quote Originally posted by Monkeyman: I'm a bit confused. The "new" AZ immigration law simply adds a state charge to any federal charge for being an illegal alien, right? What's the problem?

The problem is that madcurl is employing liberal tactics. To create confusion and otherwise hinder intelligent discussion on this subject. It comes right out of the liberal playbook. There is a purpose to him from doing so.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: ................. Nick, I'm sorry I have contributed to cluttering up your thread. If you want I will remove all my comments not pertaining to it to clean things up a bit.

You can't unpaint a picture. What's been seen can't be unseen. Besides, it shows something about the attitude of the poster. Why haven't we seen the same kind of outrage about the 'profiling' of the left regarding the NY Bomber?

Not necessary avenger.

Comments removed to help get the thread back on track, maybe Curly will remove his too, unless he likes letting people know what kind of person he really is, but I wouldn't count on it.
I think the immigration law that was passed will certainly help Arizona, even if they have a bit of backlash from people who don't understand or even bother to read the law.
People cannot be stopped at random. This is the USA and everyone, including illegals, have rights guaranteed by our constitution. People are presumed to be innocent and are not subject to illegal search and seizure of self or property. The Arizona law doesn't change any of that, but we have ignorant, scared people who are in a panic because they refuse to understand this. If you are an illegal immigrant, you are in this country illegally and will face consecuenses if and when you are caught.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-04-2010).]

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Comments removed to help get the thread back on track, maybe Curly will remove his too, unless he likes letting people know what kind of person he really is, but I wouldn't count on it.

Hate to add crap to an otherwise great thread but you guys need to ignore the guy, he'll eventually starve.

quote Originally posted by DRA: Hate to add crap to an otherwise great thread but you guys need to ignore the guy, he'll eventually starve.

lol good point

You're right. He is just craving attention and doesn't need my help to continue making a fool out of himself. All he needs is to keep posting to do that.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-05-2010).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by avengador1:

Comments removed to help get the thread back on track,"

I'm happy to see you stepped up to the plate on that. Quite frankly, when I read all of the arguing last night , I closed the thread as I hoped to read discussion on the article based on it's merits. I re-opened the thread this evening and read the original post. I'm glad I did.

My comment is that as a "Nation of Laws," how can it be OK for some inhabitants who aren't supposed to be here to be able to break our national laws and state laws when we who are vested citizens are expected to abide by the laws and are thus held accountable to those laws? So, too bad if you're here illegally and you don't approve of the laws. If you don't like them, come here legally and work within the system to change the laws-just like the rest of us are expected to. I'm for giving officers the tools to enforce laws; if that means officers are able to detain those of very questionable status-so be it.

HEAR HEAR!

Nick, outstanding article; be careful, though...some people cherish their long-held belief that we are all inarticulate knuckle-draggers.

Someone quoted a flippant reply I recently made on a serious subject. Although my response was partially tongue in cheek, I firmly believe we need to be controlling, regulating and taxing the drug supply and removing it from the hands of criminals. We've already had one round of Prohibition, and America has had it's own Pablo Escobar.
That didn't work out so well, either. Perhaps we've forgotten the lessons learned during the Capone era; namely, that if there is a high enough demand for a product, someone will fill it, and the fact of its illegality merely drives up the price, and guarantees the criminal element a very comfortable living.

In my view, the drug trade and the human trafficking/illegal immigration are parts of a whole, and each is supported and fed by the other.

[This message has been edited by Vonov (edited 05-05-2010).]

Illegals Do Not Deserve a Free Pass
http://newsmax.com/Koch/Koc...2010/05/04/id/357782

quote By: Edward Koch The push is on for providing amnesty to the estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country. The supporters of this effort include President Barack Obama, former president George W. Bush, Sen. John McCain, Majority Leader Harry Reid and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer. Sen. Schumer is now chairman of the immigration subcommittee previously chaired by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, a major amnesty proponent. Amnesty supporters see themselves as taking the high road and claim that amnesty opponents are opposed to immigration, when nothing could be further from the truth. Many amnesty opponents actually support expanding legal immigration. Currently, the U.S. has the highest legal immigration in the world. Every year, we allow 750,000 immigrants to enter the country legally and make them eligible for citizenship within five years. Two hundred and fifty thousand asylees are also permitted to enter annually. Those legal immigrants have the right to work and earn a living; the asylees are eligible to work six months after applying to work. If we need more immigrants, as many think we do to expand the workforce of our graying population, then we can easily increase the number of legal immigrants. If we give the current illegals amnesty, you can be sure that 20 or so years from now, there will be a clamor for another amnesty bill as the illegals will continue to pour in... No country in the world has open borders that foreigners can enter at will, certainly not Mexico. Arizona has an estimated 500,000 illegal aliens living in the state and in 2009, the border patrol agents arrested 241,000 illegal aliens, which is why that state enacted controversial legislation out of frustration. Arizona’s citizens are outraged by the presence of many criminals among the people crossing their border — remember there is an ongoing drug war in Mexico with thousands of Mexicans being killed and wounded south of the border by other Mexicans. Arizona does not want that war to spill over into Arizona. Arizona citizens are also distressed with the demands made by illegals upon medical and educational services... Amnesty supporters refuse to use the term illegal aliens, preferring instead undocumented aliens. They should call them what they are: illegal. Amnesty proponents also should acknowledge that an open border policy is indefensible and irrational and has not been adopted by any other country. If open borders were such a good idea, why don’t we try on a limited scale simply expanding the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) among Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. and allow anyone living in those three countries access to jobs in any of them? Would Canada consent to that? Would Mexico? I doubt it... During the Bush presidency, amnesty proponents were twice defeated when they tried to shove their self-defined “good policy” down the throats of the voters. Amnesty advocates believed, as they do now, that they know what is best for us, but the American public stood up and said “no.” In an election year, the voters can throw the bums out, and that is why Congress fears to bring the issue up before the November elections. I predict the Schumer legislation supported by President Obama and a whole host of prominent public officials and the media will fail. I also believe it is outrageous to threaten understandably frustrated, but misguided, Arizona with boycotts because we disagree with the protective procedures it has adopted. Let’s leave the legality of those procedures to the courts. We are one country and should not be boycotting one another. Persuasion should be our tool of choice, not punishment.

quote [B]During the Bush presidency, amnesty proponents were twice defeated when they tried to shove their self-defined “good policy” down the throats of the voters. Amnesty advocates believed, as they do now, that they know what is best for us, but the American public stood up and said “no.” In an election year, the voters can throw the bums out, and that is why Congress fears to bring the issue up before the November elections. http://newsmax.com/Koch/Koc...2010/05/04/id/357782

November will be interesting. I suspect we'll see enough back pedaling that if all that energy was applied to our power grid, we would have unlimited power for some time.

Ron

Mehlman: Mexico should mind its own business
http://www.onenewsnow.com/P...fault.aspx?id=995522

quote An immigration reform activist says the president of Mexico should concern himself with managing his own country and stay out of Arizona's internal affairs. Since Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the immigration bill into law, advocates for illegal immigration -- as well as the president of the United States himself -- have lambasted the bill, using the standard argument that it will lead to "racial profiling." Mexican President Felipe Calderon has also joined the criticism bandwagon, saying it opens the door to intolerance, hate, and discrimination. He has instructed his foreign ministry to work with legal experts to defend the rights of Mexicans in the face of the measure, and he reportedly plans to bring up the issue when he travels to Washington next month to meet with President Obama and U.S. legislators. Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), points out that Calderon is following a long tradition of Mexican presidents who believe they have the right to meddle in the internal affairs of the United States. "They obviously benefit both politically and economically from being able to send millions of their unemployed, underemployed citizens to the United States," Mehlman notes. "Let us provide all the social services, and in return, they get billions of dollars in remittances that get sent back to Mexico every year. So President Calderon has been following in a long tradition of Mexican politicians who believe they have a right to dictate how U.S. immigration policies are carried out." The FAIR spokesman suggests that the State Department should tell President Calderon, "This is none of your business." He contends it is the right of the United States, not Mexico, to determine who comes to the U.S. and under what circumstances.

How Mexico treats illegal aliens
http://www.onenewsnow.com/P...fault.aspx?id=992156

quote Mexican President Felipe Calderon has accused Arizona of opening the door "to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement." But Arizona has nothing on Mexico when it comes to cracking down on illegal aliens. While open-borders activists decry new enforcement measures signed into law in "Nazi-zona" last week, they remain deaf, dumb or willfully blind to the unapologetically restrictionist policies of our neighbors to the south. The Arizona law bans sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration laws, stiffens penalties against illegal alien day laborers and their employers, makes it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to complete and carry an alien registration document, and allows the police to arrest immigrants unable to show documents proving they are in the U.S. legally. If those rules constitute the racist, fascist, xenophobic, inhumane regime that the National Council of La Raza, Al Sharpton, Catholic bishops and their grievance-mongering followers claim, then what about these regulations and restrictions imposed on foreigners? - The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics." How's that for racial and ethnic profiling? - If outsiders do not enhance the country's "economic or national interests" or are "not found to be physically or mentally healthy," they are not welcome. Neither are those who show "contempt against national sovereignty or security." They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own healthcare. - Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years' imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years' imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama's illegal alien aunt -- a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim). - Law enforcement officials at all levels -- by national mandate -- must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens' arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities. - Ready to show your papers? Mexico's National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens' identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens. All of these provisions are enshrined in Mexico's Ley General de Población (General Law of the Population) and were spotlighted in a 2006 research paper published by the Washington, DC-based Center for Security Policy. There's been no public clamor for "comprehensive immigration reform" in Mexico, however, because pro-illegal alien speech by outsiders is prohibited. Consider: Open-borders protesters marched freely at the Capitol building in Arizona, comparing GOP Gov. Jan Brewer to Hitler, waving Mexican flags, advocating that demonstrators "Smash the State," and holding signs that proclaimed "No human is illegal" and "We have rights." But under the Mexican constitution, such political speech by foreigners is banned. Noncitizens cannot "in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." In fact, a plethora of Mexican statutes enacted by its congress limit the participation of foreign nationals and companies in everything from investment, education, mining and civil aviation to electric energy and firearms. Foreigners have severely limited private property and employment rights (if any). As for abuse, the Mexican government is notorious for its abuse of Central American illegal aliens who attempt to violate Mexico's southern border. The Red Cross has protested rampant Mexican police corruption, intimidation and bribery schemes targeting illegal aliens there for years. Mexico didn't respond by granting mass amnesty to illegal aliens, as it is demanding that we do. It clamped down on its borders even further. In late 2008, the Mexican government launched an aggressive deportation plan to curtain illegal Cuban immigration and human trafficking through Cancun. Meanwhile, Mexican consular offices in the United States have coordinated with left-wing social justice groups and the Catholic Church leadership to demand a moratorium on all deportations and a freeze on all employment raids across America. Mexico is doing the job Arizona is now doing -- a job the U.S. government has failed miserably to do: putting its people first. Here's the proper rejoinder to all the hysterical demagogues in Mexico (and their sympathizers here on American soil) now calling for boycotts and invoking Jim Crow laws, apartheid, and the Holocaust because Arizona has taken its sovereignty into its own hands: Hipócritas.

Hipócritas is the right word.

Wow, I went on the local radio, and my article on the site exploded. Now I have a bunch of "higher learning" liberals wanting to prove how smart they are by tossing around big words. Don't people realize this tact never works?
http://circlethewagons.net/...%80%99s-perspective/

I guess other states agree with Arizona.
Arizona-Style Rebellions Over Immigration Spread
http://newsmax.com/Newsfron...al&promo_code=9D9F-1

quote Legislators in nearly a dozen states are considering tough new laws against illegal immigration that mimic the Arizona measure that has triggered a firestorm of controversy nationwide. The combination of polls showing increasing voter frustration with federal enforcement efforts, plus the growing fiscal pressure on states facing major budget problems, has emboldened conservative legislators to eye state-level reforms similar to those that Arizona GOP Gov. Jan Brewer recently signed into law.

Even the "evil" Bush couldn't get amnesty passed.

quote "Whatever talk there is of any federal response is unfortunately the kind of response that most people oppose: Amnesty for illegal aliens, coupled with promises that 'We'll try to do better next time,'" Mehlman tells Newsmax. "And I don't think the American people are going to buy that. They were fooled once in 1986. George Bush tried to fool them again in 2007. And they said no."

Hopefully we don't get fooled again this time. Here is a breakdown of the states planning some reforms.

quote Given the growing cost and unpopularity of illegal immigration, more and more state legislators are willing to push for tougher enforcement despite the controversy. A round up of state-level legislative and political activity: California: The state assembly recently passed a resolution urging the federal government to fix the nation's broken immigration system, and the issue has become a hot one in the GOP gubernatorial primary. Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman opposes the Arizona law, although she supports the elimination of sanctuary cities and promises to build "an economic fence" to prevent employers from hiring undocumented workers. Her closest GOP rival, businessman Steve Poizner, dropped his opposition to the Arizona law after it was amended to reduce the risk it would lead to racial profiling. He now supports it, saying: "We are bankrupt. We are out of cash and we need to take some steps to stop the flow of people who are here illegally." Colorado: Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis, also a former congressman, said he would support "very similar" legislation is elected governor. McInnis, a former police officer, supports laws mandating that all noncitizens should required to carry documents proving their legal status. Outgoing Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter said he would veto a law that mirrors Arizona's. Florida: Support for tougher immigration laws is very strong in the Sunshine state. A Rasmussen poll released Wednesday shows that 62 percent of Florida voters "favor a law like Arizona’s that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. However, tea party favorite Marco Rubio, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate, has voiced serious reservations with the Arizona law. Georgia: Former Congressman Nathan Deal, a Republican running for governor, says he would work to enact similar legislation. Border states have suffered "war-like conditions triggered by the violence of drug cartels," he says. Maryland: In a state that used to issue driver's licenses to illegals, GOP State Delegate Pat McDonough has introduced a bill that he calls "a copy of the Arizona law." McDonough does not expect it to pass this session of the Legislature, but is surveying colleagues to gauge support. Missouri: Republican State Rep. Mark Parkinson has submitted an Arizona-style bill to the Missouri House but says there probably isn't enough time to squeeze it through the Senate. He believes it will have a better chance in the next session. Nebraska: In July, voters will rule on a proposal to ban the hiring of illegals or otherwise "harboring" them. North Carolina: Groups opposed to illegal immigration have said there is an overwhelming likelihood that legislation similar to Arizona's will be filed. They probably don't have the votes to get the measure passed, however. Oklahoma: A court has struck down key provisions of a law intended to discourage illegal immigration, while letting stand a requirement that employers use the E-Verify system to establish residency status before hiring an employee. Ohio: State Rep. Courtney Combs, a Republican, recently wrote a letter to Gov. Ted Strickland and top state legislators urging that they enact strong new immigration laws. Strickland, a Democrat, said he would not sign such a bill. Combs hopes to circumvent Strickland by putting the question to the voters directly. "I have had so many people call and volunteer to help us get this on the ballot," Combs told CNSNews.com. "I firmly believe if we get this on the ballot, it will pass. That would be an amazing feat, for the people to override the governor." Texas: Two lone star Republicans are planning to introduce Arizona-type measures. That probably won't sit well with Gov. Rick Perry, who has voiced his opposition to the Arizona measure. Rep. Debbie Riddle of Tomball and Rep. Leo Berman of Tyler both say they support the legislation. Utah: GOP State Rep. Stephen Sandstorm says he has the votes he needs to pass a law that would require immigrants to carry proof of status, direct law officers to question people they have reason to believe may be in the country illegally, and would target businesses that hire or transport undocumented workers.

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-07-2010).]

quote Originally posted by avengador1: I think this person is confused about what is legal and illegal immigration. To answer his question: no, they were all legal immigrants.

Technically you are wrong, most of them were legal, some were held and deported to their country of origin or elsewhere for various reasons chief among them was crriminal or questionable activity. There were some standards and still are to become eligible for citizen ship. I would hope this never changes.

------------------
Dealing with failure is easy: work hard to improve. Success is also easy to handle: you've solved the wrong problem, work hard to improve.

quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: Wow, I went on the local radio, and my article on the site exploded. Now I have a bunch of "higher learning" liberals wanting to prove how smart they are by tossing around big words. Don't people realize this tact never works? http://circlethewagons.net/...%80%99s-perspective/

That's ALL they have Nick. The don't accept the failures of their ideology. They won't accept facts. They are too narrow minded to accept any beliefs that don't align with their own. They only have distortion of truth and name calling to fall back on.

Yeah, this guy claims hes an anthropologist and a professor. god help his students if this is true.
http://circlethewagons.net/...%80%99s-perspective/

Listen to this idiot. We had a Deputy here recently shot in the abdomin by an illegal with an Ak-47. He was a deputy for Pinal county, the same sheriff's office I worked as a Deputy for. I worked the same area this man was shot. This Daniel guy actually claims this Deputy shot him self as a set up to spread the flames over the immigration debate. WOW!
what a libtard nut job.

He says the folowing

quote By the way – I did read the bill, with all of those huge unnecessary gaps in between extending the document longer than it actually was… and I DO REALIZE that there is nothing in it that suggests that people should racial profile. These are Hannity talking points that you ditto heads are accustomed to. But, as an anthropologist, I suggest you learn something about human social behavior, and how people interact at the most basic level of human interaction (i.e. Erving Goffman, Garfinkle, Pierre Bourdieu, Stanley Tambiah, Clifford Geertz) etc., before you suddenly become experts on how or why these social situations may or may not arise. Power is a wonderful thing, and once authorities have it, they will use it. One good thing we have going for us (liberals) is that the police force is divided on how they will exactly implement this new law, since most are hispanics anyway. They will find out at the level of practice how difficult it is to actually implement. No. It’s not about becoming conditioned to something that is taken for granted. Actually, in lieu of the recent incident on I-8, with the shooting of that lone officer, I am inclined to change my opinion on 1070. But I also know that these sorts of incidents happen all the time, and that I shouldn’t rush to judgment based on one incident. However, that does not take away the holistic fact, which is we are falling into the trap that terrorist organizations want us to fall into – changing our policies to adapt to a growing threat. First of all, for all those people who want to equate people crossing the Mexican border with Al Queda terrorists, or the possibility thereof, it will never happen, so cool your jets. Al Queda are Muslim, and Mexicans are Catholic. There are some extremist Mexican groups out there that suggest they (Mexicans) should overtake Arizona (which was once Aztlan before the Gadsen Purchase), by using force, cultural diffusion, or economic destabilization. This in the eyes of many right wingers, may equate to terrorism, but it isn’t. Culture changes over time. It will never stay the way you or your ancestors envisioned your utopian America. If you love America, then why do you or some you know go off into war to fight for it? You should get used to the fact that people have been immigrating into this country since its inception. Ask yourself this, were all of the people getting off the boat at Ellis Island in the 1800’s illegals??

I said he was delusional if he believe a cop would shoot himself to promote the bill, this is what he actually said back.

quote ’m not delusional when the so called smoking gun hasn’t even been found yet. You have to admit that the timing was impeccable, even getting a liberal like me to side-up with 1070 for a day. Now that is powerful, something that only a right wing nut-job would craft. For all of you who would like to to just sweep higher education aside and call it some “ivory tower” that is beyond your comprehension, especially in the realm of analyzing social political discourse, then you should examine your own biases and why you believe the way you do prior to providing any sort of misinformed opinion of something. Yes, the theories I cited are sound, and they do have practical reality in the formal analysis of social human behavior and political discourse.

[This message has been edited by NickD3.4 (edited 05-08-2010).]

The guy is an idiot. Anyone can see that by what he is writting. Too bad there are people like him, even on this forum, that don't see how wrong what "they're" writting is.
The people of Arizona are not laughing.


To clarify my comments about Ellis Island, all immigrants who entered our nation through Ellis Island were following legal procedures to enter our country. Not all of them were accepted, but most were. Only 2% were refused entry.

http://www.ellisisland.org/...s_island_history.asp

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-08-2010).]