I believe the recession is mostly responsible for that, not the feds.

How could they be counted, much less sweptup, without someone asking if they are legal?
Why is that someone more qualified than AZ police?

So it has little or nothing to do with increased funding for border security over the last 4-5 years?

How would explain the increasing number of deportations?

Why do you think the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police oppose the law:

The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police (AACOP) remains in opposition to Senate Bill (SB) 1070. The provisions of the bill remain problematic and will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner.

http://www.leei.us/main/media/AACOP_..._BILL_1070.pdf

Perhaps because they think it will be difficult to enforce, take resources away from other activities and lead to greater mistrust within the Hispanic community and in effect, hurt crime fighting efforts.

:eyebrow:
"It's Bush's fault? c'mon.

Governor Perry...AZ law not right for Texas[/url]
She's an R trying to run for office in CA - nuff said.

Don't start that shit.

It is a known fact that in good economic times more people try to enter than during a recession.

In fact, with Mexico in recession as well, many still see better opportunities there....but the number that have gotten across has decreased as a result of increased funding for border security over the last 4-5 years, including Bush years.

The suggestion that the feds have not been acting on the issue over the last 4-5 years, is a myth, by any measure....just as the myth that illegals are creating havoc and committing violent crimes....both of which have been used by the governor and others to justify the law.

I never said the fed has not been acting. STOP DOING THAT!

What you said a few posts ago was: IMO - If the Fed Gov't isn't going to address the issue and uphold its responsibilities...

My response...the feds have been addressing the issue more in the last 4-5 years (including Bush...so stop saying I blame Bush) than previous years, by any measure.

But, I was referring more to the honorable governor of AZ....if you read the full statement :)

IMO, we lost the best opportunity for comprehensive immigration reform in 2007. It had bi-partisan support, including Bush.

Then McCain backed away from his own Kennedy-McCain Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 to run for president and felt a need to pander to the conservative wing of his own party to get the nomination.

We could probably have a comprehensive bill this year if only a handful of Republicans would agree to a process of providing a pathway to citizenship for most (not all) of the illegals already here.

Geveryl nails it again...

It's our house, our rules


Geveryl Robinson, formerly of Savannah, lives and writes in Knoxville. geveryl@gmail.com.

http://savannahnow.com/column/2010-0...ouse-our-rules

Absolutely, it is our house and should be our rules.

And you were the one who pointed out that our rules (the constitution) assigns the power to "establish uniform rules of naturalization" to the federal government.

States can help enforce...they cannot legislate powers above those in federal law.....so, many constitutional experts believe, says the supremacy clause

That is the second question for the courts....entirely separate from the question of the potential discriminatory nature of the AZ law.

more from the link...

Thanks....I wasnt trying to hide anything....just doing what you do frequently....posting selected parts of a link.

None of which makes the constitutionality of the law any less controversial....the point that I have made repeatedly.

As to highlighting Goddard, are you suggesting that his motivation is political and the current governor's is not? Or the legal experts who support the law have different motivations than those who question its constitutionality?

Just asking...given that you said ALL those legal experts, elected officials and law enforcement officials who have concerns are motivated by political or financial interests. :)

added:
I understand its your opinion, I am just trying to understand the reasoning behind it...why you think one side is more motivated by the best public interest and the other by political/financial interests? Based on what?

I also posted the AACOP statement opposing the law, not based on the constitutionality, but on the potential negative impact on law enforcement. Other police organizations disagree. Is one group of law enforcement officials more politically motivated? Why?

And we have agreed - Its a controversial issue.

It does make things more interesting and ones opinion on this issue just months beforehand would have some impact on it, yes.
Especially one who is a D running for office in AZ.
That is not my belief, I think that they are, both sides are motivated by the power, both political & financial. They are more concerned with keeping their current jobs and getting the next "better" one.
They do more campaigning and work harder at that than they do at the job they were elected to do. They all have created these problems and they constantly act outraged that these problems exist. ALL OF THEM. I'm personally sick and tired of hearing about the ills of our nation when EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM is directly traceable to those elected to solve them. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to them and the decisions they make. I couldn't give a rats ass if they have a D or an R stamped on their forehead.

How should I know? Perhaps it is their personal belief systems. Perhaps it is those who help to keep them in power. Perhaps they too are all full of shit. Dunno.

As someone pointed out about you in another discussion, when all you look for is the negative....that is all you see.

IMO, you only look at the negatives of the federal actions and some nebulous negative motivations of those who oppose the law.

I know you dont agree.

And who might that someone be?

When the overwhelming truth stares you in the face and you refuse to see it, you are an idiot. I choose to no longer "believe" in that which obviously is not true.
You make your living the same way they do. That is how I view your posts. You are one of them.

FWIW and it none of your business, I see a great deal of positives in the world. Especially over the last year.

And IMO, when you say "If the Fed Gov't isn't going to address the issue and uphold its responsibilities....", you are ignoring the facts that the federal government has done more in the last 4-5 years than previous years....more money, better border security, more deportations......

The overwhelming truth? The feds have been addressing the issue....there it is...staring you right in the face.

I agree with this...You dont see the positives in anything the feds do.

Just my opinion...just as you have your opinion of me. :)

btw...i think only an idiot would say that I make my living the same was as they do...given that I havent been a lobbyist for more than 15 years and you have no idea how I make my living.

All that extra money has been dumped into high tech surveillance devices, that they haven't been able to get to work.

Yes..even with the increased spending in each of the last 4-5 year on both border security and enforcement (deportation)....more needs to be done.

I suggested what I thought it should be....comprehensive federal legislation with even tougher border enforcement AND a pathway to citizenship (with penalties).

NOT a state law that is questionably constitutional, does not have the support of the major law enforcement organization in the state and drives legal residents (not just illegals) out of the state.

I dont think that is the case.

Money has gone to more border patrol agents, more customs and enforcement agents, more DoJ prosecutorial resources, more on employment eligibility verification systems. etc.

Peanuts.

I would suggest looking at budget/appropriation figures.

Completely irrelevant. It obviously isn't ENOUGH. Its like being sorta pregnant.
Get the job done.

Well you certainly have picked out a wonderful example.
Lets see what was before that - shall we?

Exactly what is wrong with realizing, in advance, that congress will not get much done for the next couple years as the supermajority deteriorates and it becomes two years of our elected officials basically running for their next term while being paid for this term?

I guess it falls to those of us without a large blind spot to mention it has 70 percent of the state's population -- Hispanics too -- supporting it. They're tired of trailer-trash behavior, of banditos ducking back across the border, of property crimes... all that stuff. Redux, whatever his virtues and qualities may be, does not live in Arizona, and has but little knowledge of it.

It certainly does not have 70 percent support among the state's Hispanics...more like 70 percent of Hispanics oppose it.

I also found it ironic that, according to one national poll, it has 2/3 majority support nationwide AND a slighlty larger majority believing it is discriminatory. IMO, a sad commentary when a majority of the population thinks its ok to discriminate (as long as it is discriminating against someone else).

And while I dont live in AZ, I knew that it has a majority white population...despite the assertion by our resident Arizonan to the contrary.

How many of those Hispanics in the polls are here illegally? Are related to or know someone... C'mon.
That would pretty much invalidate that poll info - no?

Knowing how legitimate polling works, I would assume the respondents are from voting rolls...legal residents.

Because they might know or be related to an illegal, their opinion doesnt count as much as any other citizen?

WTF? Thats not a bigoted statement?

But I forgot...you are never wrong!

What are you talking about? There you go again trying to put words in my mouth. no no no ...

If their opinion is based upon being related to a person here illegally. How is that not a biased response?

Whining again about putting words in your mouth...'nope..you just dont get it, which is no surprise.

Their bias is no more than your bias that the fed arent doing the job..or my bias that I think the law in unconstitutiohnal..or the bias of some Whites who just dont like Hispanics.

Everyone has a bias...but you evidently think some are more biased than others.

Turn on the light, dimwit!

Uh no. That would not be true, but thats ok. If you really cannot see the difference between the two, thats fine.
Keep on pushing the same old tired partisan lines. Some here will cheer you on.

Of course, you know whats in the hearts of minds of every Hispanic person polled.

Just like you know whats in the hearts of minds of every constitutional expert or law enforcement officials who are concerned about the law...they are all motivated by politcal or financial interests.

No, you're not biased.

Cite for those left reading your dribble - or mine for that matter exactly where I said I know
Because I never did nor do I agree with your constant misrepresentations of my opinions. Is it too hard for you to just agree to disagree? Are you that small of a man that you cannot handle anyone else that doesn't agree with you? None of these issues are as black and white as you try to paint them.

Black and white would be...

...suggesting that if a Hispanic person is related to or knows an illegal, that would pretty much invalidate that poll info.

That would also be knowing whats in the hearts and minds of those Hispanic persons polled...and since you dont, it only demonstrates your own bias.

How much are you willing to personally pony up to do ENOUGH?

What are you dribbling about now?

Obama's 2011 proposed budget proposal (from Feb - before the AZ law) includes an increase to $3.6 billion to expand the number of Customs and Border Patrol officers....an increase to $1.6 billion for customs enforcement programs to identify and remove illegal aliens who commit crimes and $137 million more to expand immigration-related verification programs.

Completely irrelevant? Then lets put it to deficit reduction instead.

Which part were you incapable of understanding? Let me know, and I'll explain again. I'll even type it real slowly.

What is the relevance of your question. Why would I personally pay anything n addition to what I already pay the Fed Gov't to do the job they were elected and swore to do.

Given that a president's budget request doesnt matter as much as Congressional appropriations:

In 2007, discretionary spending on border security was $6.3 billion. When Democrats took control of Congress, discretionary spending on border security continued to rise year after year. It went to $7.9 billion in 2008; to $9.8 billion in 2009; and to $10.1 billion in fiscal year 2010.

Completely irrelevant?

Because you have espoused the concept of lowering taxes, but now you claim that not enough tax money is being spent to close the border and get illegal aliens out of our country. You even posted that you think spending should be cut evenly across the board. These seem to be conflicting positions, and I am merely asking for you to clarify.

Bullshit. You are being an asshole on purpose and we both know it.
:rant:
There is too much waste in our Gov't - across the board. I am not familiar enough with the inner machinations to give a comprehensive answer on where to cut/save/spend.
I can see that things are headed toward a very dangerous and potentially disastrous direction if we continue the path we are on.

This applies to more than just immigration. Its the direction and attitude of our leaders over the past decade or more. We are breeding a populous of entitlement. Who doesn't want something/everything for free? Well many are too ignorant and short-sighted to realize that it really isn't free. The cost is HUGE.
Much like the immigration issue. When one looks at the overall picture and the sheer number of people we allow to come here legally and illegally, it simply is not sustainable. We must control who comes into our country - period.
One area that needs to be addressed is how many we allow legally. Is it enough? Apparently not. Who set the number at what it is and why? How was that number determined? What is the process where are the bottlenecks ... Things need to be streamlined so that the legal path is more palatable to those who earnestly want to come here and become a part of this nation. Conversely, for those that want to simply feed off of us the penalties need to be clearly defined and swiftly meted out. Not tied up in months or years of red tape. Other countries have problems, other people have their issues. They need to fix their own problems - we cannot do it for the whole world. Actually we never could. No matter how noble that thought or gesture may have been. We need to get our own shit straight.
:rant:

I guess your definition of being an asshole is asking for clarification when someone is being a hypocrit. Gotcha.

But you posted
If you're "not familiar enough with the inner machinations to give a comprehensive answer on where to cut/save/spend" then shut the fuck up. IMHO, you just want to be the one who decides where to cut and where to spend more.

Who is "simply feeding off of us"? Who is enabling it? Who benefits? Who should you really be going after? How do you accomplish what you want to accomplish?

You are full of shit and we both know it.
So what you are saying is that anyone who doesn't have a comprehensive understanding of our gov't should STFU? Guess you won't be posting much anymore either.
Taking that to the next level would be telling those same people note to vote. You really are more stupider than even I thought.
You got that out of what I posted? You really need to learn how to read for comprehension.
You don't get to ask anymore questions - You must first elaborate upon the inner machinations of our Gov't and display your comprehensive knowledge thereof.

Your entire post was even less than what little I expected from you.

Bwahahahaha.

No sunbstance.

Foolishness.

Ha Ha. It is to laugh.

Assinine reach.

Poor grammer. Shows your stupidity.

Yes
Did

No substance.

Thank you.


Your post had absolutely no value - no facts, no imformation, just gobblety-gook.

I agree - Thats why you have now joined your friend on ignore.

I even left your spelling mistakes alone for posterity.

:sniff: We'll give you a trophy for playing a good game - loser.

:lol2: You go Classic...

Dear Redux,

I have not responded to this post for a number of days because I had nothing to say. You posted information that seems to be reliable in response to one of my posts. While this information seems inconsistent with what I see with my own eyes on a daily basis I see no reason for your source to be incorrect so therefore I must assume my own previously held belief was inaccurate so I see no value in arguing a point that seems to be settled.

Sincerest regards,

Lookout

There is a difference between "running away" and just not seeing anything worth discussing further.

Thank you for your sincere response, even if it didnt acknowledge your initial smart ass remark.

It is certainly better than saying the data is completely irrelevant.

Seriously? My original smart ass remark about arizona not looking predominantly white from a street level view? It doesn't look that way. You posted stats saying differently. I don't see the point in arguing just for the sake of arguing. that's not why I come to the cellar.

Redux and all his responses are completely irrelevant. Get a grip man.

Right.....census data, FBI and AZ crime reports, significantly increased federal appropriations for border security and immigration enforcement in each of the last four years, higher deportation numbers.....its all propaganda!

You're on to me, dude.

added:
Oh...and I suppose the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police is a secret arm of the Democratic Party!

Good Job Comrade! You have achieved the highest level of support of your party!

Facts are a bitch....unless you convince yourself its all propaganda.

When the going gets tough.... the weak use ignore.:cool:

Facts are a bitch..... and you convince yourself it is not proaganda...

You failed.

Again.

:corn:

repubican shill.