# Illegal immigrants plan to leave over Ariz. law



## Blake Bowden

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100428/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_day_labor

I wonder how much money the US would save if all 50 states implemented similar legislation...


----------



## JTM

gees


----------



## TexMass

In 2009, the state of AZ actually recorded a decline in Illegal immagrants from 2000.  In 2000 they processed and returned nearly 750,000, in 2009 it was nearly 250,000.


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

"Illegal immigrants plan to leave over Ariz. law"

I am still trying to figure out the downside to this artical tittle... it's about time there was some POSITIVE media reporting on the national news feeds!!


For those of you who do not have the pleasure of me as a "friend" on FaceBook I'll share my recent status message:

"Voters up in arms over immigraton laws?? It is all really simple. Get here legally, or get the hell out! I can not afford to pay for you when you choose to stay here illegally!!! ~ That is all."



Yeah, yeah I know... I should be more sympathetic to the immigration issue. The fact of the matter is illegal immigration is not racial, laws are un-biased. My fore-fathers came here legally along with many others through Ellis Island legally. I expect, no I demand that everyone benefiting from living here in the USA go through the same proceedures and legal hurdles as my ancestors did. Honestly people, I do not believe that this is too much to ask for. This country can not afford to turn its back in this issue....


----------



## Ben Rodriguez

I am an immigrant. I've lived in this country since I was a child. I pay my taxes every year, hold a very rewarding job and nobody in my family has a criminal background. I understand not everyone coming to this country has the same mind set that other families have. I have said it before, a fair reform needs to be put in place, a reform that will screen every newcomer and existing residents. My two oldest brothers still live in Arizona and I would hate to hear they are being harassed simply because of the color of their skin. I attended the march in downtown Dallas yesterday, it was an emotional event, seeing over 25,000 people gathered for one common goal and the anti immigrant groups with very hateful signs. Luckily, my people knew how to behave and ignored the opposing protesters. I hope and pray every single day towards an agreement, I don't want to waste any energy being mad and furious at the opposition, It's a long shot but I pray that people will learn to accept one another. No human being is illegal, undocumented should be the proper term, I get a heartache to hear or read illegal.

That's my own humble opinion in the subject, I understand and accept that not everyone will agree and will have an answer to each one of my points.


----------



## thehibster

Excellent post, Brother Rodriguez.  

I find it interesting that when times are good and Americans are fat and happy, immigration is rarely discussed.  When times are tough and we have to tighten our belts a little we look for someone to blame for our economic woes, and immigrants are an easy target.

I do not pretend to have the answers and both sides of the immigration debate have some valid points, but I would urge my brothers to approach this issue with compassion and tolerance.  As I sit in my air-conditioned house typing on my computer after enjoying a nice Sunday lunch with my family I wonder what dire circumstances would drive me to enter another country illegally, where I do not speak the language and will be treated as a pariah, where I will have to wait on a street corner and hope that I can earn a day's wages by the strength of my back and hopefully earn enough to provide food, clothing and shelter for my family?  I doubt many native-born Americans have the mental strength and intestinal fortitude to stand in an immigrants shoes for a single day - and I think that's what really scares us.  These immigrants demonstrate a hunger and desire for freedom and the chance to carve a place out in this country for themselves and their families.  Long before there was an Ellis Island or any question of legal versus illegal, Europeans were streaming to the shores of this country for the very same reasons.  No doubt the Native American's have long wished they were a little tougher on immigration when they first sighted those Pilgrim's ships on the horizon.

Like it or not, we're all in this together.

Dave


----------



## Blake Bowden

I wanted enforcement of our immigration laws way before the economy went into the crapper. Sorry but I don't want to hear about compassion, tolerance or how noble illegals are for breaking our laws. I drove to Puerto Penasco in 2005 and can't remember how many times I was asked to produce identification. Also, guess what a gringo like me could face if I entered Mexico illegally? Try two years in prison! I support this ENFORCEMENT and hope that Texas adopts similar legislation.


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

Brother Ben,

Let me retract my previous usage of the word Illegal and I will (for you) use the term Undocumented even though they both mean exactly the same thing. Being Undocumented in this country or any other for that matter is illegal. I understand that everyone really wants and desires to reap the benefits of being here in the USA, what we have is something that no other nation has... Freedom. Our Freedom comes at a price, via our lives and our money. We are not asking everyone to turn around and never return, we are asking that if you want to live here then follow the same rules as everyone else. As I mentioned before "Undocumented Immigrants" is not a Race, Color, or Religion; it is a matter of doing the right thing legally. I understand that many Undocumented workers in this country are peacable law abiding (in some aspects) citizens although I personally can not call an Undocumented citizen "law abiding" as they are not here "legally". These good Undocumented people are often times not paying Federal Taxes (also illegal) nor contributing to Welfare (via taxes). Most of these people are filling up our county hospitals and taking advantage of FREE medical care (if you don't believe me, check out Parkland Hospital) which all the other citizens of the nation are paying for.

Bottom line is I see no grey area within this subject, this is as simple as black and white. We welcome your tired, hungry, and needy. Come on in, get in line, swear your oath, get your SSC Card, pay your Federal Taxes, & you are very welcome here in the USA. Trust me the wait in line is well worth your time!!


----------



## david918

Lets just adopt Mexico's laws.
Let Us Adopt THEIR IMMIGRATION LAWS as our Own


1. If you migrate to this county, you must speak the native language

2. You have to be a professional or an investor. No unskilled workers allowed.

3. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, all government business will be conducted in our language.

4. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.

5. Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.

6. Naturalized citizens can never own property within 60 miles of any international border, seashore, nor 30 miles of any major navigable waterway leading to the open ocean.

7. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs.

8. Foreigners will not be granted automatic citizenship for serving in our armed forces.

9. Foreigners who join our armed forces can never become officers.

10. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

11. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT options will be restricted. You are not allowed waterfront property. That is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

12. Foreigners may not protest, demonstrate, wave a foreign flag, participate in political organizing, badmouthing our president or his policies, if you do you will be sent home. If you treat our flag with disrespect, mutilate or burn it, you will be arrested and may be imprisoned.

13. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail. Eventually you will be tried and either fined, imprisoned and/or deported.

14. If you come to this country illegally and are caught, you will automatically charged with a felony.

15. Foreigners or naturalized citizens can never solely start or own a business. They must be partnered with at least one native citizen.

16. Children born in our country to foreign mother are not given automatic status as a native citizen of our country.

17. To become a native born citizen of our country, both parents must be natives of our country.

18. Retirees to Mexico must demonstrate a monthly income 400 times the daily minimum wage of our country.

19. Any native citizen who gives shelter, food, aid, employment, transport, care or other provision to an illegal foreigner automatically is classified as having committed a felony.

20. A ten year term of imprisonment with no early parole or time off for good behavior will be applied to any illegal-entry foreigner caught inside our country again after he/she has been deported. Any native citizen who aids any illegal-entry foreigner will face the same term of imprisonment

21. Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken our laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy."

22. Our Secretary of State may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he/she determines it to be in the national interest."

23. Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants.

24. Our National Population Registry keeps track of ''every person who comprises the population of the country,'' and verifies each person's identity. Our national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants, and assisgns each person with a uniquie tracking number. All foreigners are required to carry proper identification documents with them at all times.

25. Foreigners who violate the terms of ther visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison.

26. Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in our country, such as working without a permit, can also be imprisoned.

27. Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from our country instead of being imprisoned.

28. Any native of our country who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison.

29. Foreigners are denied equal employment rights in our country.

30. Foreign immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.

31. Foreign immigrants and naturalized citizens will never have the same rights as native born citizens.

32. In order to become a naturalized citizen of our country you must:
~ be in the country legally, and possess the government documents to prove it;
~ have the means to sustain themselves economically;
~ not destined to be a burden on our society;
~ must be able to communicate in our native language without access of an interpreter;
~ be of good character and have no criminal records;
~ be of economic and social benefit to our society; and
~ contribute to the general well being of the nation.

33. Foreigners with fake papers or who enter the country under false pretense may be imprisoned, fined, and/or deported.


Harsh, you say? The above laws are the immigration laws of MEXICO!


----------



## Dave in Waco

I am sorry, but I have to applaud Arizona for their stance on illegal aliens.  I've heard the arguements for years about this group having done nothing wrong.  That is a false statement.  They violated the law and illegally entered the country.  That is something totally different from an undocumented worker.  An undocumented worker is someone in the country legally, but they do not possess a work visa.  It would be the same if I were to visit Mexico on vacation.  I'd be in the country legally, but I would not be allowed to work.  

I have nothing against immigrants.  They feel the need to come over here and work, then apply for a work visa.  In the long run that will provide more protection then risking life and limb to violate our laws to enter the country to be taken advantage of as a worker.  And the Arizona law really did nothing but echo federal law as a state law.  It didn't give police extra power, just defined their responsibilities as a matter of state law.  Most media was not reporting the law correctly.


----------



## drapetomaniac

Dave in Waco said:


> And the Arizona law really did nothing but echo federal law as a state law.  It didn't give police extra power, just defined their responsibilities as a matter of state law.  Most media was not reporting the law correctly.



Police didn't have the power before, which is why people are applauding it.  
That is extra power they didn't have before.

Police are allowed to inquire immigration status based on "reasonable suspicion" and detain you until status is proven. So, if my cousin is visiting from Puerto Rico and visiting my sister in AZ, she has to carry her birth certificate and possibly other materials.  If she's walking to the store and a cop becomes suspicious, and she doesn't speak English (suspicious!!), she can be detained until they decide she's an American.  Meanwhile her family and kids are wondering what happened to her.

What is reasonable suspicion?


----------



## Dave in Waco

drapetomaniac said:


> What is reasonable suspicion?


 
Reasonable Suspicion is a legal term in which the question is asked would the average person consider it suspicious.  It's applied to many criminal statues.  For example, just because a person is dressed like a gang member, that isn't enough to warrant detaining and questioning him about gang activity.  That's why these statues gave police no extra powers.  They've always had the power to determine if an individual was in the country illegaly while verifying their identity during an investigation.  The big part was they also added the phrase "legal contact".  Legal contact can also mean if a person reported a crime or was the victim of a crime.  Technically, if a person just addressed an officer, it would constitute "legal contact".


----------



## drapetomaniac

Dave in Waco said:


> Reasonable Suspicion is a legal term in which the question is asked would the average person consider it suspicious.  It's applied to many criminal statues.  For example, just because a person is dressed like a gang member, that isn't enough to warrant detaining and questioning him about gang activity.



Right. So, What is reasonable suspicion that a person has an expired visa?  Or that they never filed an application for a visa?  

By what determination does a police officer consider someone suspicious for not complying with an application process?



Dave in Waco said:


> That's why these statues gave police no extra powers.  They've always had the power to determine if an individual was in the country illegaly while verifying their identity during an investigation.



So why are people happy about it if it gave them no extra powers?  It sounds like this was just a meaningless bill that passed.



Dave in Waco said:


> The big part was they also added the phrase "legal contact".  Legal contact can also mean if a person reported a crime or was the victim of a crime.  Technically, if a person just addressed an officer, it would constitute "legal contact".


 
Which is why, many law enforcement agencies have always wanted their hands off of immigration enforcement.  We saw the same thing post 9-11 when the feds wanted local agencies to help question Arabs and Muslims - those with large populations refused.  That's because effective police forces build trust and build relationships with their communities.

Once you answer the question of "what's reasonable suspicion" in this scenario, the answer is usually something which immediately gives the community a reason not to interact with law enforcement.  Especially since, in Arizona, I'm 2 1/2 times more likely to have my car searched when pulled over based on "reasonable suspicion."


----------



## drapetomaniac

"An American citizen who suffers from bipolar disorder, speaks no Spanish and has no Mexican ancestry, Lyttle had never been outside the country. He had, however, seen the inside of a jail, and that's where his troubles began. Lyttle, who had been living in a group home, was made to serve time in jail for inappropriately touching an employee. Unfortunately for Lyttle, the jail wrongly listed his place of birth as Mexico, rather than Rowan County, N.C., where he was actually born. Unbeknownst to his family, Lyttle was handed over to ICE under the pretext that he was an illegal alien. 

Shuffled around from one detention center to another, Lyttle was eventually deported to Mexico. Lacking any form of identification, it took him almost two years--all the while being forcibly shuffled from Mexico to Honduras to Nicaragua and finally to Guatemala--to make his way back to America. "We're an all-American family with two soldiers and a family member who happens to be handicapped," said Mark's brother, Brian, who serves in the U.S. Army. "It's like spitting on my uniform that you would do that to my brother."

Lyttle is not alone. Hector Veloz, also a U.S. citizen, was locked in an Arizona prison for 13 months after immigration officials mistook him for an illegal immigrant. There are hundreds more like Lyttle and Veloz who are being wrongfully and unconstitutionally detained and, in some cases, deported, despite being legitimate U.S. citizens. Unfortunately, as the San Francisco Chronicle reports, "in immigration detention it falls to the detainees to prove their citizenship. But detainees don't have the constitutional protections, such as the right to legal counsel, that would help them prove their case." Furthermore, "immigration detainees are routinely shipped to remote jails where free legal aid is unavailable, their families are not notified of their whereabouts, and they are often denied access to telephones, mail and even medical care.""
..
Alexander Hamilton, perhaps the most conservative of America's founding fathers, once said that the writ of habeas corpus was perhaps more important to freedom and liberty than any other right found in the Constitution. Believing that arbitrary imprisonment is "in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instrument of tyranny," the founders were all the more determined to ensure that the people had safeguards against government abuses such as those being carried out by ICE today. 
http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=651


----------



## Dave in Waco

I don't know what standards Arizona has set for what they consider suspicious, but as a reasonable average person, I would say that someone who can not speak ENglish or speaks English with a forgeign accent and acts in a nervous way as if trying to avoid contact with a law enforcement officer would warrant further investigation.  At which point, a simple matter of asking the person for identification.  Most US citizens carry some form of identification and legal visitors under the Arizona laws are supposed.  As I said, reasonable suspicion is the same requirement applied to most suspected illegal activitiy.

People are happy about it because while it gives them no extra power, it now makes it federal law, state law.  It also requires them to enforce immigration.

I don't have any additional info on Lyttle.  Veloz on the other hand was a case of federal authorities not following the law.  No system is ever perfect.  If the system was, then Arizona wouldn't have needed to make immigration law a state offense as well as a federal one.


----------



## Bro. Christopher Dawson

respectfully to everyone who has posted on this topic:

our ancestors paid no attention to what was right when they invaded and occupied this land, nor to the laws that existed here thousands of years before their arrival.  some compassionate thinking might be in order here.

however, to address the *present* issue of immigration...

1) end all welfare programs OR
2) hold congress accountable (and i dont mean form a tea party) OR
3) open the borders completely OR
4) force the mexican govt to police itself or improve conditions OR
5) reform the naturalization process OR
6) offer citizenship and issue social security numbers to all the immigrants here already
7) then tax the ever loving snot out of them

welcome them, put them to work, then use their taxes to improve our country.  lets not be xenophobes...

as far as violent immigrants, traffickers, drug-runners, ex-cons, etc....if they bring their illegal activities over here and threaten our citizens then we should put them all in a C-17, fly out over the bermuda triangle and dump them into the ocean without life vests.

do we really want to tout the effectiveness of the police and law in mexico?  really??  :52:

lastly, i applaud the fact that each state has a right to govern itself to a degree.  while i disagree with arizona, i dont disagree with the fact that they are tired of waiting for congress to do something about it.  besides, its their state not mine.

hopefully, this diversion will soon go away and lead into another diversion that the sheeple will gravitate towards and fight over.


----------



## Blake Bowden

Immigrant Families Leave Arizona, Fearing Law
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/03/eveningnews/main6457212.shtml

"Manuela Quintana said that they decided to leave when the Arizona governor signed the new immigration law. Their *10* children were born here and are U.S. citizens. Both she and her husband are *undocumented*, and currently *unemployed*."

Wow, tell me that's not a drain on the system! A woman who has been here illegally for 15 years and hasn't made any effort to learn the language? A woman who gave birth to 10 children to make them citizens and the taxpayers are no doubt paying for lots of things for those 10 children? A woman who feels she has to move to another state because said state is going to actually enforce laws? I hear that Texas may pass similar legislation next January, but hope it includes severe fines and/or jail time for EMPLOYERS who hire illegals. BTW, notice how biased the article is? Just look at the title "Immigrant Families Leave Arizona"...wow...it should read "*Illegal* Immigrants Leave Arizona" :thumbup1:


----------



## drapetomaniac

blake said:


> Wow, tell me that's not a drain on the system! A woman who has been here illegally for 15 years and hasn't made any effort to learn the language?



Speaking Spanish doesn't drain the system. And it doesn't mean you don't speak English.  And it certainly doesn't mean you "never made an effort to learn the language"



blake said:


> A woman who gave birth to 10 children to make them citizens



Yes - she had babies specifically to make them citizens and for no other reason.  That's why Catholics frequently have a lot of children and is how they view them after all. right?



blake said:


> and the taxpayers are no doubt paying for lots of things for those 10 children?



Like her *usually* employed parents?  There's a lot of people out of jobs rights now - good to know how fast their dignity and worth to society dips as soon as they loose their jobs.



blake said:


> A woman who feels she has to move to another state because said state is going to actually enforce laws? I hear that Texas may pass similar legislation next January, but hope it includes severe fines and/or jail time for EMPLOYERS who hire illegals.



I agree - a mandatory 1 year jail sentence - no fines.  With all the severe rage about foreigners not filling out applications, I imagine the rage is much higher for those people who belong to the system of those laws.



blake said:


> BTW, notice how biased the article is? Just look at the title "Immigrant Families Leave Arizona"...wow...it should read "*Illegal* Immigrants Leave Arizona" :thumbup1:


 
Unlike the unbiased xenophobic response of seeing someone speak Spanish and assuming:
1) They are a drain on the system
2) Not a taxpayer and have never been  (I love the combination of "They're taking our jobs"  and "they don't work"  in the stereotype cookie jar btw)
3) Don't speak English
4) Never tried to learn English
5) Had children *in order to* make the US citizens

I know you said you didn't want to hear anything about "compassion" earlier in this thread.  But I couldn't help thinking about this thread when a I gave a young man a coin this past Monday because he didn't have one.  If only there was a group of men who judged people internally instead of externally and every once in a while tipped a hat to charity and even something as horrible as compassion.

You can support law enforcement without histrionics and stereotypes. 

Immigrant advocates are generally advocating for human dignity as their primary goal.  For instance, I think my grandparents shouldn't be detained because as citizens they don't expect to carry papers with them every where they go - and they happen to have extremely thick accents.  They were worried about it before this law and would certainly have to pay attention now.  I don't think my father (also a veteran and citizen) should be more suspicious and detained because he's heard speaking Spanish fluently and left the house without his driver's license (and social security card and birth certificate).   I don't think any of the brothers I sit with in lodge who have Romanian, Middle Eastern, Spanish or southern or yankee accents should be treated differently and detained until they can prove they're in this country legally.

And I certainly don't think a host of assumptions should be heaped on them because they have an additional job skill I don't (being fluent in another language).

Myths about immigration
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043001106.html

Here's another group of illegals, not filling out the paperwork, not waiting their turn in line, avoiding taxes - I can smell the rage against these criminals
http://is.gd/bVXla


----------



## Bill Lins

drapetomaniac said:


> Here's another group of illegals, not filling out the paperwork, not waiting their turn in line, avoiding taxes - I can smell the rage against these criminals
> http://is.gd/bVXla


 
That's a crock. The people mentioned in the article you posted should have been grandfathered, especially if, as mentioned, the code "violations" existed before they bought their houses. The conditions may have even been within the code at the time of construction. Further, the article speaks of people here legally, not those who snuck across the border in violation of the law- major difference.


----------



## js4253

When did it become acceptable to ignore the law?


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

js4253 said:


> When did it become acceptable to ignore the law?



THAT has been my point all along.

I wasted 2 days arguing with some guy about how immigration laws were prior to 1833... no matter what I said about the issue "I was in the wrong", and when I finally said that the current rules and regulations have nothing to do with laws prior to 1833 I was labled a hate monger and racist (by a "Brother" at that).

The nerve.

The fact of the matter is we have current laws and requirements regarding becomming a citizen here in the USA. These laws need to either be enforced, or removed. In the mean time everyone must follow the laws right or wrong. If you are in this country without following the proper protocol then you do not belong here, nor are you "entitled" to recieve all the benefits as a citizen. This applies to every type of immigrant from every country not just one no matter what language you speak!!


Do the Right thing.


----------



## Ben Rodriguez

Bottom line is, if you live in Arizona and look brown, speak Spanish or have an accent, you will be harassed by the authority. My skin isn't white, that's for sure, I speak Spanish and my accent does come out with certain words. My problem is the SB1070 as a reason to legally harass our people regardless of their nationality.  Doesn't sound very noble does it? I am not saying EVERYONE should be allowed into the country, but if we actually stopped and studied this matter carefully for a reasonable solution, I am sure it would be a win-win situation. Rather than saying: "Kick them all out, ignore them and let them starve in their countries"

An amnesty after a meticulous background screening to all foreigners would eventually mean people who work and are able to pay taxes, which brings revenue. But why bother with logic right?  

Again, just my very humble opinion in the subject. We all know what the "right thing" is, it's a matter of putting politics to the side and loving one another as one common mass. It's about tolerance to just and needy.


----------



## Bill Lins

OK- enough BS. Here's the straight gouge from Gov. Brewer:

"In my 28 years of public service, I have made a lot of tough calls. But with a federal 
government unwilling to secure our border for years and years, Arizona is left with 
little choice. Imagine a sporting event in which rules have been agreed to for 70 years, 
but the umpires refuse to enforce those rules. It makes no sense. Although I recognize 
that Arizona Senate Bill 1070, as amended, is not the entire solution to our illegal 
immigration problem in Arizona, most people are united in the hope that it will finally 
inspire the politicians in Washington, D.C., to stop talking and to start action now.

It is critically important that all Americans understand the impetus for this new law and 
have a clear understanding of the law itself. Our neighbor to the south, Mexico, is in a 
massive battle with well-organized drug cartels. Because of Washington's failure to 
secure our southern border, Arizona has become the superhighway of illegal drug and human 
smuggling activity. In December 2008, the U.S. Justice Department said that Mexican gangs 
are the "biggest organized crime threat to the United States." In 2009, Phoenix had 316 
kidnapping cases, turning the city into our nation's kidnapping capital. Almost all of 
the persons kidnapped were illegal immigrants or linked to the drug trade.

Essentially, our border leaks like a team with a last-place defense. The very same week 
that I signed the new law, a major drug ring was broken up and Mexican cartel operatives 
suspected of running 40,000 pounds of marijuana through southern Arizona were indicted.

While drug smuggling is the principal cause of our massive border-violence problem, many 
of the same criminal organizations also smuggle people. Busts of drop houses, where 
illegal immigrants are often held for ransom or otherwise severely abused, are not 
uncommon occurrences in Arizona neighborhoods.

Today, Arizona has approximately 6,000 prison inmates who are foreign nationals, 
representing a cost to our state of roughly $150 million per year. Arizona taxpayers are 
paying for a vast majority of these incarceration expenses because the federal government 
refuses to pay what it owes. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, as governor of 
Arizona, sent numerous requests to the federal government to pay for these prisoners -- 
only to be given the same answer she and President Barack Obama are now giving Arizona: 
They will not pay the bill.

When I signed the legislation, I stated clearly I will not tolerate racial discrimination 
or racial profiling in Arizona. My administration worked for weeks with legislators to 
improve SB 1070, to specifically clarify and strengthen its civil rights protections. I 
issued an executive order to implement proper training and enforcement protocols for our 
police so that the intent of the language could not be misconstrued. Although it is 
already against the law, the new law undeniably prohibits law enforcement officers from 
considering race, color or national origin in implementing the new statute.

I have worked for years without fail to solve problems diligently and practically. I have 
done so always with an eye toward civility, and always with the greatest respect for the 
rule of law.

This new law is no different. As committed as I am to protecting our state from crime 
associated with illegal immigration, I am equally committed to holding law enforcement 
accountable should this statute ever be misused to violate an individual's rights.

There have been countless distortions, honest omissions, myths and bad information about 
Arizona's new law -- many, undoubtedly, spread to create fear or mistrust.

So here are the facts:

1. The new Arizona law creates a state penalty to mirror what already is a federal crime. 
Despite the most vile and hate-filled portrayals of proponents of the law as "Nazis," 
actions that have been condemned nationally by the Anti-Defamation League, it is ALREADY 
a federal requirement for legal aliens in the United States to carry their green card or 
other immigration document. The new Arizona law enforces what has been a federal crime 
since before World War II. As anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have 
similar laws.

2. Contrary to many of the horror stories being spread -- President Obama suggested 
families risk being pulled over while going out for ice cream -- law enforcement cannot 
randomly ask anyone about their immigration status. Much like enforcement of seat belt 
laws in many states, under SB 1070 there must first be reasonable suspicion that you are 
breaking some OTHER non-immigration law before an officer can ask a person about their 
legal status. Only then, after law enforcement officers have a "reasonable suspicion" 
that another law has been broken, can they inquire about immigration status -- but ONLY 
if that individual's behavior provides "reasonable suspicion" that the person is here 
illegally.

"Reasonable suspicion" is a well-understood concept that has been thoroughly vetted 
through numerous federal court cases. Many have asked: What is reasonable suspicion? Is 
it race, skin color or national origin? No! Racial profiling is prohibited in the new 
law. Examples of reasonable suspicion include: a person running away when approached by 
law enforcement officers, or a car failing to stop when the police turn on their lights 
and siren.

3. Arizona's local law enforcement officers, who already reflect the great diversity of 
culture in our state, are going to be trained to enforce the new immigration law in a 
constitutional manner. It is shameful and presumptive for opponents to question the good 
will and the competence of Arizona's law enforcement personnel. The specter that is 
raised of rogue, racist police harassing people is insulting to those in Arizona who risk 
their lives in the name of law enforcement every day.

President Theodore Roosevelt said, "No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor 
do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is 
demanded as a right; not asked as a favor." Arizona has been more than patient waiting 
for Washington to act. Decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created a 
dangerous and unacceptable situation. Arizona has acted to enforce the rule of law 
equally and without bias toward any person.

It is time for our country to act to resolve our border security problem; an economic 
boycott in Arizona would only exacerbate it -- and hurt innocent families and businesses 
merely seeking to survive during these difficult economic times.

A boycott that would actually improve border security would be to boycott illegal drugs. 
Dramatically less drug use and production would do wonders for the safety of all our 
communities."

Jan Brewer is the governor of Arizona.


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> OK- enough BS. Here's the straight gouge from Gov. Brewer:
> 
> "In my 28 years of public service, I have made a lot of tough calls. But with a federal
> government unwilling to secure our border for years and years, Arizona is left with
> little choice. Imagine a sporting event in which rules have been agreed to for 70 years,
> but the umpires refuse to enforce those rules. It makes no sense. Although I recognize
> that Arizona Senate Bill 1070, as amended, is not the entire solution to our illegal
> immigration problem in Arizona, most people are united in the hope that it will finally
> inspire the politicians in Washington, D.C., to stop talking and to start action now.
> 
> It is critically important that all Americans understand the impetus for this new law and
> have a clear understanding of the law itself. Our neighbor to the south, Mexico, is in a
> massive battle with well-organized drug cartels. Because of Washington's failure to
> secure our southern border, Arizona has become the superhighway of illegal drug and human
> smuggling activity. In December 2008, the U.S. Justice Department said that Mexican gangs
> are the "biggest organized crime threat to the United States." In 2009, Phoenix had 316
> kidnapping cases, turning the city into our nation's kidnapping capital. Almost all of
> the persons kidnapped were illegal immigrants or linked to the drug trade.
> 
> Essentially, our border leaks like a team with a last-place defense. The very same week
> that I signed the new law, a major drug ring was broken up and Mexican cartel operatives
> suspected of running 40,000 pounds of marijuana through southern Arizona were indicted.
> 
> While drug smuggling is the principal cause of our massive border-violence problem, many
> of the same criminal organizations also smuggle people. Busts of drop houses, where
> illegal immigrants are often held for ransom or otherwise severely abused, are not
> uncommon occurrences in Arizona neighborhoods.
> 
> Today, Arizona has approximately 6,000 prison inmates who are foreign nationals,
> representing a cost to our state of roughly $150 million per year. Arizona taxpayers are
> paying for a vast majority of these incarceration expenses because the federal government
> refuses to pay what it owes. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, as governor of
> Arizona, sent numerous requests to the federal government to pay for these prisoners --
> only to be given the same answer she and President Barack Obama are now giving Arizona:
> They will not pay the bill.
> 
> When I signed the legislation, I stated clearly I will not tolerate racial discrimination
> or racial profiling in Arizona. My administration worked for weeks with legislators to
> improve SB 1070, to specifically clarify and strengthen its civil rights protections. I
> issued an executive order to implement proper training and enforcement protocols for our
> police so that the intent of the language could not be misconstrued. Although it is
> already against the law, the new law undeniably prohibits law enforcement officers from
> considering race, color or national origin in implementing the new statute.
> 
> I have worked for years without fail to solve problems diligently and practically. I have
> done so always with an eye toward civility, and always with the greatest respect for the
> rule of law.
> 
> This new law is no different. As committed as I am to protecting our state from crime
> associated with illegal immigration, I am equally committed to holding law enforcement
> accountable should this statute ever be misused to violate an individual's rights.
> 
> There have been countless distortions, honest omissions, myths and bad information about
> Arizona's new law -- many, undoubtedly, spread to create fear or mistrust.
> 
> So here are the facts:
> 
> 1. The new Arizona law creates a state penalty to mirror what already is a federal crime.
> Despite the most vile and hate-filled portrayals of proponents of the law as "Nazis,"
> actions that have been condemned nationally by the Anti-Defamation League, it is ALREADY
> a federal requirement for legal aliens in the United States to carry their green card or
> other immigration document. The new Arizona law enforces what has been a federal crime
> since before World War II. As anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have
> similar laws.
> 
> 2. Contrary to many of the horror stories being spread -- President Obama suggested
> families risk being pulled over while going out for ice cream -- law enforcement cannot
> randomly ask anyone about their immigration status. Much like enforcement of seat belt
> laws in many states, under SB 1070 there must first be reasonable suspicion that you are
> breaking some OTHER non-immigration law before an officer can ask a person about their
> legal status. Only then, after law enforcement officers have a "reasonable suspicion"
> that another law has been broken, can they inquire about immigration status -- but ONLY
> if that individual's behavior provides "reasonable suspicion" that the person is here
> illegally.
> 
> "Reasonable suspicion" is a well-understood concept that has been thoroughly vetted
> through numerous federal court cases. Many have asked: What is reasonable suspicion? Is
> it race, skin color or national origin? No! Racial profiling is prohibited in the new
> law. Examples of reasonable suspicion include: a person running away when approached by
> law enforcement officers, or a car failing to stop when the police turn on their lights
> and siren.
> 
> 3. Arizona's local law enforcement officers, who already reflect the great diversity of
> culture in our state, are going to be trained to enforce the new immigration law in a
> constitutional manner. It is shameful and presumptive for opponents to question the good
> will and the competence of Arizona's law enforcement personnel. The specter that is
> raised of rogue, racist police harassing people is insulting to those in Arizona who risk
> their lives in the name of law enforcement every day.
> 
> President Theodore Roosevelt said, "No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor
> do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is
> demanded as a right; not asked as a favor." Arizona has been more than patient waiting
> for Washington to act. Decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created a
> dangerous and unacceptable situation. Arizona has acted to enforce the rule of law
> equally and without bias toward any person.
> 
> It is time for our country to act to resolve our border security problem; an economic
> boycott in Arizona would only exacerbate it -- and hurt innocent families and businesses
> merely seeking to survive during these difficult economic times.
> 
> A boycott that would actually improve border security would be to boycott illegal drugs.
> Dramatically less drug use and production would do wonders for the safety of all our
> communities."
> 
> Jan Brewer is the governor of Arizona.


 
Thank you Brother Bill for this clarification from the Govenor of Arizona.


----------



## Bryan

Legal Immigration is fine.. no problem..   illegal immigration.. i have a problem with.   Our borders need to be secure.. end of story.  

What good does it do to screen passengers getting on airlines when we allow people to walk freely and un documented across the border?

Isn't that kind of akin to locking the door while leaving the windows wide open?


----------



## drapetomaniac

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> That's a crock. The people mentioned in the article you posted should have been grandfathered, especially if, as mentioned, the code "violations" existed before they bought their houses. The conditions may have even been within the code at the time of construction. Further, the article speaks of people here legally, not those who snuck across the border in violation of the law- major difference.



These people didn't follow an application process.  They violated the law.  They are illegals.


----------



## Bill Lins

Sorry, drape- no sale. From your own post: "At issue were homes with garages converted into living spaces without a permit and carports too close to the street, a violation of city code. The problem is that many of the garage conversions and carports were created 30 to 40 years ago, before many residents even owned their homes."

As I said before but you conveniently ignored, the violations of *current* codes occurred years ago, and very well may have been in compliance with the existing code at the time of construction. Additionally, the alleged violations (if they even were such) were committed by other than the current residents.

The two situations are not even _remotely_ alike.


----------



## drapetomaniac

what if I told you they were forrners.


----------



## Bill Lins

As long as they are in this country legally, it wouldn't matter.


----------



## drapetomaniac

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> The two situations are not even _remotely_ alike.


 
Sure they are - you just actually think through the full story of the one group.  "Many of the garage conversions" were 30 years before.  Not all of them.  What of the others?  I lived in that area and knew many people who made recent changes without a single permit.  The entire of one group is condemned based on a partial story and the entire of another is condemned based on a partial story.

They are "directly" alike because they involve application processes and paper work - waiting in line and following the law.  You just separated one group because you judged and excused the whole.


----------



## Traveling Man

Ben Rodriguez said:


> Bottom line is, if you live in Arizona...



Bottom line if I'm stopped in Arizona (I have been) I have to prove who I am! Is there a problem with this?


----------



## drapetomaniac

Traveling Man said:


> Bottom line if I'm stopped in Arizona (I have been) I have to prove who I am! Is there a problem with this?


 
Historically, the popular sentiment has been against a national id.

This man didn't have "enough" identification
"Abdon was told he did not have enough paperwork on him when he pulled into a weigh station to have his commercial truck checked. He provided his commercial driverâ€™s license and a social security number but ended up handcuffed."
http://www.azfamily.com/video/featu...ed-to-provide-birth-certificate-91769419.html

This is the authority now in the hands of local police.


----------



## Traveling Man

drapetomaniac said:


> This man didn't have "enough" identification
> "Abdon was told he did not have enough paperwork on him when he pulled into a weigh station to have his commercial truck checked. He provided his commercial driver’s license and a social security number but ended up handcuffed."



And if it were me, the same thing would happen. Trying to depict this situation as a miscarriage of justice is patently absurd. Try to board an overseas flight without the “proper paperwork” and see what happens…
As long as the laws state that we must have proper identification upon our persons the should be NO exceptions. And may G_D help those that try to pervert the laws of this land.


----------



## drapetomaniac

Traveling Man said:


> And if it were me, the same thing would happen. Trying to depict this situation as a miscarriage of justice is patently absurd. Try to board an overseas flight without the “proper paperwork” and see what happens…
> As long as the laws state that we must have proper identification upon our persons the should be NO exceptions. And may G_D help those that try to pervert the laws of this land.



This wasn't an overseas flight.  This was a native born US citizen driving in the US with nothing more than his driver's license and SS#.  And he was handcuffed and detained.

How much identification should be required for US citizens to drive to avoid detention?  You seem to be saying if Americans don't drive around with a full docket of identity papers, they should be detained and processed - else it's a perversion?


----------



## js4253

Traveling Man said:


> Bottom line if I'm stopped in Arizona (I have been) I have to prove who I am! Is there a problem with this?


 
Every time I have been stopped by an officer I have had to present identification to prove who I am.  Should I have been screaming that my civil rights were violated.  No.  I am a law abiding person and expect to be asked for ID.  It is standard operating procedure.  The people protesting are trying to incite unrest.  I wish there was a way to have them removed from our country, citizen or not.


----------



## Traveling Man

Iâ€™m not going to argue minutiae here, Iâ€™m speaking in generalities; hence the overseas flight instance.
After reading the specific link Iâ€™m sure thereâ€™s more to the story than, â€œI was profiledâ€. Iâ€™m sure it will come out in the wash. Iâ€™m sure if we try hard enough we all can find examples of victim-ology. Nonetheless there is no reason to change the law requiring individuals from carrying and producing identification upon request of authority. Elimination of such requirements would be a perversion of the law (to which I was referring).

I used to cross the border weekly, I have been stopped and detained several times. Does that mean I was â€œprofiledâ€? You bettcha. I have no problem with being â€œprofiledâ€ and or detained, there are and were specific reasons. Americans of all stripes are stopped and or detained everyday, do we whine? No!


----------



## drapetomaniac

Traveling Man said:


> I used to cross the border weekly, I have been stopped and detained several times. Does that mean I was â€œprofiledâ€? You bettcha. I have no problem with being â€œprofiledâ€ and or detained, there are and were specific reasons. Americans of all stripes are stopped and or detained everyday, do we whine? No!


 
Well, once more - this man was an American in the United States and was handcuffed and detained until his wife brought his birth certificate.

He wasn't crossing a border.  He was in his own country driving.

Are you saying you were regularly handcuffed and detained until someone brought additional documentation on your identity?

I think the extreme majority of Americans don't expect to be handcuffed and carried away because they only have their license on them.


----------



## Bill Lins

drape, you are being deliberately obtuse. Such is beneath you.


----------



## drapetomaniac

Yeah - comparing people skipping application processes to each other is just downright silly.


----------



## Traveling Man

drapetomaniac said:


> Well, once more - this man was an American in the United States and was handcuffed and detained until his wife brought his birth certificate.



Once more: Iâ€™m not going to argue minutiae here.



> Are you saying you were regularly handcuffed and detained until someone brought additional documentation on your identity?



Yes.




> I think the extreme majority of Americans don't expect to be handcuffed and carried away because they only have their license on them.


 
Most Americans have never left their home state; most Americans are not Interstate/Intrastate truck drivers that require more than just a drivers license for documentation. Most Americans donâ€™t hold passports but will have to in order to travel where it was not required not so long ago. And yes, if they are caught driving without a license they are handcuffed and carried away.

I had been refused entry into Ecuador because my non-expired passport (to them) was expired, one must have a valid passport that cannot expire within 6 months of one leaving Ecuador.

And yes, any foreign country can handcuff and detain (read imprisoned) anyone with proper documentation if the receiving employer has not filed the work permit 24 hours in advance of your arrival.

The United States has the most liberal immigration policy; all we as is for one to sign the guestbook. I personally think we need to implement a 100% reciprocal immigration policy for everyone who seeks to enter the United States. Has anyone read Mexicoâ€™s policy? How about the immigrants Mexico is holding in their jails from South and Central America? Read what the human rights organization say about how these individuals are being treated. After you weigh this treatment vs. ours I think the scales of justice tip just a little in the United States favour. If things are so bad here; why are these individuals coming here? They need to protest the way their home countries treat their own citizenry.

I asked a fellow coworker, who displays Columbian flags from his rear view mirror; do you display American flags on your mirror when you visit Columbia?


----------



## drapetomaniac

You're repeatedly comparing interborder travel to local travel.  That's not minutiae.


----------



## Traveling Man

drapetomaniac said:


> You're repeatedly comparing interborder travel to local travel.  That's not minutiae.



Let's get back to the topic shall we? I'm not interested in you digging yourself into a hole, or helping you dig your hole.

Your case is minutiae in pertinence of this thread. Which is titled: Illegal immigrants plan to leave over Ariz. Law. 

The law, which is the same as the United States federal law regarding immigration.

Please put me on your ignore list!
Thank you.


----------



## Bill Lins

drapetomaniac said:


> I lived in that area and knew many people who made recent changes without a single permit.


 
Funny- that was not alleged in the link you provided. What did you do- go around & check for permits? Are you the one who made the anonymous complaints?

Unlike most other municipalities, the City of Austin does not believe in "grandfathering". Wouldn't surprise me if they weren't intentionally trying to condemn the entire neighborhood so that it could be "gentrified" & generate higher property taxes. I sure hope you aren't helping this along, drape. If you are, you should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## Blake Bowden

Ben Rodriguez said:


> Bottom line is, if you live in Arizona and look brown, speak Spanish or have an accent, you will be harassed by the authority.


 
Is your statement based on law or race? If law, where does 1070 state "if you live in Arizona and look brown, speak Spanish or have an accent, you will be harassed by the authority"...

....it doesn't....

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

blake said:


> Is your statement based on law or race? If law, where does 1070 state "if you live in Arizona and look brown, speak Spanish or have an accent, you will be harassed by the authority"...
> 
> ....it doesn't....
> 
> http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf



Now, this is what I was waiting on someone to post here!! Thanks Blake.


As to the remainder of you all involved in this friendly debate a reminder:

Debates are intended to educate, inform, & involve; be factual and non-personal. Remember that these people involved in the debate are your Brothers & Friends and feelings can become easily hurt which may seem minute at the time but devistating over the duration.


----------



## drapetomaniac

Traveling Man said:


> Let's get back to the topic shall we? I'm not interested in you digging yourself into a hole, or helping you dig your hole.
> Your case is minutiae in pertinence of this thread. Which is titled: Illegal immigrants plan to leave over Ariz. Law.
> The law, which is the same as the United States federal law regarding immigration.
> Please put me on your ignore list!
> Thank you.


 
I'm on topic - As you said the locals now have the federal powers.  Those powers include detaining American citizens in America until they provide *enough* documentation that they are American - beyond their driver's license and SS#.

Americans do not have the expectation that they have to carry more than their driver's license while driving or risk being pulled off the road and detained while your family scrambles to get more information about you.  Until now.


----------



## drapetomaniac

blake said:


> Is your statement based on law or race? If law, where does 1070 state "if you live in Arizona and look brown, speak Spanish or have an accent, you will be harassed by the authority"...
> ....it doesn't....
> http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf


 
Blake - was is reasonable suspicion for being undocumented to you?  We've already seen many of the brothers here support racial profiling in other threads.  Senator McCain of Arizona has said undocumented immigrants go around causing traffic accidents on purpose.  So that's one suspicious act (although bizarre and not based on fact).   Rep. Brian Bilbray said you can tell by the clothes is someone is undocumented.  

Here's the history of racial profiling in Arizona:
http://acluaz.org/DrivingWhileBlackorBrown.pdf

Blacks Hispanics and others were 2 and a half times more likely to get searched once pulled over, while not more likely to have contraband (in other words, the unjustified searches actually were unjustified).  It would be nice to believe that the training they were *forced* to put into place and the policies they were *forced* to put into place against racial profiling are 100% followed and effective, and after only a few years the culture has 100% changed regarding racial profiling in Arizona.    But then it would be nice if the anti-discrimination laws of the 1960s didn't need re-enforced at times too.

And let's be clear - Arizona didn't "require" Brown people who spoke Spanish get searched more under prior laws - it just happened.  And now there's ann immigration specific law requiring more action from police.

So far one person has said if the person doesn't speak *any* English and/or if they run away (which Americans do too).  Is that the only thing folks here see as "reasonable suspicion" for immigration status?  If one of you are standing next to a brown guy with a thick accent, you expect just as much scrutiny as him - and expect to be hauled off until your family can bring enough documentation?


----------



## Traveling Man

blake said:


> Is your statement based on law or race? If law, where does 1070 state "if you live in Arizona and look brown, speak Spanish or have an accent, you will be harassed by the authority"...
> 
> ....it doesn't....
> 
> http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf


 
I find it absolutely hysterical that Arizona implemented this law while legislating against compliance with the Real ID law that should have resolved the same issue with no more than a verified drivers license, perhaps they are bipolar?


----------



## Blake Bowden

drapetomaniac said:


> Blake - was is reasonable suspicion for being undocumented to you?  We've already seen many of the brothers here support racial profiling in other threads.  Senator McCain of Arizona has said undocumented immigrants go around causing traffic accidents on purpose.  So that's one suspicious act (although bizarre and not based on fact).   Rep. Brian Bilbray said you can tell by the clothes is someone is undocumented.
> 
> Here's the history of racial profiling in Arizona:
> http://acluaz.org/DrivingWhileBlackorBrown.pdf
> 
> Blacks Hispanics and others were 2 and a half times more likely to get searched once pulled over, while not more likely to have contraband (in other words, the unjustified searches actually were unjustified).  It would be nice to believe that the training they were *forced* to put into place and the policies they were *forced* to put into place against racial profiling are 100% followed and effective, and after only a few years the culture has 100% changed regarding racial profiling in Arizona.    But then it would be nice if the anti-discrimination laws of the 1960s didn't need re-enforced at times too.
> 
> And let's be clear - Arizona didn't "require" Brown people who spoke Spanish get searched more under prior laws - it just happened.  And now there's ann immigration specific law requiring more action from police.
> 
> So far one person has said if the person doesn't speak *any* English and/or if they run away (which Americans do too).  Is that the only thing folks here see as "reasonable suspicion" for immigration status?  If one of you are standing next to a brown guy with a thick accent, you expect just as much scrutiny as him - and expect to be hauled off until your family can bring enough documentation?


 
Drape, I stopped reading your post because it had nothing to do with my initial question. Again, where does 1070 state "if you live in Arizona and look brown, speak Spanish or have an accent, you will be harassed by the authority?" 

Law enforcement in AZ will be under EXTREME scrutiny because of this bill.  I'm sure the ACLU has their team of lawyers lined up and armed with a deck of race cards.



Traveling Man said:


> I find it absolutely hysterical that Arizona implemented this law while legislating against compliance with the Real ID law that should have resolved the same issue with no more than a verified drivers license, perhaps they are bipolar?



Real ID has nothing to do with *enforcing* immigration law. We can ask for ID's all day long, but if  immigration laws aren't enforced....what's the point? BTW, the majority of States *OPPOSE* Real ID.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act


----------



## drapetomaniac

blake said:


> Drape, I stopped reading your post because it had nothing to do with my initial question.



Awesome.  You didn't read it, but you know it was entirely unrelated..  Share some of that magic.



blake said:


> Again, where does 1070 state "if you live in Arizona and look brown, speak Spanish or have an accent, you will be harassed by the authority?"



Acting on "Reasonable suspicion" for someone being undocumented.   When you're talking to someone, how do you suspect they are undocumented in normal conversation?

Other laws didn't require it in Arizona either - but it happened - as shown by the information you chose to ignore.


----------



## Blake Bowden

drapetomaniac said:


> Awesome.  You didn't read it, but you know it was entirely unrelated..  Share some of that magic.



I stopped at "Blacks Hispanics and others were 2 and a half times more likely to get searched once pulled over" because it had nothing to do with my initial question. No need for fussy comments.




drapetomaniac said:


> Acting on "Reasonable suspicion" for someone being undocumented.   When you're talking to someone, how do you suspect they are undocumented in normal conversation?



A good article:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...fted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html


----------



## Blake Bowden

[video=youtube;fmRUpmoaUA8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmRUpmoaUA8[/video]

Epic fail.


----------



## swole

Bro. Christopher Dawson said:


> respectfully to everyone who has posted on this topic:
> 
> our ancestors paid no attention to what was right when they invaded and occupied this land, nor to the laws that existed here thousands of years before their arrival.  some compassionate thinking might be in order here.
> 
> however, to address the *present* issue of immigration...
> 
> 1) end all welfare programs OR
> 2) hold congress accountable (and i dont mean form a tea party) OR
> 3) open the borders completely OR
> 4) force the mexican govt to police itself or improve conditions OR
> 5) reform the naturalization process OR
> 6) offer citizenship and issue social security numbers to all the immigrants here already
> 7) then tax the ever loving snot out of them
> 
> welcome them, put them to work, then use their taxes to improve our country.  lets not be xenophobes...


 My humble opinon;

1)  I do notagree with the ending of welfare programs as to that may be a stereotypical opinion. Not all welfare recipients are immigrants. 

2)  Not too sure on what specifically you are refering to as far as accountability in congress. I agree there should be consequences for those held in contempt.

3)  Wow, I think that would hold the same equivalence of legalizeing marijuana. It would be a whole different ball game if that was to be in effect.:47:

4)  STRONGLY AGREE Especially if there naturalization laws are stricter than ours

5)  Strongly I agree. One of the very best measures of reform passed at the late session of  Congress was that putting the process of naturalization directly under  the supervision of the Bureau of Immigration in the Department of  Commerce and imposing the condition that aliens applying for  naturalization shall be able to speak the English language. We need more of that in the process.

6)  I would agree if it would fall under the New "Improved reform" Not granted just because they are here.

7) I dont believe, although funny, would behoove Americans in taxing illegals in exchange for citizenship. There is a number of things to take in consideration on the type of people that are already here applying for citizenship. Our way of life would drastically change if we just "approve" citizenship to all that are here. Not everyone presently here is an "upstanding" individual with morals.

Just my two cents


----------



## Blake Bowden

Double standard?

[video=youtube;bRoNOnvMBpI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRoNOnvMBpI[/video]


----------



## Dave in Waco

Bro. Christopher Dawson said:


> respectfully to everyone who has posted on this topic:
> 
> our ancestors paid no attention to what was right when they invaded and occupied this land, nor to the laws that existed here thousands of years before their arrival. some compassionate thinking might be in order here.
> 
> however, to address the *present* issue of immigration...
> 
> 1) end all welfare programs OR
> 2) hold congress accountable (and i dont mean form a tea party) OR
> 3) open the borders completely OR
> 4) force the mexican govt to police itself or improve conditions OR
> 5) reform the naturalization process OR
> 6) offer citizenship and issue social security numbers to all the immigrants here already
> 7) then tax the ever loving snot out of them



When our ancestors began colonizing this land there weren't immigration laws.  The residing population were not concerned about such matters as long as the people were not an open threat to them.  Now as time went on, things changed a bit.  But in regards to the social and legal conventions at the time, the world was still very much a place that lived and died by the old saying, "Might makes right."  Since our ancestors were able to force themselves upon the residing population, the land became theirs by law.  It wasn't until centuries later that immigration laws came into being here in the Americas.

1. I wouldn't be in favor of ending all welfare programs.  There are people who do need that support because through no fault of their own they are unable to support themselves.  I do believe we need to reform our welfare system and move it away from being a system that turns it into a drug for those on it.  What's the old saying, "Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.  Teach a man to fish, and he will never go hungry."  Our welfare system needs to gear itself more toward teaching people to fish rather them daily feeding.

2. The Tea Party has in its own way held Congress accountable.  Different people join it for different reasons, but the common link is that Congress is not doing the job we elected them to do.  The biggest fault of elected officials is that they have a sense of entitlement before they have their party's backing.  As Jefferson put it, "A government should be afraid of its people, not its people afraid of their government."  Our government has lost all fear of its people, therefore they serve at the will of the parties and not the people.

3. Openning the borders completely would be a radical solution, but as pointed out by Bro. Dawson, that's a complete game changer.  We would become a dumping ground for everyone's unwanted.  It would be a repeat of the Cuban Refugees from the early 80's.  Cuba sent boat loads of refugees to America, emptying many of the prisons.  Florida is still dealing with that 30 years later.

4. A simple solution, but we are never going to be able to force their government to do a thing.  This is kind of where one of my feelings of America winning the Cold War was a bad thing.  Being the lone superpower in the world, if we try to press anyone, we look like tyrants regardless of the reason.  We're seen as the playground bully.  We could do it during the Cold War, because we were the good guy defending the world from the evil Soviets.  Without the threat of the evil Soviets to take over the world, we go from the strong hero to the bully.  Example: Arizona makes a state law to enforce the federal immigration laws, and Mexico's President goes to the White House, mocks that law, and then demands a complete gun ban in America.

5. Reforming the Immigration process would be a monster task, but this, like the welfare system reform, is a must.  It's not a "we should think about it", "we should look into it", or a "we probably should" thing.  One of my best friends and a brother Mason, married a great lady from England.  They planned to live here, and it took a year to a year and a half for her to migrate here legally.  Then it took another few months for her to be ok'ed to work here.  And she is from a country of one of our strongest allies, spotless criminal record, was a contributing member of her country, and from a country with a low immigration demand.

6. I would disagree with any type of program that gives citizenship or work rights to people already here.  To me, that is rewarding people for illegal behavoir.  It sends the wrong message.  Plus like throwing open the borders, it's a big game changer.

7. Legally, we should be taxing them already.  America taxes both legal and illegal money earned.  When a drug dealer is pursued on Federal charges, a lot of time it's failure to pay Uncle Sam.  Even when a person makes $10's of millions in the drug trade, Uncle Sam still wants his part, and he can get pretty nasty when he doesn't get it.

My hope is that government and the news media will start listening to some of these groups like the Tea Party.  Maybe not to all the things they say, but that the get the underlying message from them.  The People are unhappy with how the government is being run.  Right now, the people are groping in darkness for change.  Obama rode the change wave all the way to the White House.  I know the media and government likes to think of the Tea Party as a small group of radicals.  I think the government needs a good Masonic history lesson about another small group of radicals, before a group like the Tea Party misses one of their meetings on account their members were out "having tea" and fulfills its namesake.  Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.


----------



## TexMass

blake said:


> "if you live in Arizona and look brown, speak Spanish or have an accent"...



Some law enforcment in AZ calls this "resonable suspicion" 

Also, as I mentioned in the beginning, AZ has seen a huge reduction in Illegal Immigrants since 2000 (from 750,000 -250,000)  The largest part has been in the last three years because there are no jobs right now.  Immigrants saying they are leaving now is a very small percentage.  The real danger to public safety is not the illegals who come here to pick in the fields but the drug runners.  As far as the simple illegals, I think any one who hires one should have his business license pulled for a year for every one he has on payroll.  THAT is where ther real problem lies.  Make them toxic to businesses and you may see a larger reduction.  They come here because of what we have to offer.  Make it dangerous to offer anything.  Maybe they'll try to earn it.  JMHO.


----------



## Bill Lins

TexMass said:


> Some law enforcment in AZ calls this "resonable suspicion"


 
Upon what do you base this statement?


----------



## TexMass

TexMass said:


> Some law enforcment in AZ calls this "resonable suspicion"



Here is one of several.

AZ Police Officer sues state over new Immigration Law


----------



## Blake Bowden

TexMass said:


> Here is one of several.
> 
> AZ Police Officer sues state over new Immigration Law


 
"But Escobar's suit says the *law* "is the product of racial bias aimed specifically at Hispanics" and places every Hispanic within the state at risk of losing his or her constitutional rights."

Where does the *law* say that??

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

It doesn't. 



> The law, signed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on April 23, allows police to ask anyone for proof of legal U.S. residency.



SO WHAT! Should I file a lawsuit if a policeman asks for my ID, proof of insurance or vehicle registration? Last year I vacationed in Cozumel, should I file a lawsuit because THEY (Mexican Government) asked for my ID? If I was unable to provide ID, Mexico wouldn't permit me to enter the country.


----------



## TexMass

The Law does not define "reasonable suspicion"

_B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)._

I guess that could leave it up to certain criteria such as "if you live in Arizona and look brown, speak Spanish or have an accent"...  (Cha, Cha, Chahhh)


----------



## Bill Lins

From your link: "Escobar, 45, is a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Mexico and immigrated with his parents when he was 5 years old, attorney Richard M. Martinez said."

I have a reasonable suspicion that Escobar has his own agenda.


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M.

...and yet we contenue to "beat a dead horse" on this subject.

No matter what any one says we are not going to be able to change one another's opinions on this subject right or wrong. I have seen this little debate run back and forth for weeks now and none of us have made any progress in the subject.

It is my opinion that this topic be now closed for the duration or until an administrator deems worthy of re-opening.

So mote it be.


----------

