Obama Sides With Mexico Against Arizona

[Neognosis]

So

you are proposing that we give the government sweeping new powers to barge into your privately owned property and snatch homes away from families? Really? I think there's a word for such power, and it's called dictatorship. Great job starting a whole new problem while claiming to solve another!

Actually, I don't think you know what "dictatorship" means. The gov't already has the power to examine businesses for proper worker documentation. This measure would add no more "power" to the gov't. It would only increase the consequences to consequences that would likely cause a result.

So what happens when you have LLC's? S-Corps, public businesses? How you propose we work that one out?

What happens now? they get fined. Generally though, these businesses are not the businesses that are hiring illegals. Still, confiscate them and put them up for sale.

Punishment should fit the crime, and punish those who committed it. Slipping in to take a business which impacts hundreds of people, and stealing their home from their families (Which may only be partly owned by the business owner - You know, marriage, etc, all those pesky details) - Your proposal makes no sense, and is borderline Tyranny

It appears you don't know what "tyranny" is either. If you break this law, which is apparently going to address a VERY SERIOUS problem, you pay. Is it tyranny to put a criminal in jail as well? If you stop the reason that illegals come here, you will stop the problem. If you don't want to lose your house, don't knowingly hire an illegal immigrant to watch your children or clean your house. If you want to keep your resturant, don't knowingly hire illegal immigrants to wash dishes, wait tables, etc. If you want to keep your contracting business and license, don't knowingly hire illegal immigrants to hang drywall and lay flooring, etc.

[eqgumby]

This isn't about Obama siding with Mexico. It's Obama agreeing with Mexico that Arizona's new law is unconstitutional and it is. One can't look at a persons clothing or skin color or haircut and demand papers. Am I off base here as I'm out of practice LOL

Reality check: If I am looking at a dude that's Hispanic, and I'm a mile from the border, and he looks like he needs a new pair of shoes, a shave, he is carrying a backpack, avoiding eye contact with me (and I am in my border-patrol uniform) and he looks totally NOT Americanized in any way, shape or form, is it "racist" of me to ask him for some ID?

[AROCES]

Reality check: If I am looking at a dude that's Hispanic, and I'm a mile from the border, and he looks like he needs a new pair of shoes, a shave, he is carrying a backpack, avoiding eye contact with me (and I am in my border-patrol uniform) and he looks totally NOT Americanized in any way, shape or form, is it "racist" of me to ask him for some ID?

YES!

We now live in a society that common sense is not allowed by the government.

[new2forum]

"Actually, I don't think you know what "dictatorship" means. The gov't already has the power to examine businesses for proper worker documentation. This measure would add no more "power" to the gov't. It would only increase the consequences to consequences that would likely cause a result."

Oh good lord... Did you even bother reading what I wrote? It's as if you're having some imaginary conversation. What part of "having the power to confiscate property of individuals not involved" do you not understand? That is borderline and you know it.

"What happens now? they get fined. Generally though, these businesses are not the businesses that are hiring illegals. Still, confiscate them and put them up for sale."

Did I not mention the new AZ law? You know, the one that allows for imprisonment as a consequence? Any reason you skipped right over that one and went straight to theft? Just curious ya know... I mean, in the name of not giving the government sweeping new powers, and bloating the system with tens of thousands of new employee's, and dozens of new laws needed to investigate and interpret who owns what, etc... Might want to consider using the justice system we already have in place. (Good lord, how'd anyone miss that one?)

"It appears you don't know what "tyranny" is either."

Rather, it appears you have trouble deciphering a euphemism. I thought it was quite clear this was a euphemism and not literal. I'll spell things out in my next response.

"If you break this law, which is apparently going to address a VERY SERIOUS problem, you pay. Is it tyranny to put a criminal in jail as well?"

Huh? When have I said anything remotely resembling that? How hacked up is this line of reasoning? Did you somehow miss the part of "private property" and "families" who live in these homes who have nothing to do with the crime? Or are you telling me you think we should jail all families along with the parent who commits a crime? Screwed up if you ask me.

Or, to keep matters simple, as you seem to ignore - How about prison time for those who knowningly hire illegals - You know, just like the new AZ law!!! Or would that solution be too simple and logical for you? I suppose prison time isn't a deterrent for a business owner huh? I mean, I'm sure in your logic a fine is just the same as prison huh? :hmm:

"If you stop the reason that illegals come here, you will stop the problem."

Yep - Very simple... It's called prison... Can't exactly hire illegals when you're spending time behind bars now can you?

If you don't want to lose your house, don't knowingly hire an illegal immigrant to watch your children or clean your house. If you want to keep your resturant, don't knowingly hire illegal immigrants to wash dishes, wait tables, etc. If you want to keep your contracting business and license, don't knowingly hire illegal immigrants to hang drywall and lay flooring, etc."

Nice, you managed to craft your entire reply to me without once addressing any of the problems in your plan that I pointed out - BIG GAPING holes in your plan that a semi could be driven through. Instead, all you did was repeat everything you've already said twice before. Now, how about explaining to me how you'd handle the personal property being confiscated, and families who lose everything and then sue the government for damages, as they had nothing to do with it?

Explain to me why your plan is better than prison time?

Oh yes, you need to explain to me how you'd handle Corporations, publicly held companies, LLC's, S-Corps, and businesses with multiple owners... Waiting for that one too. Chop, chop... lol

Edited May 21, 2010 by new2forum

[The Silver Thong]

Reality check: If I am looking at a dude that's Hispanic, and I'm a mile from the border, and he looks like he needs a new pair of shoes, a shave, he is carrying a backpack, avoiding eye contact with me (and I am in my border-patrol uniform) and he looks totally NOT Americanized in any way, shape or form, is it "racist" of me to ask him for some ID?

Ok in that instance I can see your point. However this law doesn't state the police can just demand papers from people that look like bum's. It gives the police powers to demand papers from anyone. Just wait this law will be abused and once accepted will become common practice. Is America ready to carry papers proving there citizenship. Once there is a policy in place such as this then you might as well surrender all rights to the government. Simple, if someone breaks the law they get sent back to there native country no questions asked and no rights violated.

[AROCES]

i dont mind mexicos unskilled and less educated population moving here for work. what i mind is them coming here illegally when it is easy for them to do it legally.

Are you serious? You won't mind another country dumping their unskilled and less educated population here, you believe we don't have enough and should have more?

What would you do then once you have the problem that country used to have, dump them back and expect they will take them back?

Edited May 21, 2010 by AROCES

[AROCES]

We'd better hold together. The dissolution of the U.S. of A is exactly what the terrorists who hit us wanted. Our war'd be for nothing if we broke apart.

Imagine how in disbelief they are seeing some Americans believe Bush was behind 9/11 after their great effort.

[preacherman76]

Ok in that instance I can see your point. However this law doesn't state the police can just demand papers from people that look like bum's. It gives the police powers to demand papers from anyone. Just wait this law will be abused and once accepted will become common practice. Is America ready to carry papers proving there citizenship. Once there is a policy in place such as this then you might as well surrender all rights to the government. Simple, if someone breaks the law they get sent back to there native country no questions asked and no rights violated.

No it doesnt. You have to be stopped for a lawful reason before they can ask you for ID. They cant just come up to a guy walking down the street minding his own biz and ask him to prove citizenship.

[eqgumby]

Ok in that instance I can see your point. However this law doesn't state the police can just demand papers from people that look like bum's. It gives the police powers to demand papers from anyone. Just wait this law will be abused and once accepted will become common practice. Is America ready to carry papers proving there citizenship. Once there is a policy in place such as this then you might as well surrender all rights to the government. Simple, if someone breaks the law they get sent back to there native country no questions asked and no rights violated.

In this instance...but that's RACIST! This is HOW the law will be used. It's how it is designed! And guess what? We DO carry papers. They are laminated now-a-days, and we call them "drivers licenses". To get one, you need a ss# here in the states, which requires you to have citizenship...of course, LEGAL migrants with visas and such CAN get licensed also, without citizenship.

[new2forum]

Not to mention, AZ has already stated that they would be accepting a Drivers License, or Non-Drivers license as "papers." So I'm not sure why people keep using the term "papers" other than to try to make the Nazi link that the Liberal media keeps trying to make. (What an insult to all those who lived through the holocaust)

Seems the MSM has done an effective job mis-representing the law for political reasons, seems like every single liberal I've spoken with so far has made the claim that this law allows the police to demand "papers" from anyone that looks like a foreigner, and that's simply not the case.

No it doesnt. You have to be stopped for a lawful reason before they can ask you for ID. They cant just come up to a guy walking down the street minding his own biz and ask him to prove citizenship.

[The Silver Thong]

No it doesnt. You have to be stopped for a lawful reason before they can ask you for ID. They cant just come up to a guy walking down the street minding his own biz and ask him to prove citizenship.

As far as I can tell the new law in Arizona does allow police to ask for papers because of appearance.

Eggy as I said if they do find someone is there illegal they can take action and deport said offender. It's just how they are now allowed to go about it. I have no soft spot for illegal imigrants don't get me wrong the law is the law and if some does not have a ss# then bam done deal they have to go. It's just the method that concerns me.

Sorry not papers but ID prof of citzenship

Edited May 21, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[The Silver Thong]

Not to mention, AZ has already stated that they would be accepting a Drivers License, or Non-Drivers license as "papers." So I'm not sure why people keep using the term "papers" other than to try to make the Nazi link that the Liberal media keeps trying to make. (What an insult to all those who lived through the holocaust)

Seems the MSM has done an effective job mis-representing the law for political reasons, seems like every single liberal I've spoken with so far has made the claim that this law allows the police to demand "papers" from anyone that looks like a foreigner, and that's simply not the case.

Could you please elaborate on what the law does allow.

[Harte]

This isn't about Obama siding with Mexico. It's Obama agreeing with Mexico that Arizona's new law is unconstitutional and it is. One can't look at a persons clothing or skin color or haircut and demand papers. Am I off base here as I'm out of practice LOL

Your hyperbole doesn't add to the conversation. It never did.

What you above claim the law allows is actually specifically prohibited by the law itself - you know, the same one that you say allows it.

Will it be misused? Is any law ever misused? Will people in authority abuse their authority? Do people in authority ever abuse their authority?

If a law is misused, does that mean it is unconstitutional, or does that mean that a person in authority has violated someone's rights?

I think everyone here should stop for a moment and consider how many law enforcement officials in Arizona are themselves Hispanic. At least a fourth of Arizona's (legal) population is Hispanic.

This will not result in a case of racist whitey running the poor little Mexicans out of the state.

Harte

[eqgumby]

As far as I can tell the new law in Arizona does allow police to ask for papers because of appearance.

Eggy as I said if they do find someone is there illegal they can take action and deport said offender. It's just how they are now allowed to go about it. I have no soft spot for illegal imigrants don't get me wrong the law is the law and if some does not have a ss# then bam done deal they have to go. It's just the method that concerns me.

Please, show me where in the law it says they can stop people because of how they look?

Of course, in MY example I stopped a guy because of HOW HE LOOKED, and that was OK according to you. I don't get that! Please, expand on that.

Seriously, not trying to incite a flame-fest.

[new2forum]

Sure, it allows only for an officer to inquire as to status only after they've been stopped for another infraction. In other words, unless you're stopped for some other infraction an officer cannot ask. LEO's are expressly forbidden from profiling based on race, and AZ has setup intensive new training that all officers must complete which will teach them how to properly inquire, speak with and handle these situations without resorting to racial profiling. (Sensitivity training in other words)

Could you please elaborate on what the law does allow.

[eqgumby]

Your hyperbole doesn't add to the conversation. It never did.

What you above claim the law allows is actually specifically prohibited by the law itself - you know, the same one that you say allows it.

Will it be misused? Is any law ever misused? Will people in authority abuse their authority? Do people in authority ever abuse their authority?

If a law is misused, does that mean it is unconstitutional, or does that mean that a person in authority has violated someone's rights?

I think everyone here should stop for a moment and consider how many law enforcement officials in Arizona are themselves Hispanic. At least a fourth of Arizona's (legal) population is Hispanic.

This will not result in a case of racist whitey running the poor little Mexicans out of the state.

Harte

EXACTLY!

I do NOT get why people are so afraid that people that are here ILLEGALLY will be deported. If you're so damned concerned, then SPONSOR THESE PEOPLE! YOU pay for them, and they can stay at YOUR house until they become productive law abiding citizens in our English speaking anglo-centric society. How is that a PROBLEM?

[The Silver Thong]

Please, show me where in the law it says they can stop people because of how they look?

Of course, in MY example I stopped a guy because of HOW HE LOOKED, and that was OK according to you. I don't get that! Please, expand on that.

Seriously, not trying to incite a flame-fest.

I may not understand this new law all that well however as was said earlier the media has put a spin on it and I guess I fell for it. What does this law impower the police to do?

Why is this law creating such a stink if it's all good?

Edited May 21, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[Agent X]

EXACTLY!

I do NOT get why people are so afraid that people that are here ILLEGALLY will be deported. If you're so damned concerned, then SPONSOR THESE PEOPLE! YOU pay for them, and they can stay at YOUR house until they become productive law abiding citizens in our English speaking anglo-centric society. How is that a PROBLEM?

It means spending money.

[new2forum]

I posted the statistic yesterday that the tax burden for these illegals costs each tax paying citizen $11,000 per year. It was an unofficial number of course, but came from a great reference, and was quite the eye opener. Now imagine that this money had to come out of your pocket as a check or cash each year, being physically paid to these people, as opposed to being drawn from an intangible pool of money managed by the government...

Now how many people would think it's "cruel" or "racist" to want to send them back!!! lol

It means spending money.

[eqgumby]

I may not understand this new law all that well however as was said earlier the media has put a spin on it and I guess I fell for it. What does this law impower the police to do?

Why is this law creating such a stink if it's all good?

Because it violates the "RIGHTS" of these poor people! What rights do you ask? The rights we all have as CITIZENS of the US. Silly, isn't it?

If I just rolled over the border to Canada, and commenced to sponging off the system, and working "off the books" as they say, living off the grid, how would you feel if I commenced to clamoring for my "rights" and demanded health-care and social services, just like the ones that YOU get as a citizen of Canada? Plus, the right to NEVER be questioned about my legal status, even if I run around with a New York accent, or a Texas drawl, acting as American as I can be.

[Michelle]

I may not understand this new law all that well however as was said earlier the media has put a spin on it and I guess I fell for it. What does this law impower the police to do?

Why is this law creating such a stink if it's all good?

In the original there were a few loopholes that could have easily been abused. It has since been revised and people are still ranting about the original version.

[The Silver Thong]

Because it violates the "RIGHTS" of these poor people! What rights do you ask? The rights we all have as CITIZENS of the US. Silly, isn't it?

If I just rolled over the border to Canada, and commenced to sponging off the system, and working "off the books" as they say, living off the grid, how would you feel if I commenced to clamoring for my "rights" and demanded health-care and social services, just like the ones that YOU get as a citizen of Canada? Plus, the right to NEVER be questioned about my legal status, even if I run around with a New York accent, or a Texas drawl, acting as American as I can be.

I understand the problem with illegal immigrants and the costs that go with it. I am not in favor of pandering to criminals (illegal immigrants) But what about probable cause. From what I understand if a hispanic has his pants hanging to low and wearing to much bling with gang colors thats probable cause but what about just your average everyday Mexicans.

[The Silver Thong]

In the original there were a few loopholes that could have easily been abused. It has since been revised and people are still ranting about the original version.

Thanks Michelle, I'v been out of the loop for a bit

[Michelle]

Thanks Michelle, I'v been out of the loop for a bit

Good to see you back.

[new2forum]

That, and many media outlets never want to waste an opportunity to paint their opponents as racist, cruel, etc. Even after the truth is known to many, the negative stigma will linger for years, and potentially discourage other states from enacting similar laws for fear of the backlash, and being painted a "Nazi." (Didn't Pelosi say it was hate speech to callk others Nazi's? Seems they changed their minds, and enjoy likening AZ to Nazi Germany)

I found it especially funny when MSNBC posted a "small majority" favored the law as they posted their results showing 61% favored, while only 39% either found it unfavorable, or had not decided.... A "small majority" - lol Changed their page mid-day after a bunch of people pointed out the lunacy of such a statement... haha

However, it appears they miscalculated and many other states are now considering joining in, as it appears that the majority of America is all for this. We're tired of the 70 billion per year drain, the 2,000+ murders, the 200,000+ rapes, the over 1 million child molestations etc... Yep, while MSM is worried about "offending" or inconveniencing anyone, thousands are being murdered, and hundreds of thousands are being raped, and children are being molested.

But somehow none of that is important to the White House, nor the media. Amazing how quick a Tiger can change its stripes based on political agenda.

In the original there were a few loopholes that could have easily been abused. It has since been revised and people are still ranting about the original version.