Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is rather interesting logic? An assumption that Reagan regrets certain of his actions-I haven't read that anywhere or even heard that from any of his children -who range across the spectrum. For all you know he might be tickled at watching this! From there to jump to some liberals think they are always right-the only one I know who couldn't think of a single mistake he made was George Bush. I am not sure which liberals in this forum always think they are right or what that has to do with this discusssion?
My personal objection is to the law in particular and the provisions in it and what it means. That is totally different from the issue of illegal immigration. They are two separate issues.
If you check history, it was a republican president that granted amnesty. It was also a republican President(the last one) with the help of such liberal icons as John McCain that proposed comprehensive immigration reform -which included some form of amnesty.
Actually some of us just care about such concepts as due process etc. -I guess that is unAmerican now.
I'm aware of the history and thought it was ridiculous and not in this country's best interests both times.
Arizona's new law does not make an end run around due process. Just as the 14th Amendment provides for "equal protection of the law," so, too, should it require equal enforcement of the same.
As a former cop, the notion of racial profiling never made much sense to me. I went where the crimes were being committed and whether it was the barrio, the ghetto, an Asian conclave or predominantly caucasian area didn't matter one whit to me. I'd be happy to question anyone.
You or the others folks didn't mention that and just seemed content blaming the liberal nuts for this. Just pointed out, that that it is not true.
In this case, you are giving the police the power to arrest someone based on the reasonable suspicion that they may not be here legally. Basically someobody is presumed guilty to be an illegal and has to prove that they are innocent. The only way to prove that is one has to carry their papers and if you are a visitor-find out all the correct papers that will satisfy AZ law enforcemnt, certain states driver license will not do. You also have to carry it at all times-wether you are just taking a stroll or going to a supermarket that may have a few brown skinned folks that stood outside yesterday or just walking from your house to your neighbour. See the crime is suspicion of being here illegal and in that area it is looking a certain way. if you are white or even black -they probably will not suspect you. The police have no mandate to ask everybody-unlike the border patrol.But for people who look like me-I am not from Mexico-yeah I do fall under the reasonable doctrine and I just don't like the fact that in America I can be thrown in jail for not carrying my documents on me when walking to a store. Now they did change after a week from the day the law was passed, that there has to be another reason for a stop-but hey that has never been defined as to what that reason can and should be and it will vary by the circumstances, experience/disposition of that officer/jurisdiction. Which is as it should be, but add that to this and you have quite a few possibilites of being thrown in jail.
Now some will argue to trust the police and the police will magically know who to arrest and who not to. I don't beleive in magic and police already have enough powers-no sense in giving them even more. Now if you give me a ticket and the court is involved before throwing me in jail, if I am found guilty -that is a whole another issue.
I'll just make sure to slam it in your face. It's people like you who have caused the deterioration of this once great state and its cities.
Idiot troll. Another one for the ignore anuses list.
LOL and you are the "sane" one with a name like "Bulldogdad" "psycho-billy"?? Everyone else is a freak. OK.
Look, bottom line, conservatives love to pound their fists about illegal immigrants. But why are they even here in the first place? Oh, that's right. Businesses employ them. Big business. The same big businesses that conservatives are always favoring, supporting tax breaks and incentives to help them grow and "create more jobs".
When I waited tables half of the entire kitchen and the maintenance staff were all here illegally, and a well known corporation that I will not name employed them. There's the beauty of "free market" capitalism at work for you.
If these businesses would not employ illegal immigrants they'd not be here in the first place. And as for Sacramentos' boycott? I think it's beautiful. What did you expect in a city with no ratial majority, is this a shock or something?
And why do I think it's beautiful?? Because in about 30 years, white people could be the minority in this country, and when that happens, when I'm a minority, I sure as hell don't want to be pulled over, questioned, and forced to produce papers.
LOL and you are the "sane" one with a name like "Bulldogdad" "psycho-billy"?? Everyone else is a freak. OK.
Look, bottom line, conservatives love to pound their fists about illegal immigrants. But why are they even here in the first place? Oh, that's right. Businesses employ them. Big business. The same big businesses that conservatives are always favoring, supporting tax breaks and incentives to help them grow and "create more jobs".
When I waited tables half of the entire kitchen and the maintenance staff were all here illegally, and a well known corporation that I will not name employed them. There's the beauty of "free market" capitalism at work for you.
If these businesses would not employ illegal immigrants they'd not be here in the first place. And as for Sacramentos' boycott? I think it's beautiful. What did you expect in a city with no ratial majority, is this a shock or something?
And why do I think it's beautiful?? Because in about 30 years, white people could be the minority in this country, and when that happens, when I'm a minority, I sure as hell don't want to be pulled over, questioned, and forced to produce papers.
I'm with you on the Big Business angle. But, as usual, you're only telling half the story (the half that makes the "other guy" look bad and the people you vote for look good). Liberals want illegal immigrants because they want to have a large number of people dependent on various government handouts to keep them in power.
I'm with you on the Big Business angle. But, as usual, you're only telling half the story (the half that makes the "other guy" look bad and the people you vote for look good). Liberals want illegal immigrants because they want to have a large number of people dependent on various government handouts to keep them in power.
That is such a distortion. Republicans like to find all kinds of excuses why a certain voting group doesn't pick them. The fact that for the most part Latinos are fairly conservative [Catholic\ pro-family\ traditional] should make them good prospects for the GOP. But minorities in general do not trust the Republican party and why they vote Democratic. It really is a shame that Republicans can't understand that they tend to shrink their party the more the go after "ethnics." Arizona will learn the hard way when all those Latinos who make up over 30% of the population get registered to vote and exercise their American right to vote out Republicans. This happened in California 20 years ago and this will happen in Arizona in probably one of two more elections.
I'm with you on the Big Business angle. But, as usual, you're only telling half the story (the half that makes the "other guy" look bad and the people you vote for look good). Liberals want illegal immigrants because they want to have a large number of people dependent on various government handouts to keep them in power.
"As usual"? Ha? I could care less how I look on this board, just stating a fact. Would they be here or not if businesses didn't employ them?
I had plenty of friends working at restaurants that loved to come to CA, because they could work like crazy here and send all of the money back to support their families in Mexico. Some of these people would wash dishes 16 hours a day. Not sure they're all getting "hand outs", that's a borderline racist comment.
Besides that, how do you even know I'm a liberal? Why generalize? I have some fiscally conservative views, some socially liberal views, etc.
California politics either statewide or local are not based on polls. And the difference between those who support versus those opposed to Arizona isn't that far apart anyway.
It is silly to talk about "backlash" in California if your hope is based on conservative strength. But the Arizona law isn't a Republican versus Democratic issue since there are those in both parties that support or condemn the Arizona law. The Republican candidate for governor, Meg Whitman is advertising in Spanish-speaking radio\ tv that she has steadfastly condemned the Arizona law.
That Sacramento joined Los Angeles\ San Diego\ San Francisco\ Berkeley\ Santa Cruz\ Santa Ana & dozens more California cities in boycotting Arizona is a good thing since the Arizona law is unconstitutional. The federal government may stop its implementation soon.
Arizona is correct in wanting border security just like California does. The issue is the stupid law that misguided and in some cases racists legislators pushed through. Now Arizona is facing serious financial repercussions.
What exactly is unconstitutional about this law? Please cite whatever is in the constitution that is relevant to this. Again, what is racist about it? Since you are good at pulling the race card here, let us know how this law discriminates against anyone based on anything other than being illegal? How is Arizona facing financial repercussions? I missed any relevant articles in the news. I would guess, at best, a few private businesses that have nothing to do with the law may have lost some business from various cities in California. As far as I know, the State of Arizona itself isn't in business selling products to anyone.
What exactly is unconstitutional about this law? Please cite whatever is in the constitution that is relevant to this. Again, what is racist about it? Since you are good at pulling the race card here, let us know how this law discriminates against anyone based on anything other than being illegal? How is Arizona facing financial repercussions? I missed any relevant articles in the news. I would guess, at best, a few private businesses that have nothing to do with the law may have lost some business from various cities in California. As far as I know, the State of Arizona itself isn't in business selling products to anyone.
In California both the Republican and Democratic candidates for governor have condemned the Arizona law. All the cities across the nation that have called boycotts of Arizona would suggest that there is real concern over human rights. To think otherwise is to ignore reality.
There were several Arizona Republicans who have ties with known racist organizations.
"Arizona’s newly adopted immigration law is brazenly unconstitutional and will undoubtedly trample upon the civil rights of residents caught in its path. . . .
Quite simply, this law is a civil rights disaster and an insult to American values. No one in our country should be required to produce their “papers” on demand to prove their innocence. What kind of country are we becoming?
The law was drafted by a lawyer for the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), whose founder has warned of a “Latin onslaught” and complained about Latinos’ alleged low “educability.” FAIR has accepted $1.2 million from the Pioneer Fund, a racist foundation that was set up by Nazi sympathizers to fund studies of eugenics, the science of selective breeding to produce a “better” race. The legislation was sponsored by state Senator Russell Pearce, who once e-mailed an anti-Semitic article from the neo-Nazi National Alliance website to supporters". Arizona Immigration Law Violates Constitution, Guarantees Racial Profiling | Southern Poverty Law Center
Educate yourself and you will see that the Arizona law is not the way to deal with illegal immigration since it will be stopped even before it was to be implemented. Arizona needs some "smart pills" since there have been several legislative actions that make the state look like a bunch of rednecks. It is becoming the joke of the nation:
California politics either statewide or local are not based on polls. And the difference between those who support versus those opposed to Arizona isn't that far apart anyway.
It is silly to talk about "backlash" in California if your hope is based on conservative strength. But the Arizona law isn't a Republican versus Democratic issue since there are those in both parties that support or condemn the Arizona law. The Republican candidate for governor, Meg Whitman is advertising in Spanish-speaking radio\ tv that she has steadfastly condemned the Arizona law.
That Sacramento joined Los Angeles\ San Diego\ San Francisco\ Berkeley\ Santa Cruz\ Santa Ana & dozens more California cities in boycotting Arizona is a good thing since the Arizona law is unconstitutional. The federal government may stop its implementation soon.
Arizona is correct in wanting border security just like California does. The issue is the stupid law that misguided and in some cases racists legislators pushed through. Now Arizona is facing serious financial repercussions.
Obama won the Presidency by a smaller margin than the immigration poll numbers. Only seven actual California cities are boycotting Arizona right now. Only 19 Nation Wide. San Diego is not one of them. San Diego went begging to a Arizona Buycott Tourism site to clarify they just disagree with the Law and did not pass a boycott measure. They wanted to be sure they were removed from the site so they did not lose the millions of tourism dollars Arizona pumps into its economy every year. Oh the Law so far is constitutional since there have been no court rulings against it. The largest referendum being pushed against the law will probably not even make the deadline to be on the November ballot because they can't get enough signatures.
Meg Whitman is a centrist, she will pander to as many Latinos as she can to get elected. Only a matter of time before the boycotts efficacy erodes enough to make them worthless resolutions.
Arizona was right on target with its Law. When people on both sides of an issue start screaming it means the Law was right on target. Polls are a great indicator of how elections will play out. As evidenced by Proposition 8. When Latino voters become more educated and self sufficient they will see how the Democratic Party is using them.
Last edited by Bulldogdad; 06-19-2010 at 08:10 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
