If you tolerate this Orwellian crap, don't be surprised when you're next...

[PoliticalChic]

I have no problem proving I am a citizen. I do it every time I go to the airport. I prove it every time I travel to another country. The only people this worries are those who are here illegally. They should be worried.

Brother, you and I generally agree, but here we must part.

I fully understand the view of Arizona, and the suffering that is involved.
But this is not a state issue.

" Few powers are more clearly enumerated in the Constitution as belonging to the federal government than that which, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, is granted to Congress as the power to establish “an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This has long been interpreted by the courts as removing from the states the authority to deal with naturalization at all and as leaving the matter solely to the federal government. “That the power of naturalization is exclusively in Congress does not seem to be, and certainly ought not to be, controverted,” is how one chief justice of the United States, John Marshall himself, put it in 1817 in deciding a case called Chirac v. Chirac."
Arizona’s Challenge - April 25, 2010 - The New York Sun


Neither Democrats nor Republicans want to solve this problem.

I suggest an ad hoc group that will determine which federal officials are most directly in charge of protecting the borders, by name, and filing a writ of mandamus .

A writ of mandamus or mandamus (which means "we command" in Latin), or sometimes mandate, is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the common law, and is "issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_Mandamus


Outside of this, we are doing damage to our principles and our nation.

 

[nraforlife]

Do you really think their are no legal latinos in the us?

If they side with the illegals piss on 'em.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I have no worries seeing I was born here, lived here my whole life and dont purposely break the laws of this country.

Wonder why you weren't whining and crying about this when millions of illegals were showing up at hospitals to be seen at our ER's and said nothing when Americans had to foot the bills? I bet you were nowhere to be seen when million of drugs are carried into this country poisoning your fellow American by illegals causing American police depts to spend millions of American tax dollars trying to police this scum? Where were you when illegals murder and rape you fellow American?

But now you are going to whine and cry when Americans try to put a stop of illegals killing, drugging, stealing and wasting billions of American tax dollars?

Typical.

The OP make a few good points, but then It goes on to wingnut lunacy with blaming the drug problem on the suppliers.

what ever happened to the right wing lunatics screaming about people being held responsible for their own actions?

 

[momonkey]

I have no worries seeing I was born here, lived here my whole life and dont purposely break the laws of this country.

Wonder why you weren't whining and crying about this when millions of illegals were showing up at hospitals to be seen at our ER's and said nothing when Americans had to foot the bills? I bet you were nowhere to be seen when million of drugs are carried into this country poisoning your fellow American by illegals causing American police depts to spend millions of American tax dollars trying to police this scum? Where were you when illegals murder and rape you fellow American?

But now you are going to whine and cry when Americans try to put a stop of illegals killing, drugging, stealing and wasting billions of American tax dollars?

Typical.

1. lol@you supporting the drug war.

2. lol@your presumptions about what I do and don't care about.

3. lol@your inability to realize that this is one more step towards a police state.

I just can't wait for you to explain how enforcing existing laws that prevent foreigners entering the US illegally in any way moves us closer to a police state.

 

[WillowTree]

I have no problem proving I am a citizen. I do it every time I go to the airport. I prove it every time I travel to another country. The only people this worries are those who are here illegally. They should be worried.

Brother, you and I generally agree, but here we must part.

I fully understand the view of Arizona, and the suffering that is involved.
But this is not a state issue.DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE US GOVERNMENT COLLECTS TAXES FROM THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA AND STEADFASTLY FAILS AND REFUSES TO TAKE MEASURES TO GUARANTEE THE SAFTEY OF ARIZONIANS FROM THREATS FORGEIGN AND DOMESTIC IT HAS NOW BECOME A STATE ISSUE.. THANK YOU.

" Few powers are more clearly enumerated in the Constitution as belonging to the federal government than that which, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, is granted to Congress as the power to establish “an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This has long been interpreted by the courts as removing from the states the authority to deal with naturalization at all and as leaving the matter solely to the federal government. “That the power of naturalization is exclusively in Congress does not seem to be, and certainly ought not to be, controverted,” is how one chief justice of the United States, John Marshall himself, put it in 1817 in deciding a case called Chirac v. Chirac."
Arizona’s Challenge - April 25, 2010 - The New York Sun


Neither Democrats nor Republicans want to solve this problem.

I suggest an ad hoc group that will determine which federal officials are most directly in charge of protecting the borders, by name, and filing a writ of mandamus .

A writ of mandamus or mandamus (which means "we command" in Latin), or sometimes mandate, is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the common law, and is "issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_Mandamus


Outside of this, we are doing damage to our principles and our nation.

.

 

[The T]

This is what some just cannot see, they are so stuck on making this a Latino thing they cannot see the forest for the giant redwoods.

Let me quote you again: I hope that is clear enough.

And, ironically, isn't it rather racist of them to assume that all illegal aliens are latino?

It certainly IS, they stepped on their own "PP" and didn't even know it.

yeah...but this isn't the "Family Channel" Just say that these idiots stepped on their own DICKS...and be done with it.

 

[The T]

Do you really think their are no legal latinos in the us?

who said that?

Here in Apache County, AZ, we are so racist that we elected a man of both hispanic and Navajo descent as our sherriff.

He is just waiting for his chance to harrass latinos in the county.

Apache County Arizona - Website

What a Novel idea in the sites header: "Serving and Protecting the CITIZENS of Apache County"...

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have no problem proving I am a citizen. I do it every time I go to the airport. I prove it every time I travel to another country. The only people this worries are those who are here illegally. They should be worried.

Brother, you and I generally agree, but here we must part.

I fully understand the view of Arizona, and the suffering that is involved.
But this is not a state issue.DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE US GOVERNMENT COLLECTS TAXES FROM THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA AND STEADFASTLY FAILS AND REFUSES TO TAKE MEASURES TO GUARANTEE THE SAFTEY OF ARIZONIANS FROM THREATS FORGEIGN AND DOMESTIC IT HAS NOW BECOME A STATE ISSUE.. THANK YOU.

" Few powers are more clearly enumerated in the Constitution as belonging to the federal government than that which, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, is granted to Congress as the power to establish “an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This has long been interpreted by the courts as removing from the states the authority to deal with naturalization at all and as leaving the matter solely to the federal government. “That the power of naturalization is exclusively in Congress does not seem to be, and certainly ought not to be, controverted,” is how one chief justice of the United States, John Marshall himself, put it in 1817 in deciding a case called Chirac v. Chirac."
Arizona’s Challenge - April 25, 2010 - The New York Sun


Neither Democrats nor Republicans want to solve this problem.

I suggest an ad hoc group that will determine which federal officials are most directly in charge of protecting the borders, by name, and filing a writ of mandamus .

A writ of mandamus or mandamus (which means "we command" in Latin), or sometimes mandate, is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the common law, and is "issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_Mandamus


Outside of this, we are doing damage to our principles and our nation.

.

In the words of the great Yogi, it's difficult to predict, especially about the future.

But I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that the Supreme Court finds that the feds powers are predominant here.

 

[The T]

How does a cop know to stop a wetback and not a mexican-american with an accent?

Can we dispense with the 'Wetback' moniker? ANY citizen who is stopped is chacked out for a myriad of things during the stop...or haven't you watched COPS? (And that includes their passengers)...

But then this would assume a traffic stop wouldn't it?

Back to the emboldened? "I'll take what was "Operation WETBACK" of 1954 Alex."

It's an ugly term as used currently...but doesn't describe ALL illegals in this country.

And nevermind that the term was first used in the 1920's by the NY TIMES in 1920.

And 1942-1947: "The United States, Mexico and the Wetback, 1942-1947"

A paper written to describe exactly what is STILL happening NOW.

_________________

Some of you are gonna have to come to grips with the fact that there are still old problems that resurface. And if you're counting on the FED to do anything meaningful? Keep waiting.

Oh, and that paper described : "perhaps the greatest peacetime invasion ever complacently suffered by any country under open, flagarent, and contemptuous violation of it's laws..."

But yet? here we are still.

 

[WillowTree]

Brother, you and I generally agree, but here we must part.

I fully understand the view of Arizona, and the suffering that is involved.
But this is not a state issue.DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE US GOVERNMENT COLLECTS TAXES FROM THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA AND STEADFASTLY FAILS AND REFUSES TO TAKE MEASURES TO GUARANTEE THE SAFTEY OF ARIZONIANS FROM THREATS FORGEIGN AND DOMESTIC IT HAS NOW BECOME A STATE ISSUE.. THANK YOU.

" Few powers are more clearly enumerated in the Constitution as belonging to the federal government than that which, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, is granted to Congress as the power to establish “an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This has long been interpreted by the courts as removing from the states the authority to deal with naturalization at all and as leaving the matter solely to the federal government. “That the power of naturalization is exclusively in Congress does not seem to be, and certainly ought not to be, controverted,” is how one chief justice of the United States, John Marshall himself, put it in 1817 in deciding a case called Chirac v. Chirac."
Arizona’s Challenge - April 25, 2010 - The New York Sun


Neither Democrats nor Republicans want to solve this problem.

I suggest an ad hoc group that will determine which federal officials are most directly in charge of protecting the borders, by name, and filing a writ of mandamus .

A writ of mandamus or mandamus (which means "we command" in Latin), or sometimes mandate, is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the common law, and is "issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_Mandamus


Outside of this, we are doing damage to our principles and our nation.

.

In the words of the great Yogi, it's difficult to predict, especially about the future.

But I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that the Supreme Court finds that the feds powers are predominant here.

Probably will, but not before the 76 percent of AMericans who have no use for the government rises to 99%

 

[The T]

Brother, you and I generally agree, but here we must part.

I fully understand the view of Arizona, and the suffering that is involved.
But this is not a state issue.DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE US GOVERNMENT COLLECTS TAXES FROM THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA AND STEADFASTLY FAILS AND REFUSES TO TAKE MEASURES TO GUARANTEE THE SAFTEY OF ARIZONIANS FROM THREATS FORGEIGN AND DOMESTIC IT HAS NOW BECOME A STATE ISSUE.. THANK YOU.

" Few powers are more clearly enumerated in the Constitution as belonging to the federal government than that which, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, is granted to Congress as the power to establish “an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This has long been interpreted by the courts as removing from the states the authority to deal with naturalization at all and as leaving the matter solely to the federal government. “That the power of naturalization is exclusively in Congress does not seem to be, and certainly ought not to be, controverted,” is how one chief justice of the United States, John Marshall himself, put it in 1817 in deciding a case called Chirac v. Chirac."
Arizona’s Challenge - April 25, 2010 - The New York Sun


Neither Democrats nor Republicans want to solve this problem.

[As long as it garners them votes? WHY should they care...? ~T]

I suggest an ad hoc group that will determine which federal officials are most directly in charge of protecting the borders, by name, and filing a writ of mandamus .

A writ of mandamus or mandamus (which means "we command" in Latin), or sometimes mandate, is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the common law, and is "issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_Mandamus


Outside of this, we are doing damage to our principles and our nation.

.

In the words of the great Yogi, it's difficult to predict, especially about the future.

But I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that the Supreme Court finds that the feds powers are predominant here.

However should such a decision arise? Would it then prompt the Federal Government to enforce the laws already on the books?

In my own pessimistic sense on this? I think not. it's business as usual.

 

[Zander]

I have no problem proving I am a citizen. I do it every time I go to the airport. I prove it every time I travel to another country. The only people this worries are those who are here illegally. They should be worried.

Brother, you and I generally agree, but here we must part.

I fully understand the view of Arizona, and the suffering that is involved.
But this is not a state issue.

" Few powers are more clearly enumerated in the Constitution as belonging to the federal government than that which, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, is granted to Congress as the power to establish “an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This has long been interpreted by the courts as removing from the states the authority to deal with naturalization at all and as leaving the matter solely to the federal government. “That the power of naturalization is exclusively in Congress does not seem to be, and certainly ought not to be, controverted,” is how one chief justice of the United States, John Marshall himself, put it in 1817 in deciding a case called Chirac v. Chirac."
Arizona’s Challenge - April 25, 2010 - The New York Sun


Neither Democrats nor Republicans want to solve this problem.

I suggest an ad hoc group that will determine which federal officials are most directly in charge of protecting the borders, by name, and filing a writ of mandamus .

A writ of mandamus or mandamus (which means "we command" in Latin), or sometimes mandate, is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the common law, and is "issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_Mandamus


Outside of this, we are doing damage to our principles and our nation.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

The way I see it, our "principles" are based upon the rule of LAW. Illegal immigration is a violation of LAW, failure to enforce the laws of the land is doing far more damage to our country than enforcing them. It sends a message that we don't take our laws seriously.

When the Federal government refuses to act, the States are compelled to take matters into their own hands to a certain extent. In this case, there are an estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 illegal aliens in the state of Arizona (with a total population of approx 6 million). These people violated the law by entering our country illegally. They are by definition- CRIMINALS. The state of Arizona is rounding up these criminals and sending them to prison or deporting them to their country of origin. It is about time somebody does it.

We can either enforce the law or we can change the law. Ignoring it will not work.

 

[Cecilie1200]

70% of Arizona Voters Favor New State Measure Cracking Down On Illegal Immigration - Rasmussen Reports

Just saw this poll. Over 70% of the people of AZ approve of cracking down on illegals. Anyone that has been to AZ knows the population is majority Latino.

According to the US Census Bureau, only about 30% of Arizona's population identifies as Hispanic/Latino. Of course, that doesn't even begin to cover the illegal population, which doesn't respond to the census.

For the record, I don't think that breakdown means the 30% that are Hispanic disapprove of this law, and the 70% who aren't Hispanic like it. I'd say a good portion of the 30% who don't like it are actually liberals suffering "white guilt", and I know a lot of Mexican-Americans who are quite hostile toward illegal immigration.

 

[Cecilie1200]

......A Latino citizen won't be able to go for a morning jog without identification, for fear of being harassed or arrested. That's injustice.

sure they will.....

With this new law a police officer can stop anyone at anytime if they look like they could be an illegal. Sure you can say that 'this isn't a big deal its not lot cops will stop every Latino person they see'.. but we all know that if you give people the power to do it, they will. So they legally have the right to stop me on a morning jog and I have to legally prove that I'm not an illlegal alien. Its institutionalized racial profiling.

Show me the place in the law that says, "Stop people for how they look." I'd like to see it.

They do NOT legally have the right to just stop you on your morning job. There's this little thing sane people like to call "probable cause", which IS still required under this law.

They have medications on the market for rampant paranoia. Look into it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

People seem to be ignoring IT ALREADY HAPPENED IN ARIZONA

Maybe because you and the OP are the only people here stupid enough to believe "If it's on Youtube, it MUST be true."

 

[Cecilie1200]

There's a difference between a traffic stop and shopping at the mall. ace. Do you think its right if a cop stopped you while you were at the grocery store and said 'show me your ID'?

no, but i'd still show my ID. do you seriously expect me to believe that that's going to happen? get a grip.

personally, i think it's bad law. i expect it to get struck down eventually, but i don't think that it's the end of the world, either.

it's called being rational.

Considering how cities all over the U.S. are suffering severe budget crises and threatening to cut police forces, it's highly unlikely that the remaining police will harass law-abiding citizens standing in line at grocery stores. Instead, they'll be on a jihad to issue parking and speeding tickets to fund city coffers.

The city of Tucson currently averages one police officer for every 800 residents. (Many of those police officers also happen to be Hispanic themselves.) We have abandoned the policy of having two cops in a police car because we just don't have enough officers. I somehow seriously doubt they have a lot of idle time - or inclination - to diddle around, harassing innocuous Mexicans for the hell of it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have no worries seeing I was born here, lived here my whole life and dont purposely break the laws of this country.

Wonder why you weren't whining and crying about this when millions of illegals were showing up at hospitals to be seen at our ER's and said nothing when Americans had to foot the bills? I bet you were nowhere to be seen when million of drugs are carried into this country poisoning your fellow American by illegals causing American police depts to spend millions of American tax dollars trying to police this scum? Where were you when illegals murder and rape you fellow American?

But now you are going to whine and cry when Americans try to put a stop of illegals killing, drugging, stealing and wasting billions of American tax dollars?

Typical.

If there weren't so many good and law abiding citizens doing the drugs then the illegals wouldn't have a reason to bring them here. Wake the fuck up out of your Nationalistic daydreaming.

Curve, King of the Idiotic Oxymorons, strikes again.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you walk your dog without proof of residence, and an officer stops you, its a misdemeanor. Regardless of citizenship status. How is that not ridiculous?

Have you even read the law, or are you just spewing hysterical tripe from the DailyKos? If you are here legally, carry your wallet. If not, be prepared to be deported. What's so hard about that?

Yes I read the law, did I say something that isn't true? The problem is that it is only aimed at Latinos. That's why its racial profiling. It just seems a little bit 'Nuremberg' to me.

Aimed only at Latinos? Show me where THAT is in the law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I understand legally it's 'aimed at illegal immigrants from any country'. But the law gives officers the right to demand proof of residency from anyone they consider to be a possible illegal alien. If you think that it will affect Latinos and Whites equally, in a state like Arizona, then you're kidding yourself. If this was a law in Maine, it'd be a very different story.

And is it OUR fault that the majority of illegals coming across the MEXICAN border are MEXICAN? Are we supposed to stop enforcing immigration laws until the smucking immigrants start invading in more balanced racial numbers? Or should we impose some sort of quota system? "You can bust 1,000 Mexican illegals this week, but no more until you've busted at least that many illegals of other colors."

 

[momonkey]

I have no problem proving I am a citizen. I do it every time I go to the airport. I prove it every time I travel to another country. The only people this worries are those who are here illegally. They should be worried.

And right below that you quote TJ on injustice? Interesting. You won't have to carry papers with you everywhere that you go, assuming that you're white. A Latino citizen won't be able to go for a morning jog without identification, for fear of being harassed or arrested. That's injustice.

WRONG!

When a restaurant I was working at was raided by immigration in 1991, I was told I had to produce valid ID our join the eight illegals already in hand cuffs. Being white doesn't mean you get a pass.