Arizona bill 1070

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I don't feel the need to propose an alternate solution to securing our border because this bill does literally nothing to secure our border. All this does is deal with those who have already crossed the border. Those are two very different issues, to me.
Well, I think it is fair to suggest the first issue caused the second...
 
Do you honestly think that is the true intention of the bill?

I'm still not clear what you're proposing as an alternative solution in securing our border.

Paying "liveable" prices for coffee and other commodities to those who are producing them would be a way. :) You can thank Reagan for the bulk of people that are in the US illegally, while enjoying your cheap cup of coffee.
 
well there's nothing really fair or unfair about it. cop stops them for something, find out they are "illegally in the country" and send them to an immigration judge, or ICE. that's the way it works (or should work). fairly black and white. leave the gray areas to the judge.

local / state police having the training in immigration law such as basic classes of admission, lengths of stay, visa & green card requirements, how to spot fraudulent documents, knowing what to do with persons "illegally in the country" when they pick them up for something else, and working with federal agencies is a good thing.

stopping someone on the street ONLY because they "look like" they are "illegally in the country" isnt.

If all this were actually the case, it would be something manageable.
 
I live in a college town. I know for Philly and maybe even yourself, being "carded" is part of your lexicon. And whether or not you are "carded" is based on what? Profiling, age profiling.

The difference being is that if a police officer comes up to me on the street while I'm in college and walking home from the bar, I have no legal obligation to identify myself. Most people do, because they're not aware of their rights and frankly because asserting those rights to the police will likely cause you a lot of grief. But they do not have to.
 
Tea Partiers, let me ask you again...

How does this fit into your "this was not the founding father's intent" or "fiscal responsibility" mantras?

Why do you all so unabashedly embrace hypocrisy?
 
The difference being is that if a police officer comes up to me on the street while I'm in college and walking home from the bar, I have no legal obligation to identify myself. Most people do, because they're not aware of their rights and frankly because asserting those rights to the police will likely cause you a lot of grief. But they do not have to.

The difference is our police officers are not the Gestapo. Or the Federales for that matter.

All this law does is make what is already a federal crime a state crime.
 
And ignoring the problem has done wonders for your state's schools, hospitals, prisons, economy and government spending hasn't it?


I didn't say I was ignoring it. I said it wasn't my priority.

I'm not personally responsible for my state's immigration problems. It was my great-grandfather who came to this country illegally, not me.

What's ruined my state's schools, hospitals, prisons, economy, and government (?) is the idiot governor we have, Enron (a former favorite of Republicans everywhere), and tea party-types who want to pay zero taxes and still have a cradle-to-grave care system.

Which has all been pointed out to you before. But I suppose it's easier for you to blame the gardner down the street who works 7 days a week to feed his family.
 
It's totally the founding fathers' intent. They owned slaves. Now we just own indentured servants to pick our lettuce.

You make it sound like we need to build a fence to keep people IN the country and not the other way around.

Most of the founding fathers did not own slaves by the way.
 
Tea Partiers, let me ask you again...

How does this fit into your "this was not the founding father's intent" or "fiscal responsibility" mantras?


I am not really a tea partier

I rarely align myself with groups. I prefer to look at each issue on it's own merits.

But, specially to address you question:

What was the so-called Founding Fathers' intent for minorities?

Slavery, under-aged sex partners, and other fun stuff for some of them,

and the others? drive them out of the land, shoot them on site if they appear to be disagreeable and do not cooperate with you taking their property.

So, this legislation is indeed, moderate and tolerant by comparison.

Are you arguing for the good old days of our blessed, divinely inspired Founding Fathers?
 
I am not really a tea partier

I rarely allingn myseif with groups. I prefer to look at each issue on it's own merits.

But, specially to address you question:

What was the so-called Founding Fathers' intend for minorities?

Slavery, under-aged sex partners.

and the others? drive them out of the land, shoot them on site if they appear to be disagreeable and do not cooperate with you taking their property.

So, this legislation is indeed, moderate and tolerant by comparison.

Are you arguing for the good old days of are blessed, divinely inspired Founding Fathers?

No, I'm trying to figure out how those that argue the "this is not what the Founding Fathers had in store for this country" crowd argue walling up our borders and making immigrants an enemy? To me it smacks of hypocrisy. Especially when the cost to do so would be a waste...

I just wish the Tea Partiers would be a little more consistent, but since it's conception it's been nothing but contradiction.
 
Where is your critical thinking?


These tea partiers are a much better lot than the Founding Fathers.


Founding Fathers built walls, (settlements, forts) and exterminated people.
 
But now those in this country legally are subject to harassment from officers that is perfectly legal.

Harassment? Is that how you describe every interaction with a police officer.

We aren't just talking about Mexican migrant workers here illegally. It's the violent drug wars, kidnappings and murders spilling over the border that forced Arizona's hand.
 
Harassment? Is that how you describe every interaction with a police officer.

We aren't just talking about Mexican migrant workers here illegally. It's the violent drug wars, kidnappings and murders spilling over the border that forced Arizona's hand.
Every interaction with a police officer? Come on. Don't be that lazy.
 
Since most people dont walk around everyday with passports or birth certificates, i could see how a us citizen being stopped and questioned about their status could turn into an incident of "harassment". LPR cardholders (green card) are supposed to carry the card with them at all times, and can be penalized for not doing so.

If a cop pulls someone in that doesnt have proof of citizenship or legal status, there are methods to research that, which would have to be a part of the immigration training the police recieve. (or should recieve if they get to enforce immigration law)
 
or we could just make it easier for the "illegals" to become legal. (calm down, i'm not talking about opening the door for everyone to move here, i'm talking about people already here. employed, law-abiding men and women who moved here for whatever reason.) then instead of wasting taxpayers' money stopping every dark-skinned person, we can benefit from the additional tax revenue.
 
Back
Top Bottom