What would Martin Niemoller think about Arizona?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

and the feds have been making progress doing that.

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

[jinx]

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

Originally Posted by classicman

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

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?

Originally Posted by jinx

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

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.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

There may or may be a direct correlation.....

just as with the approval of of the use of drones, something requested for year and which Bush would not pursue.

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

Governor Perry...AZ law not right for Texas[/url]

Securing the border should be a top priority, Perry said, noting that he has a standing request for 1,000 National Guard troops to support civilian law enforcement efforts to keep the border secure.
I will continue to work with the legislative leadership to develop strategies that are appropriate for Texas,” Perry said. “Until the federal government brings the necessary resources to bear, we will continue to commit state funding and resources for additional border security efforts in order to protect our communities and legitimate cross-border trade and travel, while enforcing the laws already on the books.”

Meg Whitman, republican nominee for governor of CA:
critical of AZ immigration law and would veto it.

She's an R trying to run for office in CA - nuff said.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

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

Don't start that shit.

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

Originally Posted by classicman

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.

[classicman]

The suggestion that the feds have not been acting on the issue over the last 4-5 years, is a myth,

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

Originally Posted by classicman

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.

[TheMercenary]

Geveryl nails it again...

It's our house, our rules

I have watched, listened and thought about illegal immigration in this country, and decided I would not voice my opinion until I had been able to weigh all sides of the issue and draw my own conclusion.

I am sympathetic to those who come to this country seeking a better life. We all wish to be able to work and provide for our families.

However, I have no sympathy for the blatant hypocrisy shown by Mexico's own president regarding immigration, and the seeming inability of those who support illegal immigration to entertain the thought that those who do not support their stance may have valid reasons.

A few weeks ago, Wolf Blitzer interviewed Mexico's President Felipe Calderon. As I listened to the interview, I kept reaching for my Q-tips, because I wanted to make sure I clearly comprehended what Calderon was saying.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to reenter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.

After Wolf Blitzer asked President Calderon about the law, Calderon explained that the law "was true, but it is not anymore," and that that illegal immigration has not be a crime in Mexico, since "one year ago."

One year?

Hmmm. Since illegal immigration has been a problem in this country for more than one year, and those who support illegals do so because they feel the laws in this country are too harsh, than they are either ignorant of the Mexican law or are fine with the mistreatment of illegals in their own country, but not by the so-called mistreatment of illegal immigrants in the United States.

After being asked by Blitzer if people coming from Central America (e.g. Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) could "just come into Mexico," Calderon said, "No, they need to fill out a form."

Then Calderon added that in addition to all the immigrants from Central America who needed documentation, the Mexican police on the border go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

According to Calderon, if someone sneaks into Mexico, not only can he or she not get a job, but Calderon stressed emphatically (and I'm quoting him) , "We send them back. We send them back."

By the end of the interview my ears were bleeding. It seemed that Calderon was totally oblivious to the blatant hypocrisy and gall exhibited during the interview.

I wonder if he and those who support illegal immigration has ever heard of "practice what you preach." There is obviously a problem in Mexico that desperately needs to be fixed; otherwise, so many people from that country wouldn't feel the need to come here for better opportunities.

President Calderon adheres to the same laws (and some even worse) that he berates the state of Arizona for legalizing, but no one seems to want to address that issue.

Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Regarding illegal immigrants from Mexico, Calderon lives in the crystal cathedral.

It's interesting that those fighting against securing the Mexican border don't exert that same energy into fighting for the rights of Mexican citizens in Mexico. Calderon made it abundantly clear that Mexico is his "house," and in his house the occupants must play by his rules.

The United States of America is our house. As my parents used to say, "As long as you live in our house, you'll abide by our rules."

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

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

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Geveryl nails it again...

It's our house, 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

Can Arizona’s controversial new immigration law — allowing the police to stop people and demand proof of citizenship — pass constitutional muster?

To many scholars, the answer is, simply, no.

“The law is clearly pre-empted by federal law under Supreme Court precedents,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, an expert in constitutional law and the dean of the University of California, Irvine, School of Law.

Since the 1800s, the federal government has been in charge of controlling immigration and enforcing those laws, Professor Chemerinsky noted. And that is why, he argued, Arizona’s effort to enforce its own laws is destined to fail.

But even some experts who say they are troubled by the law said it might survive challenges.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/us/28legal.html

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

[classicman]

more from the link...

Because the Arizona statute draws directly on federal statutes concerning documentation and other issues, “the Arizona law is perfect concurrent enforcement,” Professor Kobach said.

“The coverage of this law and the text of the law are a little hard to square,” Mr. Baker said. “There’s nothing in the law that requires cities to stop people without cause, or encourages racial or ethnic profiling by itself.”

The new law is controversial even within Arizona. Its critics include the attorney general,
Terry Goddard, a Democrat running for governor. Mr. Goddard called the law a “tragic mistake” that “does nothing to make us safer.”

Mr. Kobach said the courts had long given the police broad authority to stop people and to make immigration arrests — and asserted that the bill “expressly prohibits racial profiling,” because it stated that officers “may not solely consider race, color or national origin.”

Julie Pace, an Arizona lawyer who brought suit challenging the 2007 law, issued, with her colleagues, an analysis of the new law arguing that “the word ‘solely’ makes this purported anti-discrimination provision an authorization to allow racial profiling and discrimination, as long as the government is not 100 percent racially motivated.”

Stewart A. Baker, a former Department of Homeland Security policy official who worked on immigration overhaul in the Bush administration, said fears of the new law were overblown.

Originally Posted by classicman

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?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

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

And we have agreed - Its a controversial issue.

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?

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.

why you think one side is more motivated by the best public interest and the other by political/financial interests? Based on what?

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.

Is one group of law enforcement officials more politically motivated? Why?

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.