Illegals

[NeedForSpeed]

Nice map
Too bad about the Lone Star State,
Supported the Confederacy in the Civil War, lost their sovereignty over it.
History lesson, how many flags over Texas? ?

[SoCal LS-L]

Wheres the map showing the Native Americans land?

My reservation is now limited to a small portion of Montana...... history has proven time and time again, it's not who was there first, but who has the biggest army.

[NeedForSpeed]

Originally Posted by SoCal LS-L

Wheres the map showing the Native Americans land?

My reservation is now limited to a small portion of Montana...... history has proven time and time again, it's not who was there first, but who has the biggest army.

Or the most slot machines

[MadMaxSvx]

Originally Posted by SoCal LS-L

Wheres the map showing the Native Americans land?

Here

[NeedForSpeed]

Originally Posted by MadMaxSvx

Here

Well done

[Freeman]

That used to be the truth. More like this now...

[sowise]

I did serve in the military and I do not see this law as unconstitutional at all. While I understand the concern of some that it could violate LEGAL immigrants and citizens rights I do not find that to be the intention of the law and I also do not find it to really affect them beyond them being burdened to showing proof of citizenship. The law mirrors federal law. So if a US marshal asks for your ID you are ok with it but if a local cop does you aren't? When dealing with police in any circumstance one of the first things they do is as for some ID, you don't know why beyond they need to prove you are who you say they are. Now it can work two ways. Imagine not only will this curb the problem with illegals it will also increase local law enforcements ability to find those with outstanding warrants.

I don't believe it is a race issue. I know there are white people in tons of other countries and that was the point of my comment. Usually whites from other countries tend to have an accent or way of speaking that may give away their origin. However, I was joking about how it difficult it could be to tell. Their biggest problem is illegals from Mexico, however during the winter months they do tend to get alot of older Canadians (as well as north western americans).

About the illegals who work on farms while I am sure that there are plenty, i do know there are agreements and immigrant workers are bussed in to work some of the larger farms. They have paperwork and are provided a place to live (very meeger living conditions though) but it gives them opportunities they didn't have in their country but that is all legal so I don't have a problem with that. I don't really care much about the random house keeper or construction worker (as long as they work within building codes and guidelines) I accept that there will be some illegals, I don't accept the flood of illegals, I don't accept the drug trafficing, I don't accept the illegal criminals who come here and go to prison on our dime. I don't accept groups that get illegals to vote for our government leaders (of either party) I don't accept illegals who benefit from our welfare systems or healthcare systems. I don't want it to be easy to be illegal and get by in this country. Existing system and policy has failed to be enforced and has failed in general. I feel that anyone from any country should feel the same way. I don't think a citizen of any country should have to deal with people who are living/ working/ and breeding there illegally. Right now the discussion is the US and Mexican border but next time it could be another two countries.

[pile o' wrx]

History lesson, how many flags over Texas? ?

A: What is 6 flags Alex? Jeopardy

This new law in Arizona will undoubtedly usher in a new changes for those that see fit to cross into our country illegally. Now they'll head more through New Mexico, Texas, and California instead. But that's not my point.

The United States government is going to do a damn thing about illegals. For starters, they tax and document the very employers that hire such labor. Then they tax the labor themselves. Because the migrant worker is not a citizen, even though they are paying taxes, they cannot receive a refund. That's easily a $$$ billion annually that the government holds onto free and clear.

As for the left-wing, nut-job, media's portrayal of this new Arizonian law is ludricous. They claim racism and cite a historical perspective of how the same issues came about when the Poles, and the Jews, and the Irish, and the Germans, and the Swedes all immigrated to this great country. But what they fail to cite is that all these groups came through Ellis Island and were documented and eventually citizenized.

I don't see the Illegals flocking to Ellis Is. for citizenship.

Also, blame the Mexican government for such a rampant digust of running a country. They can't even win battles against the more heavily armed drug cartels.

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by pile o' wrx

Also, blame the Mexican government for such a rampant digust of running a country. They can't even win battles against the more heavily armed drug cartels.

Also, check out Mexico's laws on illegals. It's a felony to be in the country illegally and can be punishable up to 10 years in prison.

Lee

[benebob]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

Apparently you have not read the law. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I see nothing in it that violates the constitution. The main provisions simply enforce current federal laws and just puts the burden back on the feds to take action. Google Arizona bill 1070 and read it.

Lee

Nope, I read it and it is listed as a Primary mist., meaning that cops can pull you over, or stop you on the street for looking illegal. If it is a secondary offense as it should be (tied to being stopped for susp. of another offense then there is nothing wrong with it). That is not how it is written hence it is a violation of the Constitution. You can't stop anyone for and ask for their id on the street. You can in certain circumstances, do a blanket search in motor vehicles (i.e. dui checkpoint but it needs to be a "fair system" for who you stop like every 5th car). That is permitted as driving is a priv. not a right!

[benebob]

Originally Posted by sowise

I don't really care much about the random house keeper or construction worker (as long as they work within building codes and guidelines) I accept that there will be some illegals, I

Illegal is illegal you should care. They are the flood as everyone else who comes across wants to be them! Selective swearing of the constitution. I didn't know that they allowed you to do that in the military these days.

[lhopp77]

Originally Posted by benebob

Nope, I read it and it is listed as a Primary mist., meaning that cops can pull you over, or stop you on the street for looking illegal. If it is a secondary offense as it should be (tied to being stopped for susp. of another offense then there is nothing wrong with it).

I have to ask you to refer me to the para and line that allows them to be stopped for just looking "illegal". I read it as you still only be stopped for some other infraction. I still read probable cause. It does allow them to check people congregating on the street at the usual daytime employment sites soliciting which is no different than checking prostitutes doing the same thing. Heck, they have undercover cops that entrap prostitutes and that is considered constitutional. Not a bit different.

Lee

[SoCal LS-L]

Google "Field interrogation"...... a police officer can ask anyone alive for ID and what their business is at the moment, and this practice has been instituted for decades. Its not against the constitution, he just cant seach your person without probable cause or arresting you.

[K_Dub]

I think it's been established that this law will not effectively change what is illegal or not, rather how it is enforced and by whom.

The fear mongering senator in the first post (no way McCain would have his name associated with this kind of drivel) cites men with machine guns and gang activity as reasons for this new enforcement. Prior to this bill, would the man with the machine gun be allowed to pass by the local law enforcement? Are they now going to ask him for his papers in order to proceed with their guns and drugs? If someone is suspected of gang violence were cops previously unable to ask them for identification? I don't think so.

So where will we see changes in enforcement, and who will be effected by this? Prior to this law people trying to cross the border, either for a better life or to deliver drugs, were stopped during the infraction and with this "red handed" evidence were prosecuted. People involved in gang violence were prosecuted for the crimes committed, and citizenship was checked during due process. This will not change. What will change is the local police's ability to stop people at their own discretion and request identification without needing probable cause to do so. This will not stop the "INVASION" by drug lords or potential gang members because they are not enforcing this at the border (where the crime is committed). This simply allows the Arizona police to harass individuals who have shown no other reasons to search or request ID.

If I was walking down the street and a cop stopped me and demanded identification on the basis that they had "reasonable suspicion" that I was committing a crime, I would tell them to shove it as is everyone's right to do in this country.

[NeedForSpeed]

It would seem that if the Federal Government would secure the borders, then the States wouldn't have to deal with the costs and other factors.

It also seems that we have troops all around the world in the name of security forces, but what about domestic security? What a mess!

They won't let me on a plane without ID, so, how does one travel to another country without proper authority.

As for rights, what constitutional rights? Bush senior once said that we are not operating under the Constitution, but under the U.N. Charter. If that is true, everything seems to make more sense .

Darn, I really tried to stay out of this