Wish all States Were Like Arizona

Sarahnn · Post by **Sarahnn** » Sat May 01, 2010 1:52 pm

jeremyboycool wrote:
"Sometimes when you say something that is misleading and gives the wrong impression a little back peddling is in order."

What you said was just awful, not "misleading".

I don't think you are racist, Sarahnn, but I think you like to stir things up and that is why you say things like that. My guess, is that you do it for attention, shock value and because you like to argue. Whether it is conscious or subconscious I don't know but you flip-flop on topics so readily that it is clear you have no interest in a fruitful discussion.

Well, you are wrong. But, when one has passionate views among judgemental people, they will always think the worse.

These arizona laws arent about the average border runner who seeks U.S. dollars to send back to Mexico. It is about the death and destruction caused by the violation of our borders.

I can't change the facts. I want all aliens here to enter our great country legally. I don't care who they are, I care about the ones that are already here regardless of our ethniticity who try to obey the laws. These border violations have to stop and the border states have a right to protect themselves. Take it or leave it. Everyone has to choices to make.

Sarahnn · Post by **Sarahnn** » Sat May 01, 2010 2:09 pm

TonyT wrote:Common American history texts are riddled with false data and propoganda. Even college history texts omit a lot of truth. Economic opportunity is what sparked the massive immigration to the US in the 1800's and early 1900's.

The idea of America becoming populated by people seeking freedom from tyranny and oppression has been the primary concept of history texts so as to further US political goals by making is appear that everywhere else in the world people are oppressed.

This is not true. There are millions of first-hand accounts of people who came to these shores. There are just as many reasons why immigrants came to our shores. I don't think you'll find any immigrant saying that they did not come here for economic opportunity. The Irish came because of the potatoe famine. People from certain ethnic, political and religions came because their economic wealth was taken from them, because of persecution. The making of America was founded on a belief that economic prosperity could not only be gained but "held onto" because of our system of government.

While this concept has some truth, the vast majority of people who came to the US did not come here seeking freedom from tyranny.

There are all kinds of tyranny. I wasn't referring simply to dictatorships or royalty. I was also speaking of government systems in which the people did not have a clear voice.

Even those who came here in the 1700's later had to revolt because those same tyrannies existed here in the new land.

The tyranny came from Britain, not here.

The US is partly responsible for having created this immigration issue. And who exactly IS the US? Why its thee and me of course!

The U.S. is partly responsible for all its successes and failures like every other country in the world, including Mexico.

One thing I have not been able to understand is why we don't just give the Mexicans who come here to do an honest days' work "green" cards so they can go back and forth between here and Mexico. It seems to me it would enable us to focus on the illegals who are involved with the illegal drug trade. In fact, let the companies that hire them provide the I.D. s

Also, amnesty should be extended immediately for those who came to the U.S. legally and let their visa's expire.

David · Post by **David** » Sat May 01, 2010 2:22 pm

The beauty of the forum milieu, discussions have a paper trail. I again re-read the first page of this thread.... wow.

Shinobi · Post by **Shinobi** » Sat May 01, 2010 2:30 pm

Ok.. I'm trying to understand this whole debate..

You have groups of people that are in this country living here 24/7 "or" living here, and just going back and forth to their own native countries.

Is that against U.S law, Yes or No? I think the answer is yes.

So if the answer to the my question above is yes, then this state law that Arizona past is a result of those people living in this country illegally. But some people have a issue with this law, because it puts the government into a position of bypassing privacy of the general public? And also profiling of certain groups of people?

Did I get all of that correct?

The_Informer · Post by **The_Informer** » Sat May 01, 2010 2:38 pm

Laws such as this( must show ID on demand)- must be in place, before the national ID card (Healthcare card with the barcode and RFID chip), can be issued and implemented.

What you are seeing now is called the formula of-

1)Problem
2)Reaction
3)Solution

And everyone plays right into the controllers hands.

Mutch · Post by **Mutch** » Sat May 01, 2010 2:42 pm

lol. You are calling me judgemental? You lumped all immigrants into being drug deals or criminals.

"Some cops are pigs" Granted, some lawyers are pigs, some fire fighters are pigs, some paramedics are pigs..

You must realise that youre calling cops pigs for abusing their authority? lol.

Btw, dont drive over the center line, yea the cop should have pulled you over, and yea you should have been given a warning. Learn to drive, learn to argue too because you are terrible at it.

Youre are going to be the first person I have ever had to put on my ignore list at this site as you are just intolerable, you beleive everything you say is the truth, you remind me of a fanatical religious woman, who is trying to spew garbage onto others, then justifying why its right.

Sarahnn · Post by **Sarahnn** » Sat May 01, 2010 2:58 pm

Mutch wrote:lol. You are calling me judgemental? You lumped all immigrants into being drug deals or criminals.

"Some cops are pigs" Granted, some lawyers are pigs, some fire fighters are pigs, some paramedics are pigs..

You must realise that youre calling cops pigs for abusing their authority? lol.

Btw, dont drive over the center line, yea the cop should have pulled you over, and yea you should have been given a warning. Learn to drive, learn to argue too because you are terrible at it.

Youre are going to be the first person I have ever had to put on my ignore list at this site as you are just intolerable, you beleive everything you say is the truth, you remind me of a fanatical religious woman, who is trying to spew garbage onto others, then justifying why its right.

I might have been too harsh on the cop. He might have just meant it would be a good idea to go inside without actually ordering the two men to do it.

I think I was in a bad mood yesterday. I was pretty tough on everyone.

But I do believe it should be up to the discretion of the cop ask for an ID.

terrancelam · Post by **terrancelam** » Sun May 02, 2010 11:08 am

JC wrote:More great news about the wonderful peaceful loving illegals.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/30/ar ... ot-desert/

I hate to drag this up again but....

Seriously, your going to cite Fox "news" as a valid source of information?
How can you not see the biased nature of all their reports? You might as well tell us about how Glenn Beck is a great reporter and isn't biased in any way.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sun May 02, 2010 11:22 am

Fox News isn't a news site, it's an opinion site. That's why they have been able to get away with their "reporting" in a legal sense.

Sarahnn · Post by **Sarahnn** » Sun May 02, 2010 11:50 am

JawZ wrote:Fox News isn't a news site, it's an opinion site. That's why they have been able to get away with their "reporting" in a legal sense.

I think Fox is both, but a smart consumer has to be discerning about when Fox or CNN stray over to slanted news.

If you think about it, our traditional newspapers weren't (notably) slanted and it was the editorial piece that was acceptably biased.

SlyOneDoofy · Post by **SlyOneDoofy** » Sun May 02, 2010 12:35 pm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &q=number#

Interesting video.

Not sure how accurate the numbers are but if it's anywhere close to the truth you can see that we can't substain this influx of immigritants into our country and provide the infastructure to support our country.

Something needs to be done and relatively soon.

Arizona is the first step in correcting this illegal and legal immigration problem.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sun May 02, 2010 1:23 pm

SlyOneDoofy wrote:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &q=number#

Interesting video.

Not sure how accurate the numbers are but if it's anywhere close to the truth you can see that we can't substain this influx of immigritants into our country and provide the infastructure to support our country.

Something needs to be done and relatively soon.

Arizona is the first step in correcting this illegal and legal immigration problem.

World population needs to come under control first. The answer is quite simple. Educate women. When women get educated, they realize that they want to get s h i t done and they wind up having less children.

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/what-st ... on-growth/

Hans is pretty much a God of statistics and a frequent speaker on TED.

JC · Post by JC » Sun May 02, 2010 2:29 pm

terrancelam wrote:I hate to drag this up again but....

Seriously, your going to cite Fox "news" as a valid source of information?
How can you not see the biased nature of all their reports? You might as well tell us about how Glenn Beck is a great reporter and isn't biased in any way.

Is this better.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100501/ap_ ... ty_shot_16

Xpunge · Post by **Xpunge** » Sun May 02, 2010 3:13 pm

terrancelam wrote:I hate to drag this up again but....

Seriously, your going to cite Fox "news" as a valid source of information?
How can you not see the biased nature of all their reports? You might as well tell us about how Glenn Beck is a great reporter and isn't biased in any way.

Like fiegned vapors, the indignation of having to read from a fox linked news story is oh so upsetting! how do you and yours survive ?

May be a Huffypuffpo linked article with the exact same info will unbunch the panties.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/0 ... 59655.html

Dear god like google doesnt have a thousand versions for those with weak sensibilities to chose from!

Time to grow alittle.

Humboldt · Post by **Humboldt** » Sun May 02, 2010 3:32 pm

Xpunge wrote:Like fiegned vapors, the indignation of having to read from a fox linked news story is oh so upsetting! how do you and yours survive ?

May be a Huffypuffpo linked article with the exact same info will unbunch the panties.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/0 ... 59655.html

Dear god like google doesnt have a thousand versions for those with weak sensibilities to chose from!

Time to grow alittle.

Your mouth is running.

The_Informer · Post by **The_Informer** » Sun May 02, 2010 4:09 pm

The_Informer wrote:Laws such as this( must show ID on demand)- must be in place, before the national ID card (Healthcare card with the barcode and RFID chip), can be issued and implemented.

What you are seeing now is called the formula of-

1)Problem
2)Reaction
3)Solution

And everyone plays right into the controllers hands.

Dems spark alarm with call for national ID card

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/9523 ... al-id-card

Prey521 · Post by **Prey521** » Sun May 02, 2010 7:38 pm

terrancelam wrote:I hate to drag this up again but....

Seriously, your going to cite Fox "news" as a valid source of information?
How can you not see the biased nature of all their reports? You might as well tell us about how Glenn Beck is a great reporter and isn't biased in any way.

Like most of the other news posted on their site, and most other news sites, it's an AP story, so Fox has nothing to do with its contents.

SlyOneDoofy · Post by **SlyOneDoofy** » Mon May 03, 2010 12:57 am

JawZ wrote:World population needs to come under control first. The answer is quite simple. Educate women. When women get educated, they realize that they want to get s h i t done and they wind up having less children.

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/what-st ... on-growth/

Hans is pretty much a God of statistics and a frequent speaker on TED.

I wopnder if those statistics include the fact that approximately 35.9% of China's population is currently subject to the one-child restriction. What will happen if that is lifted?

It also paints a pretty picture and ignores the struggles that developed countries face when immigrants move into a country that have already low birth rates.

It ignores the possiblility that our government and our way of life may be ruined during this timeline.

The way to solve the problem is to improve the countries they live in...not let them move here.

Miggs · Post by **Miggs** » Mon May 03, 2010 7:01 am

The one thing I love about Fox News is that they are honest, anyways, who wants to listen to the likes of kAtie cOuric sucking up to the messiah, not me.

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Mon May 03, 2010 9:22 am

Miggs wrote:The one thing I love about Fox News is that they are honest, anyways, who wants to listen to the likes of kAtie cOuric sucking up to the messiah, not me.

Honesty is in the voter registration card of the beholder...

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Mon May 03, 2010 9:29 am

SlyOneDoofy wrote:I wopnder if those statistics include the fact that approximately 35.9% of China's population is currently subject to the one-child restriction. What will happen if that is lifted?

It also paints a pretty picture and ignores the struggles that developed countries face when immigrants move into a country that have already low birth rates.

It ignores the possiblility that our government and our way of life may be ruined during this timeline.

The way to solve the problem is to improve the countries they live in...not let them move here.

It doesn't ignore anything. Again, you have to nip the problem in the bud. Your solution is unrealistic. How do we make "improvements"? That's an ambiguous statement. The solution that Hans comes up with is not only targeted, but also REALISTIC. It's really simple, educate women...change the world.

Sarahnn · Post by **Sarahnn** » Mon May 03, 2010 9:30 am

JawZ wrote:It doesn't ignore anything. Again, you have to nip the problem in the bud. Your solution is unrealistic. How do we make "improvements"? That's an ambiguous statement. The solution that Hans comes up with is not only targeted, but also REALISTIC. It's really simple, educate women...change the world.

What kind of education we talking about for women? And what women?

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Mon May 03, 2010 12:22 pm

So what is the criteria for "reasonable suspicion"? They can't simply stop someone for being Hispanic, that would be discrimination. I mean are they gonna stop little old white bread grandma and ask for her papers? Or just young Hispanics, who they magically determine are up to no good?

mnosteele52 · Post by **mnosteele52** » Mon May 03, 2010 4:29 pm

jeremyboycool wrote:So what is the criteria for "reasonable suspicion"? They can't simply stop someone for being Hispanic, that would be discrimination. I mean are they gonna stop little old white bread grandma and ask for her papers? Or just young Hispanics, who they magically determine are up to no good?

The law explicitly states that an officer cannot stop someone based solely on the basis of suspicion. They have to already be accused/investigated for another crime first i.e. speeding down the freeway at 90mph, then pulled over and the officer suspects they are illegal based upon suspicions such as 10 people in the car etc. It's also already federal law for an immigrant from any country to have the proper papers/identification on them proving they are a legal U.S. citizen.

Qwijib0 · Post by **Qwijib0** » Tue May 04, 2010 8:01 pm

**** this state. This law is complete and utter bullshit-- All the Tea Partiers up in arms over "big goverment" and "the destruction of the constitution" yet most of them, and this state, favor the biggest infringement on unreasonable searches and seizures ever.

This law is a sham, written by a state representative with roots in the neo-nazi movement and a think tank dedicated to the preservation of the white race with eugenics.

Arizona's economy is dependent on immigrants, whether legal or not, and this is just going to dig that hole in the budget we have even further, through requiring this unfunded mandate to city and county police departments to enforce, and the risk of lawsuits should they not enforce it.

This state already had laws against employing illegals my requiring use of the fed e-verify system-- the only possible employers this will affect are those who hire day labor. Like it or not, that underpaid job aint going to be perfomed by a legal citizen to can demand minimum wage.

And this will bring nothing but ill will to the state-- we're losing conventions left and right, and possibly the all star game and the GOP convention. That is a net loss of income for the state, period.

There needs to be immigration reform, with a simple process to get a guest worker card and a path to citizenship with a stable job, clean record and passing citizenship tests including a basic grasp of english.

This Law, however, has no upside.

In conclusion,
**** this state.

Qwijib0 · Post by **Qwijib0** » Tue May 04, 2010 8:03 pm

Miggs wrote:The one thing I love about Fox News is that they are honest, anyways, who wants to listen to the likes of kAtie cOuric sucking up to the messiah, not me.

hahahahahahaahahhhaa

oh my God, you are so blind.

Qwijib0 · Post by **Qwijib0** » Tue May 04, 2010 8:04 pm

JC wrote:More great news about the wonderful peaceful loving illegals.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/30/ar ... ot-desert/

More great news about those great white citizens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

Humboldt · Post by **Humboldt** » Tue May 04, 2010 10:52 pm

Qwijib0 wrote:hahahahahahaahahhhaa

oh my God, you are so blind.

One of the latest SG additions, you can almost hear the collective speedguide IQ drop with each post of his

Prey521 · Post by **Prey521** » Wed May 05, 2010 12:10 am

Qwijib0 wrote:More great news about those great white citizens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

Exactly, this country has enough problems with the wackos that are legally here. Why should we have to worry about people that don't belong here committing crimes? The only problem I have with this law is that it wasn't written in conjunction with a fence/wall building Bill for the border to keep them out. All of these border States should adopt similar legislation, since it's obvious that the Fed's aren't doing their job in keeping them out.

Miggs · Post by **Miggs** » Wed May 05, 2010 7:48 am

JBrazen wrote:Exactly, this country has enough problems with the wackos that are legally here. Why should we have to worry about people that don't belong here committing crimes? The only problem I have with this law is that it wasn't written in conjunction with a fence/wall building Bill for the border to keep them out. All of these border States should adopt similar legislation, since it's obvious that the Fed's aren't doing their job in keeping them out.

Amen, you are a great American.

Prey521 · Post by **Prey521** » Wed May 05, 2010 8:48 am

People are overreacting for no reason just like they did 9/11 when they started with the heavy security screening at airports and the bleeding hearts started screaming that they would start profiling Muslims. How did that turn out? All this law does is take EXISTING FEDERAL LAW and apply it at the State level. It's muchado about nothing.

Qwijib0 · Post by **Qwijib0** » Wed May 05, 2010 11:11 am

JBrazen wrote:Exactly, this country has enough problems with the wackos that are legally here. Why should we have to worry about people that don't belong here committing crimes? The only problem I have with this law is that it wasn't written in conjunction with a fence/wall building Bill for the border to keep them out. All of these border States should adopt similar legislation, since it's obvious that the Fed's aren't doing their job in keeping them out.

A wall is only necessary because of the current US policies with regards to immigration and marijuana. Let migrant workers have a straightforward reasonable time frame to get guest cards, and tax and regulate pot in the states and 95% of your border crossings dissapear. The gun and hard drug smugglers will always find a way in anyway.

Never mind the monetary cost ($2B state defect) and environmental cost of constructing a wall. It may seem like 'just desert' but it's one of the most diverse desert ecosystems on the planet and it relies on animal migrations to and from mexico.

It is not a state's job to police the border just cause we're on it. It's the job of those incompetent ****s we send to washington who keep their jobs with fear tactic campaigns.

Qwijib0 · Post by **Qwijib0** » Wed May 05, 2010 11:17 am

JBrazen wrote:People are overreacting for no reason just like they did 9/11 when they started with the heavy security screening at airports and the bleeding hearts started screaming that they would start profiling Muslims. How did that turn out? All this law does is take EXISTING FEDERAL LAW and apply it at the State level. It's muchado about nothing.

Well, you know, that, plus the racial profiling and the letting of people suing STATE government agencies who don't enforce FEDERAL law.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Wed May 05, 2010 11:21 am

Qwijib0 wrote:Well, you know, that, plus the racial profiling and the letting of people suing STATE government agencies who don't enforce FEDERAL law.

I agree with you. This particular policy isn't a good one.

Brk · Post by **Brk** » Wed May 05, 2010 11:37 am

JBrazen wrote:People are overreacting for no reason just like they did 9/11 when they started with the heavy security screening at airports and the bleeding hearts started screaming that they would start profiling Muslims. How did that turn out? All this law does is take EXISTING FEDERAL LAW and apply it at the State level. It's muchado about nothing.

You need to bone up on federalism, my friend.

Prey521 · Post by **Prey521** » Wed May 05, 2010 12:22 pm

Qwijib0 wrote:Well, you know, that, plus the racial profiling and the letting of people suing STATE government agencies who don't enforce FEDERAL law.

Racial profiling? A bad cop can already stop you for no reason other than one he invents on the spot. We cannot write our laws in a way to preventbad cops from abusing them, it simply is not possible.

As it is, the bleeding hearts seem to think all cops are *******s who will abuse this law.

Personally, I am sure there will be a small number who do. These are the same cops who already abuse all the laws which contain the phrase "reasonable suspicion". You get rid of the bad cops, not the laws they abuse.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Wed May 05, 2010 12:22 pm

mnosteele52 wrote:The law explicitly states that an officer cannot stop someone based solely on the basis of suspicion. They have to already be accused/investigated for another crime first i.e. speeding down the freeway at 90mph, then pulled over and the officer suspects they are illegal based upon suspicions such as 10 people in the car etc. It's also already federal law for an immigrant from any country to have the proper papers/identification on them proving they are a legal U.S. citizen.

The law explicitly states that an officer cannot stop someone based solely on the basis of suspicion.

Are you talking about previous law or the new Arizona law? As that is not the impression I got of this new law. From what I read, it was my understanding, that the police can stop any individual on mere suspicion and demand to see their paper. If they can not provide them then the police can arrest them for not carrying their papers. It was also my understanding that "reasonable suspicion" is mainly left up to the officer to deiced.

I'll take a look at the actual bill later.

Prey521 · Post by **Prey521** » Wed May 05, 2010 12:25 pm

No, they cannot stop you for "mere suspicion" that you're illegal. They have to already be engaged with an individual on another matter before they can ask for documentation. It's explicitly stated in the bill.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Wed May 05, 2010 12:33 pm

JBrazen wrote:Racial profiling? A bad cop can already stop you for no reason other than one he invents on the spot. We cannot write our laws in a way to preventbad cops from abusing them, it simply is not possible.

As it is, the bleeding hearts seem to think all cops are *******s who will abuse this law.

Personally, I am sure there will be a small number who do. These are the same cops who already abuse all the laws which contain the phrase "reasonable suspicion". You get rid of the bad cops, not the laws they abuse.

"We cannot write our laws in a way to preventbad cops from abusing them, it simply is not possible."

We can certainly write them in a way that makes it harder for it to be abused. In fact we are duty bound to do so.

"As it is, the bleeding hearts seem to think all cops are *******s who will abuse this law."

There is always a malefactor ready to take advantage of a badly worded law.

"Personally, I am sure there will be a small number who do."

There is also, relatively, a very small number of illegal immigrates, maybe we should ignore that problem, as well, since there numbers are so small.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Wed May 05, 2010 12:36 pm

JBrazen wrote:No, they cannot stop you for "mere suspicion" that you're illegal. They have to already be engaged with an individual on another matter before they can ask for documentation. It's explicitly stated in the bill.

"It's explicitly stated in the bill."

So you read that in the bill? It'd be a time saver if you could show me where.