U.S. citizen arrested under state's new anti-illegal immigrant law, Hispanic advocate says

[Fandango 1,440]

omG I'm agreeing with Dev again.

Who are you and what have you done with devilette?

[no name 1]

omG I'm agreeing with Dev again.

Who are you and what have you done with devilette?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

LOL... Dev, this is a political and you've been engaged in the political debate going on here. I'm asking you the same kind of question I'd ask Gary...where does your candidate stand on this issue and how does that jive with you?

See here Steven:

I do not have anything in my siggie anymore. And I no longer care to discuss any personal opinions about candidates on VJ.

Now if you care to debate the issue at hand, and not an irrelevant personal topic, carry on.

I can resprect that, Dev. You know how I felt about these fruitless discussions on immigration as well. My point is - without talking about specific candidates, is that if you are completely against a guest worker program, there isn't a single leading candidate or party that takes such a harsh stance.

I know where you stand on most political issues and most of the time we agree. What I don't understand is how or why you adhere to such a rigid approach to immigration reform, given that many people whom you admire and respect politically see it vastly different?

There just doesn't seem to be any willingness by many here to find common ground ...to say, "I can see where you are coming from" or "I may not agree, but I can respect your thought process on this issue." I've never seen such nasty divisiveness over an issue ....it's even worse than talking about abortion, and one of the characteristics of the on going debate over immigration here in OT, is that people or positions get labelled and then the debate gets reduced to a black and white scenario.

You respected me only after pushing & pushing me about it. And you wonder why everything is B&W on VJ?

I never said I was against guest workers - we were debating the OK law & it's recent issue with ONE (USC) WOMAN. I'm against illegals. Period. And apparently to many here, that means I'm evil & I label all 'people from that consulate' as something negative.

That position right there throws these debates into black and white because if you believe it's that open and shut, any deviation from that view point is considered the polar opposite. I closes off the chance for finding middle ground. I hope that many here can see that or these threads will continue to go round and round to nowhere. That isn't debate....that's a shouting match.

[no name 1]

LOL... Dev, this is a political and you've been engaged in the political debate going on here. I'm asking you the same kind of question I'd ask Gary...where does your candidate stand on this issue and how does that jive with you?

See here Steven:

I do not have anything in my siggie anymore. And I no longer care to discuss any personal opinions about candidates on VJ.

Now if you care to debate the issue at hand, and not an irrelevant personal topic, carry on.

I can resprect that, Dev. You know how I felt about these fruitless discussions on immigration as well. My point is - without talking about specific candidates, is that if you are completely against a guest worker program, there isn't a single leading candidate or party that takes such a harsh stance.

I know where you stand on most political issues and most of the time we agree. What I don't understand is how or why you adhere to such a rigid approach to immigration reform, given that many people whom you admire and respect politically see it vastly different?

There just doesn't seem to be any willingness by many here to find common ground ...to say, "I can see where you are coming from" or "I may not agree, but I can respect your thought process on this issue." I've never seen such nasty divisiveness over an issue ....it's even worse than talking about abortion, and one of the characteristics of the on going debate over immigration here in OT, is that people or positions get labelled and then the debate gets reduced to a black and white scenario.

You respected me only after pushing & pushing me about it. And you wonder why everything is B&W on VJ?

I never said I was against guest workers - we were debating the OK law & it's recent issue with ONE (USC) WOMAN. I'm against illegals. Period. And apparently to many here, that means I'm evil & I label all 'people from that consulate' as something negative.

That position right there throws these debates into black and white because if you believe it's that open and shut, any deviation from that view point is considered the polar opposite. I closes off the chance for finding middle ground. I hope that many here can see that or these threads will continue to go round and round to nowhere. That isn't debate....that's a shouting match.

I never said that was the end all-be all., did I? Why are you saying I did? Stop putting words in my mouth Steven, Or anyone else's for that matter.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

LOL... Dev, this is a political and you've been engaged in the political debate going on here. I'm asking you the same kind of question I'd ask Gary...where does your candidate stand on this issue and how does that jive with you?

See here Steven:

I do not have anything in my siggie anymore. And I no longer care to discuss any personal opinions about candidates on VJ.

Now if you care to debate the issue at hand, and not an irrelevant personal topic, carry on.

I can resprect that, Dev. You know how I felt about these fruitless discussions on immigration as well. My point is - without talking about specific candidates, is that if you are completely against a guest worker program, there isn't a single leading candidate or party that takes such a harsh stance.

I know where you stand on most political issues and most of the time we agree. What I don't understand is how or why you adhere to such a rigid approach to immigration reform, given that many people whom you admire and respect politically see it vastly different?

There just doesn't seem to be any willingness by many here to find common ground ...to say, "I can see where you are coming from" or "I may not agree, but I can respect your thought process on this issue." I've never seen such nasty divisiveness over an issue ....it's even worse than talking about abortion, and one of the characteristics of the on going debate over immigration here in OT, is that people or positions get labelled and then the debate gets reduced to a black and white scenario.

You respected me only after pushing & pushing me about it. And you wonder why everything is B&W on VJ?

I never said I was against guest workers - we were debating the OK law & it's recent issue with ONE (USC) WOMAN. I'm against illegals. Period. And apparently to many here, that means I'm evil & I label all 'people from that consulate' as something negative.

That position right there throws these debates into black and white because if you believe it's that open and shut, any deviation from that view point is considered the polar opposite. I closes off the chance for finding middle ground. I hope that many here can see that or these threads will continue to go round and round to nowhere. That isn't debate....that's a shouting match.

I never said that was the end all-be all., did I? Why are you saying I did? Stop putting words in my mouth Steven, Or anyone else's for that matter.

You said, "I'm against illegals. Period." Where's the middle ground? Between 'illegals. and "Period"?

[no name 1]

LOL... Dev, this is a political and you've been engaged in the political debate going on here. I'm asking you the same kind of question I'd ask Gary...where does your candidate stand on this issue and how does that jive with you?

See here Steven:

I do not have anything in my siggie anymore. And I no longer care to discuss any personal opinions about candidates on VJ.

Now if you care to debate the issue at hand, and not an irrelevant personal topic, carry on.

I can resprect that, Dev. You know how I felt about these fruitless discussions on immigration as well. My point is - without talking about specific candidates, is that if you are completely against a guest worker program, there isn't a single leading candidate or party that takes such a harsh stance.

I know where you stand on most political issues and most of the time we agree. What I don't understand is how or why you adhere to such a rigid approach to immigration reform, given that many people whom you admire and respect politically see it vastly different?

There just doesn't seem to be any willingness by many here to find common ground ...to say, "I can see where you are coming from" or "I may not agree, but I can respect your thought process on this issue." I've never seen such nasty divisiveness over an issue ....it's even worse than talking about abortion, and one of the characteristics of the on going debate over immigration here in OT, is that people or positions get labelled and then the debate gets reduced to a black and white scenario.

You respected me only after pushing & pushing me about it. And you wonder why everything is B&W on VJ?

I never said I was against guest workers - we were debating the OK law & it's recent issue with ONE (USC) WOMAN. I'm against illegals. Period. And apparently to many here, that means I'm evil & I label all 'people from that consulate' as something negative.

That position right there throws these debates into black and white because if you believe it's that open and shut, any deviation from that view point is considered the polar opposite. I closes off the chance for finding middle ground. I hope that many here can see that or these threads will continue to go round and round to nowhere. That isn't debate....that's a shouting match.

I never said that was the end all-be all., did I? Why are you saying I did? Stop putting words in my mouth Steven, Or anyone else's for that matter.

You said, "I'm against illegals. Period." Where's the middle ground? Between 'illegals. and "Period"?

I'm against them. I'm not against laws/bills/other govt action.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Geez, Steven. Why don't you just come out and blankly state that you're pro-illegal and give the exchange some balance? One of the reasons that the discussion is often so black and white is because some of us are more committed to what feels good (having compassion for illegals and law-breaking) than doing good (standing up for our country's sovereignty).

I have loads of compassion, but my compassion is reserved for those who respect our borders and our laws. I have no compassion for illegals and would never marry or employ one. I have no compassion for accomodating illegals just because they're already here. I have no compassion for politicians and Latino supremicists who kiss Mexico's azz and try to tell us that we're racist because we're against measures that open the door to voter fraud. I have no compassion for what illegals and their broods have done to destroy our schools systems, even going so far as to import Mexico's curriculum into American schools.

My capacity for compassion for illegals and their supporters was shot by the hypocrisy of our government's agenda to privatize profits from cheap labor while holding out the hat to taxpayers for the costs illegals impose on our social structure. It was shot by illegals and their sychophants marching in my streets, telling me that I need to devalue my citizenship and hand over its privileges to them. It was shot by the underhanded manipulations of politicians putting forth propositions that erode the distinction between legal and legal, sovereignty and capitulation to the New World Order. My compassion was shot by the hypocrisy of a foreign government that shoots to kill at its southern border, yet demands, and gets, leniancy for its trespassers here.

That list is not all inclusive; I could go on. I don't need no stinkin political party to represent my views; Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin. They have both proven to be worthless and ineffective when it comes to the bread and butter issues of the common man. Democracy was never a spectator sport and I have never played it that way. My representatives now know me by name. I've made sure of it. I am heard, and not just on this forum. Fear is what motivates politicians; make sure they feel the fear.

Edited November 7, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[twolove 0]

arrested for transporting her boyfriend, who was an illegal alien

She should have been arrested

As for Hispnaics being afraid to call the police, well if they weren't criminals in hiding they wouldn't be afraid.

Maybe they shouldn't be living here illegally. If they are here Legally they know they have Nothing to worry about.

If they don't like to live in the shadows or live in feer of being arrested

Then they should self deport & GET THE F*@K out.

''It seems like an all-out assault on us for enforcing the law.''

Illegals and activist like to fuss and cry "racila Profiling" simply because USA is enforcing its own laws. It has nothing to do with race or human rights.

It is CUT & DRY The law is the law you break the law you pay the price.

THERE IS A WAY TO BECOME LEGAL, GET THE F*@K Back to where you entered illegally and apply LEGALLY like the rest of us have to do.

dude you are an idiot..im colombian and and my wife is from japan....the only reason I.. an american citizen can apply for her to come to the US , is because of the struggles my parrents went thru to get here...

dont you get it? everybody started elligaly ..Everybody...except mexicans and native americans they where allready here..............suka

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't need no stinkin political party to represent my views; Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin. They have both proven to be worthless and ineffective when it comes to the bread and butter issues of the common man. Democracy was never a spectator sport and I have never played it that way. My representatives now know me by name. I've made sure of it. I am heard, and not just on this forum. Fear is what motivates politicians; make sure they feel the fear.

So for someone who has been outspoken about your political conservativism, how does your position jive with the traditional conservative view?

From the Wall Street Journal (July 2006)

Conservatives and Immigration

The debate on the right about freedom, culture and the welfare state.

No issue more deeply divides American conservatives today than immigration. It's the subject on which we get the most critical mail by far, no doubt reflecting this split on the right. So with Congress holding hearings on the issue around the country, perhaps it's a good moment to step back and explain the roots of our own, longstanding position favoring open immigration.

A position, by the way, on which we hardly stand alone. There is also President Bush, and before him the Gipper. (See our editorial, "Reagan on Immigration.") In the context of the current debate, we also print an open letter supporting comprehensive immigration reform from 33 prominent conservatives, including former Secretary of State George Shultz and GOP Vice Presidential nominee Jack Kemp. (The letter is available here.)

The most frequent criticism we hear is that a newspaper called "The Wall Street Journal" simply wants "cheap labor" for business. This is an odd charge coming from conservatives who profess to believe in the free market, since it echoes the AFL-CIO and liberals who'd just as soon have government dictate wages.

Our own view is that a philosophy of "free markets and free people" includes flexible labor markets. At a fundamental level, this is a matter of freedom and human dignity. These migrants are freely contracting for their labor, which is a basic human right. Far from selling their labor "cheap," they are traveling to the U.S. to sell it more dearly and improve their lives. Like millions of Americans before them, they and certainly their children climb the economic ladder as their skills and education increase.

We realize that critics are not inventing the manifold problems that can arise from illegal immigration: Trespassing, violent crime, overcrowded hospital emergency rooms, document counterfeiting, human smuggling, corpses in the Arizona desert, and a sense that the government has lost control of the border. But all of these result, ultimately, from too many immigrants chasing too few U.S. visas.

Those migrating here to make a better life for themselves and their families would much prefer to come legally. Give them more legal ways to enter the country, and we are likely to reduce illegal immigration far more effectively than any physical barrier along the Rio Grande ever could. This is not about rewarding bad behavior. It's about bringing immigration policy in line with economic and human reality. And the reality is that the U.S. has a growing demand for workers, while Mexico has both a large supply of such workers and too few jobs at home.

Some conservatives concede this point in theory but then insist that liberal immigration is no longer possible in a modern welfare state, which breeds dependency in a way that the America of a century ago did not. But the immigrants who arrive here come to work, not sit on the dole. And thanks to welfare reform, the welfare rolls have declined despite a surge in illegal immigration in the past decade.

The real claims that illegals make on public services are education, which can't be withheld because of a 1982 Supreme Court ruling (Plyer v. Doe), and health care, especially emergency rooms. Since denying urgent medical treatment is immoral, the answer again is to legalize cross-border labor flows and remove government obstacles to affordable health insurance. As for education, even illegals pay for public schools through the indirect property taxes they pay in rent. Overall, immigrants contribute far more to our economy than they extract in public benefits.

......

You can read the rest below, but I think you get the jest of it, which is contrary to your viewpoint (which you believe to be a traditional conservative voice).

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110008632

[Heracles 417]

A U.S. citizen was arrested under the state's controversial new anti-illegal immigrant law overnight in Tulsa County, an opponent of the law said Thursday.

The woman was arrested for transporting her boyfriend, who was an illegal alien, said the Rev. Miguel Rivera, president of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders.

What part of crime does he not comprehend.. I would like for him to show me which part of the bible advocates breaking the law as we are obviously reading a different bible..

[Ban Hammer 13,682]

omG I'm agreeing with Dev again.

Who are you and what have you done with devilette?

i've been wondering that too!

any chance you and dev can run for president?

[Heracles 417]

From the Wall Street Journal (July 2006)

Those migrating here to make a better life for themselves and their families would much prefer to come legally. Give them more legal ways to enter the country, and we are likely to reduce illegal immigration far more effectively than any physical barrier along the Rio Grande ever could. This is not about rewarding bad behavior. It's about bringing immigration policy in line with economic and human reality. And the reality is that the U.S. has a growing demand for workers, while Mexico has both a large supply of such workers and too few jobs at home.

What a different reality 2007 is. The dollar is becoming worthless and the economy has stalled.

I do not know who is more oblivious to reality. Someone who promotes the use of cheap workers while the economy has stagnated and will probably fall into recession. Or the illegal immigrants who have chosen the worst economy to come to..

Edited November 7, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

From the Wall Street Journal (July 2006)

Those migrating here to make a better life for themselves and their families would much prefer to come legally. Give them more legal ways to enter the country, and we are likely to reduce illegal immigration far more effectively than any physical barrier along the Rio Grande ever could. This is not about rewarding bad behavior. It's about bringing immigration policy in line with economic and human reality. And the reality is that the U.S. has a growing demand for workers, while Mexico has both a large supply of such workers and too few jobs at home.

What a different reality 2007 is. The dollar is becoming worthless and the economy has stalled.

I do not know who is more oblivious to reality. Someone who promotes the use of cheap workers while the economy has stagnated and will probably fall into recession. Or the illegal immigrants who have chosen the worst economy to come to..

The US economy could be in the toilet and it would still be infinitely preferable for migrants than staying in Mexico.

[NavarreMan 10]

LOL... Dev, this is a political and you've been engaged in the political debate going on here. I'm asking you the same kind of question I'd ask Gary...where does your candidate stand on this issue and how does that jive with you?

See here Steven:

I do not have anything in my siggie anymore. And I no longer care to discuss any personal opinions about candidates on VJ.

Now if you care to debate the issue at hand, and not an irrelevant personal topic, carry on.

I can resprect that, Dev. You know how I felt about these fruitless discussions on immigration as well. My point is - without talking about specific candidates, is that if you are completely against a guest worker program, there isn't a single leading candidate or party that takes such a harsh stance.

I know where you stand on most political issues and most of the time we agree. What I don't understand is how or why you adhere to such a rigid approach to immigration reform, given that many people whom you admire and respect politically see it vastly different?

There just doesn't seem to be any willingness by many here to find common ground ...to say, "I can see where you are coming from" or "I may not agree, but I can respect your thought process on this issue." I've never seen such nasty divisiveness over an issue ....it's even worse than talking about abortion, and one of the characteristics of the on going debate over immigration here in OT, is that people or positions get labelled and then the debate gets reduced to a black and white scenario.

You respected me only after pushing & pushing me about it. And you wonder why everything is B&W on VJ?

I never said I was against guest workers - we were debating the OK law & it's recent issue with ONE (USC) WOMAN. I'm against illegals. Period. And apparently to many here, that means I'm evil & I label all 'people from that consulate' as something negative.

Devilette,

I could not agree with you more. My issue is not with what laws have been enacted, only that people break laws and others try to rationalize the illegal activity. There is a certain protocol to changing laws and breaking the law in defiance is not the way to do it. I do not feel that there is a gray area in this. You either obey the law or you break it. The solutions to this issue may contain gray areas or middle ground where we can have a win-win situation, but right now the question ins the enforcement of standing law and there is no middle ground.

I too have been labeled as a person with no compassion and no heart. I am all for a guest worker program. The line to apply for this will start at the border and head away from the USA. (In other words, an illegal alien must return to a state of obeying the our laws first before they can apply) Those who choose to continue to break the law should be dealt with accordingly. That is the only concession I am willing to agree to when it comes to any form of amnesty. The law breaker must return to a position of obeying our laws prior to any benefit being considered.

[Cassie 8]

A U.S. citizen was arrested under the state's controversial new anti-illegal immigrant law overnight in Tulsa County, an opponent of the law said Thursday.

So, any follow up to the original posted article? I haven't found anything.

I'm still back here.