Obama Sides With Mexico Against Arizona

[Michelle]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100511/ts_csm/300547

Other states are considering the same option. This article may interest you, Silver.

[new2forum]

Silver Thong - It's not just the media lying about this law... Apparently Obama's not above lying either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inbj5Ia5KJo

Huh, so you could get harrased by cops while out getting ice cream??? lol

[Agent X]

You know, after reading that article I wonder if in the long run this might hurt the liberals more than they know. Most people believe in upholding the law and most people are against illegal immigration. The Federal government has no interest in reducing or stopping illegal immigration, so this could become a greater issue with the next election.

[eqgumby]

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.

My kids are average everyday Mexicans.

They have ID's, as does my brother-in-law (he looks REALLY Mexican, even has an accent).

So, if they are just average everyday Mexicans, so what? Nothing. They get pulled over for speeding, a tail-light out, etc etc, he better have ID. No ID, he gets taken in to establish his identity/citizenship. He's not a US citizen...he gets put on a bus to the border.

How is that a violation of ANYONES rights? In particular, how is that a violation of any CITIZENS rights?

[The Silver Thong]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100511/ts_csm/300547

Other states are considering the same option. This article may interest you, Silver.

Thanks for the info. In a round about way ok in a not so round about way I agree with what Arizona has done. In fact I would probably take it a step further. It was the shady area of how police could use this law that concerned me. However this bit from the article suprises me.

"Arizona law: A tipping point for states?That would not be unprecedented. In 2004, Arizona approved Prop. 200, which barred illegal immigrants from receiving most nonessential state benefits and services. Many other states followed."

If they know there illegal why on earth are they not taken into custody?

[The Silver Thong]

My kids are average everyday Mexicans.

They have ID's, as does my brother-in-law (he looks REALLY Mexican, even has an accent).

So, if they are just average everyday Mexicans, so what? Nothing. They get pulled over for speeding, a tail-light out, etc etc, he better have ID. No ID, he gets taken in to establish his identity/citizenship. He's not a US citizen...he gets put on a bus to the border.

How is that a violation of ANYONES rights? In particular, how is that a violation of any CITIZENS rights?

I was under the impression that cops could just walk up to anyone for no reason and ask for prof of citizenship based on race. If thats not the case than I apologize.

[Michelle]

If they know there illegal why on earth are they not taken into custody?

Because the state law didn't allow them to be held due to their immigration status. They could still be bailed out for whatever they were originally charged with and then disappear. If the INS didn't have the available manpower to come and take custody of them they had to be let go.

[The Silver Thong]

Silver Thong - It's not just the media lying about this law... Apparently Obama's not above lying either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inbj5Ia5KJo

Huh, so you could get harrased by cops while out getting ice cream??? lol

I'll have to wait till quitin time to watch this but the little reading I have done on this, this morning does seem to look like Obama isn't taking this very serious and will deffinitly hurt him in about 2 yrs time.

[eqgumby]

I was under the impression that cops could just walk up to anyone for no reason and ask for prof of citizenship based on race. If thats not the case than I apologize.

THAT is what many people would want you to believe.

[The Silver Thong]

THAT is what many people would want you to believe.

and thats what I fell for my bad.

Edited May 21, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[eqgumby]

and thats what I fell for my bad.

Consider yourself duly paddled.

[Neognosis]

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?

If the head of a household decides to take the mortgage money and blow it at the track, or if the head of household overextends the family financially and then is laid off, the entire family still loses their house/property. Same thing. If you don't want your family to have to move into an apartment, don't hire illegals to work at your home.

If you don't want to be reminded of the literal meanings of "tyranny" and "dictatorship," then you should not throw them around for emotional and dramatic effect, when what you are citing is neither tyranny or dictatorship.

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

Prisons are overcrowded and ineffective, and create harder criminals. And cost the state money. The confiscation of property would benefit the state.

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

Once again, those entities generally don't hire illegal aliens. And if they do, the business can still be confiscated. The same way a business that has multiple owners, but one embezzles and squanders all the money, the other owners still lose the business.

[new2forum]

If the head of a household decides to take the mortgage money and blow it at the track, or if the head of household overextends the family financially and then is laid off, the entire family still loses their house/property. Same thing.

The same thing? What incredible leap of the imagination leads you to believe that this is even in the same ballpark? So by your assertion:

- A person wasting his money at the track = Government swooping in to take all your personal property and business

Sorry buddy, doesn't hold water... You're really stretching here bud. See, the difference is a gambling habit, can be stopped by the wife. You don't loose your home, you property, your business because of gambling. It's not forcibly removed from you, and you still have the option of earning. Plus an intervention by a savvy wife can bring those habits to a standstill.... YOUR plan, no such possibility. So please stop trying to twist your statements into "it's the same thing." When it most clearly is not.

If you don't want your family to have to move into an apartment, don't hire illegals to work at your home.

If you don't want to be reminded of the literal meanings of "tyranny" and "dictatorship," then you should not throw them around for emotional and dramatic effect, when what you are citing is neither tyranny or dictatorship.

Sorry, I didn't realize you needed things spelled out like that. I just assumed that you would understand what was being said.

Prisons are overcrowded and ineffective, and create harder criminals. And cost the state money. The confiscation of property would benefit the state.

Ah, I see... So you've got the proof to back up your claims? You can show me hard numbers that prison is ineffective when used as a punishment for corporate crimes? Funny, because I've seen the exact opposite. Perhaps prison is ineffective in rehabbing violent criminals, but I'm sure I don't need to explain to you (Or maybe I do) that someone running a business and hiring an illegal is not exactly the profile of a "violent" criminal.

So where's your evidence. I'd like to see it. Plus, you claim it's ineffective eh? Well, wouldn't someone locked up have a hard time doing the very thing we're trying to stop? lol

Sure sounds effective to me. And then, once released from prison, most individuals are placed on a probabationary period, which means their business would be watched like a hawk for several more years. Interesting, so is there something I'm missing here on how this is "ineffective?"

[Neognosis]

The same thing? What incredible leap of the imagination leads you to believe that this is even in the same ballpark? So by your assertion:

- A person wasting his money at the track = Government swooping in to take all your personal property and business

No, let me help you out: a person squandering their money irresponsibly is the equal to a person knowingly committing a crime. My point is that the person's family suffers when they lose the house for nonpayment of the mortgage, and they sadly will also suffer if they lose the house or business for knowingly breaking the law by hiring illegal immigrants.

I suppose that the wife (or husband) can also say "Hey, is Concita here legally? if not, we have to fire her or we will lose the house." A businessman's partners could say "are all our employees documented? If not, we will lose the business."

Sorry, I didn't realize you needed things spelled out like that. I just assumed that you would understand what was being said.

Oh, I understand when people throw inappropriate comparisons and words around to create fear and paranoia, which is what you were doing. So I am glad you stopped.

Why don't you tell me how one runs a business from prison, and how the deprivation of liberty is somehow more palatable than the confiscation of property used during the commission of a crime?

[Neognosis]

IN addition to that, there is legal precedent for confiscation of property used in the committing of a crime. And for failure to pay taxes.

[AROCES]

and thats what I fell for my bad.

Oh, it's nothing.

I mean the President of Mexico and Obama still think it may lead to that. They don't trust the good nature of most of Americans who support Arizona.

And come to think of it Obama wont even make it clear where he was born.....

Edited May 21, 2010 by AROCES

[The Silver Thong]

Oh, it's nothing.

I mean the President of Mexico and Obama still think it may lead to that. They don't trust the good nature of most of Americans who support Arizona.

And come to think of it Obama wont even make it clear where he was born.....

I think Obama under estimated the following this law would recieve. I can see him changing his tune pretty quick if the number of states that want this law get this law implimented.

[Wickian]

I think Obama under estimated the following this law would recieve. I can see him changing his tune pretty quick if the number of states that want this law get this law implimented.

The Democrats are still in a catch 22 though. Whether they support or oppose the law they're going to lose votes. The Republicans still need to be careful about what they say, but they are in a slightly better situations since the majority of legal and illegal immigrants tended to vote Democrat anyway I think.

[Neognosis]

Can illegal immigrants vote?

No.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Neognosis

[EllJay]

I think Obama under estimated the following this law would recieve. I can see him changing his tune pretty quick if the number of states that want this law get this law implimented.

Yeah..but aslong he doesnt get misunderestimated as George Dubya got.

Close the border for anyone except refugees and support Mexico in cleaning up the insane corruption and ****ed up gangster war they got going.

They need to sweep their own porch.

[danielost]

he seems to side with our enemies over our allies. so why wouldnt he side with a foriegn country over one of the states,

[Neognosis]

he seems to side with our enemies over our allies. so why wouldnt he side with a foriegn country over one of the states,

You really need to WANT to dislike Obama to actually think that.

[danielost]

You really need to WANT to dislike Obama to actually think that.

i dont dislike obama i dont know the man. i dislike what he stands for, that last bomb threat was brought to us by the taliban/al quida. yet he threatens to attack pakistans government. in the mean time iran has threatened to wipe isreal off the map and are building a nuke which could do it and all he wants to do is talk no threats.

[Neognosis]

what is it you think he stands for, daniellost?

[The Silver Thong]

Yeah..but aslong he doesnt get misunderestimated as George Dubya got.

Close the border for anyone except refugees and support Mexico in cleaning up the insane corruption and ****ed up gangster war they got going.

They need to sweep their own porch.

Ok ok undestimated ya ya. However what would Obama's agenda be for his underestimated gaff. We know what Bush's was. Anyway, water under the bridge now really.

I agree though with getting the borders secure and helping Mexico clean house. I havn't quit got what the change in the law was from the first draft to the second draft. What was changed as that could be why there is confusion about this law. I personal have warmed up to it as I must have just heard bits about the first draft as I never new that it had been amended.

Edited May 21, 2010 by The Silver Thong