jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (69 posts)

Can someone rationally explain the Federal Government's stance on this

  1. tobey100 profile image59
    tobey100posted 6 years ago

    The Federal government has sued a sovereign state, Arizona, claiming its law and policy regarding illegal immigration usurps the authority of the Federal government and violates Federal Law and guidlines.  At the same time the Federal Government turns a blind eye to those illegal immigrants that seek residence in 'sanctuary' cities which also entails a sovereign state imposing law and policy which in effect, usurp the Federal Government's authority and violates Federal law and guidelines.

    If this makes sense to anyone please help me understand.

    1. leeberttea profile image61
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's simple really, sanctuary cities aren't usurping federal law, they are complying with it by aligning their policy with that of the feds.

      Az on the other hand is writing laws opposing federal policy, which is not to enforce existing law.

      It makes perfect sense now, doesn't it?

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      first and foremost, "illegal" immigration is nonsense. was there a law set up to determine if the first settlers were legal or illegal? Of course not - people wanted a better life and just came here. Our government is ruining people who just want a good life - it makes me sick to say that I'm an American.

      Second, the state of Arizona doesn't have to listen to the federal government because the federal government doesn't want to listen to Arizona.

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

        "first and foremost, "illegal" immigration is nonsense. was there a law set up to determine if the first settlers were legal or illegal? Of course not - people wanted a better life and just came here."

        And when they got here they created these things called laws, these laws covered all kinds of circumstances including how to legally immigrate to this country.

        If you think the laws are nonsense then lobby your congressperson to get them changed.

        If that doesn't work, oh well.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          They first had to break many laws (punishable by hanging) before they started writing their own.  Treating people badly because "it's the law" has never been acceptable.

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
            Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            i ACTUALLY agree with Ron.

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              LDT did TWICE yesterday..

              ... Kum ba ya anyone?

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          you're right, jim, talking about an issue in a forum setting IS nonsense...

          ....

          ....

          ....

    3. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The federal government is not turning a blind eye.  That is hyperbole invented to exploit fear and ignorance which unfortunately leads to votes from Palin worshipers.

    4. profile image59
      cewest246posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      leeberttea: go to www.thomas.gov and look for U.S. Codes You will find the Federal Laws to protect borders from Illegal Aliens.  These Codes are the Same as Arizona's Law.

      The same Codes apply to every State and Territories in the U.S.A.  The Founders did not write the responsibilities, rights, privileges and protections of each State as different from each other; ---Only this Obama Progressive-Socialist Administration & no other President before him. --- The Federal Code does Apply to  Every State with Sanctuary Cities! 

      The contrast between this lack of truth in Federal Code contents; along with misusing the word  "Illegal" to mean that the 'group' of people who cross the border using the desert or transporting drugs or becoming indentured slaves who answer only to also Mexicans who take their money and lock them away with fear of reporting their illegal. 

      Bet you haven't talk to LEGAL IMMIGRANTS (Federal Government still uses aliens to describe legal immigrants)?  Next time your at work or in public; ask a legal immigrant, their feelings of Illegals who cross over the border.  Many I have asked; answer the same way:  "I had to wait [anywhere from 6 months to 3 years - plus] to enter the U.S.A  And Pay {#300 - $1200 or more} for the privilege. They want the privilege, learn the duties of service to our Nation, and while part of the silent Americans, are very angry at the special privileges given to ILLEGAL aliens - including any idea of AMNESTY!

    5. profile image59
      cewest246posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Toby 100 - The Obama Administration has no intention of  "making sense"; just as it has no intention of honoring their "Oath of Office".  For more about how this Administration utilizes its own definitions of politics, ethics, law; along with the "tactics"of "The End Justify's The Means";  Google or search for 1) Saul Alinsky's "Handbook for Liberals"; 2) Cloward-Piven's "Strategy to Destroy Capitalism"; and 3)  Watch or listen to Glenn Beck - he identify's how #1 or 2 works today! 4) Shawn Hannity, Neil Cavuto, Bret Baire (?sp) , Pat O'reilly.

  2. Misha profile image76
    Mishaposted 6 years ago

    Looking for rationality in government is a waste of time. Does not mean I have any opinion on Arizona law. smile

    1. tobey100 profile image59
      tobey100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That's a given Misha.  I guess my question is more logic centered.  Regardless of your stance regarding the Arizona law, how do the Federal Government's actions appear to be based on anything but politics?  Sort of like even though it's illegal you cannot arrest bank robbers in Phoenix but if you rob a bank in San Fransisco, no sweat'.  Even though I don't care for the majority of them, these folks we have in Washington are not stupid people.  They have to realize how this appears to us underlings.  Or am I giving them too much credit?

      1. Misha profile image76
        Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No, I think they do realize. Yet we the people let them get away for so long they just don't care now, their experience shows anything goes...

  3. profile image0
    pcoachposted 6 years ago

    Tobey, it is politics, all politics, and nothing but politics.  Have you read the memo that Graessle found written by the USCIS?  I have.  It is the Obama administration's plan to avoid congress on the issue of immigration and to expand the powers of the USCIS to basically grant amnesty to some 13 million illegals.  The only problem that solves is democrats electability in 2012.  Do not believe for one minute that, while it seems their actions are stupid, that they are stupid.  This administration knows exactly what it is doing and if good Americans don't start waking up, we will have nothing to wake up to.

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

      Obama's real problem with Arizona's law is he has to campaign there and he is afraid they will ask him for his proof of citizenship.

    2. tobey100 profile image59
      tobey100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I haven't read the memo but I've heard several excerps.  I know its got alot of folks around here fired up.  I think the only thing Obama will accomplish pandering to the illegals and minorities is the slaughter of Democrats in the Nov 2010 and Nov 2012 elections.

  4. profile image0
    pcoachposted 6 years ago

    Thought I would share this with you.  It was written by a college classmate of Obama's.  Very enlightening in a "we are already picking it up" sort of way.  Enjoy.

    WAYNE ALLYN ROOT: Overwhelm the system

    Barrack Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

    Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

    -- Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. Â It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

    -- Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kickback hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."

    -- Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression?  Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

    -- Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.

    -- Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.

    -- Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.

    With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

    Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan.

    1. Artisina profile image60
      Artisinaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks so much for this information. I could see the government taking more and more control but couldn't pinpoint how. Now I see how. I knew we were headed for socialism. More and more people dependent on the government. What a way to sell American down the drain. We are pushing for a complete dumping of all the incumbents in Nov. Maybe that will help. It may be too late. We have seen what being dependent on the government does to the people in other countries, but we may be too docile and lazy to fight back.
      Thanks again for a great hub. I will be sending people to it to learn.

    2. profile image59
      cewest246posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wayne Allen Root - Thank you very much!  You wouldn't happen to know if he actually graduated or not...would you?  I answered with Cloward-Piven and added Saul Alinsky. 

      I couldn't agree with you more about his studies.  At Yale, he studied the Constitution to destroy it --- not  "...preserve, protect, and defend.." of Article II:1:8 which lets every Citizen understand why no Religion or Ethics - except Islam - which is why lies don't matter, it is OK for Islamic's to build an mosque on Ground Zero, why prisoners on Guantanamo must come to U.S.A. soil; and why he made the hip at 90 degrees - bow - to the President of Arabia!  See U-Tube for 8-12 videos in Obama's words.

  5. Arthur Fontes profile image90
    Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago

    To me. The Federal government bringing a case to court on behalf of a non citizen or any foreign entity constitutes TREASON against the nation.

    1. Strophios profile image59
      Strophiosposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's not on behalf of a non-citizen, it's on behalf of the federal government who doesn't like their constitutional rights being infringed upon.

      1. Cagsil profile image60
        Cagsilposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Infringing on who's rights?

        Illegals have no rights to be even in the Country, never mind, anything else.

        They are NON-citizens of this Country(USA). The government is suppose to bring cases to court on behalf of LEGAL citizens.

        Got it? I hope so.

        1. Strophios profile image59
          Strophiosposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I'm aware. The federal government was not bringing this case to court on behalf of anyone else, only for itself. Immigration policy falls under the jurisdiction of the federal government, thus a state law which legislates upon immigration policy is infringing upon the government's rights (i.e. the powers etc. which it has granted to it under the constitution).

          Furthermore, even if the government's argument had been grounded upon, say, the likelihood of racial profiling or similar (which it was not), it would still be on behalf of legal citizens, namely those citizens who would be profiled. Keep in mind that this is a hypothetical, because racial profiling is nowhere mentioned in the government's case.

      2. Arthur Fontes profile image90
        Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this



        The Federal Government could enforce their own law whenever they choose.

        They choose not to enforce the law.

        What about the STATE's rights to ptotect itself from foreign invaders?

        1. Strophios profile image59
          Strophiosposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          No, they choose to enforce it in a way which makes sense: focusing governmental resources on those illegal immigrants likely to be security risks instead of wasting money deporting, detaining, and chasing illegal immigrants who are of no risk to us. This is not to say that no effort/money is spent on such immigrants, just that the government's attention is (wisely) focused.



          There are two major things wrong with this statement:

          1. Your use of caps seems to imply that you consider Arizona not just a state (i.e. a member of "these United States" but a sovereign nation in its own right. Such a consideration is incorrect, that's not how these United States function, as was proved decisively (for good or for ill) in the Civil War. If I'm wrong in reading this into your use of caps, then I apologize. Although then I am confused as to why you use caps at all.

          2. Your claim that this relates to a state's "right to protect itself from foreign invaders" is laughable. Illegal immigrants are not "invaders" and to classify them as such is an egregious error and, if meant seriously, an example of truly reality shattering paranoia.

          1. Arthur Fontes profile image90
            Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Why does all government agencies spell MY NAME in all caps?

            State's are Sovereign,  The United State's was set up by the State's agreement to unify not give up their sovereignty.


            21 States Claiming Sovereignty: AZ, AL, AK, AR, CA, CO, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, ME, MI, MO, MT, NH, NV, OK, PA, TX, & WA
             

            Also if someone enters my home illegally while I am in my home it is known as Home Invasion and the person entering illegally would be the invader.

            1. Strophios profile image59
              Strophiosposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              And yet, when such states tried to exercise the rights of a sovereign state, like ceding from a voluntary union, or nullifying federal law, they were unable to do so. The simple fact is that, regardless of the rightness of the matter, it was long ago decided that the states are not sovereign entities, they are component parts of the sovereign United States of America, a fact subtly hinted at by the post-Civil War practice of referring to "the United States" as opposed to "these United States."
               



              If someone enters your home illegally while you are in your home for the purpose of committing a violent crime against you (or another occupant). So, in reality, the comparison to home invasion is actually fairly appropriate, it just doesn't mean anything like what you think it means.

              1. Arthur Fontes profile image90
                Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                State Rights vs Centralized power is still a major discussion in this country.  The war between the state's did not submit the states to federal authority.

                States are sovereign.  The discussion still continues.

                from:  http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/10t … esolution/

                10th Amendment Resolution

                The following is a sample 10th Amendment House Concurrent Resolution approved by the Tenth Amendment Center. Activists, we encourage you to send this to your state senators and representatives – and ask them to introduce this resolution in your state.

                A RESOLUTION affirming the sovereignty of the People of the State of _________.

                WHEREAS, in the American system, sovereignty is defined as final authority, and the People, not government, are sovereign; and

                WHEREAS, the people of the State of __________ are not united with the People of the other forty-nine states that comprise the United States of America on a principle of unlimited submission to their federal government; and

                WHEREAS, all power not delegated by the people to government is retained; and

                WHEREAS, the People of the several States comprising the United States of America created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only; and

                WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and

                WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States, and also that which is necessary and proper to advancing those enumerated powers; with the rest being left to state governments or the people themselves; and

                WHEREAS, powers, too numerous to list for the purposes of this resolution, have been exercised, past and present, by federal administrations, under the leadership of both Democrats and Republicans, which infringe on the sovereignty of the people of this state, and may further violate the Constitution of the United States; and

                WHEREAS, when powers are assumed by the federal government which have not been delegated to it by the People, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy; that without this remedy, the People of this State would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whoever might exercise this right of judgment for them.

                NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE  _____ OF THE _______ GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ______, WITH THE SENATE

                CONCURRING, that we hereby affirm the sovereignty of the People of the State of _______ under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise delegated to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States; and, be it further

                RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal government to cease and desist any and all activities outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers; and, it be further

                RESOLVED, that a committee of conference be appointed by this legislature, which shall have as its charge to recommend and propose legislation which would have the effect of nullifying specific federal laws and regulations which are outside the scope of the powers delegated by the People to the federal government in the Constitution; and, be it further

                RESOLVED, that a committee of correspondence be appointed, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship as currently exists;  that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly those enumerated in the Constitution of the United States, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States; and, be it further

                RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker and the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives, and to each member of this State’s Congressional delegation with the request that this resolution be officially entered in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                  Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Those resolutions aren't worth the paper they're printed on. They're no more than wishes or opinions without force or effect.

                  1. Arthur Fontes profile image90
                    Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    True, my point was that State's rights vs Federal rights is still an ongoing discussion and was not settled by the ending of the Civil War conflict.

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Perhaps, but what does "sovereignty" mean in practice? It's just an empty slogan because of 200 years of Supreme Court decisions granting authority of the federal government on a variety of matters. And we should be thankful for that because of the complexity of modern U.S. society, not to mention the world.

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

        "it's on behalf of the federal government who doesn't like their constitutional rights being infringed upon."

        I thought they were my, yours and everybody's constitutional rights.

        Saddens me to find out the government has stolen them.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          They are "our" rights and I'm glad Judge Bolton is protecting them.

        2. Strophios profile image59
          Strophiosposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          They are indeed "my, yours and every bodies[sic] constitutional rights," but the federal government also has rights, or prerogatives, if you prefer, as laid out in the constitution. That, in fact, is what the constitution is (or could be considered to be): a laying out of the rights and limitations of the federal government. Our positive rights tend to be limitations on what the government can do, so is it such a strange notion that the federal government's positive rights (i.e. to deal with immigration) can be viewed as limitations upon what the states may do?

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

            I noticed my error and fixed it.

            Thank you.

            As for states rights I believe they should have the right to enforce federal laws.

            Matter of fact they are bound by law to enforce federal laws.

            And that is in effect what they are doing.

            You object to the state having the right to create an immigration law because those powers have been designated to the feds?

            Fine, Arizona should quit enforcing federal laws.

            1. Strophios profile image59
              Strophiosposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The states do not create or arbitrate immigration policy; the Arizona law was an attempt to do just that. That is why the federal government has brought suit against it. That is a totally separate issue from states enforcing federal laws. Arizona is expected to enforce federal immigration policy, not to legislate it's own.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
                Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Good point.

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

                I think the State (Arizona) would disagree with your assertion that they don't create or arbitrate immigration policy.

                I have to admit I haven't read the bill does it actually create a new law that is different than the federal law?

                Think I will read it.

        3. Evan G Rogers profile image82
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          No, yours is a misreading of the Constitution. "Constitutional Rights" is actually a kind of nonsense term.

          The Constitution puts direct limits on what each area of government can do. There is a brief list of Congress' ability to do certain things, and then the tenth Amendment makes just about everything else a state issue (unless it's denied to the states, then it's an individual right).

          There is no such thing as a "constitutional right to X", except for a very very brief list of a few things that were tacked on about a decade later as an amendment to the document (which, indeed, makes it part of the document, i'm merely pointing out that these "constitutional rights" didn't actually exist for almost a decade after teh constitution was ratified).

  6. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 6 years ago

    http://tucsoncitizen.com/three-sonorans … amendment/

    What they have going on in the Republican Party is nothing more stupidity and hate and ignorance and elitist objectives that are against the Constitution that anyone who still believes that their platform is about upholding the Constitution is ignorant, period.

    1. leeberttea profile image61
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_ … ntent.html

      The 14th amendment is being abused. It wasn't intended to be used as a way to anchor illegal immigrants in this country.

      I am all for immigration. America should open it's arms to those less fortunate and welcome them here, however, it's a new world, we need to control how many people come into the country, we need to know who these people are. The border needs to be secured.

      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I don't disagree but what these knuckle heads are proposing to do is repeal the 14th so that all the people already born here who are citizens legally, become non citizens. 

        Then what?  Deport millions or billions of people to where?  A place they didn't' come from in the first place?  They should have made it possible to make it easier for the ones already here to become citizens but they blocked that also.

        They are simply being disagreeable to be disagreeable and are not making any head way in making things better.  Nope instead they are making things worse and it shows.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          As much as I'd enjoy piling on regarding the 14th amendment issue, Kyl and Graham are not proposing to abolish the 14th.  They are seeking an interpretation (I know conservatives rarely think the Constitution actually needs to be interpreted)as to whether it's language supports the policy currently in place.

          If it's fair for Obama to ask for a constitutional ruling on immigration, it's also fair for Kyl and Graham to do likewise on a related issue.

          1. profile image0
            sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "Kyl: Illegal Aliens’ Kids Shouldn’t Be Citizens
            Wants Hearing on 14th Amendment Which Grants Citizenship to Children of Illegal Immigrants Born in America".

            "Kyl told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he supports a call by fellow Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., to introduce a new amendment to repeal the 14th Amendment of the Constitution."

            Reasoning might be a hazy shade but the request is pretty black and white.  I don't think it will ever happen but it is pretty insidious to even propose such an action. 

            How does a platform that swears to uphold the Constitution want to strip away rights from natural born citizens?

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The "upholding" is situational.  Both Graham and Kyl have stated publicly that they want the language reviewed.  I think they clearly understand that a repeal is impossible.

            2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
              Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, this one is a tough one. I want people to be able to be citizens of the US withOUT having to be born here, but the 14th amendment needs to be repealed... Maybe JUST amendment 14, sections 3-5.

          2. leeberttea profile image61
            leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The language is pretty clear even if it wasn't the intent of the authors of the law. I think that amendment would have to be changed if you wanted to end the practice of anchor babies.

        2. leeberttea profile image61
          leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Well that doesn't sound right, does that mean I wouldn't be a citizen anymore? We all have immigrants in our family tree.

          I think what must be done is the borders must be secured first. We must stop the flow of people from coming into the country unauthorized and or unknown to us. Once that's done then there can be a conversation on what to do with the people that are here already. Unfortunately the democrats would rather leave the borders porous on the hopes of swelling the ranks of democrat voters at sometime in the future. This is a risky strategy as terrorists can exploit this weakness to gain entry. If there is a terrorist attack from someone that has crossed the border illegally, the democrats will be finished!

          1. profile image0
            sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            All of it is nonsense though. 
            Politifact shows that the crime rate in Az. had and has been dropping for the last 10 years or so, so there is no evidence to suggest that they needed to go to such extremes.  Whatever they had going on was working and in time with the right communication and thinking together, they could come up with something better.

            So why are they doing this?  Jobs, babe, Jobs.  Illegal immigration effects the blue collar workers competing for jobs.  Obama tossed a lot of money into boarder security, more than the previous administrations but he is getting the finger? 

            Those folks, the Republican Tea Party folks are really doing a number on the people who actually believe what they are saying.

            1. leeberttea profile image61
              leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The crime rate is state wide. There are parts of parkland in AZ that is off limits to the public because of the danger from drug gangs and human traffickers. Phoenix is the number one kidnapping capital in the states number 2 in the world after Mexico City, much of that is from "coyotes" holding for ransom the people they are smuggling in from Mexico. These people are being exploited, by business, and by the traffickers many sold into the sex slave trade. If you care at all about people you'd see that a hard line on illegal immigration is best for everybody.

              1. profile image0
                sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I do care about the people that is why I don't like what is going on down there.  Since they decided to deport millions of immigrants, the crime has increased.  Tell me why?  Since they started that, the crime on the other side has become much worse then it was and many more innocent people are dying, tell me why? 

                Most of the immigrants are not criminals, that is fact! Most of them work for less then minimum wage and they are being exploited by the citizens of this country while turning a blind eye to the citizens looking for jobs because they know they can get the service for cheaper by hiring immigrant workers. 

                Illegal immigrations effects those looking for low skill jobs, jobs that do not require a degree, okay?  Now they are being deported, the people who hire the immigrant workers wont hire the legal citizens because they do have minimum wage standards so they wont pay for their services. 

                The bottom line is that I care more about a human life then I do about money.

                1. leeberttea profile image61
                  leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Violence and crime is being fueled by the drug trade. The Mexican government is corrupt and the drug lords are killing anyone they can't buy off and get to do their bidding. They are taking over border cities with the help of the Mexican military to use as staging ares. Human smuggling is big business. People have to pay to be escorted across the dessert with little water. They are abused, raped and killed along the way. Illegal immigration isn't just some poor Mexicans slipping under the fence for a job.

                  1. Misha profile image76
                    Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Are you implying the USA government is not?

                  2. profile image0
                    sandra rinckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, and what you are saying is that American citizens are just as much responsible for the drug trafficking then the Mexicans are.  Yet the poor ones slipping under the barbed wire fences are the ones being detained, sent back, harassed and killed.  It all makes sense. 

                    Our government is corrupt too, Americans smoke a lot of dope.  Please tell me you do not believe that American's down in that region have nothing to do with the drug problem. You cannot be that blind.

                    Drug money is big business and America has a drug consumption problem that their pockets cannot afford. lol

  7. Ralph Deeds profile image71
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    One thing that could and should be done is to remove some of the obstacles facing undocumented immigrants who want to obtain legal status. I was recently asked to sponsor three undocumented Mexican immigrants who live in Arizona. Sponsoring them required me to submit my 2009 tax return and a statement of my assets and to sign a document assuming responsibility to reimburse the government for government services used by the three individuals during the next TEN years, a big hurdle to climb to get a green card. I didn't feel that I was in a position to do that even though the individuals had already been in the country for 15 years or so and were gainfully employed. Also, two of the men had children who are citizens by virtue of being born in the United States. Seems to me we need to adopt a more realistic approach to dealing with these kinds of cases.

    1. leeberttea profile image61
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Let's have that debate after the borders are secured.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The problem is that the term "secured" keeps changing.  If conservatives continue to ignore facts - decreased crossings, lower crime rates etc, we'll never agree on the term.

        The time for comprehensive reform is right now.

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It's impossible to secure our borders! It just can't happen!!

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image71
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Probably true. They could be made more secure than they are now, but never completely secure.

      3. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That scenario won't work because once the borders were secure, if that's even possible (it's a matter of degree), the nativists would do everything they could to block any realistic and humanistic way of dealing with the undocumented immigrants already in the country. Comprehensive reform is the only practical way to go, in my opinion.

    2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      God Bless the Land of the Free!!!

      *cough*

      1. profile image59
        NoAmnestyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You are beating your head against the wall trying to attribute rational thought to the government. Everything government does costs to much, takes too long and only goes halfway. Our "fearless leaders" fear nothing other than the loss of votes and God knows we wouldn't want rationality to get in the way of reelection.

  8. Jim Hunter profile image60
    Jim Hunterposted 6 years ago

    20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
    21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
    22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
    23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
    24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
    25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMEN

    What exactly is wrong with that?

 
working