What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona?

Deal with it any way you like, asshole.

[Shawnee123]

And you've gone too far
But you know it don't matter anyway.
You can rely on your old man's money...



I knew I liked Hall & Oates.

The Arizona Diamondbacks announced that Daryl Hall and John Oates have canceled their post-game concert at Chase Field that had been scheduled to follow a game against the Dodgers on July 2.

Hall and Oates issued the following statement:

"In addition to our personal convictions, we are standing in solidarity with the music community in our boycott of performing in Arizona at this time. We would like to emphasize that this has nothing to do with the management of the Arizona Diamondbacks, who have been professional and cooperative throughout our dealings with them. This is our response to a very specific action of the state."

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

And you've gone too far
But you know it don't matter anyway.
You can rely on your old man's money...



I knew I liked Hall & Oates.

Damn! I might even have gone to that game. It's the only stadium i know of that has a pool inside one of the special booths where you can swim and watch the game at the same time. :-)

[classicman]

Found a poll from MSNBC -

Do you support Arizona's tough new law on illegal immigration?
In July, Arizona will begin enforcing a new law that requires law enforcement officers to check someone’s immigration status if they have reason to suspect that he or she is in the country illegally. Do you think this is a good idea?

Yes 95.9%832,784 votes ----- No 4.1% 36,017 votes

Of course not that it means anything.

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

And you've gone too far
But you know it don't matter anyway.
You can rely on your old man's money...



I knew I liked Hall & Oates.

Support America - Support Karaoke and sing Sara Smile

[Shawnee123]

How about Out of Touch?

Originally Posted by classicman

Found a poll from MSNBC -


Of course not that it means anything.

LOL

This was a online poll....totally unscientific and one which in right wings sites across the net linked to the poll and encouraged supporters to flood the poll.

One example from right wing news

A more interesting (and more scientific) poll is the NBC/WSJ poll....where 64% favor the law and at the same time, 66% believe it will lead to discrimination.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...ds-back-az-law

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Redux

Support America - Support Karaoke and sing Sara Smile

Senora Smile

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Senora Smile

Hombre eater

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Hey...it solves the immigration problem.

she's watching..she's waiting...she only comes out at night and she'll chew them up.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Oh, so nothing Republicans and conservatives ever do is ever valid because... well, they're Republicans and conservatives, is that it, Redux?

God, your bigotries and your kneejerkery are appalling. But then, what use have you for values so long as you have the Party?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

And, from Ruben Navarrette, who's made a business of being "all inmigrantes all the time," weighs in with another of his rather strained columns, viz.,

• The scope and intent of the law have always been clear. Truth: Supporters like to forget that there have been two versions of the law. The first was defective and had to be fixed one week after it was signed by Gov. Jan Brewer.

IOW, the problem was noted and the patch was applied well before the law went into effect. No point for Mr. Navarrette here.

• Arizona is being invaded. The law is a cry for help. Truth: No, it’s a claim to victimhood. Our society is full of people who duck responsibility for their actions by playing the victim. Now states are doing it. Arizona has illegal immigrants because Arizonans hire them. Take away the “help wanted” sign, and they won’t come.

As if that were anything like a realistic option. I'd call this shot a two-cent special. When México has a middle class visible to the naked eye, the immigration problem will dry up. It's an economic problem with an economic solution; it will not be tractable by remedies of law nor of fortification.

. . . Under existing federal statutes, immigrants may have their citizenship questioned but only by federal agents. Under the Arizona law, that power is extended to local police. Many legal scholars believe this to be clearly unconstitutional because immigration policy is a federal responsibility and not something that can be done piecemeal by individual states.

And he would -- what? Continue the present ineffectuality? Federal agencies not getting the job done they say should be done, while doing something...? A state is indicting the Fed for not doing something assigned it by the Constitution; of course the Fed deserves to be embarrassed at this. Complaining about it isn't going to help anyone.

And finally, this straining at a gnat while clearly not recognizing he's doing so:

• This law makes Arizonans safer. Truth: Quite the opposite. By sending illegal immigrants underground, Arizona has created a pool of ready-made victims who can be preyed upon at will because they won’t report crimes to police. Scoundrels, thieves and predators will pounce.

That's the present situation, Ruben carito. What's this "if this goes on" scenario of yours? Oh, right -- this is the kind of strained thinking that's all through your columns any time inmigrantes come up.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Oh, so nothing Republicans and conservatives ever do is ever valid because... well, they're Republicans and conservatives, is that it, Redux?

God, your bigotries and your kneejerkery are appalling. But then, what use have you for values so long as you have the Party?

This from one who consistently resorts to childish name-calling of democrats,,,and relies on knee jerk libertarian talking points that he cant support with facts?

Pot meet kettle.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And, from Ruben Navarrette, who's made a business of being "all inmigrantes all the time," weighs in with another of his rather strained columns, viz.,


IOW, the problem was noted and the patch was applied well before the law went into effect. No point for Mr. Navarrette here.

Constitutional issues still remain both regarding the question if immigration law is solely the responsibility of the federal government as identified in the Constitution.,..and the question of discrimination based on reasonable suspicion, including racial profiling if it meets the test of the standard set by the Court (and many legal experts across the political spectrum dont think it does)

More on the second issue: Late changes to the Arizona immigration law "lay to rest questions over the possibility of racial profiling." ... not quite

One would think that die hard libertarians like you would be concerned about any potential infringement of civil liberties....but i guess not if it wont impact you directly.

]And he would -- what? Continue the present ineffectuality? Federal agencies not getting the job done they say should be done, while doing something...? A state is indicting the Fed for not doing something assigned it by the Constitution; of course the Fed deserves to be embarrassed at this. Complaining about it isn't going to help anyone.

Spending on border security has increased from $6 billion to $10 billion in the last 4=5 years......Deportations are up significantly in those years and the total number of illegals and the number of new illegals coming into the country is at the lowest point in 10 years. And the violent crime issue? Debunked.

Why cant you guys accept any of the above facts.

The fed response has been far from perfect...but ineffectual? Because it hasnt solved the problem completely, despite making significant progress in the last 4-5 years?

As to the effectiveness of the law in dealing with the current illegals....many law enforcement officials have serious doubts, including the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police:

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

A liberal, partisan Democrat organization?

So putting the constitutional issues aside, please, explain how this law will help with border security? Or why you think it wont result in mistrust of police within the Hispanic community. Or why it wont put the cops in a no-win situation with undefined standards of reasonable suspicion?

added:

Ultimately, IMO, the only effective solution...bring them out in the open through a pathway to citizenship...NOT amnesty, as it is falsely characterized by many on the right, but a process of registration, background checks, payments of fines and taxes, English language requirements, and going to the back of the line.

The added benefit....$tens of billions in additional annual tax revenues and probably $billions in savings in law enforcement expenditures.