jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (109 posts)

Why is the Arizona law racist?

  1. 0
    Rieceposted 6 years ago

    Somebody please explain to me why they think the Arizona law is racist. You say it targets Hispanics, but nowhere does the bill say "Hispanics" and 7% of illegals are Asian, and I want them out too. All it says that papers may be asked for if there is reasonable suspicion they are illegal and another violation has already occurred, for which are they are being stopped.

    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it must be a duck, right? If a person happens to have all these duck-like qualities, is it such a pain to pull out papers?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The bill is racist because it obviously targets Hispanics.

      1. TruthDebater profile image60
        TruthDebaterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        False. The bill targets illegal immigrants, not hispanics. There are specific provisions in the bill that go against racial profiling. I'm not surprised you haven't read it when many of your leading politicians haven't either.

        1. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The cops enforcing the law will target hispanics.  They already do in the absence of the law. This just makes the harrassement legal. Hispanics will ahve to tart carrying their papers everywhere, white people won;t--that's what is racist.

          1. Sab Oh profile image60
            Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "harrassment"?

            1. 60
              MidwestACposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The bill, itself, is not racist.  I don't think there is anything in the legislation (and I will admit, I have not read the full text) that specifically targets an ethnic group nor anything that sanctions that profiling of particular groups.  What the bill does do, however, is open the door.  We have laws in this country against murder, theft, arson, fraud of different kinds...just to name the big ones.  These laws don't stop people from committing those and many other crimes, reasons aside.  In this case, just because the law may even explicitly outlaw the profiling or targeting of a certain group (i.e. calling for 'papers' only in 'lawful encounters'), that does not mean all law enforcement officers in Arizona will abide by that requirement and not profile unlawfully.  The legislation, having passed, opens the door for officers to potentially abuse it in the name of security and such cases will be difficult for victims to overcome in an Arizona court of law.

    2. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Who do you think will be constantly stopped an asked for papers? A white foreigner like me, or a Hispanic American?

      1. Jim Hunter profile image60
        Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        After someone is legally detained the officer has every right to ask for identification.

        Your premise that Hispanics will be the only ones detained is just hyperbole.

        Every time I have been stopped by the police they have always asked for identification.

        1. Greg Cremia profile image60
          Greg Cremiaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I carry my identification with me too. But I don't carry proof of my citizenship. Do you carry proof of your citizen ship with you? Drivers licenses don't count as proof of citizenship.

          1. Jim Hunter profile image60
            Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            An illegal immigrant can't get a DL so...

            1. Greg Cremia profile image60
              Greg Cremiaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Not all states require proof of citizenship to get a DL. So there are lots of illegals with DLs.

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 03555.html

      2. lightning john profile image60
        lightning johnposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You are a foreigner?

    3. 0
      sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Okay den...

      I am not Mexican but I am often asked if I am.  Have you ever been on a bus that got stopped by boarder patrol?  I have.  Do you know how uncomfortable it feels to be asked for your DL just because you don't look white? 

      Besides that, the problem Az. is having is illegal immigration over the Mexican boarder.  It doesn't take a genius to understand that even though their law doesn't specifically say, "mexicans", that they are looking for them. 

      It's profiling no matter how you look at it and it is wrong.

      1. Sab Oh profile image60
        Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        By that reasoning ANY border control is "wrong."

      2. Misha profile image75
        Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        My Goddess, I may say a blasphemy, but profiling is not always wrong IMO. In fact it is a great mechanism built into us to help our survival. smile

        1. 0
          sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Sure if they are looking for a job in child care or something. lol big_smile

          1. Misha profile image75
            Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I guess Your Majesty don't have this problem at your current location wink

            1. 0
              sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Na, mostly I am saying that it goes a little far with respect to peoples privacy and that I think if they really wanted to make it better, they could do a better job at tracking down criminals instead of instigating a law that says, "hey that one looks like an illegal mexican, let's get him!" lol.

              1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                But the law doesn't say that.

                1. 0
                  sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  It is implied.

                  1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    No it isn't.

              2. Misha profile image75
                Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                LOL If it was not about government, I would have argued against you. Yet since it IS about government, no doubt they will use it to complicate the lives of law abiding citizens and legal visitors...

    4. darkside profile image80
      darksideposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What's the difference between an illegal Hispanic and a legal Hispanic? How do you see illegal?

      1. Sab Oh profile image60
        Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That's what documentation is for.

        1. darkside profile image80
          darksideposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          How do you pick out a likely target before asking for said documentation?

          1. Jim Hunter profile image60
            Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            By following the law as every police officer in this country is sworn to do.

            When they have been legally detained you ask for identification.

            This isn't really that hard to figure out.

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
              Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Every police department in the country also has the right to prioritize.  Under this law, Arizona police departments give up that right.

          2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Habla Ingles?

    5. ceciliabeltran profile image84
      ceciliabeltranposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      law is a reflection of the cultural consensus of rights and wrongs.

    6. Blogging Erika profile image73
      Blogging Erikaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The bill is racist because the only way to enforce it is to discriminate against people based on their (appearance of) race.

      For example, let's say there's a guy who's in this country illegally.  Let's say he's Mexican, even!  But he's white.  (Yes, there are white people in Mexico.)

      He's never going to get pulled over or questioned under this bill, because he "looks like he belongs here."  Why does he look like he belongs here?  Because he's white.

      Note how this presupposes that people who are not white do not belong here.  That's racist.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        IF the Arizona law had mandated a State ID which everyone must get and carry - that wold be non-discriminatory. If eveyone was asked at random checkpoints to show ID and EVERYONE without ID was detained automatically if they can't provide the state license, that would be fair.

        However this kind of even-handed enforcement of a police state would scoop up soccer moms and white businessmen who forgot their wallet - white people. So it was written with  the expectation that police would use discretion - and that spells profiling.

        Should the people of Arizona decide to impose upon themselves a police state that is applied - and must be applied - with NO discrimination so that anyone without papers is incarcerated, fine. The rest of the country will stay away rather than subject themselves to the 'visa' requirements of Arizona.  Of course they won't do that. They designed a law which is built around racial profiling and they intend to dance around that fact.

  2. MikeNV profile image77
    MikeNVposted 6 years ago

    It's not racist at all.  That is the answer you want, and that is the answer you get.

    Those who want to say it is Racist are the true Racists as ILLEGAL does NOT equal Hispanic.

    Illegal is not a Race, but some people just don't get that.

    And if you do think it's a racist bill then you must think that ALL HISPANICS ARE ILLEGAL.

    1. Dave Barnett profile image59
      Dave Barnettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Must be diff. forum I was in earlier. It's not racist. It targets undesirables that we don't want here. Mexican is not a race, neither is hispanic. Now if you want to bitch about it targeting people of native american descent, now that"s racist. Haven't heard any who are against or for. Any feedback out there?

  3. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    For anyone that disagrees with this law!!...  Do you have a better plan to secure our borders?

       How do you propose to stop millions of illegial border crossings?

       AND do it without pi----g someone off.

       Someone is always goina say; "That's Not Fair"

    1. luvpassion profile image60
      luvpassionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Plant blackberry brambles all along the border.

      wink

      1. ptosis profile image81
        ptosisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Cute answer guy - but these folks have already traveled thousands of miles already such as the OTM's, (other than Mexicans).

        Then have to worry about the drug smugglers killing them besides the Border Patrol. Some are stripped naked underneath the sewers that travel from Mexico to US Nogales.

        Traveling in 114 F heat many have 'died in their tracks' holding a milk cartoon half filled with urine. The area has the largest concentration of the most deadly snakes, scorpians and cacti spikes that  will cut right through a steel belted tire. If have shoes - will be all blistered up from the hot sweaty socks. If use sandals  - bust your toes and don't forget the little fire ants. And if Monsoon season - - don't sleep in the dry washes - the wall of water will kill you.

        So your cute answer means you don't know jack or jill about how many people have already died and will continue to die. If the border was truly  closed and there really was no way to cross the desert - maybe those people would be alive, (but poor) back in 'ol mexico.

        1. Vladimir Uhri profile image60
          Vladimir Uhriposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          you know what? when you are concern about dying, why you do not take 10 Mexican to your house and feed them? when I escaped from communism, I took risk I could die, swimming in Adriatic sea for 3 hrs. I got that time heard acceleration of 200 per minute I felt I am gona to dye.

          1. ptosis profile image81
            ptosisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            WTF? So you are an undocumented? And that's OK for you but not for anyone else? I don't understand why you give redneck answer telling me to go ahead and have 10 Mexicans live with me - - you've Americanized well comrade!

            I met one of the pentecostal Russians that President Reagan arranged to be deported to USA - the guy was a creep. Russia didn't want them - just like the Caucasians that the Quakers paid for their trip to Canada - they were unwanted also because refused to be fighting for army. Now those Potopoff's sneaked in from Canada and living in Kansas fantasizing that they are Spetnaz. Some peaceniks huh?  They were just army deserters.

            Cuba did the same thing - they stuffed a bunch of criminal and mental cases to Florida as part of the humanitarian exodus - also unwanted by the originating country.

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's been proposed, nearly became law, and was even supported by Republicans.  It's called comprehensive reform; taking into account the realities of the situation, not giving in to irrational fears.

      Unfortunately the Becks and Limbaughs whipped the rubes up into a frenzy and the Republicans changed their minds.

      Fox commands, Republicans obey.

      1. luvpassion profile image60
        luvpassionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Darn...an I was going to run on that platform...I think I got $10,000 lying around somewhere...oh well.

        (Hugs)

        1. Dave Barnett profile image59
          Dave Barnettposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          We, the people, should make a platform that the next legislators have to conform to to get our vote. If the Fed were inforcing the standing laws, we prob'ly wouldn't be having this conversation. but the problem isn't just immigration. the problem is,as we say SYSTEMIC.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The existing laws are woefully inadequate.  The problem is that if the number of immigrants allowed in was reflective of the actual needs of the US and Mexico, The demise of the Republican party would be accelerated.  For some reason they are choosing the slow, painful death.

            1. luvpassion profile image60
              luvpassionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Nobody ever gets my jokes.

              (Hugs again)

      2. Jerami profile image77
        Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        somebody is not goina like any idea that might work.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          True dat!

          Unfortunately the Republican leadership believes that showing open contempt for Hispanics is a winning strategy.  It helps in the short term, but it hastens the end of this dinosaur's party.

          1. Jim Hunter profile image60
            Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Open contempt for Hispanics?

            I guess if the left says it enough it might stick.

            Doesn't make it true, but that never seems to matter.

            Most of the Hispanics I know are in favor of anything that slows the flow of illegal immigration.

            Dat true.

            1. luvpassion profile image60
              luvpassionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Don't count the GOP out yet there all still bushes to go around...Neil Bush, Jeb Bush, Marvin Bush.

              1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not counting the GOP out.

                Its pretty clear they are making a comeback.

                I will have to disagree on any Bush's coming back.

                That ship sailed.

                1. luvpassion profile image60
                  luvpassionposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Joking...see what I mean. I give up...gnight.

            2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
              Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Both of them?

              1. Jim Hunter profile image60
                Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Quite a few of them actually.

                Does that surprise you?

                Most of them are a lot more conservative than I am.

          2. Jerami profile image77
            Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Sometimes when things get so bad, there doesn't appear to be a solution.

    3. darkside profile image80
      darksideposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Howsabout... securing the border?

      1. Misha profile image75
        Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Like an Iron Curtain or Berlin Wall? wink

        1. Jerami profile image77
          Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I got it...   Take the dirt out of the Rio Grand; give it to New Orleans to rebuild the dikes..  New Orleans  gotta give up all their gaters for the new Moat

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry, Jerami, the firshermen down there will complain.  Assuming, that is, that the fish haven't already been trampled to death by millions of pairs of feet.

            Other than that, I like it!  lol

            1. Jerami profile image77
              Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              actually the illegals crossing the river would thank us for providing food for their journey.

        2. darkside profile image80
          darksideposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          An electric cattle fence works for me.

          1. Misha profile image75
            Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            It won't do the job smile

            1. darkside profile image80
              darksideposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              How are borders usually secured?

              I live in Australia, we use the ocean to separate us from other countries.

              1. Misha profile image75
                Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                The best I know of was Berlin wall. Even there there were people who tried and managed. Essentially it all boils down to cost on one hand and willingness to do this on the other I think. smile

                1. darkside profile image80
                  darksideposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  The Great Wall of China kept the Mongols out for a while.

                  1. Misha profile image75
                    Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    You may want to ask Chinese what it cost them. I really doubt USA nowadays can afford it. smile

          2. Sab Oh profile image60
            Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I do NOT want to eat any beef from electric cattle!

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Oh come on, Sab - we quick dry and freeze our food to temperatures unheard of by nature.  We nuke it and we fill it with chemicals.  We mash it and grind it and remove all the nutrients.  We even change it genetically.  What's a little electrification by comparison?  Be a sport - have a little battery beef!  Mikey likes it!  lol

  4. Arthur Fontes profile image91
    Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago

    The thing is the United States does not have illegal immigrants.

    That is the misconception,  What we got here is a case of a multitude of undocumented Democrats!

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That is clever.

      And scary as all hell.

    2. Sab Oh profile image60
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      And don't think the dems don't know it!

  5. AEvans profile image69
    AEvansposted 6 years ago

    Why is the Arizona law racist? mmmmm..... First the law cannot be racist, it isn't human. lololololo big_smile

    But seriously the law itself does not impose racism, it is the same law Mexico is governed by. If you travel to Europe and you are stopped for speeding, you had better have your PP. Is that called profiling because you look American? No ,you have been caught speeding but in the meantime you better show proper ID   

    Living in Arizona and traveling the freeways everyday, I honestly have not seen our officers pull people over because they are Mexican. I have seen white, black, yellow, etc. pulled over mainly because they have led feet or there license plates are expired.

    What is funny is that people pull out the race card but quite a few of our border patrol, officers, etc. are hispanic. It is just another reason for many of them not wishing to become legal or get dual citizenship and I am not buying it.

    Until people who live it, nobody has an idea what living here can be like I wrote about this so I have no further discussion.

  6. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    The Arizona law will obviously have a disparate impact on Hispanics. It will probably be declared unconstitutional.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Thankfully, Arapaio who is salivating at the chance to enforce this sham will not be in office much longer. smile

      http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ … steps.html

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Why do you think it will have a disparate impact on Hispanics?  Simply because the large majority on the criminal activity addressed by the law is done by Hispanics in that area of the nation?

      Throughout our nation we find local concentrations of a particular race - it may be caucasion, black, oriental, american indian, or any other race.  This is a natural occurrence as people tend to congregate together with other people they are most familiar with, but does not indicate (at least to me) that laws are to be ignored in these areas because it would be racial profiling to investigate a crime.  Should we not investigate a murder in California's "china town" simply because most residents, and therefore most potential murderers, are oriental?  At one time, if I remember and understand our history correctly, there were cities with large populations of Italians and also with a large, primarily Italian, mob presence creating havoc.  Should we not pursue the mob activities and personnel because they were a mostly of a certain race?  In my area police commonly park and observe as high school students leave school in the afternoon - these drivers are well known to violate traffic and safety laws in their exuberance to leave school.  Is it profiling?  They are all young new drivers and probably mostly male ones that burn rubber and cut cookies as they enter the roadway - does that make it wrong to target the known group of offenders?

      If an unknown rapist leaves a DNA sample indicating he is black should we target caucasian and orientals first and foremost to show that we are not profiling?  If a group of small statured bank robbers speaking chinese escapes should we round up all the zulu immigrants for questioning?  Law enforcement nearly always targets a particular group of people whether it be by race, sex, age or other characteristic, and it is right that they begin their investigation that way.

      I am also curious as to why you think it will be declared unconstitutional.  I do not necessarily disagree (politically oriented judges with their own ethical and moral agendas make more law than our legislature, I think), but which part of the constitution would the Arizona law violate in your opinion?

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this



        The pre-eminance of federal law over state.  Only the federal government can decide immigration issues.  The supporters claim that Arizona'a law is a mirror of federal law and is thus constitutional - The overwhelming majority of constitutional experts agree.

        The hysteria whipped up by the law's backers is that crime is rampant and rising along the border.  Statistics strongly indicate the opposite.

        The law is of no practical value, but is very useful politically.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Do you think a Berlin-style wall would be compatible with our longstanding "Good Neighbor" policy? Is the hated Berlin Wall a symbol we want to adopt in this country?

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            No Ralph, I certainly don't.  You should ask Misha what he thinks. smile

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            We have a very good neighbor to the North.  To the south, on the other hand, we have one that seeks to manipulate our political systems for their own desires and appears to actually believe that we "owe" them somehow as the dumping ground for their undesirables.  A wall would make a more reasonable neighbor on the south side.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It will be declared unconstitutional because the law targets and will have a disparate impact on a particular ethnic group in violation of the 14th Amendment. (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and I last studied Constitutional law in 1955 or thereabouts.)

        1. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It targets illegal immigrants, it is not the legislatures fault or the fault of the law that illegal immigrants in Arizona are a majority Hispanic.

          I believe it will be struck down at the 9th circuit court of appeals then when it hits the competent supreme court it will be upheld.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You may be right, though it would be quite a stretch in my mind.  Unfortunately I, like you, and certainly not a lawyer.

          Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; [b]nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[b]

          Seems like the last part of the last sentence could be used to strike it down with a very liberal "interpretation" of the wording.

  7. Daniel Carter profile image91
    Daniel Carterposted 6 years ago

    The bill is not racist. As I understand it, it doesn't define how to identify illegal aliens without obviously engaging in racial profiling. Therein lies the rub.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Although the law itself doesn't, the training program to go with it does define how.  Police are to look for such things as nervousness, wearing too many clothes for the weather, standing in locations known to be used by illegals looking for work, and others.

      http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/47977#post1098477 is a forum post on it.

  8. ADDHome profile image61
    ADDHomeposted 6 years ago

    Has ayone here read this op-ed piece?

    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinio … iz_not_ri/

    What do you think about it?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Politics is such a clean, well run and honest business! 

      Seems like I've heard a few other states (Mass., maybe?) are in the process of introducing a similar bill.  It will be interesting to see just which ones Obama goes after.

  9. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    In a supreme effort to avoid any hint of political incorrectness, I propose we forget profiling by ethnicity OR the Great Wall of AZ and set up a reciprocity program.
    Since (as some proffer) Mexico is "sending us their undesirables" let's send our undesirables down to Mexico.
    Just open our CA jails (at least the ones south of Fresno) and say "Adios."

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Sounds like a winner to me if you would please sent your avatar to keep 'em there?  smile

  10. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    http://mediamatters.org/research/201004290029

    Hmmm. The stats on "rampant, rising crime rates" in AZ seem to bear no basis in fact. If you don't like this source, there are dozens more I could cite.

    What I find interesting is the line that says Arizona's illegal population has been growing at 70%, notwithstanding the reduction in crime rates.

    By that logic, border states (and ALL states!) should be WELCOMING illegals for their crime-reducing effects.

    cool

  11. Uninvited Writer profile image81
    Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago

    I tried to mention that the US crime rate was going down all across the board in another discussion but it was ignored in favor of hysteria. I found the facts on the CIA site.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      So its ok that illegal immigrants stay because the crime rate is going down?

      I don't understand why its so difficult to see their being here is a crime?

      Explain it to me please?

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'll make it very simple for you - you won't get it but here goes

        Crossing the border illegally is a class b misdemeanor.

        Jaywalking is a class b misdemeanor.

        The founding fathers- idolized and misquoted by so many on the right, committed treason (a capital offense) as their first act in forming the United States.

        Statements like "they's all illegal jus lahk murderers an such" are moronic.

        1. Jim Hunter profile image60
          Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          A misdemeanor is a classification of a what? Say it with me now, a crime.

          People are arrested for misdemeanors all the time.

          Moronic?  Yeah, you are so right.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You've never spit on the sidewalk?

            You've never run a redlight?

            What effort did you put into claiming US citizenship?
            hint: pure luck of the draw doesn't count as effort.

            You have committed more "crimes" than most of these immigrants.

            Lumping them in with murderers and drug dealers means anyone who has committed "crimes" is a threat to society.

            Since everyone posting is a criminal in your mind, maybe we should all pack our bags.

            1. Jim Hunter profile image60
              Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Everyone who has crossed the border illegally is a criminal.

              You can whine all you want but it still remains a fact.

              When I ran a red light I was issued a citation, I paid a fine, I was punished for the crime as small as it is.

              I am not lumping anyone with murderers that is your hysterical reaction to facts.

              Sorry.

  12. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    My comment was intended as tongue-in-cheek. I guess you don't (yet) know my humor.

    UW -- No comment on citing "facts" from the CIA :-)! LOL

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I got the joke and it was clever.

      But nobody seems to be bothered by the fact that illegal immigrants are here and that in of itself is a crime.

      I don't care what their origin is they are committing a crime.

      Isn't that enough to seek them out and return them to their country of origin?

  13. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    As a practical matter, if the United States did not find economic benefit to having illegal immigrants here we would find a way to get rid of them, but quick.
    If you have not seen the movie "A Day Without a Mexican" I highly recommend it.

    If we as a country (or as a state) are serious about cutting off the money flow, here's my suggestion:
    1. Rather than targeting the illegal immigrants themselves, we should go after people who employ them. If a cop sees a construction supervisor or farmer stopping to pick up the day's labor pool, they should have the right to require the employer to show papers on all of their workers.
    2. Americans would need to be willing to pay substantially higher prices for many products and services. You want unions out there in our orchards and fields picking the produce? Okay, but it's gonna cost ya.
    3. Americans would also need to be willing to perform the jobs currently performed by illegals. IDK on that one -- maybe two years of an ecomony in the tank has lowered our noses somewhat. With unemployment as high as it is, maybe us whities WOULD consider doing the jobs they do for the money they earn.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "1. Rather than targeting the illegal immigrants themselves, we should go after people who employ them. If a cop sees a construction supervisor or farmer stopping to pick up the day's labor pool, they should have the right to require the employer to show papers on all of their workers."

      But aren't you against the harassment of people? That seems to be the predominate argument what gives the police the right to stop anybody? How do we know that the labor pool you describe are actually here illegally? So you are actually suggesting that we still identify the illegal we just do it through the guy hiring. Not much difference there.


      "2. Americans would need to be willing to pay substantially higher prices for many products and services. You want unions out there in our orchards and fields picking the produce? Okay, but it's gonna cost ya."

      Unions in the orchards? I think we could probably find people who do not belong to a union to pick the produce. We have managed to find many,many people who work everyday and do not belong to a union. You may be right the price of goods may go up but the drain on our tax dollars would go down.

      "3. Americans would also need to be willing to perform the jobs currently performed by illegals. IDK on that one -- maybe two years of an ecomony in the tank has lowered our noses somewhat. With unemployment as high as it is, maybe us whities WOULD consider doing the jobs they do for the money they earn."

      I know construction workers (Hispanics included) who are out of work because an illegal crew will do the job for half of what they are able to do it for. For that significant reduction in price you get zero warranty. You can not find the people you hired or they refuse to come back to repair their work. Many "whities" not only would consider doing the job they would jump at the chance to do the job.

      1. Diane Inside profile image86
        Diane Insideposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That sounds like it should work, but I know a company who has police raids on a regular basis because they are know to employ illegals.  They take them away in paddy wagons, then about a month later they hire a whole new crew,  a couple of months later etc....   They should shut them down if they see this happening but they don't.

        The company I know about employs 14 year old mexican girls among other. So not only illegal aliens, but child labor as well.

        Yet they are still in business.

  14. Diane Inside profile image86
    Diane Insideposted 6 years ago

    It seems to me that if you are a legal citizen and have the proper papers you have nothing to worry about. So why are they leaving Arizona as I saw in the news if not because they obviously do not have the proper papers.

  15. Studio E profile image60
    Studio Eposted 6 years ago

    Lets pass a law that say every illegal move in with a democrat family free and clear and if they refuse we deport the democrat family and let the illegals keep their property. problem solved.smile

  16. Mighty Mom profile image92
    Mighty Momposted 6 years ago

    Well,these are some very creative solutions!
    If our elected representatives were really representing "us" they would be considering these options.
    I'm writing my Congresswoman IMMEDIATELY!

    Ok, I know I'm gonna get slammed for this, but here goes.
    Besides eliminating the economic incentive to come here, we could change the law that encourages illegals to breed and make "anchor babies." You may be illegal but if your kids are born here they are citizens. I've never quite understood that one.

    1. Jim Hunter profile image60
      Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I don't understand it either.

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this



      It's called the Constitution - try reading it.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It is indeed the constitution.  What is NOT in the constitution, at least as I understand it, is the concept that the parents inherit the right to also be citizens. 

        Deport the parent.  If they wish to leave a newborn here I cannot believe we couldn't find parents badly wanting to adopt it.  The practice and concept would soon stop.

  17. Studio E profile image60
    Studio Eposted 6 years ago

    That law is called the democrat two card molly hahahahaha

    1. Studio E profile image60
      Studio Eposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The democrats future voting block.

  18. SparklingJewel profile image67
    SparklingJewelposted 6 years ago

    The Department of Injustice
    Attorney General Eric "Cherub" Holder (referring to the picture of him standing directly in front of and emblem with an eagle, where the wings are on Holders shoulders)

    The Justice Department filed suit against the state of Arizona Tuesday over its recently passed immigration law, saying the law "interferes with the federal government's balanced administration of the immigration laws" and, therefore, has crossed a "constitutional line." And believe us, no one knows more about crossing constitutional lines than the Obama administration.

    In fact, the administration's real reason for suing may be patent infringement on constitutional line-crossing.

    Truly, the lawsuit could allege copyright infringement, because all Arizona did was copy federal law. We don't know if Attorney General Eric Holder has actually read the 18-page law yet, but, as we've said before, it merely makes it a state crime for people to be in Arizona if they're in the United States illegally. If the police have an otherwise lawful encounter with someone, and if they have "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the U.S. illegally, the police are required to ask for documentation of immigration status. An Arizona driver's license is sufficient.

    The law is not, as the DoJ alleges, an attempt "to set immigration policy at the state level." It is an effort to enforce federal laws that are not being enforced. If there's a legitimate criticism, it's that police resources are scarce enough without this added burden. But that's not Arizona's fault.

    The bottom line is that the administration is seeking to do two things: preserve (or even expand) the power of the executive branch in immigration law and policy and win over an important and growing constituency group for generations to come.

    It's the second point that brings us to another Justice Department action -- that of dropping a slam-dunk case against the New Black Panther Party (another valuable constituent group for the Democrats) for intimidating voters on Election Day 2008 in Philadelphia. We don't know how much clearer the evidence can be than having the Panthers caught on video wearing paramilitary garb, wielding billy clubs and shouting racial threats at potential white voters in front of a polling place. Indeed, Bartle Bull was an eyewitness. He's also a former civil rights attorney and publisher of the ultra-liberal Village Voice. He called it "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen."

    Initially, the administration pursued the case, which was brought during the final days of the Bush Administration, winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 after the Panther members failed to appear in court. A month later, however, Justice moved to dismiss charges in exchange for one Panther member's pledge not to carry a "deadly weapon" to a Philadelphia polling place and only until 2012. Not surprisingly, mainstream media coverage of this gross miscarriage of justice has been virtually non-existent.

    The problem is race-based and it is endemic. J. Christian Adams, an ex-Justice official who resigned over the department's handling of the case, testified Tuesday before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that the DoJ instructed attorneys in the civil rights division to ignore cases involving black defendants and white victims. Furthermore, he alleged that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes declared that she would not enforce Section 8 of the "Motor Voter" law, which requires states periodically to purge voter rolls of felons, the deceased and those who have moved. According to Adams, Fernandes said, "We're not interested in those kind of cases. What do they have to do with helping increase minority access and turnout? We want to increase access to the ballot, not limit it."

    Perhaps stating the obvious, Adams said the dismissal of the Panthers' case "raises serious questions about the department's enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election." It's not just neutrality that's a problem, though. "The salient thing about J. Christian Adams's accusation," writes Richard Fernandez of PajamasMedia, "is that, if true, it constitutes a pure exercise in the abuse of power [by the administration]. The other wrongs it represents -- the perversion of the electoral process, the violation of civil rights -- are secondary. The most serious allegation in the whole affair is that certain officials countenanced a crime because they wanted to."

    The Panther case and the Arizona suit make plain that the Department of Justice is engaging in the Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" method of governance: Give blatant favors to allies and crush opponents with brute force.

    On a lighter note, perhaps the solution would be to combine problems. Instead of leaving them to obstruct voters at the polls, the feds could station Black Panthers with billy clubs at the border.

    from the PatriotPost last week

  19. Flightkeeper profile image79
    Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago

    We can do without illegal help.  Prices may rise some at first, but there will be an adjustment period.  No matter how you want to justify the presence of illegals, there really isn't any justification.

  20. Ohma profile image80
    Ohmaposted 6 years ago

    Doug
    I live about as far away from Arizona as a person can get and still live in the U.S.
    If any person where I live is stopped by an officer and can not provide proper I.D. they are detained. this goes for everyone of a nationalities. They are held until someone can provide their I.D. and then they are charged with failure to carry proper I.D. I know this to be a fact because it cost me about $250 last year. I was not even doing anything wrong. I was at work and got robbed. when the police asked for my ID and I could not provide they took me to county processing until my son could bring my ID.

 
working