Is the new Arizona Law Racial Profiling?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:48 am

Zapata;1306906 wrote: Some of our companies already have maquiladoras.

MaquiladorasThanks for that info. Good old American know how. The fact that the people who run American corporations would permit such conditions and exploitation of females is sickening, and its these same corporate misfits that conservatives in this country want to give more power to. If that happens we'll be stepping back to working conditions that we fought so hard to change. Incredible. Well I guess its okay because its only the factory workers that will be affected and thats their fault for not going to college to get a desk job. Its too bad we've lost respect for people who actually work for a living.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:22 am

I'm tired of the whole immigration argument.

Illegal Aliens are criminals. People should NEVER stand up for criminals.

Period. End of story.

ZAP · Post by **ZAP** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:25 am

Saint_;1306929 wrote: I'm tired of the whole immigration argument.

Illegal Aliens are criminals. People should NEVER stand up for criminals.

Period. End of story.

Well said!

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:34 am

Saint_;1306929 wrote: I'm tired of the whole immigration argument.

Illegal Aliens are criminals. People should NEVER stand up for criminals.

Period. End of story.So you think this is a good law and you would like to see it enacted in your state? People only become criminals after something they are doing is labeled a crime. Some make sense and some don't make sense. You think this is a sensible law?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Zapata;1306932 wrote: Well said!You also think this is good lawmaking?

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:59 am

Ahso!;1306902 wrote: Thats an excellent idea.

Its really amazing how the republicans are trying to make this out to be a 'jobs' bill. More mindless legislation based on party competition and ignoring the fact that they are probably financially sabotaging the state of Arizona. Funny thing is is that if democrats had proposed this monster, republicans would be out in force crying "wheres the money gonna come from, how are the liberals going to pay for this?'

They must know this thing will get shot down in court. I can't imagine them being this reckless. But then again we must remember they reelected Bush for a second term. I guess they are this reckless after all. Its gotta be stupidity.

Yeah, also the GOP claims to be for "smaller" government, but now are demanding that people show their papers to officials. That sounds like bigger government and more regulation to me. That's a whole new level of intrusiveness.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:26 am

Ahso!;1306934 wrote: So you think this is a good law and you would like to see it enacted in your state? People only become criminals after something they are doing is labeled a crime. Some make sense and some don't make sense. You think this is a sensible law?

Funny how these people are doing the same thing we are famous for, and now it turns out to be a crime. European settlers came and took all the land from the Native Americans. Course, we've been illegal so long, we have automatic citizenship. We made up that rule too of course.

ZAP · Post by **ZAP** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:28 am

Ahso!;1306936 wrote: You also think this is good lawmaking?

Yes. I think anything that will help to cut down on the illegals in this country is a good thing. I've had first hand experience with illegals for the past 30+ years, since moving from Pennsylvania to a California border town and now 15 miles away. I've seen the impact on our schools, hospitals, government, every day living on a steady basis.

Before you brand me as a racist, I might hasten to add that two of my son-in- laws are Hispanics and fine examples of the "right" way to do things. Also, the fellow who cuts my grass is a U.S. citizen, as is his 9 year old son, but his new wife is not. He lives in Mexicali. Every day he crosses the border (legally) with his son and takes him to school. Sometimes the lines are 2-3 hours long so he's learned to leave early enough to get the boy to school on time. Then he works for families, doing their yard work, until it's time to pick up his son and return to Mexicali. His wife will become a citizen as soon as she's able to do so. They could have tried to smuggle her in and have her living on this side, the way so many do, but they chose to do it the right way, the legal way.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:31 am

Ahso!;1306934 wrote: So you think this is a good law and you would like to see it enacted in your state?

Freakin' A! In a heartbeat. In my state, New Mexico, we are dealing with the same flood of illegals that Arizona is and now it's bound to be much worse as they all migrate across from there.

People only become criminals after something they are doing is labeled a crime.

Sneaking into a country without permission has been a crime since the Dawn of Time. Would you do it?

Some make sense and some don't make sense. You think this is a sensible law?

Absolutely. There might have been other things we could have done when the pipeline was only dripping, but now the entire house is flooding. Time to get serious.

Let me put it this way: How would ANY OTHER country in the world react if TWENTY MILLION Americans entered their country illegally? That is the current number of illegal aliens in the US.

Take a look at the penalties of Mexico's OWN immigration laws. Arizona is nice by comparison and Mexico is totally hypocritical.

Now: You haven't stated you views on the law....

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:50 am

Zapata;1306943 wrote: Yes. I think anything that will help to cut down on the illegals in this country is a good thing. I've had first hand experience with illegals for the past 30+ years, since moving from Pennsylvania to a California border town and now 15 miles away. I've seen the impact on our schools, hospitals, government, every day living on a steady basis.

Before you brand me as a racist, I might hasten to add that two of my son-in- laws are Hispanics and fine examples of the "right" way to do things. Also, the fellow who cuts my grass is a U.S. citizen, as is his 9 year old son, but his new wife is not. He lives in Mexicali. Every day he crosses the border (legally) with his son and takes him to school. Sometimes the lines are 2-3 hours long so he's learned to leave early enough to get the boy to school on time. Then he works for families, doing their yard work, until it's time to pick up his son and return to Mexicali. His wife will become a citizen as soon as she's able to do so. They could have tried to smuggle her in and have her living on this side, the way so many do, but they chose to do it the right way, the legal way.

I'm sorry but with a name like Zapata, I'm required to ask you for proof of citizenship. I'm calling law enforcement. Also, I will need proof that your documentation is not forged.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:54 am

Zapata;1306943 wrote: His wife will become a citizen as soon as she's able to do so. They could have tried to smuggle her in and have her living on this side, the way so many do, but they chose to do it the right way, the legal way.

Why would we ever want to punish this man, but reward those who do it illegally.

A perfect example of why this law is needed.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:54 am

Saint_;1306946 wrote: Freakin' A! In a heartbeat. In my state, New Mexico, we are dealing with the same flood of illegals that Arizona is and now it's bound to be much worse as they all migrate across from there.

Sneaking into a country without permission has been a crime since the Dawn of Time. Would you do it?

Absolutely. There might have been other things we could have done when the pipeline was only dripping, but now the entire house is flooding. Time to get serious.

Let me put it this way: How would ANY OTHER country in the world react if TWENTY MILLION Americans entered their country illegally? That is the current number of illegal aliens in the US.

Take a look at the penalties of Mexico's OWN immigration laws. Arizona is nice by comparison and Mexico is totally hypocritical.

Now: You haven't stated you views on the law....

I think its bad legislation. Its too intrusive and indiscriminate. Its not paid for. It has the potential to cause hardship for well intentioned enforcement officials and legal immigrants. And its ambiguous through and through.

I think its a very big mistake to take badly crafted legislation over no legislation. This is a slippery slope case where the civil and human rights of legal immigrants and anyone really are recklessly trampled on simply because peoples emotions are being manipulated. I understand the frustration you are feeling, but its during these times that Americans need to remain diligent and strong in scrutinizing new laws.

Its easy to say this can't affect me and mine because being American with a comfortable living we're inoculated against this. But remember, there are people coming after you within your family tree who you will never meet, and its up to us to protect that future for them. We don't want government or corporations to infringe on our or their rights. Some of those of yours will undoubtedly suffer financial hardship, and when that happens they will not be inoculated from the harm bad legislation can bring.

I've already posted links to both Mexico's and America's immigration laws and they are pretty similar. Of course they both have unique needs and those are addressed differently, but in the matter of exclusion and penalties they are very similar.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:03 pm

Ahso!;1306957 wrote:

I think its a very big mistake to take badly crafted legislation over no legislation.

That's right where you and I part ways. A bad law can be amended. No law is anarchy. Anarchy is what we have right now.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:14 pm

Zapata;1306943 wrote: Yes. I think anything that will help to cut down on the illegals in this country is a good thing. I've had first hand experience with illegals for the past 30+ years, since moving from Pennsylvania to a California border town and now 15 miles away. I've seen the impact on our schools, hospitals, government, every day living on a steady basis.

Before you brand me as a racist, I might hasten to add that two of my son-in- laws are Hispanics and fine examples of the "right" way to do things. Also, the fellow who cuts my grass is a U.S. citizen, as is his 9 year old son, but his new wife is not. He lives in Mexicali. Every day he crosses the border (legally) with his son and takes him to school. Sometimes the lines are 2-3 hours long so he's learned to leave early enough to get the boy to school on time. Then he works for families, doing their yard work, until it's time to pick up his son and return to Mexicali. His wife will become a citizen as soon as she's able to do so. They could have tried to smuggle her in and have her living on this side, the way so many do, but they chose to do it the right way, the legal way.I wouldn't think of considering you racist, Zap. I've read too many of your posts to think you as racist. That would mean you're not thoughtful, and thoughtful you are.

What I do think is America's lawmakers owe you and me more than shotty legislation. Laws ought to be very carefully crafted and scrutinized which is what we are doing in this thread.

Your children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and so on deserve your best as a citizen. Don't permit people who are practiced at manipulating emotion win over your sense of fairness and justice.

We agree that illegal immigration needs to be dealt with, but this is reckless. They can do better and we should be demanding they do so, and not take the first thing that comes out of a state during a contentious election season.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:17 pm

Ahso!;1306960 wrote:

We agree that illegal immigration needs to be dealt with,

And that's the point. The very reason this has happened is that our government had a quarter of a century to deal with this and did nothing. Now its too late.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:19 pm

Saint_;1306959 wrote: That's right where you and I part ways. A bad law can be amended. No law is anarchy. Anarchy is what we have right now.Why do you do that, Saint? You know perfectly well that I'm not talking anarchy, so why poison the discussion with extreme language that will most likely divide us more?

Just remember when our constitution and bill of rights was being crafted, the authors would not stand for shotty language just to get something out there. I know you understand how difficult it is to amend laws in this country.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:21 pm

Saint_;1306961 wrote: And that's the point. The very reason this has happened is that our government had a quarter of a century to deal with this and did nothing. Now its too late.So what, poison the well all together? We're supposed to be descendants of those strong Americans that founded this country, where is the grit and determination to get things done properly?

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:24 pm

Twenty million people have marched into our country without any consequences. How is that not anarchy? What law is stopping them?

When twenty million people do what ever they want without regard to the rule of law, that seems to me to be the very definition of anarchy.

Main Entry: an·ar·chy

Pronunciation: ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnÃ¤r-

Function: noun

Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-

Date: 1539

1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder

3 : anarchism

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:31 pm

Ahso!;1306963 wrote: So what, poison the well all together? We're supposed to be descendants of those strong Americans that founded this country, where is the grit and determination to get things done properly?

I thought you might bring that up, but there is a serious difference between our Founding Fathers, the immigration wave of the 1900s, and this particular example.

Even third generation Hispanics in the California area have not assimilated, do not speak the language and do not vote. These immigrants have shown, quite clearly that they have no intention of becoming a part of our country. Their goal is to get money..period. They do not want to be citizens, they do not want to pay taxes, they don't even want to get driver's licenses or health insurance.

In short: they do not want to be Americans or contribute to America's welfare, only enjoy America's privileges.

The following conversation I had with a young Hispanic student illustrates this attitude, one which I have heard repeated many, many, many times...

Me: Did you just say you were Mexican?

Kid: “I’m Mexican!

Me: “Don’t you mean Mexican – American?

Kid: “No, I’m Mexican.

Me: “Were you born in Mexico?

Kid: “No, I was born here.

Me: “Then you are an American citizen. Anyone born in America is American.

Kid: (Thinks for a second) “ I’m Mexican!

Me: “Look, why did your parents come here?

Kid: “To have a better life.

Me: “As Americans? Because Americans have a higher standard of living?

Kid: “I’m Mexican.

Me: “Do you have some problem with being American?

Kid: “I’m not American, I’m Mexican.

Me: “Look, be proud of your culture, that’s your heritage, but realize that your parents wanted to be a part of America. They came here to make a dream of a better life come true as Americans. They gave birth to you here and you are also one of us, an American. You are a part of a great union of different people all working together. Doesn’t that make you proud to be an American?

Kid: (Looks confused for a second, then smirks) “I’m Mexican.

I have a problem with this. If people will not become a part of a society, they will not enjoy it’s rights such as voting. They other people will pass laws against them. Eventually, since the two groups do not have a common language, distrust and fear will set in. It’s called, “Balkanization and it ends in genocide.

If you want to be American, come to America legally, learn the language and be American.

Anything else is criminal.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:33 pm

Saint_;1306964 wrote: Twenty million people have marched into our country without any consequences. How is that not anarchy? What law is stopping them?

When twenty million people do what ever they want without regard to the rule of law, that seems to me to be the very definition of anarchy.

Main Entry: an·ar·chy

Pronunciation: ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnÃ¤r-

Function: noun

Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-

Date: 1539

1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder

3 : anarchismLaws are on the books but they have not been enforced for a myriad of reasons. Now since unemployment is high, this has been thrown together to cause American anger. The people who put this legislation together even admit that with smirks on their faces. Watch the following 12 minute clip and listen to the guy defending this law and watch the smirk on his face because he knows they've got people pissed at aliens for having jobs they always had. Listen also how he changes his references from Arizona to national constantly.

Democrats Push Immigration Reform as Ariz. Law Draws More Ire | PBS NewsHour | April 29, 2010 | PBS

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:38 pm

Saint_;1306965 wrote:

If you want to be American, come to America legally, learn the language and be American.

Anything else is criminal.This is becoming circular. I've said all I care to say. I hope your anger dissipates soon and you take another look at this when it does.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:05 pm

Ahso!;1306968 wrote: This is becoming circular. I've said all I care to say. I hope your anger dissipates soon and you take another look at this when it does.

Questions: Would you enter a country illegally? How would you expect to be treated if you did? Why should America be any different?

I find it astonishing that people will condone behavior in others that they, themselves, would never contemplate much less carry out.

All I'm doing is holding illegal aliens to the same standards that I hold myself.

ZAP · Post by **ZAP** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:24 pm

yaaarrrgg;1306953 wrote: I'm sorry but with a name like Zapata, I'm required to ask you for proof of citizenship. I'm calling law enforcement. Also, I will need proof that your documentation is not forged.

:yh_rotfl

Actually I chose that name because it means 'shoe' in Spanish & I love shoes. And a little bit because Emiliano was a revolutionary or a bandit, whichever school of thought you subscribe to.

My ancestry is as follows: German, English, Irish, Scots, Dutch, Welsh, Hungarian & American Indian (2 tribes):p

I have to show proof of citizenship when I go over to Mexico and try to come back into the states.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:51 pm

Saint_;1306639 wrote: Look at it this way: Would you, yourself, enter another country illegally? No?

Why not?

Then why on Earth would you condone that behavior in others?

Who has? - Apart from the authorities who are not enforcing the existing border laws.

albertpollard · Post by **albertpollard** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:01 pm

A local radio program was talking about a bill in our area similar to Arizona's. The host heard someone comment about amnisty not being so bad if they pay taxes, etc.

The host asked, which is worse? the fact they violated our borders and came here illegally or the fact they are a drain on the country financially?

To put it in perspective:

How would you feel if you found someone in your basement. He broke in three years ago and has been living in your basement, taking food out of your refrigerator and pantry, using your water and electricity, maybe even your toothbrush.

Which is worse, that he broke in three years ago, or that he's been a drain on your household finances?

A crime is a CRIME!

ZAP · Post by **ZAP** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:17 pm

Saint said,

"Even third generation Hispanics in the California area have not assimilated, do not speak the language and do not vote. These immigrants have shown, quite clearly that they have no intention of becoming a part of our country. Their goal is to get money..period. They do not want to be citizens, they do not want to pay taxes, they don't even want to get driver's licenses or health insurance.

In short: they do not want to be Americans or contribute to America's welfare, only enjoy America's privileges."

The immigrants who have come here legally resent those illegals and the fact that they're getting something for nothing, while they, the law abiders, had to work and wait for it.

I'm reminded of something very irritating almost every time I go into Walmart. Most of the employees don't speak English, or very limited English, just a few words. I've come to expect that & I can usually make myself understood or they will rush to get an English speaking person if they see that I'm getting irritated. The signs are all written in English & Spanish but I was really itrritated when I saw one that was only in Spanish!

When my kids were going to school in Calexico, they were a full year behind the classes in Pennsylvania, because the teachers would say it first in English and then in Spanish. My daughters' classrooms were composed of 2 or 3 Anglos, as many Chinese and the rest Hispanics.

albertpollard · Post by **albertpollard** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:20 pm

Unfortunately the push toward pride in one's heritage and political correctness means we have to learn to speak their language (whoever they are).

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 7:10 pm

Zapata;1306979 wrote: :yh_rotfl

Actually I chose that name because it means 'shoe' in Spanish & I love shoes. And a little bit because Emiliano was a revolutionary or a bandit, whichever school of thought you subscribe to.

My ancestry is as follows: German, English, Irish, Scots, Dutch, Welsh, Hungarian & American Indian (2 tribes):p

I have to show proof of citizenship when I go over to Mexico and try to come back into the states.

Yeah, I was mostly kidding... zapata is one of the few words I remembered from my Spanish class years ago.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Apr 30, 2010 8:11 pm

albertpollard;1307023 wrote: A local radio program was talking about a bill in our area similar to Arizona's. The host heard someone comment about amnisty not being so bad if they pay taxes, etc.

The host asked, which is worse? the fact they violated our borders and came here illegally or the fact they are a drain on the country financially?

To put it in perspective:

How would you feel if you found someone in your basement. He broke in three years ago and has been living in your basement, taking food out of your refrigerator and pantry, using your water and electricity, maybe even your toothbrush.

Which is worse, that he broke in three years ago, or that he's been a drain on your household finances?

A crime is a CRIME!

Yes, but there's a point of absurdity in the whole debate. Since we give citizenship automatically to people who are born here, the debate ultimately boils down to the longitude and latitude coordinates of their mother's vagina at the time of birth. Some vagina's are in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the citizenship thing doesn't automatically happen. That leads to a lot of paperwork, and requirements for extra documentation.

IMO these people have just as much right to exist on the planet as anyone. placing imaginary land boundaries as more important than people is heading towards fascism. That itself should be a crime, but is alive and well in the political system.

There's two ways to eliminate the "crime" of someone existing in the U.S. who's mother's vagina does not meet your standards for membership in the club. Rather than building a bigger wall, we should be building bridges. We need to aim for a global democracy. Four big walls can easily turn into one big cage.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Sun May 02, 2010 9:28 am

Bryn Mawr;1306994 wrote: Who has? - Apart from the authorities who are not enforcing the existing border laws.

Anyone who is against immigration enforcement is condoning illegal immigration. You are either for keeping law and order or for breaking it. You can't be both.

I'm not for keeping out immigrant who want to do it legally. I'm fine with them coming here, learning the language, and contributing to our Union.

I'm against sneaking in, refusing to assimilate, setting up enclaves, sapping the resources and social systems without paying taxes, and becoming vampiric leeches on our society.

So should anyone be who loves America.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Sun May 02, 2010 9:32 am

yaaarrrgg;1307101 wrote: Yes, but there's a point of absurdity in the whole debate. Since we give citizenship automatically to people who are born here, the debate ultimately boils down to the longitude and latitude coordinates of their mother's vagina at the time of birth. Some vagina's are in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the citizenship thing doesn't automatically happen. That leads to a lot of paperwork, and requirements for extra documentation.

IMO these people have just as much right to exist on the planet as anyone. placing imaginary land boundaries as more important than people is heading towards fascism. That itself should be a crime, but is alive and well in the political system.

There's two ways to eliminate the "crime" of someone existing in the U.S. who's mother's vagina does not meet your standards for membership in the club. Rather than building a bigger wall, we should be building bridges. We need to aim for a global democracy. Four big walls can easily turn into one big cage.

A nice sentiment.... if unrealistic and naive.

One world, one people, everyone sharing, the happy family moving ever outward.

Except: How fair is it if someone walks into your house, says, "I wasn't able to have a home in my country, so you'll have to share yours with me." Why can't Mexicans stay in their country and make it a better country for themselves like we all did? Why do they need to come to ours?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun May 02, 2010 9:37 am

Saint_;1307456 wrote: Anyone who is against immigration enforcement is condoning illegal immigration. You are either for keeping law and order or for breaking it. You can't be both.

I'm not for keeping out immigrant who want to do it legally. I'm fine with them coming here, learning the language, and contributing to our Union.

I'm against sneaking in, refusing to assimilate, setting up enclaves, sapping the resources and social systems without paying taxes, and becoming vampiric leeches on our society.

So should anyone be who loves America.With condoning this ambiguous law you are also okay with legal immigrants being needlessly harassed, not to mention Americans born in this country who fit the profile.

What I see in your posts is not defending the law on its merits as much as defending you irrational anger for anything. Thats too bad.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Sun May 02, 2010 9:43 am

Ahso!;1307460 wrote: With condoning this ambiguous law you are also okay with legal immigrants being needlessly harassed, not to mention Americans born in this country who fit the profile.

What I see in your posts is not defending the law on its merits as much as defending you irrational anger for anything. Thats too bad.

People keep saying that's going to happen, but it hasn't yet. (Profiling or my acting irrationally! LOL!!)

Not only that, I'm actually for "profiling." Which I translate as "using common sense." It's just logical that you should check out the Iranian on the incoming flight to Washington DC and leave the Seattle-bound Canadian grandmother alone. It's just logical to check out the weaving car at 1:00 am and forget about the bicyclist on the sidewalk. Who's more suspicious in the jewelry store? The well-dressed businessman or the hoodie-wearing young man with the gang colors? Pull over the station wagon with the Anglo-American mother and two children in it? Or the U-Haul being driven by the tattooed Hispanic-American? I'd pull over the U-Haul every time.

To me, the Arizona law is just good law enforcement and Lord knows they need it.

CARLA · Post by **CARLA** » Sun May 02, 2010 11:52 am

I agree Saint the problem is the Mexican government doesn't care about its people, they only care and scream when we threaten to send them all back where they came from.

[QUOTE]Except: How fair is it if someone walks into your house, says, "I wasn't able to have a home in my country, so you'll have to share yours with me." Why can't Mexicans stay in their country and make it a better country for themselves like we all did? Why do they need to come to ours?[/QUOTE]

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun May 02, 2010 1:10 pm

Saint_;1307456 wrote: Anyone who is against immigration enforcement is condoning illegal immigration. You are either for keeping law and order or for breaking it. You can't be both.

I'm not for keeping out immigrant who want to do it legally. I'm fine with them coming here, learning the language, and contributing to our Union.

I'm against sneaking in, refusing to assimilate, setting up enclaves, sapping the resources and social systems without paying taxes, and becoming vampiric leeches on our society.

So should anyone be who loves America.

I hear far more people shouting far more stridently against "immigrants" and meaning both legal as well as illegal immigrants than I ever hear suggesting that illegal immigrants should not be dealt with.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sun May 02, 2010 1:18 pm

Saint_;1306961 wrote: And that's the point. The very reason this has happened is that our government had a quarter of a century to deal with this and did nothing. Now its too late.

Didn't it do something a few years ago? I thought it gave amnesty to illegals back in the 80s and that was going to be the end of tolerating illegals and the folks who hire or provide services to them?

That worked out so well, I hear they are thinking of trying it again. I suppose that this time we'd stress that we REALLY mean it:rolleyes:

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sun May 02, 2010 1:55 pm

I have to agree with Saint..

As I stand very fim with the new Law as AZ and other States have baby sat the illegals long enough.

ILLEGAL is exactly that illegal.

Every one screams of their RIGHTS - what RIGHTS ?? They're not a citizen of this country to have RIGHTS.

and no - this is not a tone of angry - it's a tone of FED UP...

Patsy

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sun May 02, 2010 3:52 pm

Patsy Warnick;1307491 wrote: I have to agree with Saint..

As I stand very fim with the new Law as AZ and other States have baby sat the illegals long enough.

ILLEGAL is exactly that illegal.

Every one screams of their RIGHTS - what RIGHTS ?? They're not a citizen of this country to have RIGHTS.

and no - this is not a tone of angry - it's a tone of FED UP...

Patsy

In all fairness, I suspect many of these people have ancestry that predates the European presence on this landmass. How that makes "them" the intruders is a bit puzzling. In all fairness I think you have that backwards.

As a country we were founded on the idea that all men are created equal and granted inalienable rights, merely by their existence.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Sun May 02, 2010 4:06 pm

Saint_;1307457 wrote: A nice sentiment.... if unrealistic and naive.

One world, one people, everyone sharing, the happy family moving ever outward.

Except: How fair is it if someone walks into your house, says, "I wasn't able to have a home in my country, so you'll have to share yours with me." Why can't Mexicans stay in their country and make it a better country for themselves like we all did? Why do they need to come to ours?

You mean like Cortes?

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sun May 02, 2010 4:34 pm

Use your "All men are created equal" when your in Mexico explaining your RIGHTS.

Bottom Line - They're Illegal simple as that.

Patsy

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun May 02, 2010 4:43 pm

You can't suggest the "new law" is any more of a form of racial profiling than what "should" have been the "old law" pertaining to illegal immigration. In the same manner "racial profiling" is entirely unavoidable unless people are willing to suggest the majority deserves it more than any other. It hasn't happened up to now from the time of recorded history

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Mon May 03, 2010 6:46 pm

yaaarrrgg;1307535 wrote: In all fairness, I suspect many of these people have ancestry that predates the European presence on this landmass.

What about Leif Erickson?

How that makes "them" the intruders is a bit puzzling. In all fairness I think you have that backwards.

There was a little thing called "The American Revolution" followed by a land purchase called, "The Louisiana Purchase.' A country was built. You might argue that it was built without the permission of the natives living there, but you'd be talking ancient history, centuries ago.

If they didn't want America to be built, they should have invented technology and defended themselves. You are hinting at being a history apologist. There's no way I'm going for that since, to go down that road, we'd all have to apologize to the Neanderthals...

As a country we were founded on the idea that all men are created equal and granted inalienable rights, merely by their existence.

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as I recall. However we NEVER said all men had the right to do those things here. Let them do that in their own country.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Mon May 03, 2010 10:09 pm

I hope Arizona enforces this Law and doesn't buckle under pressure.

Patsy

Sally Mallerary · Post by **Sally Mallerary** » Tue May 04, 2010 5:19 am

I don't think that the law itself is racial profiling neither, but we do have certain people that will abuse it and go over the top with it.

Hopefully it help's.

Ps. I'm new here and just wanted to say hello

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Tue May 04, 2010 7:22 am

Saint_;1307739 wrote: What about Leif Erickson?

There was a little thing called "The American Revolution" followed by a land purchase called, "The Louisiana Purchase.' A country was built. You might argue that it was built without the permission of the natives living there, but you'd be talking ancient history, centuries ago.

If they didn't want America to be built, they should have invented technology and defended themselves. You are hinting at being a history apologist. There's no way I'm going for that since, to go down that road, we'd all have to apologize to the Neanderthals...

The Lousiana purchase didn't include Arizona, did it? I seem to recall a bloodier history between the south and Mexico, as well as the Western expansion (e.g. manifest destiny, trail of tears, the Alamo, etc). Somehow these people have become strangers in their own land.

Saint_;1307739 wrote:

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as I recall. However we NEVER said all men had the right to do those things here. Let them do that in their own country.

Actually that's exactly what we said:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

If you have some right to do X here, and Y is equal to you, then Y has that same right (as the right of X and Y are equal).

Though you are correct that Americans have perfected the art of practicing hypocrisy with a straight face, claiming to be for freedom, while owning slaves. They really only meant that white land owning males were created equal, which you are correct would exclude Mexicans and other indigenous residents of the landmass.

Proponents of this law have done little but repeat the circular line of reasoning, that these people are illegal (because we invented the laws that made them so). But if a government doesn't respect the freedom to travel and find work, I think the problem is with the governments. In that case those laws need to change.

Used to crossing state lines in the U.S. was a much bigger hassle, though now we don't think twice about it. IMO, the concept of "country" is inherently based in a form of tribal racism. People from different geographic regions aren't any different from us, and they don't need to be subject to a different set of rules. What bad apples there are, are the minority, as with any group. If you are worried these new people voting will screw up the U.S., I can hardly see how they could do a worse job than Texas and other Southern States have already done (*cough George Bush*).

Unfortunately that's not the path taken. The current mindset of using imaginary lines for caging people hasn't worked and has led to a great deal of frustration. Rather than us stepping back and reevaluating the whole mindset of "do invisible walls really make sense?" we are doubling-down on the failed mentality that's led to so much frustration in the first place. Strengthening the invisible line. But you can't make something more real, which fundamentally has no existence. This will only lead to more frustration and lawsuits.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Tue May 04, 2010 9:25 am

yaaarrrgg;1307810 wrote:

Unfortunately that's not the path taken. The current mindset of using imaginary lines for caging people hasn't worked and has led to a great deal of frustration. Rather than us stepping back and reevaluating the whole mindset of "do invisible walls really make sense?" we are doubling-down on the failed mentality that's led to so much frustration in the first place. Strengthening the invisible line. But you can't make something more real, which fundamentally has no existence. This will only lead to more frustration and lawsuits.

I really don't want to spar with you, because fundamentally, you and I are on the same side .I, too, would like to see humankind grow up, be mature and start working together as a planetary race instead ridiculous, nationalistic division. I've often said, "Just think how far we would be if we didn't ever have to spend money on military machines. heck, we'd be on Mars by now!"

That said, let's look at the reality of things as they stand: It's not a good idea to yell, "Everyone on the block should share each other's houses!" when you are the only person on the block with a mansion and a swimming pool and everyone else is living in trailers!

To allow every poor, unskilled, and uneducated person on the planet to come to America, when there are literally BILLIONS of them, is to completely throw away any chance for success for our country in the future.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue May 04, 2010 10:39 am

Saint_;1307739 wrote: What about Leif Erickson?

There was a little thing called "The American Revolution" followed by a land purchase called, "The Louisiana Purchase.' A country was built. You might argue that it was built without the permission of the natives living there, but you'd be talking ancient history, centuries ago.

If they didn't want America to be built, they should have invented technology and defended themselves. You are hinting at being a history apologist. There's no way I'm going for that since, to go down that road, we'd all have to apologize to the Neanderthals...

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as I recall. However we NEVER said all men had the right to do those things here. Let them do that in their own country.

It's the might makes right mentality - gets me every time

We were big enough and bad enough to take their land and its their fault because they didn't invent technology to defend themselves?

Outrageous!

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Tue May 04, 2010 10:42 am

Yaaarrrgg

"Do invisible walls really make sense"

invisible walls - are borders ...

Gov't stated they would provide WALLS to protect - didn't happen.

It's unfortunate Bordering States have to take the illegal issue into their own hands.

Welcome Sally....

Patsy

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue May 04, 2010 10:51 am

Bryn Mawr;1307850 wrote: It's the might makes right mentality - gets me every time

We were big enough and bad enough to take their land and its their fault because they didn't invent technology to defend themselves?

Outrageous!Believe it or not, that is a very popular line of thought here in the US. In most cases (not sure about this one) its a subversion of the term 'survival of the fittest'.

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Tue May 04, 2010 12:41 pm

Patsy Warnick;1307852 wrote: Yaaarrrgg

"Do invisible walls really make sense"

invisible walls - are borders ...

Gov't stated they would provide WALLS to protect - didn't happen.

It's unfortunate Bordering States have to take the illegal issue into their own hands.

Welcome Sally....

Patsy

Well, I would think a physical wall would be better than racial profiling. We should make it like North Korea's or East Germany's ... those proven to work. That's the mark of a truly free society.

What seems odd to me though, is there's two groups of border states: those bordering Mexico and those bordering Canada. In all the frenzy about illegal immigration, I haven't heard a peep from the Northern states complaining about Canadians. Why is that? What's the difference?

For one, I'd expect Canada's border to be more permeable, isn't it longer? So that isn't the issue.

Another difference I see is the South has had a less-than-stunning history on race relations.