May 20, 2010
What a Week for Immigration Reform

Tuesday, May 18, 2010: The State Department defended Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner, who at a human rights conference in Washington, expressed his regret to the Chinese regarding the recent Arizona immigration law.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010: At a joint press briefing for the Presidents of Mexico and the United States at the White House, President Obama said, "We also discussed the new law in Arizona, which is a misdirected effort -- a misdirected expression of frustration over our broken immigration system, and which has raised concerns in both our countries."

In his remarks, Mexico President Felipe Calderon said, "In Mexico, we are and will continue being respectful of the internal policies of the United States and its legitimate right to establish in accordance to its Constitution whatever laws it approves. But we will retain our firm rejection to criminalize migration so that people that work and provide things to this nation will be treated as criminals. And we oppose firmly the S.B. 1070 Arizona law given in fair principles (sic) that are partial and discriminatory."

Thursday, May 20, 2010: In a speech to a joint session of Congress, Calderon said, "I strongly disagree with the recently adopted law in Arizona. It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree, but also introduces a terrible idea: using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement." This statement brought a standing ovation from the Democrats.

These words and actions are outrageous. No, they are (EXPLETIVE DELETED) OUTRAGEOUS! Have any of these Democrats cast an objective eye on the situation in Arizona? What part of "illegal" don't they understand? Have they taken a junket to the Southwest and seen first hand the effects of illegal immigration - the financial burdens on the state and local governments for crime fighting, education, health and welfare plus the human suffering all caused by congressional inaction on controlling the boarders, providing work permits and other immigration reforms? Have they read the damn bill?

If these people are not tossed out of power next November, we will have passed the tipping point from a center-right nation to one of sheep sliding down a slippery slope to socialism. God help us.

clear fog blog

Posted by warrenpeterson at May 20, 2010 06:51 PM | Email This
Comments
1. The Democrats will sell this Nation to destruction for the votes from illegals crossing our borders and other chronic welfare dependents within our borders. It's all about Democrat Power and the Hell with anything else including our Economy, Liberty, High Taxes eating out our Substance and our Way of Life. The Democrat Party has always been headed down hill from the principles this Country was founded on. Now, it has reached the level to where it is the Greatest Enemy America faces.

Posted by: Daniel on May 20, 2010 08:28 PM
2. This post gives credence to the basic truth that anyone who refers to themselves as Demo Kid has their soul mirroring through their inner a-hole.

Posted by: KDS on May 20, 2010 08:49 PM
3. I hope the RNC is watching and will run some good ads in November targeting the imbeciles on the left side of the aisle of congress up for election that applauded a foreign leader of a third world craphole called Mexico criticizing a united state (remember that term?) in this country for following its self-imposed immigration policy.

Calderon is an ass, period. He's attempting to unload his trash on us in the hopes they continue to send back 1 billion dollars a year to the corrupt narcoterrorist state that he currently heads. Obama has appointed himself as president Calderon's enabler because by his cowardice to stand up for this nation- no surprise there.

Mexico IS the worlds 5th richest nation in natural resources. Despite that fact, they are completely dysfunctional/corrupt-ridden and want to blame others for their problems just as Calderon did today. dysfunctional people always look to others as the source of their self induced problems. Liberalism itself is an ideology rife with people that tend to identify with other dysfunctional people; from radical islamist extremists who threaten violence over a cartoon depiction to law-breaking foreign nationals that crash our gates and demand the "rights" that citizens that have done the process correctly can/have obtained. Stockholm syndrome and liberalism are synonomous.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 20, 2010 09:01 PM
4. slippery slope to socialism and wingnuts on parade...

In this century, America is facing two different kinds of threats, though no less grave. This time, the threat does not come from nation-state superpowers, but from non-state networks, each pursuing an agenda based upon radical ideologies. The first motivates non-state terrorist networks to kill Americans both here and abroad. But even more disturbing than the threats from foreign terrorists is a second threat that is right here at home. It is an ideology so fundamentally at odds with historic American values that it threatens to undo the cultural ethics that have made our country great. I call it "secular-socialism."
The Left has thoroughly infiltrated nearly every cultural commanding height of our civilization.

Yes, evil Civil Rights Act anti discrimination thinking is the scary slippery slope bogeyman of warrenpeterson, Rand Paul (Teabagger-KY) and disgraced former speaker Newt Gingrich.

And for some reason you think this line of thinking and dog whistles stand a snowball's chance in hell in November?
The results of the special election in PA-12 on Tuesday are a much clearer indication of how things are going to go than unsound wingnut political minds dare to believe.

Take your country back indeed.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 20, 2010 09:09 PM
5. Oh dear!
That dark skinned foreigner said "I strongly disagree with the recently adopted law in Arizona. It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree, but also introduces a terrible idea: using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement."

Where would he get such an idea??

Ladies and gentlemen, may I reintroduce to you the Teabagger from Kentucky and the Republican candidate for US Senate, Dr. Rand Paul:

"A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination," wrote Paul, "even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin."

In your heart you know he's right. And you love it.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 20, 2010 09:18 PM
6. Yeah...MikeBS you and demo Liar are one and the same. You're a Blabbing Idiot and have long ago lost any credibility. Why you bother to post and be a wasted read is probably only known to other Liberals. In fact, Liberals just, Scream in their Darkness of deception showing how confused and disingenuous they are. What a Toxic Waste Liberals are.

Posted by: Daniel on May 20, 2010 09:22 PM
7. MikeBS,

Simple question: does a nation have the right to control its borders?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 20, 2010 09:27 PM
8. And the early winning comment on this thread comes in @3 with Rick D. on May 20, 2010 09:01 PM
"He's attempting to unload his trash on us"

Congratulations Rick D.!
You are the proud winner of a set of white sheets and a Rick Perry autographed confederate flag.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 20, 2010 09:30 PM
9. "A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination," wrote Paul, "even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin."

I believe he's referring to the congressional black caucus and Congessional hispanic congress that are not only allowed, but celebrated within our governmental bodies in this country almost exculsively by the democrat party. The hyperventilating hyphenators always speak of unity, but in execution, are usually pre-occupied with the practice of division.

I chalk it up to cognitive dissonance.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 20, 2010 09:32 PM
10. It's time for the Congressional Progressive Caucus to disband. May the Tea Party make it so.

Posted by: KrisE on May 20, 2010 09:38 PM
11. MikeBS,

In your heart you know he's right.

Freedom of association. Seems to be a part of the Constitution. Or are you saying we should ban hate groups and remove their members from society? Groups like the KKK and members like Senator Robert Byrd (D - WV)?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 20, 2010 09:40 PM
12. @7 Shanghai Dan on May 20, 2010 09:27 PM,

Yes.
And how is it that president Bush's immigration reform initiative never became law?
Who prevented us from having, as Bush said in 2006 "immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive, because all elements of this problem must be addressed together, or none of them will be solved at all."?

Who stopped that? Socialists? ACORN? Mexicans? Who Dan? Who prevented us from solving the problem that seems to so upset you? Who?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 20, 2010 09:43 PM
13. MikeBS,

So what is the problem with the Arizona law, which simply makes Federal law applicable in the State?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 20, 2010 09:45 PM
14. You are the proud winner of a set of white sheets and a Rick Perry autographed confederate flag.

What? Robert Byrd wasn't available to sign that flag, Mike BS? At least get a dyed in the wool KKK grand Cyclops (and Democrat party leader) like Byrd to sign it if you expect it to be authenticated. As for the trash comment, that is what Calderon thinks of those that come to this country as they are the lowest rung of society, yet send back funds to help buoy that narco-terrorist state he's running. They are Basura to him, but they send back the dollares to help prop up his economy back home.

The only people he and Obama are fooling are leftist tools that aren't capable of reconciling their own checkbooks let alone understanding geo-politics.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 20, 2010 09:46 PM
15. @14 Rick D. on May 20, 2010 09:46 PM,

If you want to equate the 2010 Republican Kentucky candidate for the US Senate and teabagging hero Rand Paul's 2002 statement with the stupid associations of a 93 year old man 63 years ago, I'll admit.... you got me. That is a perfect and analogous justification.

If Byrd can still sign his name, we'll get that sig for you too.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 20, 2010 09:57 PM
16. @9 Rick D. on May 20, 2010 09:32 PM,

"the congressional black caucus and Congessional [sic*] hispanic [sic*] congress that are not only allowed, but celebrated within our governmental bodies in this country almost exculsively [sic*] by the democrat party."

Q1. How many African American Republicans are there in the US Congress?
Q2. How many Hispanic Republicans are there in the US Congress?


*careful, or the English only crowd is going to come after you. :-D

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 20, 2010 10:09 PM
17. @ 15- ah, yes. Another free pass given by Mike BS to goverment sanctioned racist groups like the CBC and CHC....A little consistency on the issue would go a long way towards establishing integrity, which is why I don't expect either from you. In your dilluted world view, some racists are more equal than others.

If Byrd can still sign his name, we'll get that sig for you too.

I'm sure you'll both be in attendance at the next Democrat/Slavery party convention together so I don't see a problem. As for the white sheets, send them to Oprah, she can always use more linen napkins.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 20, 2010 10:09 PM
18. MBS,

Did you know that federal law is actually tougher than the AZ law? Federal enforcement officers can ask, at any time, for identification from anyone. They can use race as a indicator. THat is legal in this country. The AZ law is less strict.

What is wrong with trying to keep illegal aliens from being in this country? Should we even have a border? Seriously. I'm asking you....do you believe the we should have a BORDER or even care about being a US citizen?

Finally, what's your address. I'm coming over to eat and take a dump in your house. I don't think you'll mind....if you do, then you're a racist. //sarc off.

Posted by: Dengle on May 20, 2010 10:17 PM
19. @17 Rick D. on May 20, 2010 10:09 PM,

Of course the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is terrible in your eyes.
You already let us know your feelings about Hispanics and Latinos @3 on May 20, 2010 09:01 PM; they're "trash".

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 20, 2010 10:19 PM
20. Hi all,

You paleo-conservatives are missing a conservative point. The immigrants are here in huge part because of our Corn subsidies. We used NAFTA to force our subsidized corn on the Mexican economy and it meant that thousands of Mexican corn farmers who had been toiling out a meagre but acceptable living on 5 acres were suddenly faced with the prospect of watching their kids go hungry.

I respect them for being man or woman enough not to let that happen.

Last spring we were driving through orchard country on the other side of Wenatchee and we saw some immigrants (I know not if legal or illegal) hard at work on a tractor in the middle of a huge cloud of white pesticide spray. I thought, wow, no home-born American would do that job, and ask any farmer, the answer is they wouldn't.

You guys should be for spending less money on ag subsidies and the war on drugs, rather than more bureaucratic tax and spend solutions like litering Route 80 in the bootheel of NM with Border Patrol SUVs. We were just there and you could walk across the valley on the tops of Border Patrol vehicles.

Of course, in light of the tragic recent murder of Robert Krentz in that valley, maybe this isn't the right time to complain about those vehicles, but the point is to discontinue government programs that create problems, then spend tax money on solving the problems that are there.


Thanks appreciate your indulgence of my long rambling post everyone,

nlc


Posted by: new left conservative on May 20, 2010 10:24 PM
21. @ 19- Apparently you're too incapacitated to read the post @ 14 where I explain how your new idol, Calderon, sees those that flee here to the U.S. from his narco-terrorist state as "trash". And if you knew anything about my personal life that I've expressed on this blog in the past, you'd recognize how ingorant and ill-informed you are about the charges you layed about being anti-hispanic.

It's to be expected though, you're a leftist. You simply don't know any better.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 20, 2010 10:47 PM
22.
What exactly is the immigration policies of China and Mexico?

How are they treating Tibeans...or Mosquito Indians?

See...it cuts all ways.

Posted by: John Bailo on May 20, 2010 11:22 PM
23. Right Wing Extremists
* Jefferson
* Adams
* Madison
* Me

Posted by: GS on May 20, 2010 11:50 PM
24. New Left Conservative is exactly right.

These people came to America for jobs. The low wages they work for keep the costs of goods and services we all buy and NEED artificially low. God knows republicans love the everyday low prices at Wal-Mart. Well, hey. Think about what made them so low.

You can't be a libertarian-minded conservative who believes in freedom without believing in the free and open movement of goods, services, and yes, people across borders. Freedom isn't just about you and your family. It's an idea that other people in this world are bold enough to believe in, too.

Posted by: AD on May 21, 2010 12:12 AM
25. 25:

Then lets cut all state, county, and federal wages by say 25% to account for this new change.

Posted by: gs on May 21, 2010 12:16 AM
26. Simple question: does a nation have the right to control its borders?

Even simpler question: is Arizona a "nation"?

Posted by: tensor on May 21, 2010 12:41 AM
27. Twenty years ago, New York City had a large population of illegal immigrants. They took jobs Americans wanted, operated in a black market economy (required by their illegal status), and were very unapologetic about violating our laws in our own country. (That underground economy was also home to gunrunners, operating from New York to the same part of the world as the source of the illegal aliens; thus, the illegals also complicated our law-enforcement efforts to thwart international terrorism.)

The U.S. government took decisive action about this violation of our laws: it rewarded the lawbreakers. The immigration reform of that day, signed by President G. H. W. Bush, specifically reserved much of the new immigration quota as amnesty for that current crop of illegals. Protests were few and quiet.

You see, if you want to enter our country illegally, take our jobs, and not suffer any penalty, you should have names like Seamus, Ryan, and McDermott. Then it's OK.

And the difference between how we treat illegal aliens has nothing to do with skin color. No sirree, not at all, move along now, nothing to see here...

Posted by: tensor on May 21, 2010 01:04 AM
28. So, why not deport illegal immigrants regardless of where they come from?
If an illegal immigrant comes from Ireland, deport him/ her to Ireland.
If an illegal immigrant comes from Mexico, deport him/ her to Mexico.
If your first act in the U.S.A. is to break our laws by stepping in front of the hundreds of thousands of people world-wide each year who play by the rules and try to come here legally, then yes you deserve to have your butt bounced back to Ireland, Mexico, Swaziland or Bangladesh.

Republicans and Democrats have problems with interest groups wanting to sabotage border security enforcement to further their own narrow interests (such as cheap labor or illegal voting).
In the end, though, Republicans actually commit resources and boots on the ground to border security enforcement (even if in insufficient quantity).
Marxists/ Democrats commit little or nothing to border security enforcement. They scheme for massive amnesty measures and even more illegal immigration. Marxists/ democrats have not sought to improve border security enforcement. They seek to oppose it at every opportunity.

I'm willing to pay more for a head of lettuce, strawberries, a restaurant meal, etc. and penalize businesses that persist in recruiting/ hiring illegal immigrants if doing so helps to achieve border security enforcement (and keep out the drug smugglers, human smugglers, crime cartels and narco-terrorists from the U.S.A.). We need a fence along our entire southern and northern borders with enough border patrol manpower to police it. Many if not most conservative people take a similar view.

Why is it that the marxists/ democrats are in lock-step oppostion to border security enforcement for the U.S.A.?
Why do other nations (such as Mexico) get to enforce their border security but our marxists/ democrats feel it is somehow improper for the U.S.A. to enforce border security on its borders?

Posted by: Attila on May 21, 2010 05:05 AM
29. It looks like the left leaning contributors are using tried and true obfuscating techniques to try and muddy the waters.

For example, because the vast majority of illegal immigrants are from Mexico, to oppose amnesty and stop illegal immigration means we have to be racist.

They never seem to answer whether the country should simply permit illegal immigration and what should be done to control the level of immigration so that it is fair to all immigrants. Apparently they don't care if it's fair, they just see it as a political opportunity.

As for G HW Bush and the amnesty for the Irish. Citation please or no credit.

Next question. Do the libs have a problem with enforcement of the existing law? please answer or lose any credibility. (if there is any to lose.)

MBS. There are lots of blacks and hispanic conservatives, but sometimes the hate-filled leftist racists intimidate them from running or simply won't vote for them They have names for them They call them coconuts and Oreos (and twinkies too). You should really talk to your friends about their hateful racist attitudes and then maybe more conservative blacks and hispanics will be able to win their elections. After all they did win the supposedly racist republican primaries, but lose because the libs can't stand to see them win.

Next answer the question of how China and Mexico handle their illegal immigration and what is THIER border control policies. I think you will see that we are much more tolerant and civil.

Finally, it is absolutely unconscionable for democrats to cheer a foreign leader as he trashes people of one of our own states and I defy you to defend that action in any way.

Posted by: Eyago on May 21, 2010 06:08 AM
30. @28 Attila on May 21, 2010 05:05 AM,

Who scuttled the Bush Immigration Reform Proposals of 2006?
Was it Marxists/ Democrats?

How did the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 die?
Was it Marxists/ Democrats who killed it?

Comprehensive immigration reform law has been needed for a decade. Every time a good bill has been close to done, the bills have been killed.

Your contention is that it is Marxists/ Democrats who are stopping correcting our laws?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 06:27 AM
31. As I understand it, actions that give one ethnicity preference over others are racist actions. The Federal government's giving Hispanics preference to the extent of allowing them to be illegal immigrants in preference to say, a doctor from South Africa or an engineer from China, might be viewed as racist. I would argued that people that support this kind of action are, therefore, acting in a racist manner. President Calderone, in his speech, appears to be supporting racism and particularism, as long as it favors Mexican illegal immigrants. Is this why the Democrats applauded him?

I have some questions. Human traffiking is, I think most can agree, a Bad Thing. Human trafficking is encouraged, indeed abetted by open borders. A good way to start controlling human trafficking is to close borders and locate people who have entered a country illegally in order to handle their cases under law. If a person supports illegal immigration, open borders and amnesty, does this mean they support human trafficking? It certainly seems so. If not, what do they propose to do to stop human trafficking at our southern border, and how do they propose to pay for it? Alternatively, if they say that Human trafficking is not a "big" issue, on what do they base such a supposition, given that they strenuously oppose efforts to control immigration and cannot, therefore, know what and who comes across an uncontrolled border?

Posted by: TomP on May 21, 2010 06:31 AM
32. Mike BS: Answer just two simple questions - do your lock the doors to your house at night and when you leave? Do you lock your car when you park it and leave?

Most people consider the south and north borders of our country to be the the doors to our nation, and it only makes sense to make sure they are secure.

If you do lock up your home and vehicle, then all of your previous arguments are rubbish and you know it, so I don't really expect you to answer those two questions truthfully.

Posted by: katomar on May 21, 2010 06:40 AM
33. Tensor wrote:

Even simpler question: is Arizona a "nation"?

How is the Arizona law different from US Federal law? Is your contention that State law enforcement cannot enforce Federal laws?

Does a nation have the right to control its borders?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 06:51 AM
34. @31 TomP on May 21, 2010 06:31 AM,

This is what president George W. Bush proposed in 2006.

This is what never got out of the Republican controlled conference committee for a vote in 2006.

This is what was filibustered in 2007.

There's also this (HR 4321) in 2009 and the senate proposal of 2010.

Can you find common cause in any of this?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 06:51 AM
35. @34 MikeBoyScout

Is preferential treatment of one ethnicity racist or not?

Do people who support open borders support Human Trafficking or not?

If you, for example, are opposed to Human trafficking, how would you prevent it at our southern border, in say, Arizona?

Posted by: TomP on May 21, 2010 06:56 AM
36. Yes, the marxists/ democrats are stopping correction of our laws because they will not enforce border security enforcement.

The 2007 reform act was bad law because it tacked amnesty onto border security enforcement. It was opposed by most republicans and should have been opposed by all republicans.

If we are serious about border security enforcement we would enact serious legislation that would require sealing our borders against drug smugglers, human smugglers, crime cartels, narco-terrorists and islamic terrorists.

IF the Feds take the required steps to really and truly control our borders, have a bipartisan and independent commission certify it as such, then and only then could an amnesty bill be considered.
Certification would have to take place before any further steps could happen.

The above might gain widespread support with the electorate.

The tired leftist dance (lets pretend to support border enforcement so we can slip under 20 million undocumented workers into the U.S.A.) ain't gonna fly any more. Thats why 70 percent of Arizonans (including, I suspect, a few hispanics) support the Arizona law and repudiate president teleprompter and Bruno Napolitano.

Posted by: Attila on May 21, 2010 07:02 AM
37. MBS,

This is what was filibustered in 2007.

From wiki...

The bill's sole sponsor in the Senate was Majority Leader Harry Reid, though it was crafted in large part as a result of efforts by Senators Kennedy, McCain and Kyl, along with Senator Lindsey Graham, and input from President George W. Bush, who strongly supported the bill. For that reason it was referred to in the press by various combinations of these five men's names, most commonly "Kennedy-Kyl". A larger group of senators was involved in creating the bill, sometimes referred to as the 'Gang of 12'.[1] This group included, in addition to the aforementioned senators, Senators Dianne Feinstein, Mel Martinez, Ken Salazar and Arlen Specter. Senators Jim DeMint, Jeff Sessions, and David Vitter led the opposition to the bill

Did you have a point there somewhere?

Now stop dodging questions and playing politics. let's stop worrying about what games politicians play and ask what is right and what is NOT right.

Answer questions as posed by me and Dan.

Posted by: eyago on May 21, 2010 07:02 AM
38. MikeBS wrote:

This is what was filibustered in 2007.

Uh, Mike? In 2007, the Senate had a majority of Democrats, and that bill failed cloture 34-61. Not even a majority of Democrats voted for it. It was a failure of the Democrats.

And for HR 4321? Again, who controlled the House in 2009 (where filibusters do not exist)? That would be the Democrats.

And why didn't the Reid-Schumer-Menendez proposal even come forward as a bill? Who's the Senate Majority Leader?

The fact is that 3 of the 4 bill failures you want to pin on the GOP rest squarely with the Democrats. They have control, they had more than enough votes to move forward, and failed. These highlight the failures of the Democrats, not the GOP.

But you never answered the question Mike:

What is the problem with the Arizona law? Why is President Obama, his Administration, and President Calderon so upset with the law? What aspect of this law drives the anger and hatred?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 07:04 AM
39. @38 Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 07:04 AM,

"In 2007, the Senate had a majority of Democrats, and that bill failed cloture 34-61. Not even a majority of Democrats voted for it. It was a failure of the Democrats."

As usual you are WRONG.
The failed cloture vote had 33 of 50 Democrats voting for cloture and 46 of 47 Republicans voting against. Got that?

(@37 eyago on May 21, 2010 07:02 AM, the point is 66% of Democrats for reform, 97% of Republicans against.)

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 07:22 AM
40. 24 D. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
25 CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT CONSIDER
26 RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION EXCEPT
27 TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.
28 E. IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SECTION, AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION
29 STATUS MAY BE DETERMINED BY:
30 1. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE FEDERAL
31 GOVERNMENT TO VERIFY OR ASCERTAIN AN ALIEN'S IMMIGRATION STATUS.
32 2. THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE
33 UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES
34 CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Posted by: Andy on May 21, 2010 07:27 AM
41. Heh. MikeBoyScout deflects and distracts again. And does it pretty well, too, as always.

So, Mike - what is the problem with the Arizona law?

Are people who support illegal immigrants passing through the southern border racist in favor of Hispanics?

Do people who support open borders support human trafficking?

How should the problem with immigration be resolved? How should it be paid for?

Posted by: TomP on May 21, 2010 07:28 AM
42. The problem with the Arizona law is that it won't get Democrats any votes. : )

Posted by: Jack on May 21, 2010 07:35 AM
43. @35 TomP on May 21, 2010 06:56 AM,

1. Is preferential treatment of one ethnicity racist or not?

Racism is about hate and superiority. Preferential treatment through discrimination based on ethnic or national origin, color, race, religion, or sex is against the law, and rightfully so. The landmark and relevant legislation here is the Civil Rights Act.


2. Do people who support open borders support Human Trafficking or not?
I don't know. Which people and open border proposals are you talking about? Citation please.

3. If you, for example, are opposed to Human trafficking, how would you prevent it at our southern border, in say, Arizona?

I am opposed to human trafficking. Regarding how to reduce it on our southern border, I think the proposals and bills I cited @34 all go a long way towards that goal.


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 07:46 AM
44. MBS,

what you see there is bi-partisan opposition to a bill. you should be pleased with the bi-partisanship of the vote. it obviously was such a winner that 17 democrats voted against it after huge lobbying and pressure from the leadership. Did you know that EVEN HARRY REID voted no on cloture? It was his bloody bill!

Anyway, You are still playing politics. that is the problem. We have a issue and all you want to do is score political points. Now answer the real questions. what is right and what is not? Or is human misery and lives lost and drug wars and human trafficing less important than political points?

Show so guts and make a stand for goodness sake!

Posted by: Eyago on May 21, 2010 07:47 AM
45. But how can you believe a word Mikeboyscout says? Mikeboyscout made a statement on April 7th that he would be sending in an additional $25,000 to the Department of Revenue in 2010. He made that statement to make himself look important and to put down another poster. Mikeboyscout is serial liar. He is a very small boy with a big ego.

Posted by: Smokie on May 21, 2010 07:49 AM
46. Many of you have asked what is wrong with the Arizona law which requires people to be able to prove their legal presence in the state of Arizona and for Arizona officials to act and for law enforcement officials to detain those who cannot meet the requirement.

I agree 100% with what the 30 year sheriff of Pima County Tucson, AZ, Clarence Dupnik, wrote here.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 07:59 AM
47. @44 Eyago on May 21, 2010 07:47 AM,

I already identified @34 proposals and legal reforms which I believe are right steps to address the problem.

You want more of what I think is right?
Start here, the conclusions of the US Commission on Immigration Reform. You see anything wrong (not right) with that?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 08:12 AM
48. MBS,

Concluding thought:

If any good is to come from this firestorm, it is that our legislators will finally recognize that a problem exists and that they are the only ones with the authority to address it.

EXACTLY! Arizona has been dealing with this problem that the federal government has been systematically ignoring and so they took action. NOW people somehow realize there is a problem. would this problem have continued to fester if the Governor, in an effort to take control of a spiraling problem NOT pushed it to the forefront and took decisive action o her own?

Did you know that Phoenix is 2nd in the world in the incidents of Kidnapping? Don't the you think the Governor has a responsibility to take action when her requests for the Federal government to enforce EXISTING LAWS fails to act? Should AZ be subject to the politics of 49 other states and a president that don't seem to care about their plight? Nah,. it's easier just to cry RAAAACIST!

Posted by: eyago on May 21, 2010 08:14 AM
49. Thank you, MikeBoyScout! I appreciate actual, direct (or semi-direct) answers, as I am sure you do as well. When I get off work, I will make an attempt to respond without diversion or evasion. In the meantime, I trust you will be able to enjoy your day.

Posted by: TomP on May 21, 2010 08:23 AM
50. I personally know a family living in AZ, approx 17-miles from the border. YOU WOULDN'T BELIEVE what they've been through down there. SOMETHING had/has to be done. How would you like it if just about EVERY time you left your home, it was broken into and ransacked. They have a literal litany of events that would shock you. :)

Posted by: Duffman on May 21, 2010 08:23 AM
51. @41 TomP on May 21, 2010 07:28 AM,

4. How should the problem with immigration be resolved?
5. How should it be paid for?

The bills of 2006 & 2007 I cited @34 address both of your questions, and I would have supported passage of either. They were killed by the overwhelming opposition of the Republican party in Congress.

Also, if you are looking for well researched and well thought proposals for immigration reform, read the information and recommendations of the 1997 US Commission on Immigration Reform.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 08:24 AM
52. @48 eyago on May 21, 2010 08:14 AM,

The federal government has not systematically ignored our immigration problem.

The problem was addressed by Clinton with the formation of the US Commission on Immigration Reform. The problem was addressed by President GW Bush.

Attempts to pass legislation in 2006 and 2007 were derailed by Republican legislators. You don't appear to like that fact, but it is what it is.

And now, in 2010, the Republican opposition in Congress to address the problem is nearly unanimous. Even the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, has dug his heels in and is against reforms he previously supported and led.
We all know why that is.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 08:34 AM
53. MBS,

Not entirely true. There are existing laws not being enforced. New legislation is not needed to enforce existing law. In addition, the opposition to immigration reform is based on amnesty for those who have already come in. Many feel that would simply reward the cheaters and encourage more cheating. After all, we did the same thing in 186 and it didn't seem to stop the illegal crossings then either.

Now if the Dems want to stop illegal immigration without first making sure they get another 10 million voters on their roles maybe the reform will be a little easier to pass.

Posted by: eyago on May 21, 2010 08:54 AM
54. #52 "The problem was addressed by Clinton with the formation of the US Commission on Immigration Reform. "

Well, then I guess that fixes it.

Congress has created laws that deal with immigration. The branch of government tasked with the responsibility to enforce those laws refuses.

No reform required.

Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2010 08:56 AM
55. MikeBS,

You really need to stop and think:

"In 2007, the Senate had a majority of Democrats, and that bill failed cloture 34-61. Not even a majority of Democrats voted for it. It was a failure of the Democrats."

As usual you are WRONG.

Sorry, how many Democrats were in the Senate in 2007? How many Republicans? Who was the Senate Majority Leader?

Seems that the Republicans couldn't stop it without the consent of the Democrats. The Democrats were in power, it's their failure.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 08:58 AM
56. @53 eyago on May 21, 2010 08:54 AM,

Which specific United States immigration laws were not enforced from 2001 to 2008?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 08:58 AM
57. MikeBS,

So how is Arizona duplicating a Federal Law a show that Arizona is racist and evil but the Federal Government is not?

Without the Federal Law the Arizona law would not - could not - exist. The Democrats control both chambers of Congress and the White House; they could pass a bill that would repeal this offensive Federal law, unilaterally.

The continued existence of this unjust law (in your eyes) is a direct result of the Democrats acquiescence to the status quo. The racist, slave-owning heritage of the Democrats is coming forward once again.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 09:03 AM
58. @55 Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 08:58 AM,

"Sorry, how many Democrats were in the Senate in 2007? How many Republicans?"

Can you not read?
@39 on May 21, 2010 07:22 AM, I gave you the answer and the link.
Once again, for you. The failed cloture vote had 33 of 50 Democrats voting for cloture and 46 of 47 Republicans voting against.
66% of Democrats for reform, 97% of Republicans against.

Got that yet?


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 09:06 AM
59. It's important to know who stood up and applauded.

I want to know if Adam Smith and Brian Baird stood up and applauded a foreign dignatary bashing US federal law in front of the body that writes that law.

Posted by: Andy on May 21, 2010 09:14 AM
60. @57 Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 09:03 AM,

So, do we agree?
Every Democrat and every Republican who did not vote for cloture in the US Senate in 2007 and allow the bill to be voted up or down by the majority and sent to the Republican president, George W. Bush, who supported it was wrong and put the American people in danger.

24% of Democrats wrong.
97% of Republicans wrong.
Where's the problem and what is the solution to it Dan?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 09:15 AM
61. MikeBS,

So again, the failure of these bills in 2007 and beyond are the failure of the Democrats, since they held the majority. Thanks for confirming that.

And what is the problem with the Arizona law as compared to Federal law? You think the Arizona law is racist, but say nothing about the Federal law which is the duplicate. Is Arizona racist, but the Federal Government not?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 09:58 AM
62. Calderon said, "I strongly disagree with the recently adopted law in Arizona. It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by decree, but also introduces a terrible idea: using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement."

Compare President Calderon's quoted statement above with his CNN interview from Wednesday, where he admits that foreigners caught working in Mexico without the proper papers are 'sent back' where they came from.

You'd almost think that he got his racial profiling lingo from the DNC, but when he's home he's a tough cookie on his side of the border.

He's much better as President of Mexico than as an Obama-puppet reciting the leftist party line.

Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on May 21, 2010 10:05 AM
63. @61 Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 09:58 AM,

"the failure of these bills in 2007 and beyond are the failure of the Democrats, since they held the majority. Thanks for confirming that."

No, I did not and do not confirm that the failure is the Democrats.

Do you know how many votes it takes for cloture in the US Senate? Answer is 60.

As I showed earlier, neither party caucus in 2007 had 60 members. 50 Democrats. 47 Republicans and 3 Independents. For the majority party, Democrats, to get cloture on the bill so that a majority of the Senate would be able to vote up or down on a bill the Republican president, George W. Bush supported, required Republican votes.
The motion for cloture got zero Republican votes.


Repeating.
So, do we agree?
Every Democrat and every Republican who did not vote for cloture in the US Senate in 2007 and allow the bill to be voted up or down by the majority and sent to the Republican president, George W. Bush, who supported it was wrong and put the American people in danger.

24% of Democrats wrong.
97% of Republicans wrong.
Where's the problem and what is the solution to it Dan?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 10:10 AM
64. The only fair legal immigration process is to give equal access to the system no matter what the country. With 60-70% if not more of illegal immigrants coming from Mexico, it is patently absurdly ignorant to reward their illegal actions with a pathway to citizenship. It also is counter to the American ways of thinking about fundamental fairness. Fools like Mike BS and the other 25%'ers that believe that we should reward gate-crashers to this country with "rights" are simply misguided and haven't thought their position our thoroughly. Just like every other liberal decision, this one is guided by simple raw emotion rather than intelligent thought.

The lead dope from Seattle's illegal/obstructive march yesterday by 200 of the unwashed is on Dave Ross right now spewing her inane, groupthink bile to a sympathetic blowhard Ross. Last I checked, the way to get people to support your cause is not to keep others that have actually earned their rights captive inside an elevator; a building or any other action that impedes MY right to exercize free movement, once again, there are just not a lot of deep thinkers on the pro illegal side, just irrational emotion.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 21, 2010 10:15 AM
65. Let's reach some consensus here.

Let's agree that the intent of the Arizona law to identify and properly and legally process people who are out of compliance with US Immigration law is correct.

Show of hands.

Who is for a national photo ID card which is required to be presented to an inquiring legal official within 48 hours of the request?

I'm one.
Any others?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 10:20 AM
66.

Headline:

"Top Official Says Feds May Not Process Illegals Referred From Arizona"

This government is lawless, folks. It's all about Obama.


Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2010 10:31 AM
67. MikeBS,

Let's agree that the intent of the Arizona law to identify and properly and legally process people who are out of compliance with US Immigration law is correct.

I'll agree with that.

Who is for a national photo ID card which is required to be presented to an inquiring legal official within 48 hours of the request?

No need for a national photo ID; if Washington (and I think 2 other States) would get in line with the rest of the US, then issuance of a State ID, or passport, would suffice.

So a driver's license is proof in Arizona; what's wrong with requiring a person to show a driver's license or State issued ID card?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 10:32 AM
68. Oh, and MikeBS,

What's so bad about the Arizona law? What's in the Arizona law that is so offensive that does not exist in current Federal law?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 10:38 AM
69. Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 10:32 AM @67
is a "No" on National ID.

1 Yes
1 No

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 10:48 AM
70. MBS,

Are you kidding me?

-10 million illegal aliens.
-5 of 19 hijackers with immigration violations.
-Other terrorist suspects found with immigration violations (after the fact)
-Sanctuary cites
-"don't ask don't tell" immigration style
-"Catch and release"

Seriously, we do not have an immigration problem, we have a lack of enforcement, and when everyone on the left gets up in arms when someone TRIES to enforce, you see that we have a systemic problem.

As for as Cloture, when 17 Dems join all republicans that is bipartisan. the 33 democrats are the outliers. and Harry Reid, voted against cloture. explain that one.

Republicans are against amnesty, not enforcement. separate enforcement from amnesty ad you get republican support. you have a problem with that?

Posted by: Eyago on May 21, 2010 10:48 AM
71. Section 834b of the California state penal code:


(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws.

Why aren't liberals' panties in a wad over that?

Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2010 10:49 AM
72. I'm super irritated by Americans airing our dirty laundry in other nations like that; but I'm also super annoyed that we have created a situation where you can be detained without reasonable articulable suspicion and forced to present your papers Soviet Union style.

In addition, it's the federal government's job to do this, not the state's. I get why they're frustrated - completely - but it's not the right way to do it.

I recognize the problem, I believe the solution lies in other actions. I also don't expect much support in this viewpoint here, so feel free to start calling me a dirty liberal. The more you do it, the less it really means, especially when you're doing it to your potential allies.

Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 21, 2010 10:52 AM
73. MikeBS,

What's so bad about the Arizona law? What's in the Arizona law that is so offensive that does not exist in current Federal law?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 10:52 AM
74. #72 "...but I'm also super annoyed that we have created a situation where you can be detained without reasonable articulable suspicion and forced to present your papers Soviet Union style. "

Where does that happen?

Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2010 10:54 AM
75. Andrew Brown wrote:

but I'm also super annoyed that we have created a situation where you can be detained without reasonable articulable suspicion and forced to present your papers Soviet Union style.

Please read the law. The police cannot stop you for suspecting you to be here illegally. In fact, they cannot inquire of your immigration status at all, unless you are actually arrested (meaning not just a traffic infraction).

There isn't a "papers please" situation here; it only applies after arrest. And it is the same law that exists on the Federal books. This simply restates that existing Federal law.

In addition, it's the federal government's job to do this, not the state's.

I fully agree; the fact is, though, that the Federal Government has ignored its duty, and Arizona is bearing the costs of Federal inaction. The Arizona law is fully compliant with Federal law, and thus is legal. It's a shame that the Federal Government won't do its job, but if Arizona has to bear the costs - in dollars and lives - then Arizona has a responsibility to its own citizens to implement laws that are legal, just, and protective.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 11:02 AM
76. @73 Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 10:52 AM,

Your failure to read and understand what I've already told you, coupled with your curiosity and returning to the same points I have already addressed is tiresome.

As I already responded to @46 on May 21, 2010 07:59 AM, I agree 100% with what the 30 year sheriff of Pima County Tucson, AZ, Clarence Dupnik, wrote here.


Dupnik addressed it well.

When used in a law-enforcement context, "reasonable suspicion" is always understood to be subjective, but it must be capable of being articulated. In the case of identifying illegal immigrants, the ambiguity of what this "crime" looks like risks including an individual's appearance, which would seem to violate the Constitution's equal protection clause. Such ambiguity is especially dangerous when prescribed to an issue as fraught with emotion as that of illegal immigration.

Anything wrong with that reasoned criticism?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 11:07 AM
77. MikeBS,

Yes, Dupnik is wrong. The law allows you to ask, but there is no need to determine - or for the person being asked to answer - immigration status unless an arrest is made. Suspicion is not suitable. Dupnik doesn't get that, and neither do you. Immigration status does not get verified unless there is an actual arrest (not a traffic citation, not being pulled over and checked out by the police); if the cuffs don't go on, then immigration status is irrelevant.

So again, how is the Arizona law bad, and Federal law good?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 11:18 AM
78. #77 Expanding on that... it sounds like Dupnik thinks a person's status can never be checked.

By the way Homeland Security has issued an alert to police in Texas telling them to be on the lookout for a Muslim terrorist who may come in through Mexico. Should the Texas police be concentrating their search efforts on young girls, or old men?

We are so paralyzed by political correctness.

Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2010 11:31 AM
79. And if the terrorist makes it to Houston, he's home free because that is a sanctuary city, I believe.

Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2010 11:34 AM
80. Shanghai Dan,

I actually just did read the law; well, skimmed it, if I want to be completely honest.

This part is my concern and while I have examined the context of the section, I'm not really reassured.

Tell me your thoughts about this:

ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS
11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement immigration laws; indemnification
A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

As I read it, it seems that anytime there is lawful contact between a LEO and a citizen, if they have 'reasonable suspicion' that the person may be an illegal immigrant, then they may - and "shall" - validate their immigration status pursuant to US law, etc, which means that they can detain them for having reasonable suspicion they are an illegal alien.

I don't think that checks out with what you wrote in post 77, but I'm open to reading about how I have misunderstood it since you are definitely articulating yourself well here and not calling names or anything, which is super refreshing here :) So tell me what I misunderstood and maybe I can change my opinion.

Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 21, 2010 11:34 AM
81. @77 Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 11:18 AM,

As usual you are WRONG.

Page 2 line 20 of the SB 1070 Arizona Law that you did not read and 30 year sheriff of Pima County Tucson, AZ, Clarence Dupnik did.

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

So, I've shown you where in law 30 year sheriff of Pima County Tucson, AZ, Clarence Dupnik, got his information.

Where is the information to support Shanghai Dan's
"no need to determine ... - immigration status unless an arrest is made." expert opinion?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 11:44 AM
82. Andrew,

It really comes down to what you have to provide the police - by statute - when questioned. In fact, you have the right to not talk at all and there cannot be legal repercussions for that (the 5th Amendment and all). If a police officer asks for your name, you have no reason to tell him; if he asks for your address, you do not have to provide it; if he asks about your immigration status you can ignore it.

It becomes a requirement for the police to determine your status only IF you are arrested; they can ask all they want, but they do not have a legal right to determine without doubt until you are arrested. A reasonable attempt shall be made (asking "are you a citizen") but failing to provide an answer is not an arrestable offense.

Basically, the usual fishing by police officers is still going to happen, and you still have the right to ignore their fishing unless you're arrested.

Detaining a person is arrest; if you are asked for information you have no legal compulsion to answer unless arrested. And that cannot happen without suspicion of breaking a law.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 11:48 AM
83. So, who is for supporting our law enforcement personnel, like 30 year sheriff of Pima County Tucson, AZ, Clarence Dupnik, in enforcing US Immigration requirements and will support a national photo ID card which is required to be presented to an inquiring legal official within 48 hours of the request?

Right now, the vote on this SP thread is:

1 Yes
1 No

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 11:53 AM
84. @82 Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 11:48 AM,

Can you assertion this in the Arizona law?

Or just what is your education and experience in interpreting law?
Do you claim to be more knowledgeable and experienced than 30 year sheriff of Pima County Tucson, AZ, Clarence Dupnik?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 11:58 AM
85. The Arizona law is much more restrictive on the powers of police to 'check your papers' than the federal laws on the books that have been upheld by the SCOTUS in 2005. So all this caterwauling, hyperventilating hysterics from people in the administration and its supporters that haven't taken the time to read 15 pages, but choose instead to whine from afar and speak from ignorance. It's long past time to put up or shut up.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 21, 2010 12:00 PM
86. Boy this is a lot of huffing and puffing.

On the one hand, you have the lefties who have bought the "Show your papers" meme. They think this about some kind of Soviet style police force. Obviously they have not read the law in AZ or Federally.

On the other hand, you have many righties that want to stop immigration and keep the jobs for Americans, which ignores the millions who are providing work and value now at this very moment. Work and value that is like or not, a part of our economy.

Neither are correct. We need a balanced and applicable immigration policy. And more importantly, one that we actually implement. We do need immigrants, and we need many who are here now to stay and work. This has always been a nation of immigrants. The trouble is that there is no easy way for those working here now to get here, stay here, and to do so legally without a huge and costly legal hassle. So, they take their chances in human trafficking and inflate our welfare and medical facilities, and there's not a good filter for criminals, terrorists, infectious people, etc.

What we need is a much more rational immigration policy that both beefs up border security, but also makes it much more efficient for immigrants to simply enter legally. Like with iTunes, the price of songs at .99 cents each largely thwarts piracy because it's simply easier to just click the "buy" button than to hassle with torrents and illegal music sources of dubious quality.

If we allowed immigrants to get in a reasonable line at a gate, pay a reasonable $5K to $10K fee ( a fee which they would otherwise pay to smugglers,) file for an SS #, to pay taxes, to establish a path to citizenship and naturalization so they don't simply abuse us and return all their wealth to their home country, to check for disease, and to background check rigorously for crime and terror, we would have a great new source of revenue and honest immigrants. And we'd be able to tax the crap out of these new arrivals like we already do to ourselves. And we'd be able to staff and pay for medical facilities by knowing the actual number of taxpayers in a given area, and allowing these folks to engage in real health insurance plans, and all of the other societal services that have costs to administer and that don't handle the burgeoning underground population.

I applaud AZ because they have started the dialogue that we need to have to get somewhere rather than the constant bickering and false starts with immigration that have been a hallmark of nearly every recent administration.

Deporting everyone, doing nothing, using this issue as a political football, or just looking at illegals as a new source of victims or illegal votes is not going to serve our country well.

Most politicians are hopeless on this issue. But it's also disgusting to see Democrat traitors like Michael Posner comparing our immigration troubles to the horrific human rights violations of China. As expected, as big a failure as we were at immigration under Bush, Obama's only making it worse by inflaming the rhetoric and otherwise doing the same damn thing. Think bailouts and Afghanistan.

The one bright light here is Arizona, because they are forcing us all to confront an obvious problem. We need more Arizonas for many other massive issues that are simply getting kicked up the road in political soccer. Maybe another state will step up with a law that confronts depression causing out of control spending and debt? Obama would probably go on camera with the President of Greece and make up stuff about that too.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 21, 2010 12:03 PM
87. @85 Rick D. on May 21, 2010 12:00 PM,

Where in the law is it more restrictive?

Do you support a national photo ID card which is required to be presented to an inquiring legal official within 48 hours of the request?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 12:05 PM
88. Shanghai Dan @ 82: If that were genuinely the case, I wouldn't raise my concerns about the law, but the part I cited actually says otherwise.

If reasonable suspicion exists, an attempt SHALL be made... No criteria for arrest exists.

I hope you're right but the text of the law doesn't seem to bear that out from what I can understand.

Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 21, 2010 12:07 PM
89. @86 Jeff B. on May 21, 2010 12:03 PM comes down as a No on national photo ID.

Right now, the vote on this SP thread is:

1 Yes
2 No

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 12:08 PM
90. Jeff B.,

If asking for ID is "Show your papers" meme"
how shall law enforcement officers "DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.?

How do you do that without ID showing the status (citizen, H1/B1/B2.., Permanent Resident, Refugee, etc..) of the person? I'm curious. How?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 12:21 PM
91. National ID? No.

Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2010 12:39 PM
92. @ 87 Unlike the federal law, the officer needs to have been in contact with someone regarding another matter ala the old seatbelt law in this state- it's secondary to the reason you were stopped. Also, federal law already dictates that if you have legal papers to be here, you must carry them on your person. The only people that have to worry about the enforcement of this law are the illegals that are here, period.

I still haven't heard your reasoning behind wanting to allow the legalizing of 70 percent of those here illegaly from one of a couple countries south of the border, primarily Mexico. I thought you libs were big on the fairness issue. How is a Mexican national wanting to gain citizenship more equal than a Phillipino national wanting the same, only doing it by the process set up by our government? They aren't and you know it. That's why you continue to evade the question on this thread. Mexico got amnesty under Reagan and have been more than generously given access to this country. It's high time someone else got a shot at becoming American that isn't willing to break our laws to achieve that goal.

Arizona is simply mirroring their laws to those of the Federal government that has failed/refused to enforce their own laws.If Obama won't do his job, then Jan Brewer is more than qualified to step in and do it for him. I encourage all other states including our own to follow suit, but that's wishful thinking in this echo chamber of ignorance we call the evergreen state.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 21, 2010 12:41 PM
93. MikeBS,

Reasonable suspicion after a stop is already made. Again, I ask:

What's so bad about the Arizona law? What's in the Arizona law that is so offensive that does not exist in current Federal law?

You do realize that every law enforcement officer of the US already HAS these very powers you are decrying (all take an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States). This is literally NOTHING NEW, just a formal recognition of the existing law.

So MikeBS:

What's so bad about the Arizona law? What's in the Arizona law that is so offensive that does not exist in current Federal law?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 12:43 PM
94. National ID Card:
Having spent 3-yrs in the military and taking out naturalized citizenship as an American (formerly -and I guess always- a Canadian) I have no problem with this. [Despite not being able to run for POTUS] :)

Posted by: Duffman on May 21, 2010 12:44 PM
95. Well, MBS, for someone who's against "Determining someone's status by appearance" you just determined my vote for your own little "in your mind" poll by appearances. Interesting. Is that how you'd like voting to go in the US in general? I guess that's one way to assure the outcome is always as you like.

What's your answer to the questions? Are you going to answer the questions posed to you first? Do you have a problem with the enforcement of existing law?

My comments addressed overall immigration, and how we should approach immigration at the gates, and have nothing to do with what happens when someone is accosted by an officer in AZ. But you want to get your ridiculous tally regardless of whether it reflects what others are actually saying. Apropos.

Any by my count, there are about 26 unique commenters in this thread, and you've managed to poll one or two including yourself. You keep at it. I am sure everyone here takes you very seriously and are otherwise simply too busy to respond.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 21, 2010 12:45 PM
96. Gary @91 on May 21, 2010 12:39 PM comes down as a No on national photo ID.

Right now, the vote on this SP thread is:

1 Yes
3 No

Gary, how shall law enforcement officers "DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON" without a national photo ID?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 12:46 PM
97. Duffman @94 on May 21, 2010 12:44 PM enters in with a reasoned Yes on national photo ID.

Right now, the vote on this SP thread is:

2 Yes
3 No

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 12:51 PM
98. @93 Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 12:43 PM,

Are you cognitively impaired?

The law does not give the Arizona authorities the power, it requires them ("A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE") to exercise that power.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 01:00 PM
99. #98. Exactly like the law in California. The word, "shall" is there also:


(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws.

I can't wait for Los Angeles to boycott California.

Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2010 01:11 PM
100. @99 Gary on May 21, 2010 01:11 PM,

Can you find the condition "who is arrested, and suspected " in the Arizona law?

Is it your contention the words "ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE" in 11-1051 B mean arrested?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 01:22 PM
101. Yeah lawful contact could just be a casual conversation, according to my understanding. (Picked up from the opencarry.org forums, where they obviously have the opportunity to interact with LEOs quite a bit)

Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 21, 2010 01:37 PM
102. I think the bill says ""lawful stop, detention or arrest,""

Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2010 01:40 PM
103. #100. Your link does not work for me.

Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2010 01:44 PM
104. @93 Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 12:43 PM,

What's so bad about the Arizona law? What's in the Arizona law that is so offensive that does not exist in current Federal law?

You tell us.
Scenario:
A conditional permanent resident has a Permanent Resident Card with a "Card Expired" date preceding that of "ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE" with an Arizona law enforcement officer. The suspected person claims (s)he is in compliance.

Question: What is needed to determine the lawful status of the suspected conditional permenant resident?

Question: Where did you find the answer?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 01:46 PM
105. No doubt the #1 meme going 'round the interwebs is "Rand Paul says what's in the racist heart of every conservative". This is what's happening folks.

Posted by: Doug Smith on May 21, 2010 01:46 PM
106. MBS - obviously you don't believe in freedom of association.

Posted by: Doug Smith on May 21, 2010 01:48 PM
107. When a foreign president slams the United States, Democrats (who are in charge) give him a standing ovation. They give Fidel Castro a standing ovation.

Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2010 01:50 PM
108. Gary - yet the American people will keep re-electing these treasonous bastards. It's all pointing to a Civil War, I'm afraid.

Posted by: Doug Smith on May 21, 2010 01:53 PM
109. @106 Doug Smith on May 21, 2010 01:48 PM,

What are you talking about?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 01:54 PM
110. Gary, how shall law enforcement officers "DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON" without a national photo ID?

How do you do that without ID showing the status (citizen, H1/B1/B2.., Permanent Resident, Refugee, etc..) of the person? I'm curious. How?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 01:58 PM
111. #110 Gee, have they never been able to do that?
Immigrants in the county legally have documents that vouch for them.

Immigrants in the country illegally do not.

Your link doesn't work for me BTW. Is it the current law that you linked to, or the old one?

Democrats, would you be happy if Arizona just adopted Mexico's immigration laws?

Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2010 02:04 PM
112. @111.Gary on May 21, 2010 02:04 PM,

Gee, you don't have an answer.
The best you have is begging the question.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 02:08 PM
113. I hate to say this, but I find myself in agreement that our great leader could find himself having the distinction of being the second president to preside over a civil war, and it will be the current administration's fault. When a sitting president sides with the leader of a foreign country against one of his own states for attempting to enforce existing law, and refuses to even attempt enforce the law at the federal level, it is worrisome. More states are discussing enacting legislation similar to Arizona, and this could escalate. We already have hints ( not serious, admittedly) of Texas thinking about secession. This could quickly go too far, and we need to put the brakes on quickly in November 2010 and again in 2012.

Posted by: katomar on May 21, 2010 02:18 PM
114. @113 katomar on May 21, 2010 02:18 PM,

Do you agree that the intent of the Arizona law to identify and properly and legally process people who are out of compliance with US Immigration law is correct?

Show of hands.

Are you for a national photo ID card which is required to be presented to an inquiring legal official within 48 hours of the request?

Right now, the vote on this SP thread is:

2 Yes
3 No

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 02:24 PM
115. 'This is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause...' [from 'Star Wars', I think?]

Perhaps appropriate, kato

Posted by: Duffman on May 21, 2010 02:24 PM
116. katomar, the Governor of Arizona sent the President letters begging for border help. Not only did he not give it, he didn't even reply.

People never understand that history can happen to them too. We are on the brink of more history than we can handle.

MBS, that link you put in #100. What is it?


Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2010 02:27 PM
117. @116 Gary on May 21, 2010 02:27 PM,

SB 1070, the Arizona Law.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 02:34 PM
118. Yeah, Arizona changed "lawful contact" to "lawful stop, detention or arrest."

Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2010 02:46 PM
119. Oh, and now we have the President saying that any illegals arrested in Arizona won't be processed by federal immigration officials.

We have stopped being a nation of laws.

Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2010 02:51 PM
120. @118 Gary on May 21, 2010 02:46 PM,

Here's another citation of "lawful contact" in the Arizona law.
Where is the citation for your assertion?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 02:54 PM
121. Here:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/h.hb2162_ccmemo.doc.htm

They are/have amended it.


Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2010 02:58 PM
122. @119 Gary on May 21, 2010 02:51 PM,

Where do we have "the President saying that any illegals arrested in Arizona won't be processed by federal immigration officials."?

Or are you just going to make shit up?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 03:00 PM
123. MBS, right here:

"Top Official Says Feds May Not Process Illegals Referred From Arizona:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/21/official-says-feds-process-illegals-referred-arizona/

So, are you cool with Arizona now that they amended their law?

Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2010 03:07 PM
124. @121 Gary on May 21, 2010 02:58 PM,

Thank-you.
A better link to the 23 April revised law is
here.

What is a "STOP"?
What is a "LAWFUL STOP"?
What is a un"LAWFUL STOP"?
What should an official do if (s)he determines the suspect is "AN ALIEN WHO AND IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES," during an un"LAWFUL STOP"?


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 03:10 PM
125. #124. Whatever. Your side should stop using the exact term, "lawful contact".

And why isn't anybody's hair on fire over the law in California?

Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2010 03:14 PM
126. Gary, why should anyone stop using the term lawful contact when that is the term in the arizona law? Did I misunderstand you sir?

Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 21, 2010 03:26 PM
127. #126. Arizona changed "lawful contact" to "lawful stop, detention or arrest."

Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2010 03:28 PM
128. Andrew, what of California's law? Are you opposed to it?

Posted by: Gary on May 21, 2010 03:49 PM
129. Can either Mike BS or Andrew Brown explain why they believe a Mexican national is more deserving of a shot at American citizenship than a Phillipino national? That's really what we are talking about afterall, fundamental fairness and equal access to the system for all foreign nationals to live the American dream.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 21, 2010 04:12 PM
130. MikeBS,

What's so bad about the Arizona law? What's in the Arizona law that is so offensive that does not exist in current Federal law?

You tell us.

You're the one with the problem with the law, not me. Why is the Arizona law so bad when it's a duplicate of the Federal law? You seem to think that now because there's an Arizona law explicitly duplicating the Federal law (a law which AZ police are already sworn to protect) that somehow everything changes.

You're not being rational. But what's new...

Andrew,

The law in AZ is for lawful stop, detention, or arrest, not simply contact. There is a difference. The police cannot stop, detain, or arrest you unless you are suspected of a crime; being in the country illegally is not a primary offense so you cannot be stopped on that suspicion.

Why do people suddenly freak out over this law when it's been FEDERAL LAW for the last several decades? Police are sworn to uphold State and Federal laws, as well as those of their jurisdiction! It's a Federal law that prohibits bank robbing, does that mean the local police cannot respond to a Federal crime? No.

Really, how is this different than explicitly stating the same for AZ (and, in fact as Gary has pointed out, tightening the restrictions on police).

The ONLY way this can be perceived as a "bad thing" is if you generally think illegal immigration is acceptable and that this law may in fact result in illegal immigrants being reported and deported when they commit a crime, as it was a Federal law generally ignored.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 04:33 PM
131. MikeBS wrote:

Gary, how shall law enforcement officers "DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON" without a national photo ID?

Actually, in most states (sans Washington and I think South Dakota) you need to prove legal status to receive a driver's license or state ID card. And if you are present on a visa, the expiration date of that license or card is the expiration date of your visa. Meaning that - in Arizona - ownership of a driver's license or state issued ID card is proof of legal residency.

You don't need a national ID card. You need WA and SD to get it together; right now, if you were in AZ and pulled over for a traffic violation and the police officer thought you were here illegally, your WA State license is not proof. You'd need other paperwork (such as a passport or SSN card).

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 04:38 PM
132. Rick D @ #129:
The legal immigrants that I know, and there are quite a few of them plus the ones who's parents immigrated here legally, are really pissed off at illegals getting special treatment. Every one of them (or their parental units) worked very hard to get to this country legally and love it very much. To have a willful law breaker getting special treatment to jump to the head of the line galls them immensely. Rightfully so in my mind. The flying of the Mexican flags just turns their faces red with anger too. They really don't understand that.

Once again the media picks and chooses who will be the "undocumented" visitor for comment, or the organization who supposedly speaks for them, that supports their views. A contrary opinion, and one that I believe is majority in the over all immigrant community (versus just the the Mexican community), never gets heard because the reporters opinion or the guts of the latest DNC press release is what get presented on the nightly news. It is no coincidence that all major networks on any given day all sport the same exact talking points, right down to the key word bullets, on any major issue that the DNC wants to influence and the AZ law is a biggie.

The number of people that support the AZ law is very broad and not just white or Tea Party. It will have consequences for Democrats in November.

Posted by: G Jiggy on May 21, 2010 07:57 PM
133. Tom P @ #31:

The President of Mexico must do everything in his power to make sure that the present situation stays status quo.

In 2005 illegals sent back almost 17 million U.S. dollars back to Mexico. That 17 million keeps a lot of Mexican families in shoes and beans. Without it there would be riots in the streets there. That 17 million helps keep Mexico's corrupt system afloat.

So you see, Calderon is simply trying to save his lousy skin by exporting their economic problems to America. What pisses me off is that Obama doesn't defend our county. He lets Calderon bash and actually gets into it himself. What a dick. Or as that black preacher calls him: the Long Legged Mack Daddy".

New Left Conservative @ #20: You sez: ". . . but the point is to discontinue government programs that create problems, then spend tax money on solving the problems that are there."

Thanks for coming to the party (if I read you correctly). Anybody who pays attention would be hard pressed to NOT find a situation where government has made it worse and then spent untold dollars trying to "cure" the problem all the while not copping to their culpability in the matter and building an ever bigger bureaucracy to milk it. The latest economic crash being a good example (Fanny and Freddie) and LBJ's The War on Poverty a classic example too.

Posted by: G Jiggy on May 21, 2010 08:19 PM
134. G Jiggy @ 132

I can't agree more....Those that are here legally are really upset about the recent happenings in DC and abroad...

They should be...They earned their right to be an AMERICAN..... Through hard work and all the Hoops.

Posted by: Chris on May 21, 2010 08:22 PM
135. One more thing...If I get pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt, my ID is checked (although in WA that doesn't mean I am a US citizen).

Why should Illegal's not be subject to the same rules.... Check their ID's (except in our fair state you can get a Driver's License without proof of Citizenship).

Posted by: Chris on May 21, 2010 08:29 PM
136. Bottomline: Marxist/ democrat proponents of open borders will obfuscate all day long, then giggle to themselves over their daily bong hits. They do NOT want to enforce border security. They DO want amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants and they DO want another 20 million illegal immigrants crossing the borders into this country before the ink is dry on their latest "comprehensive immigration reform" (granting legal status to the current 20 million illegals). Arguing with them is like trying to talk to one of the "critical mass" turds.

This is why the overwhelming majority of Americans reject libs when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration. Its not up to us to persuade kool-aid drinking, ass-hat liberals. It's up to the marxist/ democrats to convince the rest of the country that the status quo or their latest corrupt version of "comprehensive immigration reform" are somehow acceptable.
Flout the will of 70% of Americans. Please do so loudly and daily. The clock is running out. November is coming.

Posted by: Attila on May 21, 2010 09:11 PM
137. First thing, the "system" is NOT broken. The government/bureaucrats is broken by not enforcing the existing rules of law.
Thank you Arizona for doing what is right. More states need to get on board.

Posted by: Harry on May 21, 2010 09:11 PM
138. @135 Chris on May 21, 2010 08:29 PM,

Actually, the state of Washington is one of only 4 states which have availed themselves of offering the Enhanced Drivers License which can serve as proof of U.S. citizenship.

The only other form of identification issued by states which qualify as proof of citizenship is the birth certificate.

You should be proud of the State of Washington and its inept bureaucrats to be one of the 4 states, along with Vermont, New York, and Michigan that have taken advantage of the REAL ID program and offer the enhanced driver's license with its US citizenship status feature.

Wonder why the states of Arizona and Texas which have such a large documentation problem have not been able to do what the Democratic controlled state of WA has done?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 09:15 PM
139. Mike BS @ 138

Just how many of US citizens of Washington STATE have the Enhanced DL you so quote?

DO YOU?

I don't....Wonder Why, They only are good for Canada.

So your diversion is Squashed... Why should I pay for an enhanced if I don't travel to Canada on a regular basis....That is all it is good for, here at least...


Posted by: Chris on May 21, 2010 09:27 PM
140. MikeBS,

The enhanced driver's license is an optional item; it is not required. You can get a non-enhanced license in the State of WA without proof of immigration status.

On the other hand, to get a driver's license in Arizona you must prove you are in the country legally, and if you are an immigrant, the expiration date of the license is either 5 years or the expiration of your visa, whichever comes first.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 09:31 PM
141. @136 Attila on May 21, 2010 09:11 PM,

HR 4321 the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 has 97 Marxist/ democrat sponsors and not a single Republican co-sponsor.

Is there a comparable proposed house bill to reform immigration and provide control over our borders authored by the Republicans? What is it please?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 09:42 PM
142. @139 Chris on May 21, 2010 09:27 PM,

Yes, I have a WA Enhanced Driver's License.
No, it is not only are good for Canada and not all it is good for, here at least.

My WA Enhanced Driver's License is proof of my US citizenship for any and all legal processes in the United States of America requiring proof of US citizenship status.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 09:49 PM
143. MikeBS,

An valid Arizona license is also proof of legal residency within the US; not just citizenship. The Enhanced driver's license does not apply to legal immigrants; why do you support a system that refuses to acknowledge the status of legal immigrants? Do you want them to carry their papers?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 10:18 PM
144. @143 Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 10:18 PM,

Do you have a valid Arizona driver's license?
Documented aliens have other forms of verification; Permanent Resident Card, I-94 Card, etc..)

What proof of legal US immigration status did you carry on your last trip to the Grand Canyon?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 10:36 PM
145. Mike BS - Have you been to Arizona in the last year or two and if so how long were you there for ?

You and other leftist are living in your ivory tower and have no clue how much of a problem illegal immigration is in AZ. I have friends who live there and they are all glad their law passed, which will be enforced by most police departments.

Stop the lies about the alleged racism in this law. It is no more racist than the existing Federal law that seldom gets enforced. You are just showing your ignorance and arrogance like Obama's cabinet when you don't know of what you speak but don't care and only speak to get political points.

I have an enhanced DL, which will work in both Canada and Mexico from my understanding.

Posted by: KDS on May 21, 2010 11:11 PM
146. MBS @ 141

One word. Amnesty.

Do I need to spell it out for you? A M N E S T Y.

It's the deal breaker.

You know it's politics, so stop trying to say D's want reform and R's don't. IF the shoe was on the other foot, and R's had a bill that had everything BUT amnesty and there were no D's supporting it would you be harping about how they were opposed to reform and being the party of no? Probably not. I keep telling you, stop playing politics with the issue.

The question is, do you think we should reward the cheaters or not?

Can we plug the leak without giving amnesty or not?

To paraphrase a previous question, do you allow the guy who moves into your house, uninvited permanent family status with full rights to your property as long as they don't break any (other) laws for the next six years? If so, give me your address. I'm tired of paying my rent, and I think I can keep my nose clean for six years. BTW: what's for dinner tonight?

Posted by: eyago on May 22, 2010 05:44 AM
147. "Clever" obfuscation is emblematic of the liberals. It's how they get their jollies.

Setting up a system that participates in the real ID program while at the same time allowing a separate drivers license track that does not verify citizenship status is "clever". Allowing illegal immigrants (and criminals and terrorists) to gain valid washington state ID and making it possible for them to take advantage of "motor voter" is also "clever".
Expect the same from liberals when it comes to border security enforcement and illegal immigration. They will not enforce existing law, secure our borders, or stop the flow of illegal immigrants. Maybe that has something to do with 70% of U.S. citizens supporting the Arizona law.

Posted by: Attila on May 22, 2010 06:37 AM
148. Where is your money Mikeboyscout? Why are we waiting? You are a liar aren't you boy.

Posted by: Smokie on May 22, 2010 07:21 AM
149. The anser to reform calls is enforcement.

Posted by: Barack on May 22, 2010 07:33 AM
150. The anser to reform calls is enforcement.

Posted by: Barack on May 22, 2010 07:34 AM
151. The anser to reform calls is enforcement.

Posted by: Barack on May 22, 2010 07:34 AM
152. The answer is enforcement.

Posted by: Barack Obama on May 22, 2010 07:35 AM
153. Illegal aliens helping with oil spill booms? Panhandle authorities make arrests

PANAMA CITY, Fla. -- Bay County, Fla., sheriff's deputies arrested more than a dozen people Wednesday in a sweep at Panama City Marina, a staging area for contracted workers loading oil boom on boats, according to media reports.
Most, if not all, of the people arrested were believed to be illegal aliens, the Northwest Florida Daily News newspaper reported.
A BP PLC spokeswoman said in a WJHJ TV report that the company immediately reacted to the situation and will cooperate with authorities. The company has said it wants to hire as many local residents as possible to help in cleanup operations from the oil spill from BP's Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2010 07:39 AM
154. @145 KDS on May 21, 2010 11:11 PM,

"Have you been to Arizona in the last year or two and if so how long were you there for ?"
"You and other leftist are living in your ivory tower and have no clue how much of a problem illegal immigration is in AZ."

You think you are an expert on Arizona and on law enforcement in Arizona?

You think you know more than what the 30 year sheriff of Pima County Tucson, AZ, Clarence Dupnik, knows?
You think you know more about Arizona than the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police (AACOP)?

Damn! Why don't you run for governor of Arizona?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2010 07:58 AM
155. @147 Attila on May 22, 2010 06:37 AM,

"Setting up a system that participates in the real ID program while at the same time allowing a separate drivers license track that does not verify citizenship status is "clever". Allowing illegal immigrants (and criminals and terrorists) to gain valid washington state ID and making it possible for them to take advantage of "motor voter" is also "clever"."

Well, I might be clever, but you are stupid. If using driver's licenses as ID will allow illegal immigrants to take advantage of motor voter, then the Arizona Law must really be clever!

A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

Clever?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2010 08:15 AM
156. MikeBS wrote:

Do you have a valid Arizona driver's license?

No, I do not. And if Washington would come to its senses and only issue a driver's license to legal residents and citizens, it would be a non-issue.

Documented aliens have other forms of verification; Permanent Resident Card, I-94 Card, etc..)

Yes, and they are required - by law - to have those on their persons at all times. How will the new Arizona law make this a burden on the immigrant? How is the law a bad thing?

What proof of legal US immigration status did you carry on your last trip to the Grand Canyon?

I usually carry my passport with me for identification, as it is valid everywhere in the US, yet does not contain my address nor my SSN. Better privacy yet a higher level of identification.

And you still have not answered the question:

What's in the Arizona law that is so offensive that does not exist in current Federal law?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 22, 2010 08:17 AM
157. Do you ever wonder why libs are so fond of "clever" gambits to advance their agendas?

Case in point would be the intentional enactment of Real ID in Washington State alongside a program that does not require citizenship verification to obtain a Washington State ID Card or Drivers License. The folks who tout it seem so full of themselves that they hope and expect others to not know about the two ID tracks, or to not care about it. One of the primary intents behind Real ID was to deny people like the 9/11 terrorists from obtaining legitimate IDs with which to advance their plots from inside of the U.S.A. Seems like common sense. Liberals then enact Real ID with a huge get-around built in.
They don't see anything problematic in illegal aliens and/ or potential terrorists being able to hold legitimate identification. How "clever" of them.

No, I'm not proud of Washington State for doing it and I'm ashamed that we have people in power who envision such gambits as good government.

Liberals seem so caught up with wanting to be loved for their compassion and respected for their boundless desire to save the world. It seems counterproductive, from a public relations standpoint, to cite such stuff as examples of success or pride when it only inspires distrust and contempt for libs. I guess it comes down to world view. Some people don't see a problem with half-truths, or spreading intentional lies as long as it advances their supposedly worthy leftist goals. To liberals the ends justify the means. If you can't sway people with your arguments resort to pulling a swifty over them.

Its the same as creepy liberals training their kids to sing North Korean/Communist Young Pioneer-like songs of praise for their dear leader. It squicks most people out but libs see nothing wrong with it (or with having allies like Louis Farrakhan who call president teleprompter the "messiah").
It's truly creepy stuff.

Once upon a time liberals inspired people because they seemed to stand up for government reform, honest and open government, free speech, dissent and patriotism while also advocating for strong national defense.
Those days are long gone.

Posted by: Attila on May 22, 2010 08:27 AM
158. @146 eyago on May 22, 2010 05:44 AM

"One word. Amnesty. Do I need to spell it out for you? A M N E S T Y. It's the deal breaker."

Well you ability to spell correctly surely puts you in the top 10% of the know nothing folks posting comments here, but I wonder if you are able to take that skill and put it to use in understanding the specifics of the issue you are commenting on.

Can you find that One word. Amnesty. in the two comprehensive immigration reform bills the Republican party killed in 2006?

Can you find that One word. Amnesty. in the the Senate comprehensive immigration reform bills the Republican party filibustered and killed in 2007?

Can you find that One word. Amnesty. in the current HR 4321 the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 which has 97 Democratic sponsors and not a single Republican co-sponsor?

See eyago, it ain't about that One word. Amnesty. to you or those who think like you, because that One word. Amnesty. is not present and has not been present in proposed legislation for 5 years.
Reasonable people know what it is about. Reasonable people like that brown skinned Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2010 08:29 AM
159. Mikey likes to dance, doesn't he?

Libs do terrible things like allowing illegal aliens and potential terrorists to obtain valid Washington State ID. What does Mikey do?
He sure doesn't defend the crap law in Washington that he touts as something to be proud of in #138.

I don't think he persuades anyone on this web site so I question why he pulls this schtick. Does he really think people buy this junk from him?

Posted by: Attila on May 22, 2010 08:38 AM
160. @156 Shanghai Dan on May 22, 2010 08:17 AM,

I posited before that you may have a reading comprehension problem. Thanks for proving @156 you do.

76. @73 Shanghai Dan on May 21, 2010 10:52 AM,

Your failure to read and understand what I've already told you, coupled with your curiosity and returning to the same points I have already addressed is tiresome.

As I already responded to @46 on May 21, 2010 07:59 AM, I agree 100% with what the 30 year sheriff of Pima County Tucson, AZ, Clarence Dupnik, wrote here.


Dupnik addressed it well.

When used in a law-enforcement context, "reasonable suspicion" is always understood to be subjective, but it must be capable of being articulated. In the case of identifying illegal immigrants, the ambiguity of what this "crime" looks like risks including an individual's appearance, which would seem to violate the Constitution's equal protection clause. Such ambiguity is especially dangerous when prescribed to an issue as fraught with emotion as that of illegal immigration.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 21, 2010 11:07 AM

Speaking of not addressing questions....

Repeating.
So, do we agree?
Every Democrat and every Republican who did not vote for cloture in the US Senate in 2007 and allow the bill to be voted up or down by the majority and sent to the Republican president, George W. Bush, who supported it was wrong and put the American people in danger.

24% of Democrats wrong.
97% of Republicans wrong.
Where's the problem and what is the solution to it Dan?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 22, 2010 08:41 AM
161. From Mikey at #158: "Well you ability to spell correctly surely puts you in the top 10% of the know nothing folks posting comments here"

(guffaw)

Stephen, can we please ban this jerk from SP?

Posted by: Attila on May 22, 2010 08:41 AM
162. MikeBS,

I think you're dodging again:

Why is the Arizona law so bad, when the Federal law already exists? Police officers are sworn to uphold both State and Federal laws, why is this now suddenly a terrible law when it is a State law?

You're being quite selective in your outrage; apparently you have no problem with the law when it is Federal, but make it State and suddenly those same police officers turn into the secret police!

So MikeBS, once again:

What's in the Arizona law that is so offensive that does not exist in current Federal law?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 22, 2010 09:03 AM
163. I don't know why you folks continue to argue with the likes of MBS. Liberals hate America and will always take the side of anything that promises to destroy it. They are just wired that way. I believe they do this because, down deep, they don't feel that they fit into our society but fail to realize that the fault is really within them. The cruel joke is that no matter how much America changes, most liberals will never feel as though they belong. A few have realized the error of their ways but I believe most never will. Don't waste your time.

Posted by: Jack on May 22, 2010 09:08 AM
164. just watched a Sheriff Joe Arpaio documentary from a mail-in DVD service; guessing made by some euro left group; not recent, but an interesting angle on him & his jails in AZ; loved the chain gang scenes; imagine THOSE in WA or CA with OUR gaggles of libby lawyers ! HA !

Posted by: jimmie howya-doin on May 22, 2010 09:15 AM
165. MikeBS,

So, do we agree?

No, we do not. The bill to build the fence was good; much of the other illegal immigration bills was bad (in that it did not reset illegal immigrants in their status).

Every Democrat and every Republican who did not vote for cloture in the US Senate in 2007 and allow the bill to be voted up or down by the majority and sent to the Republican president, George W. Bush, who supported it was wrong and put the American people in danger.

Wrong. They stopped a bad bill from becoming law.

What IS shameful is that the current Congress - since 2007 - have dramatically de-emphasized the building of the fence on the border with Mexico. That is a proven technique at greatly reducing and controlling illegal immigration.

The first step in dealing will illegal immigration is to stop the immigration. Then you can address those here illegally (such as the Edmonds rapist who has been deported 4 times already). Without first controlling the border, enforcement of illegal immigration laws is pointless; they can just come right on back (as the Edmonds rapist - Jose Madrigal from Mexico - case shows).

So no, we do not agree, you are wrong about who is putting the US in danger. The people putting the US in danger are those who want to defund and stop construction of the fence. Build it and you will solve 99.9% of the problem, and make re-offenders (such as Jose Madrigal) a much smaller problem.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 22, 2010 09:16 AM
166. Well we seem to be making a *but* of progress. Mike BS at least no longer bristles at having his party affiliation accurately labeled as MARXIST/Democrat.

Posted by: bastiat fan on May 22, 2010 09:58 AM
167. MBS,

HEy, not only can I spell, I can read too. I have a mind that is not so rigid that I can't understand the meaning of words and description even if a particular word is not present. In other words, I know what amnesty means and when I see it described in the bill I know that it is in fact amnesty.

You just want to play word games and think that I am too stupid to understand that one does not need to write the word amnesty in the bill so see that when provisions include the right to become citizens without having to leave the country first and then get in line like everyone else it is in effect granting amnesty to the illegals already here.

If you are not playing word games then you must actually be as stupid as I thought you thought I might be. Which is it? Word games or too stupid to understand the bill's intent?

And you still have not answered why Harry Reid voted against cloture on the 2007 bill. Do you think politics might have been involved?. And I still need your address. I don't want to pay rent any more.

Ultimately it comes down to whether you want to play games with people's lives and property.

Posted by: Eyago on May 22, 2010 10:01 AM
168. LOL at Mike BS's nonsense, especially the misspelling in his attack on another commenter's spelling! It just gets better and better. I think Mikey just gets so worked up, he forgets to breathe and forgets that he may have a life outside SP. Mike, do you do anything else at all besides agitate at conservative sites?

Posted by: katomar on May 22, 2010 10:04 AM
169. Hey - all you racist b*stards, why are you defending unlimited immigration for just the Mexicans? I want to open immigration to any Chinese, East Indian, European and anyone else who just wants to come here for a better life and do the work that native born people don't want to do.

I say OPEN ALL BORDERS, no papers for nobody. Stop
your anti-all other but Mexican prejudice.

/sarc off/

Posted by: dan on May 22, 2010 11:35 AM
170. @ 132 C Jiggy

Same here. I know people that have tried to get their loved ones here for the last 15-20 years through the immigration process. To watch law breakers from primarily one country get amnesty is a punch in the face to them and to those that abide by the rule of law and have done the right way.
Those that are pro-amnesty today haven't thought enough about their position to recognize this unfairness of why 75% of those awarded citizenship in the U.S. come from one country, Mexico. Most of those enter here by breaking our laws, disregarding our sovereign border and squatting in our country for years and then demand they have "rights" extended to them. I say attrition through enforcement beginning with heavy fines for employers, then property management firms, etc. The problem can be solved, we just need a government with a backbone to do it.

I still have yet to hear Mike BS or Andrew explain why a Mexican national is more deserving of citizenship than a Phillipino national. But it would take moral courage to answer that question and perhaps some deep introspective of their deeply entrenched postition. Needless to say, I won't hold my breath waiting for either to do this.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 22, 2010 11:36 AM
171. #169 Normally I would totally discount your comment, but with our POTUS speaking of a new 'international order' today at West Point graduation ceremonies...it may not be too far-fetched. What's happening at the helm of our government is fricken INcredible! :(

Posted by: Duffman on May 22, 2010 12:44 PM
172. You think you are an expert on Arizona and on law enforcement in Arizona?

You think you know more than what the 30 year sheriff of Pima County Tucson, AZ, Clarence Dupnik, knows?
You think you know more about Arizona than the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police (AACOP)?

Damn! Why don't you run for governor of Arizona?
Posted by MikeBoyScout at May 22, 2010 07:58 AM

Dupnik is a rank and file Democrat. He and Janet Incompetano are in lock step - I question the credibility of both and don't care if he has had 50 years of law enforcement experience - he reminds me of Norm Stampfer.

I side with the Governor and 73% of Arizona's population in backing this law who know a lot more about this situation that you portray. Stop lieing and obfuscating like a typical troll. Grow up Mikey..

PS Others - stop feeding the trolls...

Posted by: KDS on May 22, 2010 01:12 PM
173. Duffman,

Normally I would totally discount your comment, but with our POTUS speaking of a new 'international order' today at West Point graduation ceremonies...it may not be too far-fetched. What's happening at the helm of our government is fricken INcredible! :(

Welcome to the beginning of enlightenment. It's been a couple of years coming but maybe you are beginning to see the light.

Posted by: eyago on May 22, 2010 06:05 PM
174. Aye, Aye eyago...hear ya - we can ALWAYS learn.

Posted by: Duffman on May 22, 2010 06:13 PM
175. #175 - Not afraid - we just don't want the illegal bastardization of America. Your proposal would make a good comedy act that would play well in Chihuahua. You are intellectually dishonest and incoherent with the conditions you made up. You neglect to mention the increased crime and something for nothing that illegals will receive that will increase debt.

The Ellis Island scenario is an inappropriate if not stupid analogy - it lacks any semblance of organization - nice trick to make it sound good in writing to the novice, but it doesn't take much reading between the lines to see that you don't care about proposing a workable solution. Furthermore, the system has evolved so that it bears little resemblance to more than 100 years + ago plus a different geographical origin of the immigrants. You ignore how the undocumented/ illegal aliens become documented - just a few significant (i.e. big f**kin)
details are missing..

Posted by: KDS on May 22, 2010 08:07 PM
176. Let's just enforce the laws on the books, like Arizona is doing for starters. The Federal Government won't. Your logic is not only unsound- it is Hot Air.

"As clearly stated before, the sales tax blindly and equally recaptures revenue from those who don't have a SS# and don't pay income tax. Thus, no increased debt and the illegals (of all colors) don't get "something for nothing".

How do you implement such a Sales tax ? That makes no sense, dude. Get back to square one and enforce existing laws and deal with it on a case by case basis. BTW - Is it racial profiling ? probably, but it can't really be proven. Note: The Federal Government is resorting to racial profiling in the 2010 census. There is where the racial profiling argument falls apart in a Democratic Republic such as ours.

"Again, let me sum this up for the Unsound: If this is a RATIONAL monetary issue, then let's talk, let's bargain, let's cost it out."

Nope, it is not. It is also a health and safety issue. LMAO, when you speak of Unsound - pot meet kettle. Again, this comedy act scheme you ropose would get laughs in Chihuahua, but not in Tucson. This kind of pap belongs on Blatherwatch with Joanie, Sparky and Coiler (the three stooges).

Posted by: KS on May 22, 2010 09:36 PM
177. stop with the racist bs or we'll start calling you racist against white, yellow, and black people. This is not about race or tea parties, it's about law enforcement. If you believe we should have no laws, or that laws should be selectively enforced for brown people,then argue that, but no amount of taxation will change that attitude.

Posted by: dan on May 23, 2010 07:09 AM
178. Mercifurious wrote:

Actually, it IS racial profiling, and I already proved it: my Polish friend was not here legally (expired Visa) for 10+ years, was never questioned about her status, and when she applied for citizenship only had to take the test, raise her right hand, and *STAMP* (I hear an echo in here) A central/south american immigrant (legal or not) would not get the same treatment.

And you're a liar. Please see the USCIS for laws about citizenship via naturalization. You must be a permanent resident for at least 5 years before applying for citizenship; that means you must have a green card - be here legally.

You've been outed as a liar; buh bye troll and liar.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 08:08 AM
179. @176 KDS on May 22, 2010 08:07 PM,

Offers this little gem:

"....we just don't want the illegal bastardization of America. [snip] the system has evolved so that it bears little resemblance to more than 100 years + ago plus a different geographical origin of the immigrants."

No one can reasonably claim that KDS knows what he is talking about, but he knows how he feels.
Interestingly his 100 years + ago quip isn't far off.

The National Origins Quota of 1924, according to the Immigration Act, was the first permanent limitation on immigration into the United States and established the "national origins quota system.".... The Act halted "undesirable" immigration by quotas. The Act barred specific origins from the Asia-Pacific Triangle, which included Japan, China, the Philippines, Laos, Siam (Thailand), Cambodia, Singapore, Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Burma (Myanmar), India, Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and Malaysia. Based on the Naturalization Act of 1790, these immigrants, being non-white, were not eligible for naturalization

And it is doubtful that KDS has any idea that it was not until the 1954 Hernandez v. Texas SCOUTS decision that Mexican Americans and all other racial groups in the United States had equal protection under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

And, of course, the USA did evolve.
After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (you know about that because teabagging hero and the Republican candidate for US Senate in KY, Rand Paul, was tricked by the liberal media to talk about his opposition to it), the immigration law was changed in 1965 with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 which abolished the National Origins Act, Asian Exclusion Act.

Yes, KDS, our system has evolved beyond its racist heritage of slavery, and withholding civil liberties and discriminating based on based on race, religion, color and national origin.

Kinda bums you and the teabagger out, doesn't it?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 08:31 AM
180. yeah - so let's start practicing reverse discrimination by favoring mexicans over all other races. That'll show the world how truly evolved and enlightened we are.

Posted by: dan on May 23, 2010 08:39 AM
181. MikeBS,

What's in the Arizona law that is so offensive that does not exist in current Federal law?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 08:45 AM
182. @183 dan on May 23, 2010 08:39 AM,

Never mind "over all other races" for now. Provide us single example of "reverse discrimination by favoring mexicans [sic]" by any local, state or federal institution.

Can you do that? Or not?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 08:48 AM
183. MikeBS,

In some areas of the US, wearing an American flag on Cinco de Mayo will get you sent home. I do not recall students displaying flags of other countries being sent home on Flag Day.

Need more examples? Or care to answer the question you continue to dodge (perhaps because you cannot answer it without being shown as a hypocrite - once again):

What's in the Arizona law that is so offensive that does not exist in current Federal law?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 09:20 AM
184. @184 Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 08:45 AM,

It's a pity you are an obtuse, mentally deficient troller.

Tell us, when you go through passport control/customs, do the federal authorities ask for your documents based upon "reasonable suspicion"?

Tell us, when you go through passport control/customs, do the federal authorities "presume" your status?

The clear difference between our federal laws and the Arizona law is "reasonable suspicion". The federal laws are universal. I've gone over this repeatedly with you.

Additionally, I offered you and the peanut gallery here a solution (national ID) and provided you an example how WA state's successful early implementation of Enhanced Driver's Licenses could enable an Arizona type law with universal application of status checking.

Curiously, none of the peanut gallery who are up in arms about illegal immigration would support it. Begs the question just what are you for and just what are you against.

But we can figure it out. :-D

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 09:24 AM
185. MikeBS,

Tell us, when you go through passport control/customs, do the federal authorities ask for your documents based upon "reasonable suspicion"?

Yes. I am unknown to them. They suspect all people coming from overseas of being non-US citizens. I do this 8-9 times a year. I thought we agreed earlier that a nation has the right to control its borders, which inherently means suspecting all people at the border of trying to enter without proper documents.

Tell us, when you go through passport control/customs, do the federal authorities "presume" your status?

Unless I prove otherwise, I am assumed to be a non-US citizen. I have to show my ID - my passport - to prove otherwise. Simply by virtue of being at the south satellite of Seatac, in the International area.

The clear difference between our federal laws and the Arizona law is "reasonable suspicion".

And in fact, the Arizona law is MORE RESTRICTIVE than Federal law. If you have no problem with Federal law, then you should have ZERO problem with the Arizona law (as you have to have suspicion beyond "here illegally" to even make a contact).

I've gone over this repeatedly with you.

No you haven't. You've finally attempted to answer, and you still haven't answered. You've stated that you like the Federal law because "it's universal". But you have not stated why the Arizona law is worse than Federal law. You've said something about reasonable suspicion but that exists in the Federal law, not the Arizona law.

Is it your contention that simply reasonable suspicion of being here illegally is enough to ask for someone's identification? Because that's Federal law; the Arizona law does not allow that.

Additionally, I offered you and the peanut gallery here a solution (national ID) and provided you an example how WA state's successful early implementation of Enhanced Driver's Licenses could enable an Arizona type law with universal application of status checking.

Apparently you cannot read; this has been debunked and explained to you in post 140. Enhanced ID is not required in Washington. If you were in Washington State illegally you can get a regular driver's license without a problem.

However, to get a driver's license in Arizona you have to prove legal status, and if you are here on a temporary visa your driver's license expiration date is set to that of your visa.

Essentially, an Arizona license is proof of legal reason to be in the US; an Enhanced ID in Washington will tell the officer you are a US citizen, but is not an option available to legal immigrants. Washington State has ZERO means of identifying a legal immigrant.

Why do you support the anti-legal immigrant methods offered by the State of Washington? Why don't we offer a legal means of issuing a state ID to our legal immigrants, like Arizona?

So, you've still not answered what's so offensive about the Arizona law (not your imaginary beliefs about the law), and you hold up a discriminatory policy of Washington State (enhanced ID) as the solution to immigration status (when, in fact, is cannot do that since it applies to citizens only).

Not only do you continue to dodge the question, you show your ignorance with a solution that is prohibited by law!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 09:38 AM
186. @188 Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 09:38 AM,

I got as far as "They suspect all people" and quit reading. You are either an idiot on the subject or (more likely) just spewing crap you know to be wrong.

Suspicion has nothing to do with the requirement of all persons entering the US to present the required documents.

If you don't even know this your opinion is irrelevant to any informed discussion on the topic.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 10:29 AM
187. I still have yet to hear a reasoned argument from the pro-amnesty cowards why 75% of those who would be awarded U.S. citizenship are from 1 country, Mexico. Any takers on explaining why this is a fair immigration policy? Anybody...????

Andrew Brown? Mike BS? Mercifurious?

Posted by: Rick D. on May 23, 2010 10:58 AM
188. mike bs or john jensen or dave matthews, whoever you are- of course they suspect anyone coming through an international gateway of being a citizen of another country. They even do that in the socialist paradise of Cuba, or Europe, you always have to prove who you are and where you belong. Perhaps you're talking about ridding the world of borders,hence no passports or papers would be needed. Imagine.

I would choose to suspect all people entering the country to be citizens of the US. How would that change the scenario?

Yes, it is a requirement to show papers because it is a suspicion that you are not who you say you are.
How does that make you feel?

Posted by: dan on May 23, 2010 11:04 AM
189. MikeBS,

Apparently you have not been through immigration recently. Most of the time I sail through; sometimes I'm given a 10 minute questionnaire.

Likewise foreign business associates. Sometimes a "welcome to the US" and a stamp and 10 seconds they're through, sometimes a 30 minute grilling.

Suspicion is the reason it changes.

So continue to dodge the truth, which is you are flat-out wrong and ignorant about the law: immigration, enhanced ID in WA State, and the Arizona law.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 11:06 AM
190. WINGNUT Idiots On Parade

Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 09:38 AM @188 says:

"If you were in Washington State illegally you can get a regular driver's license without a problem."

Who here agrees with Dan?
Can an undocumented alien legally acquire a Washington State driver's license?

@190 Rick D. at May 23, 2010 10:58 AM,

Like calling people "trash" based on national origin up @3 on May 20, 2010 09:01 PM,
calling people "pro-amnesty cowards" is just another example of your idiocy.
Nobody on this thread has proposed amnesty, and no one needs to defend it simply because your warped mind requires that straw man to make your anit-Mexican argurments.


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 11:10 AM
191. @ 193 Mikw Boy Scouter

As I explained earlier, trash is what Calderon thinks of those that flee here for a better life. Cowards like you want them to be given U.S. Citizenship despite the long line of those trying to do the same in a legal manner; you want to award law breakers. Any chance of you explaining why a Mexican national deserves U.S. citizenship instead of some other foreign national? Have some balls and answer the question for once. Any chance of that happening?

Posted by: Rick D. on May 23, 2010 11:20 AM
192. MikeBS,

Thank you for proving my point! See your own link for proof:

- Driver license from a foreign country

Meaning you can come from any nation, bring your driver's license, and you've proven who you are. And then you have to prove you're a resident. What does that take?

- Your name and address in a current phone book made by a telephone book publisher

Yes, being listed in the phone book will get you a driver's license! Hey MikeBS, what are the requirements for getting in the phone book? Does the phone company require proof of legal status?

Wow, talk about being a wingnut idiot. You just sealed that title to yourself for all time! Way to make the best own-goal I've seen in a LONG time...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 11:22 AM
193. @195 Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 11:22 AM,

You are an idiot incapable of reading.

Did you not see, or are you too stupid to understand there are three categories of documents on that page?

Stand-alone Documents
A-List Documents
B-List Documents

You pulled

Driver license from a foreign country - A valid, or expired within 60 days, driver license from a foreign country. The license must have security features and be verifiable.
from the A-List Documents.

Are you really sooooo stupid as to not understand that the reason there are different lists of acceptable documents as to not see that you need more than the "Driver license from a foreign country" if you attempt to prove your identity with documents from the A-list?

The "Stand-alone Documents" category didn't clue you in the other categories do not "stand-alone"? Really?!?!?

Life must be very hard on you Shanghai Dan.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 11:47 AM
194. Mike Boy Scouter is a coward....he can't explain why 75% of those awarded citixenship come from one country, Mexico. Only a complete ignoramus could think that legalizing law breakers is the best approach to legal immigration to our country. Mike boy scouter knows this deep down inside, but he's too ignorant to acknowledge this fact.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 23, 2010 12:01 PM
195. MikeBS,

You need a foreign driver's license.

You need proof of an address, like in a phone book.

You should have a SSN or a TIN (which you can get - without checking your legal status - from the IRS). But note the words at the website:

If you haven’t been issued a Social Security number, you may sign a declaration form when you visit the driver licensing office.

So just pledge to get an SSN and you can get your driver's license. Don't need one.

Again, I showed the minimum documentation you need to get a WA State driver's license:

- A foreign driver's license (and supply something like a school yearbook - even from out of State - and a passport - even if expired and without a visa or stamp)
- A phone book with your name and address within it

MikeBS, give it up. Your own link shows you're an idiot and wrong. Seriously wrong.

You really don't get it, do you. You do not have to prove your legal immigration status to get a driver's license in the State of Washington. Period.

I've listed what you need, and you can get every piece required without proof of legal residency or legal entrance to the US. You can be an illegal resident and get a WA State driver's license.

You're being stupid, MikeBS, because you do not want to admit you're wrong. Just like with the AZ law that you're so sure is racist. When proven that it is LESS racist and MORE restrictive in the contacts between police and suspected illegal immigrants, you still hold on to your beliefs.

You're wrong, MikeBS, wrong. And you've proven it yourself with your links.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 12:06 PM
196. Hey Dan,
my buddies don't think you are stupid enough to not publicly admit here and now that you made a mistake about the A-list Driver license from a foreign country comment above.

They said that the web site's design could make it seem one document from the A-List was enough.

I told them you are too stupid.

So, tell us how with that A-list Driver license from a foreign country would enable an undocumented alien to get a WA driver's license.

If you are over 21 years old:
You can use 1 of the following options to prove your identity:

* Option 1: Show us 1 "Stand-alone Document" from the list below.
* Option 2: Show us 2 "A-List Documents" from the list below.
* Option 3: Show us 1 "A-list Document" and 2 "B-List Documents" from the lists below.
* Option 4: Show us at least 4 "B-List Documents" from the list below, including 1 from the list of documents that establish your name and date of birth and 1 showing name and signature.

I got money riding on your obtuse stupidity. Don't let me down! :-D


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 12:09 PM
197. Oh, and I was wrong about one thing above: there are THREE States that offer driver's licenses without proof of legal residency (citizen or legal immigration status):

- New Mexico
- Utah
- Washington

Note that New Mexico and Washington will provide a regular driver's license without proof of legal residency. Utah issues an alternate "unverified status" license for those who cannot prove their legal right to reside within the United States.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 12:13 PM
198. MikeBS:

- A list document would be a driver's license from a foreign country

- B list document #1 would be a school yearbook with a recognizable photo
- B list document #2 would be an expired foreign passport (which implicitly means no valid visa)

Oops. Seems you're wrong. You don't need to provide proof of legal residency in WA State to get a license.

You're an idiot, MikeBS. And it's been laid bare here for all to see. WA State issues driver's licenses without proving legal residency.

You can admit you're wrong any time, MikeBS.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 12:22 PM
199. @200 Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 12:13 PM,

Beginning to understand why a national immigration policy is superior to state based immigration policy?

Beginning to see why national photo ID with status solves that problem of 50 different proof of identity and residency policies for ID can't, in the end, work?

Or, as your opposition to a national photo ID coupled with your unhinged anger over people and politicians who are opposed to the Arizona Law (introduced by state Sen. Russell Pearce who is pushing to revoke citizenship of babies) and its likely abuse of racial profiling, is there some other reason?
What could be the reason for being against illegal immigration by Hispanics, but so unwilling to do a practical thing to stop it?

We know.

And thanks Dan! I just won a C note!! :-))))))))
and hey, just where did that Mexican get his "school yearbook with a recognizable photo"? too funny.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 12:33 PM
200. MikeBS,

You lied to your friends, then... You can get a driver's license in the State of WA without proof of legal residency. But I guess lying to make money is normal for you?

There is no need to have a national ID card, since 48 of the 50 States make your status easily verified with a driver's license. NM and WA are the two; at least UT will give you a unique ID to show your "undocumented" status.

And about the high school yearbook? Talk to the State of WA - it's valid for their purposes.

So I assume you'll never admit you were wrong about WA State giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens, and you'll never admit why the Arizona law is so much worse than Federal law.

You've been outed as a fraud and liar, MikeBS. And now a thief!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 12:38 PM
201. @203 Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 12:38 PM,

Dude! Your shit storm of idiocy is up on one of the big screens here. They pushed the cash to me.

And, Dan, legal residency where?
Why should New Mexico be burdened with WA residency issues? Isn't legal residency in the US a federal responsibility?
No one is required to have a WA identity card. That New Mexico driver's license you are so worked up about is perfectly legal here to drive. Goodness knows how many NM licensed drivers are tooling around Yakima.

the crowd is pulling for more stupid shit. don't let 'em down!the crowd is pulling for more stupid shit. don't let 'em down!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 12:52 PM
202. Dude! Your shit storm of idiocy is up on one of the big screens here

...and once again, Mike boy scouter shows his maturity level.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 23, 2010 01:15 PM
203. MikeBS,

Simple question: is a Washington driver's license proof of legal residency within the United States?

An Arizona license is. A California license is. An Oregon license is. An Idaho license is. You have to show proof of legal residency within the US before you get a driver's license from those states.

Not for Washington.

You're wrong, MikeBS.

Oh, and back to a question you never answered (because you're too scared to admit you are an ignorant racist):

What's in the Arizona law that is so offensive that does not exist in current Federal law?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 01:22 PM
204. @ Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 01:22 PM,

I had to lay odds on your repeating that question for the umpteenth time. WINNER!! :-D

the crowd is pulling for more stupid shit. don't let 'em down! the crowd is pulling for more stupid shit. don't let 'em down!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 01:27 PM
205. the crowd is pulling for more stupid shit. don't let 'em down! the crowd is pulling for more stupid shit. don't let 'em down!
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 01:27 PM

Once again, Mike boy scouter shows his maturity level....

Posted by: Rick D. on May 23, 2010 01:39 PM
206. So your answer is to simply dodge the questions, and ignore the facts you've been proven wrong. So be it. Buh bye, troll...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 01:41 PM
207. @206 Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 01:22 PM

"Simple question: is a Washington driver's license proof of legal residency within the United States?"

Your the party gift that keeps on giving! :-D

Question for the simpleton: Is a Shanghai Dan Inc. ID proof of legal residency within the United States? Why not?

The WA EDL is proof of US citizenship in all 50 states and at specific US border crossings.

The proof of permenant US residency status is the USCIS "Green Card"

There is no single card for the myriad of other valid statuses Dan.
Thus, for the umpteenth time, a national ID is a solution which is universal and straight forward in enforcement.

the crowd is pulling for more stupid shit. don't let 'em down! the crowd is pulling for more stupid shit. don't let 'em down!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 01:45 PM
208. Shanghai Dan: Give up. Mikey Bu-Fu is a pathetic liberal troller. He gets his kicks from trying to get people to chase fog. He is not interested in trying to persuade people of the rightness of his cause. He is only interested in venting his hatred against conservatives.

Keep your eyes on the fact that 70% of Americans agree with us and not with pathetic ass-hats like Mikey Bu-Fu.
What he thinks really does not matter, outside of the men's room at neighbors.

Posted by: Attila on May 23, 2010 01:48 PM
209. @211 Attila on May 23, 2010 01:48 PM,

Ok Nostradamus, we'll do that.
And when the tbd Senate bill is reconciled with HR 4321 the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 and the reconciled bill passes with all the Democratic US senators and 1 (Brown R-MA?) Republican senator's vote and the evil, Kenyan born un-american, Muslim, Nazi-Marxist-Socialist president finally signs immigration reform in to law after 20 years of Republican obstruction, you'll be right some how.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 01:58 PM
210. @211 Attila on May 23, 2010 01:48 PM,

Hey, the crowd likes you.
What's up with "outside of the men's room at neighbors."?

You have some fetish about the men's room?
Did you have an experience with Larry Craig?
What do you say, Attila, when you are hanging outside of the men's room, 'Excuse me but do you know where I can find a cup? That's right. I wanna C-U-P.'?

GIVE US MORE!

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 02:11 PM
211. As for G HW Bush and the amnesty for the Irish. Citation please or no credit.

Gladly! Thomas.gov shows it was HB 4300 (1990), which President G. H. W. Bush signed in that year. The New York Times had many articles about illegal Irish immigration during that time; as with much copyrighted material from that period, it's not available digitally, but I'm more than happy to make the transcription for you.

From the front page of the 25 September 1991 edition, we have the story, "40,000 Aliens To Win Legal Status in Lottery". "Among the applicants is Derek McMahon from Dublin, who has worked in the United States illegally for the past six years [...] In particular, the new law ... favors the Irish, who area allotted at least 40 percent of the places." The story also notes this was not a one-year change; it was permanent, until the next time Congress changed immigration law.

Proponents of punitive immigration reform now need to explain why Martinez, Lopez, and Sandoval should be denied the amnesty once given to Ahern, McDermott, and O'Riley. Did we mention that Latinos are one of the fastest-growing demographic groups in the country? I'm sure they'll agree racism has nothing to do with this preference given to white illegal immigrants; please let me be there when you do so explain, and give me time to get popcorn first.

Posted by: tensor on May 23, 2010 02:32 PM
212. Attila,

It's pretty clear that when MikeBS loses the argument he retreats to attacks and insults. Sign of an immature spirit and a weak mind. Oh well!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 02:40 PM
213. @214 tensor on May 23, 2010 02:32 PM,

Still no credit! The word amnesty as spelled in that story does not comport with the new and approved teabagger spelling which means you are a LIBERAL and have some sort of education and probably do not understand the evil plan for Mexification of the state of WA... or something.
:-D

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 02:42 PM
214. @215 Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 02:40 PM,

You have not made an argument Dan.
If you are implying that the Arizona law is some sort of improvement, where is the evidence of that?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 02:47 PM
215. You have not made an argument Dan.

Heck, we're still waiting for him to answer if Arizona is a nation, not to mention whether or not a state can enforce federal laws.

Oh, and I'm guilty as charged. :-)

Posted by: tensor on May 23, 2010 03:01 PM
216. Tensor,

Law enforcement officers are sworn to uphold the laws of the locale, the State, and the Nation. Local law enforcement can enforce Federal laws. Otherwise how could local police respond to bank robberies?

So maybe you can answer the question that MikeBS refuses to:

What's in the Arizona law that is so offensive that does not exist in current Federal law?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 03:06 PM
217. How can Neo-Nazi permit approved-
Aryan Nations to hold June rally at the battlefield
possibly be related to this thread?

Let's see.

A permit was granted late Monday afternoon for the neo-Nazi group Aryan Nations to hold a rally at the Gettysburg National Military Park, according to park spokeswoman Katie Lawhon.
Aryan Nations - which identifies itself as a white-supremacist organization and has been called a "continuing terrorist threat" by the FBI - will hold the rally on June 19 from 1 to 3 p.m. on the park's lawn west of the Cyclorama Center, according to the group's website.
The rally will include speeches from Aryan Nations members and discussions on current events and political issues, according to Young. "We're going to talk about immigration and how these Mexicans are pouring over our borders and taking our jobs and putting white Americans out of work. We blame them for our downfall of the economy," he said. "And we'll talk about how homosexuality is wrong and 9/11 was an insiders deal. Today's world is so screwed up and we're just trying to teach our children the right ways of life."

Now, why would anybody call these folks racist?

Anyone of our peanut gallery planning to attend?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 03:12 PM
218. @219 Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 03:06 PM = WINNER!!! :-)))))))))))))))

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 03:15 PM
219. Otherwise how could local police respond to bank robberies?

You're seriously claiming that bank robbery is only covered by federal laws? No state has the power to make robbery illegal?

Border issues are federal issues. Our federal Constitution clearly so defines. Now, where does a state get the authority to write laws which cover federal responsibilities?

Posted by: tensor on May 23, 2010 03:20 PM
220. http://www.king5.com/news/local/Investigators-Edmonds-rape-suspect-deported-nine-times-94637479.html

Posted by: JoeBandMember on May 23, 2010 03:24 PM
221. Tensor,

No, I'm saying that bank robbery is covered by Federal laws, and local police can act on those Federal laws. How do States have the right to write laws to cover Federal responsibilities relating to banks (which are covered by the Constitution as Federal entities, since all banks receive Federal charters)?

Seems it's quite analogous...

Arizona police are not patrolling the border, and not stopping people because they "look illegal"; read the law and learn about it.

So what's so bad about the Arizona law that's not in the Federal law? Is it simply that the law may actually be enforced?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 03:47 PM
222. No, I'm saying that bank robbery is covered by Federal laws, and local police can act on those Federal laws. How do States have the right to write laws to cover Federal responsibilities relating to banks (which are covered by the Constitution as Federal entities, since all banks receive Federal charters)?

Because a state already has the power to make robbery illegal: do you deny or question that state power?

There are plenty of areas where the states and the federal government share powers. Protection of civil rights is one such area, which is why we have federal laws and state laws to protect, say, the employment rights of minorities. Bank regulation is another. I'm not denying the power of a state to legislate in areas where it clearly has the Constitutional ability to do so.

So what's so bad about the Arizona law that's not in the Federal law?

There is no point in discussing the merit (or lack thereof) of a law before we determine if the power to make said law exists. The burden of such proof is upon the law's supporters, so get to it.

Seems it's quite analogous...

You may consider yourself schooled in the perils of argument by analogy. You're welcome!

Posted by: tensor on May 23, 2010 04:26 PM
223. @224 Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 03:47 PM,

Well the ladies are back from their shopping and we've got other stuff to do, but you've gained an audience.

They want me to ask what part of your rectum did you pull "since all banks receive Federal charters"?

What Washington State agency regulates more than 80 Washington State-chartered commercial banks, stock savings banks, mutual savings banks, alien banks, savings and loan associations, and independent trust companies and charters new banks, business development corporations, trust companies, foreign banks, and savings and loan associations, and also, authorizes new branches and branch closures; and approves mergers and acquisitions?

Life must be very hard on you Shanghai Dan.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 04:28 PM
224. Tensor,

Does a State have the right to set rules for residency within that State?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 04:42 PM
225. Does a State have the right to set rules for residency within that State?

That's not the question here, but as the Fourteenth Amendment to our Federal Constitution says:

... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It would seem that a state cannot set such rules. Could you please explain the relevancy here? You have the burden of proving a state has the power to enforce federal immigration laws, and you've yet to do anything to show this.

Posted by: tensor on May 23, 2010 04:55 PM
226. Tensor,

Missouri passed a law in 2008 that REQUIRED proof of legal residency within the US and the State in order to get a driver's license; that law was challenged as an unconstitutional role for the State; ultimately the Supreme Court found it legal.

This law will not result in Arizona police deporting people; rather if they are found to be here illegally (illegal per Federal statute, even) then they are turned over to the Feds to do with as they please.

There is no 14th Amendment issue here; everyone is subject to the same law, and the same standard at the time of a lawful stop. There isn't an abrogation or usurpation of Federal immigration laws as Arizona is simply ENFORCING the existing law, and turning over to the Feds those found in violation.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 05:27 PM
227. Missouri passed a law in 2008 that REQUIRED proof of legal residency within the US and the State in order to get a driver's license;

Oh, OK, I had indeed thought you were talking about a privilege; there is no right to operate a motor vehicle on public streets. There's no such thing as a federal driver's license: that is a recognized authority of the states. Your analogies fail again.

There is no 14th Amendment issue here; everyone is subject to the same law,

I raised the 14th Amendment because you hadn't provided any context for your statement about residency.

There isn't an abrogation or usurpation of Federal immigration laws as Arizona is simply ENFORCING the existing law, and turning over to the Feds those found in violation.

I never claimed any "abrogation or usurpation of Federal immigration laws", so please stick to topic: where does Arizona get the authority to enforce federal laws? Answer, please.

Posted by: tensor on May 23, 2010 05:41 PM
228. @230 tensor on May 23, 2010 05:41 PM,

"where does Arizona get the authority to enforce federal laws?"

The governing US Code for state and local authorization to enforce immigration regulation is in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252c .

The provision contemplates a circumscribed role for state and local officials. The Arizona law authorizes a much broader role. Specifically, the Arizona law authorizes arrest without a showing of a prior felony, the requirement under (a)(2).

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 05:55 PM
229. Tensor,

A good article written by a lawyer that cites multiple case law where State officials have the right to enforce Federal law.

And in fact, if you read the oath of the Arizona Police they take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States which also implies an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, meaning that the police in question here - Arizona - actually have their duty to enforce Federal law.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 05:56 PM
230. And in fact, if you read the oath of the Arizona Police they take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States which also implies an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, meaning that the police in question here - Arizona - actually have their duty to enforce Federal law.

Just because a state declares it has the power to enforce federal law does not, in fact, give a state power to enforce federal law. You are perfectly free to assume a state has all the power it claims; I do not, and I demand to see the constitutional authority supporting each such claim.

Also, you've just booked your third failed analogy of the day:

,,, an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States which also implies an oath to uphold the laws of the United States ...

In fact, it's an obligation to ignore any unconstitutional law. As we (meaning you) have yet to establish the constitutional basis for a state's enforcement of federal laws, you may actually have given support to any Arizonan's refusal to obey or enforce the law in question.

As for the article you cite, it was written by a lawyer who wanted to increase the power in question, but thanks for giving us the entertaining spectacle of a self-described conservative citing with approval a Ninth Circuit Court ruling!

Please note the caveat: when �state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.� The burden of proof rests with the state. Has Arizona shown its' law will not impair the federal regulatory interest?

(BTW, the general thrust of the article is that state and local law enforcement already have the powers needed. If so, why then do we need a redundant law? Does the Arizona legislature believe local Arizona law enforcement is not doing their jobs?)

Posted by: tensor on May 23, 2010 06:23 PM
231. Tensor,

Say what you will, circuit courts and the supreme court have found it perfectly legal for state police to determine immigration status. And MikeBS was actually worth something with his link as well.

So we have Federal statute, and we have Federal courts saying it's OK for state police to determine immigration status. And the Arizona law directs them to do so, then turn the illegal alien over to the Feds.

So what's the problem?

thanks for giving us the entertaining spectacle of a self-described conservative citing with approval a Ninth Circuit Court ruling!

On the contrary, if even the Ninth Court says it's OK, then how can you say it's not an acceptable law? They're considered the most liberal Circuit Court, and if they say it's OK, well, there's not a lot of standing left in your outrage. Unless somehow the Ninth suddenly became conservative for that decision?

If so, why then do we need a redundant law? Does the Arizona legislature believe local Arizona law enforcement is not doing their jobs?

Yes. My understanding (from conversations with friends living in Arizona and active in State politics) is that the law is needed to enforce Federal statutes; many "enlightened" municipalities were ignoring the Federal law (like Seattle, with its illegal "sanctuary city" directive), so the State law was passed that overrides the local municipalities (just like WA overrides Seattle when it comes to restricting firearms).

But I do not think you can argue this law is unconstitutional. So what's the problem with the law?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 06:40 PM
232. MikeBS,

What's in the Arizona law that is so offensive that does not exist in current Federal law?"

Still waiting, Mikey. Why do leftwingnuts refuse to answer this simple question ? Because their house of cards will fall down... Laughable.


Now, either answer the stupid question or SHUT UP!
You are allowed to solicit help from tensor or any other leftwingnut in your camp.

Posted by: KDS on May 23, 2010 07:34 PM
233. @234 Shanghai Dan on May 23, 2010 06:40 PM,

""enlightened" municipalities were ignoring the Federal law (like Seattle, with its illegal "sanctuary city" directive)"

From the actual Seattle ordinance:Ordinance Number: 121063

(B) Seattle Police officers are exempted from the limitations imposed by Subsection (A), above, with respect to a person whom the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe: (1) has previously been deported from the United States; (2) is again present in the United States; and (3) is committing or has committed a felony criminal-law violation.

Where the precondition of a felony, amazingly, is exactly what is in (a)(2) of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1252c which I pointed out before @231.

The law as written is not unconstitutional. In other words, the law is constitutional.
It is the enforcement of the law which is likely to be shown to be unconstitutional.
The state of Arizona does not have legal authority to detain someone who is in violation section 13-1509 (Willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document) of the Arizona law - unless the suspect is reasonably suspected to be in the act of or have committed a felony (which may or may not be the reason for a "lawful stop").

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 07:43 PM
234. @235 KDS on May 23, 2010 07:34 PM,

See my comments at 46 & 76.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 07:52 PM
235. And with all things, there are the possible unintended consequences of the Arizona law.

Trespassing law may turn more illegal immigrants into citizens

Illegal immigrants with clean records are usually transported to one of the two ICE facilities in central Arizona - a federal detention center is in Florence, and a private facility is in Eloy - to await a hearing before an immigration judge. Once removal proceedings begin, illegal immigrants can petition for relief and become eligible for a release from detention, work documents and even a driver's license.
Illegal immigrants who are released on bond may receive temporary work visas that are valid for one year. In many cases, the one-year visas are extended several times due to the backlog in federal immigration courts, which have been overcrowded for years because there are only five immigration judges in the state - three in Phoenix and two in Tucson.

things that make you go hmmm?

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 23, 2010 08:20 PM
236. http://www.halloffire.org/node/3609 selena spice nude
http://bloodsisters.com/content/massage-pioner-106 adult all-inclusive riviera maya
http://oshkoshfreethinkers.supercheetah.net/node/7783 brooke burns nude
http://itcontractors.ca/node/8223 nude olympians
http://gotajobfor.me/node/2232 monica keena nude

Posted by: merlaybres1967 on May 23, 2010 08:25 PM
237. See my comments at 46 & 76.

Posted by MikeBoyScout at May 23, 2010 07:52 PM

See my comments at 172. Still waiting for a truthful answer from you from my comment at 175. Up to now, your responses have shown once again that you are being an obsfucating little weasel.

Posted by: KDS on May 23, 2010 09:29 PM
238. @240 KDS on May 23, 2010 09:29 PM,

172 Dupnik is a rank and file Democrat. He and Janet Incompetano are in lock step - I question the credibility of both and don't care if he has had 50 years of law enforcement experience - he reminds me of Norm Stampfer.

I side with the Governor and 73% of Arizona's population in backing this law who know a lot more about this situation that you portray. Stop lieing [sic] and obfuscating like a typical troll. Grow up Mikey..
Posted by: KDS on May 22, 2010 01:12 PM

Saw it then. Reposted it now. shrug.

The "comment at 175" is not yours, it is mercifurious on May 22, 2010 07:33 PM.

Thanks for your uniformed and incorrectly spelled advice.


Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 24, 2010 06:07 AM
239. Mikey Bu-Fu at #241: "Thanks for your uniformed and incorrectly spelled advice."

What a maroon!!!

Posted by: Attila on May 24, 2010 07:31 AM
240. Thanks for your uniformed and incorrectly spelled advice.

Posted by MikeBoyScout at May 24, 2010 06:07

Spot on, #242. No credibiilty in your post with all due respect to Mr. Dupnik. As for answering the question, I meant comment #235. You knew the question anyway. You are expending your time by chasing your tail with your circular arguments and incorrect interpretations of statutes in #236.

We're still waiting for an answer, Mikey - perhaps until hell freezes over, dude. Shrug at whatever you write until then. Back to my original premise "Up to now, your responses have shown once again that you are being an obsfucating little weasel."

Posted by: KDS on May 24, 2010 07:51 AM
241. Rick D,

I never once said that we should award more citizenship to Mexican nationals.

You, and others (such as MikeBoyScout), need to stop putting words in other peoples mouths.

Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 24, 2010 09:11 AM
242. Also, I'm not pro-amnesty, although I don't really see any other pragmatic way to put things right.

Rick D, you have called me a coward in this thread. You have made other statements that are completely untrue about my beliefs. You won't even share your real name - who is the coward here? I stand by my beliefs and while I may not always be right, I will at least put my name to them, and discuss them rationally and politely in person with any one of you.

Can you say the same?

Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 24, 2010 09:14 AM
243. Rick D, you have called me a coward in this thread.

False. I used the term "pro amnesty cowards". If you are in that group, then yes, I called you a coward. You however said you are not "pro amnesty", so why the whining and falsely stating I called you a coward? You claim to be a libertarian but in a previous thread, you didn't want people with free will to draw Muhammad. That's a pretty sad position for someone that envisions himself as a "libertarian" don't you think?

As for my revealing my entire name, it is none of your damn business or anyone elses for that matter what my full name is. Again, if you were any kind of libertarian, you would recognize this fact. Your credibility is sorely lacking, Andrew.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 24, 2010 09:50 AM
244. Now now, Attila and KDS, maybe it wasn't a misspelling or misuse of words, perhaps MikeBS really meant uniformed! After all, he's a leftist through-and-through and the one thing they will never tolerate is difference of opinion. Thus you MUST use the "party line" for your position; it has to be uniform across the entire group. Thus his use of the word "uniform".

Hey, just trying to give the guy a break after he's been exposed here...;)

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 24, 2010 10:22 AM
245. MBS and other leftists are familiar with Alinsky's (playbook for leftwingnuts) "Rules for Radicals". It has provem effective over the years and has kept the left from compromising while moving forward with their agenda, while the right has played into this strategy and has compromised and capitulated way too often.

How about using the 11 steps outlined in Rules for Radicals" to utilize at the left ? Just because Alinsky was a Marxist radical himself doesn't diminish the effectiveness of his tactics on his ilk. That will reduce their effectiveness. You guys (sometimes Pudge) are expending too much time being civil toward them and feeding the trolls and NOT taking a hard line.

This needn't apply to every post, just the ones that impinge on our liberties on our society as a whole (illegal immigration, health care reform, cap and tax and expansion of the welfare state - to name the most predominant issues). Just sayin'.

Posted by: KDS on May 24, 2010 11:44 AM
246. Rick D, I am technically a Republican, but with strongly libertarian leaning views, and I didn't tell anyone not to draw Muhammad, I said that it was childish - and it is.

As for your other comment, you're being intellectually dishonest, because you made your statement about the pro-amnesty crowd, and then immediately addressed it to me, mike, and someone else that I can't be bothered to remember since I'd have to search this abortion of a thread again.

I have no wish to have acrimony with you - we'll not likely agree on everything, but if you could stop putting words in my mouth long enough to listen, you'd probably find we don't disagree that much either and that you're being unnecessarily argumentative.

Posted by: Andrew Brown on May 24, 2010 12:04 PM
247. Andrew~ I was addressing your charge that I called you coward on this thread, which I did not. I did call Mike BS one, which i stand by. I'm sure you and I do agree on issues most of the time, but I take exception to you saying "don't put words in my mouth" and then go out and do exactly that to me by saying I specifically called you a coward. By your own admission you are not pro-amnesty so why would you take offense to the language I used if you are not included in that group?

Posted by: Rick D. on May 24, 2010 12:32 PM
248. @250 Rick D. on May 24, 2010 12:32 PM,

Here is what you said you said:

Andrew~ I was addressing your charge that I called you coward on this thread, which I did not.

And here is what you actually said, and what Andrew took issue with:

190. I still have yet to hear a reasoned argument from the pro-amnesty cowards why 75% of those who would be awarded U.S. citizenship are from 1 country, Mexico. Any takers on explaining why this is a fair immigration policy? Anybody...????
Andrew Brown? Mike BS? Mercifurious?
Posted by: Rick D. on May 23, 2010 10:58 AM

Way to go. Uniformed like the others.

Posted by: MikeBoyScout on May 24, 2010 02:49 PM
249. @ 251- Let me know when you'd be willing to answer the question asked rather than obfuscating with irrelevent minutae.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 24, 2010 03:15 PM
250. Mike BS - Rick D. was correct in his statement about Andrew. You have a mental health disorder. You mental illness plays into your lack of reading comprehension.

Posted by: KDS on May 24, 2010 03:35 PM
251. So what's the problem with the law?

Dan, since you have yet to understand this, I'll make it plain: you are advocating for this law, and so the entire burden of proof for it -- should such evidence ever actually exist -- is entirely yours.

Now, are the unintended consequences -- some of which MikeBoyScout has outlined above -- worth whatever we're going to obtain for our trouble? Remember, Arizona is dabbling in areas of federal responsibility, and as a federal citizen, I will not take kindly to another state's law which has negative effects upon enforcement of our federal laws. Show that the negative consequences are worth whatever the benefits might be, then come back here in a year or two, armed with real evidence -- actual statistics, collected from reliable sources, and analyzed with accepted methods (i.e. not some story some friends once told you sometime) -- that show how well this law has done.

Posted by: tensor on May 24, 2010 10:26 PM
252. I will not take kindly to another state's law which has negative effects upon enforcement of our federal laws.

That's the problem. The federal government isn't doing its job enforcing immigration laws so the state of Arizona has decided to step in and be responsible for its citizens and enforce it. All you idiots that don't live in Arizona don't really have the say in this. That's for Arizonans to decided and not some mutt from Seattle that doesn't have the facts in front of them nor are impacted negatively by illegal immigration rampant in that state. It's time people in Seattle STFU and take care of seattle and Washington state matters- like an 8 billion dollar deficit that the liberals have been so kind to deliver upon us.

Posted by: Rick D. on May 25, 2010 05:46 AM
253. I will gladly take my chances with the courts reviewing and upholding the Arizona law. Thats what really counts (not what some liberal opines out of knee-jerk response to it).
It's not the likes of mikey and tensor who will decide the fate of this law.

Posted by: Attila on May 25, 2010 06:40 AM
254. Tensor,

The law has existed for 20+ years, federally. Why weren't you railing against that law last year? The year before?

How is this law different from Federal law? See, you never complained about the Federal law, and you still don't complain about it. Apparently the law and its dictates are fine with you. Until AZ passed the same law, then suddenly everything went crazy.

So what's so bad about this law compared to the exact same Federal law that's been in force for decades?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 25, 2010 08:07 AM
255. new left conservative says this (post 20):
"Last spring we were driving through orchard country on the other side of Wenatchee and we saw some immigrants (I know not if legal or illegal) hard at work on a tractor in the middle of a huge cloud of white pesticide spray. I thought, wow, no home-born American would do that job, and ask any farmer, the answer is they wouldn't."

This statement is one of pure ignorance. How do you know that the "immigrants" you saw weren't the owners of the orchard they were spraying? Just as a racist, you assume because they were hispanic that they were immigrants? Fact: many hispanics own farms in the Wenatchee area and do their own spraying. Both of my neighbors who farm are white and they do all their own spraying. Your five minutes of travel time through the Wenatchee valley allow you to make the usual biased liberal statements about a subject of which you know absolutely nothing.

Posted by: Paco on May 25, 2010 09:57 AM
256. Mercifurious,

How is support for enforcement of our immigration laws anti-immigrant?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 25, 2010 08:03 PM
257. Oh, and mercifurious? It's spelled Cthulhu, you moron...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 26, 2010 08:19 AM
258. Though I already pointed out several times you're complete failure at said task.

Again, funny how the anti-immigrant crowd are always the worst at the English Language. Thank Chuthulu you we're born lucky, eh?

Posted by mercifurious at May 25, 2010 07:41 PM

Mercifurious - why are you such a bad liar ? I am pro-immigration and anti-illegal immigrant. You are the racist.

My suggestion to you; if you want to stop looking like such an idiot to the real world is to focus on making cogent arguments and thinking for a change. You are sadly lacking there. Go ahead and attack a typo they happen to make - you show your ignorance and duplicitous nature. It's also clear that you have nothing else to offer.

Posted by: KDS on May 26, 2010 01:17 PM
259. Here's something from the amnesty front, Amnesty International: "The Mexican authorities must act to halt the continuing abuse of migrants who are preyed on by criminal gangs while public officials turn a blind eye or even play an active part in kidnappings, rapes and murders, Amnesty International said in a new report released on Tuesday. ...

"Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis leaving them with virtually no access to justice, fearing reprisals and deportation if they complain of abuses," said Rupert Knox, Mexico Researcher at Amnesty International."

Read the rest here: http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/widespread-abuse-migrants-mexico-human-rights-crisis-2010-04-27

We call for a boycott. Of Mexico.

We demand that the Seattle City Council denounce the abuse of migrants in Mexico. Abuse. Not mere inconvenience, as illegal immigrants occasionally experience here. (After a recent ICE/Obama raid at Gebbers Farms in Washington State, one angry inconvenienced worker, doing a hard job I probably wouldn't do, said he'd have to go to all the trouble of finding another SSN.)

Then demand a boycott. No more Mexican oil. No more Mexican drugs. No more Calderón exports of crime, poverty and revolution to the U.S. until Mexico stops profiling, raping, and killing poor migrants from the south.

Demand that our president interrupt his Bash America and Bash Arizona tours. Demand that Obama demand an invitation from Calderón to demand from Mexico's Congreso de la Unión that Mexico treat Mexicans and migrants with respect.

Posted by: ¡Viva Amnesty Ole! on May 26, 2010 01:30 PM
260. Then we demand that Sicko fatso Michael Moore and other liberal hypocrites demand basic human rights in Cuba:

"... Castro's systematic repression of dissent: the rigged trials behind closed doors, the abysmal "reeducation" camps, the long prison sentences. ... More than one hundred political prisoners locked up under Fidel remained behind bars, and Raúl's government had used sham trials to lock away scores more. These new prisoners included more than forty dissidents whom Raúl had imprisoned for "dangerousness." The most Orwellian provision of Cuba's criminal code, this charge allows authorities to imprison individuals before they have committed a crime, on the suspicion that they might commit one in the future. ... On the road he was repeatedly threatened and beaten by civilian Rapid Response Brigades ... a guard cut him short, ordering him to eat the text--literally. When he refused, he was beaten, thrown into solitary confinement for weeks, and sentenced in a closed-door hearing to six more years in prison ... Those who refused "reeducation" or questioned prison conditions were thrown into solitary confinement ...Cuba has for years refused to grant human rights monitors access to its prisons ..."

That's from Human Rights Watch. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/27/cuba-a-way-forward/

If Cuba, Moore, and the rest of the Left want to keep talking trash, repeating the fiction that Cuba does bad things only because our embargo pushes them past the limit, then I'll demand that conservatives in Florida and elsewhere stop the embargo. Just to take away the left's and Cuba's excuses. But Moore and the rest of the left must demand that Cuba stop the torture. The real torture. Not the feeble kind the left denounces at Cuba's Gitmo that President Obama promised would be closed in January 2010.

Posted by: ¡Cuba Libre! on May 26, 2010 01:37 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?