Log in

View Full Version : Arizona and Immigration



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5

bem401
06-03-2010, 05:15 AM
Stop putting down the poor oppressed white people damnit! they've had it so hard for so long, not easy like everyone else.

So your argument is now that because non-whites were oppressed in the past, its OK to oppress white people now, even though the majority of them are not oppressors themselves or descendants of those that were? In other words, two wrongs make a right?

Trem
06-03-2010, 08:05 AM
So your argument is now that because non-whites were oppressed in the past, its OK to oppress white people now, even though the majority of them are not oppressors themselves or descendants of those that were? In other words, two wrongs make a right?

No, my argument is if that you think white people are in any way shape or form oppressed you are complete idiot.

Kellydancer
06-03-2010, 11:52 AM
well, it just so happens that many of these issues may come to a head as a result of an Arizona lawsuit ... honestly, "you can't make this s#!t up folks !"


(snip)"An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.

His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.

Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.

The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.

Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.

The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."

In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."

The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.

In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.

Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.

Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.

Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their "clients" to keep them running.

He said he carried a pistol during his searches for the immigrants and had a rifle in his truck "for protection" against immigrant and drug smugglers, who often are armed.

A former Cochise County sheriff´s deputy who later was successful in the towing and propane business, Mr. Barnett spent $30,000 on electronic sensors, which he has hidden along established trails on his ranch. He searches the ranch for illegal immigrants in a pickup truck, dressed in a green shirt and camouflage hat, with his handgun and rifle, high-powered binoculars and a walkie-talkie.

His sprawling ranch became an illegal-immigration highway when the Border Patrol diverted its attention to several border towns in an effort to take control of the established ports of entry. That effort moved the illegal immigrants to the remote areas of the border, including the Cross Rail Ranch.

"This is my land. I´m the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back." "(snip)

from


There are so many legal issues involved in this lawsuit that it's downright mind-boggling ...

- are illegal immigrants entitled to the same civil rights as US citizens ?

- what private property protection rights are Americans still allowed to assert ?

- what remains of the right of private citizens to make a 'citizen's arrest' after witnessing a crime being committed ?

- is it still possible for a white male property owner US citizen to assert that he is the 'victim' of non-white non-US citizen illegal immigrants traspassing on and vandalizing his property ?

~



Wow, so let me get this straight, an AMERICAN citizen found ILLEGALS aka CRIMINALS on HIS property, rounded them up, and they are suing for their rights? What rights? They are criminals and should all be deported. This reminds me of the two border patrol gaurds who shot an illegal drug dealer yet they went to jail. The message to this keep breaking the law illegals and we'll support all of you freeloaders.

Kellydancer
06-03-2010, 11:57 AM
No, my argument is if that you think white people are in any way shape or form oppressed you are complete idiot.

Yes, some white people are oppressed. Where I used to live it was known that black people often got jobs over white people. My high school had several black only programs but did not have a version for the white students. Many white kids can't go to college because they can't afford it, yet they supposedly are the ones in power? Sure, whites in general have the power but don't kid yourself and think all whites have it great.

Trem
06-03-2010, 12:01 PM
Wow, so let me get this straight, an AMERICAN citizen found ILLEGALS aka CRIMINALS on HIS property, rounded them up, and they are suing for their rights? What rights? They are criminals and should all be deported. This reminds me of the two border patrol gaurds who shot an illegal drug dealer yet they went to jail. The message to this keep breaking the law illegals and we'll support all of you freeloaders.

In America anybody can sue anybody else for any stupid reason they feel like, just because some people sued somebody else doesn't mean absolutely jack shit. If they were to win you would have a reason to start bitching, until then its all completely meaningless right wing propaganda.

Deogol
06-03-2010, 08:12 PM
In America anybody can sue anybody else for any stupid reason they feel like, just because some people sued somebody else doesn't mean absolutely jack shit. If they were to win you would have a reason to start bitching, until then its all completely meaningless right wing propaganda.

It's not propaganda, these people are continuing to harrass this rancher and his family through the courts. They are forcing him to endure emotional distress (ever been sued for money?) and to spend his resources (time, energy, money) on further protecting himself from these criminals - all with the assistance of the government!

I tell ya, I believe this shit is going to end badly if it continues on the course it is going.

Deogol
06-03-2010, 08:17 PM
Yes, some white people are oppressed. Where I used to live it was known that black people often got jobs over white people. My high school had several black only programs but did not have a version for the white students. Many white kids can't go to college because they can't afford it, yet they supposedly are the ones in power? Sure, whites in general have the power but don't kid yourself and think all whites have it great.

This is happening in places you would not even expect - like California's Silicon Valley. It is well known that if one see's Indians or Asians come into the interview room, a white might as well get up and leave because they are not getting the job.

Kitten Foster
06-03-2010, 08:25 PM
Next time you are outside ask yourself if a cop asked could you prove you are a legal resident. The problem is not what it does to illegal immigrants the problem is that "suspicion of being illegal" part, there is absolutely no way you can suspect someone of being illegal that does not revolve around the way they look. Basically if your skin is brown you better be carrying your birth certificate in your car, look in the mirror before you decide to head to Arizona and see if you pass the "whiteness" test. Might wanna stay away from those tanning beds too.

i live in arizona and you don't have to be "white" to not get pulled over. my fiance is brown and looks like a mexican but is actually native american (choctaw) and has had no problems. i honestly can say that i haven't actually seen or heard of anyone getting pulled over in this state just for looking like their illegal. if they really wanted to do something like this they could just start with the ones that wait on the side of the road or in front of the local circle k for a truck to pick them up and take them to work because they are all over the place here.

Kitten Foster
06-03-2010, 08:30 PM
If they wanted to be serious about stopping illegal immigration they would make the law apply to everyone, not just brown people. Drop the "suspicion of being illegal" racist bullshit and make white people have to carry their birth certificate, i guarantee you the law wouldn't last a day.

and they don't need to carry their birth certificates. just the green card/visa.

Kitten Foster
06-03-2010, 08:39 PM
You're missing the point Melonie. Nobody will ask white people to prove they are legal, that's why the law is racist and wrong. If they wanted to check EVERYONE that they arrest for papers that would be perfectly fine with me, but i guarantee you people who so easily want to take away the civil liberties of those with different color skin would bitch to high heaven when the same standards applied to them.

they check your ID no matter who you are. either way they will know if you are legal or not so they really don't actually have to ask "are you legal?" and even if they did who cares you have to answer that question on every job application and pretty much anything else here so what difference would it make.

Kitten Foster
06-03-2010, 08:45 PM
If you REALLY want to get rid of illegal immigrants you start throwing the rich people who hire them in jail. Contrary to what people believe illegal immigrants aren't "taking" jobs from americans, american companies are HAPPILY giving those jobs to them. The way we deal with illegal immigrants now would be like dealing with the drug problem by beating up addicts, giving street dealers a small fine and completely ignoring drug overlords. Leave the people trying to make a better life for themselves and their families alone, go after the people trying to exploit them for cheap labor instead and once those jobs dry up they will leave.

It happened here in Florida, when the housing market crashed and all the construction/landscaping/roofing jobs completely dried up all of the sudden entire neighborhoods of illegal immigrants simply disappeared. One lady who works for us told us how her entire family of thirty plus people simply packed up and left when they couldn't find any work for over a year. No jobs = no illegals.

yeah, see here's the thing about that...here in phoenix, we are all for the whole "doing better for your family" and all that but not when they are coming here and stealing people's identities and screwing up other people's lives to better their own; that is selfish and a felony. and unlike florida, since we are literally neighbors with mexico the illegal immigration never slows or decreases, it just increases. in fact it has increased more so just in the past few months even though there are no jobs and everyone is on unemployment.

Kellydancer
06-03-2010, 09:13 PM
This is happening in places you would not even expect - like California's Silicon Valley. It is well known that if one see's Indians or Asians come into the interview room, a white might as well get up and leave because they are not getting the job.

Don't get me started on Indians and Asians (especially Indians). I loathe those coming here on H1-B visas and it's starting in college. I got flack (not here) for saying I'd never date an Indian man. This personally is a bigger issue to me because they are stealing jobs many Americans (like me) could do and actually want.

bem401
06-04-2010, 05:37 AM
No, my argument is if that you think white people are in any way shape or form oppressed you are complete idiot.

Spoken like a true left-wing propagandist. Affirmative action gives a leg up to the non-whites, which means it is unfair to whites. I teach in a public school and there are all sorts of programs specifically for minorities, everything from Minority Health Week to the African American, Hispanic, and Asian Clubs. If someone were to start a program targeted for white people, everyone else would go berserk.

The legal Arizonans of all races are being negatively impacted by the federal government's unwillingness to enforce the laws that are already on the books. They are just trying to maintain the quality of life they have been able to enjoy in their state. Anyone found here illegally ( and I don't care if they were from Europe and related to me) should be told to leave and to come back through the proper channels. Race has absolutely nothing to do with it. The fact they are here criminally does.

SweetVibrance
06-08-2010, 09:44 PM
Kitten Foster, I applaud your effort to reason with him. But it's a lost cause. :-/

threlayer
06-09-2010, 10:28 AM
Yes there is, only people with suspicion of being illegal have to produce papers. There is NO non racial way to suspect someone of being illegal. Just because that retarded sheriff asks everyone doesn't mean that is what is written in the law.

Lots of people are deluding themselves into stagnation and impracticality because of the interpreted "politically correctness" of others. They seem to refuse to realize that something better must be done. They are not thinking things thru.

So let's get a little REALISTIC here. No one is going to suspect a Scandanavian pigmented person if they are an illegal Hispanic. How else? Ask for a DNA record? Isn't it easier to ask for paoers? Ignore the illegal immigration problem because there is no real way to tell without inquiring? Yes, they will find legal immigrants, some of whom have been here for generations. They might even find some Native Americans. I do not think inspections are a bad way of doing this. We can be tolerant of honest officials doing their jobs.

Can a police officer stop a driver who seems to be driving erratically and test for intoxication or should they assume the driving is only impaired by a bee buzzing arpound in the car? If a dog has no tags, is it liable to being picked up by a dog catcher? Is that legal? Or should the catcher be required to ask if the dog's tags may have been left at home? Or a suspicious package left someplace for a long time? What is wrong with inspections?

threlayer
06-09-2010, 10:40 AM
Spoken like a true left-wing propagandist. Affirmative action gives a leg up to the non-whites, which means it is unfair to whites. I teach in a public school and there are all sorts of programs specifically for minorities, everything from Minority Health Week to the African American, Hispanic, and Asian Clubs. If someone were to start a program targeted for white people, everyone else would go berserk.

The legal Arizonans of all races are being negatively impacted by the federal government's unwillingness to enforce the laws that are already on the books. They are just trying to maintain the quality of life they have been able to enjoy in their state. Anyone found here illegally ( and I don't care if they were from Europe and related to me) should be told to leave and to come back through the proper channels. Race has absolutely nothing to do with it. The fact they are here criminally does.

This is OK. But would you PLEASE omit the "left-wing" paranoia from your posts?????? A lot of this is just misplaced compassion, not political rhetoric.

threlayer
06-09-2010, 10:41 AM
Something must be done. AZ is in a bad situation because the lack of Fed enforcement is destroying their state, so they have to do something.

Practically there is no legal way without violating someones' sensibilities, but does that mean that there is no way at all of identifying illegals? Despite all the 'bleeding-heart liberals; we MUST make a way to do this. Yes, it may be inconvenient, but we allowed the problem to come to this severity and now we must pay something for our laxity and permissiveness.

Technically AZ is just enforcing Federal laws that they are technically obligated to enforce. How else would AZ do this? Stop everyone to see who carries no identification (even drivers licenses)? Raid businesses to inspect visas, work permits, identification? (In NYS we are officially required to carry ID at all times when out in public. No big deal unless people are hiding. But the IDs are only inspected if we are questioned by police during some unrelated investigation. We are not arrested then, but are allowed to retrieve our IDs if we do not have it on us right then.)

Fix the immigration laws and enforce the existing US laws. Do both. and improve what we already have.

And start satellite real-time monitoring of the border (including shores)--we have the satellite technology that does this since the military uses them for their purposes. Get with it Homeland Security Department !!

And get rid of corrupt US Border Patrol personnel. Do this right away. Lots of honest, willing workers out there.

Help Mexico fix their economic and border patrol systems, but there is so much corruption and drug wars, it will be a real effort. See what deaths and destruction all the US drug users are directly causing? Are you part of the problem? Feeling guilty yet?

You can be passive about this situation, but if your state is strangling under the problem, you have to do something.

Personally I am very offended by very oftenhaving to select which language I must respond to in a country where English is the only official language and where other foreign nationals must assimilate, as they have for generations. First thing all (not just Hispanics) foreign immigrants must do after registering is to start learning English. The rest of them do. Do not force us to become a bi-lingual country.

-----------------
I'm not saying stop them all; just make them legal and accountable and ferret out the ones with criminal histories. For one thing, note that the rapidly depleting US Social Security system will be fixed only by allowing in younger immigrants who can and will work and pay taxes. Our existing birth rate is below our death rate; further so many people are not productive citizens due to poverty, refusal to work, voluntary lack of training, and "disabilities". Come here legally, assimilate, work, and have a good life. Just don't steal ours!

Further, generations of legal immigrants have taken up low-paying jobs as they became assimilated. There is an economic need for these people, and of course others of low skills (or abilities). Of course professionally-trained or talented immigrants usually have a much better ability to by-pass this step to their betterment.

Trem
06-09-2010, 10:49 AM
Practically there is no legal way without violating someones' sensibilities

Sure there is, all you gotta do is ask everyone to prove they are legal citizens instead of hiding behind vague "suspicion of being illegal" bullshit that simply translates into harassing the brown people and leaving the rest alone. The problem is this law is only designed to appease the republican base without doing absolutely anything to solve the problem and it is something the republicans run into again and again. How to keep their racist mouthbreathing base happy while at the same time not taking away the slave labor the corporations they work for need in order to continue looting the country?

Where are you getting that english is the official language? it is not.

threlayer
06-09-2010, 11:07 AM
No, my complaint is that those of us with other views are often told we must not "insult" others views. We see this with the fact many companies no longer have Christmas trees so not to insult the Muslims or Atheists, we see this with employers often being forced to allow Muslim workers to dress a certain way, we see this with the fact that government rewards those who keep having babies.


Actually it's mostly Jews and atheists. Muslims have no quarrel with one of their great prophets, Jesus. They revere him a lot, but they do not celebrate Christmas to the degree Christians do. They don't even celebrate their prophet Mohammed's birthday. I think you need to read up some.

threlayer
06-09-2010, 11:39 AM
Because no matter how hard you cry english is not the official language of the united states, its just the language most people speak. I bet not one of you will feel the same about learning spanish when most people speak it in a few decades.

Well, that is just wrong. How many non consumer-oriented government documents are bi-lingual, including the Supreme Court decisions, Congressional bills, Presidential decrees, articles of War, budgetary reports, etc. There should be some bi-lingual versions of some of those documents and others that are taught in language-leaning schools. Besides Switzeraland and maybe Belgium and some in Africa, I can think of no other officially bi-lingual countries.

No reason we cannot and should not have English as our only public language.

Trem
06-09-2010, 11:42 AM
Well, that is just wrong. How many non comsumer-oriented government documents are bi-lingual, including the Suipreme Court decisoins, Congressional bills, Presidential decrees, articles of War, budgetary reports, etc. There should be some bi-lingual versions of some of those documents and others that are taught in language-leaning schools. Besides Switzeraland and maybe Belgium and some in Africa, I can think of no other officially bi-lingual countries.

No reason we cannot and should not have English as our only public language.

I am not wrong, there is no official language of the united states. I'm sure you'd like it to be, that does not make it so.

threlayer
06-09-2010, 11:56 AM
...

I'm actually scared to be out and about in the wrong parts of town because I have a legitimate fear of being pulled over or questioned simply because I'm not white.

... and no I'm not Mexican either.

A person in the state of Arizona can be pulled over solely for the color of their skin. If that in an of itself is not racist, then what is? Should I have no proof of my citizenship then it is perfectly legal to be held, FOR NO OTHER REASON, than the suspicion of being an Illegal.

I, as a legal resident of this state, find it sad that I have to fear the people that are paid to protect me.

Why do you fear being questioned? Do you have any of the Rodney King LA police types there (beat them down first and ask questions later)? As long as you have your papers (or can get them easily), what is the problem? Are you going to be a few minutes late for a meeting or work (the big inconvenience IMO)? Just show them your papers, and politely thank them for for being diligent in helping save your state, and your taxes. You might even get one to smile at your pretty face (but don't be disapppointed if they don't).

threlayer
06-09-2010, 12:04 PM
I am not wrong, there is no official language of the united states. I'm sure you'd like it to be, that does not make it so.

Theoretically you are right, but practically I am right.

Odd that we have a national bird (the starling? or here in SW the double-breasted mattress thrasher) but no legally official language. :)

threlayer
06-09-2010, 12:13 PM
Please explain to me how a law that treats people differently depending on their race is not racist.

Point is that it is only a coincidence that they are of a different race (same race as the native Americans but a bit more tanned). If they looked the same as average Americans or Canadians, the same laws would apply, but it would just be harder to identify suspect by inspection. Mexican illegals that look European and speak with less accent are just as illegsl, but they are going to be harder to detect. It is just a coincidence; it is not because they are a different race.

Personally I have beloved relatives in northern OH and some friends in another state who look and are Mexican (I hope to see them again in the next year or two); they are very well assimilated. I am not against Mexicans oir people of any race, just those who steal their way into this country.

Kellydancer
06-09-2010, 12:27 PM
Actually it's mostly Jews and atheists. Muslims have no quarrel with one of their great prophets, Jesus. They revere him a lot, but they do not celebrate Christmas to the degree Christians do. They don't even celebrate their prophet Mohammed's birthday. I think you need to read up some.

Yeah, I know it's mostly atheists, but at a former employer, the Muslims did cause trouble about this. I'm not sure why, but they did.

threlayer
06-09-2010, 12:29 PM
Sure there is, all you gotta do is ask everyone to prove they are legal citizens instead of hiding behind vague "suspicion of being illegal" bullshit that simply translates into harassing the brown people and leaving the rest alone. Answered above.


The problem is this law is only designed to appease the republican base without doing absolutely anything to solve the problem and it is something the republicans run into again and again. How to keep their racist mouthbreathing base happy while at the same time not taking away the slave labor the corporations they work for need in order to continue looting the country? It is designed to do two things: (1) enforce a Federal law not otherwise being enforced; (2) solve by some practical, constitutional means an irascibile problem that AZ citizens legally demand to be fixed. There is no right-wing conspiracy here. Just a bunch of opposing, well-meaning people who can propose no other practical and legal means of doing the same.

threlayer
06-09-2010, 12:36 PM
Yeah, I know it's mostly atheists, but at a former employer, the Muslims did cause trouble about this. I'm not sure why, but they did.

This is very atypical. I know a lot of assimilated Muslims and none object to that, although they might have other unrelated objections to some aspects of American culture. But don't we all?

Kellydancer
06-09-2010, 12:44 PM
I don't know why they did it, since the ones usually in the media causing trouble about Christmas are the atheists.

bem401
06-11-2010, 06:13 AM
This is OK. But would you PLEASE omit the "left-wing" paranoia from your posts?????? A lot of this is just misplaced compassion, not political rhetoric.

I'll do that as soon as the Lefties stop jumping to the race card every time they debate an issue they can't argue any other way. Playing the race card is political rhetoric, not misplaced compassion. I'll give you credit though for debating the topic the way it ought to be done, though we seldom see eye-to-eye on things.

threlayer
06-11-2010, 12:32 PM
As I see it in this situation the issue is misplaced compassion, not left-wing political rhetoric. You seem to see everything like that in those terms, while I try to see it as how people feel about it. Rhetoric is problably not fixable, while understanding people's feelings and responding to them will often lead to a much better solution. I hope you can rise above political theory.

I have always said that I am a centrist, except for my underlying distrust of overly powerful exploitative, politically-advantaged corporations. (Eg, ask me sometime about my views on the war against terrorists.)

bem401
06-15-2010, 05:37 AM
As I see it in this situation the issue is misplaced compassion, not left-wing political rhetoric.

The other guy's argument didn't (as far as I remember) make any argument for compassion for immigrants, misplaced or otherwise. He just attacked white people for trying to preserve their living environment and not letting the illegals do whatever they wanted, even if it was illegal.

I have plenty of compassion for people who have diificult lives elsewhere in the world. That doesn't mean they should be allowed to flood this country illegally to get away from it, thereby reducing the quality of life here.

If anyone wants to make an argument why amnesty and unrestricted immigration is in America's best interests, I'd be happy to listen.

Kellydancer
06-15-2010, 11:07 AM
The other guy's argument didn't (as far as I remember) make any argument for compassion for immigrants, misplaced or otherwise. He just attacked white people for trying to preserve their living environment and not letting the illegals do whatever they wanted, even if it was illegal.

I have plenty of compassion for people who have diificult lives elsewhere in the world. That doesn't mean they should be allowed to flood this country illegally to get away from it, thereby reducing the quality of life here.

If anyone wants to make an argument why amnesty and unrestricted immigration is in America's best interests, I'd be happy to listen.

I couldn't agree more. I don't get why those of us who want to keep things a certain way are called "racists". Furthermore, the whole immigration (legal and illegal) is something that affects us as well as future generations. For instance, in some countries they only allow in skilled workers. Their thinking is that unskilled workers not only affect wages of unskilled citizens, it affects the welfare system. Many of the European countries are getting in unskilled immigrants (many illegal) and not only are many taking advantage of the system, they are pushing their views (this is happening bad in France). Just because I want to keep our system the way it is (including English only legislative) doesn't make me a racist. Just because I don't want any children I have to learn Spanish (I actually know Spanish) doesn't make me a racist. Just because any children I have will be white doesn't mean they have to feel bad about it.

Sure, there is discrimination, but it's not fair that white people always have to take the brunt. I don't feel it would be right to overlook the damage illegals have done in this country. Yet if we post the amount that illegals take (I've heard over 8 billion a year) we are called racists. I'm tired of it. People who want to come here should come legally, learn English, and not freeload. My great grandparents and paternal grandmother "Nana" all did this (though to be fair Nana was from London so she spoke English anyway). The guy I love is the son of Italian immigrants who came legally, worked hard and learned English. He barely speaks Italian and he's strongly against illegals. In fact every LEGAL immigrant who did all the right things loathe illegals.

Melonie
06-17-2010, 01:24 PM
new wrinkle ... Federal Gov't to challenge Arizona law in Federal court

(snip)"QUESTION: Thank you very much. I would like to start with the immigration debate in the United States. The recently approved law in Arizona has presented sort of a difficult scenario for the President Obama Administration. According to some polling, half of the United States has approved this law and maybe other states would like to implement it. How’s Obama Administration dealing with this debate? Is the immigration law near reality?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Andrea, first, let me say how pleased I am that I have this chance to talk to you about these and other important issues. President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy. And the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act. But the more important commitment that President Obama has made is to try to introduce and pass comprehensive immigration reform. That is what we need. Everyone knows it, and the President is committed to doing it."(snip)

from

Of course this puts even more importance on the president's ability to appoint another new judge to the US supreme court !!!

bem401
06-18-2010, 05:29 AM
new wrinkle ... Federal Gov't to challenge Arizona law in Federal court

(snip)"QUESTION: Thank you very much. I would like to start with the immigration debate in the United States. The recently approved law in Arizona has presented sort of a difficult scenario for the President Obama Administration. According to some polling, half of the United States has approved this law and maybe other states would like to implement it. How’s Obama Administration dealing with this debate? Is the immigration law near reality?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Andrea, first, let me say how pleased I am that I have this chance to talk to you about these and other important issues. President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy. And the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act. But the more important commitment that President Obama has made is to try to introduce and pass comprehensive immigration reform. That is what we need. Everyone knows it, and the President is committed to doing it."(snip)

from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/17/clinton_obama_administration_to_sue_arizona_over_i mmigration_law.html

Of course this puts even more importance on the president's ability to appoint another new judge to the US supreme court !!!

I'm still waiting to see one thing Obama does that is in the best interests of America. Just one. Can anyone point something out?

Dirty Ernie
06-18-2010, 09:23 PM
I'm still waiting to see one thing Obama does that is in the best interests of America. Just one. Can anyone point something out?

He got BP to put up $20 bil in the face of a $75 mil statutory limit. No matter how ineptly the gov't distributes it, way more than $75 mil will reach the hands of those harmed. That's better than GWB did after God pissed on N.O. with Katrina. I don't think he got a dime outta the responsible party on that one.

:P

threlayer
06-18-2010, 11:19 PM
The other guy's argument didn't (as far as I remember) make any argument for compassion for immigrants, misplaced or otherwise. He just attacked white people for trying to preserve their living environment and not letting the illegals do whatever they wanted, even if it was illegal.

I have plenty of compassion for people who have diificult lives elsewhere in the world. That doesn't mean they should be allowed to flood this country illegally to get away from it, thereby reducing the quality of life here.

If anyone wants to make an argument why amnesty and unrestricted immigration is in America's best interests, I'd be happy to listen.

White....???

I've said nothing about letting illegal immigrants in. But I will now. Perhaps amnestry would be the best choice for those who have already become well-integrated and so are not deeply dependent on taxpayer money. Else back to their native land.

bem401
06-21-2010, 05:40 AM
White....???

I've said nothing about letting illegal immigrants in. But I will now. Perhaps amnestry would be the best choice for those who have already become well-integrated and so are not deeply dependent on taxpayer money. Else back to their native land.

My comment about attacking white people was directed at Trem, not you. While I understand your position regarding letting the well-integrated stay, that still sends the wrong message and still short-changes the ones following the rules.

bem401
06-21-2010, 06:02 AM
He got BP to put up $20 bil in the face of a $75 mil statutory limit. No matter how ineptly the gov't distributes it, way more than $75 mil will reach the hands of those harmed. That's better than GWB did after God pissed on N.O. with Katrina. I don't think he got a dime outta the responsible party on that one.

:P

Some of the responsibility for this lies with those who successfully campaign against allowing the oil companies to draw oil from different environments, where things are not so complicated.

Who was the responsible party for Katrina?

The $20B slush fund will be used by this administration to try to further itself, no one else. They don't give a damn about people who live in the affected area. Obama has played more golf during this crisis (and boy does he suck at it) than Bush played in 2 terms in office. Its amazing that the AP attacks the BP head for going to a one-day yachting event but ignores Obama's lack of attention to the crisis. This money will find its way into the hands of people who have or will support Obama, like Acorn or SEIU.

threlayer
06-23-2010, 01:24 PM
... While I understand your position regarding letting the well-integrated stay, that still sends the wrong message and still short-changes the ones following the rules.

I think the well-assimilated argument in fact sends the right message. We are saying with it, "you" are not going to assimilate unless you enter correctly, with the new stronger incentives to prevent and ferret out illegals. And if you don't assimilate, you will be denied both peace of mind and societal benefits.

bem401
06-24-2010, 05:48 AM
I think the well-assimilated argument in fact sends the right message. We are saying with it, "you" are not going to assimilate unless you enter correctly, with the new stronger incentives to prevent and ferret out illegals. And if you don't assimilate, you will be denied both peace of mind and societal benefits.


I would argue that any action that encourages more illegal immigration is not in the country's best interests, but those who sneak in and then go out of the way to fit in deserve consideration.

tempest666
06-24-2010, 10:01 AM
The other day I walked into a little mom and pop place to get my trap ball fixed. Neither the proprietor nor the employee behind the counter spoke English!!! WTF!
My mom's side of the family speaks Spanish at home, esp the older people. But we were also taught that English was the language for everyday life outside of home.
Everytime I get a "hablas espanol?" I respond "Si, pero estamos estados unidos. Apprender ingles, pendejo"
(My spelling may be off) "yes but we're in the united states so learn English"

threlayer
06-24-2010, 08:11 PM
Notice how many times, in answering an automated system or a manual form, we have to select English or Espanol? If we are serious about requiring immigrants to assimilate, why are we doing that?

We don't do that for Polish, Vietnamese, or Arabic. There are many classes available for most languages certainly in the bigger cities. That's one of the first things they must do. (I suspect they don't because of a fear of border patrol spies. Essentially everything we do to help them assimilate, they avoid. Some things with our permission.)

Kellydancer
06-24-2010, 09:24 PM
The other day I walked into a little mom and pop place to get my trap ball fixed. Neither the proprietor nor the employee behind the counter spoke English!!! WTF!
My mom's side of the family speaks Spanish at home, esp the older people. But we were also taught that English was the language for everyday life outside of home.
Everytime I get a "hablas espanol?" I respond "Si, pero estamos estados unidos. Apprender ingles, pendejo"
(My spelling may be off) "yes but we're in the united states so learn English"

I once had a job at a now defunct retail chain store called Venture, (sort of like a KMart, Wal-Mart or Target). This particular store was near three communities: Mexican, Polish and African Americans. Guess which group often needed translators? I used to get so mad because they would ask those of us who spoke Spanish to translate for these customers. I finally put my foot down and said not unless I get paid a translating fee. Then a few years ago I was working for the big railroad in Chicago and the day of the big immigration rally they were asking people who spoke Spanish to "volunteer" their time translating. I told my boss (who I adored and who spoke Spanish too) that I had a sick mother (a lie) and couldn't work for free. It's bad enough people were protesting in the immigration rally, but they couldn't even speak English, and waved Mexican flags! If they hate the immigration policies (and I don't consider illegals immigrants, I consider them invaders) then they should leave!

I've been called a racist because I am against illegals, but I don't dislike Hispanics or any group that comes here legally. I dislike those who come illegally, don't bother to speak English, then expect us to cater to them by speaking Spanish or offering them welfare (and here you can't get a job with public aid unless you speak Spanish so it's easy for illegals to get welfare in Illinois).

tempest666
06-24-2010, 11:41 PM
I've been called a "traitor" because I prefer to speak English and supposedly I don't do anything for "la raza"

Should I join the IRA while I'm at it to help my fellow Irish extremists?

Sheeet I'm a half breed product of this great country and damn proud of it.

I don't care what skin color you are or what fucking country you are from. At least learn a couple of words of English. What laguage you speak at home is of no consequence. But if you're running a business dealing with the public, necessito hablar ingles, jodidos! (You need to speak english, fuckers)

justifymylove
06-24-2010, 11:45 PM
Because if they are here, they need to speak English. I don't care what race, speak ENGLISH. Why is that hard for you to understand? That doesn't make me a racist.

So do you have a problem with illegal immigrants from Canada, or England, who may show no 'sign' of being illegal? How exactly are these illegals going to be distinguished from other illegal immigrants?

Point being, a law that isn't overly racist can still be racialized. We already know that law enforcement officials profile. So leaving it up to one's discretion regarding what constitutes 'reasonable suspicion' of illegal status means that there will be over-reliance on visual cues. To think otherwise is naive IMO.

bem401
06-25-2010, 05:56 AM
So do you have a problem with illegal immigrants from Canada, or England, who may show no 'sign' of being illegal? How exactly are these illegals going to be distinguished from other illegal immigrants?

Point being, a law that isn't overly racist can still be racialized. We already know that law enforcement officials profile. So leaving it up to one's discretion regarding what constitutes 'reasonable suspicion' of illegal status means that there will be over-reliance on visual cues. To think otherwise is naive IMO.

So, what, we should let them all stay because some are less conspicuous?

British, Irish, and Canadians all sound different, eh. We'd have to use that. And no matter their color, if they aren't legal, they gotta go. Even if they're from the countries in my ethnic background, hell, even if they're related to me, they gotta go.

Next time you go to the movies, try walking past the cashier and then sneaking or running by the ticket-taker. Grab a seat in the theater and then act all offended and look for support when they come to make you follow the rules.

And I don't see what's so wrong with racial profiling, anyhow. Have the people of each race stop engaging in behavior that leads to profiling. People who get all bent out of shape at being profiled ought to be bent out of shape at their racial brethren for making profiling work. If I drove by my white self in a nice car slowly through an area known for drug dealing or prostitution late at night, why shouldn't the police take note?

Kellydancer
06-25-2010, 11:12 AM
So do you have a problem with illegal immigrants from Canada, or England, who may show no 'sign' of being illegal? How exactly are these illegals going to be distinguished from other illegal immigrants?

Point being, a law that isn't overly racist can still be racialized. We already know that law enforcement officials profile. So leaving it up to one's discretion regarding what constitutes 'reasonable suspicion' of illegal status means that there will be over-reliance on visual cues. To think otherwise is naive IMO.

I seriously doubt there are many illegals from Canada and England. You are trying to turn this into a race thread by that comment and that couldn't be farther from the truth. Even if by chance an illegal from Canada or England came here they'd likely speak English. If they are illegal they need to go too.

justifymylove
06-25-2010, 11:55 AM
I seriously doubt there are many illegals from Canada and England. You are trying to turn this into a race thread by that comment and that couldn't be farther from the truth. Even if by chance an illegal from Canada or England came here they'd likely speak English. If they are illegal they need to go too.

No one is arguing that illegal people should be allowed to stay. Of course I am referring to race, that is the crux of the complaint against the bill: that people's illegal status is going to be determined by how they look. Illegal immigrants from, say, Canada may give no discernable cue that they are the US illegally. However, a person of Mexican descent-legal or not- is going to be viewed as suspicious because they're Mexican and a sizeable chunk of illegal immigration to the US is from Mexico.

PS you get the difference between racist and racialized, right? Because I can see the argument that this bill isn't racist, I am arguing that it has racial implications. Two different things.

Trem
06-25-2010, 12:05 PM
No one is arguing that illegal people should be allowed to stay. Of course I am referring to race, that is the crux of the complaint against the bill: that people's illegal status is going to be determined by how they look. Illegal immigrants from, say, Canada may give no discernable cue that they are the US illegally. However, a person of Mexican descent-legal or not- is going to be viewed as suspicious because they're Mexican and a sizeable chunk of illegal immigration to the US is from Mexico.

PS you get the difference between racist and racialized, right? Because I can see the argument that this bill isn't racist, I am arguing that it has racial implications. Two different things.

Don't bother, i tried explaining that for several pages, they either don't realize how blatantly obvious the whole "suspicion of being illegal" thing turns this into a "let's just harass the brown people" law or they simply don't give a shit. I even showed them the example of the Massachusetts law that actually tries to solve the problem without resorting to any racial profiling as compared to the Arizona law which solves nothing and was only conceived in order to appease the base without taking away the cheap labor from corporations.

ArmySGT.
06-25-2010, 03:26 PM
Speaking of Racist, self serving Nationalist Laws.

Mexico’s Immigration Law
(General Law on Population)

1999

• Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
- Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)
- Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)
- Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)
- The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)

• Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
- Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
- A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
- A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

• Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
- Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
- Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

• Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
- Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
- Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
- Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.

• Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
- “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)
- Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
- Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)

• Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
- A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
- Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
UNDER MEXICO’S CONSTITUTION :[2][4]


Constitucion de MexicoMexico’s Constitution
(English translation)

-

• The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country’s political life.
Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics. Article 9 states, “only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country.” Article 33 is unambiguous: “Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.”

• The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners.
If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast.

Article 27 states, “Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country.” (Emphasis added)

• The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal
ones, in the public sector.

“Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces.” (Article 32)

• The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized.
Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:

“In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic.”

• An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.

• Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).

• The president of Mexico must be a Mexican citizen by birth AND his parents must also be Mexican-born citizens (Article 82), thus giving secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.

• The Mexican constitution singles out “undesirable aliens.” Article 11 guarantees federal protection against “undesirable aliens resident in the country.”

• The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen’s arrests.
Article 16 states, “in cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.” Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.

• The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process.
According to Article 33, “the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.”