http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/04/dhs-silent-radical-arizona-immigration-bill

This is possibly the most racist bill proposed in the U.S. in my entire life.  A proposed bill in the state of Arizona would grant law enforcement the discretion of stopping any individual or group law enforcement suspects might be in the United States illegally and requiring them to produce proof of U.S. citizenship or be detained for possible deportation.

In Arizona, such a law would subject millions Arizonians to legalized police harassment who are:
a. Americans of Hispanic or indigenous American ancestry.
b. Naturalized U.S. citizens from Latin America or elsewhere in the Spanish-speaking world.
c. Legal immigrants in the U.S. on work or education visas.
d. Any individual with a dark complexion and/or a foreign accent an intellectually compromised law enforcement official might find suspicious.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/01/bandit.gif

Sen. Russell Pearce (R-AZ), who is already notorious for his anti-immigration positions, sponsored the bill, known as the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" (SB 1070)

Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show, referred to "old World War II films" on his 4/20/10 program in lieu of the stereotypical Nazi interrogative (in stereotyped German accent): "Do you hef paperz?"

The bill will not pass into law because it risks infringing on the 14th Amendment rights of U.S. citizens and otherwise enforcing the law would require endless prejudicial judgment calls and invite abuse of power among law enforcement officials.  Even if the law passed in the Arizona legislature, it could not possibly stand up to judicial scrutiny....I hope.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/help.gif



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/cardinal-mahoney-nazism-i_n_544892.html

Not even close.

If you haven't been noticing what was proposed in 2002 and 2006, you haven't been paying attention.

http://people.ucsc.edu/~gedelsoh/jude.star.jpg

I hate to Godwin the thread, but the company responsible for making the badges made a good profit the last time around.

Disclosure: I have no position in PositiveID.  (Or Verichip, or Digital Angel, or whatever they call themselves next year as part of the ongoing PR campaign to make it happen.  But it will happen again, and it will happen sooner, rather than later.)

Terrifying.  Simply terrifying.

Don't worry.  It won't pass.  Every ACLU ambulance chaser just out of the bar exam will be down there scouring for cases that will make them the next Johnnie Cochrane!
8)

These things don't happen in a vacuum.

Profiling happens, because oftentimes, it works.

You are in enemy country.  Be alert.  Be suspicious of everyone.  Take no chances.  They have had no free speech.  They have no free press.  They were brought up on straight propaganda.  They have been trained to hate and destroy.  Don't argue with them.  Don't try to change their point of view.  You will not be friendly.  You will be aloof.  Watchful.  And suspicious.  Don't clasp that hand.  It's not the kind of a hand you can clasp in friendship...

(Any Arizonans who get pulled over, well, it serves 'em right for trying to drive with no hands on the wheel.  Now that it's law, it's not like anyone's got any right to argue... :)

 - With apologies to Cabaret Voltaire.

(And of course, y'all know I'm talking about Connecticut, not Arizona anyways.)

You are in enemy country.  Be alert.  Be suspicious of everyone.  Take no chances.  They have had no free speech.  They have no free press.  They were brought up on straight propaganda.  They have been trained to hate and destroy.  Don't argue with them.  Don't try to change their point of view.  You will not be friendly.  You will be aloof.  Watchful.  And suspicious.  Don't clasp that hand.  It's not the kind of a hand you can clasp in friendship...

(Any Arizonans who get pulled over, well, it serves 'em right for trying to drive with no hands on the wheel.  Now that it's law, it's not like anyone's got any right to argue... :)

 - With apologies to Cabaret Voltaire.

(And of course, y'all know I'm talking about Connecticut, not Arizona anyways.)


"Don't argue with them" is my first rule of cop etiquette. 
My next rule is: Never bribe too low.

Anyway, I would like to know...how many of the ticketing officers in New Haven were Black?
There's this thing up here in the Northeast between the Blacks and the Puerto Ricans, and well...that's going off topic.
:-\\

So nobody seemed to notice.  I just saw a major faux pas by State Senator John Huppenthal (R-AZ) today on "Hardball" with Chris Matthews.  Huppenthal was promoting the bill, but he didn't want to send like he was pigeonholing Latinos, so he says:

"So why shouldn't a family be stopped and asked for papers on their way to the...synagogue?"

Oooooops!  Sometimes it's better NOT to try to be politically correct!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/uhoh3.gif

So nobody seemed to notice.  I just saw a major faux pas by State Senator John Huppenthal (R-AZ) today on "Hardball" with Chris Matthews.  Huppenthal was promoting the bill, but he didn't want to send like he was pigeonholing Latinos, so he says:

"So why shouldn't a family be stopped and asked for papers on their way to the...synagogue?"

Oooooops!  Sometimes it's better NOT to try to be politically correct!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/uhoh3.gif


LOL...  nice

Seth Myers: Could We All Agree That There's Nothing More Nazi Than Saying 'Show Me Your Papers'?

Seth Myers: Could We All Agree That There's Nothing More Nazi Than Saying 'Show Me Your Papers'?


That's why they put in a provision allowing parties to sue law enforcement...
for not enforcing the law aggressively enough!

See, if I was a cop in Arizona, I wouldn't want the hassles and the headaches, so I'd say the hell with it and refuse to stop ANYBODY on such suspicions even if I saw the lot of them sneaking over the fence!  Well, these Aryanzona legislators were not going to let some White Rose League crop up among the constabulary, so if you see Officer Smith ignore a truckload of Chicanos trundling down the highway, don't take the law into your own hands, you take him to court!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/nono.gif

So nobody seemed to notice.  I just saw a major faux pas by State Senator John Huppenthal (R-AZ) today on "Hardball" with Chris Matthews.  Huppenthal was promoting the bill, but he didn't want to send like he was pigeonholing Latinos, so he says:

"So why shouldn't a family be stopped and asked for papers on their way to the...synagogue?"

Oooooops!  Sometimes it's better NOT to try to be politically correct!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/uhoh3.gif


;D LMAO!

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/jon-stewart-arizona-is-the-meth-lab-of-democracy-video.php

Jon Stewart weighs in...

If you haven't been noticing what was proposed in 2002 and 2006, you haven't been paying attention.


2010: Another year, another manufactured controversy, another trial balloon for the same plan:

"“I think we should catch ’em, we should document ’em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going,� said Pat Bertroche, an Urbandale physician. “I actually support microchipping them. I can microchip my dog so I can find it. Why can’t I microchip an illegal?"
  - http://iowaindependent.com/32926/install-microchips-in-illegal-immigrants-gop-candidate-says

Well, that convinces me.  I mean, they put RFID tags in dogs, don't they, and why should we treat our humans any better than that?  (If identifying patches on the clothing won't work because clothing could be easily changed, I'd personally prefer to see us using tattoos.  Much more retro-chic!)

Cue Iron Maiden's song about illegal immigrants: Run to the Hills.

Of course, the punchline about all these RFID-chipping trial balloons is that the damn illegals don't sit still long enough or show up to get chipped.  Which means that the only ones with the chips will be the ones who are legal... which is all well and good, except that if you do it that way, there's still no easy way to determine an illegal immigrant (who never got chipped because he snuck in) from a natural-born citizen (who never got chipped because Bob-dammit, he's an American, and he didn't have to put up with no chippin'!) or a naturalized citizen (for whom chip removal would presumably happen after taking part in the naturalization ceremony).  Long story short, you've still got no way to tell rightfully-unchipped citizens from illegally-unchipped illegals.

The final solution to the illegal problem will be to tag the citizens and legal immigrants, so that anyone without the tag can safely be assumed to be illegal.  After all, RFID chipping is safe and painless, it's not even a scar, just a little mark, (for ease of scanning, maybe on the hand or forehead), and a valid number means you can get a job or go to the shops to buy food 'n' stuff...  (Funny, Iron Maiden wrote a song about that, too...)  

If the Biblical God exists, He's got an awesome sense of humor:  the punchline of the apocalypse is that when it happens, it'll be the religious fundamentalists begging for the Mark.  Run to the hills, indeed :)

All those 'TRYING' to put the 'Nazi' spin on the law don't get it.  Too easy to do(SETH MYERS et al.).

In Nazi Germany, the gypsy's and Jewish residents were all rounded up and executed...guess what THEY WERE CITIZENS OF THE PLACE ANYWAY!

The Arizonal law was created to stop illegal immigration!

As far as 'are you Amercan?' We have drivers licenses to have the privelege to drive, because of the recognition of illegals entering through Arizona..how can the'legals' get around the hassle? Have a copy or card that is accepted as proof!
Blame the  'inconvenience' on those who abused the system..and the issue of the feds not enforcing of the illegal immigrant situation for the past 20 years. has caused Arizona to form the bill.

The Mexican race  may be picked out,due to the top 10 countries that have 'illegals' in the US...Mexico born, make
up approx. 9 millioni people..next CHINA with approx. 1million.

I'm not stating 'GET THE MEXICANS YOU MAY SEE' ...I say get the illegals and serve them justice. They(Arizona Law Enforcement),have set the plan..who is arguing?
Perhaps people supporting illegals? I CAN'T side with that.


   

As far as 'are you Amercan?' We have drivers licenses to have the privelege to drive, because of the recognition of illegals entering through Arizona..how can the'legals' get around the hassle? Have a copy or card that is accepted as proof!


But it's not.  The privilege to drive on a state's road is not one that requires citizenship (plenty of legal immigrants have drivers' licenses), nor even, in some states, legal presence.  If you've got a problem with the fact that the states of Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Washington don't require proof of legal presence to get a license to drive, then you should probably encourage residents of those states to contact their state representatives and change the requirements for a driver's license.

Borodin: I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pickup truck... maybe even a recreational vehicle. And drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?
Ramius: I suppose.
Borodin: No papers?
Ramius: No papers, state to state.
- conversation between two Soviet defectors to the USA, in Hunt for Red October

http://www.ibiblio.org/samneill/pictures/hfro/420montana1.jpg

Borodin: I would have liked to have seen Montana...

I don't have a problem with non-citizens having to carry and show their papers - that's been part of Federal law since well before WW2.  But I have a huge problem when American citizens are required to carry proof of their citizenship when traveling from one American state to another American state.  Are they the United States of America or not?  

"I would like to drive from state to state.  Do they let you do that or not?" is a question that should be asked by actors portraying Cold-War-era Soviet defectors whose only experience is totalitarianism, not 21st-century Americans.

But it's not.  The privilege to drive on a state's road is not one that requires citizenship (plenty of legal immigrants have drivers' licenses), nor even, in some states, legal presence.  If you've got a problem with the fact that the states of Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Washington don't require proof of legal presence to get a license to drive, then you should probably encourage residents of those states to contact their state representatives and change the requirements for a driver's license.

Borodin: I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pickup truck... maybe even a recreational vehicle. And drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?
Ramius: I suppose.
Borodin: No papers?
Ramius: No papers, state to state.
- conversation between two Soviet defectors to the USA, in Hunt for Red October

http://www.ibiblio.org/samneill/pictures/hfro/420montana1.jpg

Borodin: I would have liked to have seen Montana...

I don't have a problem with non-citizens having to carry and show their papers - that's been part of Federal law since well before WW2.  But I have a huge problem when American citizens are required to carry proof of their citizenship when traveling from one American state to another American state.  Are they the United States of America or not?  

"I would like to drive from state to state.  Do they let you do that or not?" is a question that should be asked by actors portraying Cold-War-era Soviet defectors whose only experience is totalitarianism, not 21st-century Americans.


Yes, on the license matter,I see your cncern...then again there are the 'STATE' and 'FEDERAL' law differences..The President acknowledged the Arizona State law AND is awaiting the law challenges from the Feds and Constitutionality...The State Governor , has no idea that anyone can wn the challenge yet.

Even miinute differences in states, from 'legal ages' to marry and insurance coverage etc..so, I will concentrate on the 'illegal immigraton' issue,rather than what else is acceptable state to state.
Residents in Arizona had enough, so WHERE were the protests there?

Good luck Arizona in keeping civiility...watch out Calif. as a shift may happen with more showing up there.

Will we hear something from Texas soon following suit?
Just asking. 

Rep. Duncan Hunter, Jr. (R-CA), has just proposed deporting the children of the illegal aliens because the souls of said children are not "American." 

Maybe the Nazi comparisons are hyperbolic this year, but next year is anybody's guess!

All those 'TRYING' to put the 'Nazi' spin on the law don't get it.  Too easy to do(SETH MYERS et al.).

In Nazi Germany, the gypsy's and Jewish residents were all rounded up and executed...guess what THEY WERE CITIZENS OF THE PLACE ANYWAY!

The Arizonal law was created to stop illegal immigration!

As far as 'are you Amercan?' We have drivers licenses to have the privelege to drive, because of the recognition of illegals entering through Arizona..how can the'legals' get around the hassle? Have a copy or card that is accepted as proof!
Blame the  'inconvenience' on those who abused the system..and the issue of the feds not enforcing of the illegal immigrant situation for the past 20 years. has caused Arizona to form the bill.

The Mexican race  may be picked out,due to the top 10 countries that have 'illegals' in the US...Mexico born, make
up approx. 9 millioni people..next CHINA with approx. 1million.

I'm not stating 'GET THE MEXICANS YOU MAY SEE' ...I say get the illegals and serve them justice. They(Arizona Law Enforcement),have set the plan..who is arguing?
Perhaps people supporting illegals? I CAN'T side with that.


   



How would you feel if as an American citizen by birth to be asked for your papers EVERY TIME you walked out the door? As someone asked Gov. Brewer, What does an illegal immigrant look like?


Watch THIS video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8tCF7tDBrg


You might want to pay attention to the interview of the Arizona sheriff starting at 4:40.



Saver, you seem to have this attitude that if it doesn't affect me or if I am doing no wrong, then it is ok. Just paid heed to the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller during the Nazi occupation of Germany:

THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.


We ALL need to speak up when we see injustice based on race, religion, gender, and/or sexual preference.



Cat

I agree with Dupnick and Obama, this has bad idea written all over it.

If Speedy Gonzales was alive, he would be in big trouble.

::)

On the more serious side...

It's gonna to lead to big problems, people getting arrest by trigger happy people, anger, and possibly much much worse.

Mark my words.

By the way, I leave with this final thought....

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

George Santayana

I take back what I said concerning profiling...  Since it apparently violates the 14th Amendment, I guess it doesn't work for very long before lawsuits begin.

That being said, I guess this law won't have a very long shelf-life.

The whole concept of border security is a farce anyway.  I mean really...  how would you actually secure something thousands of miles long?  Maybe this idea of selling land back to Mexico isn't such a bad one.

Arizona can go first, then Southern Texas, then Southern California....

Before you know it, we'll be paying off the national debt.

How would you feel if as an American citizen by birth to be asked for your papers EVERY TIME you walked out the door? As someone asked Gov. Brewer, What does an illegal immigrant look like?


Watch THIS video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8tCF7tDBrg


You might want to pay attention to the interview of the Arizona sheriff starting at 4:40.



Saver, you seem to have this attitude that if it doesn't affect me or if I am doing no wrong, then it is ok. Just paid heed to the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller during the Nazi occupation of Germany:

THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.


We ALL need to speak up when we see injustice based on race, religion, gender, and/or sexual preference.



Cat




Every has been jumping to 'they're being racist,facist, etc'..the way they are planning to arrest the lawbreakers are getting to do a check on their status.

Just heard, in L.A.,the police have a 'special issue 40' where they are not allowed to go by the immigraton status. Why then s there a 'special issue'?
Apparently someone is afraid..of?? being found  'ILLEGALLY HERE?',

What about when everyone screams 'no terrorist' profiling? How many non-terrorists say 'Fine,search me all you want?'
If I am at peace because it doesn't effect me, I think it's because I lead a life of respect for the law and if 'I' have to refran from crossing the line to break the law,we are all in the same land and have the same 'rules' to adhere to..

If I went to another country and they say EVERYONE must speak 'their' language or the 'language of the land' ..you can bet I will abide by that (law/mandate??)before stepping foot there.

Regarding the Nazi's/Jews situation,...do you know of ANY Jews sneaking into Germany at the time of the abomination?

The prose written begs me to ask: When ?? comes for me..why were they coming for 'me'?

Last thing I heard tonight on a chat show was how the bill is being called/challenged by many groups/Mayor of L.A.  as 'unConstitutional', however many lawyers who have either put it together or worked it over haven't found anything unConstitutional about it.

(BTW..interested if, you, favor terrorist profling..based on what is currently known that MOST/ALL 'plane bomber' terrorist were 20 year old Md Eastern men?)

Thank you.

 

Every has been jumping to 'they're being racist,facist, etc'..the way they are planning to arrest the lawbreakers are getting to do a check on their status.

Just heard, in L.A.,the police have a 'special issue 40' where they are not allowed to go by the immigraton status. Why then s there a 'special issue'?
Apparently someone is afraid..of?? being found  'ILLEGALLY HERE?',

What about when everyone screams 'no terrorist' profiling? How many non-terrorists say 'Fine,search me all you want?'
If I am at peace because it doesn't effect me, I think it's because I lead a life of respect for the law and if 'I' have to refran from crossing the line to break the law,we are all in the same land and have the same 'rules' to adhere to..

If I went to another country and they say EVERYONE must speak 'their' language or the 'language of the land' ..you can bet I will abide by that (law/mandate??)before stepping foot there.

Regarding the Nazi's/Jews situation,...do you know of ANY Jews sneaking into Germany at the time of the abomination?

The prose written begs me to ask: When ?? comes for me..why were they coming for 'me'?

Last thing I heard tonight on a chat show was how the bill is being called/challenged by many groups/Mayor of L.A.  as 'unConstitutional', however many lawyers who have either put it together or worked it over haven't found anything unConstitutional about it.

(BTW..interested if, you, favor terrorist profling..based on what is currently known that MOST/ALL 'plane bomber' terrorist were 20 year old Md Eastern men?)

Thank you.

 


Since these prose are barely literate they are hard to respond to but I'll give it a try.  Again, one must ask, what does an illegal look like?  Clearly, the supposition is brown skin and curly black hair, speaking Spanish or with a Spanish accent.  None of that constitutes probable cause.

By the same token, what does a terrorist look like?  A middle eastern man, except for the ones who are female and/ or Caucasian. 

The Jews who were exterminated were native to the places where they were captured, so I don't get the point.

Obviously, the Nazis "came for" anyone they considered an enemy of the state, which included communists, trade unionists, jews, and finally anyone who wasn't a nazi.

Lastly, of course those who put the law together think it is constitutional, but they don't get to decide. 

Since these prose are barely literate they are hard to respond to but I'll give it a try.  Again, one must ask, what does an illegal look like?  Clearly, the supposition is brown skin and curly black hair, speaking Spanish or with a Spanish accent.  None of that constitutes probable cause.

By the same token, what does a terrorist look like?  A middle eastern man, except for the ones who are female and/ or Caucasian. 

The Jews who were exterminated were native to the places where they were captured, so I don't get the point.

Obviously, the Nazis "came for" anyone they considered an enemy of the state, which included communists, trade unionists, jews, and finally anyone who wasn't a nazi.

Lastly, of course those who put the law together think it is constitutional, but they don't get to decide. 



Have I told you lately how much I love you? Couldn't have said it better myself.  :-* :-* :-* :-* :-*




Cat

All those 'TRYING' to put the 'Nazi' spin on the law don't get it.  Too easy to do(SETH MYERS et al.).

In Nazi Germany, the gypsy's and Jewish residents were all rounded up and executed...guess what THEY WERE CITIZENS OF THE PLACE ANYWAY!

The Arizonal law was created to stop illegal immigration!

As far as 'are you Amercan?' We have drivers licenses to have the privelege to drive, because of the recognition of illegals entering through Arizona..how can the'legals' get around the hassle? Have a copy or card that is accepted as proof!
Blame the  'inconvenience' on those who abused the system..and the issue of the feds not enforcing of the illegal immigrant situation for the past 20 years. has caused Arizona to form the bill.

The Mexican race  may be picked out,due to the top 10 countries that have 'illegals' in the US...Mexico born, make
up approx. 9 millioni people..next CHINA with approx. 1million.

I'm not stating 'GET THE MEXICANS YOU MAY SEE' ...I say get the illegals and serve them justice. They(Arizona Law Enforcement),have set the plan..who is arguing?
Perhaps people supporting illegals? I CAN'T side with that.


   


I have a question.  Since most Mexicans that cross the boarder illegally with nothing but the shirt on their back how are they to become citizens?  People forget citizenship takes money and a times the work of an attorney.  So these people don't have a chance in hell of becoming citizens because they're being picked up before they can even make enough money to afford an hour with an attorney.

Since these prose are barely literate they are hard to respond to but I'll give it a try.  Again, one must ask, what does an illegal look like?  Clearly, the supposition is brown skin and curly black hair, speaking Spanish or with a Spanish accent.  None of that constitutes probable cause.

By the same token, what does a terrorist look like?  A middle eastern man, except for the ones who are female and/ or Caucasian.  

The Jews who were exterminated were native to the places where they were captured, so I don't get the point.

Obviously, the Nazis "came for" anyone they considered an enemy of the state, which included communists, trade unionists, jews, and finally anyone who wasn't a nazi.

Lastly, of course those who put the law together think it is constitutional, but they don't get to decide.  



I totally would be against a bill that 'picked people out to challenge their legal residency'..but that's not what this is about.
Just now heard 70% of illegals (maybe sent here from Mexico), have a criminal record.

Speaking for myself, if someone moves into MY backyard and wants what I have at no cost, when I had to earn it or maybe deals drugs and shoots my neighbor, I DON'T WANT THEM HERE!

Another analogy if you still couldn't figure the point:
Let's say I am in line for a movie that is packed, and there are 4 seats left and I am there with a group to get the last 4 tickets, just then, someoene comes out of nowhere jumps in front of me and wants the 4 tickets.
Do I A. Beat their but like a maniac? or B. Explain to them there is a system we have which if they want tickets, they must get in the back of the line.

There's that point.

2.The profiling point was missed...
I am referring to the 'airline' terrorists who have turned the travel industry chaotic.
Do you know of any airline terrorist who was a Caucasiian OR female?  Uh oh, check grandma out there, she may have something dangerous in that Colostomy bag!

3.The question referencing 'How many Jews tried to illegally enter Nazi Germany?' The point there is..why would a Jew WANT to go into a country which has orders to brutally exterminate someone who is Jewish? As that was the Nazi's horrible way of dealing with people they ruled to be 'enemies of the state', legal or otherwise, (unless you know of Jews who snuck in and didn't meet such a fate?)
So the point being , with this 'bill', How many illegals will want to enter Arizona with a law that will handle them much more 'humanely' and deport them? You'd have to be pretty stupid to want to test the law,but do and you'll be dealt with under legal terms.

See? Now was that so hard to understand?

Guess what? All these points were transposed from 2 widely listened to American talk radio programs. Hosted by professional paid quite well to make their 'points' known.(one includes Dennis Miller),
I am amused how you have found the original post to be 'barely literate' when apparently MILLONS got the points made.

So hopefully,by painting the 'story' pictures  as above, the points were revealed as I heard them, to share once again and whether you like the upcoming 'bill' or not, I side with doing things  'legally' ...(some proposed an 8 year wait for citizenship..THATwould have to be determined through follow uplegislaton etc..)

Thanks for listening.
         

I totally would be against a bill that 'picked people out to challenge their legal residency'..but that's not what this is about.
Just now heard 70% of illegals (maybe sent here from Mexico), have a criminal record.
         



"Just now heard". Gossip. Demonization.  and you fall for it.

Set the clock back 150 years, make the "I" word Irish or Italian and you have the same thing.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/29/lander.who.am.i/index.html

Loved this article.

Saver, you seem to have this attitude that if it doesn't affect me or if I am doing no wrong, then it is ok. Just paid heed to the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller during the Nazi occupation of Germany:

THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.


We ALL need to speak up when we see injustice based on race, religion, gender, and/or sexual preference.



Cat






The prose written begs me to ask: When ?? comes for me..why were they coming for 'me'?


This sentence above perfectly illustrates the difference between liberals and conservatives.   ::)

This sentence above perfectly illustrates the difference between liberals and conservatives.   ::)



Exactly

This sentence above perfectly illustrates the difference between liberals and conservatives.   ::)


Or smart people and let us say the intellectually challenged

The comparisons to Nazi Germany are rather over the top...

This is starting to look like when the Tea Partiers were comparing Obamacare to Nazism.

The prose written begs me to ask: When ?? comes for me..why were they coming for 'me'?



When they do come for YOU, they'll be nice young men in long white coats!


http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/tard.gif

Exactly



TRUE! GUILTY on the 'Conservativism' category...

Disagree with DonC and the 'intellectual' comparison as this country has laws in place and now 'overdramatic' leftists jump to the Nazi comparison..law enforcement depts. always have it as protocol to ask, when pulled over to see ID, License, registration..what's the problem?

Heard the Sen. who is strongly behind this bill and added on a KABC radio talk show appearance..some of the wording has been changed which hopefully'cleared up' the frightening assumption that anyone can be pulled over and confronted to produce residency proof, citizens with probable cause of violating the law(s) are the ones who will be asked and requried.

So, we'll see, when?..July for 5 people to make the decision for everyone.

HERE'S ANOTHER SUBLECT I'D LIKE TO PRESENT ..not yelling about ones rights based on looks, this issue deals with ones 'smell?
I got caught up in THIS divided lib/conserv. debate firsthand.l...Where  would you (readers)stand? OK, sorry if maybe for another thread..but, here:

In a large city filled with extreme liberals, L.A ,CA., a 'smelly homeless person,who clearly hadn't been bathed for(??) got on the city bus,with many other cleanly riders..windows all were opened until the smell became overbearing..the driver stops the bus, LEAVES THE BUS after telliing the man he had to 'get off his bus' due to his offending others with his 'personal' smell ....MANY riders shouted to the street urchin,'GET OFF'..whether he understood what the commotion was about is another matter. BUT THEN ....ONE rider says to the driver and the others 'HEY, HE HAS A RIGHT TO RIDE THIS CITY BUS, HE PAID LIKE EVERYONE ELSE..YOU DON'T LIKE THE SMELL..YOU GET OFF AND CATCH THE NEXT ONE!'

Who would you side with..and why did a possible rule, (or law), have to be created which determines if you can evict someone for their 'smell'?
From what I recall, if something/someone causes some sort of disruption to the norm of the public...the offender can be removed/asked to leave.

Just saying..     

Does the L.A. transit system have a policy on B.O.?

If not.  The stinker has the right to ride the bus.  If so, it's an ACLU lawyer's wet dream!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_bounce.gif

Does the L.A. transit system have a policy on B.O.?

If not.  The stinker has the right to ride the bus.  If so, it's an ACLU lawyer's wet dream!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_bounce.gif


I believe as stated..lately(perhaps it's happened so much)..the driver has the discretion to make the call..is the person causing discomfort to the majority of passengers?

Everybody these days screams 'I HAVE RIGHTS'..I can come to the US and not get hassled, I have a right to wear whatever I want, etc..well, guess what every day rights are being denied..get used to it.

The Arizona law must really have the ACLU steaming..send them all there with their lawyers and use up ANY AND ALL the money they collect from those lawsuits they have a thrill making their money from!

   

Does the L.A. transit system have a policy on B.O.?

If not.  The stinker has the right to ride the bus.  If so, it's an ACLU lawyer's wet dream!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_bounce.gif


My guess  is that this would come under the public nuisance department

My guess  is that this would come under the public nuisance department


Like somebody else around here!

Like somebody else around here!


Who remain sav nameless

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/loopy.htm

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/loopy.htm



Karma for posting Flame Warriors. Love it!




Cat

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/loopy.htm


Enjoyed the message..but any feeble attempt to relate it to this writer(??),(regarding THIS thread)must reflect how dense one must be after the statements written were 'lifted' from well educated professionals as site earlier..unless 'sender' couldn't understand the person who reads these items to them.

Enjoyed the message..but any feeble attempt to relate it to this writer(??),(regarding THIS thread)must reflect how dense one must be after the statements written were 'lifted' from well educated professionals as site earlier..unless 'sender' couldn't understand the person who reads these items to them.




Say what?

Say what?



Once again, My Love, you were thinking the exact same thing I was.



Cat

Say what?


I think he's saying I'm too dense to get the obvious genius of his posts.

I think he's saying I'm too dense to get the obvious genius of his posts.



Does that mean that the rest of us are also too dense? I guess Carlos' PhD isn't enough for saver.




Cat

Does that mean that the rest of us are also too dense? I guess Carlos' PhD isn't enough for saver.




Cat


You don't need a PhD, you need an LSD!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_colors.gif

You don't need a PhD, you need an LSD!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_colors.gif



;D ;D ;D ;D



Cat

Say what?


Word is you hold a PHd..good,commendable.
That aside, others if you and others can't figure I am politely laughing at, (another poster), thinking my posts,which were taken from OTHER 'WELL REASEARCHED AND EDUCATED'  PROFESSIONALS, was ranting babble. I'd put THEIR reasoning up against whatever the handful of posters who 'don't get the message of the Arizona law' a touch ahead of anything they have presented so far!

I am open to considering both sides of the issue, therefore not disparaging your view..but to worry more about illegal immigrants over the latest death of the Arizona man killed by an 'illegal'..I can support such inconsideration by those 'not in favor' of what Arizona wants to do. I don't live there, but the numbers show a number of polls from residents, they want it enforced...AND have you/anyone heard how Oklahoma would like to jump in and not far behind..Texas?!

 

           

No matter what they do in Arizona, they'll still have a problem with illegal immigrants. 

What the Mex-Tex border had turned into since NAFTA?  Jesus, you'd be better off in an American jail!
::)

No matter what they do in Arizona, they'll still have a problem with illegal immigrants. 

What the Mex-Tex border had turned into since NAFTA?  Jesus, you'd be better off in an American jail!
::)


Well, there are things they could do that would certainly end the illegal immigrant problem very quickly and efficiently, but most of them aren't Constitutional or affordable.

Well, there are things they could do that would certainly end the illegal immigrant problem very quickly and efficiently, but most of them aren't Constitutional or affordable.



Well, they could make is easier for people to come to this country without having to sneak across the border and deal with the human smugglers.


What a novel idea, huh?



Cat

Well, there are things they could do that would certainly end the illegal immigrant problem very quickly and efficiently, but most of them aren't Constitutional or affordable.


We could do it constitutionally, but cheap labor, drugs, and prostitution are all things Americans like very much but don't want to admit it.  Of course, a 30-cent tomato is enjoyed by far more Americans daily than a 14-year-old prostitute, but there's still a lot of money tied up in domestic servitude, prostitution, and drug-running that the U.S. doesn't REALLY want to seal that border. 

Americans won't live in squalid camps and pick tomatoes for sub-minimum wage.  There was a big kerfuffle down in Florida a few years ago against Mexican tomato pickers, so the Mexicans said, "Okay, muchachos, we won't pick tomatoes!"  And they walked away.  And the tomatoes just rotted on the vines!
::)

Well, they could make is easier for people to come to this country without having to sneak across the border and deal with the human smugglers.


What a novel idea, huh?



Cat


That's up next on the agenda.  We'll be handing out visas like candy within the next few years.  We might as well hand out citizenship too, but the paperwork can be tricky.

We could do it constitutionally, but cheap labor, drugs, and prostitution are all things Americans like very much but don't want to admit it.  Of course, a 30-cent tomato is enjoyed by far more Americans daily than a 14-year-old prostitute, but there's still a lot of money tied up in domestic servitude, prostitution, and drug-running that the U.S. doesn't REALLY want to seal that border. 

True, and even if we did, Mexico would still continue to descend into anarchy, which would still result in people trying their hardest to get here.

See, I agree that we are just as much to blame for the illegal issue by hiring these people to begin with.  Yet, something rarely discussed is how Mexico itself is approaching the "failed state" status.  Their government is dysfunctional at best, poverty is still a major issue there, and drug cartels have made journalism very deadly in most of northern Mexico.

Even if we stopped hiring illegals altogether and tried hard to seal the border, these people would still show up out of desperation.  Basically, unless we can somehow transform Mexico into a functional country, we're going to share some of the burden of their problems.

Americans won't live in squalid camps and pick tomatoes for sub-minimum wage.  There was a big kerfuffle down in Florida a few years ago against Mexican tomato pickers, so the Mexicans said, "Okay, muchachos, we won't pick tomatoes!"  And they walked away.  And the tomatoes just rotted on the vines!
::)




Give it time.  With the direction our standard of living is headed, we might embrace that.

No matter what they do in Arizona, they'll still have a problem with illegal immigrants. 

What the Mex-Tex border had turned into since NAFTA?  Jesus, you'd be better off in an American jail!
::)


You are not far from the truth.  Try living next door to the deadliest city in the world.

I am not kidding when I say I felt safer last year in the war zone then I do in my own home town.  There were over 2,660 confirmed murders in Juarez last year, including multiple decapitations, including the bodies being hung from freeway bridges.  And yes, the cartels are exporting this violence to the US, most notably El Paso and Phoenix.

And it is all to try and control the flow of marijuanna into this country.  So is it any wonder that people want to leave that cesspool of a country?

I have no problem with NAFTA.  I see the trucks and workers on a daily basis, some even work on my base.  But they are not the ones bring up the crime and drugs and murder, it is the cartels and their drugs.

You are not far from the truth.  Try living next door to the deadliest city in the world.

I am not kidding when I say I felt safer last year in the war zone then I do in my own home town.  There were over 2,660 confirmed murders in Juarez last year, including multiple decapitations, including the bodies being hung from freeway bridges.  And yes, the cartels are exporting this violence to the US, most notably El Paso and Phoenix.

And it is all to try and control the flow of marijuanna into this country.  So is it any wonder that people want to leave that cesspool of a country?

I have no problem with NAFTA.  I see the trucks and workers on a daily basis, some even work on my base.  But they are not the ones bring up the crime and drugs and murder, it is the cartels and their drugs.


NAFTA sure didn't help the people of Juarez.  When the economy fails, the black market moves in. Drug dealers have no qualms about decapitating teenagers and leaving them on the side of the road.  Sends a message. 
::)

NAFTA sure didn't help the people of Juarez.  When the economy fails, the black market moves in. Drug dealers have no qualms about decapitating teenagers and leaving them on the side of the road.  Sends a message. 
::)


Theey have had that problem long before NAFTA came along.  I remember the last major attempt of the drug dealers to take over TJ and Juarez in the 1990's.  That time, the businesses got together and worked with the police and military to crush the drug dealers.

And they learned.  This time when they moved into the towns, the first people they went after were the business owners, judges, and police officials.  Then they started to work down the line to the cops on the street and NCOs of the military.  Without the leadership, they were unable to put up an effective fight.  Free trade and bad economy had nothing to do with it.  It is the money made by supplying duge to the US that is causing the problem.

Theey have had that problem long before NAFTA came along.  I remember the last major attempt of the drug dealers to take over TJ and Juarez in the 1990's.  That time, the businesses got together and worked with the police and military to crush the drug dealers.

And they learned.  This time when they moved into the towns, the first people they went after were the business owners, judges, and police officials.  Then they started to work down the line to the cops on the street and NCOs of the military.  Without the leadership, they were unable to put up an effective fight.  Free trade and bad economy had nothing to do with it.  It is the money made by supplying duge to the US that is causing the problem.


I agree there were big problems with drugs on the border before NAFTA, but I don't think it's a fair argument to say NAFTA did not exacerbate the situation.  Of course, I'm too lazy to build my own argument right now!

One way to take the punch out of the drug cartels is to legalize all drugs.  Legalization would make marijuana, cocaine, and heroin dirt cheap.  Obviously, legalizing hard drugs would lead to other problems...however, if there was no risk involved in producing, transporting, and selling drugs, their market value would plunge.  Pot would cost about as much as timothy hay!
::)

I agree there were big problems with drugs on the border before NAFTA, but I don't think it's a fair argument to say NAFTA did not exacerbate the situation.  Of course, I'm too lazy to build my own argument right now!

One way to take the punch out of the drug cartels is to legalize all drugs.  Legalization would make marijuana, cocaine, and heroin dirt cheap.   

Pot is already pretty much legal in California.  And that has only given more money to the cartels.

And Tobacco and Alcohol are both legal and even cheaper, but that has not stopped smuggling of those products either to avoid taxes.  Anybody that thinks that is a solution is delusional.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr145.pdf

As for pot, some say "legalize it and tax it."  I say "legalize it and subsidize it"!
8)

What about when everyone screams 'no terrorist' profiling? How many non-terrorists say 'Fine,search me all you want?'


Funny, the closest I get to law enforcement is that I watch COPS and see at least one person consent to an unnecessary search every weekend.


The prose written begs me to ask: When ?? comes for me..why were they coming for 'me'?


When you, being an American citizen, carrying a driver's license from Utah, New Mexico, or any of the other states that permit illegal aliens to get drivers' licenses, without a passport or birth certificate, and an Arizona state, county, or municipal officer pulls you over for doing 71 in a 65.  And your papers only prove that you can drive a car, not that you're a citizen.  Don't worry, you'll be out of jail in a few hours, and if there's no judge on duty, you can wait until tomorrow.  It's like a free hotel room.  No harm, no foul, right?


Pot is already pretty much legal in California.  And that has only given more money to the cartels.

And Tobacco and Alcohol are both legal and even cheaper, but that has not stopped smuggling of those products either to avoid taxes.  Anybody that thinks that is a solution is delusional.


California's problem is that it's still illegal at the federal level, and that few people want to register on a State database (which must presumably be accessible, however-illegally, by the Feds) as part of the process of getting a prescription (from doctors, not all of whom are necessarily ethical) for their drug of choice.  That game gets interesting later this year, with a proposition for legalization on the ballot.  Full state legalization would put California directly at odds with the Federales, and the Supremes would likely end up having to sort it out, with much lulz for all.

But let's assume it passes in California and it really is legal in at least one state in the USA.  Yes, there'll be a certain amount of regulatory arbitrage and small-time smuggling across state lines and Native reserves for the sake of saving a few bucks in taxes, but it's been three generations since people regularly got shot over alcohol smuggling.  When's the last time 2600 people per year were shot over booze and smokes, let alone 2600 in a single town?

If you wanna get Capone, sure, you can nab him on tax evasion.  But if you want to actually end the violence over booze, you gotta pass the 21st Amendment, which made bootlegging of alcohol uneconomical.

This just in....

Los Angeles, is planning to boycott future business, with Arizona, over the new bill.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64B64S20100512

California's problem is that it's still illegal at the federal level, and that few people want to register on a State database (which must presumably be accessible, however-illegally, by the Feds) as part of the process of getting a prescription (from doctors, not all of whom are necessarily ethical) for their drug of choice.  That game gets interesting later this year, with a proposition for legalization on the ballot.  Full state legalization would put California directly at odds with the Federales, and the Supremes would likely end up having to sort it out, with much lulz for all.

If you wanna get Capone, sure, you can nab him on tax evasion.  But if you want to actually end the violence over booze, you gotta pass the 21st Amendment, which made bootlegging of alcohol uneconomical.


Not true.  There are more pot clinics in San Francisco then Starbucks.  And opening up a paper like the LA Weekly will now give you twice as many ads for pot clinics then for escorts and strip clubs.  And getting a prescription is a joke.  You go to a clinic, walk in the back to talk to their Doctor, tell him your problem, and he writes you a prescription and fills out the card.  It takes about 5 minutes and costs around $50.

My son has 2 cards, one ofr insomnia and another for headaches.  Of course, that does him no good now since he is back in jail again.  

http://www.losangelescannabisclubs.com/

And if you think bootlegging is uneconomical, check around LA.  It is a big business.  Cigarettes and booze are frequently brought in illegally.  Moonshining is a dead art, since the real thing is easy enough to get, but the bootlegging still goes on to avoid the taxes.  And the proposed taxes for pot make that on tobacco and alcohol look like nothing.  So does anybody really think that legalization will make that go away?  That the local drug dealer will stop selling simply because the Government taxes it?  No, they will continue to sell their product illegally, and do it cheaper then the Government does.

Funny, the closest I get to law enforcement is that I watch COPS and see at least one person consent to an unnecessary search every weekend.



Absolutely.  I have done the same.  The cops have searched my car when I should have said no.  I mean, I didn't have anything illegal in there so they got nothing, but the principle holds.  Cops are intimidating, but you DO NOT have to let them rifle through your stuff just because they want to.  One good trick if you have an auto-lock on your key chain is to lock all the doors when you step out of the car.  Of course, that's one sure way to get them to want to search and if they want to, tell them politely, "I do not consent to any searches."  Even if the doors aren't locked and they go in anyway, it's an illegal search.  If they do find that roach in the ashtray, you can argue in court that you did not consent thus the evidence in inadmissible.  However, the cops will do what they always do in court: LIE!  Have fun.
:-\\

Point being, the cops are a wing of the government whose de facto purpose is to protect the rich from the poor and raise revenue for the state.  Those who say "if you don't have anything to hide..." miss the point.  Maybe you've got something to hide and you just don't know it.  


Not true.  There are more pot clinics in San Francisco then Starbucks.  And opening up a paper like the LA Weekly will now give you twice as many ads for pot clinics then for escorts and strip clubs.  And getting a prescription is a joke.  You go to a clinic, walk in the back to talk to their Doctor, tell him your problem, and he writes you a prescription and fills out the card.  It takes about 5 minutes and costs around $50.



That tells you something.  A lot of people want to smoke marijuana, so let them.  Our Founding Fathers would be horrified and confounded by our drug laws.  To the last man they would say what you want to put into your body is your own damn business.  I understand things got complicated in the late 19th century when snake oil salesmen were selling patent medicines containing cocaine and heroin and we wound up with three-year-old junkies!  However, heroin and cocaine are not in the same league with pot.  Pot is far less harmful to the body and to society than alcohol and yet alcohol is the one that's legal.  In fact, it is celebrated.  Of course, alcohol promotes stupidity and aggression whereas pot promotes introspection and passivity...and we can't have introspection and passivity, now can we?  It's un-American!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/15/usa2.gif

http://www.thetoyes.com/lyrics/lyrpotsmokers.html



Cat

When you, being an American citizen, carrying a driver's license from Utah, New Mexico, or any of the other states that permit illegal aliens to get drivers' licenses, without a passport or birth certificate, and an Arizona state, county, or municipal officer pulls you over for doing 71 in a 65.  And your papers only prove that you can drive a car, not that you're a citizen.  Don't worry, you'll be out of jail in a few hours, and if there's no judge on duty, you can wait until tomorrow.  It's like a free hotel room.  No harm, no foul, right?

Naw, they'll only throw the non English speaking drivers in the clink and let the rest go...I thought that was how the law was designed??

Funny, now you've got who first yelled about a 'Nazi' comparison, switched to the 'racial' profiling card, guess 'THEY' are making up the law if they'd only READ the part that clearly states YOU CANNOT BASE THE APPREHENSON ON RACE,(and the other bundle of profiling tools..language etc..)

I was open to the sensativity of the 'profiling worriers'...until the most recent meeting between our top chief Janet Napolitano blubbering about the law only to find the official(s) HAVEN'T EVEN READ the 10 PAGE law through!
Which took all the air out of the 'race card' complaints or at least HER view.

also with all the brains working on calling the law 'foul' ,...NOT 'A' ONE found anything in the Constitution that shows the law in violation.  Good Luck.

Funny, now you've got who first yelled about a 'Nazi' comparison, switched to the 'racial' profiling card, guess 'THEY' are making up the law if they'd only READ the part that clearly states YOU CANNOT BASE THE APPREHENSION ON RACE,(and the other bundle of profiling tools..language etc..)



That's why I said I would hate to be an Arizona cop.  They're forbidden to base the apprehension on race.  That means if I was pulled over in Arizona and I wasn't carrying satisfactory ID, the cops would have to haul me in even though I'm about as white as a white boy can be and I speak English without a trace of foreign accent...well, some people have said I sound Canadian, so I might be one of those illegals down from Winnipeg to pick lettuce!
:D

The point is, everybody knows Latinos and Native Americans would be subject to inquiry and arrest because the law de facto has everything to do with illegal immigrant from Latin America and nobody else.

Naw, they'll only throw the non English speaking drivers in the clink and let the rest go...I thought that was how the law was designed??


Actually, that is how the law was designed - but you're still missing my point. I'm coming from the callous side of "white privilege". I'm actually OK with the idea of being able to arrest illegal aliens, and I'm even OK with it on the practical grounds that as a white guy who carries his papers with him, he's actually got roadside proof of legal presence 24/7 when outside his house, so I'm not likely to be targeted, and even if I am, I've got prima facie proof of legal presence on me.

What I'm not OK with the fact that the cops will probably only put a few US citizens and legal US residents through the wringer while hauling a dragnet's worth of illegals.  That "probably" is a problem for me because... well, because I finally found the source I've been looking for since the start of this friggin' discussion, from someone who put it better than I ever could, almost five years ago:

"Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible."
  - meringuoid, 10/24/2005, emphasis in original post.

When they came for the the people who didn't carry their papers with them 24/7 because they were indistinguishable from the illegals, I ranted impotently about it on the Internet. 

And when they came for me, it didn't make any damn difference, but at least it made me feel better for a while, because at least I can say that I did more than "nothing".  

Actually, that is how the law was designed - but you're still missing my point. I'm coming from the callous side of "white privilege". I'm actually OK with the idea of being able to arrest illegal aliens, and I'm even OK with it on the practical grounds that as a white guy who carries his papers with him, he's actually got roadside proof of legal presence 24/7 when outside his house, so I'm not likely to be targeted, and even if I am, I've got prima facie proof of legal presence on me.

What I'm not OK with the fact that the cops will probably only put a few US citizens and legal US residents through the wringer while hauling a dragnet's worth of illegals.  That "probably" is a problem for me because... well, because I finally found the source I've been looking for since the start of this friggin' discussion, from someone who put it better than I ever could, almost five years ago:

"Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible."
  - meringuoid, 10/24/2005, emphasis in original post.

When they came for the the people who didn't carry their papers with them 24/7 because they were indistinguishable from the illegals, I ranted impotently about it on the Internet. 

And when they came for me, it didn't make any damn difference, but at least it made me feel better for a while, because at least I can say that I did more than "nothing".  


I think I'm with you here...

When you, being an American citizen, carrying a driver's license from Utah, New Mexico, or any of the other states that permit illegal aliens to get drivers' licenses, without a passport or birth certificate, and an Arizona state, county, or municipal officer pulls you over for doing 71 in a 65.  And your papers only prove that you can drive a car, not that you're a citizen.  Don't worry, you'll be out of jail in a few hours, and if there's no judge on duty, you can wait until tomorrow.  It's like a free hotel room.  No harm, no foul, right?

Naw, they'll only throw the non English speaking drivers in the clink and let the rest go...I thought that was how the law was designed??

Funny, now you've got who first yelled about a 'Nazi' comparison, switched to the 'racial' profiling card, guess 'THEY' are making up the law if they'd only READ the part that clearly states YOU CANNOT BASE THE APPREHENSON ON RACE,(and the other bundle of profiling tools..language etc..)

I was open to the sensativity of the 'profiling worriers'...until the most recent meeting between our top chief Janet Napolitano blubbering about the law only to find the official(s) HAVEN'T EVEN READ the 10 PAGE law through!
Which took all the air out of the 'race card' complaints or at least HER view.

also with all the brains working on calling the law 'foul' ,...NOT 'A' ONE found anything in the Constitution that shows the law in violation.  Good Luck.







Actually, illegal immigrants CAN get drivers' licenses in the state of ARIZONA!!!!!


Illegal immigrants already can get arrested in Arizona. Because there is a backlog with the INS, these people are released from jail to await their hearing which can take many months. Within that time, they can get work permits and drivers' licenses. With this new law, that backlog is going to be bigger so more illegal immigrants will be on the streets of Arizona.


http://azcapitoltimes.com/blog/2010/05/17/trespassing-law-may-turn-more-illegal-immigrants-into-citizens/



Cat

Actually, illegal immigrants CAN get drivers' licenses in the state of ARIZONA!!!!!


Illegal immigrants already can get arrested in Arizona. Because there is a backlog with the INS, these people are released from jail to await their hearing which can take many months. Within that time, they can get work permits and drivers' licenses. With this new law, that backlog is going to be bigger so more illegal immigrants will be on the streets of Arizona.


http://azcapitoltimes.com/blog/2010/05/17/trespassing-law-may-turn-more-illegal-immigrants-into-citizens/



Cat


Understood.  Licenses issued etc in many places..

Thanks for everyones calm input. I enjoyed the discussion.

To me it's bottom line...NOT,.. 'THAT' guy speaks funny,looks funny..whatever..it's IS THAT PERSON HERE ILLEGALLY?
And well...I guess most of the illegals that are in AZ are coincidentally Mexican.

Maybe a wall can be done..usually the lawbreakers find the way around it..over it under it.

Understood.  Licenses issued etc in many places..

Thanks for everyones calm input. I enjoyed the discussion.

To me it's bottom line...NOT,.. 'THAT' guy speaks funny,looks funny..whatever..it's IS THAT PERSON HERE ILLEGALLY?
And well...I guess most of the illegals that are in AZ are coincidentally Mexican.

Maybe a wall can be done..usually the lawbreakers find the way around it..over it under it.





One of the infractions the Puerto Ricans get busted for up here is illegally "attaching plates."  They might have illegal license plates, but they're not illegal.  You don't even need a green card to come up here from Puerto Rico!
;D

One of the infractions the Puerto Ricans get busted for up here is illegally "attaching plates."  They might have illegal license plates, but they're not illegal.  You don't even need a green card to come up here from Puerto Rico!
;D


Puerto Ricans ARE citizens, and have been since 1917, by act of Congress, and what was going on in 1917? Beuhler? anyone?

Puerto Ricans ARE citizens, and have been since 1917, by act of Congress, and what was going on in 1917? Beuhler? anyone?


That's what I'm referring to.  Sometimes you see a bumper sticker around here: "Liberate Puerto Rico." 
It's usually on some redneck's pickup truck!
::)

As a side note, I'm completely in favor of giving Puerto Rico its independence.

As a side note, I'm completely in favor of giving Puerto Rico its independence.


If PR got its independence, sovereignty would pass from the US government to the US corporation.  I mean, they could have a leftist revolution, but that would be pretty dicey. 
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/evil7.gif

If PR got its independence, sovereignty would pass from the US government to the US corporation.  I mean, they could have a leftist revolution, but that would be pretty dicey. 
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/evil7.gif


Probably.  But then again, that could describe a lot of the Caribbean and Central America as well.

As a side note, I'm completely in favor of giving Puerto Rico its independence.



There are only a small percentage of Puerto Ricans who want independence (one of Carlos' cousins is one of them). There are many Puerto Ricans who collect Social Security, military pensions, etc. Another one of Carlos' cousins (sister to the one who wants independence) said that if PR got its independence, she was moving to the States.



Cat

There are only a small percentage of Puerto Ricans who want independence (one of Carlos' cousins is one of them). There are many Puerto Ricans who collect Social Security, military pensions, etc. Another one of Carlos' cousins (sister to the one who wants independence) said that if PR got its independence, she was moving to the States.

Cat


Oh, I'm perfectly fine with the ones that want to be citizens moving here.  That's fine as well.  I just don't want us to be present in PR anymore.  We have enough poverty to deal with among our 50 states already.

Oh, I'm perfectly fine with the ones that want to be citizens moving here.  That's fine as well.  I just don't want us to be present in PR anymore.  We have enough poverty to deal with among our 50 states already.



The problem is that the U.S. hasn't really been representing PR. If they did, PR would be better off. People living in PR CANNOT vote for prez even though they are U.S. citizens. They could live anywhere else in the world and vote for prez. They can even live in Iran, Cuba, or North Korea and be able to vote for prez. But, U.S. citizens living in a U.S. territory can not!



Cat

The problem is that the U.S. hasn't really been representing PR. If they did, PR would be better off. People living in PR CANNOT vote for prez even though they are U.S. citizens. They could live anywhere else in the world and vote for prez. They can even live in Iran, Cuba, or North Korea and be able to vote for prez. But, U.S. citizens living in a U.S. territory can not!



Cat


And yet our president is more than happy to send young Puerto Ricans to Iran, Cuba, or North Korea.  Just gotta work in with Joint Chiefs on when, where, and how!  Now, when you're based overseas for the U.S. military, you can get shot just as dead as the next guy, but you still can't vote for prez!
::)

The problem is that the U.S. hasn't really been representing PR. If they did, PR would be better off. People living in PR CANNOT vote for prez even though they are U.S. citizens. They could live anywhere else in the world and vote for prez. They can even live in Iran, Cuba, or North Korea and be able to vote for prez. But, U.S. citizens living in a U.S. territory can not!

Cat


All the more reason to cut it loose....   But seriously, the main reason why I believe it's hard to reconcile all this is because we've given their people referendums on which direction to go.  The last time we held one, the majority of voters went for the "none of the above" option.  The next highest option was statheood at 46%.

Why they even had a "none of the above" option is beyond me, but because they chose that, they got stuck with the status quo.  Maybe next time, they'll pick statheood, and we can resolve this.


EDIT: Just to let you guys know, I've tried changing the spelling of statheood several times on this post, but it keeps displaying wrong.

All the more reason to cut it loose....   But seriously, the main reason why I believe it's hard to reconcile all this is because we've given their people referendums on which direction to go.  The last time we held one, the majority of voters went for the "none of the above" option.  The next highest option was statheood at 46%.

Why they even had a "none of the above" option is beyond me, but because they chose that, they got stuck with the status quo.  Maybe next time, they'll pick statheood, and we can resolve this.


EDIT: Just to let you guys know, I've tried changing the spelling of statheood several times on this post, but it keeps displaying wrong.



Unfortunately, even if there were a vote in PR and 100% of all voters voted for statheood, it still wouldn't happen because it has to originate in Washington and since PR doesn't have representation who is going to introduce a bill for it?



Cat 

Unfortunately, even if there were a vote in PR and 100% of all voters voted for statheood, it still wouldn't happen because it has to originate in Washington and since PR doesn't have representation who is going to introduce a bill for it?



Cat 


That is certainly a problem, but given PR's Democratic leanings, I think plenty of blue states would support its inclusion in the Union.  Granted, it would probably take a few years after the referendum results.

EDIT: Just to let you guys know, I've tried changing the spelling of statheood several times on this post, but it keeps displaying wrong.


from an April Fool's joke years back.  Everytime you typed the it was changed to be t-e-h.  The quickest, easiest, safest way to change back was to automatically swap t-e-h to the and now it clearly does it all the time!

And yet our president is more than happy to send young Puerto Ricans to Iran, Cuba, or North Korea.  Just gotta work in with Joint Chiefs on when, where, and how!  Now, when you're based overseas for the U.S. military, you can get shot just as dead as the next guy, but you still can't vote for prez!
::)


Actually, yes they can.

The reason that they can't vote for President is the same reason that those that live in Washington DC can't, it is not represented by a vote in the Electoral College.

However, if a Puerto Rican joins the military (or moves to an actual state), they simply register as a resident of that state, and they can vote.

One of my best friends in my platoon is from Puerto Rico.  Once he finished his training, he registered to vote in Texas.  And when we returned from deployment, his wife also moved here to Texas, and she has registered to vote as well.

And at any time one could travel to a state, register as a resident, then simply file absentee voter paperwork.  I know that my friend Angel is going to do just that when his enlistment is up and he returns home.

Actually, yes they can.

The reason that they can't vote for President is the same reason that those that live in Washington DC can't, it is not represented by a vote in the Electoral College.

However, if a Puerto Rican joins the military (or moves to an actual state), they simply register as a resident of that state, and they can vote.

One of my best friends in my platoon is from Puerto Rico.  Once he finished his training, he registered to vote in Texas.  And when we returned from deployment, his wife also moved here to Texas, and she has registered to vote as well.

And at any time one could travel to a state, register as a resident, then simply file absentee voter paperwork.  I know that my friend Angel is going to do just that when his enlistment is up and he returns home.


But that would be voter fraud since he would no longer be a resident of Texas.  My dad and sis could pull the same stunt and vote in VT, but again, fraud

Actually, yes they can.

The reason that they can't vote for President is the same reason that those that live in Washington DC can't, it is not represented by a vote in the Electoral College.

However, if a Puerto Rican joins the military (or moves to an actual state), they simply register as a resident of that state, and they can vote.

One of my best friends in my platoon is from Puerto Rico.  Once he finished his training, he registered to vote in Texas.  And when we returned from deployment, his wife also moved here to Texas, and she has registered to vote as well.

And at any time one could travel to a state, register as a resident, then simply file absentee voter paperwork.  I know that my friend Angel is going to do just that when his enlistment is up and he returns home.



People in DC CAN vote for prez granted to them by the 23rd Amendment.


Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia Proposed 6/17/1960
Ratified 3/29/1961


1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


My Dad lives in DC and votes for Prez.




Cat

But that would be voter fraud since he would no longer be a resident of Texas.  My dad and sis could pull the same stunt and vote in VT, but again, fraud


Actually, Mush has a point, so long as the registrant is a soldier residing on a military base in the state.  I misspoke there.  If he votes in that state when he doesn't live there, that is fraud.  That would be like me voting in the state of New York and claiming my brother's place as my home.

People in DC CAN vote for prez granted to them by the 23rd Amendment.


Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia Proposed 6/17/1960
Ratified 3/29/1961


1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


My Dad lives in DC and votes for Prez.


In 1984, Walter Mondale won Minnesota, Washington DC...well, Minnesota and Washington DC.
:-\\