Filipinos Against Arizona Immigration Law SB1070

[tallcoolone 102]

Fundamentally, there is no distinction between undocumented and documented immigrants in terms of their economic impact. They work, pay taxes and are consumers all the same.

You must be sucking on big crack pipe this week.

Undocumented workers stand on the corner working for cash, they pay no taxes.

But on the other hand my wife works at a county hospital where all the Illegals go for free medical and to have their anchor babies and then they end up not paying their bills

[Fudpukker 18]

I think EL BUSCADOR is probably harboring illegals. Now its starting to make some sense.........

[Atencio 43]

But on the other hand my wife works at a county hospital where all the Illegals go for free medical and to have their anchor babies and then they end up not paying their bills

Yes I know how that is. I work in one of the countries largest county hospitals. I think we are projected to be $650 million in the red next year.

[evli1966 88]

Steve uses phrases like "Personal impressions are merely anecdotal and prove nothing." because he refuses to use the common sense that GOD has provided every man.

He literally refutes anything anyone posts and only acknowledges anything he posts as facts. But when those same facts are turned on him he disaapears.

In one post in OT he ported numbers which intermingeled Illegal Aliens with legal immigrants by calling them all immigrants. This post showed the type of blue collar jobs they worked and alot of those jobs had moderate earning potential; let alone the fact that any legal US immigrant or citizen could work. The fatc that they didn't differentiate between illegal and legal immigrants showed that Illegals were taking those types of jobs.

Steve tends trys to hide behind a false sense of protection for the illegals under the constitution but there is no protection there for them; I truly do not know his agenda.

I highly doubt his ability to support another family or willingness to pay out of his pocket 60% of his income to allow the masses to be provided for.

Steve with all due respect stop lieing to yourself.

BTW

You say SB1070 is sponsered by white supremis groups? I have seen nor read any factual evidence to this.

But are you a supporter of the NAACP who supports the Black Panther Organization whose memebers belong to NAACP? Now there is a racsim at it's highest degree which challenges SB1070.

Or are you going to show facts that those organizations are not racist?

[Atencio 43]

Fundamentally, there is no distinction between undocumented and documented immigrants in terms of their economic impact. They work, pay taxes and are consumers all the same. But if you don't believe me, you can take a look at this from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' report on U.S. Immigration and Economic Growth: Putting Policy on Hold.

If you look at some of the other articles from the Fed Bank of Dallas I think they just choose not to make that distinction. The references I presented had no trouble making distinctions.

I would love to see if the data from that article is still accurate since it is kind of old and was written prior to the latest economic fiasco.

[Richard90027 1]

You must be sucking on big crack pipe this week.

Undocumented workers stand on the corner working for cash, they pay no taxes.

But on the other hand my wife works at a county hospital where all the Illegals go for free medical and to have their anchor babies and then they end up not paying their bills

Our local Children's hospital collects over 80 million a year from the state medi-cal program for services rendered to illegal immigrants children, not to mention state run programs like WIC

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/wicworks/Pages/default.aspx

[Ban Hammer 13,395]

[quote name=NVC FAN ' date='16 July 2010 - 04:11 PM' timestamp='1279314714' post='4070252]

i think that 1. there should be no towns or cities sitting on the south border, buy them up from mexico and make a 10 mile de militarized zone all along the border. 2 use drones and limited military persons to patrol it.

any living thing in the zone should be killed. post signs all along the mexican side stating such. that is what i would call 100 percent secure.

would now be a bad time to point out that if there was a demilitarized zone, no military is within it (including those items in bold)

[Ban Hammer 13,395]

I think EL BUSCADOR is probably harboring illegals. Now its starting to make some sense.........

please refrain from making allegations like this.

[tallcoolone 102]

Here is how a Illegal lives his life in the USA.

They usually live (Dallas/Ft.Worth Area) in a 2 bedroom apartment all bills paid. About 6 people live here and pay about $600 per month.

So all these Illegals have to do is work one day per month and they have made thier rent for the month, the rest of the time they spend getting drunk, Selling drugs, or stealing tires and wheels at night off GMC Suburbans.

Then if they get caught by the local police, they court system don't want to deal with them since they are basically "BulletProof" from the law since they are illegals.

So they have it made in the USA......

[JORDANTONI09 10]

I like this thread. I enjoy watching all of the chest-thumping and flag-waving. I'm still waiting for some of you guys to trot out your mom and her apple pie!

Forget for a minute that this law won't pass muster even with a conservative Supreme Court. Instead, keep in mind that this law won't slow down the illegals to any measurable degree, and that most local law enforcement doesn't want to have anything to do with it. They don't have the time nor the resources to care about the difference between I-10 and an I-94. And for some cops, reasonable suspicion = brown skin.

As for other delusions...there will never be enough boots on the ground to patrol the border. Americans would not pay what it would cost to secure the border. As for the visa overstays...good luck on that one too. There will never be enough boots on the ground to put a dent in their numbers either.

How about a mandatory e-verify system and some heavy fines and jail time for employers who hire the illegals? And for you deeper thinkers, how about NAFTA and the half million Mexican farmers it put out of business? Do you think they are going to let their families starve?

OK...back to flag-waving and chest-thumping!

100% A lot of flag-waving, chest-thumping, and lightly racial accusations on what illegals do to neighborhoods, public schools and health care. No matter what people say here, this law wont get passed and sadly to all the wishful believers that want the rest of the U.S. to join in, it wont. Simply not enough boots, and not enough Illegals who will follow that law anyway.

[TOM&Riz 4]

100% A lot of flag-waving, chest-thumping, and lightly racial accusations on what illegals do to neighborhoods, public schools and health care. No matter what people say here, this law wont get passed and sadly to all the wishful believers that want the rest of the U.S. to join in, it wont. Simply not enough boots, and not enough Illegals who will follow that law anyway.

I wouldn't count my chickens before they hatch, there are enough states jumping on board and the will of the American public is being heard and will show come november , bye bye Nancy Pelosi and crew

[sjr09 155]

100% A lot of flag-waving, chest-thumping, and lightly racial accusations on what illegals do to neighborhoods, public schools and health care. No matter what people say here, this law wont get passed and sadly to all the wishful believers that want the rest of the U.S. to join in, it wont. Simply not enough boots, and not enough Illegals who will follow that law anyway.

Only show you don't understand what your talking about! "this law wont get passed"

The law was signed and passed and will go into effect July 29. The Obama administration is asking the federal courts to block the Arizona law from going into effect.

"Eight states are backing Arizona in the federal government's lawsuit against the state attempting to block the implementation of its controversial immigration law.

Michigan, Florida, Alabama, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia have all signed on to an amicus brief filed Wednesday afternoon.

The Northern Mariana Islands also signed on to the amicus brief.Most Americans oppose the Obama administration's legal effort to block Arizona's tougher laws on illegal immigrants according to a poll released Friday.

By a margin of 50% to 33%, Americans say they oppose the federal lawsuit seeking to block the law from going into effect July 29, as scheduled, according to the Gallup poll.The results are slightly weaker than expected. Polls have shown Americans backing Arizona's law by around 60% and in some surveys even more.

The White House admitted several democratic governors complained about the Justice Department lawsuit against Arizona's immigration law - saying the legal fight is angering their constituents and distracting from federal efforts to boost the economy

.Thanks to the Arizona lawsuit, the Obama Administration has made sure that the immigration issue will play in every major campaign and that will work against the interests of incumbent Democrats Illegal immigration is a huge concern among voters, certainly in the West, and all across the country. The Democratic governors are telling the administration, "Hey, you guys are out of your mind.'"

Edited July 19, 2010 by sjr09

[Atencio 43]

I am realistic about this and doubt it will pass. Eight states is great but until you get to at least around 32 states it won't make any difference.

I am just hoping it will be the start in causing a serious change in how we deal with immigration.

[Atencio 43]

I am going to bow out of these discussions on the Arizona bill

1. It just takes too much effort to keep up with all the counterpoints.

2. On another thread someone brought up the past Presidents and their attempts at immigration control. That helped me remember Operation Wetback in the 50's.

Many of the warnings El Buscador brings up do run close to what happened then including US children and Native Americans being deported to Mexico in sweeps of suspected Mexicans.

I am also reminded that my Grandmother never taught my mother or her sisters Spanish for fear that people would think they were Mexicans in the late 30's-40's era highlighted by the Zoot Suit riots.

I am still disgusted by the Obama administration on immigration as I have with every Republican and Democratic President in the last 30 years. Illegal Immigrants sneak across the border for work. Deny them employment and they will return home on their own. My hope is that the Arizona bill will cause enough national interest that this can become a compromise.

Now I have time to go back to reviewing I-864 and DS-230 checklists.

Good posts on the 2-3 different threads discussing the Arizona law issue.

[sjr09 155]

I am going to bow out of these discussions on the Arizona bill

1. It just takes too much effort to keep up with all the counterpoints.

2. On another thread someone brought up the past Presidents and their attempts at immigration control. That helped me remember Operation Wetback in the 50's.

Many of the warnings El Buscador brings up do run close to what happened then including US children and Native Americans being deported to Mexico in sweeps of suspected Mexicans.

I am also reminded that my Grandmother never taught my mother or her sisters Spanish for fear that people would think they were Mexicans in the late 30's-40's era highlighted by the Zoot Suit riots.

I am still disgusted by the Obama administration on immigration as I have with every Republican and Democratic President in the last 30 years. Illegal Immigrants sneak across the border for work. Deny them employment and they will return home on their own. My hope is that the Arizona bill will cause enough national interest that this can become a compromise.

Now I have time to go back to reviewing I-864 and DS-230 checklists.

Good posts on the 2-3 different threads discussing the Arizona law issue.

The Obama administration has asked the Supreme Court to strike down a 2007 Arizona law that punishes employers who hire illegal aliens, a law enacted by then-Governor Janet Napolitano. (Solicitor General's Amicus Curiae Brief). Called the "Legal Arizona Workers Act," the law requires all employers in Arizona to use E-Verify and provides that the business licenses of those who hire illegal workers shall be repealed. From the date of enactment, the Chamber of Commerce and other special interest groups have been trying to undo it, attacking it through a failed ballot initiative and also through a lawsuit. Now the Chamber is asking the United States Supreme Court to hear the case (Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria), and the Obama Administration is weighing in against the law.

To date, Arizona's E-Verify law has been upheld by all lower courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit, in particular, viewed it as an exercise of a state's traditional power to regulate businesses. (San Francisco Chronicle, June 2, 2010). Obama's Justice Department, however, disagrees. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said in his filing with the Supreme Court that the lower courts were wrong to uphold the statute because federal immigration law expressly preempts any state law imposing sanctions on employers hiring illegal immigrants. Mr. Katyal argues that this is not a licensing law, but "a statute that prohibits the hiring of unauthorized aliens and uses suspension and revocation of all state-issued licenses as its ultimate sanction." (Solicitor General's Amicus Curiae Brief, p. 10). This is the administration's first court challenge to a state's authority to act against illegal immigration, and could be a preview of the battle brewing over Arizona's recent illegal immigration crackdown through SB 1070.

Napolitano has made no comment on the Department of Justice's decision to challenge the 2007 law, but federal officials said that she has taken an active part in the debate over whether to do so. (Politico, May 28, 2010). As Governor of Arizona, Napolitano said she believed the state law was valid and became a defendant in the many lawsuits against it. (Id.).

The CHC made its demands to Napolitano in a letter signed by CHC Chairwoman Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.), CHC Immigration Task Force Chairman Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), and Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Cal.). In addition to calling for the suspension of 287(g) and Secure Communities agreements, the CHC praised Napolitano for her recent statement opposing the Arizona law. Additionally, the CHC "strongly recommend[ed] that [DHS] deploy monitors from the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (OCRCL) to Arizona by the time the law goes into effect." The letter further criticized DHS for its "inexplicable decision" to continue its 287(g) and Secure Communities partnerships with Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, claiming that continuation of the agreements is "eroding the integrity of DHS and emboldening Arpaio and his allies." (CHC Letter to Napolitano, May 28, 2010).

Not surprisingly, the CHC is not the first pro-amnesty group to call for a suspension of 287(g) agreements in Arizona. The AFL-CIO, a federation of labor unions notorious for its support for amnesty for illegal aliens, and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (LCCHR) both made similar overtures to Napolitano in a letter sent May 10. (AFL-CIO Letter, May 10, 2010, See also FAIR's Legislative Update, May 17, 2010).