If you have an accent

[mox 298]

(I am not sure how you boycott a "state" since states don't make anything, they are as unproductive as any other branch of government and you only punish people, not states)

Well you start off by not being so ####### when parsing words and going from there. Arizona-based businesses is what I'm talking about. Companies like P. F. Changs, for example.

And yeah, it's punishing people. Arizona residents to be specific. So Arizona residents, get your ####### together and have this law repealed if you want my wallet to support your jobs.

Another word of advice to Arizona residents: you are under no legal requirement at all to provide any kind of identification when the police ask for it. You are within your constitutional rights to refuse to provide documentation that show your immigration status or anything else. Whether you are legal or illegal, practice that right. You cannot be arrested for refusing to provide identification. And if you provide, for example, a drivers license, you are under no further obligation to provide any other kind of identification, and it would be illegal for a police officer to arrest you on this basis. Know your rights, especially now that your state has begun the journey of turning into a police state.

[visaveteran 1]

Liberals always site the constitution when it suites them. It's fine to force me to buy private health insurance but you better dare don't ask me for ID that I'm a legal citizen.

If we refuse to enforce immigration laws. let's just open up the borders and let everyone in. I mean, to hear the bleeding heart liberals, only poor, hard working people come here...and their all in perfect health. Don't worry about TB or anything. And try to not bring up drug traffic, kidnapping and murders. That's just racist behavior.

As far as boycotting Arizona, I'd say they're better off accepting that burden than paying for all the free services to illegals. Probably a wash.

[mox 298]

Liberals always site the constitution when it suites them. It's fine to force me to buy private health insurance but you better dare don't ask me for ID that I'm a legal citizen.

I see. So the argument that this law is unconstitutional is void because some people use an argument to their advantage when it suits them.

And aren't you the guy always griping about how bringing in other topics to the discussion isn't fair or something? The whole "we're not talking about the US, we're talking about Russia" whinge seems to ring a bell. So are we talking about illegal immigration or are we talking about health care?

If we refuse to enforce immigration laws. let's just open up the borders and let everyone in. I mean, to hear the bleeding heart liberals, only poor, hard working people come here...and their all in perfect health. Don't worry about TB or anything. And try to not bring up drug traffic, kidnapping and murders. That's just racist behavior.

Once again--this is the third time for me, I don't know how many times for everyone else--nobody is saying that illegal immigration isn't a problem and/or doesn't need to be solved. You can still be opposed to this law and be a proponent of fixing the illegal immigration problem. I've said multiple times now that the Feds need to get off their collective butts and implement real reform. I know sweeping generalities are easier to argue, but you're making assumptions that just don't hold water.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

For somebody who's thrown fits in the past for people putting words in their mouth, you sure are putting a lot of words in my mouth. And the funny thing is that the argument you're making (illegal immigration "slavery" and safety issues) is the same argument I've made in the past, only to be lambasted as a whiney freedom-hating liberal.

I said I was opposed to the Arizona law, not protecting our borders.

Then stick to your guns Mox. (Speaking of which, your Ruger is made in Prescott, Arizona) Why would you back down from what is right?

How is it freedom hating to want people to earn a minimum wage? Have workman's comp? Not being subject to working 60-70-80 hours per week without overtime? How is it freedom hating to want construction workers to be protected with equipment and clothing and procedures? Is somene against hard-hats and safety harnesses? do they hate handrails and leather gloves? Is there a "freedom loving conservative" here that wants that? Raise your hand and prepare to be lambasted. By allowing some employers to employ illegals, at wage rates that are less than the cost of "maintaining" a slave, what are we doing? People, immigrants, such as your wife and mine, should be able to come here and present a Green card and be treated fairly, paid fairly, not abused and exploited. They should be FREE to contact authorities and report abuses of our labor laws. They should not be lured here and then exploited. I haven't seen a single poster here suggest I am a liberal for my position (not sure about Clueless, it isn't clear WHAT he is trying to say, so we will pass on that)

The ONLY reason illegals are here is for MONEY. The ONLY reason they are employed is for MONEY. Employers do NOT employ illegal because they want to be fair and equitable and because illegals have some outstanding talent that is in high demand. Most of them can't spell "roofer" but this week they are one! They employ illegals in order to take advantage of them and exploit them for MONEY as much as they possibly can. They are avoiding the laws WE passed and getting away with it, and endangering humans while they do it. And people stand by and watch because they are illegals and their skin is darker than yours and mine. There is no way they would allow their child or spouse to be treated this way. Mox, c'mon! Your wife gets a job, goes to work 60 hours a week for 2 weeks and brings home a paycheck for $200...and that would be OK with you? and you find out they deducted for food and water they "gave her" that she didn't want or didn't drink because the water was in a dirty 5 gallon pail and the food was dirty and had mold on it. You think this doesn't happen to illegals? Then she tells you how she works in a real noisy factory and her ears are ringing because they have no hearing protecting and her hands are cut from cleaning chickens with no gloves. You are OK with this? Then she says they do not have separate toilets for women and the men hang around and try to check out the women dropping their pants to use the toilet. Fine with you, right? Fine with the "freedom loving conservatives"? No way. You wouldn't tolerate it and neither should anyone else.

Amnesty? Won't work. the illegals cannot compete for minimum wage with US citizens. Who would you hire? The ONLY reason the US employers will tolerate the accomodations they must make for illegal workers (language barriers, lack of productivity by lack of skills, no reliable transportation, etc.) is because they are cheap. If you raise the cost of "owning slaves" there is no incentive to own slaves. The ones you give amnesty to will immediately be unemployed and be replaced by the next wave of slaves to replace them. You simply have to end the economic reason for the existance of the practice. The government knows exactly how to do that.

To use the animal analogy (and no, I do not think they are animals as I think you well know) Imagine that you leave the top off your trash can and the raccoons come and turn over the cans and make a big mess. Damn raccoons! So you clean it up and set a trap for that fat raccoon. You catch him and deport him to the nearest forest and take him back deep in the forest where he belongs. But you leave the top off the trash can. Next day....uh huh, you know where this goes. So you catch the next raccoon and decide you will just feed him to keep him out of the trash can. Now you put out dog food for him every night but you leave the top off the trash can...uh huh. You mean there is more than ONE raccoon???????? CLOSE THE LID AND LOCK IT DOWN! Putting a fence around your yard and leaving the top off the trash can will NOT WORK. We do not need to fight the raccoons or bother the raccoons or trap the raccoons and deport them to the forest. We do not need to be accused of being "anti-raccoon" We only need to close the trash can!

[mox 298]

Then stick to your guns Mox. (Speaking of which, your Ruger is made in Prescott, Arizona) Why would you back down from what is right?

Er...I paid for my Ruger months ago. I won't buy another Ruger while this law remains on the books, if that's what you mean. Not that I'm in the market currently anyway, so...yeah I guess I'm a hypocritical #######? Sure why not.

How is it freedom hating to want people to earn a minimum wage?

Is this directed at me? Pretty sure I haven't accused you of "freedom hating."

The rest of your post...tl;dr.

[visaveteran 1]

Another word of advice to Arizona residents: you are under no legal requirement at all to provide any kind of identification when the police ask for it. You are within your constitutional rights to refuse to provide documentation that show your immigration status or anything else. Whether you are legal or illegal, practice that right. You cannot be arrested for refusing to provide identification. And if you provide, for example, a drivers license, you are under no further obligation to provide any other kind of identification, and it would be illegal for a police officer to arrest you on this basis. Know your rights, especially now that your state has begun the journey of turning into a police state.

If this is true, what's all the fuss about?

According to one news source, the law allows the following:

The new law, which was signed by the Governor of Arizona on Friday, requires that all immigrants carry documentation verifying their immigration status. It also stipulates that police officers have the authority to ask to see the information from any individual that is deemed “suspicious” or when there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person may not be legally in the country.

[mox 298]

If this is true, what's all the fuss about?

According to one news source, the law allows the following:

The new law, which was signed by the Governor of Arizona on Friday, requires that all immigrants carry documentation verifying their immigration status. It also stipulates that police officers have the authority to ask to see the information from any individual that is deemed “suspicious” or when there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person may not be legally in the country.

Starting to see why it might be unconstitutional?

For that matter, it might even be unenforceable:

Cop: Let me see your immigration documents.

Dark-skinned-person: I'm a US citizen.

Cop: Errrrr...

Edited April 28, 2010 by mox

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Liberals always site the constitution when it suites them. It's fine to force me to buy private health insurance but you better dare don't ask me for ID that I'm a legal citizen.

If we refuse to enforce immigration laws. let's just open up the borders and let everyone in. I mean, to hear the bleeding heart liberals, only poor, hard working people come here...and their all in perfect health. Don't worry about TB or anything. And try to not bring up drug traffic, kidnapping and murders. That's just racist behavior.

As far as boycotting Arizona, I'd say they're better off accepting that burden than paying for all the free services to illegals. Probably a wash.

Please go argue for someone else. This has nothing to do with drug smugglers unless, for some reason, you are OK with US citizen drug smugglers. what a stupid argument. But, as I said, this issue brings about new levels of stupidity. If we do not have a problem in this country with TB, and we do not, with the 12 million or so illegal immigrants we already have, what are the odds it is going to be a problem next week? Stop with the BS, it is so transparently phony.

I will quote the constitution every time and it suits my argument every time because I believe in people's rights, even criminals have rights. I have no problem with that. What rights would you take away and from whom? There is no reason to take away rights or argue if illegals should be here. Cut off the use of them for cheap labor to avoid our laws and they will be gone. Whay would you oppose that? Because they are gone for the wrong reason? #######??????? Do you care why they leave?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Starting to see why it might be unconstitutional?

For that matter, it might even be unenforceable:

Cop: Let me see your immigration documents.

Dark-skinned-person: I'm a US citizen.

Cop: Errrrr...

Yep, it is exactly as stupid as all the other BS laws they pass. I carry nothing with me that identifies me as a CITIZEN, a drivers license does not do so and will not admit me back into the USA when I go to Canada several times a week. Drivers licenses are not required by law.

Mox, the Arizona law, like other laws addressed to illegal immigration is not designed to be effective or make a difference on how many illegals come into the USA. It cannot and will not and no one with a brain could even imagine it would. It is designed to SCARE illegals further to make sure they do not report abuse so they can be abused further, taken advantage of further, drive them further underground and shut them up. The slaves were getting just a bit too uppity and needed to be reminded exactly who is boss around here! Then work them harder and make them more productive and help to end the recession by putting more money in the slave-owners pocket

The liberal version is simply to invite more to their part of the world, lure them with promises of "sanctuary" and put them back on the roof and back in the fields where they came from! Then ask for more federal government funds to care for their "needs".

[mox 298]

Mox, the Arizona law...

You are preaching to the converted.

[visaveteran 1]

I guess you missed all the news about the Mexican drug cartels shooting up border towns, killing US cops and bystanders.

As for TB in the USA, here's the deal:

Among U.S.-born persons, the number and rate of TB cases continuedto decline in 2006. The U.S.-born TB rate was 2.3 per 100,000population (5,924 or 43.3% of all cases with known origin ofbirth), representing a 7.0% decline in rate since 2005 and a68.6% decline since 1993. Among foreign-born persons, the number of TB cases increasedin 2006. As the rateof decline in TB cases among foreign-born persons lagged behindthe decline in TB cases among U.S.-born persons, the foreign-bornto U.S.-born rate ratio increased 7.0%, from 8.9 in 2005 to9.5 in 2006. In 2006, approximately half (55.6%) of TB casesamong foreign-born persons were reported in persons from fivecountries: Mexico (1,912), the Philippines (856), Vietnam (630),India (540), and China (376).

In 2006, for the third consecutive year, more TB cases werereported among Hispanics than any other racial/ethnic population.Among persons with TB whose country of birth was known, 95.6%(3,126 of 3,269) of Asians, 74.7% (3,024 of 4,050) of Hispanics,29.9% (1,110 of 3,712) of blacks, and 17.8% (427 of 2,404) ofwhites were foreign born. From 2005 to 2006, TB rates declinedfor all racial/ethnic minorities except American Indians/AlaskaNatives and Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders.

Yes, Gary, some people really are stupid...you got that right.

[mox 298]

As for TB in the USA, here's the deal:

Source?

[clueless_in_usa 8]

I am also a TRUE liberal (libertarian) so while I undewrstand your frustration, it is not our governments place to dictate policy to Mexico and not all illegal aliens are Mexican. Also it is not our government's policy to dictate to Dodge (well, maybe it is now, but it shouldn;t be)

The government can get any of those companies to move back tomorrow by passing the FAIR TAX. The government can get ALL the illegal aliens to go home tomorrow by taxing the holy living sh*t out of any business that hires one and seizing their proerty to cover the tax debt.

The politicians in Mexico (since you mention it) need illegals also. Slavery is, and always has been, good for both sides of the slave supply chain. Mexico has, at any given moment, nearly 10% of its citizens in the USA, this is a huge relief valve for the Mexican government. Also, the sale of its citizens as slaves to the USA provides the largest part of their foreign income (except possibly for drug smuggling which isn't nearly so well documented) The primary source of foreign trade for Mexico is as a pimp for its citizens. You would be asking them to cut off their biggest industry...slave auctioning. It will never happen. Just as Africans sold their fellow Africans into slavery, the Mexican government will sell its citizens into slavery. Nothing new under the sun. The widespread use of Africans as slaves did NOT end because of some moral compunction originating in Africa. Mexico will do nothing to end the exploitation of Mecians, they get too much money from it.

This whole problem is about MONEY. It all goes away when there is no MONEY reason for it to exist.

The US government has the ability to end this tomorrow, they do not need to askl anyone, they do not need to be accused of racism, they do not need to invade anyones rights, they do not need a fence, a virtual fence or anything else, They simply need to make it economically impossible to employ slaves. If employers wish to exploit humans, abuse them, take awy all the rights we fought for, turn back 125 years of labor laws...then we need to tax them right out of business.

I was wrong, Gary. You should not be the president of the USA. There is a better job for you: Secretary of State!

Who needs Ms. Clinton when we have one of the greatest minds in Vermont?

You will do a hell of a job in foreign relations. It will be a great (dis) service to your country.

[clueless_in_usa 8]

I was wrong, Gary. You should not be the president of the USA. There is a better job for you: Secretary of State!

Who needs Ms. Clinton when we have one of the greatest minds in Vermont?

You will do a hell of a job in foreign relations. It will be a great (dis) service to your country.

I forgot to add one thing.

I surely hope that your perfect life in your perfect world is always perfect, because with your attitude if you ever find yourself in a very difficult situation (like the "slaves" you swear to care about) you are going to end up eating a lot of fecal matter, because you will never accept working conditions that do not provide all the protections and benefits that YOU "deserve."

From Wikipedia:

Slavery is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand wages.

I do not see how slavery applies to those people when nobody is forcing them to work against their will. Nobody has purchased them and they can leave and return to their countries whenever they please. If I had to do it to better my own situation, I would find a way too.

[mox 298]

I do not see how slavery applies to those people when nobody is forcing them to work against their will. Nobody has purchased them and they can leave and return to their countries whenever they please. If I had to do it to better my own situation, I would find a way too.

Actually that's not true in most cases. Most illegals from Central and South America pay a broker to get them across the border. Sometimes they save up for years. Actually getting across is exhausting and highly dangerous. Getting back entails the same problems. You can't just up and decide you're going to leave, it takes time, money, connections, and the willingness to expose yourself to a high level of risk. And while you could just turn yourself in to the Feds, there's no guarantee that you won't spend months or years in jail awaiting exportation. In the meantime, you're not making any money for your family back home.

Employers make it difficult to just pick up and leave also. They withhold wages, they spread disinformation, they even use physical threats. The world of illegal immigration is pretty dark and seedy. It's not as easy to just pick up and leave, even if they wanted to. You're trying to make this a simple black and white issue, but it's not.