country and don't bring the required documents with them. Haven't seen any hands yet. Do people routinely travel to other countries, not bring documents with them, then bitch and whine and call everyone Nazis when a customs official, border agent, police, etc. ask who you are, where you're from, and what you're doing in their country?

If you're fully capable of complying with the laws of a nation you wish to go to, understand why you'll need your passport/ID/license/visas/travel documents, etc. why is it you somehow believe Mexicans are incapable of doing the same, and therefore a nation's immigration laws are 'unfair' and 'racist' to them? It's a general question, not for anyone in particular. Maybe try and actually ANSWER it honestly, not hide behind the usual noise from the peanut gallery.

Meanwhile- as the batshit insane left plots boycotts of AZ, the fair minded people are planning more travel than ever to AZ to make up for your stupidity. Personally, the wife and I will make an extra trip to Sedona coming up, we were going somewhere else, but now we want to show support for AZ standing up for itself in the face of all the attacks from morons and race-baiters. We've been needing a certain big-ticket item, so we'll be buying it in AZ during our trip as well, and generally trying to spend a little more than usual too boot. Glad to help the AZ economy to do our part to make up for at least a few of the idiot 'boycotters'. (Libs, you're a bunch of cheapskates anyway, at least a few of you will not be missed by the good folks of AZ!)

I'm also planning to be in Phoenix and Scottsdale at least a few times more than I need to be normally. Up yours lefties.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2010, 11:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
Fine, Crash. But why does that matter with respect to the AZ law? The problems that people see in the AZ law have nothing whatsoever to do with Mexican policy.
Actually, it has everything to do with Mexican policy. The official policy of the Mexican government has long been to subvert American immigration laws. It's no secret that they derive a HUGE portion of the nation's GDP from their exploitation of their own citizens that they encourage to ignore our laws and work illegal in our country to keep the money flowing south. Again, that you don't know this, any therefore why Mexico's own policies that are much harsher than ours is completely relevant to point out, makes it hard to have a 'serious' conversation with you about this subject.

No, Crash, in fact I said explicitly the opposite. I said that the issue is not that people think it is unfair for Mexican immigrants to have to follow the rules. As I tried to explain, the issue is that people have concerns that the law as applied will be unfairly discriminatory against legal immigrants and citizens of Hispanic background.
Which is a stupid red-herring of the type the left ALWAYS loves to construct. Take a peek at a map. Arizona doesn't border Iceland. Also, many Hispanics are in favor of the nation enforcing its immigration laws- not all of them have the hive mind that some on the left believe they have. Many Hispanics along with everyone else can see the real effects of having a wide open border and flooding communities with millions of people from another country. Not everyone of Hispanic decent sees that as wonderful, nor has a problem themselves with obeying the laws of the country they reside in.

Again, your position reads to me that you think Hispanics and people from a largely Hispanic country are incapable of complying with US laws, so therefore we should all just ignore our laws as 'unfair'. To me, there's more than just a little bit of racism in such beliefs- not hatefully spiteful racism, but the racism of 'low expectations' that I often find the left exhibits toward minorities.
( Last edited by CRASH HARDDRIVE; Apr 28, 2010 at 11:25 PM. )
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2010, 11:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post

I'm also planning to be in Phoenix and Scottsdale at least a few times more than I need to be normally. Up yours lefties.
Would these lefties be little boys under the age of 16?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2010, 11:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
I'm not interested in a serious conversation with you, as I've seen no idication you're capable of one.
Another unnecessary personal attack. Reported.

By the way, my QUITE SERIOUS question that you convieniently ignored (yeah, real serious conversation) stands: a show of hands of how many people travel to a foreign country and don't bring the required documents with them. Haven't seen any hands yet. Do people routinely travel to other countries, not bring documents with them, then bitch and whine and call everyone Nazis when a customs official, border agent, police, etc. ask who you are, where you're from, and what you're doing in their country?

If you're fully capable of complying with the laws of a nation you wish to go to, understand why you'll need your passport/ID/license/visas/travel documents, etc. why is it you somehow believe Mexicans are incapable of doing the same, and therefore a nation's immigration laws are 'unfair' and 'racist' to them? It's a general question, not for anyone in particular. Maybe try and actually ANSWER it honestly, not hide behind the usual noise from the peanut gallery.
I did not answer this question because, as I explained, it doesn't make any sense in context. The issue is not that people are complaining that Mexicans coming into the United States have to follow the rules and provide identification when necessarily. So my feelings about having to follow the rules when I travel to foreign countries are immaterial. The issue is that people are concerned about unfair harassment without cause other than racial appearance of legal residents and U.S. citizens of hispanic descent.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2010, 11:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post

I did not answer this question because, as I explained, it doesn't make any sense in context. The issue is not that people are complaining that Mexicans coming into the United States have to follow the rules and provide identification when necessarily. So my feelings about having to follow the rules when I travel to foreign countries are immaterial. The issue is that people are concerned about unfair harassment without cause other than racial appearance of legal residents and U.S. citizens of hispanic descent.
The big government conservatives are ignoring your logical concern with the new Arizona immigration law.

They rather focus on their hate and anger with illegal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants == BAD!


I think:

Pedophiles == BAD

Let's pass a law asking all police officers to question anyone who looks like a pedophile and ask for their ID, just to make sure they are not a registered sexual offender.

They need to focus mostly on white men and Catholic priests.


GO POLICE STATE!
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2010, 11:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
Actually, it has everything to do with Mexican policy. The official policy of the Mexican government has long been to subvert American immigration laws. It's no secret that they derive a HUGE portion of the nation's GDP from their exploitation of their own citizens that they encourage to ignore our laws and work illegal in our country to keep the money flowing south. Again, that you don't know this, any therefore why Mexico's own policies that are much harsher than ours is completely relevant to point out, makes it hard to have a 'serious' conversation with you about this subject.
You are avoiding my point again. I am quite familiar with the fact that a lot of money from illegal immigrants flows to Mexico. But whether or not the Mexican government's intent is to subvert American immigration laws, America's immigration laws have to fundamentally make sense in practice if the goal is to effectively enforce them and even blunt what you say is the intent of Mexico. I am saying that this AZ law does not make sense in practice. You keep going back to Mexico's intent. That has really nothing to do with my argument. If you cannot address the practical criticisms that I have pointed out of the AZ law, then it suggests a fundamental problem with the law.

Which is a stupid red-herring of the type the left ALWAYS loves to construct. Take a peek at a map. Arizona doesn't border Iceland. Also, many Hispanics are in favor of the nation enforcing its immigration laws- not all of them have the hive mind that some on the left believe they have. Many Hispanics along with everyone else can see the real effects of having a wide open border and flooding communities with millions of people from another country. Not everyone of Hispanic decent sees that as wonderful, nor has a problem themselves with obeying the laws of the country they reside in.

Again, your position reads to me that you think Hispanics and people from a largely Hispanic country are incapable of complying with US laws, so therefore we should all just ignore our laws as 'unfair'. To me, there's more than just a little bit of racism in such beliefs- not hatefully spiteful racism, but the racism of 'low expectations' that I often find the left exhibits toward minorities.
No, Crash, you misread me. I think Hispanics are perfectly capable of following U.S. laws, and I don't think that U.S. laws should be ignored. And my argument actually is highly dependent on the fact that Arizona's immigrants, legal and illegal, are primarily Hispanic. Given the practical consideration that police in areas of the Southwest with high immigrant populations need to provide security and services other than immigration enforcement, I think the practical effect of this law will be negative overall given that, in that area, ordinary visual clues that might provide "reasonable suspicion" in the course of a "lawful encounter" that someone is legal or illegal are all but meaningless. It's going to result in a lot of wasted time, money, lawsuits, and less effective police work overall. That's why many police chiefs are against it. Let's let the Feds deal with the immigration laws, and let the cops work in their communities in the most effective way possible. If the Feds aren't dealing with the immigration laws effectively, then let's work on making that better, instead of making cops' jobs harder.
( Last edited by SpaceMonkey; Apr 28, 2010 at 11:52 PM. )

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2010, 11:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
You are avoiding my point again. I am quite familiar with the fact that a lot of money from illegal immigrants flows to Mexico. But whether or not the Mexican government's intent is to subvert American immigration laws, America's immigration laws have to fundamentally make sense in practice if the goal is to effectively enforce them and even blunt what you say is the intent of Mexico. I am saying that this AZ law does not make sense in practice. You keep going back to Mexico's intent. That has really nothing to do with my argument. If you cannot address the practical criticisms that I have pointed out of the AZ law, then it suggests a fundamental problem with the law.



No, Crash, you misread me. I think Hispanics are perfectly capable of following U.S. laws, and I don't think that U.S. laws should be ignored. And my argument actually is highly dependent on the fact that Arizona's immigrants, legal and illegal, are primarily Hispanic. Given the practical consideration that police in areas of the Southwest with high immigrant populations need to provide security and services other than immigration enforcement, I think the practical effect of this law will be negative overall given that, in that area, ordinary visual clues that might provide "reasonable suspicion" in the course of a "lawful encounter" that someone is legal or illegal are all but meaningless. It's going to result in a lot of wasted time, money, lawsuits, and less effective police work overall. That's why many police chiefs are against it. Let's let the Feds deal with the immigration laws, and let the cops work in their communities in the most effective way possible. If the Feds aren't dealing with the immigration laws effectively, then let's work on making that better, instead of making cops' jobs harder.

Well said SpaceMonkey.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 12:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
You are avoiding my point again. I am quite familiar with the fact that a lot of money from illegal immigrants flows to Mexico. But whether or not the Mexican government's intent is to subvert American immigration laws, America's immigration laws have to fundamentally make sense in practice if the goal is to effectively enforce them and even blunt what you say is the intent of Mexico.
America's immigration laws are NOT being enforced- the point has already been made, that if they were, then laws like this wouldn't even be an issue. As others have already shown, existing immigration laws already allow for anything AZ is doing.

I am saying that this AZ law does not make sense in practice. You keep going back to Mexico's intent. That has really nothing to do with my argument.
'Your argument' isn't the issue. I'm talking about the actual issue. I don't much care about 'your argument'.


and I don't think that U.S. laws should be ignored.
You're rare in this on your side of the debate, as has been seen for years, your side routinely doesn't even want to use the term 'illegal' and tries to be clever by labeling the whole debate as merely about 'immigration'. You're just being dishonest if you're going to try and say this isn't true. The entire pro-illegal side tries routinely to say that US laws should be ignored, and pretend there's no such thing as illegal immigration.

Given the practical consideration that police in areas of the Southwest with high immigrant populations need to provide security and services other than immigration enforcement, I think the practical effect of this law will be negative overall given that, in that area, ordinary visual clues that might provide "reasonable suspicion" in the course of a "lawful encounter" that someone is legal or illegal are all but meaningless.
That's because like a lot of people, you're merely projecting your own bias on the issue. It's the usual red-herring to pretend that race is the only indicator that someone is in a country illegally or not. If you actually pay attention to the actual issue, you'll quickly learn that AZ is literally swimming in REAL problems with Mexico's drug cartels and human traffic smugglers spilling across the borders. Now we're to the point that a local rancher was recently killed in the violence.

Legal visitors and immigrants to a country bring documents with them, just like you do when you travel to another country. This is the same with Mexicans. Meanwhile, legal citizens of the nation are quite obviously citizens as they're generally knowledgeable about their own nation, especially if they grew up there.

Gee, do you think maybe when you find people stuffed in the back of a truck, none speak English or are overly familiar with the nation they're in, they might not be citizens? How many legal citizens find themselves in such a position? How many legal citizens cross the border illegally and hike for miles through deserts and across ranches and game preserves? How many legal citizens are mules for drug cartels? (And if they are, why shouldn't they be prosecuted for it, let alone asked for some ID?) How many legal citizens crawl up out of tunnels running under Nogales, whether they're carrying drugs or not? Did you even know there were over 20,000 of them (known about!) at last count? Doubtful.

If you knew anything at all about the real issue, you'd know that AZ has been dealing with a literal explosion of the ill effects of all this for years now. Yet you never address the cost of any of it to police and citizens, as you try and float enforcing the law will somehow create more cost. Most crimes illegal Mexicans already in the US suffer, are actually at the hands of other illegals, so again, why wouldn't they want law enforcement to have some ability to stem this? I think Americans far from the border must imagine that Mexican drug cartels, Coyotes, and human-traffickers are all swell people. What? Crime and violence and bad things come about with those activities? NO WAY!

Your tact, like most that want to boil all this down to a bumper sticker, is to float the premise that there aren't GLARING, OBVIOUS, examples left and right that the more than 900 illegal aliens that cross into AZ EVERY DAY (and roughly 3x that number that get turned away at the border) are in fact, illegal aliens crossing from Mexico, other than what race they are, therefore you want to pretend this is only about race.

Thankfully, the sane people of AZ aren't buying your loaded premise, and since the feds won't do anything (and haven't for years- Bush was just as bad as Obama on this issue) then it's coming time for states to take proper action themselves.

Also thankfully, several other states plagued by the problems that this issue creates are looking into following AZ's lead. More power to them.


If the Feds aren't dealing with the immigration laws effectively, then let's work on making that better, instead of making cops' jobs harder.
I'll trust those that passed this law in direct response to the problems their state's been facing in the REAL WORLD, being right on the border and fielding the effects of the rest of the nation's insane demand for slave labor, more than I'll trust people that don't even know the real issue to judge what will make a cop's job harder or not. Not that that's really what this is mostly about.

Suure, it's MUCH easier for cops to deal with out of control crime from people they can't even inquire about having no business in this country in the first place. Yes, much easier to have to re-arrest and then release the same drug dealers and Coyotes over 30 times without a SINGLE deportation! (as has happened!) Much easier to throw border agents in jail (everyone forgotten that?) rather than let them do their jobs stopping a drug dealer who never even got a slap on the wrist. Much easier to deal with drug cartels dumping their violence all over your state, killing ranchers, etc. than to make it in any way more difficult for them. Just keep looking the other way, and whenever someone doesn't, yell racism. Much easier that way.
( Last edited by CRASH HARDDRIVE; Apr 29, 2010 at 12:38 AM. )
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 01:13 AM
 
As always, hytekit, your analogies make no sense. Take your paedophilia profiling analogy... paedophila is not a racially determined trait, so racial profiling would not work.

We know for a fact that the vast majority of illegal immigrants in Arizona are from . . . uh . . . Mexico.
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 01:25 AM
 
CRASH, I think you bring up a good point. This is no longer about 'arguments,' 'analyses,' etc. This is about a serious problem. Conservatives are going to fix the problem, whether liberals like it or not.

This is just like the debt crisis. Liberals come up with all sorts of arguments explaining why massive spending and debt is constructive ("Keynes proved it!" "Bush did it too!").

When things get bad, true conservatives always have to step in, where the rubber meets the road, and solve problems.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 01:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
America's immigration laws are NOT being enforced- the point has already been made, that if they were, then laws like this wouldn't even be an issue.
Great, we agree on this. Current immigration enforcement is a mess, and it is not meeting Arizona's needs. Let's set that aside as a given, then, so there is no confusion about where we disagree.

In order to try to get to that point, I've snipped a lot of your text below where you restate the magnitude of the problem.

As others have already shown, existing immigration laws already allow for anything AZ is doing.
I think we'll have to leave that issue aside, because people knowledgeable about the law on both sides seem to disagree.

'Your argument' isn't the issue. I'm talking about the actual issue. I don't much care about 'your argument'.
We both agree about the problem. My argument is that your solution has holes. If you don't much care about my argument, then it would seem you have no interest in defending your solution. Rather, you are ignoring my points and going back and claiming that we disagree about the problem, even though we already agreed on it. That's a very disrespectful way to converse. The subtitle to the PWL says "Please check straw men at the door." Please do so, or concede that my argument is valid.

You're rare in this on your side of the debate, as has been seen for years, your side routinely doesn't even want to use the term 'illegal' and tries to be clever by labeling the whole debate as merely about 'immigration'. You're just being dishonest if you're going to try and say this isn't true. The entire pro-illegal side tries routinely to say that US laws should be ignored, and pretend there's no such thing as illegal immigration.
I have no interest in debating "a side" as if everything revolves around two polar opposite platforms. Most people interested in a conversation are not that dogmatic. My goal when we re-started this conversation after you posted the bit about Mexico's laws was to question why the issues you raised have any bearing on whether or not AZ's law will be a good thing.

That's because like a lot of people, you're merely projecting your own bias on the issue. It's the usual red-herring to pretend that race is the only indicator that someone is in a country illegally or not.

<snip>

Legal visitors and immigrants to a country bring documents with them, just like you do when you travel to another country. This is the same with Mexicans. Meanwhile, legal citizens of the nation are quite obviously citizens as they're generally knowledgeable about their own nation, especially if they grew up there.

Gee, do you think maybe when you find people stuffed in the back of a truck, none speak English or are overly familiar with the nation they're in, they might not be citizens? How many legal citizens find themselves in such a position? How many legal citizens cross the border illegally and hike for miles through deserts and across ranches and game preserves? How many legal citizens are mules for drug cartels? (And if they are, why shouldn't they be prosecuted for it, let alone asked for some ID?) How many legal citizens crawl up out of tunnels running under Nogales, whether they're carrying drugs or not? Did you even know there were over 20,000 of them (known about!) at last count? Doubtful.
I do not think race is the only possible indicator. But in addition to your relatively clear-cut cases, many of which go even beyond "reasonable suspicion" and would demonstrate "probable cause" (which is more stringent), the potential scope of the law is much wider. Remember, it gives police an imperative to act if they have reasonable suspicion, rather than leaving it up to their discretion. The concern is that the guidelines for what constitutes "reasonable suspicion" are very vague, and too open to abuse without redress. Because of this, it will be difficult to implement the law in a way that minimizes the legal risk to police departments, avoids the perception that police are racially profiling, and allows police to productively interact with illegal immigrants in ways that may be necessary in the course of other police work.

I'll trust those that passed this law in direct response to the problems their state's been facing in the REAL WORLD, being right on the border and fielding the effects of the rest of the nation's insane demand for slave labor, more than I'll trust people that don't even know the real issue to judge what will make a cop's job harder or not. Not that that's really what this is mostly about.
By that standard, I think you would place some value in the opinion of police chiefs. As I mentioned, several have criticized the new law:
Arizona immigration bill: Police chiefs criticize measure

Suure, it's MUCH easier for cops to deal with out of control crime from people they can't even inquire about having no business in this country in the first place.

<snip>
Your examples aside (yes, we agree there is a crime problem), yes, it might be easier. Potential witnesses and informers, some of whom could be illegal, might be reluctant to cooperate with police knowing that the police could have an imperative to determine their immigration status. That is a cost, in absolute terms. The relative significance of that cost could be debated.
( Last edited by SpaceMonkey; Apr 29, 2010 at 01:56 AM. )

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 01:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
CRASH, I think you bring up a good point. This is no longer about 'arguments,' 'analyses,' etc. This is about a serious problem. Conservatives are going to fix the problem, whether liberals like it or not.

This is just like the debt crisis. Liberals come up with all sorts of arguments explaining why massive spending and debt is constructive ("Keynes proved it!" "Bush did it too!").

When things get bad, true conservatives always have to step in, where the rubber meets the road, and solve problems.
But if the proposed solution has potential pitfalls, then to simply ignore them ("We need to solve the problem!") is not necessarily solving the problem at all. Action is not always better than inaction. To me, your view seems to be that new policies should not be considered for their possible advantages and disadvantages before enacting them, which I think is very disturbing.
( Last edited by SpaceMonkey; Apr 29, 2010 at 01:45 AM. )

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 01:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
As always, hytekit, your analogies make no sense. Take your paedophilia profiling analogy... paedophila is not a racially determined trait, so racial profiling would not work.

We know for a fact that the vast majority of illegal immigrants in Arizona are from . . . uh . . . Mexico.
I think hytekit's point is that pedophilia is not a physically observable trait in the course of a normal public encounter. Neither is one's immigration status, or their nationality.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 02:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kerrigan View Post
As always, hytekit, your analogies make no sense. Take your paedophilia profiling analogy... paedophila is not a racially determined trait, so racial profiling would not work.

We know for a fact that the vast majority of illegal immigrants in Arizona are from . . . uh . . . Mexico.
According to FBI, 80% of pedophiles are nonhispanic white men.

Most pedophiles are white men just as most illegal immigrants are from Mexico.

I say any white men who looks suspiciously like a pedophile must be questioned and asked for ID for background check.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 02:35 AM
 
Arizona - 2010

Illegal immigration down
Hate crimes up by around 30%. White on Hispanic violence.

I wonder why?

FBI Reports Hate Crimes Up in Arizona, Phoenix, and Maricopa County - Phoenix News - Feathered Bastard

White-Supremacist Activity Is on the Rise in Sand Land, and One Latino-American Family Is the Victim of a Vicious Hate Crime in North Phoenix - Page 2 - News - Phoenix - Phoenix New Times


Offenders - Hate Crime Statistics, 2008


OFFENDERS
A review of available race data reported in 2008 for the 6,927 known hate crime offenders revealed that:

61.1 percent were white.
20.2 percent were black.


VICTIMS
Of the 4,934 victims of these racial bias crimes:

72.9 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-black bias.
64.6 percent were victims of an anti-Hispanic bias.
16.8 percent were victims because of an anti-white bias.



What should we do about hate crime? Start profiling white people and ask if they are white supremacist if they have a shaved head?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 02:54 AM
 
Damn, profiling is fun.

Most murderers are either White or Black

Expanded Homicide Data Table 3 - Crime in the United States 2008

Code:
Race White Black Other Unknown 5,334 5,943 273 4,727 32.8 36.5 1.7 29.0
Mostly men too

Code:
Sex Male Female Unknown 10,568 1,176 4,533 64.9 7.2 27.8
I bet the unknowns are also Black or White folks. If a Black man or White man looks at me funny, I'll be sure to run to a cop and have the cop interrogated him. Most likely a murderer.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 02:58 AM
 
Why stop at illegal immigrant. Police state is fun.

What other crime are we trying to solve?

I'll run the profile.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 03:00 AM
 
Rape? Murder? Child Molester?

Mostly men.

F*ck.

Guys, better carry your IDs. Police state is here.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 03:20 AM
 
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 08:03 AM
 
Hey, get a blog.

-t
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 08:13 AM
 
They need to get rid of the Anchor baby BS too. Make THAT retro-active too.

BTW - What universe are the MSM in? They have been lying all week about the AZ bill, and don't seem to be able to do any research. How does that help?
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
They need to get rid of the Anchor baby BS too. Make THAT retro-active too.

BTW - What universe are the MSM in? They have been lying all week about the AZ bill, and don't seem to be able to do any research. How does that help?
First anchor baby to get of: Michelle Malkin

She's an anchor baby who hates anchor babies.

Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 12:49 PM
 
Not even a valid try. Malkin is a US citizen and her parents were LEGAL naturalized US citizens.

Hate to break it to you, but more than Mexicans come across that porous border, which is all part and parcel of the issue. People who want to enter the US illegally or clandestinely from all over the world flock to Mexico to do so - because of the well-known lack of enforcement attitudes associated with that line in the sand.
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 12:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Not even a valid try. Malkin is a US citizen and her parents were LEGAL naturalized US citizens.

Hate to break it to you, but more than Mexicans come across that porous border, which is all part and parcel of the issue. People who want to enter the US illegally or clandestinely from all over the world flock to Mexico to do so - because of the well-known lack of enforcement attitudes associated with that line in the sand.
All US born anchor babies are US citizens.

Michelle Malkin is an anchor baby. By giving birth to her in the US, it prevented her parents from being kicked out of the US after their visa expired.

ANCHOR BABY!
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 12:58 PM
 
Personal life

Malkin was born in Philadelphia to Rafaela, a schoolteacher, and Apolo, an aspiring doctor--[3] both Philippine citizens who had arrived in the U.S. earlier that year. At the time, her father was a physician-in-training with an employer-sponsored visa.[3][4] She is one of two children; she has a younger brother.[5] Malkin grew up in the small southern New Jersey town of Absecon, where she was raised in the Catholic faith.[3] Malkin cited a formative event when she was in kindergarten: One day, the other children called her a racist name, and she went home crying. Her mother comforted her and told her that, "everyone has prejudice." She has said that she is "eternally grateful" for that counsel.[6]
Malkin attended Holy Spirit Roman Catholic High School, where she edited the school newspaper and planned to become a concert pianist.[3]
In 1988, Malkin enrolled at Oberlin College. She later described her alma mater as a "radically left-wing, liberal arts college".[3][7] While at Oberlin, she changed her major from music to English and began writing for an independent newspaper, the editor of which was her future husband, Jesse Malkin. In her first article for the paper, she attacked Oberlin's affirmative-action program and received a "hugely negative response" from her fellow students.[3]
In 1993, Malkin married Jesse Malkin, a Rhodes Scholar,[8] who later worked as associate policy analyst and economist for military think-tank, the Rand Corporation.[9] Jesse was also a stay-at-home dad raising their daughter and son.[10][11]
In November 2008, Malkin announced that she had moved to El Paso County, Colorado.[12]
Please note the phrase "employer-sponsored visa" - LEGAL

Please keep your FUD to yourself.
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 01:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Please note the phrase "employer-sponsored visa" - LEGAL

Please keep your FUD to yourself.
Michelle Malkin's definition of Anchor Baby. Babies born in the US by illegals, tourist, and temporary workers. Her parents weren't legal immigrants. They were temporary workers. They were legal to work here temporarily. Once they overstay their visa, they are illegal immigrants.

Michelle Malkin and her parents needed to be kicked out after her parents temporary work visa expired. She is an anchor baby.


Michelle Malkin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a July 4, 2003 column in Jewish World Review, Malkin took a position in opposition to the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, asserting that "the custom of granting automatic citizenship at birth to children of tourists and temporary workers such as [Yaser Esam] Hamdi, tourists, and to countless 'anchor babies' delivered by illegal aliens on American soil, undermines the integrity of citizenship-not to mention national security.".[58]
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 02:33 PM
 
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 02:53 PM
 
An anchor baby is one that is born here and allows the parents to stay here permanently - you fail because Malkin's parents WENT BACK TO THE PHILIPPINES, genius.
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 02:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
An anchor baby is one that is born here and allows the parents to stay here permanently - you fail because Malkin's parents WENT BACK TO THE PHILIPPINES, genius.
Haha.. you are not very smart are you?

What's an Anchor Baby? Babies born by tourists, temporary workers, and illegal immigrants, and are granted citizenship automatically under the 14th amendment.

Another definition: "anchor child", referring in this case to very young immigrants who will later sponsor citizenship for family members who are still abroad.


Michelle Malkin is an Anchor Baby.

Michelle Malkin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a July 4, 2003 column in Jewish World Review, Malkin took a position in opposition to the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, asserting that "the custom of granting automatic citizenship at birth to children of tourists and temporary workers such as [Yaser Esam] Hamdi, tourists, and to countless 'anchor babies' delivered by illegal aliens on American soil, undermines the integrity of citizenship-not to mention national security.".[58]
( Last edited by hyteckit; Apr 29, 2010 at 03:05 PM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 03:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
I did not answer this question because, as I explained, it doesn't make any sense in context. The issue is not that people are complaining that Mexicans coming into the United States have to follow the rules and provide identification when necessarily. So my feelings about having to follow the rules when I travel to foreign countries are immaterial. The issue is that people are concerned about unfair harassment without cause other than racial appearance of legal residents and U.S. citizens of hispanic descent.
I applaud your efforts to try to reason with Crash. But I fear it's all for naught. My very first post in this thread was a reply directly to him. A post where I demonstrated that racial profiling by law enforcement is already a reality. Not just me talking ... but backed up with facts and statistics. I think it's quite illuminating that neither he nor his conservative cohorts even attempted to refute what was said. Why? Because Crash isn't going to let little things like facts get in the way of his opinion. It's much easier to just continue with the accusations of "feigned outrage" and "whining" and protests that "race has nothing to do with it" rather than deal with the undeniable facts on the ground.

I ended my initial post with this ....

Originally Posted by OAW
How are law-abiding Hispanic citizens in Arizona NOT going to get hassled by this?
To date ... none of our good friends on the right have answered that simple question. Why? Personally I think for many of them they know good and well that they will be ... but at the end of the day they simply don't care! Period. Their attitude is that law-abiding Hispanic citizens "shouldn't mind" having to present ID to confirm their citizenship. Which is cool I suppose. The funny thing about that though is that such attitudes only seem to exist when the profiling is impacting other groups of people. The minute it starts hitting home you can rest assured that it will be a different ball of wax.

OAW
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 04:20 PM
 
Big government conservatives who love the Constitution, hates parts of the Constitution they don't like.

Basically everything about the Constitution except for the rights to bear arms I think.

Republican conservatives want to get rid of the 14th Amendment, the 'anchor baby' loophole.

King joins push to close &#39;anchor baby&#39; loophole (OneNewsNow.com)
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 04:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
anchor babies ...

Michelle Malkin is an anchor baby. ...

ANCHOR BABY!
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Michelle Malkin's ... Anchor Baby.

Michelle Malkin ... anchor baby.

... Malkin
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Michelle Malkin ... Anchor Baby ... Michelle Malkin is an ... Anchor Baby.
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
...Anchor Baby?

"anchor child" ...

Michelle Malkin ... Anchor Baby.

... Michelle Malkin ...
WTF dude ?

Not everyone is as **** as you and needs multiple repeats.

You can be annoying as hell with your troll spam.

-t
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 04:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
WTF dude ?

Not everyone is as **** as you and needs multiple repeats.

You can be annoying as hell with your troll spam.

-t
Dude, why not make fun of my Engrish skills again?

Obviously you and Macrobat need me to repeat what an Anchor Baby is.


Michelle Malkin is NOT AN ANCHOR BABY. She is a US Citizen!
Michelle Malkin is NOT AN ANCHOR BABY. Her parents were here on a work visa legally.

What's next?

Michelle Malkin is NOT AN ANCHOR BABY. Her parents were here legally on vacation when Michelle Malkin was born.

Birth tourism anyone?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/birth...ry?id=10359956

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/birth...to-us-citizens


Funny as hell. Hahaha..
( Last edited by hyteckit; Apr 29, 2010 at 04:30 PM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 04:49 PM
 
So, when do ya'll arrive? I need to know how many petitions to get ready. Hurry up. you have until July 1st. to get it on the ballot!
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 04:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
So, when do ya'll arrive? I need to know how many petitions to get ready. Hurry up. you have until July 1st. to get it on the ballot!
Are we not allowed to have an opinion on the matter if we don't live in the state?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 07:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
She's an anchor baby who hates anchor babies.
How is this different from anyone else who holds opinions against their immediate self-interest, like a rich person who supports raising taxes on the rich (eg Obama), or a soldier who volunteers for a battle?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 08:00 PM
 
Illegals seem to be leaving AZ so the plan is working. The Dolt Bloomberg has invited the illegals to his city (NYC) and even offered that free health care that NY citizens will pay for. Liberals must feel so proud to be on the side of financially ruining NYC. Look how that same liberal ignorance and lack of financial responsibility has ruined NY, CA, ILL, and several other states. Tell me again about the intellectual superiority of the emotion driven libs. Do you think you'll be in the majority in November?
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 08:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
How is this different from anyone else who holds opinions against their immediate self-interest, like a rich person who supports raising taxes on the rich (eg Obama), or a soldier who volunteers for a battle?
Hey, if Michelle Malkin supports deporting anchor babies back to their home country, then she should take the lead if she is so adamant about it.

Since she is an anchor baby, she should revoke her US citizenship and take her children back to the Philippines, and wait a few years or a few decades for her to legally immigrate to the US.

I support her cause.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 08:55 PM
 
More Republicans support repealing the 14th amendment and deporting Anchor Babies.

Rep. Duncan Hunter backs deporting U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants| PolitiCal | Los Angeles Times

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/28/...r-immigration/

Republicans love sh*ting on the Constitution.
( Last edited by hyteckit; Apr 29, 2010 at 09:06 PM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 09:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Illegals seem to be leaving AZ so the plan is working.
Do you have any data to back that up, or is this assertion just 'emotion driven'?
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 09:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Do you have any data to back that up, or is this assertion just 'emotion driven'?
I think BadK0sh is talking about the illegals he had locked up in his shack. He wanted them to cook dinner and do the dishes, but they already left.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 09:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
How is this different from anyone else who holds opinions against their immediate self-interest, like a rich person who supports raising taxes on the rich (eg Obama), or a soldier who volunteers for a battle?
The hypocrisy part.

It would be like Obama raising taxes on himself and not paying them, or a soldier volunteering for a battle and then deserting.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 09:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
An anchor baby is one that is born here and allows the parents to stay here permanently - you fail because Malkin's parents WENT BACK TO THE PHILIPPINES, genius.
When? A few years ago? Malkin is almost 40.

There's a doctor with the same name as her father on a bunch of websites. Those say he practices in Jersey.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 09:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Please note the phrase "employer-sponsored visa" - LEGAL

Please keep your FUD to yourself.
An employer sponsored visa is a touch different than being a naturalized citizen, isn't it?

As we touched on last time, Malkin's own definition of "anchor baby" includes those born of parents on visas.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:52 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,