How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Still think the Republican led AZ legisl   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ]
 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Still think the Republican led AZ legislature isn't racist?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


275 posted 07-02-2010 09:23 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

A hint for those having trouble with the quiz questions:

"Homeland Security says there already are 20,000 Border Patrol agents, double the number in 2004. About 85 percent of these agents are on the Southwest Border."
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


276 posted 07-02-2010 10:14 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

“HERMOSILLO, Mexico (AP) — A massive gun battle between rival drug and migrant trafficking gangs near the U.S. border Thursday left 21 people dead and at least six others wounded, prosecutors said.
The fire fight occurred in a sparsely populated area about 12 miles (20 kilometers) from the Arizona border, near the city of Nogales, that is considered a prime corridor for immigrant and drug smuggling.”


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/01/shootout-drug-migran     t-trafficking-gangs-near-border-leaves-dead-598299465/


At some point they’re going to need more signs.

.
http://azcapitoltimes.com/blog/2010/05/26/obama-puts-forth-border-plan-similar-to-bush   s/

.

“Since I was first elected to the Senate, I have tried to educate Senators and cabinet officials about the challenges facing our state and nation as a result of illegal immigration, and have fought hard for significant new resources to combat the problem.  These efforts have resulted in measureable progress.  For example, as far back as 1996, I won approval of an amendment that began the surge in the number of Border Patrol agents assigned to fight illegal immigration at the border.  When the surge began, the number of Border agents totaled about 4,000.  By January 2010, the initiatives I supported increased that number to more than 20,000.  Comprehensive, new enforcement programs, like Operation Streamline, have led to substantial reductions in the number of illegal crossings, particularly in the Yuma sector.

Enforcement Gains Now At Risk Under the Obama Administration top

Regrettably, much of the progress made in recent years now appears to be at risk under the Obama administration.  For example, the budget President Obama proposed for FY2011 would actually reduce both the number of Border Patrol agents available to secure the border and the number of detention spaces available to hold illegal immigrants.”

http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/border.cfm

.


.

“MILWAUKEE - Arizona Senator Jon Kyl has confirmed, Arizona is, in fact, on the border with Mexico.

Kyl sent Milwaukee County Supervisor Peggy West a letter in which he says, "You will be interested to learn that Arizona does indeed share a border with Mexico.  I have enclosed a map for your convenience."

Kyl goes on to urge West to, "actually read the Arizona law before forming an opinion about it."
West appeared confused about Arizona's location during debate about a measure that would have had the county boycott the state over its controversial new immigration law.  She said, "If this was Texas, which is a state that is directly on the border with Mexico, and they were calling for a measure like this saying that they had a major issue with undocumented people flooding their borders, I would have to look twice at this.  But this is a state that is a ways removed from the border."

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/97164154.html


.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


277 posted 07-02-2010 10:36 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

"Obama seeks to add 1,000 Border Patrol agents.President asks congress for $500 million to boost security
By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
PHOENIX — The Southwest border would add 1,000 Border Patrol agents and 160 Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers if Congress approves a request by President Barack Obama for an extra $500 million for security.

Details of the plan, released Wednesday, also include new customs officers — the people at the border crossings — and two new unmanned aerial vehicles to help monitor border activities. There currently are three UAVs along the entire Southwest border.

In his letter to Congress, the president said he actually wants to spend $600 million “to secure the Southwest border and enhance federal border protection, law enforcement and counternarcotics activities.

That extra $100 million, the president said, will come out of the budget for the “virtual fence’’ project which has been halted while the Department of Homeland Security determines if it actually could ever work.

The White House also said that a separate $100 million of lower priority projects for Homeland Security will be “repositioned’’ in the budget to replace and repair fences along the Southwest border.

All that, the president said, is on top of his decision to put 1,200 National Guard troops along the Southwest border. The $%135 million to fund that operation, the White House said, will come out of “existing resources’’ in both the Department of Defense and Homeland Security.

The details about the president’s budget request come just days before White House officials are scheduled to brief Gov. Jan Brewer on the president’s plans to improve border security. They are scheduled to meet with the governor this coming Monday.

But nothing in Obama’s letter to Congress provides specifics of where Obama intends to put those Guard soldiers, a detail Brewer also hopes to get on Monday.

The governor said the president told her during their June 3 face-to-face meeting that a “majority’’ of the troops would be placed in Arizona. So far, though, there has been no confirmation from the White House.

Obama, in his letter to Congress, is urging quick action on his funding proposal.

“This request responds to urgent and essential needs,’’ the president wrote. “Therefore I request these proposals be considered as emergency requirements.’’

How quickly Congress will act remains unclear.

Republicans, including Sen. John McCain, have been critical of the president’s plans, calling them too small a response to the situation.

McCain specifically said he wanted 6,000 National Guard soldiers, with half of them in Arizona. He also said Arizona alone needs 3,000 new Border Patrol agents.

In a prepared statement, McCain press aide Brooke Buchanan said Wednesday the announcement shows “it appears that the Obama Administration has finally realized that the border is not ‘secure’ as some Administration officials have stated.’’ He called the programs a good start but said they represent “only a fraction of what is needed to secure the border.’’

Homeland Security says there already are 20,000 Border Patrol agents, double the number in 2004. About 85 percent of these agents are on the Southwest Border.

Not all the money Obama wants would be going directly to Homeland Security.

The plan calls for $201 million for the U.S. Department of Justice to hire new agents for the Drug Enforcement Agency and provide them with equipment support. Those funds also would finance the hiring of new attorneys and immigration judges, as well as new jails to house “criminal aliens.’’

And some of the cash will benefit Mexico, at least indirectly, with the U.S. government providing support in the form of analyzing DNA and ballistics and providing technical assistance.

Obama’s first announcement of the additional soldiers and supplemental request came in the wake of passage of a new Arizona law which is designed to help crack down on illegal immigration. While the White House denied any direct link, even state Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat, said it “may have played a role’’ in the president’s decision.

“It shows how serious Arizona is taking this issue,’’ he said of the law.

That law, set to take effect July 29, mandates that when police officers stop anyone for any reason, they also must check their immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion’’ the person is not in this country legally. Illegal immigrants also could be charged with violating state trespass laws.

Five separate federal court lawsuits already have been filed challenging various provisions of the law.

Obama himself directed U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to review the law to determine its constitutionality and to sue if it infringes on the exclusive right of the federal government to control immigration policy. The agency says no decision has been made, though some news outlets say they have been told by anonymous sources the Department of Justice will sue.



Budget request:

$399 million for Department of Homeland Security:

- $297 million to hire 1,000 new Border Patrol agents;

- $52.5 million for 160 new ICE agents;

- $37 million for two new unmanned aerial detection systems;

- $6.5 million for 30 new CBP officers;

- $6 million for 20 new CBP canine teams;

- Reprioritize $100 million of existing resources to repair and replace fences.



$201 million for Department of Justice

- add seven ATF Gunrunner Teams, six FBI Hybrid Task Forces, additional DEA agents, equipment, and operational support;

- additional attorneys and immigration judges and additional detention and incarceration resources for criminal aliens;

- funding to support Mexican law enforcement operations with ballistic analysis, DNA analysis, information sharing, technical capabilities, and technical assistance."

"$297 million to hire 1,000 new Border Patrol agents"
"All that, the president said, is on top of his decision to put 1,200 National Guard troops along the Southwest border."
http://www.svherald.com/content/news/2010/06/24/obama-seeks-add-1000-border-patrol-ag ents

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


278 posted 07-02-2010 05:53 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     If you wish to control drug violence, John, I think it might be useful to address the drug laws, which are structured in such a way as to make drug violence more likely rather than less likely.  If drug prices were cheaper here than in Mexico, or roughly the same, then what sort of drug violence do you think would be going on?

     Tax and legalize, don't establish a police state.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


279 posted 07-03-2010 06:51 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:


"WASHINGTON – Hoping to breathe new life into the stalled immigration effort, President Barack Obama on Thursday blamed the delay on recalcitrant Republicans whom he said had given in to the "pressures of partisanship and election-year politics."

Republicans responded that Obama's first step going forward must be to secure the border.

Obama dismissed the focus on a "border security first" approach, saying the system is too big to be fixed "only with fences and border patrols." He advocated a comprehensive approach that would call on the government, businesses and illegal immigrants themselves to live up to their responsibilities within the law.




     In our earlier discussions on this matter, your position was that Arizona had passed this law because the Federal Government had failed to set limits; had failed, in effect, to set the kind of legal standards necessary to protect the country.  I'm not sure that I agreed with you entirely, but I did say that the Federal Government had not in fact set the standards needed.  This was the case under both Democratic and Republican administrations, in my opinion, including under the Bush administration and the Clinton Administration.

     Since the Reagan Administration had in fact offered what the Republicans now roundly condemn as an "Amnesty," though it was greeted with great rejoicing by the Republicans at the time (and the Democrats as well), I leave it to you to figure out how you want to deal with that policy, whether to say nasty things about President Reagan or admire him as a visionary or whatever.  I think he was a practical politician who understood "it's all politics" doesn't have to be a terrible dismissal.

     Of course you should understand the impossibilitry of securing the border with armed patrols, not unless you want to turn the country into an armed concentration camp.  The Right keeps saying it doesn't want this, yet keeps pushing for legislation that moves in that direction.  The notion of building a literal fence around the country seems like an excellent move in exactly that direction.  The notion of "securing our borders" seems like another.

     The methods of actually doing so, such as the various methods passed with The PATRIOT ACT and now worried about by the right wing as though they were the invention of our current President, are an example in point.  We now are left with a country in which Posse Comitatus has been set aside, and many on the right are worried that the President can order anybody to be detained without due process simply on his say-so.

     President Obama is at fault for not setting that piece of legislation aside or trying to organize its repeal, but is not responsible for its passage.

     We need measure that are considerably less than "fences and border patrols" to solve the problem, and for the Republicans to suggest that this sort of measure is necessary is to speed up the rush into a police state.  The Right keeps providing us with lists of phony enemies that require more and more draconian intrusions into our civil liberties to contain them.  The demands keep getting more and more strident.  The Irish, The Filthy Huns, The Red Menace, the Yellow Peril, Jihadis Among Us and now Illegal Aliens.  How many different ways can the Right find to spell "Hysteria" and to keep us from working together to get this country back on its feet?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


280 posted 07-03-2010 07:14 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Those "phony enemies" have made Phoenix the kidnapping capital of the country, second in the world to only (what a surprise), Mexico!

Would you mind pointing out where Republicans have created vendettas against Irish and Germans? I'm sure there must be if you say so, but I missed that part of my history class.

You don't try to fix the bucket while water is pouring in. You turn off the water first. You see, Bob, while the water is pouring in, it replaces the water you're trying to get rid of. This may sound self-explanatory but some don't seem to be able to grasp it.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


281 posted 07-04-2010 01:05 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"and illegal immigrants themselves to live up to their responsibilities within the law"


?


.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


282 posted 07-04-2010 01:27 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

LOL! Yes, that one jumped out at me, too, John. Great comedy...
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


283 posted 07-04-2010 04:43 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Are you misquoting me on purpose, Mike, or have you simply failed to read what I actually said.  

     Again, Mike.

     While in fact most of the hysteria I mentioned was advanced by Republicans, I ascribed it to "The Right Wing" because it gets fairly difficult to  make one to one comparisons between todays Republicans and the Republicans of World War One.  It is fairly clear, however, that the right wing of that time, was creating a lot of anti-German feeling ("The Huns"), some of it severe enough to cause many Germans in English-Speaking countries to change their last names.  Battenburg to Mountbatten, notably, in England for example.  The name of sauerkraut was changed in some households to Victory Cabbage.  I have a number of World War I posters that are fairly graphic, and many things and people of German heritage were widely unpopular, much of it stirred up by accounts in the yellow press, almost all of it right wing.

     You might check out world war one era accounts of The Palmer Trials, and the hysteria whipped up against immigrants in general, including the hysteria worked up against people with left-leaning politics with union sympathies or with socialist sympathies.  The Sacco and Vanzetti Trial comes to mind.  The Ford campaign against unions comes to mind, with its hiring of armed union busters.  Much of this stuff was thoroughly anti-union, anti-immigrant, anti-black, anti-semitic and anti-catholic right wing and populists stuff.  Much of it was supported by the Klan.

     It was almost all right wing.

     In some states, especially Northern States, a lot of this was Republican, but this was not the case in the South, where much of the Right Wing sentiment was Democratic, in part as a result of the political alliances from the civil war.  The Right Wing in the South was heavily Democratic until the late sixties, as you have actually pointed out a time or two and which I must agree, painfully, to be the truth insofar as I've been able to determine it.

     Anti-Irish sentiment has been right wing as well in this country for a hundred and fifty years.  In Boston, which is the area I am most personally familiar with, the anti-Irish sentiment was very much attached to the anti-immigration sentiment which threatened the grip that the upper classes had on the local power structure from mid-19th century on, and that power structure was predominantly Republican.  The history of Boston has been a history of immigration, as has, really, the history of the United States in general.

     The section that John and Mike found particularly risible in my piece was a quotation from Mike's piece.  I decided that I didn't want to poke fun at Mike's reasoning, possibly because I think that law enforcement depends in part on the cooperation of illegals in the enforcement of certain sorts of violations, such as, say, anything they happen to witness, the same way that law enforcement would depend on something  Mike or John or I might happen to witness.  

     Apparently Mike thinks it's good logic to make that cooperation almost impossibly more difficult by punishing somebody who might be otherwise willing to help.  

     To me this actually sounds like it makes the job of the police significantly more difficult, and I'd be surprised if many full time police officers would be thrilled at making their access to this source of information and testimony more difficult.  I do hope that all the amusement that John and Mike have shared about this hilarious piece of wit will be of lasting amusement to them.  

     Last I heard the business about Phoenix being the kidnapping capital of the United States wasn't true, but I'd be thrilled to see the FBI crime statistics that bear it out, should Mike find the time to dig them up.

    

    

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


284 posted 07-04-2010 06:07 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

“Those "phony enemies" have made Phoenix the kidnapping capital of the country, second in the world to only (what a surprise), Mexico!”

McCain Falsely Claims Phoenix Is 'Number-Two Kidnapping Capital of The World'

Huffington Post -
“Johnson said: "From our internal experience in the last year, Mexico by far has been the biggest location for kidnappings" followed by Honduras, Venezuela, Nigeria and the Philippines.”
...

He said Phoenix has been dealing with the issue for several years now, and the number of reported kidnappings have actually decreased since this story broke in 2009. There were 358 reported kidnappings in 2008 (10 fewer than reported by the LA Times, due to later reclassification of the crimes), 318 in 2009 and there were 105 from January through May 2010, he said, putting the city on track to sustain less than 300 this year.

Mindful that "spillover violence" from Mexico has become a politically-charged term in the U.S., Thompson said almost everyone who is kidnapped in Phoenix is involved in criminal activities such as illegal border crossings and the drug trade. "Unless you're involved in the dope trade, there's a very very slim chance" that you'll be kidnapped, he said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/mccain-falsely-claims-pho_n_627605.html
PolitiFact - “False”

But there's a hitch: None of the stories says how the kidnapping ranking was reached. Also, while all the stories specify the number of kidnappings that have occurred in Phoenix since 2008, none says how many kidnappings were reported in other cities.

We asked ABC to elaborate on its report, a request that didn't immediately yield supporting evidence when we first published this item two weeks ago. Meantime, we kept digging.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/jun/28/john-mccain/mccain-says-phoenix-second-kidnapping-capital-worl/

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


285 posted 07-04-2010 10:37 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

It is fairly clear, however, that the right wing of that time, was creating a lot of anti-German feeling ("The Huns"), some of it severe enough to cause many Germans in English-Speaking countries to change their last names.

"I have a number of World War I posters that are fairly graphic, and many things and people of German heritage were widely unpopular, much of it stirred up by accounts in the yellow press, almost all of it right wing." (Show me some of those right wing accounts in the yellow press, please)

"  Anti-Irish sentiment has been right wing as well in this country for a hundred and fifty years.  In Boston, which is the area I am most personally familiar with, the anti-Irish sentiment was very much attached to the anti-immigration sentiment which threatened the grip that the upper classes had on the local power structure from mid-19th century on, and that power structure was predominantly Republican. "  (prove it)

" I think that law enforcement depends in part on the cooperation of illegals in the enforcement of certain sorts of violations"

Bob, don;t look now but they are called illegals because they disregard and break the law. You want them to honor laws they intentionally break and expect them to do it? Really? That is your solution???? Why not just ask all criminals to turn over their handguns and solve the crime problem? By that way of reasoning, it should work.

You spew a ton of generalities, from WW1, to Victory cabbage to Irish immigration, to Sacco and Vicente, to beingagainst Germans while fighting gainst them....and you lay it all on the Right Wing, with no facts to back it up at all.........and you present that as evidence the right wing of today is evil. Not even a nice try..........
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


286 posted 07-04-2010 12:17 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
and illegal immigrants themselves to live up to their responsibilities within the law


So if the law is changed to allow a legal route to citizenship for the current illegal immigrants, a route that includes penalties and provisions that the illegal immigrants who say they want citizenship must live up to then they must accept their responsibilities to follow the lawful route.

It seems like a reasonable statement to me Bob.

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


287 posted 07-04-2010 01:14 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I'm all for that, Grinch. But seal the border first or we will just have an ongoing flood of illegal immigrants as before when Reagan issued amnesty but didn't do enough to seal the border.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


288 posted 07-04-2010 01:58 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
seal the border first


You can’t Denise, it’s an impossible task. Even if you build a 20 ft wall along the entire length of the border people will still get in if they really want to – ask the East and West Germans or the Egyptians and Palestinians.

You need a three-pronged solution to solve the illegal immigrant problem, sure securing the border is one of those prongs but that’ll only get you so far. Another prong is making it less appealing to cross the border in the first place by passing laws that make it almost impossible for non-citizens to get a job or a house or access to education and health care. Once you’ve sorted those two out and stemmed the flow of illegal immigrants you need to deal with the illegal immigrants that are already in the country. You could try to round them all up and kick them out or you could instigate a method for them to gain citizenship.

The most important prong in my opinion is the second, if you remove the things that are attracting the illegal immigrants you’ll dramatically reduce the numbers who want to make the trip. Stopping people who don't want to cross a border is a whole lot easier than stopping those that do.

  

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


289 posted 07-05-2010 10:34 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

quote:
Another prong is making it less appealing to cross the border in the first place by passing laws that make it almost impossible for non-citizens to get a job or a house or access to education and health care


Sounds sensible to me. But can't you already hear the outcry of the 'inhumanity' and the 'racism' that would accompany the attempted enforcement of such laws?

In fact we already have a law in place against hiring illegals. Every employer must have every employee complete an 'I-9' form that must remain on file in the event of an inspection. One has to be a U.S. Citizen of one sort or the other or a Resident Alien with a Green Card to legally work here. Too bad the feds never followed through on enforcement.

My city will become a Sanctuary City this week, joining the ranks of other misguided localities in giving safe harbor to illegals, criminal illegals, by ordering law enforcement to no longer cooperate with ICE in the sharing of its criminal database. You'd think living in one of the highest taxed localities in the country, the leadership would at least give the appearance of caring for the welfare and the quality of life of its own citizens over safeguarding illegal alien felons from deportation. I don't know what goes on in the brains of those who make such decisions. I can't even begin to fathom the justification. I guess now the illegals fleeing Arizona will make their way here and to other Sanctuary Cities, especially those bent on criminal activity.

Meanwhile, entreprenurial legal immigrants, like this, are being deported.
http://www.wgme.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wgme_vid_4186.shtml
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


290 posted 07-05-2010 01:45 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

passing laws that make it almost impossible for non-citizens to get a job or a house or access to education and health care

Right you are, Denise. Any laws that would make that impossible would involve checking and there would be legals being checked also...it would be inevitable. Of course, any plan that could involve legals being checked would have people screaming out in protest, wouldn't it? Can you spell ACLU?

Good luck living in your Sanctuary City.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


291 posted 07-05-2010 02:14 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Meanwhile, entreprenurial legal immigrants, like this, are being deported.


But they weren’t legal Denise, they were in breach of their visa conditions.

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


292 posted 07-05-2010 04:39 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Thanks Michael. I'm thinking of moving on once I am vested in my pension in a year and a half. I see only increased taxes and crime and a continual decrease in taxpayer funded city services (police, fire, EMS, & sanitation) in this liberal bastion.

They are here legally, Grinch; their 'E-2' visa was recently not renewed. And they are still here legally on a temporary tourist visa. In what sense are they here illegally?

quote:
That's because the "E-2" visa they'd legally had for years -- twice renewed with no problem-- was suddenly denied last year.The reason -- an immigration case worker in California reviewing their numbers declared their business "marginal," not profitable enough, even though they made enough to run the business, live virtually debt free and employ local people part-time.

They are now in the country on a temporary tourist visa, trying to wrap up their affairs and sell their properties -- while desperately hoping for an unexpected reprieve.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


293 posted 07-05-2010 05:27 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
In what sense are they here illegally?


I didn’t suggest they were in the US illegally Denise, I simply pointed out that they weren’t legal immigrants.

The visa that was issued to them allowed them to legally run a business and reside in the US as long as the visa conditions were met. Once the visa renewal was denied, due to a failure to meet the visa conditions, they could not legally run a business or reside in the US – at that point they were not legal immigrants - they were tourists.

By the way, they aren’t being deported either.

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


294 posted 07-05-2010 07:51 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Well that's good news, they aren't being deported afterall? They can stay here then?
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


295 posted 07-05-2010 08:39 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Pop Quiz #2

1. Which administration collected $3.69 million in fines from 890 companies in one year for employing undocumented workers?

2. Which administration levied no fines for an entire year for US companies hiring undocumented workers?

3. Which President provided funding for only 210 border agents when 2000 were required by law?


“Of course, any plan that could involve legals being checked would have people screaming out in protest, wouldn't it? Can you spell ACLU?”

I’m a legal and have had to provide a birth certificate and/or a State Photo ID every time I’ve applied for a job, housing, healthcare or registered for a college course. I’m not screaming or protesting about that. But should my state suddenly decide the police have the right/obligation whenever making a traffic stop to request proof of citizenship from those they suspected of being illegal Swedish immigrants because of their appearance, and to detain those legals until they prove citizenship, then yep, you’d hear me yelling. If a birther were the police officer, would they demand as they do from Obama , a long form birth certificate as proof of citizenship? I don’t have one, can’t get one, so would I be held forever?

Sanctuary City - Hopefully rather than being a haven for drug dealers, it will become the city with a heart, a true sanctuary for those who fear being separated from parents or children - illegals with infants or young children born in this country.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


296 posted 07-06-2010 02:32 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:



"  Anti-Irish sentiment has been right wing as well in this country for a hundred and fifty years.  In Boston, which is the area I am most personally familiar with, the anti-Irish sentiment was very much attached to the anti-immigration sentiment which threatened the grip that the upper classes had on the local power structure from mid-19th century on, and that power structure was predominantly Republican. "  (prove it)

[The parenthetical comment above is Mike's  imperative request for Bob to back up his comments, just prior, and included within quotation marks]




     I understand that American History is presented differently in different parts of the country.  I was shocked at how differently it was presented, for example, in Virginia than it was in Ohio or New York, so I can understand that you may not have gotten much the same information that I got growing up, and that you may not have read some of the same books I read over the years.  I've left off Howard Zinn as a reference more because I don't think you'd actually read him than because I think he doesn't have some fascinating stuff to say about American History.

     I did a bit of research on the interweb google thingy as we sophisticated computer people like to call it, and pulled up a few references which touch on some of the points I mentioned.  If you want me to dig out some more stuff on some more specific points, it shouldn't be all that difficult since I wasn't making any points that were really controversial, near as I could tell.

     The Know-Nothing party was the big nativist anti-immigrant party in the 1850's.  If you look at their anti-immigration and anti-immigrant stances, you have a fair amount in common with the same sort of nativist stances today.  The National Review Article ttries to get at the Boston Brahmin Republicanism and anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic stances.  These don't fit together the same way as they do today, but then I said that in my earlier comments, didn't I?

     If there's anything I said that you felt was unclear or not based on a pretty firm grasp of history, please let me know, and I'll try to respond to it as best I can.
http://www.ushistory.org/us/25f.asp

http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-why-the-irish-fought-for-the-union.htm/4

http://www.19thc-artworldwide.org/index.php/winter03/245-anti-catholicism-in-albert-bierstadts-roman-fish-market-arch-of-octavius

http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_know_nothing_party_in_1854_and_1856http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_know_nothing_party_in_1854_and_1856

http://www.academicamerican.com/expansioncw/topics/antebellum.html

http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2009-05/Immigration.html

http://article.nationalreview.com/388682/behind-the-lace-curtain/helen-rittelmeyer
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


297 posted 07-06-2010 02:59 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     People are not water.  You don't turn them off like a faucet.

     People are not, really, illegals.  People are people who commit illegal acts.  Simply because you spit on the sidewalk, doesn't make you guilty of any other crime somebody cares to accuse of you of.  Simply because you have broken the law by being in the country illegally does not mean that you have broken or will break laws about murder or rape or tax evasion or the like.

     Denise's language is particularly inflammatory.  "Illegal alien felons" may be a possible discriptor, but it only applies to those aliens who have been in fact convicted of a felony unless the constitution has been, as Denise apparently wishes it to be, suspended, and her personal judgement been substituted for the due process clauses of that much battered document.  I won't even trust my own judgement to be a good substitute for actual proof of guilt and its confirmation by appropriate legal authority.

      Denise, with her insistance on constitutional principles, should consider holding herself to them or saying why she isn't doing so.

     Not that she has to, but to avoid confusion.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


298 posted 07-06-2010 11:07 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Someone who is here illegally and then is convicted of a crime should definitely be deported, either after serving their time or in lieu of serving time here. The relatives of illegal alien felons have a choice if their loved ones are deported. They can go with the deported person in order to remain together, or stay here without them and be separated from them. It depends on which is more important to them, Jen.

There's nothing in the Constitution against 'inflammatory speech', Bob, in fact, just the opposite. It protects you from silencing me and me from silencing you, which is the whole idea of protected speech. Everyone has their own idea of what is considered inflammatory.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


299 posted 07-06-2010 01:28 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

“They can go with the deported person in order to remain together, or stay here without them and be separated from them.”

I’m afraid it’s really not quite that simple but pretending it is, what do you think most would do, what would you like to see them do - deprive their children, legal American citizens, of the chance for a better future, force them to renounce their American citizenship, return them to an almost certain lifetime of poverty and deprivation? And why is it so many forget their own roots and show so little compassion for those who believed the words on Lady Liberty, risked their very lives to come to this country in order to give their children a chance for a better future just as many of their/my own ancestors did. Indeed, round up the criminals, use the police for fighting crime rather than intimidating all Hispanics in Arizona when statistics show most of them are in the country legally.

Are you in favor of the proposed legislation that would deny citizenship, birth certificates to children born of illegals in Arizona?

No, there’s nothing in the Constitution that prevents inflammatory speech, but painting all Hispanics with the “illegal alien felon” brush seems rather dishonest and intentionally derogatory.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Still think the Republican led AZ legisl   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors