Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill

Arizona could - and is trying - to crack down on employers of illegal immigrants.

Unfortunately, as I've posted before, the Obama administration is against any such crackdown to the point where it is suing the state of Arizona to nullify any laws that it has created to crackdown on these employers.

So, I assume you applaud the state of Arizona's attempts to crackdown on these employers while denouncing the Obama administration's crackdown on Arizona?
 
Let's not pretend that Arizona is cracking down on anyone but some poor Messicans. I'm not on the front lines but I haven't heard of any employer crack downs yet while Phoenix is slowly turning into a ghost town.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Obama administration is against any such crackdown to the point where it is suing the state of Arizona to nullify any laws that it has created to crackdown on these employers.[/QUOTE]
Son, the Constitution is disappoint.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Let's not pretend that Arizona is cracking down on anyone but some poor Messicans. I'm not on the front lines but I haven't heard of any employer crack downs yet while Phoenix is slowly turning into a ghost town.[/QUOTE]

So... Arizona shouldn't crackdown on employers because it'll hurt "poor Messicans"?

One moment, you go on a spree about how the state should be focusing it's efforts on employers of illegal immigrants. The next, you complain about how such a crackdown just hurts the illegal immigrants?

More reading on the Arizona law, originally signed by the current "The System Worked" Secretary of Homeland Security.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/employers-still-face-immigration-crackdown-2010-07-28

But LAWA imposes a virtual "death penalty" on businesses that knowingly or intentionally hire illegal immigrants. Companies can have whatever relevant local licenses they hold suspended for the first violation of the law, and permanently revoked on the second violation.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... Arizona shouldn't crackdown on employers because it'll hurt "poor Messicans"?

One moment, you go on a spree about how the state should be focusing it's efforts on employers of illegal immigrants. The next, you complain about how such a crackdown just hurts the illegal immigrants?

More reading on the Arizona law, originally signed by the current "The System Worked" Secretary of Homeland Security.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/employers-still-face-immigration-crackdown-2010-07-28[/QUOTE]

They (the left) don't really want a crackdown on companies that hire illegals because it runs against their entire arguement that these are just poor people who deserve a better chance at life, or their less savory arguement which is that if we get rid of the illegal immigrants the economy will collapse because all the cheap labor companies take advantage of, so we can't deport them.

They like the current situation UncleBob and they don't see a problem with it, which is why when anyone does anything about it they jump all over it with a good old racism witch hunt, or a those god damn greedy republicans rant.
 
I didn't say the state shouldn't crack down on employers, Bob. I'm just saying that part of the law is just fan service. It's a wink wink nudge nudge kind of thing that won't ever actually get used.

On the other hand, downtown Phoenix is practically a ghost town. Right now, Mexicans are going straight from work to home and barring themselves in. But yet, they're still working. Hmm.

Let me break this down for you.

1. Arizona's law is unconstitutional as it's written.

2. The left supports cracking down on businesses but we don't believe Arizona will actually do it.

3. We also support citizenship for the existing illegals through proper channels.

What else do you want us to say about this? We could pretend Knoell is right and we just want more jobs for illegals by way of staus quo but those three bullet points pretty much sums up the left's position on this topic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just cannot reconcile the fact that two parties willingly break the same law and you only feel one of these two parties should be punished while you wish to reward the other.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I just cannot reconcile the fact that two parties willingly break the same law and you only feel one of these two parties should be punished while you wish to reward the other.[/QUOTE]

Because I have a heart...

I just can't reconcile the fact that you'd rather throw people that want to work shitty jobs out of this country under the misguided notion that Americans will actually do shitty jobs.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Because I have a heart...

I just can't reconcile the fact that you'd rather throw people that want to work shitty jobs out of this country under the misguided notion that Americans will actually do shitty jobs.[/QUOTE]

They are breaking the law plain and simple, what about all of those other people who are legally waiting in line to become a citizen? Is it fair to them? How long does it take to legally come here from Mexico? Why do you think that is? I bet you think racism has a part in that lol.

By your logic we should just have hearts, and let everyone in the world come if they want to, why limit it at all? But no, you guys agree there should be limits, but you refuse to enforce the law that is supposed to enforce those limits.
 
I think the limit is way too low if we have illegals over here working. There should be enough spots to fill the need we have but there aren't.

No one said we would just make them all citizens but let's give them an opportunity to join the line. As of now, if you let your green card or visa lapse, you have zero chance of becoming legal. You have to physically leave the country for two years and then come back and start all over. How many people are going to do that if they have family and a decent job here? We should be making it easier for everyone to immigrate here not harder. Unfortunately, no one wants to reform the immigration process.

And please stop with they're breaking the law argument. So many of your precious free market enterprises go out of their way to break the law every chance they get. Some little guy that cuts grass breaks the law and you shit yourselves to demonize him and portray him as a parasite.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Because I have a heart...

I just can't reconcile the fact that you'd rather throw people that want to work shitty jobs out of this country under the misguided notion that Americans will actually do shitty jobs.[/QUOTE]

Then shouldn't you be okay with employers that are willing to circumvent the law to provide these poor people jobs?
 
It is a slippery slope and I admit that. My problem with the whole argument is that illegals wouldn't come here at all if jobs weren't so prevalent.

The illegals that I'm talking about (not the drug runners and gang bangers) are here for one reason. Work. Take away the work and they wouldn't be here in the first place. Would you risk so much just to be unemployed in another country?

So now we're stuck in a horrible Catch-22 where businesses knowingly hire illegals and illegals flock to the cities where those jobs are available.

What's the only solution? Crack down on businesses and allow the people that are already here and working to join the line. These aren't people that are going to suck on the tit of government. They just want to work. Don't get sucked into the rhetoric that normal Americans are clamoring to clean toilets and cut grass in 100 degree weather.
 
[quote name='depascal22']It is a slippery slope and I admit that. My problem with the whole argument is that illegals wouldn't come here at all if jobs weren't so prevalent.

The illegals that I'm talking about (not the drug runners and gang bangers) are here for one reason. Work. Take away the work and they wouldn't be here in the first place. Would you risk so much just to be unemployed in another country?

So now we're stuck in a horrible Catch-22 where businesses knowingly hire illegals and illegals flock to the cities where those jobs are available.

What's the only solution? Crack down on businesses and allow the people that are already here and working to join the line. These aren't people that are going to suck on the tit of government. They just want to work. Don't get sucked into the rhetoric that normal Americans are clamoring to clean toilets and cut grass in 100 degree weather.[/QUOTE]


lol so many jobs available with 10% unemployment. But oh yeah the illegals are only working the $4 dollar an hour jobs, while sending money home, and affording the cost of living here. Uh huh. No Americans would like any of the jobs that at least some illegal immigrants are taking. Nope.
 
[quote name='depascal22']It is a slippery slope and I admit that. My problem with the whole argument is that illegals wouldn't come here at all if jobs weren't so prevalent.

The illegals that I'm talking about (not the drug runners and gang bangers) are here for one reason. Work. Take away the work and they wouldn't be here in the first place. Would you risk so much just to be unemployed in another country?

So now we're stuck in a horrible Catch-22 where businesses knowingly hire illegals and illegals flock to the cities where those jobs are available.

What's the only solution? Crack down on businesses and allow the people that are already here and working to join the line. These aren't people that are going to suck on the tit of government. They just want to work. Don't get sucked into the rhetoric that normal Americans are clamoring to clean toilets and cut grass in 100 degree weather.[/QUOTE]

Businesses don't hire illegals because there aren't legal people who will do the jobs. They hire illegals so they can pay them less, give them little-to-no benefits, get out of paying payroll taxes, etc., etc... all while holding the status of the illegal immigrant over their head so that the employee can't complain, organize or even make any real attempt to get another job.

If the immigrant suddenly becomes legal, they're going to be demanding more pay, benefits or looking for another job. This means, either taking a job a legal citizen would do or bumping up the previous job of cleaning toilets or cutting grass up to "American" standards...
 
So what's your solution, boys?

I know several unemployed guys that won't clean shitters because that's "Mexican work" so what do you suggest we do as a nation?
 
[quote name='depascal22']So what's your solution, boys?

I know several unemployed guys that won't clean shitters because that's "Mexican work" so what do you suggest we do as a nation?[/QUOTE]

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

Ask those guys if they'd clean toilets for $25/hour with benefits if no other jobs were available and kids to feed.

My solution? A combination of better border security, harsher fines for employers, harsher penalties for those in the country illegally who break other laws and a strong, clear law that someone who has been documented to have entered the country illegally will be deported *and* will not be eligible to apply for any kind of citizenship, green card, etc... for a period of time (5 years? 10 years? dunno.) I would create a faster "path to citizenship" for those who have followed the law and are attempting to do things legally. Perfect? No. But I like it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.

Ask those guys if they'd clean toilets for $25/hour with benefits if no other jobs were available and kids to feed.

My solution? A combination of better border security, harsher fines for employers, harsher penalties for those in the country illegally who break other laws and a strong, clear law that someone who has been documented to have entered the country illegally will be deported *and* will not be eligible to apply for any kind of citizenship, green card, etc... for a period of time (5 years? 10 years? dunno.) I would create a faster "path to citizenship" for those who have followed the law and are attempting to do things legally. Perfect? No. But I like it.[/QUOTE]

I see what's coming next though.

But ya know bob that costs money and we dont like spending money on things the federal government should actually be doing correctly
 
I actually agree with Bob on this one and I especially like that you put in that they need to break other laws to get in trouble.

For me, being here illegally is equivalent to a misdemeanor. What would you guys equate it with?
 
You can call it a misdemeanor if you want, but whatever it is, it needs to be enforced.

Fun story: My cousin called me up yesterday and said DHS called him because his Russian ex-wife (he was only married to her for 2 months before she went insane and disappeared) is trying to get legal residency up in Washington state. She came in for an interview with immigration as part of the process for residency and the interviewer was calling my cousin for his side of the story. He annulled the marriage so she's been in the country illegally for over two years. Ok the first big obvious question: If you have been inside this country for two years illegally and you walk into DHS for an interview - how do you NOT get arrested at that point? Oh and she's 8 months pregnant so it's a forgone conclusion that her illegal behavior will be rewarded.

The immigration problem is vast and complicated and needs all kinds of reform. We absolutely MUST make an actual front door for immigrants that works. We must reform the whole process. We must, at the very least, get people's fingerprints, names and ID's when they enter this country while they work towards permanent residency (if they want it). The problem is, that is going to take our shit-hole Congress eons to hammer out and fix - like it does with everything.

In the meantime - for the short term - we absolutely must A)Secure the border and B)Do something about anchor baby law; it's totally insane to allow any pregnant girl to race across the border in labor and squat out a green card. It makes no sense. All of the things Bob lists need to be apart of reform - but in the meantime, we must do those two things as an emergency effort right now.
 
[quote name='Strell']Here, I'm going to play republican's advocate for this thread:

terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies[/QUOTE]

Name one thing that a Democrat (or multiple Democrats) have argued that is even in the same galaxy of ridiculousness of the 'terror babies' claim. That dude is another reason why it's ok to be smarmy and condescending when talking to people on the right.
 
You can still be deported if you have a baby in the US thrust, there's nothing that legally prevents that from happening. It happens all the time.
 
[quote name='Strell']Here, I'm going to play republican's advocate for this thread:

terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies
terror babies[/QUOTE]
Thanks to you, every time I read this thread and see this post, I start humming the muppet babies theme.
 
There was an episode where they kept being too loud and waking up their neighbor, Officer Caruthers, since he did the night beat and slept during the day. Animal, particularly, kept being loud and causing their nanny to reprimand them, which led to their paranoid fantasies of being locked up in jail.

Oddly prescient. I bet he bust down the door and booked all them baby bitches for not having their papers, which - of course - was jokingly misunderstood as "diapers" by Gonzo.
 
[quote name='Strell']Urge to parody Muppet Babies theme song lyrics rising.[/QUOTE]When your world is getting weird and you wish that you could leave, just close your eyes and make believe that you have joined the GOP.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']He had a different argument nearly 20 years ago?

OH SNAP, YOU SHOWED HIM.[/QUOTE]

Is that what 09/20/93 on the bottom of the video means? Well, we know people can't change their minds.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']He had a different argument nearly 20 years ago?

OH SNAP, YOU SHOWED HIM.[/QUOTE]

It was illiegal then and it's illiegal now, oh snap, the only difference is he's overlooking it for the sake of getting reelected. At one point it was important and serious enough for him to speak out about it and propose a bill. The citizenship clause that he mentions was a way to extend citizenship to freed slaves, it has since been extended to the children of people who illegally cross our boarders. It's good to know that at least at some point in his life as a career politician, he actually cared enough to speak out against it instead of selling himself out in order for him and his party to appear to be the friend of minorities that they think they are.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']It was illiegal then and it's illiegal now, oh snap, the only difference is he's overlooking it for the sake of getting reelected. At one point it was important and serious enough for him to speak out about it and propose a bill. The citizenship clause that he mentions was a way to extend citizenship to freed slaves, it has since been extended to the children of people who illegally cross our boarders. It's good to know that at least at some point in his life as a career politician, he actually cared enough to speak out against it instead of selling himself out in order for him and his party to appear to be the friend of minorities that they think they are.[/QUOTE]

You've posted one video of him saying one thing at one time. Where's the flip-flop?
 
22 other states have legislation pending that mimics Arizona's new laws.
It's interesting that so many states are jumping to do this when Arizona's is still looking at a lengthy court battle.

It seems to me that some congressmen/women should get together a craft up a Federal bill granting local authorities to enforce immigration laws. That'd be interesting to see.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Too bad it doesn't say anything about naturalizing the parents of those naturalized through birth. But current policy pretends it does.[/QUOTE]

What is the alternative?

Ship the parents overseas? What happens to the kid?
 
That little bastard gets a job and stops sucking off the government teet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']What is the alternative?

Ship the parents overseas? What happens to the kid?[/QUOTE]

Thats the type of situation people take advantage of. (you guys will deny that.) Theres no easy alternative but one alternative is to be more specific about being a citizen if you were born in the US.

Maybe if you don't have the proper rights to be in the country and you have a baby then that child is not given citizenship? A whole lot more definition would have to be included, as there are large loopholes, but thats the jist of it.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Theres no easy alternative but one alternative is to be more specific about being a citizen if you were born in the US.[/QUOTE]

14th Amendment
 
[quote name='IRHari']14th Amendment[/QUOTE]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

http://www.rosswalker.co.uk/tv_soun...46301/monty_python_flyin_circus/blah_blah.wav

The 14th Amendment is gay. We need something better.
 
It's irrelevant whether the child is a citizen or not, both the mother and child can still be deported. If it doesn't happen it's because they choose not to do it. Changing it so the child isn't a citizen is only going to change whether they themselves can come into the country and/or sponsor their parents/family when they're older. The law you're looking for is one that would force them to be deported no matter the circumstances or decision of anyone in the government.
 
Dammit, you're doing it wrong. You should be supporting those on the right's attempt to repeal the 14th amendment. They think they will be getting rid of anchor babies. However, they will also be getting rid of the legal justification that corporations use to say that they are a person.
 
[quote name='SpazX']It's irrelevant whether the child is a citizen or not, both the mother and child can still be deported. If it doesn't happen it's because they choose not to do it. Changing it so the child isn't a citizen is only going to change whether they themselves can come into the country and/or sponsor their parents/family when they're older. The law you're looking for is one that would force them to be deported no matter the circumstances or decision of anyone in the government.[/QUOTE]

If the child is born in the US, they're a citizen, according to the Constitution. They don't deport the mother and father of a child who is a US citizen. It's just how things work.

Do I think they change that part of the Constitution? Yes.
 
They can and have done precisely that KingBroly. What I'm saying is that the citizenship of their children is not really standing in their way, they just usually don't deport people unless they've committed a crime in pretty much any case. It's a stupid issue that wouldn't really do anything about the illegal immigrant population. It's just political posturing.

There's no epidemic of women crossing the border a week before their child is due, women just are either here illegally for months or years, continue with their lives and eventually have children or they were here legally, had children while here legally, and are no longer here legally. They're just never deported because the people responsible for doing so don't really care, not because they're legally restricted from doing so because their children are US citizens.
 
They probably wouldnt pass blatantly unconstitutional stuff like this (or the recent abortion bills in some states) if they knew they didnt have the Roberts court to back them up.
 
They're strict constitutionalists, at least when it helps them. Otherwise that shit might as well be cat box lining.
 
Exactly. I don't think they have an knowledge of a the supreme court being willing to back these things--maybe hopes, but nothing more.

They're just pandering to their constituency that has a majority supporting these types of bills in these states. If they get struck down by the Supreme Court, they still have the political capital with their constituents for passing the laws, and can use them being struck down to rile up their bible thumpin' redneck base into an even more heated anti-federal government fervor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top