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 knuts6 Not sure what people don't understand about the word illegal. Very True....

Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ... 131920212223
Results 331 to 342 of 342

Thread: immigration bill

  1. #331
    VIP Member Array SatCong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,780
    Quote Originally Posted by knuts6 View Post
    Not sure what people don't understand about the word illegal.
    Very True.
    NRA PATRON LIFE
    BROWN WATER NAVY

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #332
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573

    re: SatCong

    Quote Originally Posted by SatCong View Post
    If that is true. Your telling me you believe or accept what ever the Supreme Court rules on.Now that is is strange thinking.
    It really doesn't matter what you or I believe or accept with respect to Supreme Court precedent and rulings.

    The bottom line is that Hines v. Davidowitz is the law until either Congress does something to change the law or the Supreme Court overturns its own prior ruling.

    This has has nothing whatsoever to do with what I believe, and I hope we all accept our constitutional system.

  4. #333
    VIP Member Array SatCong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,780
    Just got this.
    Boycott Arizona: Go ahead, make my day…

    http://sonoranalliance.com/2010/05/01/b ... %e2%80%a6/

    By Doug Sposito

    Despite the accusations from uninformed pundits, Arizona is a centrist state. We have 1,024,758 registered Democrats, 1,121,753 registered Republicans and 939,542 registered Independents.

    In the last 20 years we are more likely to elect a woman as governor. Four of our last five governors have been women serving from both the Democratic and Republican parties. Currently five of our 8 congressmen/women are Democrats. Only three are republican. District 8 serving southern Arizona was held by Congressman Jim Kolbe an openly gay Republican who served for 22 consecutive years until he retired four years ago.

    We have a strong libertarian streak of rugged individualism. Even some Democrats tend to be rural small government folks. We produce statesmen the likes of and Barry Goldwater and Mo Udall.

    As for the ruckus over the senate immigration bill, 70% of the state supports it, including 51% of all Democrats and a majority of all legal immigrants. We have the highest population of Hispanics as a percent of total population at 30 %.

    Arizona’s current immigration problems can be traced to the effectiveness of a Clinton-era security operation, Operation Gatekeeper on the California–Mexico border and the building of the “triple fence” that effectively stopped 90% of all illegal border crossings in California. By 1997, Clinton doubled the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) budget to 800 million dollars, the number of Border Patrol agents had also nearly doubled, the amount of fencing or other barriers more than doubled, and the number of underground sensors nearly tripled in California.

    Illegal border crossers who had routinely crossed in the relatively temperate conditions of Coastal California were now physically diverted to the extreme and difficult crossing of the Arizona desert.

    By 2006 the Tucson sector accounted for more Border Patrol apprehensions than any other sector in the US. The Tucson sector alone accounted for 36 percent (392,104) of the 1.1 million total US Border Patrol apprehensions in that year. When you add in Yuma (118,537) the south west corner of Arizona accounted for 510,641 apprehensions or nearly 45,000 illegal border crossers per month. This is not the number who crossed. This is only the number who were caught trying to cross. And this is only half the state of Arizona.

    I personally filmed the environmental degradation caused by the sheer number of people passing through our desert. You can see the you-tube video I posted here. The footage is of a “layup”. It is one of several dozen within 50 miles of Tucson. This footage is of approximately a quarter mile of sandy wash at the foot of Kit-Peak National Observatory. The property owners estimate that 1,500 people layup here every week. The music overlay is meant to be sarcastic and the statistics from the Pew Hispanic center reflect my outrage at being constantly told my profession in the construction industry was work “American citizens” would not do.

    A tragic paradox for private Arizona citizens is the border patrol will not patrol private property to apprehend an illegal crosser and many police will not respond to calls of illegal crossers on private property because it is a federal issue.

    This allows human smugglers and their human or drug cargo to make dashes across several miles of open government owned desert to “layups” on private property to prepare for the next leg of the journey.

    Government agencies offer no financial assistance for clean up of the layups and in many cases disposal must be made to haz-mat collectors because the crossers carry epidemic levels of tuberculosis and hepatitis. Many of the items seen in the video footage are too contaminated for simple disposal. When I made this video I was accompanied by heavily armed guards

    We divide the illegal crossers into two groups, walkers and runners. Walkers are the folks who want to cause no intentional harm to anyone. They are typically looking for a better life for themselves and their families. Runners are the smugglers. They run guns, money, drugs and these days many humans. Bajadores are the illegal crossers inside the US who prey upon the smugglers stealing the human or drug cargo by executing the smugglers and then holding the kidnapped cargo for ransom to either the producers or the families of the walkers.

    Phoenix is now the kidnapping capitol of the US.

    Because the runners would not know I was not a Bajadore I would have been shot dead had I stumbled upon an occupied layup, therefore the armed escort. The items left are the personal possessions of the walkers. They are forced to leave all of them as they are usually crammed 20+ into vans and trucks for the next leg and there is no room for back packs and extra clothing.

    Even though the economy is down and estimates range from a 25-50% reduction in illegal crossers for Arizona this is still 25,000 tired, brutalized, terrified human beings entering our state every month. They need food, health care, places to live and clothing. Despite what you’re hearing in the news, us “racist” Arizonans provide this for these people.

    And let me be clear Arizonans provide for these people not the US. The federal government refuses to assist or reimburse for any of the enormity of the financial costs.

    Thirty miles on either side of the Mexican-American border is now considered by residents as lawless. On the Mexican side the corruption is too prevalent to allow for any meaningful attempt at immigration control and on the US side the border is too remote for responders. Both the residents and the smugglers are aware of this.

    Where I live roughly fifteen miles north of the border the sheriff response time is 1-1/2 hours. The smugglers have complete control and they know it. We are at their mercy.

    Under the current administration it has gotten worse. It is hard to believe President Obama would not understand his border policy implementation would not have dire consequences.

    Bush was roundly criticized for not increasing the guest worker program enough to alleviate the pressure caused by illegal crossers and the real demand for the workers.

    Under Obama instead of increasing the U.S. guest worker program it has been slashed from nearly of 130,000 workers to 66,000 in 2009 as President Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress, under tremendous pressure from Unions fearful of low wage, non voting workers declined to renew an expansion of the H2-b guest worker program passed by the Republicans and Bush in 2005.

    Arizona’s problems have been exacerbated further when the President’s 2010 Homeland Security budget cut the Customs and Border Protection budget, reduced funding for E-Verify by $35 million, and cut $226 million from the budget for border security, fencing, personnel, infrastructure and technology.

    Arizona was getting a loud and clear message from this Administration and its position on border security and a tragic lack of empathy for the financial woes the Federal governments border policies were generating.

    Arizona, as with all Border States, deals daily with Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) officers whose sole responsibility is to patrol the borders and capture those who have violated Federal law and entered the country illegally. ICE agents do not look for drunk drivers; they do not issue speeding tickets. They are trained exclusively to identify and capture illegal aliens.

    They also do not patrol just the border. Due to poor security at the border, preventing illegal entry at its source, ICE agents can be found on every high-way, freeway and public access road in the State; From Flagstaff to Yuma, Douglas to Bullhead City. Every few miles on every road a white Federal truck with green stripe can be seen stopping and questioning people of their immigration status. By Federal law they do not need to have “lawful contact” to stop someone as required of police and sheriffs deputies, just reasonable suspicion.

    In 1996, then President Bill Clinton (D) signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) that among other things addressed the relationship between the Federal government and local governments concerning illegal immigration. Section 287(g) of IIRIRA is a program that deputizes state and local law enforcement personnel to act as Federal enforcement agents and to enforce immigration matters.

    In essence this deputization removes the “Lawful Contact” provision from state and local law officials in circumstances of documentation and citizenship and allows the officer to question the residency status within the boundaries of Federal “reasonable suspicion” rules.

    Lawful contact is a statutory requirement of police that a resident can be stopped only if in obvious violation of a current law. Speeding, drunk driving, fleeing a robbed convenience store for example. A police officer or sheriff cannot legally stop some one because they might be a human smuggler, or drug smuggler or illegal alien. ICE agents can.

    Acknowledgeably Lawful Contact is a bit of a moving target for law enforcement. It is continuously being defined and redefined by judges and fallible police officers.

    A list of participating 287(g) Arizona enforcement (and all other states) agencies can be found here. It includes Arizona’s most populous counties and city. In other words most of Arizona’s law enforcement officials already have a greater degree of “discriminatory” authority granted by the Obama administration and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano than Arizona’s new illegal immigration law will allow. Arizona’s new illegal immigration law mandates “lawful contact” before any stop or request of documents can be made.

    Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon (D) in a letter to the Washington Post described his fellow Arizonans as “… bitter, small-minded and full of hate, and they in no way speak for Arizona” and yet in 2008, asked for and signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under Section 287(g) with the Federal Government that authorized his Phoenix Police officers to behave as Federal Immigration enforcement officers. This authorization exactly allowed his officers to legally disregard the “Lawful Contact” provision of State law as well as the same provision in SB1070 and inquire as to the immigration status of an individual simply because they have reasonable suspicion as to individual’s residency just as ICE agents do. His and other accusations of hate and racism make no sense in this context.

    They do make sense in a context of party pandering and ignorance.

    Los Angles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (D) stated “The Arizona law is not only misguided, it is unpatriotic and unconstitutional,” Villaraigosa falsely stated at a City Hall news conference. “It requires all law enforcement officers to stop anyone suspected of being in our country illegally. It allows law enforcement to make arrests without a warrant.” Yet Los Angeles County also has a 287(g) MOA with the Obama administration and has maintained its MOA since 2005 that again demands exactly the “discriminatory” policies lamented by the mayor. LA could voluntarily drop from the program if they truly felt this was about race and discrimination yet they don’t.

    In a true lesson in absurdity President of Mexico, Felipe Calderon, said the law was discriminatory and warned that trade and political ties with Arizona will be seriously strained by the crackdown. The measure “opens the door to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement”. Mexico then issued a travel advisory to Mexican citizens traveling to Arizona.

    In the same week Amnesty International called the abuse of illegal migrants in Mexico a major human rights crisis, and accused Mexican officials of turning a blind eye and even participating in the kidnapping, rape and murder of illegal migrants.

    And what of our own President, his administration has kept intact IIRIRA and more specifically Section 287(g). His response …”Indeed, our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others,” said the President. “And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe”.

    I welcome his acknowledgement of federal irresponsibility yet this blatant pander to ill-informed citizens while his own officers are apparently “undermine[ing] basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans” is infuriating.

    And more important, President Obama’s political response to Arizona; in an Associated Press story, was to take Immigration reform off the table until after this years election, purely for political advantage, and fail once again to act as his own words suggest, responsibly at the Federal level.

    Interestingly, it would be significantly less “racist”, less “discriminatory” and violate fewer “civil rights” if the Obama administration abandoned IIRIRA and Section 287(g) and adopted wholly Arizona’s SB 1070 which would require all officers to have “Lawful Contact” before making any stop of any persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.

    So a reasonable question for Arizona would be: why do you need SB1070 if so many police officers and sheriffs already have the authority to stop, question and arrest a person based solely on residency status?

    In October of 2009 after enduring tremendous pressure from current Administration supporters to repeal Arizona’s 287(g) MOA and fearful of political back lash at the poles if Arizona’s Maricopa County MOA was not revoked, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano announced a partial revocation of Arizona’s 287(g) agreement as a political pander to Party line ideologues.

    It was quickly reinstated.

    An October 6, 2009 press release from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office reported that “the decision to curtail the Sheriff’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent status emanates from as high as the White House.”

    Maybe not, but the Arizona state legislature had had enough. Tired of illegal immigration being a political football for ideologues and demagogues with no intention of solving the problem, and the MOA 287(g) agreements being treated as weapons to coerce and influence behavior or to satisfy crony political agendas. Tired of paying an increasingly larger portion of our state budget (currently 1.1 billion annually) to provide for and take care of, the illegal border crossers passing through our deserts, Arizona wrote its own bill found here, Senate Bill 1070. The following are the first two paragraphs:

    “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act”

    Senate Bill 1070

    A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

    B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMP SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

    Despite what political ideologues say, this bill requires “lawful contact” and in no way can any officer in the state of Arizona simply demand residency documentation based on race, as the federal government currently does and bigoted pundits have suggested.


    NRA PATRON LIFE
    BROWN WATER NAVY

  5. #334
    Senior Member Array AlexHassin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    the North East
    Posts
    552
    Well considering the facts that last time I a flight to the states I was asked before I got my passport on the table if this was my first visit to America. I am not shore what I think about having police in Arizona asking those questions. Also I might be mistaken hear but don’t foreigners on student visas and some others ones not need to have there immigration id at all times?

  6. #335
    Distinguished Member Array P7fanatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Texan in NWFlorida
    Posts
    1,588
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    In 1939 PA passed a law requiring aliens to carry an identification card. Sound familiar?

    The Supreme Court struck that law in 1941.

    And,

    "Justice Hugo L. Black emphasized the broad power of Congress over this area of law: immigration was not an area of law traditionally delegated to States, but was delegated exclusively to Congress. 312 US 52, 62; 61 S Ct 399; 85 L Ed 581 (1941):"

    From the actual decision: " When the national government by treaty or statute has established rules and regulations touching the rights, privileges, obligations or burdens of aliens as such, the treaty or statute is the supreme law of the land. No state can add to or take from the force and effect of such treaty or statute, "

    Existing Supreme Court rulings make it rather plain that AZ overstepped its authority.
    Hopeyard,

    Since 1952, it has been federal law that legal immigrants are required to carry 'green cards'. I know this to be true as my wife has one. That shows that they are legally in the U.S. Understand?

    It's nice how Hugo speaks of laws (authority) delegated to either the states or congress. If congress adhered to these limitations and the states held them to their Constitutional limitated powers while retaining their own Constitutional powers, this country would be in a lot better position than it is now.

    As far as Hugo Black goes, I can't hold a lot of respect for a justice that intentionally misinterprets a 'quote in a letter' as the basis for a SCOTUS decision when the only basis for the decision should have been the U.S. Constitution. That and Kelo are two of the worst SCOTUS decisions in the history of the court, IMO.

    Neith do I agree with your comment that "Existing Supreme Court rulings make it rather plain that AZ overstepped its authority". AZ has simply mirrored existing Federal immigration law with state law to make it easier for Arizona LE to enforce those existing laws since the Federal Govt has been derelict in their duties of its enforcement for the last 25 years. Now if you think that their law 'adds to the statute', let's hear specifics. We've had enough attacks and outlandish rhetoric from people that believe any and all foreigners have the right to just walk across our borders should they want. To hear people that favor illegal immigration say the AZ law targets 'dark skinned people' and 'families going to the ice cream shop' borders on the absurd and is very irresponsible.

    Bottom line is, if I'm right, it will pass muster of the court challenges. If you're right, it will be struck down by SCOTUS or another high court.


    "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson

    "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." -Michael Savage

    GOOD Gun Control is being able to hit your target! -Myself

  7. #336
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573

    re: P7Fanatic

    Quote Originally Posted by P7fanatic View Post
    Hopeyard,

    Since 1952, it has been federal law that legal immigrants are required to carry 'green cards'. I know this to be true as my wife has one. That shows that they are legally in the U.S. Understand?
    SO? It is still a Federal and not a state issue.

    It's nice how Hugo speaks of laws (authority) delegated to either the states or congress.
    He spoke for the court majority, that is wrote the majority decision. We are all bound by it. It is still good case law.

    If congress adhered to these limitations and the states held them to their Constitutional limitated powers while retaining their own Constitutional powers, this country would be in a lot better position than it is now.
    Uh Huh. But this argument is about states adhering to their constitutional limits. You have it upside down.

    As far as Hugo Black goes, I can't hold a lot of respect for a justice that intentionally misinterprets a 'quote in a letter' as the basis for a SCOTUS decision when the only basis for the decision should have been the U.S. Constitution. That and Kelo are two of the worst SCOTUS decisions in the history of the court, IMO.
    Well, Black had nothing whatsoever to do with Kelo and the two cases were separated in time by something like 4 decades. We are bound by the court's decisions. That is the way it works, whether we like it or not. At least until Congress either changes the law or the
    states band together to call a constitutional convention to amend the document.

    Neith do I agree with your comment that "Existing Supreme Court rulings make it rather plain that AZ overstepped its authority".

    That's fine. As you already know, numerous suits have been filed and this will be sorted out by the judges, not the politicians and not us.

    AZ has simply mirrored existing Federal immigration law with state law to make it easier for Arizona LE to enforce those existing laws
    Which it has no right to enforce unless there is a specific 287(g) agreement and the officers are specifically trained by Federal immigration authorities.

    since the Federal Govt has been derelict in their duties of its enforcement for the last 25 years.
    Two wrongs don't make a right. You'll get no argument from me that the Federal government has done its job in the area. It certainly has not.

    Now if you think that their law 'adds to the statute', let's hear specifics. We've had enough attacks and outlandish rhetoric from people that believe any and all foreigners have the right to just walk across our borders should they want.
    Let me make clear that I don't believe what you are attributing to me. Too many people have struggled to get here legally for any right minded person to support illegal entry.

    As to the "adds to the statute" the AZ law is effectively a mirror of the law struck down in 1941. It is requiring all aliens to have documentation, and the 1941 decision made plain that ONLY the Federal Government may legislate the burdens placed on aliens.

    "When the national government by treaty or statute has established rules and regulations touching the rights, privileges, obligations or burdens of aliens ... No state can add to or take from the force and effect of such treaty or statute. " In short, if the Federal government
    wanted the state to be checking ID, it could legislate that. If the Federal government wanted undocumented individuals held for immigration, it could legislate that. It has chosen to not do so. So when AZ make up its own rules, it is "adding."


    To hear people that favor illegal immigration say the AZ law targets 'dark skinned people' and 'families going to the ice cream shop' borders on the absurd and is very irresponsible.
    What you are hearing from me, (and I am an individual who absolutely does not favor illegal immigration or undocumented individuals here unlawfully,) is that the AZ law violates the 14th amendment by placing undue burdens on US Citizens who happen to look different, and that the law is in violation of the Supreme Court's
    prior rulings.


    Bottom line is, if I'm right, it will pass muster of the court challenges. If you're right, it will be struck down by SCOTUS or another high court.
    Of course. But do we really want our state legislatures knowingly and I think rather ignorantly if not maliciously in this instance, passing unconstitutional laws?

    Again, what part of the 1941 decision isn't crystal clear?

  8. #337
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573

    re: Sat Cong

    Quote Originally Posted by SatCong View Post

    Your governor wrote, per what you posted:

    "Interestingly, it would be significantly less “racist”, less “discriminatory” and violate fewer “civil rights” if the Obama administration abandoned IIRIRA and Section 287(g) and adopted wholly Arizona’s SB 1070 which would require all officers to have “Lawful Contact” before making any stop of any persons within the jurisdiction of the United States."
    Right here is where the big problem exists. 287 g requires special training of officers before they are permitted to enforce immigration laws. This is necessary because those laws happen to be extremely complex, and as I have shown here, many people might appear to be here illegally, without papers, when they have every right to be here without papers. Therefore, only an officer fully trained in the intricacies can be permitted to enforce immigration law.

    The AZ law bypasses the 287g requirement, and thus violates the present Federal statutes by "adding" unlawfully to them per the Hines v Davidowitz decision of the Supreme Court, in 1941.

    For those who repeatedly ask "what part of illegal don't you understand," my retort is, "what part of unconstitutional" don't you understand.

  9. #338
    VIP Member Array SatCong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    It really doesn't matter what you or I believe or accept with respect to Supreme Court precedent and rulings.

    The bottom line is that Hines v. Davidowitz is the law until either Congress does something to change the law or the Supreme Court overturns its own prior ruling.

    This has has nothing whatsoever to do with what I believe, and I hope we all accept our constitutional system.
    And you are a Constitutional Lawyer with experience and wins, think not.
    NRA PATRON LIFE
    BROWN WATER NAVY

  10. #339
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573

    re: Sat Cong

    Quote Originally Posted by SatCong View Post
    And you are a Constitutional Lawyer with experience and wins, think not.
    O.K. You win. You are clearly a constitutional scholar who has studied these things and your opinion deserves respect.

  11. #340
    Moderator
    Array gasmitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Gilbert, AZ
    Posts
    10,093

    Time to lock it down

    I think it's time to lock this thread down... it's generating more heat than light. The majority of posts of the past couple of days has been between a few people who are simply becoming more entrenched in their positions.

    Nearly everyone has established their positions on the topic, and it is unlikely that further debate will change anyone's mind.
    Smitty
    NRA Endowment Member

  12. #341
    VIP Member Array SatCong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    O.K. You win. You are clearly a constitutional scholar who has studied these things and your opinion deserves respect.
    Sad part is I didn't say, but it seems you think you are.
    NRA PATRON LIFE
    BROWN WATER NAVY

  13. #342
    DC Founder
    Array Bumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    20,045
    I am locking this one and I believe this will be the last thread on Arizona's new bill. It's been passed, we (the citizens) love it, get over it. Any other posts regarding this bill will be immediately removed.
    Bumper
    Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde; Beware the anger of a patient man.

Page 23 of 23 FirstFirst ... 131920212223

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

,

feinstein misinterpreting immigration

,

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.