Arizona's anti-imigration law...

[KingofBrown]

[FONT=&quot]You demonize Fitton as an agitator yet I don’t see any outcry form you concerning members of “LaRaza” when the make public speeches as this:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Well, that video doesn’t show any proof of anything to me. It says “Los Angeles Teacher Calls For Race War in America.” I don’t see he’s an important official, nor I can’t even see any proof that he’s a teacher. I haven’t even heard if La Raza, or El Latino or Taco Bell, or whatever entity like that, has influenced any lawmakers, if you have, please let me know so we can talk about them. It seems this socialist group is not very well organized, is it? This is one of the few times I’ve ever paid any attention to this group. And they seem, by their words, to be something similar to the KKK or the Black Panthers, but I haven’t read much about any of them either, so I can’t compare them. And still, I can’t find any fact that this group is La Raza, althought I don’t know much about La Raza, the video doesn’t give any fact that there’s a group called La Raza involved in this video; not even because he said “Viva La Raza” at the end of the video, you need to investigate this further, Cowboy. By the way, it’d be nice if you place a link to read more about La Raza; I’d like to read more about it. And present offical nice sources so we can debate in a decent way; not in a childish one.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But, if you want to hear my opinion, I think this guy doesn’t have any idea of what is best for the people he thinks he is representing. When I heard “Viva Fidel” and Hugo Chavez and Morales, I just wanted to pause it and ignore it, as every time I encounter with such remarks, in writing or, like this one, in video. And I didn’t see any top political official on this so I give no shoot about it. You have to do better than that Cowboy. And I’m not demonizing Fitton, I just said that Mr. Fitton wants to agitate people with such remarks he made, and I don’t think that’s the answer to arrive to a good established solution. And of course this guy’s, Teacher of LA, words are not the answer either. So if you compare Mr. Fitton to this Mr. Teacher, we must agree now, that both are off track. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Now, I see why you’re so afraid of illegal immigrants, you think they’re gonna’ make a revolution… L..O…L… Come on, Cowboy, Che Guevara and all those tales are romanticism. So sleep comfortably. And if those tales were to be real, I don’t think that targeting all the people who look that they support these tales, is the answer.[/FONT]

[video=youtube;koLX6-XtAnA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koLX6-XtAnA&feature=related[/video]

 

[KingofBrown]

What you mean? Are you sure he’s a first generation immigrant or what? His ancestor might have been here for 100 years, or maybe way before the 13 colonies were established, and if so I don’t think he would care much to prove his legal status in his every day actions. It seems the ID thing got you a bit confused. They were in DC, weren’t they? We must see the law about how a civilian has to identify him/herself when stopped by the police where they were at, so we can talk about that. I don’t think many of them worry much about proving their legal status, but it seems you want them to have their Birth Certificate with them at all times. And I see that you’re so sure that only people who look “illegal” have their proof in their pocket. Why didn’t you mention the cute girl reporter who asked the question? I said she didn’t look quite “Suspicious.”

Here’s an example so you understand it better.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-6-2010/suspicious-behavior-on-cinco-de-mayo

Watch that video, from 1:36 to 1:45. It’s irrational what you say about the proof of legal status. If these girls were in AZ, and if they comitted some sort of act to be questioned by the police in this bar, under 13-2412 all they are compel to is to answer their full name so they have to identify themselves. Now, if it’s July 29, they have to show a Driver License, or a Tribal ID Card, etc. and if they don’t show such, the officer can consider “Reasonable Suspicion” to believe whoever of them is Illegal. The first girl would not be questioned further; the second would get arrested if the officer wants to. The training of the officer doesn’t matter, what matters is what is written and how far the law lets the officer act.

What do you have to back up that claim? As far as that reporter goes, I would be willing to bet that he has proof in his pocket that he is in the US legally. Also, unless he brakes some law while in Az, SB 1070 is totally irrelevant to him.

 

[KingofBrown]

I don't know if you are trying to kind everyone else or just kidding yourself. The feds aren't suing over your recent favorite flavor of "reasonable suspension" or "bigotry" or profiling, because they know that is a very weak argument. Trust me, the talking heads have already stated profiling as on of their fears several times. They would not hesitate to use it again either, if they can demonize the proponents of SB1070.
No, Cowboy, that’s not my favorite. I’ve already said that the most interesting is section is 13-3883. But it seems that your favorite is the “Reasonable Suspicion” one. As I’ve said before, the Fed is going to use the Supremacy Clause, because illegal immigration has something to do with international issues and No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. And if you want to read further about my opinion of why I think they’re using this argument, read post #1450. But, of course it’s just my opinion.

Oh please, don't try to take credit for educating me on the constitutionality of SB1070. I stated on page 29, post 426 "I understand that the Constitution gives the responsibility of protecting the US to the federal government, and this may be what is used to try and declare the law unconstitutional." your first post on this thread wasn't until page 30, post #441. So your claim of, "And I mentioned it earlier than the Cowboy, with an already anwered question I asked to him.", is proven to be untrue.
Oops, so I guess I was not here when you mentioned that. But, OK, you were the first one that came up with that, then me, and then av8tornt. So, that doesn’t change much on the whole point I was making to av8tornt. You got that first than av8tornt, too, cool.

 

[KingofBrown]

I’ve already cited 13-3883, don’t you remember it’s one of the aspects, along several others, that seems you can’t debate on. I don’t need you to explain me anything, because I understand it very well with its vagueness and ambiguity. But, you’re free to feel entitled to respond to that or anything else, and give your opinion. That’d be a pleasure.
If you never went to college you will never understand what “Reading Between the Lines” is. So, don’t try to sound cleverly when you have no idea what a phrase of that kind means, it's clear you don't understand it.
I didn’t even care what your language is, but thanks for informing us that.

Since you brought my name up, I feel entitled to respond. It's not clear to me exactly what you are referring to me not understanding. Is it the "reading between the lines" or "13-3883" ?
If it is the reading "between the sentences", I have already told you, I try not to read anything into things I read that just isn't there.
If it is 13-3883, I understand it fine, what would you like for me to explain to you?
Also, in case you are wondering, my first and only language is American English.

 

[KingofBrown]

Come on, Texan, that’s the whole point. The Federals have the authority to deal with illegal immigration.
And what agencies do you think enforce current Federal Immigration Laws? These are Federal Laws enforced by Federal Agencies. You’re getting a bit of trouble in your head. It seems that by your logic, you want ICE, CIA, FBI, and other Federal Agencies to be ignored by the states. Come on Texan, why don’t you ask Brewer to make her own NASA to explore and see if there are illegal aliens in space?

But, can you still explain your point how you think they’re changing current laws? I’m curious to hear more about that, that’s why I felt entitled to give my opinion on this post.

Not without changing the law that is already in effect. This authority isn't given to states by the agencies but in the law.

 

[wkmac]

BOSTON — In a private meeting with White House officials this weekend, Democratic governors voiced deep anxiety about the Obama administration’s suit against Arizona’s new immigration law, worrying that it could cost a vulnerable Democratic Party in the fall elections.

Governors Voice Grave Concerns on Immigration

 

[Lue C Fur]

 

[KingofBrown]

Look Cowboy this seems to be a better well-documented video than the ones you present. You can see the frustration of Jaron Norberg.

I advice viewer's discretion from part 4:43 to 5:10.

[video=youtube;0BeOd_Ukm_s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BeOd_Ukm_s[/video]

 

[trplnkl]

Look Cowboy this seems to be a better well-documented video than the ones you present. You can see the frustration of Jaron Norberg.

I advice viewer's discretion from part 4:43 to 5:10.

[video=youtube;0BeOd_Ukm_s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BeOd_Ukm_s[/video]

What does this have to with the subject at hand? The answer is nothing. There is nothing about SB1070, Illegal aliens or open boarders.
The video that I posted was about a large organization in the USA that preaches the Mexican race takeover of the country through revolution and hate mongering of Anglo people, that is an disputable fact. I find it very hard to believe that you have never heard of La Raza before this thread. If you want to know more about them just type the name in your browser and do some research. The purpose of the vid I posted was to address your obvious ignoring a situation much more volatile than a reporter claiming a politician a pro-illegal immigration/open boarder advocate. I figured if you are smart enough to master three languages, you could figure that out on your own. I guess I was wrong.
Oh and BTW, the vid I posted was taken at a La Raza Rally on the campus of UCLA.

 

[Lue C Fur]

 

[KingofBrown]

Well, I would really have wanted you to give your opinion about the video I posted. It has a lot to do with this subject, and besides I wanted you to see a well-documented video, not like the one you posted of La Raza or whatever group. I see you still have a lot of trust in the officers, and that the terms of this law don’t need to be articulated because you trust in the officers a lot, and in their training. But it’s alright to have naïve people like you in this world. If you still think that Arpaio has nothing to do with this subject, than you really are a naïve Cowboy.
http://www.impre.com/laraza/
That’s the link that takes me to La Raza, is that La Raza group you’re talking about. I google it and find many different types of entities and organizations; I would really, really appreciate it if you can give me the link to the one you’re talking about to know more about La Raza, and see if this is the group in the video. Oh and BTW, the vid I posted was taken at a La Raza Rally on the campus of UCLA. That’s what the video says, but I can’t find any proof or any link that can take me to know there’s a La Raza group, or to know more about this La Raza you’re claiming, so we can talk about it; and see its agendas and its influence to lawmakers, politicians, etc. etc. etc. No Cowboy, I think you’re getting Paranoia look what you said: was to address your obvious ignoring a situation much more volatile than a reporter claiming a politician a pro-illegal immigration/open boarder advocate. You really think there’s going t be a revolution or what? LOL. Do you really think that this Mr. Teacher comments have more validity than the ones from Mr. Fitton that address official individuals, like a politician, and a Law like SB1070? If the revolution whatever is not the volatile situation, then I wonder what paranoic situation you’re talking about and I’m ignoring.

You know what, I think your problem is your one language knowledge. You don’t understand what “La Raza” means, and how that term can be used by anyone. I think you’ve been mixing things up.

However please give a link to know more about La Raza group you’re talking about, to see if the video has any validity of your paranoic claims. And so we can debate in a decent way; not in a childish one.

What does this have to with the subject at hand? The answer is nothing. There is nothing about SB1070, Illegal aliens or open boarders.
The video that I posted was about a large organization in the USA that preaches the Mexican race takeover of the country through revolution and hate mongering of Anglo people, that is an disputable fact. I find it very hard to believe that you have never heard of La Raza before this thread. If you want to know more about them just type the name in your browser and do some research. The purpose of the vid I posted was to address your obvious ignoring a situation much more volatile than a reporter claiming a politician a pro-illegal immigration/open boarder advocate. I figured if you are smart enough to master three languages, you could figure that out on your own. I guess I was wrong.
Oh and BTW, the vid I posted was taken at a La Raza Rally on the campus of UCLA.

 

[trplnkl]

Wow, I thought you were citing SB1070. Your post looks like a rainbow.Neither do I know much about Mr. Evans, Cowboy. So, would you now agree that calling him an open-borders guy is a matter of opinion, not a fact? Yes or No?_________________________________________________________ Oh! So you recognized you were guessing? LOL. Do you have any fact to believe that Evans is an open/pro-illegal, amnesty advocate? I’ll say it once again, calling Jose Evans a pro-illegal or open-border guy is a matter of opinion, NOT A FACT!

hmmm, no I would not say that. Neither you nor I know if it is opinion or fact. Fitton may well have more than enough evidence to show that Evans is Pro-illegal immigration or not. The only fact is, you don’t know, yet you feel justified in calling Fitton an agitator.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The difference in guess is when I do it, I say so. When you do it, you try to pass it off as fact. LOL.

Cool, Cowboy, now we’re two. I also think that polls are not valid to corroborate any law. The source… go back a few pages, to 78, tonyexpress came up with that poll. It said that 83% support the use of the National Guard to patrol the border, 60% like SB1070, 71 % think legal Latino Citizens will be harrassed by the police, 51% dissaprove Obama’s actions, 75% feel the government isn’t doing enough to secure the border, and in that same poll 80% of people approve Amnesty (not specified how, an so I’d consider it plain and simple). That post it’s from June 19, but if you google it and try to find that specific poll, I’m sure you’ll succeed. So I guess we both are not in that 80%, Cowboy, so lets send polls to hell when debating about SB1070. I hope you or anyone else don’t come up with polls again to try to validate SB1070.

Even though I don’t put a lot of stock into polls, I must say that the reason for posting them (by anyone) is not to validate SB 1070 but to show that it has much support by the people answering the poll.________________________________

No, Texan, you haven’t debated all the aspects of the law. Don’t try to trick yourself.

I never said I had debated on ALL the aspects of the law, I try to stay on topic for each part you jump to.

It seems you woudn’t have any strategy, or can’t see beyond your nose. These guys want to fight SB1070 to beat it from its roots, and if they can, they’ll prevent it from spreading to other states. Is so logical, that there’s no argument to that, as you want to make it, but it seems you can’t understand it.

I have no idea what you are talking about. You’re losing it fellow, maybe you need to retranslate this one???


I have discredited, credit and descredited what? Be specific and point it out.
]Oh please, this was a little play on words. The point was, you had (1st) said you didn’t like(discredited) polls, then you (2nd) said

“I’m sure that if they poll, 99% of people…yadda yadda yadda” (credited), then you restated(3rd) you didn’t like (discredited) polls. The play on words goes back a few years ago when politicians would, basically, say, “ I was for that before I was against it”. It was meant to be funny.

What I see is that the results of the polls you like are influenced because on who was polled and how the polls were worded, is that what you mean? You’re drowning on your own statements. That’s the problem with polls when trying to validate a law, I hope you, or someone else, don’t come with any poll in the future and use it to endorse SB1070, because as you see, and as I have said it several times, is useless.

If that is what you see, your perception is flawed and if anyone needs a life preserver it is you. My point was, the problem with polls is that the outcome is often distorted because of who administers, who takes and where the poll is taken. It’s pretty simple really. The same question to be polled can have different results if asked on (say) Fox News or the Huffington Post. This isn’t anything I have learned from you, but have deducted by experience and common sense.

The good thing I see here in your statement is that you’re understanding about the political issue I cited since my first posts, which you didn’t in the beginning. But, no, I don’t think like you, that that’s the cause of this problem of illegal immigration.

There ya go again, trying to take credit for my education, LOL, I’ve known the political slant on this long before you came to this thread. And don’t be so naive, most of the debate on the immigration issue is pure political. The politically polar arguments are based on various factors, one is party affiliation oriented.

 

[Lue C Fur]

 

[KingofBrown]

hmmm, no I would not say that. Neither you nor I know if it is opinion or fact. Fitton may well have more than enough evidence to show that Evans is Pro-illegal immigration or not. The only fact is, you don’t know, yet you feel justified in calling Fitton an agitator.

The difference in guess is when I do it, I say so. When you do it, you try to pass it off as fact. LOL.

LOL. Cowboy, if I would had seen any evidence from Mr. Fitton then that’d be antoher story. But, if he just calls Evans an open-borders guy that’s just an opinion from him, not a fact. You can’t just deal with that. I said his statements are to agitate people and I cited his own words

In the end, this fight comes down to those who want our laws against illegal immigration enforced and those who don't,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Mr. Fitton says that if you’re just against SB1070, you don’t want Immigration Laws to be enforced, which I think is a ridiculous statement. His words are like the propaganda you guys listen about illegal immigrants, and that’s why you can’t debate in a reasonable way.

Even though I don’t put a lot of stock into polls, I must say that the reason for posting them (by anyone) is not to validate SB 1070 but to show that it has much support by the people answering the poll._________________________________

So, what? A poll doesn’t have any strength to debate on a law, but if you or anyone are gonna’ keep posting them I suggest to post the complete poll, so we can see the truth of how people supposedly think.


I never said I had debated on ALL the aspects of the law, I try to stay on topic for each part you jump to.

Don’t know where you come up with that claim? I’ve debated you on the law and your ridiculous claims, you just don’t agree with me. BTW, nice try on the “desperate” twist. Lol

LOL. On the other hand, it seems you don’t have any argument, now. You can’t even debate about the aspects of a law you favor. It seems that you’re the one getting desperate.

I have no idea what you are talking about. You’re losing it fellow, maybe you need to retranslate this one???

It seems you woudn’t have any strategy, or can’t see beyond your nose. These guys want to fight SB1070 to beat it from its roots, and if they can, they’ll prevent it from spreading to other states. Is so logical, that there’s no argument to that, as you want to make it, but it seems you can’t understand it.

What language? If English is your only language, then I think you’re not that good at it. Or you want to ignore the parts you can’t debate on, may be? I’ve seen many grammatical and spelling errors that obstruct the idea of your sentences, but I don’t feel the need to pull them off for you, since I can use common sense to understand the idea you try to state. And I don’t feel like pointing your grammatical or spelling errors since they don’t have anything to do with the debate of the law. But, I guess one of the only few arguments left for you is my writing of the language. If you still don’t understand the sentences above, I would suggest you to follow the logic of the past posts from where those sentences come from.

Oh please, this was a little play on words. The point was, you had (1st) said you didn’t like(discredited) polls, then you (2nd) said

“I’m sure that if they poll, 99% of people…yadda yadda yadda”

(credited)

I’ve always been saying I don’t like polls to validate a law, is that 99% I mentioned to validate one? No, so you’re “creditted” statements are ridiculous

, then you restated(3rd) you didn’t like (discredited) polls. The play on words goes back a few years ago when politicians would, basically, say, “ I was for that before I was against it”. It was meant to be funny.

Well, then I guess… LOL.[/FONT]

It seems you can’t see the logic of polls and can’t compare the difference of the ones I mentioned.

If that is what you see, your perception is flawed and if anyone needs a life preserver it is you. My point was, the problem with polls is that the outcome is often distorted because of who administers, who takes and where the poll is taken. It’s pretty simple really. The same question to be polled can have different results if asked on (say) Fox News or the Huffington Post. This isn’t anything I have learned from you, but have deducted by experience and common sense.

Cool. Then I wonder why you give so much credit to polls. And why is it the number one tool for politicians and people who support this law? I advice you to use that common sense you claim you have.

There ya go again, trying to take credit for my education, LOL, I’ve known the political slant on this long before you came to this thread. And don’t be so naive, most of the debate on the immigration issue is pure political. The politically polar arguments are based on various factors, one is party affiliation oriented.

Cool. Now, you should agree that Brewer didn’t even read the law before she signed it. And here it comes one of the questions I made from my first posts. Who the heck with an IQ of 20 signs that? And the answer I guess is- Brewer the politician; not the protect our borders Wonder Woman.

 

[Babagounj]

PHOENIX – There are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Some people say we should round them up and deport them, others say we should let them stay and earn citizenship. But there’s a new idea — make them permanent guest workers.
Guest workers would be able to stay in America permanently, live and work here, but wouldn’t vote or have other rights that American citizens have.
The idea is being floated by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce’s President and CEO. They are fearful business will take a big hit because of the state’s new immigration law.

 

[Babagounj]

Mississippi Eyes Illegal Immigration Law Similar to Arizona’s SB 1070

Mississippi is looking to adopt its own version of SB 1070, Arizona’s controversial illegal immigration law. Mississippi joins the growing list of states who are looking to adopt their own version of an illegal immigration policy.
SB 1070 essentially makes changes to illegal immigration laws related to enforcement, the failure to carry an alien registration document, day laborers, harboring or transporting illegal aliens and employer sanctions.

 

[Babagounj]

68% of America Says Top Priority are Visa Violators

Americans’ top priority on illegal immigration: visa violators

Sixty-eight percent of respondents to a new poll said it was very important for the US to crack down on illegal immigration by tracking people who have overstayed their visas. No. 2 was beefing up forces on the border

 

[Babagounj]

Undocumented immigrants lose government food aid
By Julia LYon
The Salt Lake Tribune
At the beginning of July, more than 2,000 families with undocumented immigrants stopped receiving food stamp benefits due to a change in Utah’s rules.
Now a growing number of them are showing up at emergency food pantries confused and needing help.
Earlier this year, the state announced it would begin to fully count the income earned by all members of a household when determining food stamp eligibility.
Previously, only a portion of undocumented immigrants’ income was counted in the food stamp calculation, due to the limitations of an old computer system.
That meant, in some prior cases, that a family with several undocumented members might qualify for food stamps although a family of native Utahns making the same amount of money might not.
“We believe this is fair and equitable across the board to treat all people equally when it comes to calculating the benefits that people get when they apply for food stamps,” said Curt Stewart, a spokesman for the state Department of Workforce Services, which oversees the food stamp program.
Despite the new rules, a blended family with children born in America and undocumented parents could still qualify for help if their income was low enough. The new computer-based eligibility system began July 1.
But the families who have showed up at Hildegarde’s Pantry at St. Mark’s Cathedral in Salt Lake City have not understood the bureaucratic changes and wonder if Americans are being given preference over them.

 

[Lue C Fur]

 

[fxdwg]

Another nut job........