New Arizona Immigration Law Poll

[Grave_n_idle]

ANd if there's no work, it's more profitable not to relocate in the first place.

That's not necessarily true.

If you have the choice of no income, or no income AND paying for relocation... 'no income' is actually the more profitable choice.

Again, not necessarily. It can be seen as an investment. I can't get work at home, and if I move there's no guarantee I'll get work either. But if I do... Even just a day labour type job will give me more income than a month, maybe six months back home. So I'll send half of that to my family back home, and try to live on the rest...

Even I don't get a job, there might be income. Social security, welfare, unemployment benefits, health care, education. The prospect of such things could entice me to take a chance.

Which part of 'no jobs' confused you?

If the market is saturated, there are no jobs. The day labour type job you mentioned (after we had already decided we were talking about a saturated market) doesn't exist. By the constraints of what we were discussing.

And I already addressed the issue of social security, welfare, unemployment, etc - by suggesting a paradigm where those things 'paying out' is linked to someone 'paying in'.

I can appreciate that, perhaps, you want to talk about a different situation than the one constrained by the parameters of what has already been established - but you're talking about a different situation than the one constrained by the parameters of what has already been established - NOT the situation constrained by the parameters of what has already been established.

[Gravlen]

Maybe that happens for white people.

Because you're right, the law enforcement system is also broken.

Now, knowing that, this law makes even less sense, as it is basically condoning (some would say compelling) that very racism.

I would have to agree with that. Such attempted "patchwork" laws will only make things worse. There needs to be a thorough reform from the top down.

No, actually, it's not broken at all.

I'm not sure how you can say that after the description you just offered. It is very clearly broken. The police are too restricted, and the rights people in ICE custody get are severely lacking. The fact that more than one US citizen has been deported is a testament to this fact.

Which part of 'no jobs' confused you?

*Snip*

I'm sorry, I was talking about how things are in Real Life, as opposed to your limited fantasy scenario. Nevermind.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm sorry, I was talking about how things are in Real Life, as opposed to your limited fantasy scenario. Nevermind.

Well, there's your mistake.

If you reply to a scenario we're discussing, and try to ignore the scenario we're discussing, it just looks like you're talking nonsense.

It'll be easier to spot your mistake in the future, if you provide some kind of disclaimer. Words to the effect of "I know I'm apparently responding to you in some way, but this is actually going to be about something totally different..." will probably suffice.

Then I won't make the mistake of treating it like it somehow relates to anything that's actually going on.

[Muravyets]

No, actually, it's not broken at all.

I'm not sure how you can say that after the description you just offered. It is very clearly broken. The police are too restricted, and the rights people in ICE custody get are severely lacking. The fact that more than one US citizen has been deported is a testament to this fact.

Well, from what you're saying, it seems your definition of a broken system is that it doesn't suit your fantasy. I happen to think your fantasy is ridiculous, so clearly then I don't think the system is broken just because it doesn't work the way you'd like it to.

The system is, of course, far from perfect. In the context of this topic in particular, one of its flaws is that it is susceptible to being corrupted by racists, like the ones who wrote the new AZ law. Thus, racists write a law that cannot be enforced by any means other than racism, and racist cops are the ones who will enforce it willingly, and racist private citizens are the ones who will bring complaints and lawsuits against the police who refuse to engage in racism or just seem not be engaging in it aggressively enough.

But I don't believe that adding some ridiculous requirement to go on a hunt for documents with suspect in tow is going to improve that aspect of it.

[JJ Place]

Sadly, it might even go further than this; from the sections of the Bill I've seen thus far, with any reasonable suspicion (you know, the person 'looks' illegal, a police officer has the ability to ask for documentation, and the same rules apply as any person would have if they where otherwise to be asked to produce their papers.

The law was amended; from my understanding based on the article linked to earlier in the thread, the police can only ask for proof of citizenship / immigration status if they have already apprehended the person for something else, such as after having pulled them over for a traffic violation.

Thank you for the extra confirmation; that's actually what Fox News reported a few days ago, and I've been going with that as it checks out with the rest of my sources.

Note: to the extent this change has been made (and I haven't seen the exact language yet), that AT MOST MAY resolve one of the several constitutional problems with this law and does little to address its underlying stupidity, counter-productivity, and racism.

It may be unconstitutional on many levels. On others, it's plain silly and moves us backwards as a society, and on others, it's just plain wrong.

Sadly, it might even go further than this; from the sections of the Bill I've seen thus far, with any reasonable suspicion (you know, the person 'looks' illegal, a police officer has the ability to ask for documentation, and the same rules apply as any person would have if they where otherwise to be asked to produce their papers.

The law was amended; from my understanding based on the article linked to earlier in the thread, the police can only ask for proof of citizenship / immigration status if they have already apprehended the person for something else, such as after having pulled them over for a traffic violation.

That's a change that makes no difference, as citizens are still not likely to carry proof of citizenship around with them, as you know, this is America and all, not a totalitarian dictatorship.

Yet.

Sadly, as famously stated, We're never really more than a generation off from totalitarianism, even here in the United States, are we? Our previous generations have done a fairly good job at aiding this along on more than one field; yet, luckily, there is always something else in each and every single generation that keeps the U.S. from falling too far down into a potential totalitarian state; though, it still could happen here in the United States.

[Muravyets]

Sadly, it might even go further than this; from the sections of the Bill I've seen thus far, with any reasonable suspicion (you know, the person 'looks' illegal, a police officer has the ability to ask for documentation, and the same rules apply as any person would have if they where otherwise to be asked to produce their papers.

The law was amended; from my understanding based on the article linked to earlier in the thread, the police can only ask for proof of citizenship / immigration status if they have already apprehended the person for something else, such as after having pulled them over for a traffic violation.

Thank you for the extra confirmation; that's actually what Fox News reported a few days ago, and I've been going with that as it checks out with the rest of my sources.

Note: to the extent this change has been made (and I haven't seen the exact language yet), that AT MOST MAY resolve one of the several constitutional problems with this law and does little to address its underlying stupidity, counter-productivity, and racism.

It may be unconstitutional on many levels. On others, it's plain silly and moves us backwards as a society, and on others, it's just plain wrong.

Sadly, it might even go further than this; from the sections of the Bill I've seen thus far, with any reasonable suspicion (you know, the person 'looks' illegal, a police officer has the ability to ask for documentation, and the same rules apply as any person would have if they where otherwise to be asked to produce their papers.

The law was amended; from my understanding based on the article linked to earlier in the thread, the police can only ask for proof of citizenship / immigration status if they have already apprehended the person for something else, such as after having pulled them over for a traffic violation.

That's a change that makes no difference, as citizens are still not likely to carry proof of citizenship around with them, as you know, this is America and all, not a totalitarian dictatorship.

Yet.

Sadly, as famously stated, We're never really more than a generation off from totalitarianism, even here in the United States, are we? Our previous generations have done a fairly good job at aiding this along on more than one field; yet, luckily, there is always something else in each and every single generation that keeps the U.S. from falling too far down into a potential totalitarian state; though, it still could happen here in the United States.

Sadly true. And worse, there are some people who seem to be doing their level best to make it happen now.

[North Calaveras]

Who exactly?

[JJ Place]

Sadly, it might even go further than this; from the sections of the Bill I've seen thus far, with any reasonable suspicion (you know, the person 'looks' illegal, a police officer has the ability to ask for documentation, and the same rules apply as any person would have if they where otherwise to be asked to produce their papers.

The law was amended; from my understanding based on the article linked to earlier in the thread, the police can only ask for proof of citizenship / immigration status if they have already apprehended the person for something else, such as after having pulled them over for a traffic violation.

Thank you for the extra confirmation; that's actually what Fox News reported a few days ago, and I've been going with that as it checks out with the rest of my sources.

Note: to the extent this change has been made (and I haven't seen the exact language yet), that AT MOST MAY resolve one of the several constitutional problems with this law and does little to address its underlying stupidity, counter-productivity, and racism.

It may be unconstitutional on many levels. On others, it's plain silly and moves us backwards as a society, and on others, it's just plain wrong.

Sadly, it might even go further than this; from the sections of the Bill I've seen thus far, with any reasonable suspicion (you know, the person 'looks' illegal, a police officer has the ability to ask for documentation, and the same rules apply as any person would have if they where otherwise to be asked to produce their papers.

The law was amended; from my understanding based on the article linked to earlier in the thread, the police can only ask for proof of citizenship / immigration status if they have already apprehended the person for something else, such as after having pulled them over for a traffic violation.

That's a change that makes no difference, as citizens are still not likely to carry proof of citizenship around with them, as you know, this is America and all, not a totalitarian dictatorship.

Yet.

Sadly, as famously stated, We're never really more than a generation off from totalitarianism, even here in the United States, are we? Our previous generations have done a fairly good job at aiding this along on more than one field; yet, luckily, there is always something else in each and every single generation that keeps the U.S. from falling too far down into a potential totalitarian state; though, it still could happen here in the United States.

Sadly true. And worse, there are some people who seem to be doing their level best to make it happen now.

.. but, there are still people on the opposing sides ensuring that this does not happen. Not nearly enough, I fear...

[Muravyets]

Who exactly?

Well, for one example, the authors of the main body of the AZ law, an organization who call themselves FAIR (click to go to their website) and who have a long history of connections to white supremacists and racial segregationists, including direct statements and connections among their own staff, their current head, and their founder who is still on their board of directors, as was recently revealed on the Rachel Maddow Show in an interview with Dan Stein, the current head of FAIR. He denied the allegations vehemently, but here is the Maddow Show's fact check of the issues raised in the interview, and here is an additional fact check and correction of their original fact check.

Here is more video and related material.

Don't just take the word of these links. Follow the links within the links if you want more.

(I hope all that works. My computer started to act up a bit.)

This law was written by people who want to undo vital parts of the US Constitution, who do not want a society where all are created equal, and who are willing to use strong-arm tactics of intimidation and abuse by government to impose that kind of control over US citizens.

[North Calaveras]

Who exactly?

Well, for one example, the authors of the main body of the AZ law, an organization who call themselves FAIR (click to go to their website) and who have a long history of connections to white supremacists and racial segregationists, including direct statements and connections among their own staff, their current head, and their founder who is still on their board of directors, as was recently revealed on the Rachel Maddow Show in an interview with Dan Stein, the current head of FAIR. He denied the allegations vehemently, but here is the Maddow Show's fact check of the issues raised in the interview, and here is an additional fact check and correction of their original fact check.

Here is more video and related material.

Don't just take the word of these links. Follow the links within the links if you want more.

(I hope all that works. My computer started to act up a bit.)

This law was written by people who want to undo vital parts of the US Constitution, who do not want a society where all are created equal, and who are willing to use strong-arm tactics of intimidation and abuse by government to impose that kind of control over US citizens.

I totaly agree with you on most of that, but that dosn't mean we should let anyone from anywhere on the planet come here without being checked.

[Muravyets]

Who exactly?

Well, for one example, the authors of the main body of the AZ law, an organization who call themselves FAIR (click to go to their website) and who have a long history of connections to white supremacists and racial segregationists, including direct statements and connections among their own staff, their current head, and their founder who is still on their board of directors, as was recently revealed on the Rachel Maddow Show in an interview with Dan Stein, the current head of FAIR. He denied the allegations vehemently, but here is the Maddow Show's fact check of the issues raised in the interview, and here is an additional fact check and correction of their original fact check.

Here is more video and related material.

Don't just take the word of these links. Follow the links within the links if you want more.

(I hope all that works. My computer started to act up a bit.)

This law was written by people who want to undo vital parts of the US Constitution, who do not want a society where all are created equal, and who are willing to use strong-arm tactics of intimidation and abuse by government to impose that kind of control over US citizens.

I totaly agree with you on most of that, but that dosn't mean we should let anyone from anywhere on the planet come here without being checked.

That's only about the, what? Fifth or more time someone has brought up that false dichotomy? This is NOT an all or nothing proposition. We don't only have two options -- racist totalitarianism or no security at all. We have an existing immigration law structure and many options for boosting it that don't entail scrapping the Constitution or throwing the nation back to a nativist hellhole.

[North Calaveras]

Who exactly?

Well, for one example, the authors of the main body of the AZ law, an organization who call themselves FAIR (click to go to their website) and who have a long history of connections to white supremacists and racial segregationists, including direct statements and connections among their own staff, their current head, and their founder who is still on their board of directors, as was recently revealed on the Rachel Maddow Show in an interview with Dan Stein, the current head of FAIR. He denied the allegations vehemently, but here is the Maddow Show's fact check of the issues raised in the interview, and here is an additional fact check and correction of their original fact check.

Here is more video and related material.

Don't just take the word of these links. Follow the links within the links if you want more.

(I hope all that works. My computer started to act up a bit.)

This law was written by people who want to undo vital parts of the US Constitution, who do not want a society where all are created equal, and who are willing to use strong-arm tactics of intimidation and abuse by government to impose that kind of control over US citizens.

I totaly agree with you on most of that, but that dosn't mean we should let anyone from anywhere on the planet come here without being checked.

That's only about the, what? Fifth or more time someone has brought up that false dichotomy? This is NOT an all or nothing proposition. We don't only have two options -- racist totalitarianism or no security at all. We have an existing immigration law structure and many options for boosting it that don't entail scrapping the Constitution or throwing the nation back to a nativist hellhole.

Then why do we have this problem in the first place if the existing structure is good enough?

[JJ Place]

Who exactly?

Well, for one example, the authors of the main body of the AZ law, an organization who call themselves FAIR (click to go to their website) and who have a long history of connections to white supremacists and racial segregationists, including direct statements and connections among their own staff, their current head, and their founder who is still on their board of directors, as was recently revealed on the Rachel Maddow Show in an interview with Dan Stein, the current head of FAIR. He denied the allegations vehemently, but here is the Maddow Show's fact check of the issues raised in the interview, and here is an additional fact check and correction of their original fact check.

Here is more video and related material.

Don't just take the word of these links. Follow the links within the links if you want more.

(I hope all that works. My computer started to act up a bit.)

This law was written by people who want to undo vital parts of the US Constitution, who do not want a society where all are created equal, and who are willing to use strong-arm tactics of intimidation and abuse by government to impose that kind of control over US citizens.

I totaly agree with you on most of that, but that dosn't mean we should let anyone from anywhere on the planet come here without being checked.

I agree with most of that; invading armies that are a physical threat to the safety of the society should not be allowed in, and should be stopped by any means necessary. However, immigrants do not wish to destroy the United States, they simply wish to gain entrance to the United States. Many argue that immigrants just suck up our welfare and take our other over-zealous government-provided services; but that's not the issue. If you want to get rid of these programs, which is fine and which I would 100% agree with you, instead of making a quick-fix and shutting down the borders to save a few dollars, work on getting rid of these programs entirely. Some will then actually argue that if a person is legal, they deserve to get the government services, while if they're illegal, they do not. So apparently, Socialism by the legal citizens is alright in these people's minds; but Socialism by those nasty immigrants is blasphemous, and that they are not entitled to anything.

Many who argue against me who are anti-immigration also stumble around when I bring up to them that many legal immigrants, and even natural born citizens abuse the government services such as welfare, they try to make up excuses that the programs are now good apparently. When I bring up the fact that most 'illegal' immigrants are not here to abuse our government's poorly functioning systems, and simply want to be left alone to their own devices, they bring up a list of about.. 10 cases of illegals abusing the systems. Then I'll bring up the fact that illegal immigrants would pay taxes if they where legal, they generally just ignore point and go back to the previous argument about welfare, and they continue to lose ground in the debate.

Others will try to argue that immigrants 'steal jobs from Americans'. When you bring up that these Americans are less competitive and worse candidates for the jobs the immigrants are 'taking' from them, these same people will remember that they are economically conservative and for a free market, they argue against illegal immigrants on the basis of illegal Mexicans gaining special treatment via Affirmative Action. Again, this is a different issue than illegal immigration, and if you want to get rid of Affirmative Action, do that; but don't argue against 'illegal' immigration on this base.

Finally, some will then argue that 'illegal' immigrants should either 1) Stay in their in there own countries, 2) Ask for political asymlum in the case of their country being a terrible place to live, or 3) Come here the right way. Even though we can change the laws to whatever we like, and we can change them and need to change them to open up our borders; what's truly ironic about many arguing against 'illegal' immigrants is that these people are the 'small government' people who want to 'get government off your back' and make the country more free. You'd think these same people would have a little consitancy in their arguments, wouldn't you?

Well, that was a fairly long argument, an argument I was planning to make shorter and more in line with the base topic of this thread; but it's all good.

[North Calaveras]

Who exactly?

Well, for one example, the authors of the main body of the AZ law, an organization who call themselves FAIR (click to go to their website) and who have a long history of connections to white supremacists and racial segregationists, including direct statements and connections among their own staff, their current head, and their founder who is still on their board of directors, as was recently revealed on the Rachel Maddow Show in an interview with Dan Stein, the current head of FAIR. He denied the allegations vehemently, but here is the Maddow Show's fact check of the issues raised in the interview, and here is an additional fact check and correction of their original fact check.

Here is more video and related material.

Don't just take the word of these links. Follow the links within the links if you want more.

(I hope all that works. My computer started to act up a bit.)

This law was written by people who want to undo vital parts of the US Constitution, who do not want a society where all are created equal, and who are willing to use strong-arm tactics of intimidation and abuse by government to impose that kind of control over US citizens.

I totaly agree with you on most of that, but that dosn't mean we should let anyone from anywhere on the planet come here without being checked.

I agree with most of that; invading armies that are a physical threat to the safety of the society should not be allowed in, and should be stopped by any means necessary. However, immigrants do not wish to destroy the United States, they simply wish to gain entrance to the United States. Many argue that immigrants just suck up our welfare and take our other over-zealous government-provided services; but that's not the issue. If you want to get rid of these programs, which is fine and which I would 100% agree with you, instead of making a quick-fix and shutting down the borders to save a few dollars, work on getting rid of these programs entirely. Some will then actually argue that if a person is legal, they deserve to get the government services, while if they're illegal, they do not. So apparently, Socialism by the legal citizens is alright in these people's minds; but Socialism by those nasty immigrants is blasphemous, and that they are not entitled to anything.

Many who argue against me who are anti-immigration also stumble around when I bring up to them that many legal immigrants, and even natural born citizens abuse the government services such as welfare, they try to make up excuses that the programs are now good apparently. When I bring up the fact that most 'illegal' immigrants are not here to abuse our government's poorly functioning systems, and simply want to be left alone to their own devices, they bring up a list of about.. 10 cases of illegals abusing the systems. Then I'll bring up the fact that illegal immigrants would pay taxes if they where legal, they generally just ignore point and go back to the previous argument about welfare, and they continue to lose ground in the debate.

Others will try to argue that

Finally, some will then argue that 'illegal' immigrants should either 1) Stay in their in there own countries, 2) Ask for political asymlum in the case of their country being a terrible place to live, or 3) Come here the right way. Even though we can change the laws to whatever we like, and we can change them and need to change them to open up our borders; what's truly ironic about many arguing against 'illegal' immigrants is that these people are the 'small government' people who want to 'get government off your back' and make the country more free. You'd think these same people would have a little consitancy in their arguments, wouldn't you?

So lets say we do open our borders to everyone but noticable invaders, I think I can hear thousands of Islamic radicals waiting to board planes and set up shop here.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Who exactly?

Well, for one example, the authors of the main body of the AZ law, an organization who call themselves FAIR (click to go to their website) and who have a long history of connections to white supremacists and racial segregationists, including direct statements and connections among their own staff, their current head, and their founder who is still on their board of directors, as was recently revealed on the Rachel Maddow Show in an interview with Dan Stein, the current head of FAIR. He denied the allegations vehemently, but here is the Maddow Show's fact check of the issues raised in the interview, and here is an additional fact check and correction of their original fact check.

Here is more video and related material.

Don't just take the word of these links. Follow the links within the links if you want more.

(I hope all that works. My computer started to act up a bit.)

This law was written by people who want to undo vital parts of the US Constitution, who do not want a society where all are created equal, and who are willing to use strong-arm tactics of intimidation and abuse by government to impose that kind of control over US citizens.

I totaly agree with you on most of that, but that dosn't mean we should let anyone from anywhere on the planet come here without being checked.

Muravyets has already pointed out this is a false dichotomy, but let's assume it isn't: is having relatively open borders really worse than laws that are racist and violate the U.S. Constitution? What about our nation are you protecting if you jettison our values?

Moreover, it is worth noting that most of the history of the American colonies and the United States involved relatively open borders. It wasn't until after the Civil War that significant restrictions started being imposed on immigration (not surprisingly, primarily on racial grounds.)

[JJ Place]

Who exactly?

Well, for one example, the authors of the main body of the AZ law, an organization who call themselves FAIR (click to go to their website) and who have a long history of connections to white supremacists and racial segregationists, including direct statements and connections among their own staff, their current head, and their founder who is still on their board of directors, as was recently revealed on the Rachel Maddow Show in an interview with Dan Stein, the current head of FAIR. He denied the allegations vehemently, but here is the Maddow Show's fact check of the issues raised in the interview, and here is an additional fact check and correction of their original fact check.

Here is more video and related material.

Don't just take the word of these links. Follow the links within the links if you want more.

(I hope all that works. My computer started to act up a bit.)

This law was written by people who want to undo vital parts of the US Constitution, who do not want a society where all are created equal, and who are willing to use strong-arm tactics of intimidation and abuse by government to impose that kind of control over US citizens.

I totaly agree with you on most of that, but that dosn't mean we should let anyone from anywhere on the planet come here without being checked.

I agree with most of that; invading armies that are a physical threat to the safety of the society should not be allowed in, and should be stopped by any means necessary. However, immigrants do not wish to destroy the United States, they simply wish to gain entrance to the United States. Many argue that immigrants just suck up our welfare and take our other over-zealous government-provided services; but that's not the issue. If you want to get rid of these programs, which is fine and which I would 100% agree with you, instead of making a quick-fix and shutting down the borders to save a few dollars, work on getting rid of these programs entirely. Some will then actually argue that if a person is legal, they deserve to get the government services, while if they're illegal, they do not. So apparently, Socialism by the legal citizens is alright in these people's minds; but Socialism by those nasty immigrants is blasphemous, and that they are not entitled to anything.

Many who argue against me who are anti-immigration also stumble around when I bring up to them that many legal immigrants, and even natural born citizens abuse the government services such as welfare, they try to make up excuses that the programs are now good apparently. When I bring up the fact that most 'illegal' immigrants are not here to abuse our government's poorly functioning systems, and simply want to be left alone to their own devices, they bring up a list of about.. 10 cases of illegals abusing the systems. Then I'll bring up the fact that illegal immigrants would pay taxes if they where legal, they generally just ignore point and go back to the previous argument about welfare, and they continue to lose ground in the debate.

Others will try to argue that

Finally, some will then argue that 'illegal' immigrants should either 1) Stay in their in there own countries, 2) Ask for political asymlum in the case of their country being a terrible place to live, or 3) Come here the right way. Even though we can change the laws to whatever we like, and we can change them and need to change them to open up our borders; what's truly ironic about many arguing against 'illegal' immigrants is that these people are the 'small government' people who want to 'get government off your back' and make the country more free. You'd think these same people would have a little consitancy in their arguments, wouldn't you?

So lets say we do open our borders to everyone but noticable invaders, I think I can hear thousands of Islamic radicals waiting to board planes and set up shop here.

You don't have to; they get in with or without the restrictions on immigration, every single one of the suicide bombers in 911 was a legal immigrant. Second, we have radicals in this country; if Al Qaeda wants to really get into the United States, they'll recruit people from our country. Third, and most importantly: Nothing, not even a few thousand terrorists, is worth losing our freedom over. Nothing will dramatically affect them, no matter how much of our freedom we lose, and even if it does, they've won if we lose our freedom. Like Jesse Ventura has said for years: "I'd rather take the chance of not being safe, and still live free." And so would I.

[North Calaveras]

Who exactly?

Well, for one example, the authors of the main body of the AZ law, an organization who call themselves FAIR (click to go to their website) and who have a long history of connections to white supremacists and racial segregationists, including direct statements and connections among their own staff, their current head, and their founder who is still on their board of directors, as was recently revealed on the Rachel Maddow Show in an interview with Dan Stein, the current head of FAIR. He denied the allegations vehemently, but here is the Maddow Show's fact check of the issues raised in the interview, and here is an additional fact check and correction of their original fact check.

Here is more video and related material.

Don't just take the word of these links. Follow the links within the links if you want more.

(I hope all that works. My computer started to act up a bit.)

This law was written by people who want to undo vital parts of the US Constitution, who do not want a society where all are created equal, and who are willing to use strong-arm tactics of intimidation and abuse by government to impose that kind of control over US citizens.

I totaly agree with you on most of that, but that dosn't mean we should let anyone from anywhere on the planet come here without being checked.

I agree with most of that; invading armies that are a physical threat to the safety of the society should not be allowed in, and should be stopped by any means necessary. However, immigrants do not wish to destroy the United States, they simply wish to gain entrance to the United States. Many argue that immigrants just suck up our welfare and take our other over-zealous government-provided services; but that's not the issue. If you want to get rid of these programs, which is fine and which I would 100% agree with you, instead of making a quick-fix and shutting down the borders to save a few dollars, work on getting rid of these programs entirely. Some will then actually argue that if a person is legal, they deserve to get the government services, while if they're illegal, they do not. So apparently, Socialism by the legal citizens is alright in these people's minds; but Socialism by those nasty immigrants is blasphemous, and that they are not entitled to anything.

Many who argue against me who are anti-immigration also stumble around when I bring up to them that many legal immigrants, and even natural born citizens abuse the government services such as welfare, they try to make up excuses that the programs are now good apparently. When I bring up the fact that most 'illegal' immigrants are not here to abuse our government's poorly functioning systems, and simply want to be left alone to their own devices, they bring up a list of about.. 10 cases of illegals abusing the systems. Then I'll bring up the fact that illegal immigrants would pay taxes if they where legal, they generally just ignore point and go back to the previous argument about welfare, and they continue to lose ground in the debate.

Others will try to argue that

Finally, some will then argue that 'illegal' immigrants should either 1) Stay in their in there own countries, 2) Ask for political asymlum in the case of their country being a terrible place to live, or 3) Come here the right way. Even though we can change the laws to whatever we like, and we can change them and need to change them to open up our borders; what's truly ironic about many arguing against 'illegal' immigrants is that these people are the 'small government' people who want to 'get government off your back' and make the country more free. You'd think these same people would have a little consitancy in their arguments, wouldn't you?

So lets say we do open our borders to everyone but noticable invaders, I think I can hear thousands of Islamic radicals waiting to board planes and set up shop here.

You don't have to; they get in with or without the restrictions on immigration, every single one of the suicide bombers in 911 was a legal immigrant. Second, we have radicals in this country; if Al Qaeda wants to really get into the United States, they'll recruit people from our country. Third, and most importantly: Nothing, not even a few thousand terrorists, is worth losing our freedom over. Nothing will dramatically affect them, no matter how much of our freedom we lose, and even if it does, they've won if we lose our freedom. Like Jesse Ventura has said for years: "I'd rather take the chance of not being safe, and still live free." And so would I.

Look, if these Mexican illegals want to strike down this bill, then Mexico should have the same immigration policy as the united states.

[Vervaria]

Who exactly?

Well, for one example, the authors of the main body of the AZ law, an organization who call themselves FAIR (click to go to their website) and who have a long history of connections to white supremacists and racial segregationists, including direct statements and connections among their own staff, their current head, and their founder who is still on their board of directors, as was recently revealed on the Rachel Maddow Show in an interview with Dan Stein, the current head of FAIR. He denied the allegations vehemently, but here is the Maddow Show's fact check of the issues raised in the interview, and here is an additional fact check and correction of their original fact check.

Here is more video and related material.

Don't just take the word of these links. Follow the links within the links if you want more.

(I hope all that works. My computer started to act up a bit.)

This law was written by people who want to undo vital parts of the US Constitution, who do not want a society where all are created equal, and who are willing to use strong-arm tactics of intimidation and abuse by government to impose that kind of control over US citizens.

I totaly agree with you on most of that, but that dosn't mean we should let anyone from anywhere on the planet come here without being checked.

I agree with most of that; invading armies that are a physical threat to the safety of the society should not be allowed in, and should be stopped by any means necessary. However, immigrants do not wish to destroy the United States, they simply wish to gain entrance to the United States. Many argue that immigrants just suck up our welfare and take our other over-zealous government-provided services; but that's not the issue. If you want to get rid of these programs, which is fine and which I would 100% agree with you, instead of making a quick-fix and shutting down the borders to save a few dollars, work on getting rid of these programs entirely. Some will then actually argue that if a person is legal, they deserve to get the government services, while if they're illegal, they do not. So apparently, Socialism by the legal citizens is alright in these people's minds; but Socialism by those nasty immigrants is blasphemous, and that they are not entitled to anything.

Many who argue against me who are anti-immigration also stumble around when I bring up to them that many legal immigrants, and even natural born citizens abuse the government services such as welfare, they try to make up excuses that the programs are now good apparently. When I bring up the fact that most 'illegal' immigrants are not here to abuse our government's poorly functioning systems, and simply want to be left alone to their own devices, they bring up a list of about.. 10 cases of illegals abusing the systems. Then I'll bring up the fact that illegal immigrants would pay taxes if they where legal, they generally just ignore point and go back to the previous argument about welfare, and they continue to lose ground in the debate.

Others will try to argue that

Finally, some will then argue that 'illegal' immigrants should either 1) Stay in their in there own countries, 2) Ask for political asymlum in the case of their country being a terrible place to live, or 3) Come here the right way. Even though we can change the laws to whatever we like, and we can change them and need to change them to open up our borders; what's truly ironic about many arguing against 'illegal' immigrants is that these people are the 'small government' people who want to 'get government off your back' and make the country more free. You'd think these same people would have a little consitancy in their arguments, wouldn't you?

So lets say we do open our borders to everyone but noticable invaders, I think I can hear thousands of Islamic radicals waiting to board planes and set up shop here.

You don't have to; they get in with or without the restrictions on immigration, every single one of the suicide bombers in 911 was a legal immigrant. Second, we have radicals in this country; if Al Qaeda wants to really get into the United States, they'll recruit people from our country. Third, and most importantly: Nothing, not even a few thousand terrorists, is worth losing our freedom over. Nothing will dramatically affect them, no matter how much of our freedom we lose, and even if it does, they've won if we lose our freedom. Like Jesse Ventura has said for years: "I'd rather take the chance of not being safe, and still live free." And so would I.

Look, if these Mexican illegals want to strike down this bill, then Mexico should have the same immigration policy as the united states.

..... Because all Mexicans who don't support the bill are illegals.

[North Calaveras]

Who exactly?

Well, for one example, the authors of the main body of the AZ law, an organization who call themselves FAIR (click to go to their website) and who have a long history of connections to white supremacists and racial segregationists, including direct statements and connections among their own staff, their current head, and their founder who is still on their board of directors, as was recently revealed on the Rachel Maddow Show in an interview with Dan Stein, the current head of FAIR. He denied the allegations vehemently, but here is the Maddow Show's fact check of the issues raised in the interview, and here is an additional fact check and correction of their original fact check.

Here is more video and related material.

Don't just take the word of these links. Follow the links within the links if you want more.

(I hope all that works. My computer started to act up a bit.)

This law was written by people who want to undo vital parts of the US Constitution, who do not want a society where all are created equal, and who are willing to use strong-arm tactics of intimidation and abuse by government to impose that kind of control over US citizens.

I totaly agree with you on most of that, but that dosn't mean we should let anyone from anywhere on the planet come here without being checked.

I agree with most of that; invading armies that are a physical threat to the safety of the society should not be allowed in, and should be stopped by any means necessary. However, immigrants do not wish to destroy the United States, they simply wish to gain entrance to the United States. Many argue that immigrants just suck up our welfare and take our other over-zealous government-provided services; but that's not the issue. If you want to get rid of these programs, which is fine and which I would 100% agree with you, instead of making a quick-fix and shutting down the borders to save a few dollars, work on getting rid of these programs entirely. Some will then actually argue that if a person is legal, they deserve to get the government services, while if they're illegal, they do not. So apparently, Socialism by the legal citizens is alright in these people's minds; but Socialism by those nasty immigrants is blasphemous, and that they are not entitled to anything.

Many who argue against me who are anti-immigration also stumble around when I bring up to them that many legal immigrants, and even natural born citizens abuse the government services such as welfare, they try to make up excuses that the programs are now good apparently. When I bring up the fact that most 'illegal' immigrants are not here to abuse our government's poorly functioning systems, and simply want to be left alone to their own devices, they bring up a list of about.. 10 cases of illegals abusing the systems. Then I'll bring up the fact that illegal immigrants would pay taxes if they where legal, they generally just ignore point and go back to the previous argument about welfare, and they continue to lose ground in the debate.

Others will try to argue that

Finally, some will then argue that 'illegal' immigrants should either 1) Stay in their in there own countries, 2) Ask for political asymlum in the case of their country being a terrible place to live, or 3) Come here the right way. Even though we can change the laws to whatever we like, and we can change them and need to change them to open up our borders; what's truly ironic about many arguing against 'illegal' immigrants is that these people are the 'small government' people who want to 'get government off your back' and make the country more free. You'd think these same people would have a little consitancy in their arguments, wouldn't you?

So lets say we do open our borders to everyone but noticable invaders, I think I can hear thousands of Islamic radicals waiting to board planes and set up shop here.

You don't have to; they get in with or without the restrictions on immigration, every single one of the suicide bombers in 911 was a legal immigrant. Second, we have radicals in this country; if Al Qaeda wants to really get into the United States, they'll recruit people from our country. Third, and most importantly: Nothing, not even a few thousand terrorists, is worth losing our freedom over. Nothing will dramatically affect them, no matter how much of our freedom we lose, and even if it does, they've won if we lose our freedom. Like Jesse Ventura has said for years: "I'd rather take the chance of not being safe, and still live free." And so would I.

Look, if these Mexican illegals want to strike down this bill, then Mexico should have the same immigration policy as the united states.

..... Because all Mexicans who don't support the bill are illegals.

i said Mexican illegals, those that are not from this country that got in here illegally, not Mexicans as a whole, there are Mexicans that come here legally that don't want immigrants coming in illegally

[Cobhanglica]

Who exactly?

Well, for one example, the authors of the main body of the AZ law, an organization who call themselves FAIR (click to go to their website) and who have a long history of connections to white supremacists and racial segregationists, including direct statements and connections among their own staff, their current head, and their founder who is still on their board of directors, as was recently revealed on the Rachel Maddow Show in an interview with Dan Stein, the current head of FAIR. He denied the allegations vehemently, but here is the Maddow Show's fact check of the issues raised in the interview, and here is an additional fact check and correction of their original fact check.

Here is more video and related material.

Don't just take the word of these links. Follow the links within the links if you want more.

(I hope all that works. My computer started to act up a bit.)

This law was written by people who want to undo vital parts of the US Constitution, who do not want a society where all are created equal, and who are willing to use strong-arm tactics of intimidation and abuse by government to impose that kind of control over US citizens.

I totaly agree with you on most of that, but that dosn't mean we should let anyone from anywhere on the planet come here without being checked.

Muravyets has already pointed out this is a false dichotomy, but let's assume it isn't: is having relatively open borders really worse than laws that are racist and violate the U.S. Constitution? What about our nation are you protecting if you jettison our values?

Moreover, it is worth noting that most of the history of the American colonies and the United States involved relatively open borders. It wasn't until after the Civil War that significant restrictions started being imposed on immigration (not surprisingly, primarily on racial grounds.)

What about the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795? They limited naturalization to "free white persons". From what I can tell, pre-Civil War immigration legislation was far more racially restrictive than what we have now.

Also, illegal immigration would have been more difficult in the past as the primary sources of potential immigrants were separated from America by the Atlantic Ocean. The immigration concerns on the past primarily centered around legal immigrants coming in from Eastern and Southern Europe. Illegals didn't become a major concern until after WWII when a trickle of Mexican laborers grew into a flood that continues to this day, and now comes from many nations other than Mexico.

[The REAL Glasers]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading a study of some sorts where illegal immigrants are not the drain on the welfare system and economy that they seem to be because they actively avoid public services.

[North Calaveras]

So what do we do with the illegals in this country, just give them citizenship, that's clearly what your for then, if they get through the border just give it to them for free cause jumping a fence is all the hard work you will need to put in to share in our wealth. You know what, I wouldn't even care if we let them in as long as they were proud to be American and followed our laws and not wave a damn mexican flag around and call tea party members rascists and talk shit about the united states while burning a american flag in the street. Way to be proud of your country.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Who exactly?

This law was written by people who want to undo vital parts of the US Constitution, who do not want a society where all are created equal, and who are willing to use strong-arm tactics of intimidation and abuse by government to impose that kind of control over US citizens.

I totaly agree with you on most of that, but that dosn't mean we should let anyone from anywhere on the planet come here without being checked.

Muravyets has already pointed out this is a false dichotomy, but let's assume it isn't: is having relatively open borders really worse than laws that are racist and violate the U.S. Constitution? What about our nation are you protecting if you jettison our values?

Moreover, it is worth noting that most of the history of the American colonies and the United States involved relatively open borders. It wasn't until after the Civil War that significant restrictions started being imposed on immigration (not surprisingly, primarily on racial grounds.)

What about the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795? They limited naturalization to "free white persons". From what I can tell, pre-Civil War immigration legislation was far more racially restrictive than what we have now.

Also, illegal immigration would have been more difficult in the past as the primary sources of potential immigrants were separated from America by the Atlantic Ocean. The immigration concerns on the past primarily centered around legal immigrants coming in from Eastern and Southern Europe. Illegals didn't become a major concern until after WWII when a trickle of Mexican laborers grew into a flood that continues to this day, and now comes from many nations other than Mexico.

1. You completely and conveniently ignore my first and main point.

2. I specifically mentioned the American colonies, but even the laws you refer to (although racist) are pretty fucking open borders.

3. It is true (as I mentioned originally) that immigration law in the U.S. has often been racist. This doesn't make it any more acceptable than the fact that slavery was acceptable here for so long.

4. I have neither the time nor the patience to explain to you the demographic history of immigration to the U.S. Suffice it to say your summary is both oversimplistic and erroneous.

5. It is telling that you refer to immigrants from Europe as immigrants and immigrants from Mexico as "illegals."

[Atheistic Atheists]

Geez, you might want to have mentioned that that's 70% of ARIZONA voters who support the bill. Because I KNOW that statistic would be lower if you included the whole US. :|

[Grave_n_idle]

So what do we do with the illegals in this country, just give them citizenship, that's clearly what your for then, if they get through the border just give it to them for free cause jumping a fence is all the hard work you will need to put in to share in our wealth. You know what, I wouldn't even care if we let them in as long as they were proud to be American and followed our laws and not wave a damn mexican flag around and call tea party members rascists and talk shit about the united states while burning a american flag in the street. Way to be proud of your country.

And what are you going to do about the tea partiers that ARE racists, and the American citizens (born and bred) that burn flags and talk shit about the US?

I'm betting... nothing.

Which would bring us back to your problem with Mexicans. Whatever that's really about.