Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill

[Jacob1983]

So how is a person a racist if they believe that crossing into a country illegally is wrong and a crime? Why is it's okay for Mexicans to enter America illegally but if Americans tried to do that, it would be a big deal? Like if someone on here left America to go to work and live in another country, would you do it the proper legal way or break the law and enter whatever country you're going to illegally?

[ChumpDumper]

I personally wouldn't want to spend the money on incarcerating them. How much are you willing to spend to incarcerate them all?

[Nbadan]

Not to mention it would take billions to find them, try them and deport them all....wingnuts better ask themselves whether they support new taxes to pay for immigrant resettlement...

[DJ Mbenga]

MKhChMHhBN8

[admiralsnackbar]

You are correct, but that's why they want amnesty for illegals. Then they'll be legal citizens and will have every right to vote.

qzTZ76vhnKk

[LnGrrrR]

So how is a person a racist if they believe that crossing into a country illegally is wrong and a crime? Why is it's okay for Mexicans to enter America illegally but if Americans tried to do that, it would be a big deal? Like if someone on here left America to go to work and live in another country, would you do it the proper legal way or break the law and enter whatever country you're going to illegally?

Why isn't illegally dloading movies and music a big deal to some people? :lol

[mogrovejo]

That's not true. If they can't make any money they won't come here.

Not necessarily true. Too many public goods to free-ride.

[rjv]

so many perfunctory points about the issue capped off by mogrovejo's irrelevant, racist and erroneous inference that mexican's are essentially welfare seekers.

[admiralsnackbar]

so many perfunctory points about the issue capped off by mogrovejo's irrelevant, racist and erroneous inference that mexican's are essentially welfare seekers.

Para variar...

[mogrovejo]

so many perfunctory points about the issue capped off by mogrovejo's irrelevant, racist and erroneous inference that mexican's are essentially welfare seekers.

What? Pathetic. In fact, the interpretation you made of my post truly defines you - only a racist mind would see racism there.

Heck, I don't even associate immigrants to Mexicans. When I think about immigration I think more about myself, as being an immigrant pretty much defines me, being one for such a long part of my life. Truly pathetic.

[mogrovejo]

So the question is should people be allowed to cross into a country illegally? Yes or no?

No, the government shouldn't have the power to prevent people from crossing borders except for security reasons.

[rjv]

What? Pathetic. In fact, the interpretation you made of my post truly defines you - only a racist mind would see racism there.

Heck, I don't even associate immigrants to Mexicans. When I think about immigration I think more about myself, as being an immigrant pretty much defines me, being one for such a long part of my life. Truly pathetic.

let's look at your argument.

to assume that a comment is racist based on a remark that may or may not be racist is racist in of itself.

this would then make the person who says that such a comment was racist a racist as well.

if this follows (somehow in the mogrovejan world of madhatter logic) then mogrovejo himself just conceded that he is a racist.

thus, it follows that my original assertion is true.

[mogrovejo]

Seeing racism in my posts is the symptom of a very disturbed mind. The fact that you can't even explain why are my comments racist, anti-Mexican and all that is pretty explanatory.

[rjv]

Seeing racism in my posts is the symptom of a very disturbed mind. The fact that you can't even explain why are my comments racist, anti-Mexican and all that is pretty explanatory.

so you think that someone who makes broad strokes based on comments and then fails to give a detailed explanation of such an assertion is very disturbed?

all i can get from this is that irony fails you or that you're making a subconscious plea for therapy.

(or that you take sh*t way too seriously)

[mogrovejo]

So, you still can't explain how my posts are racists and anti-Mexican? How longer shall we wait? Or are you going to reckon that your accusation was baseless and apologize? Nah, I doubt it.

[rjv]

So, you still can't explain how my posts are racists and anti-Mexican? How longer shall we wait? Or are you going to reckon that your accusation was baseless and apologize? Nah, I doubt it.


you asserted that even if we removed the monetary variable from the equation that mexicans would continue to flock to the US illegally because they would want to take advantage of public handouts. well, it certainly would not be education as that is readily available in mexico as well. it could be health but mexicans have rarely flocked over to the US in great amounts just to seek out health care in the US. in fact, the primary reason has always been for employment. never in the history of mexican immigration to the US has the primary reason been about seeking welfare programs and rarely has it ever been about anything other than jobs (excluding fleeing the revolution between 1910-1920)

but rather than make a reasoned statement that mexican immigration has exponentially increased since NAFTA as a result of what it did to the agrarian economy you make some half-baked claim that strongly suggests mexicans are primarily interested in seeking out hand-outs from the american government. rather than concede that they are displaced workers you committ to a statment that can not be proven and since this statement is about a particular group it was a generalization with a negative association.

most psychologists assert that racist or prejudicial beliefs are negative associations pinned to specific groups.

[Wild Cobra]

That's a typical statement from an unknowledgeable American to Mexico, just throwing accusations without supporting them.
Haven't you heard how the Mexican southern border is enforced?

School yourself. Look it up.

[Wild Cobra]

You're not asked for identification when you vote?
How many illegal aliens you know cast a vote?
In my state, there is no control. Illegals do vote here. No ID required. Fill out a voters registration card, get the paperwork, vote. No ID required.

[Wild Cobra]

As long as America continues to be super rich and a bunch of countries, super poor, people will continue risking their lives to find a better future in America.

No law is going to stop that.
As long as people will hire illegal labor, they will come. The problem needs to be stopped at the job location, including throwing the rich people in jail who hire illegal maids.

[Wild Cobra]

Okay. LMFAO @ people boycotting Arizona!!!!!! Especially the mayor of San Fransico. They can't spend money in their own state let alone anyone elses.
The rest of us will show our support by vacationing there rather than those states putting Arizona down.

[admiralsnackbar]

Haven't you heard how the Mexican southern border is enforced?

School yourself. Look it up.

Are you advocating shooting illegal immigrants like we do in Mexico?

[mogrovejo]

you asserted that even if we removed the monetary variable from the equation that mexicans would continue to flock to the US illegally because they would want to take advantage of public handouts.

Link? I don't remember mentioning Mexicans at all. Either you're flat out lying or I can't trust myself any more.

IIRC, I simply stated that employment opportunities aren't the only factor motivating migration movements - refuting a post saying that immigration was solely motivated by the employment factor.

Please, present the link. You also claim that I suggested that immigrants are primarily interested in seeking out hand-outs from the government. I dont' believe in that at all, I'm pretty convinced that job opportunities is the biggest factor by far to explain migration (but, once again, not the only one) - so I also need the link for that. I mean, if you're accusing me of making those statements, it's because I'm suffering from schizophrenia or you're a pathological liar. A link showing I actually wrote that should suffice - I'd readily look for a doctor.


and since this statement is about a particular group it was a generalization with a negative association.

most psychologists assert that racist or prejudicial beliefs are negative associations pinned to specific groups.

You have to explain to what particular group I assigned a negative association.

In any case, I wouldn't go as far as saying that being attracted by strong welfare systems is a negative characteristic in toto. It's just human nature. I respect your point of view though. But the idea that only immigrants are attracted by strong welfare benefits is pretty bizarre. I have no idea how you were able to make that association.

Once again, you really need to provide the links.

[rjv]

Link? I don't remember mentioning Mexicans at all. Either you're flat out lying or I can't trust myself any more.

IIRC, I simply stated that employment opportunities aren't the only factor motivating migration movements - refuting a post saying that immigration was solely motivated by the employment factor.

Please, present the link. You also claim that I suggested that immigrants are primarily interested in seeking out hand-outs from the government. I dont' believe in that at all, I'm pretty convinced that job opportunities is the biggest factor by far to explain migration (but, once again, not the only one) - so I also need the link for that. I mean, if you're accusing me of making those statements, it's because I'm suffering from schizophrenia or you're a pathological liar. A link showing I actually wrote that should suffice - I'd readily look for a doctor.

you are in the link! why do i have to post it? just go back a page. and this very thread is about the subject of illegal immigration. if you want to somehow stretch this out to being that your comment was actually about some obscure group such as the ethiopians or that it could not possibly have applied to mexicans because you do not even consider mexicans to be immigrants then then even that is not sufficient. you would at the very least still have made an assertion that immigrants would still come here for public assistance if money was not a factor. never mind the fact that other groups are usually refugees. in fact, i really can not think of any immigrant group that has ever come here to seek public programs. so perhaps your prejudice was not geared towards mexicans directly but just toward immigrants of some unknown category or perhaps you just like to make obscure and incongruous comments.

but taken in the context of this thread the assertion was either stupid or prejudicial or both. the fact that you are now qualifying it pretty much suggests that to be the case

[mogrovejo]

I mean, if you're accusing me of making those statements, it's because I'm suffering from schizophrenia or you're a pathological liar. A link showing I actually wrote that should suffice - I'd readily look for a doctor.

Okay, it seems we have an answer. I was scared for a bit, good to know I don't need to start paying a psychiatrist for now.

[admiralsnackbar]

Okay, it seems we have an answer. I was scared for a bit, good to know I don't need to start paying a psychiatrist for now.

Don't be so sure. You're talking to yourself, after all.

[mogrovejo]

LOL at saying that the statement that strong welfare systems are a factor (like on among a few) on migration movements obscure or incongruous. There are academics all over the world studying the subject of welfare migration (internal and external). There are dozens of peer-review papers published. Laughable.

[LnGrrrR]

What? Pathetic. In fact, the interpretation you made of my post truly defines you - only a racist mind would see racism there.

Mogro, do you think there might be a reason why many of your posts seem to be misinterpreted?

I mean, one or two posters, that's one thing.

But when a vast majority of the posters misinterpret your posts, perhaps it is not the reader's fault, n'est ce pas?

[rjv]

LOL at saying that the statement that strong welfare systems are a factor (like on among a few) on migration movements obscure or incongruous. There are academics all over the world studying the subject of welfare migration (internal and external). There are dozens of peer-review papers published. Laughable.


make up your mind. are you talking about mexicans (add to this your completely random assertion that somehow mexicans are not really "immigrants" in your mind) or other immigrants? if so which ones? you haven't defined anything at all ! then you say that money is really the true impetus and then you backpeddle and say there there are studies suggesting that welfare could be a reason (but give no actual evidence of such).

you are swimming in obscurity and fallacies !

[rjv]

Mogro, do you think there might be a reason why many of your posts seem to be misinterpreted?

I mean, one or two posters, that's one thing.

But when a vast majority of the posters misinterpret your posts, perhaps it is not the reader's fault, n'est ce pas?

perhaps he should stop living on our public assistance and go back to his native land if he can not learn english !

[mogrovejo]

Mogro, do you think there might be a reason why many of your posts seem to be misinterpreted?

I mean, one or two posters, that's one thing.

But when a vast majority of the posters misinterpret your posts, perhaps it is not the reader's fault, n'est ce pas?

Sure, it's obvious that when one writes something like

"Jobs opportunities aren't the only factor motivating migration, the existence of strong/better welfare systems is another one"

it's obvious that if someone accuses the author of being a racist and a Mexican-hater (!!) for producing the said statement, it's entirely the author's fault.

Absolutely obvious.

I don't think so many of my posts are misinterpreted. Examples?

[LnGrrrR]

As long as people will hire illegal labor, they will come. The problem needs to be stopped at the job location, including throwing the rich people in jail who hire illegal maids.

To be honest, if an American can get his house cleaned by an illegal, should that be considered wrong on an ethical/moral scale? Getting your house cleaned for as cheaply as you can is part of capitalism, after all.

It's not the job of the person whose house is being cleaned to verify citizenship papers.

Besides, how would you even take something like that to court? "Sir, he showed me papers, I thought he was legal." "Oh... well... uh... case dismissed."

The only way to implement something like this would be to hit larger companies that pay workers under the table.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't think so many of my posts are misinterpreted. Examples?

Perhaps not "misinterpreted", but standoffish. You don't seem to engender alot of good will. :)

I have no particular beef with you, other than you being wrong about fouls. :lol

[mogrovejo]

make up your mind. are you talking about mexicans (add to this your completely random assertion that somehow mexicans are not really "immigrants" in your mind) or other immigrants? if so which ones? you haven't defined anything at all ! then you say that money is really the true impetus and then you backpeddle and say there there are studies suggesting that welfare could be a reason (but give no actual evidence of such).

you are swimming in obscurity and fallacies !

Let's see if you can understand this:

1 - The biggest factor behind migration movements are the existence of employment opportunities.

2 - However, it's not the only one: the existence of strong welfare systems is another one, impacting the migration at a quantitative/qualitative level.

3 - I believe the nationality of the migrants is irrelevant.

Or you can keep accusing me of being a racist and an immigrant/Mexican hater even though I defend an open borders policy. :rollinPathetic.

[mogrovejo]

Perhaps not "misinterpreted", but standoffish. You don't seem to engender alot of good will. :)

I have no particular beef with you, other than you being wrong about fouls. :lol

So, no examples? I thought so.

[admiralsnackbar]

So, no examples? I thought so.

I love that you're shitting on the one guy who has your back. Payaso.

[LnGrrrR]

So, no examples? I thought so.

I don't care enough to look up possible examples.

[LnGrrrR]

I love that you're shitting on the one guy who has your back. Payaso.

To be fair, I don't think Mogro has come down from the Ivory Tower of Supreme Intelligence long enough to mingle with a lowly Commoner of Average Thoughts and Incorrect Assumptions like myself.

:lol

[mogrovejo]

I don't care enough to look up possible examples.

Okay, but you were the one making a post about it and claiming that. Nice to know now you don't care.

[rjv]

Let's see if you can understand this:

1 - The biggest factor behind migration movements are the existence of employment opportunities.

2 - However, it's not the only one: the existence of strong welfare systems is another one, impacting the migration at a quantitative/qualitative level.

3 - I believe the nationality of the migrants is irrelevant.

Or you can keep accusing me of being a racist and an immigrant/Mexican hater even though I defend an open borders policy. :rollinPathetic.


Originally Posted by jack sommerset http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/Flashskin/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4316951#post4316951)
That's not true. If they can't make any money they won't come here.


Not necessarily true. Too many public goods to free-ride.




hmmm. what a difference that was ! amazing what some desparate editing can do to a take.

the bizzaro world of mogrovejan logic grows even stranger. i guess we just have to assume that your posts are actually one of just many other possible worlds! for every one crappy statement there are more spelled out and less opaque versions of the same thought existing in some parallel universe.

that was very weak m., even for you.

[mogrovejo]

Originally Posted by jack sommerset http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/Flashskin/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4316951#post4316951)
That's not true. If they can't make any money they won't come here.

hmmm. what a difference that was ! amazing what some desparate editing can do to a take.

the bizzaro world of mogrovejan logic grows even stranger. i guess we just have to assume that your posts are actually one of just many other possible worlds! for every one crappy statement there are more spelled out and less opaque versions of the same thought existing in some parallel universe.

that was very weak m., even for you.

What editing?

A guy was saying that immigrants wouldn't migrate if there were no jobs available. I disagreed - America's welfare system, for example, is too strong. I wasn't even that assertive, hence the "not necessarily".

Considering your inability to apologize for calling me a racist with no grounds whatsoever for that, I think I'm done here.

[mogrovejo]

Not necessarily true. Too many public goods to free-ride.



No, the government shouldn't have the power to prevent people from crossing borders except for security reasons.


so many perfunctory points about the issue capped off by mogrovejo's irrelevant, racist and erroneous inference that mexican's are essentially welfare seekers.


perhaps he should stop living on our public assistance and go back to his native land if he can not learn english !

:lol:toast

[admiralsnackbar]

The appreciation of irony is not manifest in some people's consciousness.

[rjv]

What editing?

A guy was saying that immigrants wouldn't migrate if there were no jobs available. I disagreed - America's welfare system, for example, is too strong. I wasn't even that assertive, hence the "not necessarily".

Considering your inability to apologize for calling me a racist with no grounds whatsoever for that, I think I'm done here.


you were done before you started. :lol

[mogrovejo]

http://www.mmo.gr/pdf/publications/mmo_working_papers/MMO_WP4.pdf


From existing empirical data and secondary analyses, a paradoxical relationship is observed: that generous redistributive welfare states tend to attract the lowest skilled and most welfare dependent migrants, whilst non-redistributive welfare states tend to exclude legal migration and attract illegal migrants.

[rjv]

The appreciation of irony is not manifest in some people's consciousness.


he even laughed at my own lampooning of him. now that's double-irony !

[mogrovejo]

Yeah, that was definitely some strong lampooning, considering my pro open-borders stance.

[rjv]

http://www.mmo.gr/pdf/publications/mmo_working_papers/MMO_WP4.pdf

i thought you were done. but if you want to argue in this thread about whether or not the institutional factors that shaped our welfare state are the very same that developed our immigration policies then before you do it would be best to spell out which specific "immigrant" groups you are referring to. unless you want to just lump them all into your continuing amorphous domain of "immigrants"

the article also states: '

It is argued here, that the same institutional
factors which shaped welfare systems also shape immigration policy.

this may explain why your are so prone to generalizations. "immigration policy" in regards to what group(s)?

[admiralsnackbar]

Yeah, that was definitely some strong lampooning, considering my pro open-borders stance.

The same stance that led you -- in this thread -- to incorrectly say :


Wasn't Obama one of the senators who killed Bush's effort to pass immigration reform? Yeah, I think it was.

It's a shame that Obama didn't allow those more capable than him to get something done and now can't do anything himself.

Given that the CIRA act was an effort to close a functionally open border, why did you regretfully impugn the POTUS' ability to effect reform as it existed in that bill? Isn't such reform necessarily in conflict with open borders? And if so, why do you support it over the current state of affairs?

[rjv]

Yeah, that was definitely some strong lampooning, considering my pro open-borders stance.

but you do not even associate immigrants to mexicans, remember ? or is there another version of this post in some other universe that you are going to repost ?

[rjv]

The same stance that led you -- in this thread -- to incorrectly say :



Given that the CIRA act was an effort to close a functionally open border, why did you regretfully impugn the POTUS' ability to effect reform as it existed in that bill? Isn't reform necessarily in conflict with open borders? And if so, why do you support it over the current state of affairs?


welcome to the wonderland of m. where logic is a cheshire cat.

[mogrovejo]

but you do not even associate immigrants to mexicans, remember ?

Why would I? I've met plenty of immigrants in my life, I'm one myself, but I doubt I've ever met more than a couple of mexican immigrants. What's your obsession with Mexicans? I mean, my open borders stance is valid for Mexicans, Americans, Frenchmen, Sudanese, whoever. I really don't feel the need to classify immigrants by nationality.


or is there another version of this post in some other universe that you are going to repost ?

What? Why do you keep suggesting I repost different versions? Because you accused me of being racist after I wrote:


Not necessarily true. Too many public goods to free-ride.

and


No, the government shouldn't have the power to prevent people from crossing borders

?

And now you can't apologize and reckon your accusation was completely baseless?

[rjv]

Why would I? I've met plenty of immigrants in my life, I'm one myself, but I doubt I've ever met more than a couple of mexican immigrants. What's your obsession with Mexicans? I mean, my open borders stance is valid for Mexicans, Americans, Frenchmen, Sudanese, whoever. I really don't feel the need to classify immigrants by nationality.

yes, because lord knows we have a real problem with all those sudanese immigrants crossing over to arizona ! :lol




What? Why do you keep suggesting I repost different versions? Because you accused me of being racist after I wrote:

hey king of "that's not what i said", maybe you should reread. i stated that it was a racist and erroneous inference.




And now you can't apologize and reckon your accusation was completely baseless?

really, you think people should apologize for baseless accusations? as admiral stated, some people's consciousness just can not register irony.

[mogrovejo]

hey king of "that's not what i said", maybe you should reread. i stated that it was a racist and erroneous inference.


Can you explain why? Can you explain why saying that job opportunities isn't the only factor behind migration movements and that the existence of welfare system and how strong they are plays a role is "a racist and erroneous inference"?

Because what I said is pretty much consensual in scientific literature. So, can you explain or not?

[jack sommerset]

People are really being pricks because they donot want their ID's checked. They say it's racial profiling, you can't trust the police (the gestapo), they call people "racist" who agree with the law and want to punish everyone is Arizona for passing this law. They are so stupid and crying so hard they want to punish Arizona tea!!!! A company out of New York.

Now they are being disingenuous coming up with different solutions like stronger borders, hitting the employers in there wallets perhaps arresting them. Well, duh. Hopefully we get there but we all know the same people will go apeshit over that too.

This is a very, very simple begining and it's getting all this bullshit. Most people fighting this law want them all legalized.

[admiralsnackbar]

Now they are being disingenuous coming up with different solutions like stronger borders, hitting the employers in there wallets perhaps arresting them. Well, duh. Hopefully we get there but we all know the same people will go apeshit over that too.


The people who will go apeshit in that situation are employers of wetbacks. What you're missing is that the people who would be affected by these laws are the ones bitching. I'm all for immigration reform, but this law is bullshit because I'm an American and I'm brown.

[jack sommerset]

The people who will go apeshit in that situation are employers of wetbacks. What you're missing is that the people who would be affected by these laws are the ones bitching. I'm all for immigration reform, but this law is bullshit because I'm an American and I'm brown.

You don't think the illegals will going apeshit when they lose their jobs? Are you kidding me? I guess they will cross back over the border when they can't get a job.

I'm not missing anything. People are going to the well one more time, old faithful, the race card line. When in doubt, cry RACIST. Read the law and get back to me.

[admiralsnackbar]

You don't think the illegals will going apeshit when they lose their jobs? Are you kidding me? I guess they will cross back over the border when they can't get a job.

I'm not missing anything. People are going to the well one more time, old faithful, the race card line. When in doubt, cry RACIST. Read the law and get back to me.

The illegals have no legislative voice.

[jack sommerset]

The illegals have no legislative voice.

:lol Just going to throw that out there.

I say bullshit. This is not racial profiling. So why are people mad? Are they just stupid? Read the law and get back to me.

[ChumpDumper]

Let's see if you can understand this:

1 - The biggest factor behind migration movements are the existence of employment opportunities.

2 - However, it's not the only one: the existence of strong welfare systems is another one, impacting the migration at a quantitative/qualitative level.Ok, if the employment opportunities are somehow completely taken away, how would that qualitatively and quantitatively affect illegal immigration?

[admiralsnackbar]

:lol Just going to throw that out there.

I say bullshit. This is not racial profiling. So why are people mad? Are they just stupid? Read the law and get back to me.

I, along with several million people, HAVE already read the law. That's the point, holmes.

[jack sommerset]

I, along with several million people, HAVE already read the law. That's the point, holmes.

So you know they can not ask for a ID because of your skin color. So what's the problem, holmes?

[mogrovejo]

Ok, if the employment opportunities are somehow completely taken away, how would that qualitatively and quantitatively affect illegal immigration?

Pretty sure it'd severely reduce the number of immigrants and that reduction would affect disproportionately the qualified ones (so, from a qualitative perspective, one should expect a decrease in the average qualifications of the immigrants). Don't you agree?

[admiralsnackbar]

So you know they can not ask for a ID because of your skin color. So what's the problem, holmes?

The problem is that "legal contact" means anything an officer wants it to, and you have to be naive to think an officer promising they won't pull me over because I'm brown will actually amount to their not doing so.

[jack sommerset]

The problem is that "legal contact" means anything an officer wants it to, and you have to be naive to think an officer promising they won't pull me over because I'm brown will actually amount to their not doing so.

No it doesn't.

[admiralsnackbar]

No it doesn't.

ok

[ChumpDumper]

Pretty sure it'd severely reduce the number of immigrants and that reduction would affect disproportionately the qualified ones (so, from a qualitative perspective, one should expect a decrease in the average qualifications of the immigrants). Don't you agree?It would severely reduce the number of illegal immigrants according to you?

Great.

Let's get to work on that. I don't care about how qualified the remaining illegal immigrants are. They are illegal immigrants.

[ChumpDumper]

So you know they can not ask for a ID because of your skin color.So when can they?

[v2freak]

Although ChumpDumper only provides caustic one liners and counter arguments to what people have said, I do agree with him that the best way to go after immigration is to attack the incentives for illegal immigrants coming here. Punishing employers seems to be the best method. I think ChumpDumper said this somewhere on page 6 when asked.

Though, I understand the move here by Arizona. Sometimes in Poker is takes someone else to raise for you to stop checking every time it's your turn. Arizona was sick of what was happening to its state and did something about it.

[Winehole23]

I love that you're shitting on the one guy who has your back. Payaso.mogrovejo's rather weak grasp of the determinate context of the conversation apparently also extends to its social dimension, his dire emphasis on politeness totally notwithstanding.

[Winehole23]

okConservative bona fides in the effectiveness of government seems to return with a fiery passion whenever the issue is growing LE bureaucracies.

[jack sommerset]

New immigration bill old hat for 'Sheriff Joe'

Want to know what Arizona's new immigration law will look like in practice? Just ask Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He and his deputies have been stopping people and asking for evidence of their immigration status for years.

"It's not that big of a deal," he told The Associated Press in an interview. "I've been doing it all this time. I didn't see anyone boycotting the state."

Arizona's sweeping new law mirrors many of the policies Arpaio has put into place in the Valley, where he set up a hot line for the public to report immigration violations, conducts crime and immigration sweeps in heavily Latino neighborhoods and frequently raids workplaces for people in the U.S. illegally.

While Arpaio has long come under fire for policies many see as racist, he was surprised at the national outrage over Arizona's new law, which makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally and directs police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they're illegal immigrants.

"That law is something we've always been doing anyway," Arpaio said. "The cops could have been doing this. They've always had the inherent authority. We're just the only ones who've been doing it."

Current law in Arizona and most states doesn't require police to ask about the immigration status of those they encounter, and some police officials say allowing such questions would deter immigrants from cooperating in other investigations.

President Barack Obama has questioned the legality of the new Arizona law, and civil rights leaders are calling for the rest of the nation to boycott Arizona, saying the law may lead to racial profiling.

The law is set to take effect in late July, but it likely won't change life much in Phoenix and its surrounding suburbs.

Since early 2008, Arpaio has run 15 crime and immigration sweeps, including one last weekend in Phoenix that led to the arrest of dozens of illegal immigrants. He sends as many as 200 deputies and volunteer posse members into a designated locale to set up a mobile command post and seek out traffic violators, people wanted on criminal warrants and others.

Critics say his deputies pull people over for minor traffic infractions because of the color of their skin so they can ask them for their proof of citizenship.

Arpaio denies allegations of racial profiling, saying people are stopped if deputies have probable cause to believe they've committed crimes and that it's only afterward that deputies find many of them are illegal immigrants.

Arpaio also has used a controversial interpretation of a state law to arrest more than 2,000 illegal immigrants since 2006. Under the law — as interpreted by former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas — illegal immigrants can be arrested and prosecuted for conspiracy to smuggle themselves into the country. The law's authors intended it to be used to prosecute often-violent smugglers, not the immigrants being smuggled.

Arpaio, who calls himself "America's toughest sheriff," hasn't backed down, despite a federal investigation. For more than a year, the U.S. Justice Department has been investigating Arpaio's office for alleged discrimination and for unconstitutional searches and seizures. Although the federal agency won't provide any details on its probe, Arpaio said the inquiry is focused on his immigration efforts.

While "Sheriff Joe" gets attention for his immigration policies, many know him for making inmates wear pink underwear and eat a green bologna diet, creating old-time chain gangs and cracking down on parents who don't pay child support. Arpaio had his own TV show, "Smile ... You're Under Arrest!" on Fox Reality Channel, and some of his female deputies currently are on TLC's "Police Women of Maricopa County."

But with Republican Gov. Jan Brewer now leading Arizona's illegal immigration fight, it's unclear what Arpaio's next move will be.

Arpaio discounted a run for governor on Monday.

"I have come so far and accomplished so much in the past 18 years as sheriff that to leave now just doesn't make sense," Arpaio said in a statement announcing his decision. "Right now, we are standing in the cross-hairs of history in this state and as sheriff of the most populous county in Arizona, there is much work yet to do."

State Sen. Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican and the author of Arizona's new immigration legislation, is a former top deputy under Arpaio and a supporter of the sheriff's efforts.

"You're not going to take away Joe Arpaio's poster-boy image of the icon of what ought to be right in America — enforcing our laws, making our neighborhoods safer," he said.

"I'm sure he'll still be more aggressive than others because he's actually committed to doing this."

Arpaio's term as sheriff is up in two years, and his campaign committee, Re-Elect Joe Arpaio 2012, has collected nearly $2.3 million. Donations have come in from every state in the nation.

Arpaio told The Associated Press as recently as January that he planned to run for sheriff again but later danced around the subject as he contemplated the governor's race.

Arpaio "certainly has a shrewd mind for publicity," said Larry DeGaris, an associate professor of marketing at the University of Indianapolis. "He knows what gets press and he isn't shy about promoting it. If politics don't work out for him, he's probably got a future as host of the 'Sheriff Joe Show.'"

[Fpoonsie]

Could anybody else not read "Sheriff Joe"'s comments W/O adding the good ol' boy twang to it?

Also, how to you "boycott Arizona"?

[ChumpDumper]

So this has been going on in Maricopa County all this time and there are still illegal immigrants there?

Shocking.

[jack sommerset]

So this has been going on in Maricopa County all this time and there are still illegal immigrants there?

Shocking.

See, nothing to worry about. The law is a tiny step towards real reform.

[ChumpDumper]

See, nothing to worry about. The law is a tiny step towards real reform.See, it's a waste of time and money.

[jack sommerset]

See, it's a waste of time and money.

No, it's a step towards real reform. If all of Arizona does their part to make this law work, it's a big step towards reform. How is it a waste of time and money? The police are paid already.


So when can they?


You should google the law.

[ChumpDumper]

No, it's a step towards real reform. If all of Arizona does their part to make this law work, it's a big step towards reform. How is it a waste of time and money? The police are paid already.You think that is the only cost? :lmao


You should google the law.You can tell me. You know all about it.

[Winehole23]

If you disagree with mogrovejo's abstract restatements of the case -- any case -- the only possible explanations are perversity and mental incapacity.

It's as if he mistakes his own economistic reductions of reality for reality itself, with the result that validity attaches only to agreement, and the putative topic (the longer he remains in the thread) tends to collapse into a dispute about the academic veracity (his professional bailiwick) of the various economic abstractions mogrovejo proposes himself. Should one ever stray beyond the academic issues identified by mogrovejo, one becomes "unserious," "unreliable" -- and perhaps, crazy.

[Winehole23]

Hence the risible, yet touchingly absurd spectacle (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4321201&postcount=275) of mogrovejo citing himself in defense of himself, and deriving apparent comfort therefrom.

[jack sommerset]

You think that is the only cost? :lmao

You can tell me. You know all about it.

LoL

[ChumpDumper]

LoLSo tell us all, jack.

We're waiting.

[mogrovejo]

It would severely reduce the number of illegal immigrants according to you?

Great.

Let's get to work on that. I don't care about how qualified the remaining illegal immigrants are. They are illegal immigrants.

Why would you want that?

Taking away employment opportunities from immigrants implies less economic well-being and opportunities for everybody.

I mean, Cuba doesn't have a problem with immigration precisely because there aren't employment opportunities for immigrants. That's not good for Cuba though.

[ChumpDumper]

Why would you want that?Why would I want to restrict the employment opportunities for illegal immigrants?

To "severely reduce the number of immigrants," of course.


Taking away employment opportunities from immigrants implies less economic well-being and opportunities for everybody.Why does it imply that? Looks like you overthought this one, genius.

[jack sommerset]

So tell us all, jack.

We're waiting.

I told you what to do, you won't do it. Dumper of all Chumps, it is generally you who is waiting, not anyone else.

[ChumpDumper]

I told you what to do, you won't do it. Dumper of all Chumps, it is generally you who is waiting, not anyone else.Already looked it up. It gave no examples.

So tell me, jack.

I'm waiting.

[jack sommerset]

Already looked it up. It gave no examples.

So tell me, jack.

I'm waiting.

LOL @ examples. You're a smart guy. You will figure it out without my help.

[ChumpDumper]

LOL @ examples. You're a smart guy. You will figure it out without my help.No, it's pretty unclear to me. Give me some examples, jack.

[jack sommerset]

No, it's pretty unclear to me. Give me some examples, jack.

VZ2HcRl4wSk

[mogrovejo]

Why would I want to restrict the employment opportunities for illegal immigrants?

To "severely reduce the number of immigrants," of course.

Why do you want to reduce the number of immigrants? You don't like immigrants?


Why does it imply that? Looks like you overthought this one, genius.

I don't think so. I believe you'll be very dissapointed if you believe you can legislate that employment opportunities that may entice immigrants to enter the country illegally are prohibited. Reminds me of the candlestick makers' petition to prohibit the sun.

Reducing the number of immigrants through prohibitionist can be achieved to some degree, but at the cost of economic prosperity.

[ChumpDumper]

Why do you want to reduce the number of immigrants? You don't like immigrants?Illegal immigrants. For all your pontificating, you're pretty stupid.


I don't think so. I believe you'll be very dissapointed if you believe you can legislate that employment opportunities that may entice immigrants to enter the country illegally are prohibited. Reminds me of the candlestick makers' petition to prohibit the sun.

Reducing the number of immigrants through prohibitionist can be achieved to some degree, but at the cost of economic prosperity.You can't think of anything on your own, can you?

I'll wait until you read some more peer reviewed papers.

[ChumpDumper]

VZ2HcRl4wSkWhy can't you?

[mogrovejo]

Illegal immigrants.

Why not simply make all immigration legal then? That seems to be the easiest way to solve the problem of illegal immigration if the problem is indeed the "illegal".


For all your pontificating, you're pretty stupid.

You can't think of anything on your own, can you?

I'll wait until you read some more peer reviewed papers.

Strong counter-arguments.

[jack sommerset]

Why not simply make all immigration legal then? That seems to be the easiest way to solve the problem of illegal immigration if the problem is indeed the "illegal"..

:lol Checking someones ID during a police stop to see if someone is legal or not seems pretty freaken easy to me. Plus it doesn't cost much or waste anyones elses time.

[ChumpDumper]

Why not simply make all immigration legal then? That seems to be the easiest way to solve the problem of illegal immigration if the problem is indeed the "illegal".Not all immigration should be illegal.


Strong counter-arguments.They match your initial arguments.

I'll wait until someone else tells you what to think.

[mogrovejo]

Not all immigration should be illegal.

Which immigration should be illegal? And why?

[ChumpDumper]

Which immigration should be illegal?Immigration that is not legal.
And why?By definition.

You don't understand the simplest terms.

[mogrovejo]

Which immigration should be illegal?


Immigration that is not legal.

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

Is there currently immigration that is not legal?

Yes or no.

[EmptyMan]

lol at this sons http://drudgereport.com/usa.jpg

[jack sommerset]

Is there currently immigration that is not legal?

Yes or no.

www.google.com

[George Gervin's Afro]

www.google.com

It's ok to admit jackie that you don't know... it's obvious from your posts here there are LOTS of things you don't know

[ChumpDumper]

www.google.comDamn jack, now you are going out of your way to not answer questions that you were not asked.

[Winehole23]

I mean, if you're accusing me of making those statements, it's because I'm suffering from schizophrenia or you're a pathological liar.Thematic false choice: only one of us here is the bad guy.

mogrovejo says this repeatedly. Either I have gone crazy or you are.

[Winehole23]

What's odd to me is the frequency of the wager.

[Winehole23]

Like it hasn't even occurred to him he might occasionally be wrong about not being crazy himself. (Or about some other jackass occasionally being right.)

[superjames1992]

This is the way it looks with the new amendment made to the bill.


11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws; indemnification

A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

B. For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.

2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.

3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

[Yonivore]

Good for her!


NLgZ1LWLlko

[ChumpDumper]

I'm laughing.

[Winehole23]

B. For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. This basically transfers immigration enforcement responsibility to Arizona LE for all lawful stops. Maybe this is a shot over the bow of the AZ sheriff who recently said he wouldn't enforce the new law.


Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released. There it is right there.

[Winehole23]

Thanks for the update, superjames1992. :tu

Have you got a link to that? I'm curious about the indemnification.

[ChumpDumper]

What is reasonable suspicion?

[Winehole23]

If the post is veracious, it doesn't matter. For every custodial situation, immigration status shall be determined.

[Winehole23]

I hope Arizona has ready means to pay for it. It won't be cheap, if the problem is as large as advertised.

[ChumpDumper]

If the post is veracious, it doesn't matter. For every custodial situation, immigration status shall be determined.That's fine. Can't say I mind that too much. It's the noncustodial situations I'm asking about.

[Winehole23]

Will Arizonans accept higher taxes, to reflect the new burdens they put on AZ state law enforcement?

[Winehole23]

That's fine. Can't say I mind that too much. It's the noncustodial situations I'm asking about.Discretion of the officer, as asserted on oath. As ever.

[Wild Cobra]

To be honest, if an American can get his house cleaned by an illegal, should that be considered wrong on an ethical/moral scale? Getting your house cleaned for as cheaply as you can is part of capitalism, after all.

True to a point.


It's not the job of the person whose house is being cleaned to verify citizenship papers.

Not citizenship, but there is a point in cost that when you employ someone, the law requires you to report it. At this point, you need proof of legal work status. A social security number or other legal tax ID number. The worker is suppose to report the wages and pay taxes and SS and medicare as well.

Working under the table is illegal. Both parties can get in trouble.


Besides, how would you even take something like that to court? "Sir, he showed me papers, I thought he was legal." "Oh... well... uh... case dismissed."

Igtnorance to the law is not a defense.


The only way to implement something like this would be to hit larger companies that pay workers under the table.

Absolutely. Their CEO's, or who ever is authorizing such actions, should be jailed.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm all for immigration reform, but this law is bullshit because I'm an American and I'm brown.
No need to fear the new law. If an officer wants to stop you for something because of skin color, this isn't going to give him any more authority than he already has. You're crazy if you think it's going to increase the number of police who abuse their power. If anything, it will expose those who are racist, and get them booted.

[Yonivore]

I hope Arizona has ready means to pay for it. It won't be cheap, if the problem is as large as advertised.
They've already stopped or arrested, where's the additional cost?

[Wild Cobra]

Why not simply make all immigration legal then? That seems to be the easiest way to solve the problem of illegal immigration if the problem is indeed the "illegal".
Right.

Once you do that, how will this nation support a surge of all those from all over the world coming here. You would increase the flow to an overwhelming extent. That is why any talk of amnesty is immediately firmly resisted. That talk alone starts a march here so they can be here when amnesty takes effect.

Immigration needs to be controlled for several reasons. Nobody in their right mind will support amnesty either. Do it right, get in line like legal immigrants do.

[Wild Cobra]

This is the way it looks with the new amendment made to the bill.

4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
Looks like Oregon driver licenses don't count.

[Wild Cobra]

Will Arizonans accept higher taxes, to reflect the new burdens they put on AZ state law enforcement?
I would think the tax burden would go down as the social system supporting illegal immigrants gets less pressure.

[Winehole23]

They've already stopped or arrested, where's the additional cost?Jail, criminal process and prison?

[Winehole23]

I would think the tax burden would go down as the social system supporting illegal immigrants gets less pressure.Could be. Is there any foreseeable downside to AZ deporting illegal immigrants on masse, in your opinion?

[Wild Cobra]

Could be. Is there any foreseeable downside to AZ deporting illegal immigrants on masse, in your opinion?
Nothing bad enough to worry about that I can think of.

[Nbadan]

Why not exterminate them too? The WC/RNC Final Solution!

[Winehole23]

Nothing bad enough to worry about that I can think of.Can't say that surprises me.

[Winehole23]

I would think the tax burden would go down as the social system supporting illegal immigrants gets less pressure.We'll see if reality resembles what you think. You seem to set a lot by it. Pardon me if I don't.

[Wild Cobra]

Can't say that surprises me.
I didn't say I couldn't think of any minor setbacks. There are several and I'm not about to start listing them. Thing with these is that they will correct themselves. I did specify "nothing bad enough to worry about." I'm sure our opinion would be 180 degrees on some of these.

[Wild Cobra]

Why not exterminate them too? The WC/RNC Final Solution!
Spin spin spin...

Isn't your rectum worn out yet?

I never advocated extermination. Just border control with lethal force. That includes the north border asshole.

[Winehole23]

You wanna shoot Canadians too?

[Nbadan]

He wants to shoot anyone on his lawn..

[Nbadan]

o7L9BvIgqdo

[IceColdBrewski]

Now this is how to write a "Fuck You" letter.

http://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/letter-azcc-villaraigosa.pdf.pdf



Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,

I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).

You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)

I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.

People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.

Sincerely,

Commissioner Gary Pierce

[NFGIII]

Now this is how to write a "Fuck You" letter.

http://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/letter-azcc-villaraigosa.pdf.pdf



Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,

I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).

You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)

I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.

People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.

Sincerely,

Commissioner Gary Pierce

Well put. For the leaders of LA to not have considered the repercussions of their actions is amusing. The knee jerk reaction to AZ will have consequences. Maybe if it plays out that way then the citizens of LA will consider new leadership.

I agree with Mr. Pierce that though you may disagree with the new law in AZ there are good ways and bad ways to express your misgivings. Choose wisely.

[ChumpDumper]

"Hot Air."

[TeyshaBlue]

"Hot Air."

Much like the LA proclamation.

[ChumpDumper]

Much like the LA proclamation.I was referring to both.

[TeyshaBlue]

I was referring to both.

Astute observation...my bad.:toast

[Winehole23]

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/files/2010/05/504.JPG

NOGALES, Ariz. - Assistant Police Chief Roy Bermudez shakes his head and smiles when he hears politicians and pundits declaring that Mexican cartel violence is overrunning his Arizona border town.



"We have not, thank God, witnessed any spillover violence from Mexico," Bermudez says emphatically. "You can look at the crime stats. I think Nogales, Arizona, is one of the safest places to live in all of America."


FBI Uniform Crime Reports and statistics provided by police agencies, in fact, show that the crime rates in Nogales, Douglas, Yuma and other Arizona border towns have remained essentially flat for the past decade, even as drug-related violence has spiraled out of control on the other side of the international line. Statewide, rates of violent crime also are down.


While smugglers have become more aggressive in their encounters with authorities, as evidenced by the shooting of a Pinal County deputy on Friday, allegedly by illegal-immigrant drug runners, they do not routinely target residents of border towns.


In 2000, there were 23 rapes, robberies and murders in Nogales, Ariz. Last year, despite nearly a decade of population growth, there were 19 such crimes. Aggravated assaults dropped by one-third. No one has been murdered in two years.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/02/20100502arizona-border-violence-mexico.html#ixzz0p1H6T2WU

[rjv]

^^^ good post. yonivore is just being racist, perpetuating the myth that the primary victom of violence by illegals is the white, law abiding citizen. a completely inaccurate depiction of the situation there.

[Homeland Security]

Now this is how to write a "Fuck You" letter.

http://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/letter-azcc-villaraigosa.pdf.pdf



Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,

I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).

You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)

I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.

People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.

Sincerely,

Commissioner Gary Pierce

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I told you fuckers it would happen.

It's only 2010 and states are threatening acts of war against each other.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You liberals WILL BE FUCKING SLAUGHTERED.

[DarrinS]

Now this is how to write a "Fuck You" letter.

http://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/letter-azcc-villaraigosa.pdf.pdf



Dear Mayor Villaraigosa,

I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).

You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)

I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.

People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.

Sincerely,

Commissioner Gary Pierce



:clap

[jack sommerset]

O6qEQ-KnitQ

[rjv]

how long is the cliche about "reading the law" going to perpetuate? it is written in many laws to not enforce those laws in certain manners or else risk encroaching civil rights, however, there are just some laws out there that lend themselves to more frequent violations of civil rights. laws do not exist in vacuums void of the human variable.

[jack sommerset]

LOL@ reading is a cliche!

[rjv]

LOL@ reading is a cliche!

lol @ reading comprehension being outside the grasp of jack.

[jack sommerset]

lol @ reading comprehension being outside the grasp of jack.

What are you talking about now? You are spewing about civil rights in connection with this law. Why?

[rjv]

What are you talking about now? You are spewing about civil rights in connection with this law. Why?

because that is where the lawsuits are headed. what aspect do you think does not apply to further examination or appeal? is it a specific court case (e.g., adarand constructors v. pena), the fifth and fourteenth amendments? the aspect of ethnic or racial profiling potential similar to "driving while black" offenses?

[jack sommerset]

because that is where the lawsuits are headed. what aspect do you think does not apply to further examination or appeal? is it a specific court case (e.g., adarand constructors v. pena), the fifth and fourteenth amendments? the aspect of ethnic or racial profiling potential similar to "driving while black" offenses?

You should read the law. The law says nothing about "driving while black". Has no potential of racial profiling.

[Heath Ledger]

I bought a really cool "Arizona Rocks" t-shirt at the gun show here in SoCal this weekend.

[rjv]

You should read the law. The law says nothing about "driving while black". Has no potential of racial profiling.

i have read SB1070 and i know it does not state that; no law does. that is the point. it is rather the hidden potential of a law and its application by law enforcement that is subject to scrutiny. while the law stipulates that the primary reason for detaining an individual cannot be to ask for proof of citizenship and that there must be an aura of suspicion it also does not indicate anything regarding the rights of groups or persons as the enforcement of the law is applied.

that is why both MALDEF and the ACLU in the first lawsuit that was filed in the state stated the the law " invites racial profiling against people of color by law enforcement in violation of the equal protection guarantee and prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the 14th and Fourth Amendments; and infringes on the free speech rights of day laborers and others in Arizona." (http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/aclu-and-civil-rights-groups-file-legal-challenge-arizona-racial-pr)

[jack sommerset]

i have read SB1070 and i know it does not state that; no law does. that is the point. it is rather the hidden potential of a lawand its application by law enforcement that is subject to scrutiny. while the law stipulates that the primary reason for detaining an individual cannot be to ask for proof of citizenship and that there must be an aura of suspicion it also does not indicate anything regarding the rights of groups or persons as the enforcement of the law is applied.

that is why both MALDEF and the ACLU in the first lawsuit that was filed in the state stated the the law " invites racial profiling against people of color by law enforcement in violation of the equal protection guarantee and prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the 14th and Fourth Amendments; and infringes on the free speech rights of day laborers and others in Arizona." (http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/aclu-and-civil-rights-groups-file-legal-challenge-arizona-racial-pr)

It's a conspiracy to you then.


ACLU and MALDEF are wrong that it will invite racial profiling as are you. Frivolous lawsuits are filed everyday. The law does not counter the 14th and fourth amendments.

It's a good law.

[rjv]

It's a conspiracy to you then.


ACLU and MALDEF are wrong that it will invite racial profiling as are you. Frivolous lawsuits are filed everyday. The law does not counter the 14th and fourth amendments.

It's a good law.

frivolous lawsuits are filed everyday but fortunately you are not the judge of what is to be deemed the latter, nor whether or not the law holds up constitutionally.

the fact that the state of texas is waiting to see how the lawsuits hold up in courts (before proposing the enactment of a similar law) tells you that some of the suits will not be defined as "frivolous" as the very definition would mean they never make it to court. the expectation, even by conservative legilsators, is that SB1070 will see its day in court.

[jack sommerset]

frivolous lawsuits are filed everyday but fortunately you are not the judge of what is to be deemed the latter, nor whether or not the law holds up constitutionally.

the fact that the state of texas is waiting to see how the lawsuits hold up in courts tells you that some of the suits will not be defined as "frivolous" as the very definition would mean they never make it to court. the expectation, even by conservative legilsators, is that SB1070 will see its day in court.

Ooooooooo TAY!

[George Gervin's Afro]

You should read the law. The law says nothing about "driving while black". Has no potential of racial profiling.

hey jack i seem to remember all of your claims about the healthcare law that were not specifically mentioned in the bill (you made stuff up). Now it seems you are stating that if it isn't in the bill it can't possibly happen. So, which is it?

[jack sommerset]

hey jack i seem to remember all of your claims about the healthcare law that were not specifically mentioned in the bill (you made stuff up). Now it seems you are stating that if it isn't in the bill it can't possibly happen. So, which is it?

You recall wrong, dummy.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You recall wrong, dummy.

you made quite bit of stuff up of what was going to happen it if the oabamacare health bill was passed... so now I guess now you are going to stick by "if it is not specifically mentioned in the legislation then it can't happen.."

got it

[jack sommerset]

you made quite bit of stuff up of what was going to happen it if the oabamacare health bill was passed... so now I guess now you are going to stick by "if it is not specifically mentioned in the legislation then it can't happen.."

got it

You got nothing as usual. If you want to talk healthcare, start a thread.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You got nothing as usual. If you want to talk healthcare, start a thread.

I don't blame you for running away.. you are a hypocrite

[jack sommerset]

I don't blame you for running away.. you are a hypocrite

I said you were wrong, again. If you want to talk about healthcare, start a thread. Quit babbling.

[rjv]

even arizona is suing arizona.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gptGYxtQ_j7T1YxvrxNXjzWf9GHwD9FGBTC82

The Tucson City Council has voted to sue Arizona in an effort to overturn its new immigration law.
The law requires law enforcement officers to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally.
Mayor Bob Walkup says much of Tucson's economy is derived from Mexican tourists who come to vacation and shop.
Council members say the cost to enforce the new immigration law will be overly excessive.
Councilman Steve Kozachik voted against the suit, saying that while the law is flawed, Arizona needs "to de-escalate the conversation" and a lawsuit runs counter to that.

and, http://azdailysun.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_5a88048c-6b18-5b87-99ac-c481b37b42e7.html

The Flagstaff City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to file suit against Arizona's new immigration law.
The decision, made after more than three hours of public testimony, directs the city attorney to seek an injunction, either alone or in concert with other cities or litigants, preventing SB1070 from taking effect in late July.
Councilmember Coral Evans called the law "racist" and said she could not abide by a law that would target some of the poorest and most vulnerable in the community.
"It is not enough to stand in unity when things are good," Evans said, paraphrasing Martin Luther King Jr.
Councilmember Joe Haughey, while voting in favor of the lawsuit, said the city must monitor its legal bills in the face of a $6 million budget deficit and employee layoffs.
"I'm concerned about budget issues," he said. "We've eliminated 13 police positions. How many more are we going to lose because we cannot afford it?"
No estimate was made Tuesday of how much the city might spend on fighting the state over the new law, although the city also set up a fund on Tuesday to accept public donations.
More than two dozen spoke to the council during the meeting, with more than 80 percent in favor of overturning the legislation.
The council agreed that there was a greater cost than possible legal fees -- a human cost.
Mayor Sara Presler said the city might be saving money by suing the state -- the city, she noted, could be legally liable for implementing the new law.
The council was given essentially four options on Tuesday night: Proceed with their own lawsuit against the state, join other cities or groups in pre-existing legal action, wait to see how the federal government responds or do nothing.
The adopted resolution will give City Attorney Pat Boomsma two choices: Hiring an outside legal firm to fight the law or join with another community like Tucson to sue the state.
The Tucson City Council voted 5 to 1 on Tuesday night to sue the state to overturn SB 1070.
In Phoenix, Mayor Phil Gordon said he and other Arizona mayors plan to file a challenge to the state's new immigration law.
Gordon was unable last week to gather enough support from Phoenix City Council members to file a lawsuit on behalf of the city, and a legal opinion issued Monday by Phoenix City Attorney Gary Verburg says only the city council has the power to authorize lawsuits.
He says the challenge to be filed by a coalition of municipalities in Arizona wouldn't be funded by Phoenix's taxpayer money.
Flagstaff Councilmember Scott Overton said the city might want to go it alone out of concern that other lawsuits might fail to get off the ground.
The law, set to take effect July 29, would make it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally.
It would require local law enforcement, when "practical," to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are here unlawfully.
The governor amended the law last week to preclude a person's race from being a factor when questioning someone's legal status amended the measure last week.
The law was also amended so police could inquire about immigration status only if there is a lawful stop, detention or arrest, not just a contact.
A spokesperson for the Flagstaff Police Department, Lt. Ken Koch, said arrests in Flagstaff involving illegal immigrants are not substantial.
"It has been our experience that those individuals that we come into contact within the course of our duties who are determined to be in this country illegally are law-abiding persons and non-violent," Koch said. "There is a small minority within that group that have come to our attention that are involved with narcotic trafficking and sales and they do engage in violent criminal acts in support of narcotic trafficking and sales. We would like to stress these are a minority."

the mayor of phoenix is also planning to file a suit against the state.

[jack sommerset]

Over 70 percent of Arizona supports this bill.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Over 70 percent of Arizona supports this bill.

jack advocating governing by polls again..

[ChumpDumper]

Were you ever able to think up an example of reasonable suspicion of being an illegal alien, jack?

[jack sommerset]

Were you ever able to think up an example of reasonable suspicion of being an illegal alien, jack?

Don't need to play storytime with you, I read the law.

[rjv]

jack advocating governing by polls again..


...and argument via fallacy

[jack sommerset]

...and argument via fallacy

LOL. Son, that's your style. Let me know when you find in the law "racial profiling"

[rjv]

LOL. Son, that's your style. Let me know when you find in the law "racial profiling"

:lol seriously? are you asking me to find in a law a stipulation for enforcing that law in a manner that is unlawful ?

[jack sommerset]

:lol seriously? are you asking me to find in a law a stipulation for enforcing that law in a manner that is unlawful ?

No.

[rjv]

No.


well then you are just begging the question. great example of another fallacy (preceded by the might makes right premise)

[jack sommerset]

well then you are just begging the question. great example of another fallacy (preceded by the might makes right premise)

nope

[rjv]

nope


that is a whole different species of -acy there. the prefix to which i'll leave to your imagination to fill in.

[jack sommerset]

Accuracy

[lefty]

Does that mean that Nash, Barboso, Lou and Goran (and maybe Lopez - with a name like that you never know) won't be able to play game 6 of the WCF?



Fuck you David Stern

[Blake]

Accuracy

:lol at you trying to throw out an accuracy card

[rjv]

Accuracy

touche'. too bad your argument skills lack that same wit.

[spursncowboys]

Why is this still going?

[word]

Here is an interesting view on this from a Canadian board I go to:


coincidentally, just after I review the current posts here and make a few observations of my own, I will drive to the detroit/windsor tunnel to get to the US side where a border guard will take two sets of my fingerprints as part of the process in getting an I-192 pass, which is something I have to do EVERY year if I want to accompany my wife at corporate functions for her American employer - I really don't give a shit, but it's important to her and I do it.

Then when I see stories about illegals and the shit they cause in the US and how they come and go as they please and how some want to give them AMNESTY, it just boils the fuck out of my blood....

Don't know about all of that and what it takes to get into the US since I just have to show a passport but apparently if you be a foreigner it's kinda hard. Did not know that. I-192 pass is what you fill out to enter without the intent of immigrating, apparently. It is what you fill out to enter with an American spouse I think.