Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It really obviously wasn't enough.

You have to start somewhere but what he did hasn't had any real discernible effect.

Fateweaver wrote:So you are saying no social programs for illegals, only the legals?

While that's a better solution the welfare system in it's current state is a joke (and no I don't mean UI. Those benefits are harder to obtain then the rest of the gak that makes up the welfare system).

Yes, no social programs for illegals.

Fateweaver wrote:
Like I said, neither Bush handled the immigration problem very well (or not at all). PresBO is doing the same. It's about damn time someone stepped up and did their job. Kind of sad it had to be a state governor.

Well, assuming we consider this law to be a positive measure, and I'm not saying it isn't (though I will say that it will lead to racial discrimination), the cooperation of state law enforcement would be necessary for border security. There's no way to keep everyone from crossing, and it seems silly to create a Federal agency to patrol the streets looking for illegals when existing police forces can do the job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:It really obviously wasn't enough.

You have to start somewhere but what he did hasn't had any real discernible effect.

That's debatable. I'm not sure what the statistics on benign border crossing currently are, they may have dropped. But what I do know is that, when challenged by law enforcement, criminal groups with a profit motive generally become more violent. Its likely that the increase in resistance to illegal crossings lead directly to the surge in violence in border states. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that we shouldn't attempt to secure the border.

Also, the border wall has been held up in Congress by both Republicans, and Democrats. Both groups want to revise the plan

My cousin was driving to visit a friend on the Navajo Nation, when he saw a boy laying by the side of the road. The car ahead of him did not even slow down. He stopped, and took the boy to the hospital. He was told there that the boy was dehydrated, and probably illegal, and that by helping the child, my cousin had committed a crime. However, the doctor said, the hospital would not report him for it.

My question is: How is this moral? How can anyone call themselves an American, a patriot, or a Christian that would mandate a law to leave children die by the side of the road?

“A Jewish man was travelling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A Levite walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side. Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him. Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’ “Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same." - Gospel of Luke


"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
' With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" - Inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty.

Look, it's simple: Jobs need done, people are willing to work them and people are willing to pay them. Paperwork just gets in the way and leads to bureaucrats getting full time jobs being completely unhelpful because they have a state job so they just don't care, they got theirs already. Some Mexican lady who 'sneaks over the border just to gak her kid out' taking food stamps shouldn't be pissing you guys off. Plenty of trash who were born here live off of food stamps (or sell them under table) and I still pay my taxes and don't begrudge them. How are you going to deny somebody FOOD or the ability to WORK FOR YOU AND MAKE YOU MONEY unless you are just too nationalistic or racist or just a douche.

Who's gonna build the giant fence across texas anyways if you kick out all the mexicans?

The arguement that they are illegal is bunk, because plenty of legal people here are also doing illegal things regularly.

The arguement that it costs 'us' tax money to support 'them' is also bunk because if you haven't noticed your latest paycheck... quite a sum is taken out that is given to social sec checks to useless grouchy old bastards who don't help me in the slightest.

The arguement for national security is just hunters with little dicks and big guns wanting to be manly. You are never going to stop me from crossing a border if I am determined enough, and can blend in when I get there, I don't give a damn how many drones or border patrol people are keeping watch. Wanna talk about waste of tax money, and immigrants costing the American jobs and gak, how much wasted tax money is wasted on these friggin drones and border cops who serve no purpose other than to be scrutinizing donkey-caves to beaners.

Arizona sucks. I've been there. The cops are jerks in the first place... and this was my experience before I had my skin changed to mexican color, and still talked like a white dude.

Eat yer taco bell and get over yourselves you Arizona bumpkins.

Guitardian wrote:
Who's gonna build the giant fence across texas anyways if you kick out all the mexicans?

Another argument against the wall focuses on the way physical barriers tend to force people to those who are willing to work to circumvent them. In Gaza those people are Hamas, in Mexico those people are the cartels. If the issues of human and drug trafficking, along with the accompanying violent activity, are thought to be bad now, then I can only imagine what will be thought if the problem worsens.

Four words Mr. Gorbachev... "tear down that wall", right?

2 words Mr. Obama:

"Double tap"

I don't think Arizona and the Mexico border are anything to do with President Obama, although it does seem quite trendy lately to blame the administration. That's why my Ramen Noodles cost 3 cents more and why we are at war with invisible enemies half the world away and why 'dey tuk are jerbs' and why Walmart customers are fat and so on, right?

Arizona has a big capita of rich retired old white people, and idiot college kids who quite probably were raised by such. I've seen Mesa, Phoenix, and Flagstaff and its the same each time. The people with the voices live in the dense areas, the people it affects work out in the sticks, and their presence angers the "true" Americans (HA! what a concept!) whether or not there is a definite cause and effect provable. It's always easier to grab a gun and keep dem dang fererners out, because they are OBVIOUSLY the reason why I get about a quarter of my paycheck taken so it can be given to those very same rich retired old people and spoiled college kids, right?

Is it the fear of prejudice or do people against the bill see nothing wrong with people being here illegally?

I mean, if it's okay for a mexican to be here illegally than you would have no problem with me entering your house at night, ILLEGALLY. Afterall, if it's okay for dem fereners to be here illegally it must be okay if I enter your house illegally, eat your food illegally and watch your tv illegally.

The ones opposed say it'll lead to more prejudice. Prove to me it will. Show me charts/bars/graphs/photos/polygraph test results that show this bill will mean an increase in "illegal arrests because the dude was brown"?

We are all here illegally. Maybe if you were 'technically' illegal for a while you would realise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
People down in AZ and TX and NM are often brownish. Their cops aren't, and the people in their larger cities aren't. Is it any wonder it's fairly obvious I could drive through there with my chicago/brit accent and get away with it but Jose Sanchez doesn't have that luxury. Cop sees a beaner drive by and thinks "cool... another potential ticket for my quota". Sorry I don't trust cops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And the brown dude is not running polygraph tests chances are. "PROVE ME WRONG BY MY OWN CRITERIA" is not that smart.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hell when it comes down to it, I am a European here LEGALY who would prefer not to see other Europeans here illegally. The problem is redefining what is legal and illegal because I have dealt this ever since my P's brought me here when I was TWO. 33 years of payin taxes, attending school, workin jobs, etc and you want to know what's LEGAL?! how bout gimme my money back you jerks! I never got a DIME! I can pay in, just not take out. You wanna call 'legal' because that's the law I say that's pawn-speak. Laws change when people finally realize how fethed up they are (civil rights movement anyone?).

The question is also: How do they tell the difference between a brownish Mexican here illegally without ID and a brownish Native American, who under the law, aren't required to carry ID?

Again, there is going to be "TFG" cop who will pull over a beaner for being a beaner.

But "TFG" probably won't last long if the department gets too many complaints about him/her.

I still don't see the issue. I have to be 21 to buy booze but most bars/liquor stores actually require employees to card buyers if they appear to be 30 or less (or sometimes 40 or less) just as a precaution (since sometimes college kids can appear older than they are). I get carded for alcohol a lot because I don't appear 40.

Know how I get around it? I make sure I have my proper ID at all times. Granted I won't go to prison for it but it's still the same idea.

If MN passed a law saying that if I don't have my DL on me when I'm pulled over I go to jail do you know what I'd do? I'd make damn sure that even if I was taking a quick jaunt to the convenience store that is 1 mile down the road I'd have my DL on me.

Again, far as I know a proper ID is a Visa or a state issued ID. You aren't carrying around Websters Unabridged dictionary so there is no excuse to not have one on you at all times if you have one to begin with.

TFG makes lieutennant in AZ. The minority that get to vote see to it. (look up sherriff joe, maricopa county) What if you lose all your stuff? I've been robbed before... where's your answer to that fate?

Not sure the impossibility of getting a replacement but I have to assume once you have a legal Visa or state ID it's in the system. Not hard to prove you had one at some point so a replacement might take some time and some extra money.

My DL gets stolen I just go to DMV, tell them what happened, sign some papers and in 10 days I have a new one.

Not too many racist cops get promoted to lieutenant. Most are ousted real fast.

So again I ask is it really the fear of "TFG" or is it that you think them dern fereners should be able to enter this country free of will without having to become citizens first?

If it's the first I'm sure it's not going to be any bigger of an issue than it already is; if it's the second well then I can't take you seriously anymore with that thinking.

TFG is TFG right now, even before the law takes effect. TFG is out now pulling "beaners" over just for the sake of them being beaners. The difference is in July the beaners not here legally go back to mexico.

I still don't see the problem (and no, I'm not blind to the fact they are stereotyped). The law WON'T change the number of "TFG's".

Fateweaver wrote:Is it the fear of prejudice or do people against the bill see nothing wrong with people being here illegally?

I think, in general, people who are against the bill fall into two camps.

1. They don't believe the bill will be effective in addressing the problem of illegal immigration.
2. They consider immigration laws to be tough enough as is, and see the issue as one of poor enforcement.

Fateweaver wrote:
Prove to me it will. Show me charts/bars/graphs/photos/polygraph test results that show this bill will mean an increase in "illegal arrests because the dude was brown"?

That's impossible to prove without data. First there would have to be hard numbers on the number of detentions which turned out to be unnecessary.

Karon wrote:Don't know if anyone noticed this, but, the law DOES say that you can say "No" to the officer, or "Yes, I am here legally" and he can't do anything about it.

Loopholes ahoy!

Good ol' Sheriff Arpaio has said if someone tries that he'll find something to arrest them for.

Fateweaver wrote:Perhaps, maybe if the illegals, you know, walked up to the border gate and said "I'd like to become a citizen here; tell me what I must do" then perhaps we wouldn't need to risk US men and women on protecting an invisible line in the sand.

Yeah, if only people would spontaneously stop trying to move to a new location to earn more money. Damn that personal incentive that underpins the entirety of the market economy!

Or perhaps, maybe the companies, you know, didn't employ illegals then you wouldn't have US men and women protecting an invisible line in the sand.

Unfortunately that doesn't fit very well with the guns & ammo and tough on crime like a manly, manly country approach, and so it will continue to be sidelined.

Fateweaver wrote:2 words Mr. Obama:

"Double tap"

Dude, settle down with the crazy. I'm pretty sure you're skirting the borders of a crime there, if nothing else.

Fateweaver wrote:Is it the fear of prejudice or do people against the bill see nothing wrong with people being here illegally?

No, the point is there are less costly, less troublesome ways of controlling illegal entry. Unfortunately these aren't tough on crime solutions and therefore don't appeal to popular sentiment.

I mean, if it's okay for a mexican to be here illegally than you would have no problem with me entering your house at night, ILLEGALLY. Afterall, if it's okay for dem fereners to be here illegally it must be okay if I enter your house illegally, eat your food illegally and watch your tv illegally.

Actually, it'd be like if you were coming in to my house illegally at night to clean my pool and do with dishes and all the stuff the people in my house didn't want to do. It's just that, instead of building a wall around the house, I'd think the best solution would be tell the other people living in my house to stop paying you for showing up.

Double tap phrase was meant to be toward illegals, not a borderline death threat on the president.

Don't like the guy as Pres but sure as hell don't want him dead.

Fateweaver wrote:Double tap phrase was meant to be toward illegals, not a borderline death threat on the president.

Don't like the guy as Pres but sure as hell don't want him dead.

Fair enough, not close to a crime then. About as crazy, but not a crime.


You didn't respond to my point on your home entry analogy. You should.

You raise a fair point but you forget about the social programs that they abuse.

Making it impossible for illegals to work in this country (and it is illegal to hire them) would reduce the number but you honestly think they are living on $2/hour to mow someones lawn?

Cut off the welfare program for illegals and they might leave. Of course most of your hardcore leftists/humanitarians would complain about that too.

Again, until this law has been in effect for a few years nobody can know how fairly or unfairly "brownies" will be treated.

The reason for the opposition is fear. TFG exists right now. Will there be more "TFG's" because of the law? Maybe but no one knows. Opponents have nothing to stand on because I'm pretty sure no human can predict the future.

It'd take way more resources and money to closely monitor EVERY business in those states to make sure employers aren't hiring illegals than it would to make the border more secure. Of course we know the feds won't do that because so long as that airhead Napalitono keeps telling BO that the border is secure he'll keep buying her BS. I mean, you'd trust your head of security and defense, right?

Fateweaver wrote:
Again, until this law has been in effect for a few years nobody can know how fairly or unfairly "brownies" will be treated.

... well... dunno, about Arizona, but New York it means you can be taken and beaten by several NYS Troopers for being brown (native, as opposed to African American or Hispanic). They can also kill you without facing charges. Or even being reprimanded. (Trooper Sean Pierce was unusual in that there was an investigation at all. Then again, shooting a man five times in the back and then refusing to allow the ambulances to go to his victem while his vic bled out in a field may have been a bit much. Got Bucky?)


And they complain because they're no longer permitted on our sovereign territory.

Fateweaver wrote:Is it the fear of prejudice or do people against the bill see nothing wrong with people being here illegally?

I mean, if it's okay for a mexican to be here illegally than you would have no problem with me entering your house at night, ILLEGALLY. Afterall, if it's okay for dem fereners to be here illegally it must be okay if I enter your house illegally, eat your food illegally and watch your tv illegally.

The ones opposed say it'll lead to more prejudice. Prove to me it will. Show me charts/bars/graphs/photos/polygraph test results that show this bill will mean an increase in "illegal arrests because the dude was brown"?

1) Nice attempt to set the paradigm's for what the people who disagree with you believe.
To answer the question-No, A lot of us are against the bill because it is a violation of the very fabric upon what our free republic was built. What AZ is in effect attempting, is to operate as a soveriegn state under a form of martial law where the police are allowed to act as a para-military force that does not have to follow the basic rules of civil law and can circumvent habeas corpus for indeterminate periods of time. This is a guilty until proven innocent law and that is not right.

2)Nice smear tactic but I've already covered that no credible study has been made that proves illegals are any more prone to criminal behavior than legal immigrants or native citizens from low income areas.
Your question seems to state that a criminal behavior from native citizens is more acceptable than from other groups. Is this what you are saying? That a murder wouldn't be as bad if committed by someone who was born in the country?

3)Your own words earlier about the beer and ammo have answered your last question. It may or may not increase the numbers of racists but it will create an enviroment where those who have those tendencies will feel free to act forcefully towards those percieved as illegal immigrants. Case in point, a few years back some marines working the border in Texas shot and killed a Hispanic Texas Native.

Fateweaver wrote:Again, there is going to be "TFG" cop who will pull over a beaner for being a beaner.

Your free use of this particular vernacular leaves you open to accusations of being a racist. Just thought that I would warn you before others jump your case about it. I assume that you were talking from the cops POV but there are others here who might not see it as such.

Fateweaver wrote:I still don't see the issue. I have to be 21 to buy booze but most bars/liquor stores actually require employees to card buyers if they appear to be 30 or less (or sometimes 40 or less) just as a precaution (since sometimes college kids can appear older than they are). I get carded for alcohol a lot because I don't appear 40.

Know how I get around it? I make sure I have my proper ID at all times. Granted I won't go to prison for it but it's still the same idea.

Actually they are completely different ideas as one is a state law regulating a misdemeanor and the other is a state attempting to regulate international immigration.
The misdemeanor still has to follow the basic laws that protoct your civil rights where the AZ law would be able to ignore those rights.

Fateweaver wrote:If MN passed a law saying that if I don't have my DL on me when I'm pulled over I go to jail do you know what I'd do? I'd make damn sure that even if I was taking a quick jaunt to the convenience store that is 1 mile down the road I'd have my DL on me.

Again, far as I know a proper ID is a Visa or a state issued ID. You aren't carrying around Websters Unabridged dictionary so there is no excuse to not have one on you at all times if you have one to begin with.

You will have your ID on you 24/7 no matter what? You will never lose your ID, have it stolen, suffer a personal tragedy where it gets destroyed, or just plain forget it?
One heckuva gated community you live in.

So in essence you believe that we should model our internal security after other prominent police states by requiring papers.
You know, the commies are trying to take back the former U.S.S.R. and they might be hiring. Think about it.

Fateweaver wrote:Not sure the impossibility of getting a replacement but I have to assume once you have a legal Visa or state ID it's in the system. Not hard to prove you had one at some point so a replacement might take some time and some extra money.

My DL gets stolen I just go to DMV, tell them what happened, sign some papers and in 10 days I have a new one.

Can tell you have never moved state to state and have no world traveling experience. There are states that will not accept others states ID's as valid proof of identity. Seriously. CO will not accept another states ID as valid if it uses your middle initial.....Even if your middle names is only an initial. Women have to bring in all marriage and divorce certificates if attempting to move state to state. Despite what they've shown you on TV it can take days to establish your identity. Sorry to disenchant you if you tought all those cop shows were telling the complete truth. Also, States sometimes loose the information:
Know a trucker that Fla lost the packet from tennessee after Ten had removed him from their state records but before entering him into the Fla. database. That was a month and a half lost going in circles.

Fateweaver wrote:Not too many racist cops get promoted to lieutenant. Most are ousted real fast.

So again I ask is it really the fear of "TFG" or is it that you think them dern fereners should be able to enter this country free of will without having to become citizens first?

I still don't see the problem (and no, I'm not blind to the fact they are stereotyped). The law WON'T change the number of "TFG's".

1)Statement is full of fail as can be proven by the number of problems Harris Co. Texas has had with Sherrifs and police being involved in scandals dealing with such.

2)Again I will refer you to my prior answer of this question.

3)Covered at the top of the post.


Edit spelling and spacing

Fateweaver wrote:It's not necessarily about fear. It's about cutting the problem off at it's source.

If your neighbors dog keeps getting into your chickens and killing them you don't get rid of the chickens just to keep the dog away; you call the dog pound or in some states you should the sumbitch.

The best way to prevent the problems that come with letting illegals into the country is to cut the problem off at it's source. Tighten border security and keep them out, NOT change the laws of the US to accommodate the people breaking US laws.

I think the fear lies not in those wanting the border closed but that it lies in the people wanting to have an "open" border out of fear of what the rest of the world thinks of us.

In 1787 the US gave the finger to the British. In 2010 the US is now sucking the man-pole of every country in existence.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

Fateweaver wrote:You raise a fair point but you forget about the social programs that they abuse.

No, I didn't forget that. I think it is perfectly reasonable to restrict social programs to people who are part of your country. Emergency medical treatment is a different matter, the whole thing about 'emergency' is that you already have to be in the country.

Making it impossible for illegals to work in this country (and it is illegal to hire them) would reduce the number but you honestly think they are living on $2/hour to mow someones lawn?

Yes. They are. It is amazing how little money it takes to live off the grid.

Do you honestly believe they're working for less than a living wage and making up the difference with sweeping abuses of social programs?

Yes. They are. It is amazing how little money it takes to live off the grid.

Do you honestly believe they're working for less than a living wage and making up the difference with sweeping abuses of social programs?

Well... migrant workers in construction usually make more than minimum wage, but the standard pay for legit staff is easily twice that. I honestly never had much of a problem finding work before the recession hit. There were up and down times, had to scrape together moving jobs and what not; but I certainly wasn't running into all that much competition from illegal immigrants.

Fateweaver wrote:It's not necessarily about fear. It's about cutting the problem off at it's source.

If your neighbors dog keeps getting into your chickens and killing them you don't get rid of the chickens just to keep the dog away; you call the dog pound or in some states you should the sumbitch.

Yeah, and the dog that comes in and kills chickens should be arrested, face trial and punished to the full extent of the law.

But most of the dogs coming across the border are coming across to mow chicken's lawns and work on the chicken's farms. The answer there is to punish chickens who pay dogs to work for them.

It's a lot easier than building a wall a little under 2,000 miles long. Or stopping a whole lot of dogs in the expectation some of them might be illegal dogs.

I think the fear lies not in those wanting the border closed but that it lies in the people wanting to have an "open" border out of fear of what the rest of the world thinks of us.

No, that's silly. This idea of yours, 'everything secretly knows that the things I think are bad are really bad, they just want to please nebulous outside parties' is anti-thought and really needs to go away if you're going to start forming reasonable ideas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:Well... migrant workers in construction usually make more than minimum wage, but the standard pay for legit staff is easily twice that. I honestly never had much of a problem finding work before the recession hit. There were up and down times, had to scrape together moving jobs and what not; but I certainly wasn't running into all that much competition from illegal immigrants.

And a whole lot of that money goes back into Mexico. The point remains if you aren't paying a mortgage or insurance, or spending money on consumer crap living can be really, really cheap.

And a whole lot of that money goes back into Mexico.

I have no idea how much money illegal immigrants send to Mexico.

The point remains if you aren't paying a mortgage or insurance, or spending money on consumer crap living can be really, really cheap.

It depends on where you are living, and in California, it isn't very cheap. It turns out to be pretty expensive.

If people can live in large groups, it does get much cheaper. All I know is that very few people are finding work nowadays, and I don't feel like illegal immigrants have a huge advantage over me.

focusedfire wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Is it the fear of prejudice or do people against the bill see nothing wrong with people being here illegally?

I mean, if it's okay for a mexican to be here illegally than you would have no problem with me entering your house at night, ILLEGALLY. Afterall, if it's okay for dem fereners to be here illegally it must be okay if I enter your house illegally, eat your food illegally and watch your tv illegally.

The ones opposed say it'll lead to more prejudice. Prove to me it will. Show me charts/bars/graphs/photos/polygraph test results that show this bill will mean an increase in "illegal arrests because the dude was brown"?

1) Nice attempt to set the paradigm's for what the people who disagree with you believe.
To answer the question-No, A lot of us are against the bill because it is a violation of the very fabric upon what our free republic was built. What AZ is in effect attempting, is to operate as a soveriegn state under a form of martial law where the police are allowed to act as a para-military force that does not have to follow the basic rules of civil law and can circumvent habeas corpus for indeterminate periods of time. This is a guilty until proven innocent law and that is not right.

2)Nice smear tactic but I've already covered that no credible study has been made that proves illegals are any more prone to criminal behavior than legal immigrants or native citizens from low income areas.
Your question seems to state that a criminal behavior from native citizens is more acceptable than from other groups. Is this what you are saying? That a murder wouldn't be as bad if committed by someone who was born in the country?

3)Your own words earlier about the beer and ammo have answered your last question. It may or may not increase the numbers of racists but it will create an enviroment where those who have those tendencies will feel free to act forcefully towards those percieved as illegal immigrants. Case in point, a few years back some marines working the border in Texas shot and killed a Hispanic Texas Native.

Fateweaver wrote:Again, there is going to be "TFG" cop who will pull over a beaner for being a beaner.

Your free use of this particular vernacular leaves you open to accusations of being a racist. Just thought that I would warn you before others jump your case about it. I assume that you were talking from the cops POV but there are others here who might not see it as such.

Fateweaver wrote:I still don't see the issue. I have to be 21 to buy booze but most bars/liquor stores actually require employees to card buyers if they appear to be 30 or less (or sometimes 40 or less) just as a precaution (since sometimes college kids can appear older than they are). I get carded for alcohol a lot because I don't appear 40.

Know how I get around it? I make sure I have my proper ID at all times. Granted I won't go to prison for it but it's still the same idea.

Actually they are completely different ideas as one is a state law regulating a misdemeanor and the other is a state attempting to regulate international immigration.
The misdemeanor still has to follow the basic laws that protoct your civil rights where the AZ law would be able to ignore those rights.

Fateweaver wrote:If MN passed a law saying that if I don't have my DL on me when I'm pulled over I go to jail do you know what I'd do? I'd make damn sure that even if I was taking a quick jaunt to the convenience store that is 1 mile down the road I'd have my DL on me.

Again, far as I know a proper ID is a Visa or a state issued ID. You aren't carrying around Websters Unabridged dictionary so there is no excuse to not have one on you at all times if you have one to begin with.

You will have your ID on you 24/7 no matter what? You will never lose your ID, have it stolen, suffer a personal tragedy where it gets destroyed, or just plain forget it?
One heckuva gated community you live in.

So in essence you believe that we should model our internal security after other prominent police states by requiring papers.
You know, the commies are trying to take back the former U.S.S.R. and they might be hiring. Think about it.

Fateweaver wrote:Not sure the impossibility of getting a replacement but I have to assume once you have a legal Visa or state ID it's in the system. Not hard to prove you had one at some point so a replacement might take some time and some extra money.

My DL gets stolen I just go to DMV, tell them what happened, sign some papers and in 10 days I have a new one.

Can tell you have never moved state to state and have no world traveling experience. There are states that will not accept others states ID's as valid proof of identity. Seriously. CO will not accept another states ID as valid if it uses your middle initial.....Even if your middle names is only an initial. Women have to bring in all marriage and divorce certificates if attempting to move state to state. Despite what they've shown you on TV it can take days to establish your identity. Sorry to disenchant you if you tought all those cop shows were telling the complete truth. Also, States sometimes loose the information:
Know a trucker that Fla lost the packet from tennessee after Ten had removed him from their state records but before entering him into the Fla. database. That was a month and a half lost going in circles.

Fateweaver wrote:Not too many racist cops get promoted to lieutenant. Most are ousted real fast.

So again I ask is it really the fear of "TFG" or is it that you think them dern fereners should be able to enter this country free of will without having to become citizens first?

I still don't see the problem (and no, I'm not blind to the fact they are stereotyped). The law WON'T change the number of "TFG's".

1)Statement is full of fail as can be proven by the number of problems Harris Co. Texas has had with Sherrifs and police bbeing involved in scandals dealing with such.

2)Again I will refer you to my prior answer of this question.

3)Covered t the top of the post.

1) AZ is doing what the constitution allows it to do. The Federal governments job is to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic. Not all mexican immigrants are violent criminals but the illegal ones are here illegally, obviously. The Constitution gives states the power to form their own laws and regulations unless they are needed by the Federal government. AZ is exercising it's constitutional authority to act in behalf of the betterment of it's state and citizens. It is not operating under martial law. The revised bill strictly lays out was is acceptable and what is not. False arrests will not be tolerated. Will it always fly? Of course not, even my city has crooked cops but it seems to me as if AZ plans to cover their tail as well as they can without PresBO's help.

2) Illegals are here illegally. Don't care if they are here to suck the system, work honestly or be criminals. I'm not suggesting that crimes by citizens are less punishable.

3) Case in point, some rancher in AZ (or maybe Tx) was killed by illegals trying to cross his land. AZ officials are searching for a BP agent who was wounded by an illegal who shot him with an AK-47. Perhaps the people of AZ have a reason to fear illegals? Or is our Secretary of Homeland Security, who by the way wouldn't know her head from her ass, right in that AZ/Mexico border is the safest it's ever been?

AZ is not trying to regulate immigration. It is protecting itself and it's citizens by upholding the law the Federal government won't uphold itself. Regulating would mean that it would only let certain people in legally, change the regulatory guidlines set forth by the government in making citizenship possible. Kicking illegals out of the country, ideally ONLY after being arrested/stopped for something else (driving like an idiot, shoplifting, etc...) is not regulating immigration; it's doing the job that PresBO won't do because he'd rather suck the man pole of every other country in the world.

For the 12th time or so. There will be "TFG" but "TFG" exists right now. The new law won't change things. If some cop is going to falsely arrests immigrants after the bill passes he would have anyway, he is doing so now. You might think AZ is becoming a police state but that implies AZ is trying to control it's citizens. It is not. It is trying to control the illegals, you know? "NON-Citizens."

Never had a reason to move state to state. Mn is my home and until such a reason exists for me to have to move I'm going to be staying here for the foreseeable future. Not to mention my DL has first, middle name and last name in full so I don't have to worry about the "middle initial" fiasco, do I? Also, if an immigrant is in AZ legally and they travel to another state and find it impossible to transfer everything over I guess they have no choice but to stay in AZ. So internally, within the state, replacing a lost ID is normally not an issue and if it is then you'd better write a letter to your congressman/woman, shouldn't ya? Only part of the world I been in has been Canada. Last time there? 1990. Guess what? Pre-911 I didn't need to have a passport to enter Canada. In fact up until 911 it was common for 19 and 20yr old college kids to drive 30 minutes across the Canadian border to drink because in Canada legal drinking age then was 19.

You aren't answering my question. Do you honestly feel it's okay for immigrants to be here illegally? Or should they have to get citizenship? If you answer yes to the former, well, I don't want you in my country; if you answer no to 1 but yes to the latter statement than what is the big deal with allowing police to arrest "illegals" for being here "illegally" during routine investigations? I answered yours, you answer mine.

Leftists use the excuse we don't have the man power or the money to fund securing the borders and tightening them, yet somehow we have 1T+ dollars to ensure the illegals can afford to get health care on their $2/hour salaries or that welfare moms and dads can get insurance? The job of OUR government is to protects IT's people. The government isn't doing that. The government is not doing that. Our own Secretary of Homeland Security blames the country that she is in charge of protecting for the guns going into Mexico and arming the cartels. News flash. The numbers lie. Obamanation is kissing the ass of the rest of the world, letting Mexico and it's people run amok unchecked in our own back yard just so that we can be "friends" with GB or Oz or any other country that isn't trying to nuke us (or are in some cases because apparently denying terrorists exist and editing out any references to Islamic extremists in official reports) is more important that making our country safe.

Great job PresBO. Perhaps you ought to treat the people who voted your ass into office as Commander in Chief a little better than you treat your enemies. Just saying.

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Is it the fear of prejudice or do people against the bill see nothing wrong with people being here illegally?

I think, in general, people who are against the bill fall into two camps.

1. They don't believe the bill will be effective in addressing the problem of illegal immigration.
2. They consider immigration laws to be tough enough as is, and see the issue as one of poor enforcement.

Fateweaver wrote:
Prove to me it will. Show me charts/bars/graphs/photos/polygraph test results that show this bill will mean an increase in "illegal arrests because the dude was brown"?

That's impossible to prove without data. First there would have to be hard numbers on the number of detentions which turned out to be unnecessary.

Yea well lucky fething you. You just don't get it. If I lose MY I.D. I go at least a year and through several offices and pay about $1500 bucks of various 'fees' and at one point had to fly to Europe to get a new one. We ALIENS who you want to 'double tap' do not have the luxury of taking a mere I.D. card for granted like fat spoiled American citizens who like to vote conservative because guns are cool but abortion is killing and they know the guy in the white house is just trying to steal their money because he's a [see forum posting rules] and so on mentality. And its mexicans fault that we lost out lazy redundant uncreative jobs too, right? "well heck all ah gotta do is go to the DMV". Well that's great. Lucky fething you. Some people do not have that convenience. Quit being so selfish.

Well, guns are cool but I'm pro-choice so I don't think abortion is necessarily killing.

You are also here legally. I've got no problem with you being here as a citizen.

I'll use a trespassing analogy. You enter my house illegally I reserve the right to kill you dead. If you walk up my driveway in broad daylight and ring the doorbell I'll most likely welcome you into my home (unless you are a Jehovah of course).

I wouldn't double tap you for walking through the proper gates after being allowed in legally. If I lived in AZ and you tried sneaking through my field or over my fence you will get double tapped.

Relax man. I've got no problem with you so don't give me a reason to have one.

Oh and another thing... cutting off welfare programs will not discourage illegals from coming onto "your" land (HA!) it will just means (all the selfish conservative types who kill off social programs) -edit content- will be the first ones that get eaten when the world ends.