immigration bill

This is a discussion on immigration bill within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by HotGuns Whats nonsense about it? Here its a way of life. Why would you want to "force" an employer to hire American ...

Page 13 of 23 FirstFirst ... 391011121314151617 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 342

Thread: immigration bill

  1. #181
    Member Array DZcarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Whats nonsense about it? Here its a way of life.

    Why would you want to "force" an employer to hire American citizens? That would open up a can of worms that no one would like. We need less Federal Government intervention in private coporations, not more.

    We could "force" Tyson to stop by enforcing existing law. Put some teeth into the law. Violate it several times,get fined several times and be forced to cease and desist. Do that do a few businesses and it wouldn't be long until no one would hire an illegal.
    Well then I am sorry to say that you will never see a solution to the immigration issue. So long as there are jobs for illegal immigrant to get they will cross the borders to get them. For many of them the consequences of being caught pale in comparison to watching their families starve to death because NAFTA killed much of Mexico's agriculture industry...

    Corporations like Tyson go to Mexico and recruit workers. They put them on buses and bring them across the border. Those workers never go back across the border like they are supposed to.

    So long as people throw up their hands and say "oh well that's just the way it is" we will always have this issue.

    It's time for America and Americans to grow some backbone and do what needs to be done to solve the problems instead of fighting a 4 alarm blaze with a patchwork of meaningless regulations and a bottle of Dasani water!
    Proud Lady Blue Dog

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #182
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,817
    never is a long time.

    ...and I do have a solution to the problem but it would have the liberal weenies wailing and gnashing their teeth. Couldn't even discuss it here, I'd have to ban myself... or call Sixto and have him do the honor...


    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  4. #183
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,527

    i10casual, don't calm down

    Quote Originally Posted by i10casual View Post
    Ok, I'm calming down a little. My Border Patrol amigo was tell me "The law is no different then the INA, only change is locals will ask more questons. Most AZ depts ToT all contacts as it is. Az already has laws in place that cover smuggling and hiring."
    Don't calm down. What works at border check points won't work inland.

    People crossing the border expect to need to produce papers. The law is indeed different from the INA (whatever that refers to???) Federal Immigration law I suppose? It places a new burden on subsets of the citizenry to carry around proof of status. This has never before been done, unless you want to think of letter of emancipation given to slaves as the equivalent. And that problem of course got solved by the 13th and 14 with the equal protection clause.

  5. #184
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,527

    re: 21 bubba dog in the hunt comment

    Quote Originally Posted by 21bubba View Post
    Hopyard,with all due respect I wonder what your feelings would be on this issue if you didn't so to speak "have a dog in this hunt"?
    Well 21bubba, I could ask the same thing of you. Would you feel different IF you DID have a dog in this hunt? See, there are millions of people in this country legally, and naturally born, who will potentially be affected negatively by the AZ law. Sixteen percent of the US population is Hispanic, and the vast majority are not illegals.

    There is a huge Asian population and the vast majority in that group are not illegals. The same goes for innumerable Africans, whether caucasian of European ancestry such as Glocman10's spouse, or black Liberians. Or Brazilians who naturalize, or the children born here who happen to look, guess what, just like their parents.

    When someone shows me how this new law does not violate the equal protection clause of our constitution I might be less vociferous on the matter.

    But, in the end you do have a point. It is a matter of whose ox is being gored; and I don't want that to happen to my ox.

    Again, I think there is no one here, certainly not myself, who has any desire for illegal aliens to be here. And those who came here legally and jumped through all the numerous hoops certainly don't like those who jump the line. As I wrote earlier, my BIL put in 25 years of Naval service---and even with that had a heck of time getting naturalized. You may not be aware of this but in the past military service did not necessarily earn you a green card-- the path to citizenship. He got lucky in that he enlisted during the Viet Nam era, and made a deadline by one day.
    I've no sympathy for line jumpers.

    I do have extremely strong feelings about the need for fairness. Equal protection.

    We can't have one citizen required to walk around with papers that another citizen doesn't need simply because they look different.

    If we do this we will quickly degenerate into a society in which the very concept of citizenship will disappear. We will have multi-tiered citizenship types.

    An aside--- prior to WWII many Jews fled from Germany to China and then to the Philippines to escape Nazi persecution. Their German passports were stamped with a "J" to signify that they were, ah, different from other German citizens.

    When Japan ( an ally of Germany) attacked us at Pearl Harbor and simultaneously attacked and invaded and conquered The Philippines, they discovered that there were caucasians living in The Philippines with German Passports. This presented a problem for the Japanese invaders. They had thought that all caucasians they would encounter were Americans to be rounded up and taken to concentration camps-or shot. Since Germany was their Ally they couldn't and didn't arrest the German Jews of Manila, at least not usually.

    They couldn't imprison the citizens of their ally. Having no experience with a Jewish population in Japan, their officers
    either had no clue about what the J on the German passport meant, or if told by the Japanese high command that these 'weren't really Germans,' the officers couldn't figure out what was going on. The consequence was that Jews in The Philippines were mostly left alone during the war. Once in awhile there would be a Japanese officer who drank the German kool aid, but mostly they just couldn't figure out how these Jews were any different from any other German.

    I'm telling you this because there is a lot of mischief to be made by messing with status, and be redefining citizenship. In the above example, by luck, it maybe worked out OK to a point in one specific situation. But don't count on that. When you label people as different you start to treat them as different, and soon enough there will "papers" designating all manner of things we currently shrug off as the tapestry of America.

  6. #185
    Distinguished Member Array 21bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ky.
    Posts
    1,890
    Hopyard, where did you come up with that 16% figure? And does that include illegals?
    Using really rough math and rough numbers that would mean that there's approx. 52 million hispanic's in the U.S. A little under 1 in 7 of the population?

  7. #186
    Member Array DZcarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by 21bubba View Post
    Hopyard, where did you come up with that 16% figure? And does that include illegals?
    Using really rough math and rough numbers that would mean that there's approx. 52 million hispanic's in the U.S. A little under 1 in 7 of the population?
    I'm not hopyard, but Arizona QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau is a good place to start.

    "Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2008 (b) Arizona 30.1% USA 15.4%"
    Proud Lady Blue Dog

  8. #187
    DC Founder
    Array Bumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    20,045
    I edited out some of the material that really had nothing to do with this topic and was likely to spark a political debate, which I would like to avoid. This is truly a bipartisan issue and the following article proves it. You can take the link to the article if you want to read the whole thing, just don't bring the political aspects back to the thread. I will say that the following part is from someone I really can't stand but she is absolutely right and I felt it necessary to giver her credit for it:

    Democratic strategist Susan Estrich notes that “the federal government is supposed to secure the border. Its failure to do so effectively … invites measures like Arizona's. … In the final analysis, the greatest threat to the rule of law is the lawlessness that leaves both desperate immigrants and desperate citizens vulnerable and afraid.”

    National Poll: 60% in Favor of Arizona Immigration Law
    Monday, 26 Apr 2010, 5:39 PM MDT

    From RasmussenReports.com

    A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 60% of voters nationwide favor a law that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant, while 31% are opposed.

    Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans support the law along with 62% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Democratic voters are evenly divided on the measure.

    At the same time, however, 58% of all voters are at least somewhat concerned that “efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants will also end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens.” That figure includes 29% who are Very Concerned about possible civil rights violations.

    Voter support for empowering local police comes at a time when most voters (56%) believe it is unlikely Congress will take action to gain control of the border. Only 31% say Congress is even somewhat likely to take such an action. That figure includes just 10% who believe Congress is Very Likely to act.

    Not surprisingly, support for the law authorizing local police to arrest illegal immigrants is a bit higher in Arizona than it is nationwide. As one of the states most impacted by illegal immigration, 70% of voters statewide favor the new law.

    Eighty-three percent (83%) of Arizona voters say a candidate's position on immigration is an important factor in how they will vote, including 51% who say it’s very important.

    The new survey results are consistent with findings conducted over many years. Three-out-of-four voters believe that the federal government is not doing enough to secure the nation’s borders. In fact, 56% believe that the policies of the federal government encourage illegal immigration. Among voters who are angry about immigration, 83% are angry at the federal government. Only 12% direct their anger at the immigrants

    The biggest point of disconnect between voters and the conventional wisdom in Washington, D.C. has to do with priorities. Almost always in Washington, the debate begins with a focus on how to address the status of illegal immigrants. To voters, that is a secondary concern. Controlling the borders is the top concern. That hasn’t changed since the 2006 immigration legislation collapsed when the U.S. Senate surrendered to public opinion. During that debate, a New York Times/CBS poll found that 69% believed illegal immigrants should be prosecuted and deported.

    Other surveys have found that 73% of voters want cops to check the immigration status of all offenders during traffic stops. Sixty-seven percent (67%) also say that if law enforcement officers know of places where immigrants gather to find work, they should sometimes conduct surprise raids to identify and deport those who are here illegally.

    Sixty-eight percent (68%) of voters nationwide say that those who knowingly hire illegal immigrants should be punished. By a 48% to 36% margin, voters say the same about landlords who rent to illegal immigrants. Additionally, 77% of voters nationwide oppose drivers’ licenses for undocumented immigrants.

    Joe Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona, created a national controversy by aggressively enforcing national immigration laws. While his efforts prompted a U.S. Justice Department civil rights investigation, the sheriff remains popular in his home state. Most Arizona voters not only support his policies, but 58% say he has been good for the state’s image. On a personal basis, Arpaio is viewed favorably by 68% of Arizona voters.

    Last week's poll in Arizona found 70 percent of likely voters in Arizona back the bill.
    Bumper
    Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.

  9. #188
    Distinguished Member Array 21bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    ky.
    Posts
    1,890
    Wow! The people are speaking.

  10. #189
    VIP Member Array SatCong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,750
    Quote Originally Posted by 21bubba View Post
    Wow! The people are speaking.
    Yes they are.
    NRA PATRON LIFE
    BROWN WATER NAVY

  11. #190
    DC Founder
    Array Bumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    20,045
    Regarding the Social Security card for illegal aliens, they can waltz right in and get one but they usually don't. Often they will "borrow" the name and social security number of someone they know, with the person they "borrow" it from being paid for the privilege. With a legitimate name and address they can open a bank account and establish themselves. At tax time, they have the person file the taxes for them, paying anything owed.

    More often, however, they will simply use identity theft to provide them an identity and "prove" they are legal. Any kind of trouble they get in winds up on the person who's identity they stole. If they start writing hot checks or committing other crimes YOU could wind up holding the bag. They can (and do) get insurance, also under YOUR name and SSN, but then cancel it as soon as the insurance card is issued, which is usually on the spot. Guess who they come after if they get in an accident?

    Sneaking into this country is a crime but it is NOT a victimless crime. With identity theft, YOU could be the one that turns out being the victim.....
    Bumper
    Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.

  12. #191
    Member Array Wilber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    29
    The truth is the only people that will need to worry about this law are the people that are here illegally. Get stopped and you are here legally you are on your way. Get stopped and you are here illegally you have a problem.
    If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.

    -Will Rogers

  13. #192
    Member Array J400Cali's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    California
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    My friend, it is a dangerous place to be when we allow our feelings and beliefs to devalue human life to the point we would advocate, entertain, or stand by, while any people were harmed,violated, or otherwise destoyed. Believe me when I say I feel very strongly and advocate sending illegal immigrants back home. But we must not compromise our integrity and positions as the champions to this world as leaders of freedom and staunch supporters of human and civil rights to accomplish this. There are movements in this country aimed at putting a boot up the rear of the Federal Goverment to make them do their jobs. I implore you to take a deep breath and think about your position. I do not believe that you could really feel as you do and also believe in America. History has shown us what happens when we get caught up in the heat of issues and allow our emotions and frustrations to guide our actions.
    I have to commend and thank you for this post. We probably have different views on the AZ thing but similar views in what you just posted. Thank you again.

  14. #193
    Member Array kccad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    139
    Fears of Arizona's Immigration Law Are Bogus
    By John Lott
    FOXNews.com

    It's hard to argue that the requirements of Arizona's new immigration law will impose an undue burden.

    When Arizona's new law was signed on Friday, Hispanics demonstrated outside the state capitol in Phoenix, fearful of what it would mean for them. "If a cop sees them and they look Mexican, he's going to stop me," a 18-year-old Hispanic told the Associated Press. "What if people are U.S. citizens? They're going to be asking them if they have papers because of the color of their skin." The young man claimed that he was that even though he was a U.S. citizen he risked being arrested and put in jail.

    Other news stories discuss Hispanics believing that they will have to have to carry multiple IDs to avoid prison. "Even if you're legal, you're in fear that maybe your driver's license isn't going to be enough or if you're walking down the street and the police stop you," a 21-year-old University of Arizona college student told CNN. "It's a constant fear we're living in and even legal citizens are afraid to go out."

    But it is a dangerous game stirring up fears of people being hunted down and put in jail because of their race or nationality. The law specifically bans picking up someone just because they are Hispanic or even because the person was originally from Mexico or any other country you can read a copy of the law right here. Anyone arrested for a crime must have their immigration status determined before they are released. Thus, it is not just Hispanics who will be required to provide evidence of citizenship, but so will all whites, blacks and Asians. If the eligibility for public services depends on citizenship, again, everyone who applies, regardless of race, will have to provide an ID. In other circumstances, law enforcement officials must have reasonable suspicion, not based simply on the person's race or origin, that the individual is an illegal alien before they can ask to check someone's ID.

    Police today already have to deal with the "reasonable suspicion" standard all the time in other areas of law enforcement, and most understand very well how this standard limits what they can do. Police know that they can't pull over drivers for fear that they are smuggling drugs just because they are black. "Reasonable suspicion" requires that the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to convince a person of "reasonable prudence" that a crime has been committed. Obviously in a state such as Arizona, with an estimated half a million illegal immigrants, the vast majority OF illegal aliens are going to be Hispanic. But the reasonableness standard used by Arizona specifically requires something other than just race or national origin.

    The ID requested is hardly draconian: a driver's license, a non-operating identification license, valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification, or "any valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification." Rather than requiring multiple IDs as some fear, the law clearly says that "any" of the IDs is sufficient. And the notion of having to carry IDs is not something unique to Arizona. President Obama and many Democrats, such as Senator Charles Schumer, support a national ID card, so it hard to argue that Arizona's requirement will impose an undue burden.

    Even if a person does not present the required ID, that doesn't necessarily mean the person faces problems. The new Arizona law requires that "a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person." Today, this is not hard to accomplish quickly as computer records have photographs and other identifying details for people who have state-issued IDs. The only exception to making "a reasonable attempt" is if making that investigation would "hinder or obstruct" a criminal investigation. That isn't going to effect many cases.

    Obama has now instructed the Justice Department to find some way to challenge the new law. It seems very unlikely that they will succeed in stopping the law's primary requirements. Sadly, the president and others are unjustifiably stirring up extreme fears. This might be good short-run politics, but those stoking these fears must realize that their credibility is on the line. Unless some federal law will quickly be rammed through Congress, it will soon become evident that U.S. citizens and legal residents have absolutely nothing to fear.

    John R. Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, 2010), the book's third edition will be published in May.

    FOXNews.com - Fears of Arizona's Immigration Law Are Bogus

  15. #194
    Member Array UnklFungus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    441
    Well, it looks like it may already be having an effect. Mexico warns it's people;
    The alert recommends Mexicans travelling to Arizona to ensure they "act with prudence and respect local laws".

    "As long as no clear criteria are defined for when, where and who the authorities will inspect, it must be assumed that every Mexican citizen may be harassed and questioned without further cause at any time," it reads.
    Maybe if so many had done this to begin with, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
    However, if Mexico would get it's act straight, then maybe many could enjoy a better life there.

    BBC News - Mexico warns citizens over new Arizona immigration law

    Mr Calderon is due to whine about the issue with Mr Obama in Washington next month.
    Hee Hee, couldn't resist...
    “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”

    Patrick Henry
    Quote Originally Posted by UnklFungus
    If it is ok to disarm legal citizens to reduce crime, then doesn't it stand to disband the military to prevent war?

  16. #195
    VIP Member Array SatCong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,750

    Question Mexicans warned over Arizona law


    Mexicans warned over Arizona law
    Mexico has urged its nationals to carry proper documentation with them to Arizona in response to a tough new immigration law in the US state.

    In a travel alert, the foreign ministry says there will be a "negative political environment" for Mexican visitors and migrants.

    The law, signed into law last week, requires Arizona police to question people on their immigration status.

    The Mexican government has condemned the legislation as "discriminatory".

    The law is due to come into effect in 90 days despite strong criticism from President Barack Obama and protests.

    'Harassed'

    The alert recommends Mexicans travelling to Arizona to ensure they "act with prudence and respect local laws".

    "As long as no clear criteria are defined for when, where and who the authorities will inspect, it must be assumed that every Mexican citizen may be harassed and questioned without further cause at any time," it reads.

    It also reminds citizens that they are protected by international human rights laws.

    Mexican President Felipe Calderon has warned that relations with Arizona would suffer and that his country would use all means at its disposal to defend its people.

    Under the new rules, those unable to show that they are legally allowed in the US could be given six-month jail sentences and fined $2,500 (about £1,600).

    The law was signed by Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer, who said it "protects every American citizen".

    Supporters say not enough is being done at a national level to address the problem of immigrants and drugs crossing the border from Mexico to the US.

    The state is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.

    Mr Calderon is due to discuss the issue with Mr Obama in Washington next month.

    Story from BBC NEWS:
    BBC News - Mexico warns citizens over new Arizona immigration law

    Published: 2010/04/27 1706 GMT
    BBC News - Mexico warns citizens over new Arizona immigration law
    NRA PATRON LIFE
    BROWN WATER NAVY

Page 13 of 23 FirstFirst ... 391011121314151617 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Arizona Immigration Bill Poll
    By ErnieNWillis in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 102
    Last Post: May 5th, 2010, 01:14 PM
  2. New Oklahoma Immigration Law
    By AirMech74 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 15th, 2007, 05:52 PM
  3. New Gun Control/Immigration Bill
    By stalker_us2000 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2007, 11:58 PM
  4. Immigration
    By TonyW in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2007, 05:48 PM

Search tags for this page

can dianne feinstein be sued

,

guatemalans in brazos county

,

immigration bill fines companies for hiring natural born citizens

,

page 20 in immigration bill

Click on a term to search for related topics.