Genuine Arizonans Speak Out

1. 58

   Mark Knowlesposted 14 years ago

   http://glossynews.com/other-world-games … -americans
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 61

      SomewayOuttaHereposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      'thems fightin' words!'       a  few influential aboriginal people i've spoken to here in Canada do not consider borders; just see the laws as 'white man laws' and not their laws.  their traditional territories flow to and from Canada and the US in some instances.

      replyreport
2. 67

   MikeNVposted 14 years ago

   Completely unrelated to the real issue which is ILLEGAL ALIENS in our country.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Completely related in every way!  The native Hope Indians are saying with regards to what I assume is the new racial profiling law in Arizona, that it is wrong because some of those Mexican's are from the Indian decent and it is NOT right for the 'white' folks to come and make laws restricting who can and cannot come to Arizona via. profiling.
      
      Profiling alone is pretty wrong considering its heritage and that a mass majority of Arizonian are dark skinned 'mexican' looking people who have lived there for thousands of years.
      
      Of course there isn't enough information in the article to say much more about anything at all but you should be asking yourself a few questions like:  do the Native Indians have 'papers' and do they even need papers? 
      
      If suddenly 'papers' are required to be on the people all the time especially if they are dark skinned mexican or indian looking people, then the their new laws says that the police have the right to stop and detain them and 'deport' them if they don't have their papers.
      
      I think the whole thing is crap and should be completely illegal and I would side with the Natives any day. 

      replyreport
      1. 57

         foreignpressposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         And you live where? Not in Arizona obviously.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I do, and she's right.

            replyreport
3. 94

   habeeposted 14 years ago

   Okay, illegal aliens are ILLEGAL, right??

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      So is jaywalking...
      
      Which country would you like to be deported too?

      replyreport
      1. 63

         Lisa HWposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Well, then - maybe illegal immigrants should be fined according to what they cost the taxpayers; or else maybe they should be thrown in jail, the way other people who commit any number of crimes are.  How about community service where they work for no pay?
         
         Another point is that all crimes are not penalized the same way.  Domestic violence criminals are ordered to stay away from their victims.  Pedophiles are ordered to stay away from children.  Some of the time (anyway) drunk drivers are ordered not to drive and put other people at risk. There are lots of crimes for which  the punishment involves keeping the criminals away from future victims (whether or not there's any jail/prison time).

         replyreport
         1. 81

            kerrygposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Here's a thought, about about cracking down on people who hire illegals? The majority of illegals come to America because there aren't good jobs at home, so if people here would stop hiring them, the problem would virtually disappear on its own.

            replyreport
         2. 59

            Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            You missed the point.  The majority of these "criminals" have committed a class B misdemeanor (equal in severity under the law to jaywalking) and nothing else.  people who can't understand (through lack of effort on their part) any concept beyond "they's all illegal and oughtta be punished" want to lump the 99% of the peaceful, productive hard-working "illegal" immigrants in with the tiny fraction who committ serious crimes.
            
            It's a ridiculous stance held by the willfully ignorant.

            replyreport
            1. 57

               foreignpressposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               The problem doesn't end with merely crossing the border. These illegals also demand to be taken care of. Collectively, they have broken hospitals, welfare agencies, and other "public institutions" like prisons. YOU pay for anchor babies. I'm broke.  Your argument of being willfully ignorant should be address to Mexico. That's where the problem begins and where it should end.
                  By the way, I'm aware of several thousands of starving African children who would also like a shot at the American dream. What makes the Mexicans so special?

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  
                  
                  Proximity and the fact that they have been in "our" country for centuries.
                  
                  I disagree with your point that these people are a net drain on our economy.  They pay SS taxes that benefit US citizens, but in most cases will never be collected by the workers.  They pay sales taxes.  They are a signifigant contributing force to Arizona'a economy - 450,000 people buy a lot of products.

                  replyreport
                  1. 57

                     foreignpressposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Figures collected by numerous states, including Arizona, dispute your argument. Which is why at least 14 other states are also considering a law like SB 1070. The problem is the sheer numbers. Already tens of millions of illegals -- about 80 percent from Mexico and points south -- are in this country with more coming. There is a point of saturation and we've exceeded that. We cannot save the world. Anyway, if you want to dredge up ancient history, human civilization started in Africa. People with flesh hanging from their bones should get first shot at life in America (at least what's left of it).

                     replyreport
                  2. 89

                     wildernessposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm tired of hearing illegals are not a drain on our economy.  Consider the case of "Juan" who sneaks across the border with his wife "Juanita" and their 3 kids.  Juan takes a $10/hour job for 60 hours a week (no OT as the scumbag that hired him doesn't have to pay it) for only $5/hour and works hard and does a good job for a year.  Meanwhile Joe, who had the job first, is out of work and we support him through welfare and/or unemployment.  A year later Juan has "earned"  $15000, of which $1000 is owed to SSI.  Above noted scumbag takes it, but doesn't turn it in as he can't without a SSI #.  In the meantime Juanita has given birth at a hospital and with doctors WE paid for, and we have educated Juans other 3 kids with special spanish speaking teachers WE paid for in schools WE paid for, Juanita went to welfare and collected $5000 worth of food stamps from the spanish speaking assistant WE paid for.  Juan has paid some $1000 in sales tax.  IF he has managed to steal an identity he can now file a tax return and get perhaps $10,000 in a "refund".  In return Juan as performed $30,000 worth of work for which he received $14000.
                     
                     The ONLY winner here is the scumbag - Juan's employer.  Joe lost.  America lost while we supported 2 families that "earned" $15000.  Juan and his family are now wanted criminals.  Juan probably lives in the slums (maybe with Joe as a neighbor now that Joe has no income) which helps reduce property values and creates crime.  To say that Juan has paid his own way here does not have even the slightest basis in fact.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Man, and I thought Jackie Collins wrote some bad fiction!

                        replyreport
                        1. 89

                           wildernessposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           Fiction, eh?  Do you REALLY think you can raise a family on less than minimum wage in the deserts of Arizona?  Do you REALLY think an illegal can consume more than he produces (without American handouts?)  Or are the handouts how he benefits the economy?  Do you REALLY think they don't take jobs from Americans?  I work in the building trades and I assure I've seem more than once an entire crew of spanish speaking workers scatter when the INS comes around.  Meanwhile Americans in the same trade are unemployed in the same city.  Can you possibly believe the pittance he pays in sales tax pays for the services he receives?  Do you REALLY think any SS withheld from his check reaches the govt.?  Or did he steal an identity somehow in
                           another  "jaywalking" episode and so has a valid SS #?

                           replyreport
                  3. 70

                     rhamsonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Ron,
                     
                     What about the employers who hire illegal workers instead of legal workers to get around the higher wages they would have to pay?
                     
                     As it is by sending jobs to China to undermine the higher wage the employer would have to pay, don't you think that it has a negative effect on the standard of living of American workers?

                     replyreport
                     1. 57

                        Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Not exactly.

                        replyreport
4. 81

   BDazzlerposted 14 years ago

   We may not like it and it certainly is not nice, but 90+% of us are able to live where we live because our ancestors killed and/or enslaved and/or otherwise did un-nice things to the people who were there before.
   
   The people who where there before either lacked the will or ability to stop it.
   
   It's why we have wars in the first place. The losers of the wars who are allowed to live, whine about how unfair things are.  If they whine loud enough, someone with strength who wants to feel good about themselves will take up their cause. Before WW2 what we call genocide was just a way to keep the losers' children from killing the winners' children.
   
   It's not nice it's not fair. I'm not saying it's right or it's how it should be, just how it is.
   
   The only question is, do the children and grandchildren of the winners of the war want to keep what their ancestors won by force, or feel good about themselves?
   
   I suspect that when currently legal residents' children and grandchildren are herded up and put onto reservations and killed outright, they will also cry about how unfair it is.
   
   I suspect the Native Americans now wish their ancestors had stricter immigration laws with better enforcement.  Perhaps we could learn from their mistakes?
   
   The situation in Arizona is an undeclared war of the most primitive kind. 
   
   I guess it could be different, but I don't think it will be.  We think we learn and we don't. We think there's a better way, but we never find it.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      "I suspect that when currently legal residents' children and grandchildren are herded up and put onto reservations and killed outright, they will also cry about how unfair it is."
      
      That won't happen. That's why the borders are where they are today.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Only if those borders are actively and effectively enforced. Something this country as a whole may or may not have the will to do.

         replyreport
   2. 57

      Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      "I suspect the Native Americans now wish their ancestors had stricter immigration laws with better enforcement."
      
      Perhaps they wish they had nation-states as we now understand them and had clearly defined and recognized borders as well as the ability to defend them.
      
      etc.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         kerrygposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         So if they'd just been "civilized" like the whites, maybe we wouldn't have slaughtered them and stolen their land?
         
         Somehow I doubt it. Look how well being "civilized" by white standards worked out for the Inca, Aztec, Iroquois, Cherokee, and Hopi.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I was speaking metaphorically. Bottom line is that when their ancestors met our ancestors, it did not bode well for their decedents.  Again, not saying it's right. Only acknowledging long term consequences of prior choices. 
            
            Assuming that the Chief Standing Wolf quote is not a hoax (I could not tell from the context) it appears that he basically agrees.

            replyreport
         2. 57

            Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            "So if they'd just been "civilized" like the whites, maybe we wouldn't have slaughtered them and stolen their land?"
            
            
            No one used the term "civilized" until YOU just now.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Obviously you have never read any of the books written around that time...

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Obviously you are making assumptions and not paying attention...

                  replyreport
               2. 59

                  Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Why do you continue feeding the Troll?

                  replyreport
            2. 69

               drej2522posted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Mimics Sab Oh: "No one used the term "civilized" until YOU just now."
               
               Question...Why do you quote someone when you click reply? Do you realize that you are being redundant? I would think that Kerry would know what you are referring to when you called him out the "civilized" comment.

               replyreport
            3. 81

               kerrygposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               "No one used the term "civilized" until YOU just now."
               
               True. I read between the lines of this statement:
               
               "Perhaps they wish they had nation-states as we now understand them and had clearly defined and recognized borders as well as the ability to defend them."
               
               Whether or not you intended it as such (and I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't), this is what you said:
               
               "If only those silly Indians had bothered to adopt European forms of government with European concepts of land ownership and political boundaries, European levels of population density, and European weaponry, they might still be the dominant force in North America today!"

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  " I read between the lines "
                  
                  That is why you made a mistake.

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     kerrygposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     No, I don't think I did.
                     
                     Modern nation states with clearly defined and defensible borders are European political structures, not Native ones. Why would modern Native Americans wish their ancestors had abandoned their own culture to act like Europeans? It should have been the responsibility of the European invaders to recognize the validity of the indigenous political systems and boundaries, not of the tribes themselves to prove their right to practice their own culture and live on their own land. The fact that the Europeans did NOT recognize indigenous rights only means that they were in the wrong, not the indigenous peoples themselves. Implying otherwise is ludicrous, and worse, helps excuse the actions of people repeating the same patterns today.
                     
                     http://www.culturalsurvival.org/
                     http://www.survivalinternational.org/

                     replyreport
                     1. 57

                        Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        "No, I don't think I did. "
                        
                        I know you don't think so, but you did nonetheless. Your subsequent comments have only compounded your error.

                        replyreport
                        1. 81

                           kerrygposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           Regardless, my point has been made, and anyone who wishes to dispute it with something more substantive than cryptic remarks is welcome to do so.

                           replyreport
                     2. 57

                        Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        "Modern nation states with clearly defined and defensible borders are European political structures"
                        
                        
                        No they aren't

                        replyreport
                        1. 81

                           kerrygposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           "No" doesn't qualify as substantive, sorry.
                           
                           The concept of the nation-state was developed in Europe. It is not even a traditional form of government there, though more so in some regions (such as the Netherlands) than others. It can be realistically applied to very few traditional forms of government outside of Europe, Japan being one of the most prominent exceptions.
                           
                           The closest equivalent in America in 1492 was probably the Incan empire, one of the few native political systems to incorporate a centralized government and well-defined political boundaries. As noted above, neither was much use against Pizarro.

                           replyreport
   3. 63

      Lisa HWposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not all that sure about that 90% figure.  I assume a whole lot of other legal citizens have the kind of ancestry I do.  Then, too, there are people who weren't born here but who came here legally. 
      
      My great, great, great, grandparents were born in Ireland and came to the US legally.  My other grandparents were born in Scotland and came to the US as infants in their parents' arms.  As far as I know, they were all in Ireland and Scotland until whichever generation it was came here legally - and then everyone from them down has been born here, a U.S. citizen.   My father was a WWII veteran, fighting for the US.  My mother, also a citizen, lost her first young husband in WWII.
      
      I don't know who killed who or who fought what wars in Ireland or Scotland, but I'm not seeing any killing and fighting to become U.S. citizens in my background (or in the background of citizens who came here legally and became citizens and Americans legally).
      
      Besides, there's a point where what even anyone's mother or father did isn't the point.  It's what any of us, ourselves, do.  The person who decides to "bust in" to the US because he feels like it is committing a crime, even if he has wonderful, law-abiding, parents in his own country, missing him.
      
      How far back in the past are we all supposed to dwell, and exactly what connection is there between what my great, great, great, grandparents did or didn't do (in Scotland or elsewhere) and what I am/do?  I've been told we had "royalty" somewhere in the distant past.  Is there something I've done to deserve to having some say in ruling Scotland??   :rolleyes"   Whoever those distant ancestors were were who they were.  I'm the kid of a couple of Americans who were born here after their own ancestors came here legally.  The way I see it, I don't even have a shred of a right to claim any "glory" (or shame, if anyone sees it that way) over the fact that my father fought in WWII.
      
      Either way, I don't think my ancestors killed any Native Americans.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I think you just made and missed my point all at the same time.

         replyreport
         1. 63

            Lisa HWposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            It would be interesting to see you elaborate and clarify that point.  One-liners and eye-rolling emoticons don't really make an argument - only imply that there's a valid argument that may or may not hold up under scrutiny.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               They eyerolling icon was in response to your eye rolling icon ...
               
               My point is that we are where we are because of choices, some deliberate and some not so deliberate of people and societies that have come before us.  To judge ourselves by the actions of our predecessors is ... at best irrelevant.  However, there is ALSO something to it, the "better lives for our children" concept.
               
               Your claim that none of your ancestors ever killed any indians because of when they came over was beside the point.
               
               If you live in the US, you likely live on land that some European decendent somewhere took some where either by force,or treachery.
               
               Assuming your are adult over 21 and an average generational length of 40 years, between 1492 and now, 13 generations have passed. That means you have had 8192 direct ancestors since the discovery of America. Odds are not not all of them were born in Europe, but even if they were, you have the entire "Right of Conquest" laws that pretty much puts 100% of Europe on land taken by force.
               
               The "How to deal with the natives problem" was pretty much established by Andrew Jackson, who is probably the most evil criminal in American history.  Most of the land we live East of the Mississippi on that used to belong to the indigenous people was basically stolen  -- by US Law, not 'international' or 'their law" by OUR OWN laws'
               
               It was no less a holocaust than what Hitler did to the Jews.
               
               This is real.  This is un-nice.  And I am a direct beneficiary of it.
               
               And as mean and un-nice as it sounds, I am un-willing to give my little quarter acre back.  And I don't feel bad about it, because as you said, "how many generations of guilt must we carry?"  I refuse to feel guilty about it.
               
               But more than that, I am willing to fight to keep what my ancestors stole.  And the reality is, so are most of us.
               
               Your point is correct, it's been enough generations, that there is no good restitution.  SO ... if this Standing Wolf really exists, and he really said these things, those who "agree" are being unrealistic. It's just another generation of war.
               
               I don't know IF any of our ancestors (and I don't know if I have any Native American blood or not ...) COULD have made other choices, but I do know that the choices we make will impact future generations in unforeseen ways.
               
               Whining about history doesn't help. Understanding it does.  There are a lot of whiners here, who really don't want to understand.  Sometimes there is no good answer, so just you do the best you can.
               
               And KerryG ... please understand that I certainly do NOT believe "if American Indians had been more White they wouldn't have had this problem". Our ancestors were, for the most part, trouble makers and social rejects.  Native American ancestors got stuck with them and dealt with them the best they could.
               
               I have read that there were those natives who wanted to either let the colony at Plymouth starve or kill them while they were weak. If other choices had been made, history would have been different.  A choice was made.  History we have was set in motion. For better or worse.

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  "Andrew Jackson, who is probably the most evil criminal in American history." 
                  
                  That's a ridiculous exaggerration.
                  
                  "It was no less a holocaust than what Hitler did to the Jews. "
                  
                  
                  It was FAR less.

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Have you read the diaries of the soldiers, and what they were ordered to do?
                     
                     Scale does not make better or worse. 
                     
                     BTW, you are correct, I typed "criminal" I meant to type "president".   
                     
                     I do apologize,  I get criminals and presidents mixed up.

                     replyreport
                     1. 57

                        Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Ridiculous exaggerration and attempting to paint history in one dimension. The plight of Native Americans is tragic and outrageous enough without the need for any embellishment out of some misguided sense that doing so will mitigate lingering feelings of guilt.

                        replyreport
                        1. 81

                           BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           Lighten up dude ... I assure you I have no feelings of guilt, and that is my point ... I've told you a million billion times, I Never Exagerate!
                           
                           
                           But I will not pretend that what was done before was right.  And that is my point.  We cannot judge our predecessors by our own contemporary standards, but we must evaluate them in regards to known consequences of their actions, so we can make our own judgments that will impact the future. We cannot change the past, and trying to do so will negatively impact the future.  It's called being conservative.
                           
                           Yes, I use exaggeration as a tool.  We're online.  It's going to be one dimensional.  It's a text conversation, not a text book or even a hub. I'm making one point on one topic. Of course it's going to be limited ... 
                           
                           We can't see face to face.  We can't look in each others eyes. We can't see the sparkle of humor when the exaggeration is made. We can't hear vocal tones.   
                           
                           I still think Andrew Jackson was the most evil president and what he did was criminal.  And I think Woodrow Wilson is a close second, followed by Franklin Roosevelt.  And I don't feel guilty.  And I don't think we should try to correct it.  But that doesn't mean it was right. I do think A LOT of our presidents were criminal. Some for honor. Some for dis-honor.
                           
                           The long term negative consequences of each of their choices were foreseeable and in known violation of the principles of this nation.  But we can't go back and fix it. We just have to learn from the consequences of their actions and move forward.
                           
                           Except I still think we should give Massachusetts back to England, I think it would make the world a better place. Really. Trust me, I never exaggerate to make a point.

                           replyreport
                           1. 67

                              Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              
                              
                              
                              If we go we are taking the rest of the colonies with us.

                              replyreport
                              1. 81

                                 BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                 OK, you can take all 13 of the original colonies, those of us in the Confederate States of America will make our own country!  We'll join with TX!

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 67

                                    Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                    Well played.  I want to emigrate to Texas first.  Nobody will ask me for papers?

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 81

                                       BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       

                                       report
   4. 81

      kerrygposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      "I suspect the Native Americans now wish their ancestors had stricter immigration laws with better enforcement.  Perhaps we could learn from their mistakes?"
      
      Dude, most Europeans during the period in question didn't even consider the Native Americans human. Lack of immigration laws was the least of their problems.

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Do you have any proof that is how most Europeans felt?

         replyreport
5. 61

   lightning johnposted 14 years ago

   That Cheif Standing Wolfe sounds scary.

   replyreport
6. 80

   lovemychrisposted 14 years ago

   Looks like the tea-bags have some oppositon.
   
   So you think YOU want your country back??
   
   ahahha....Chickens coming home to roost. They have been very patient though....must have waited for just the right time.
   
   The Apocalypse.

   replyreport
7. 67

   Arthur Fontesposted 14 years ago

   How come every time I have a run in with the po po they ask me for ID.
   
   Are the Police racially profiling me?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      lightning johnposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      They're just doin their jobs, right.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         Arthur Fontesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         That is their job and usually the least of my problems. LOL

         replyreport
   2. 59

      Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      If you have committed a crime, or have acted in a way that gives them reasonable suspicion that you have done so, then they acted properly.  If they asked for ID because of your appearance and nothing else, you should sue them.

      replyreport
8. 61

   lightning johnposted 14 years ago

   I've had an offer to go to China, ( that I declined by the way) but if I had gone for the position, I wouldn't try to slip in the country without the proper procedure with the government there. And also, I would surely be learning the appropriate language.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Good idea.

      replyreport
9. 57

   T M Wiggsposted 14 years ago

   I have a solution to this whole problem.
   
   Allow anyone who wants to come to the US illegally to do so. However, there is a slight caveat:
   
   Any illegal alien has the following rights:
   1. They have the right to get a job
   2. They have the right to rent or buy a home
   3. They have the right to go to school
   
   The rest of us (those here legally) have our rights too:
   1. We can come in your (you, the illegal alien's) house anytime we want to do so--without asking you.
   2. We can go through your refrigerator and eat your food if we are hungry.
   3. If we don't have a house of our own, then we can move in with you.
   4. If we can't afford medical care, then you have to pay for it.
   5. If we have children, then you have to pay for their education and provide them transportation to school. Oh, and breakfast and lunch while they are there, also.
   6. If you complain about it, then we can call you an intolerant bigot and racist.
   7. If you complain about it twice, then the deal is off, you have to go back where you came from with REJECT tattooed on your forehead.
   
   This will put an end to hunger, homelessness, indigent care at hospitals, and it will lower the cost of education.
   
   And, yes, this will even put an end to profiling. We only round up those with REJECT tattoed on their foreheads and shoot them--after a fair trial, of course.
   
   Immediately after.

   replyreport
10. 57

    foreignpressposted 14 years ago

    I feel for the American Indians. They've had a rough deal and deserve better. But after years of being a human dump Arizona did what it had to do. Those who complain -- including liberals and illegals -- can present a better plan. But nobody has done so. There is simply no more money to house, clothe, educate, and medicate illegals. And, yes, I live in Colorado and travel to Arizona frequently. SB1070 is a desperate measure to counter a desperate situation.

    replyreport
11. 80

    lovemychrisposted 14 years ago

    Too bad the Pilgrims didn't try it

    replyreport
    1. 77

       Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Just think of it, both our countries were founded by illegal aliens

       replyreport
       1. 57

          Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          No, they weren't.

          replyreport
12. 80

    lovemychrisposted 14 years ago

    Why not go back to the beginning...let's see, the Americans made treaty after treaty with the Indians, which they broke....can we now demand the rule of "law" be held?
    And if it was not a crime for the Pilgrims to come and take what they wanted....by force of army, what is the crime now?  Yes I know laws were made and upheld to come here, but dam if it's not old old karma coming back to haunt us....don't you think?
    
    It's always more of the same...Do as I say, not as I do!!!
    
    No Irish need apply, N's go back to Africa, WOP's, Spics....it's all coming back to haunt us, the way we treated people.
    
    It's enough already. The tipping point has been reached.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       The American revolution was itself "illegal" under British law.  A similar revolution is happening now and the loyalists - in this case American conservatives - can't comprehend it.

       replyreport
       1. 57

          foreignpressposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          You're absolutely correct there's a revolution happening. And a certain Republican was just ousted by his own party for being on the wrong side. There are immigration laws for a reason. But here's a plan: Let's open the borders to everybody and see what happens. Because it's either/or. We have immigration laws and enforce them or we don't. By the way, nobody here has presented an alternative to Arizona's SB1070.

          replyreport
          1. 59

             Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             More like a devolution, as in a move back to a more primitive state.  The teamonkeys are just the flavor of the month and will have no lasting impact.
             
             Your strawman argument regarding borders is not worthy of response.

             replyreport
    2. 63

       Lisa HWposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Prejudice and bigotry against people (who came here legally) for whatever they are  one thing.  Being fed with up with people (regardless of who/what they are) who disregard immigration is another whole thing.
       
       Another point:  Having Irish people in one of my parents' ancestry, I wouldn't hold a grudge against anyone living today over what anyone living "ages ago" did with regard to Irish people.
       
       It's pretty hard to find any group anywhere in the world that hasn't had some horrendous injustice (and worse) perpetrated against it, as a group.  I don't get lumping everyone together (whether that's to make an issue about some awful thing done to some group in the past, or to make an issue over what some group did to some other group in the past. 
       
       There's absolutely no logic in lumping people who have been long dead into groups and thinking someone alive today has reason to feel victimized by something that was done far in the past.  Yes, the way Irish people were treated was rotten (but let's not forget a lot of them were criminals and "hooligans" who weren't exactly the most socially acceptable people.  People who came here legally and weren't "hooligans" did take the brunt of what the criminals did, and that wasn't right - but they're all dead now, so what can anyone do but learn from that?    Today's legal immigrants shouldn't have people having "attitudes" about them either.  Most people aren't against legal immigrants whatsoever, no matter where they come from.  For most people it's all about the illegal factor.  I don't get why so many people seem to have a problem separating legal immigrants, nationalities, and illegal criminals.

       replyreport
13. 86

    Elena.posted 14 years ago

    Kerry, can I say, just off topic but quite apropos, that you've got the patience of a saint?

    replyreport
    1. 81

       kerrygposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Haha, don't I wish! Thanks, though. *hugs*

       replyreport
14. 77

    sabrebIadeposted 14 years ago

    

    replyreport
    1. 61

       SomewayOuttaHereposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       touche!

       replyreport
15. 69

    Cagsilposted 14 years ago

    

    replyreport
16. 80

    lovemychrisposted 14 years ago

    It's not ancient..it's about 300 years right?
    
    This is a country of immigrants...no matter how you look at it.
    White people just slaughtered for control of it. Forced their ways on everybody.
    Doesn't mean it belongs to them, does it?
    
    How you figure we have any more right to it than anybody else? Because of 300 years of English Law?
    
    Who's to say it can't change now?
    In fact, I'd say it's time.
    
    We've screwed up. Badly.
    We need the input of all cultures. Aren't you sick of one dominating?
    Only because of numbers....well, the numbers are changing. We need to too.

    replyreport
17. 57

    foreignpressposted 14 years ago

    We need the input of all cultures and not the select millions who can walk across a border and set up housekeeping. The United States has always been a melting pot. But controlled immigration is what's needed. Without controlled immigration we'll lose that cultural balance, diseases will be reintroduced, medical and welfare institutions will be scrambling to provide assistance, and because laws have been willfully trashed there will be social chaos. We're nearing that already. I simply can't fathom why people think the United States is the only country who cannot control its borders.

    replyreport
    1. 57

       Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       "Without controlled immigration diseases will be reintroduced"
       
       
       diseases?

       replyreport
       1. 57

          foreignpressposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, diseases. Not a cough or sniffle. Would you like a list?

          replyreport
          1. 57

             Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Diseases because people will bring them in with them?

             replyreport
             1. 57

                foreignpressposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                Yes. As you know, illegal immigrants (some call them refugees) are obviously not checked for diseases, criminal history, terrorist affiliations, etc. The hideous ebola virus was found in Florida recently. But this is why I am incredulous that people are arguing for open borders.

                replyreport
                1. 60

                   Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   Who is arguing for open borders? I have a reputation for being liberal. (I'm not sure why - I consider myself moderate.) But among the liberals I know - none are in favor of 'open borders'.  The only time I run across that phrase is when it's spouted from the mouth of a conservative.

                   replyreport
                   1. 57

                      Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      Maybe you've missed it, but a number of folks on this site have advocated just that.

                      replyreport
18. 77

    Uninvited Writerposted 14 years ago

    Illegal aliens are being used as scapegoats for everything that is wrong about America...

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Give the man a prize for stating the truth so concisely.
       
       And if you follow the actual history of the scapgoat - upon this animal was laid the blame for everything wrong in that primitave society - and then the animal would be sacrificed - so that the gods would no longer be angry. The most infamous instance of scapegoating a people is the Jews in Europe. But the US has done it  with a varietyof ethnic groups at different times - the Japanese, the Chinese, the Irish, Native Americans,  African-Americans and now Hispanics.
       
       A few businesses and industries profit from the status-quo. I don't suggest there is no problem or no solution. But it needs to be comprehensive and it needs to eliminate the incentive for business to hire illegals.  That means SOME colorblind ID system which employers MUST use.

       replyreport
       1. 59

          Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Is UW a man now?

          replyreport
          1. 77

             Uninvited Writerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             That is news to me

             replyreport
             1. 59

                Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                I would have thought you would write a hub about it at least!

                replyreport
    2. 59

       JWestCattleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Now there's a broad and baseless statement -- well done.
       
       If the issue of illegal aliens and their need and function in the work force was something Congress cared to address, rather than blanket amnesty and an influx of more illegals in the interests of getting more Democratic votes! -- work permits would not require an employer hiring a lawyer or a consultant or paying a service or whatever to hire aliens who don't even know how to get on their list, and the whole process is financially onerous to a small business, and the illegal has no clue such a program exists or more importantly it is not accessible without an exorbitant fee on the Mexican side, and after they get here, and it is too complicated, and too late, and they are officially illegal, what are they to do? 
       
       Scapegoats?  Congress should be the scapegoat, whether it be Republican or Democrat.  The whole argument should not involve amnesty, the whole work permit program needs to be simplified, many Mexicans want to go back home, not stay here forever.

       replyreport
    3. 57

       Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       "Illegal aliens are being used as scapegoats for everything that is wrong about America..."
       
       
       No they aren't, but the fact is that illegal aliens ARE one of the things wrong in America.

       replyreport
19. 58

    yoshi97posted 14 years ago

    Um ... we're missing an important point here. *Anyone* detained by the police in the US *must* produce valid ID. There shouldn't be *any* illegals committing more than one crime in this country as they should be found the moment the are detained for committing a crime.
    
    Provided police hold to the letter of the law and only detain those who fail to provide ID, then no, this is not against the law, nor is it a deplorable action.
    
    Criminals are added into a database to track their history. This helps us find the small guys that grow up to be big criminals, whether they have white, yellow, red, or purple skin. This is not racial profiling, this is how the police identify people and record their crimes - misdemeanor or otherwise.
    
    When you read the paper and see who the police have arrested, you will note the always include the names, unless minors are involved. Where do you think they get these names? People always lie to the police about their identities to avoid troubles of the past, so police are already required to ID those who have committed a crime.
    
    The only difference is that your ID will be scrutinized more in Arizona if you appear to be Mexican and have trouble speaking good English. And all of this can happen away from the suspect as the police look them up in a database and confirm or deny the person's citizenship.
    
    Let's face it ... if someone came to this country illegally and took away *your* job because they were willing to do it for half price, would you be okay with that?
    
    We aren't anti-mexican in this country, we are anti-illegal immigrant. And as illegal immigrants are doing everything within their power to blend in, we are forced to take drastic measures to find them and deport them back to their country.
    
    Of course, we're seen as bad guys for wanting to make everyone go through the proper channels to become citizens. So, I propose another solution.
    
    
    New immigration laws:
    
    Anyone can instantly immigrate from Mexico provided they pass the following test:
    
    1)  The person must be of pure Mexican descent
    
    2)  The person must have a totally clean criminal record in Mexico
    
    3)  The person must speak fluent English. After all, we're bumping them to the head of the immigrant line, so we can expect more of them
    
    4)  The person must secure a job in America within three months or they are deported back to Mexico
    
    
    Or, there's another solution:
    
    Any Mexican can gain instant access to America if they serve on the border patrol for a year and show exemplary service at keeping other illegal immigrants out. When the year is up, they earn their citizenship.
    
    And as crazy as that might sound, if we placed enough of them on the border they just might stop the inflow of illegal immigrants while allowing others to work for their citizenship.

    replyreport
    1. 57

       Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       "Any Mexican can gain instant access to America if they serve on the border patrol for a year and show exemplary service at keeping other illegal immigrants out. When the year is up, they earn their citizenship.
       
       And as crazy as that might sound, if we placed enough of them on the border they just might stop the inflow of illegal immigrants while allowing others to work for their citizenship."
       
       
       I think that would be a remarkably bad idea.

       replyreport
20. 58

    yoshi97posted 14 years ago

    By the way ... Unless you are directly of American Indian descent, you or your forefathers were illegal aliens.

    replyreport
    1. 89

       wildernessposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I highly doubt that any modern Indian tribe (read "nation") can claim they were the absolute first humans to occupy any particular area.  Even they were almost certain to have taken it from someone else.

       replyreport
    2. 57

       Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       " Unless you are directly of American Indian descent, you or your forefathers were illegal aliens."
       
       
       That is incorrect.

       replyreport
21. 59

    DavitosanXposted 14 years ago

    Hello, everybody. I am mexican (living legally in Mexico, so don't vent your anger on me) and I want to add something to the discussion. I think you are missing an important point here: The person that decides to enter the US illegally is doing so because
    
    1) There is no way for him to earn a living in Mexico,
    2) He can't otherwise provide for his family
    
    You can't stop someone facing these problems. These guys have to risk their lives to cross the desert. They might die of thirst, or be attacked by bandits. They don't care that they could be deported, incarcerated or killed. just how do you plan to stop someone with this kind of drive?
    
    Personally, I understand the indignation of many americans about the number of illegal aliens living in their country. But you must really analyze the problem and find a more adequate solution. Building walls and threatening with jail time is no deterrent for immigrants.
    
    I am a college graduate, a certified pharmacist, and I earn the equivalent of $30 dollars a day. I'm thinking of migrating myself, but applying for US citizenship takes forever. That's why I'm thinking about Canada. Maybe they'll take me

    replyreport
    1. 57

       Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       "Building walls and threatening with jail time is no deterrent for immigrants."
       
       
       Then why does Mexico do that with illegal immigrants from its southern border?

       replyreport
       1. 59

          DavitosanXposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Because we try to stop immigration too. I'm not saying that you shouldn't protect your borders. I'm saying that the current methods don't seem to work. Mexico's border patrol officers are standard a**holes, and that doesn't keep guatemalans, bolivians, etc. from crossing to Mexico and then on to the US.

          replyreport
    2. 57

       Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       "I am a college graduate, a certified pharmacist, and I earn the equivalent of $30 dollars a day. I'm thinking of migrating myself, but applying for US citizenship takes forever."
       
       
       Well, get started on the process now then! We always need bright young people like yourself.

       replyreport
       1. 59

          DavitosanXposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          By "takes forever" I'm talking about 10+ years! Unless by your comment you meant you were Canadian. In that case, I'm working to get enough experience as a pharmacist here in order to apply (1 year minimum experience is required, and I've been working as a pharmacist for only 8 months).

          replyreport
          1. 57

             Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             I know how long it takes. It shouldn't take so long, and hopefully won't someday.  It's worth doing the right way in any case. In the meantime you could probably apply for a work visa once you've got a little more time under your belt. Pharmacists are in high demand in the US these days.

             replyreport
22. 61

    JON EWALLposted 14 years ago

    HUBBERS
    IN 1986 AN IMMIGRATION LAW WAS PASSED due to at that time we had an illegal influx of farm workers in California. In order to comply with the law to stay in the US, you were required to get a green card.
    Once the law is approved it is the Justice Department and the Attorney General to enforce the laws.
    No law is a good law unless a punishment is enforced for violating the law. Our government has not enforced the law.
    One must asked why and who is responsible. Simply put, the President, Justice Department and Congress. They are all guilty in not upholding their oath of office.
    
    The problem was big in 1986 ,so Congress took action. Today the problem is so big, congress don't know how to again solve the problem. Can we trust congress?
    It's almost like cancer, starts out small, if detected some one may put a bandage on to hide it, but without attention it now has grown so big, it’s time to perform the operation and destroy it before it kills.
    
    The immediate solution is to enforce the law, stop (completely stop)the crossings into our country and lock up anyone caught coming into the country. Let’s face it, catch and release has not worked.
    To think that the American citizen are the bad guys when families with children born here are sent back out of the country is asinine.
    
    The facts are clear. you break the law, you accept the punishment. NO ONE is above the law in our country.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       DavitosanXposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Would it be viable to incarcerate millions of illegal immigrants? No one should be above the law, but the law should provide viable solutions.

       replyreport
       1. 57

          Sab Ohposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          You wouldn't have to incarcerate millions. It would only take a significant fraction of that to have a deterrent effect.

          replyreport
       2. 59

          Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Good answer, sure to incite anger among the rubes.

          replyreport
    2. 70

       CaribeMposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       "The facts are clear. you break the law, you accept the punishment. NO ONE is above the law in our country."
       
       Except people with a LOT of money and /or POWER...

       replyreport
23. 61

    theirishobserver.posted 14 years ago

    Lets not be speaking on behalf of all Europeans

    replyreport
24. 69

    Cagsilposted 14 years ago

    

    replyreport
25. 87

    I am DB Cooperposted 14 years ago

    Let's just give Arizona back to the Mexicans. Illegal alien problem solved. Sheriff Joe problem not solved, but made much more entertaining.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Current demographic trends will make that a reality regardless of the futile efforts to stop it.

       replyreport
26. 0

    Madame Xposted 14 years ago

    Why not Texas and California too?

    replyreport
    1. 81

       BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Well, Texas seems to know how to deal with it pretty well, I suspect they will secede from the union before too long, (and I wouldn't blame them!) and then we'll ALL be illegal aliens in TX.
       
       Can we keep Silicon Valley, and just give the rest of CA back?  Well, maybe we should keep wine country... except then California would wine be imported, which would make it more sophisticated.
       
       Just speculating here ... kicking states out of the union may be a solution to a lot of problems.... I'm thinking maybe we should give Massachusetts back to England while were at it, same logic applies ...

       replyreport
27. 68

    SparklingJewelposted 14 years ago

    one of the attorneys that wrote the law in Arizona speaks to the concerns
    
    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/65340

    replyreport
28. 80

    lovemychrisposted 14 years ago

    What are you talking about? Texas WANTS to leave! Don't they? Guv says so. Secede...secede.....secede...right?

    replyreport
    1. 81

       BDazzlerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah, right after we give Mass. back to England.

       replyreport
    2. 0

       Madame Xposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah, they want to leave - but not to become a part of Mexico

       replyreport