Obama grants amnesty to the illegals

[999969999]

I'm going to make it easier for comrade Macky, and just get to the point:

"As Mr. Obama was making a statement from the Rose Garden about a new immigration policy on Friday afternoon, a reporter from The Daily Caller, a conservative news Web site, repeatedly raised his voice and tried to interrupt. The reporter, Neil Munro, tried to ask whether the policy — intended to help young illegal immigrants get work — was good for legal American workers...

Mr. President, why do you favor foreign workers over Americans?”


I would love to hear the president answer that question, but of course, he ignored it, which is typical of liberals.


At a time of high unemployment, why is it "the right thing to do" to allow 800,000 people who are here illegally to now legally start looking for jobs.


I often wonder why Mexican-American citizens of the U.S. would like such policies. It really does nothing but hurt them. They now have to compete with 800,000 new competitors for the same number of jobs.



For the rest of you, here's the full quote:

"The interruption stunned White House correspondents and television viewers. And it clearly surprised President Obama, too.

As Mr. Obama was making a statement from the Rose Garden about a new immigration policy on Friday afternoon, a reporter from The Daily Caller, a conservative news Web site, repeatedly raised his voice and tried to interrupt. The reporter, Neil Munro, tried to ask whether the policy — intended to help young illegal immigrants get work — was good for legal American workers.

“Excuse me, sir,” Mr. Obama said when Mr. Munro initially spoke up. He put his hand in the air and raised a finger, as if to say “wait.”

“It’s not time for questions, sir,” Mr. Obama continued. “Not while I’m speaking.”

A few minutes later, Mr. Obama referenced the incident by saying, “And the answer to your question, sir, and the next time I’d prefer you let me finish my statements before you ask that question, is this is the right thing to do for the American people.”

Mr. Munro then apparently interrupted again.

“I didn’t ask for an argument, I’m answering your question,” Mr. Obama said.

By shouting out and repeatedly interrupting the president during a speech, Mr. Munro violated decorum at the White House and generated online shouts of disapproval from other reporters, analysts and historians. The incident took place two weeks after the president’s top strategist, David Axelrod, was nearly drowned out at a campaign event by hecklers who had come to support Mitt Romney.
Earlier Coverage

Tucker Carlson turns 40 and moves to Fox News Read more »

Another incident that came to mind to some was when Representative Joe Wilson, Republican of South Carolina, shouted “You lie” during an address to Congress by Mr. Obama in 2009.

The White House press office did not immediately comment on the exchange. But it quickly became evident that Mr. Munro had distracted from the president’s point by becoming part of the story himself.

Diane Sawyer, who co-anchored ABC’s live coverage of the presidential statement, said afterward that Mr. Munro, despite his White House credentials, was “clearly considered a heckler.”

In a statement posted to The Daily Caller’s Web site about an hour after the exchange, Mr. Munro said: “I always go to the White House prepared with questions for our president. I timed the question believing the president was closing his remarks, because naturally I have no intention of interrupting the president of the United States.”

Mr. Obama had only been speaking for about five minutes when Mr. Munro first shouted. He continued speaking for another five minutes afterward.

The White House grants credentials to reporters and columnists from a wide range of media outlets, including some that have openly liberal and conservative bents.

Mr. Munro did not specify what he shouted, but other reporters who were present said the initial question was, “Mr. President, why do you favor foreign workers over Americans?”

Earlier, the editor in chief of The Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson, defended Mr. Munro’s behavior as an act of journalism. Mr. Carlson, who was on an airplane at the time of the presidential statement, said he had not seen the incident, but “as far as I’m concerned, not having seen it, as a general matter, reporters are there to ask questions.”

He added, “No politician wants to answer questions, but that’s not our concern.”

Mr. Carlson, a former co-host of a show on CNN, “Crossfire,” where the interruption of others was a part of the formula, started The Daily Caller in early 2010 to publish political news and commentary, frequently through a conservative prism. Among Mr. Carlson’s investors is Foster Friess, the financier who has donated millions to Republican
candidates this year.

The Daily Caller has highlighted what it calls liberal media bias, and Mr. Carlson said he expected the “Obama worshipers in the press” to attack Mr. Munro. When told that his reporter was being called a heckler, Mr. Carlson answered, “That’s what it’s called when you try to get the president to answer your question?”

Mr. Carlson said Mr. Munro did not discuss any plan to interrupt Mr. Obama with him in advance.

Of course, it’s common for reporters to shout questions to presidents — but only after they have finished speaking.

While there was widespread criticism of Mr. Munro’s behavior, including from some conservatives, there was also some criticism of Mr. Obama for not being willing to formally answer questions from reporters in a news conference setting.

Access to Mr. Obama in question-and-answer settings has been relatively limited, according to a study earlier this year by a professor who works alongside reporters at the White House. The president has tended to favor one-on-one interviews with select reporters over news conferences and informal Q.&A.’s.

Paul Brandus, a White House reporter who posts to the Twitter account West Wing Reports, wrote that it was “an extraordinary exchange.” He wrote that Mr. Munro was wearing a temporary press credential, not a permanent one.

“Essential to ask all presidents questions. Sometimes we have to raise our voices as they walk away. But let him finish his remarks,” Mr. Brandus wrote on Twitter after the exchange, calling Mr. Munro’s behavior “boorish.”

[clocker]

It was a stupid question (actually, hardly a question at all since it presupposes a falsehood), rudely asked.
Munro is an asshole and should lose his White House press privileges.

I have questions for you and I'll make it as easy as I can...
Why is it that after trillions in bailouts and tax breaks there is still an employment crisis?
Why have the "job creators" failed to create any jobs?
Where in Obama's decision does it say that anyone must hire one of the newly (semi)legal immigrants?
Are you afraid to compete against some 9 year old from Guatamala?

[999969999]

I've always been against all of the bailouts.

I'd have no problem getting rid of the tax breaks if we could go to a flat tax where everyone (even the poor people and the lower middle class) had to pay a percentage of their income in taxes-- no exceptions. No way to get out of paying at least some taxes. I think it would make them less likely to vote for more social programs if they realized that they would have to help pay for them.

So, you admit that the economy is still rather dismal, but who's fault is that? Obama has had almost 4 years to do something about it and it looks like he is a dismal failure, right?

What Obama's decision does mean is that about 800,000 people who formerly could not legally look for work, now can. This was a huge blunder on his part. I think he was on thin ice as it was, but this will surely cost him the election. Maybe he doesn't really want to be president anymore.

I wouldn't have to compete with them anyways. Let's face it, I will use my networking skills and connections and have some family members pull some strings to get me a job, and I'm fine with that. But I do still wonder why Mexican-American citizens of the U.S. would favor such a policy that now floods the job market with 800,000 new competitors trying to get their jobs. That's a thinker.

[megabyteme]

I wouldn't have to compete with them anyways. Let's face it, I will use my networking skills and connections and have some family members pull some strings to get me a job, and I'm fine with that. But I do still wonder why Mexican-American citizens of the U.S. would favor such a policy that now floods the job market with 800,000 new competitors trying to get their jobs. That's a thinker.

You self-righteous, candy-assed punk.

I'll shout that over your C&P.

[mjmacky]

I would have liked to see Obama go cock-eyed and shout, "Nigga, you didn't just interrupt me during my speech." Would have been more entertaining than handling it like a gentleman.

[clocker]

I've always been against all of the bailouts.
OK

I'd have no problem getting rid of the tax breaks if we could go to a flat tax where everyone (even the poor people and the lower middle class) had to pay a percentage of their income in taxes-- no exceptions. No way to get out of paying at least some taxes. I think it would make them less likely to vote for more social programs if they realized that they would have to help pay for them.
Fine, as long as all the sneaky little tax exemptions the 1% have bought for themselves also disappear...stuff like the 15% capital gains tax, inheritance taxes, offshore havens, trusts, etc. Every company doing business in the US pays full taxes on US business, no more shifting profits to Ireland to escape US taxes. All corporations must repatriate their accounts and pay full taxes on them, no more "holidays".
Wall St. gets dismantled and everyone involved in the crash of 2008 gets criminally charged. The "too big to fail" banks get broken up and the remaining banks are forbidden to speculate.
Jamie Dimon gets drawn and quartered on the White House lawn, shown live on primetime TV.
Citizens United is constitutionally overturned and lobbying becomes illegal.

So, you admit that the economy is still rather dismal, but who's fault is that? Obama has had almost 4 years to do something about it and it looks like he is a dismal failure, right?
What effect do you think the President has on the economy? Surely you don't buy into Romney's absurd "Day One" bullshit?
As so graphically shown last week, Republicans believe that we exist to serve Big Finance, not the other way around. The banks and big financiers are doing better than ever...the worse off we are, the more they profit. Perfect example is the current situation in Greece...somebody(ies) is making a shitton of profit by driving one of Europe's smallest economies off a cliff and it's working so well they've moved on to Italy and Spain. Predatory speculation is rampant and must be stopped.
I am not at all pleased with Obama but not because he hasn't changed the economy, the state of which I lay at the feet of Republicans and their bank masters.

What Obama's decision does mean is that about 800,000 people who formerly could not legally look for work, now can. This was a huge blunder on his part. I think he was on thin ice as it was, but this will surely cost him the election. Maybe he doesn't really want to be president anymore.
But...but what if those 800,000 are more qualified than you? Afraid to compete on a level playing field? Why shouldn't someone who has served in the military be allowed to hold a job? Good enough to protect you but not good enough to compete for a job, eh?
I wouldn't have to compete with them anyways. Let's face it, I will use my networking skills and connections and have some family members pull some strings to get me a job, and I'm fine with that. But I do still wonder why Mexican-American citizens of the U.S. would favor such a policy that now floods the job market with 800,000 new competitors trying to get their jobs. That's a thinker.
Yeah, your concern about legal Mexican Americans is really touching.
I'll bet this move is quite popular amongst them...you'd better tell Rick Scott to get busy scrubbing them from the voter lists before November.
What do you think Romney's stand on this is...or haven't the Koch brothers downloaded it to his memory banks yet?

[mjmacky]

Actually, in my experience they seem to be mostly non-Mexican Central Americans, Cubans and Puerto Ricans in Florida, not that Rick Scott cares.

116352

[OlegL]

I think Obama did the right thing by allowing certain illegals to stay in this country. However, his solution to the problem might be a short-term one.

[mjmacky]

his solution to the problem might be a short-term one.

Not "might", exactly intended to be a short-term patch while more comprehensive legislation is put together.

[OlegL]

Okay.

[mjmacky]

Okay.

That's it, no "Fuck you!"?

[999969999]

I've always been against all of the bailouts.
OK

I'd have no problem getting rid of the tax breaks if we could go to a flat tax where everyone (even the poor people and the lower middle class) had to pay a percentage of their income in taxes-- no exceptions. No way to get out of paying at least some taxes. I think it would make them less likely to vote for more social programs if they realized that they would have to help pay for them.
Fine, as long as all the sneaky little tax exemptions the 1% have bought for themselves also disappear...stuff like the 15% capital gains tax, inheritance taxes, offshore havens, trusts, etc. Every company doing business in the US pays full taxes on US business, no more shifting profits to Ireland to escape US taxes. All corporations must repatriate their accounts and pay full taxes on them, no more "holidays".
Wall St. gets dismantled and everyone involved in the crash of 2008 gets criminally charged. The "too big to fail" banks get broken up and the remaining banks are forbidden to speculate.
Jamie Dimon gets drawn and quartered on the White House lawn, shown live on primetime TV.
Citizens United is constitutionally overturned and lobbying becomes illegal.



Hey guess what? I actually agree with you on this. When I say flat tax, I mean it. No loopholes, no exceptions, no exemptions, no way to get out of paying a set percentage of all forms of income in taxes. To be fair, it would be the same percentage for everyone. No more of this "progressive" nonsense. If my family has to pay, say 30% for example, then everyone has to pay 30%. And all forms of income would be taxed-- including SS, SSI, SSDI, DES, AFDC, food stamps and all other forms of welfare, etc. Currently 70% of the federal income taxes are paid by 10% of the population, and about half of the population pays no federal income taxes. My plan would change that. Everyone would pay taxes, and perhaps they would be less likely to vote for more spending programs if they knew they had to help pay for them.



So, you admit that the economy is still rather dismal, but who's fault is that? Obama has had almost 4 years to do something about it and it looks like he is a dismal failure, right?
What effect do you think the President has on the economy? Surely you don't buy into Romney's absurd "Day One" bullshit?
As so graphically shown last week, Republicans believe that we exist to serve Big Finance, not the other way around. The banks and big financiers are doing better than ever...the worse off we are, the more they profit. Perfect example is the current situation in Greece...somebody(ies) is making a shitton of profit by driving one of Europe's smallest economies off a cliff and it's working so well they've moved on to Italy and Spain. Predatory speculation is rampant and must be stopped.

Oh come on! The reason Greece's economy is falling off a cliff is because of their social programs. They tried socialism, and it didn't work. Their bloated government and generous handouts were too much for their meager economy to support. The same thing will eventually happen to us.

I am not at all pleased with Obama but not because he hasn't changed the economy



I would love to hear why you are not pleased with Obama. This should be interesting.

What Obama's decision does mean is that about 800,000 people who formerly could not legally look for work, now can. This was a huge blunder on his part. I think he was on thin ice as it was, but this will surely cost him the election. Maybe he doesn't really want to be president anymore.
But...but what if those 800,000 are more qualified than you? Afraid to compete on a level playing field? Why shouldn't someone who has served in the military be allowed to hold a job? Good enough to protect you but not good enough to compete for a job, eh?

No, I'm not afraid to compete with them at all. It's more important who you know... when it comes time to find a job.

As for the ones who served in the military, how many would that amount to? A few hundred? Maybe a few thousand at best?



I wouldn't have to compete with them anyways. Let's face it, I will use my networking skills and connections and have some family members pull some strings to get me a job, and I'm fine with that. But I do still wonder why Mexican-American citizens of the U.S. would favor such a policy that now floods the job market with 800,000 new competitors trying to get their jobs. That's a thinker.
Yeah, your concern about legal Mexican Americans is really touching.
I'll bet this move is quite popular amongst them...you'd better tell Rick Scott to get busy scrubbing them from the voter lists before November.
What do you think Romney's stand on this is...or haven't the Koch brothers downloaded it to his memory banks yet?


That still doesn't answer the question. Why would Hispanic citizens of the U.S. be in favor of this? All it does is hurt them.

Let's just pretend for a moment that millions of Austrians were flooding across the border and all of them had degrees in accounting, and all of them knew people in influential positions of authority in various businesses-- then I would be worried. I wouldn't want them coming here and competing against me for the same job openings. Hell, I wouldn't want them coming here at all. I think we have enough people in the U.S., and I would love to close the border to everyone. Stop all immigration-- both legal and illegal. I don't want this country to become overpopulated like China and India.

As for Romney, I never did like him. I will have to vote for him because Ron Paul is not an option. But he sucks. He is not a communist, and so he is better than what we have in there now. But not much better.

[mjmacky]

I think we have enough people in the U.S., and I would love to close the border to everyone. Stop all immigration-- both legal and illegal. I don't want this country to become overpopulated like China and India.

Ignoring the fact that central U.S. is a ghost town at best, we still fall way short of pretty much every European country in terms of population density. Even Mexico is more densely populated, but maybe the humanitarian in you just needs to be educated on those things first.

[OlegL]

Okay.

That's it, no "Fuck you!"?

You haven't pissed me off, so why would I tell you that?

[999969999]

I think we have enough people in the U.S., and I would love to close the border to everyone. Stop all immigration-- both legal and illegal. I don't want this country to become overpopulated like China and India.

Ignoring the fact that central U.S. is a ghost town at best, we still fall way short of pretty much every European country in terms of population density. Even Mexico is more densely populated, but maybe the humanitarian in you just needs to be educated on those things first.

Maybe you're missing my point again.

"we still fall way short of pretty much every European country in terms of population density. Even Mexico is more densely populated"...

And who wants to live like they do? Not me!

[mjmacky]

Maybe you're missing my point again.

"we still fall way short of pretty much every European country in terms of population density. Even Mexico is more densely populated"...

And who wants to live like they do? Not me!

No, you just think you deserve more than the rest of the world, to which you don't make a single contribution.

Clarification: Your persona does.

[clocker]

Oh come on! The reason Greece's economy is falling off a cliff is because of their social programs. They tried socialism, and it didn't work. Their bloated government and generous handouts were too much for their meager economy to support. The same thing will eventually happen to us.
If/when it does "happen to us", I'll take great comfort knowing that among the first to fall will be smug, self-entitled twits like you.

[ckrit]

Ignoring the fact that central U.S. is a ghost town at best, we still fall way short of pretty much every European country in terms of population density.
That isn't accurate, IIRC. Unless you don't coun't Scandinavia, Iceland, Estonia, and Greenland (which is only european if you count is as part of Denmark, anyways).

That said, you've got a pretty fucking amazingly long way to go before you'd catch up with the highest population densities of the world. You'd better make an effort of epic proportions if you want to reach for the top.

Gewgled:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_countries_by_population_density
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density

[mjmacky]

Unless you don't coun't Scandinavia, Iceland, Estonia, and Greenland (which is only european if you count is as part of Denmark, anyways).

Naturally, "pretty much" intends to ignore the Baltic states, because who can really stand to live there?

That wasn't on a personal level or anything, I actually have an affinity for that climate.

[ckrit]

Oh come on! The reason Greece's economy is falling off a cliff is because of their social programs. They tried socialism, and it didn't work. Their bloated government and generous handouts were too much for their meager economy to support.
No. Greece is in a hole because they tried to keep up with the EU when the market changed to their disadvantage, elected idiots, got caught making up statistics, and on top of that got hit hard by the financial crisis.

It has buggerall to do with socialism, or their social programs in particular, and everything to do with taking on something Greece couldn't handle in the long run, in the EU, thus overextending themselves and having nothing to fall back on when the market went to hell. Due to reckless speculation on the part of foreign banks and investors, before the crisis, they're now, in part, in the hands of hedge funds, which complicates their recovery further. If anything, it's capitalism that really screwed them over.

[ckrit]

Unless you don't coun't Scandinavia, Iceland, Estonia, and Greenland (which is only european if you count is as part of Denmark, anyways).

Naturally, "pretty much" intends to ignore the Baltic states, because who can really stand to live there?
Well, I guess that takes care of Estonia, leaving Scandinavia, then.

[mjmacky]

Well, I guess that takes care of Estonia, leaving Scandinavia, then.

Actually, I was grouping Sweden and Finland in there as well, I didn't really want to start naming multiple regions, and they're all on Baltic Sea minus Norway and those other floating countries.

[manker]

Well, I guess that takes care of Estonia, leaving Scandinavia, then.

Actually, I was grouping Sweden and Finland in there as well, I didn't really want to start naming multiple regions, and they're all on Baltic Sea minus Norway and those other floating countries.Just. Stop.

[mjmacky]

Actually, I was grouping Sweden and Finland in there as well, I didn't really want to start naming multiple regions, and they're all on Baltic Sea minus Norway and those other floating countries.Just. Stop.

You're not from the Balkans, are you?

[Snee]

Well, I guess that takes care of Estonia, leaving Scandinavia, then.

Actually, I was grouping Sweden and Finland in there as well, I didn't really want to start naming multiple regions, and they're all on Baltic Sea minus Norway and those other floating countries.

Americans and geography. Jeebus H Christ.

[mjmacky]

Peninsula?

[manker]

Actually, I was grouping Sweden and Finland in there as well, I didn't really want to start naming multiple regions, and they're all on Baltic Sea minus Norway and those other floating countries.

Americans and geography. Jeebus H Christ.News just in: America declare Russia to be a Baltic state because St. Petersburg.

[mjmacky]

Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida are all Mexican states.

If you think long enough about it, you'll find yourself to be quite upset that I'm technically right, but you'll get over it.

[JubbaTheHutt]

While I understand the political move, I still don't agree with it. Particularly due to the fact that I suspect ANY illegal immigrant now believes they are immune to being deported.

[clocker]

While I understand the political move, I still don't agree with it. Particularly due to the fact that I suspect ANY illegal immigrant now believes they are immune to being deported.
With good reason.
Despite the right's morbid obsession with illegals "taking their jobs", it does not trump their obsession with cutting taxes and underfunding the very organizations that might effectively stem the flow of immigration.
They want what they want but refuse to pay for it, thus maintaining the perpetual state of rage that an outside observer would conclude is the real goal after all.

Besides, any clear eyed observer would also wonder just how anti-immigrant ranters propose to deal with the millions of deportees and the resulting void in services a mass deportation would create.

So yeah, chuckling into one's sombrero would be a logical response.

[Snee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brj2UkUPjCI

Basically.

[999969999]

While I understand the political move, I still don't agree with it. Particularly due to the fact that I suspect ANY illegal immigrant now believes they are immune to being deported.
With good reason.
Despite the right's morbid obsession with illegals "taking their jobs", it does not trump their obsession with cutting taxes and underfunding the very organizations that might effectively stem the flow of immigration.
They want what they want but refuse to pay for it, thus maintaining the perpetual state of rage that an outside observer would conclude is the real goal after all.

Besides, any clear eyed observer would also wonder just how anti-immigrant ranters propose to deal with the millions of deportees and the resulting void in services a mass deportation would create.

So yeah, chuckling into one's sombrero would be a logical response.

After the Supreme Court's ruling on SB 1070, there is only one logical response to this situation:



White Flight.


"Galadriel: We do not have the strength to withstand both Mordor and Isengard... I have passed the test. I will diminish, and go into the [North] West" :)

Move to Oregon. Oregon's eco-nut environmentalist laws pretty much choke all growth and reduce the need for immigrant labor, and I don't think they like the cold, clammy, wet weather all that much, either.

[mjmacky]

"Galadriel: We do not have the strength to withstand both Mordor and Isengard... I have passed the test. I will diminish, and go into the [North] West" :)

Move to Oregon. Oregon's eco-nut environmentalist laws pretty much choke all growth and reduce the need for immigrant labor, and I don't think they like the cold, clammy, wet weather all that much, either.

Idol is weeping to see his tools used for evil.

[999969999]

Robbing a bank is both a federal crime and a state crime. And yet, the feds have no problem with local Arizona cops enforcing that law and puting the criminals in state prison.

I know the Supreme Court's decision was purely political. They have decided that the federal government can sit back and do nothing to stop the flood of illegal immigration, and even worse, if any state attempts to stop it, the feds will step in smack them down.

They have an overwhelming desire to change our country's demographics.

Border states will be the first to be swamped.

The key is to find some place where they really don't want to go.

The northern states are good choices, in general, but everything east of the Dakotas is horrible for various reasons in my opinion. And let's face it, everything east of the Cascades is rather boring. So, Eugene is probably the best choice for me. Plus, I have relatives there to help me get established.

[mjmacky]

Regale us with the tale of how your family emigrated from Finland.

[999969999]

Regale us with the tale of how your family emigrated from Finland.

Well, actually they came from Austria originally, but there are now some members of my family currently living in Finland.

[manker]

can anyone compile a comprehensive list of famous right wing Austrians.

[999969999]

Can anyone compile a comprehensive list of countries around the world which allow illegal aliens to swamp their country?

Let's look just south of us, and see what they think about immigration...




Mexico’s illegals laws tougher than Arizona’s

Mexican President Felipe Calderon denounced as “racial discrimination” an Arizona law giving state and local police the authority to arrest suspected illegal immigrants and vowed to use all means at his disposal to defend Mexican nationals against a law he called a “violation of human rights.”

But the legislation, signed April 23 by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, is similar to Reglamento de la Ley General de Poblacion — the General Law on Population enacted in Mexico in April 2000, which mandates that federal, local and municipal police cooperate with federal immigration authorities in that country in the arrests of illegal immigrants.

Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.

The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” violate Mexican law, are not “physically or mentally healthy” or lack the “necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents.

“This sounds like the kind of law that a rational nation would have to protect itself against illegal immigrants — that would stop and punish the very people who are violating the law,” said Rep. Steve King of Iowa, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, citizenship, refugees, border security and international law.

“Why would Mr. Calderon have any objections to an Arizona law that is less draconian than his own, one he has pledged to enforce?” Mr. King said.

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on terrorism and homeland security, described Mr. Calderon’s comments as “hypocritical to say the least.”

“I would have expected more from Mr. Calderon,” said Mr. Kyl, who serves as the Senate minority whip. “We are spending millions of dollars to help Mexico fight the drug cartels that pose a threat to his government, and he doesn’t seem to recognize our concerns. He ought to be apologizing to us instead of condemning us.”

Mr. Kyl, along with fellow Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, has introduced a 10-point comprehensive border security plan to combat illegal immigration, drug and human smuggling, and violent crime along the southwestern border. It includes the deployment of National Guard troops, an increase in U.S. Border Patrol agents and 700 miles of fencing, along with other equipment and funding upgrades.

He said skyrocketing violence on the border, including the recent killing of an Arizona rancher by an illegal immigrant he had gone to assist, has not gone unnoticed by the public, adding that until the federal government provides the necessary funding and manpower to adequately secure the southwestern border, Arizona will not long remain the only state to pass legislation to do it on its own.

Rep. Ted Poe, Texas Republican and a member of the House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees, described Mr. Calderon’s criticism as “arrogant and hypocritical.” He said Mexico’s immigrations laws are “even tougher than those in the United States” and it was inappropriate to denounce the Arizona law when “Mexico does the very same thing.”

“Mexico wants people to come to the United States and to send their money home,” he said. “They want to make their problems our problems — that’s their foreign policy. President Calderon should spend more time focusing on problems in his own country instead of criticizing Arizona for doing what Mexican law requires its own to do.”

Rep. John Culberson, a Texas Republican who has advocated for stricter border enforcement policies, said the Arizona law was enacted as a result of the nation’s “failed immigration policies.”

“We should focus our time and resources on enforcing policies that work, like zero tolerance, which has reduced crime and illegal immigration dramatically along our southern border,” he said.

Ricardo Alday, a spokesman at the Mexican Embassy in Washington, did not return calls for comment.

But the embassy has said the Mexican government is “deeply concerned by the potential dire effects” that the Arizona law will have on the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States — about 450,000 of them in Arizona.

“As it has been raised by national Latino and immigration rights organizations, initiatives that exclusively criminalize immigration create opportunities for an undue enforcement of the law through racial profiling,” Mr. Alday said in an April 15 statement.

The ambassador also warned of the “likelihood of negative effects that this measure … may have for the future development of friendship, commercial, tourist and cultural ties” between Mexico and Arizona.

The Arizona law, which is set to take effect in midsummer, authorizes state and local law enforcement officers — during lawful stops only — to determine the immigration status of people for whom there is “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the country illegally. Known as Senate Bill 1070, it was enacted in response to a dramatic rise in violence along the Arizona-Mexico border.

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard requiring that before someone is arrested or detained there must be reasonable belief that the person has been, is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity.

A Rasmussen Reports poll has found that 70 percent of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation, while 23 percent oppose it.

Half of the nearly 1 million illegal border crossings into the United States each year occur in Arizona, according to a report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which also said Arizona taxpayers spend more than $2 billion a year on education and health care for illegal immigrants and their children.

“The porous border is virtually a welcome mat for criminal organizations that run drugs and other contraband through the state,” the immigration watchdog group said, adding that kidnappings in Phoenix are at a record high.

Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat who was arrested Saturday during a rally at the White House calling on Congress and the Obama administration to enact immigration reform, said more states “could adopt Arizona’s draconian law” if Congress doesnt act now.

“We must have fair and balanced reform to ensure immigrants are full participants in our economic recovery,” said Mr. Gutierrez, chairman of the Democratic Caucus Immigration Task Force, for which he is the party’s leading strategist and spokesman on immigration issues. “Enforcement-only tactics break up families, disrupt businesses, distract local law enforcement and drain local budgets.”

In signing the bill, Mrs. Brewer said she would “not tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling” and emphasized an amendment to the bill that prevents law enforcement personnel from using a person’s race as the only factor in implementing the law.

“This protects all of us — every Arizona citizen and everyone here lawfully,” she said.

The key legal issue, according to attorneys on both sides, will be whether the state law interferes with the federal government’s duty to handle immigration.

Criticism of the Arizona law has come from several sources, including President Obama, who described it as an example of “irresponsibility” by the state. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has said the Justice Department is considering a legal challenge to the law.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that the Arizona law could distract the agency from using its resources to go after serious criminals. She said there were concerns that at some point “we’ll be responsible to enforce or use our immigration resources against anyone that would get picked up in Arizona.”

She said she vetoed similar measures when she served as Arizona governor from 2003 to 2009.

On Sunday, she called the Arizona law “really a cry of frustration,” while noting that “more assets have been put into Arizona in the last 15 months than ever in history.”

“But, you know what, there’s still a frustration out there. It’s a frustration ultimately that will only be solved with comprehensive immigration reform,” she said on ABC’s “This Week.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) also are preparing legal challenges.

During a Phoenix news conference last week, MALDEF President and General Counsel Thomas A. Saenz said “a vigorous and sophisticated legal challenge will be mounted” before the bill’s implementation this summer “to prevent this unconstitutional and discriminatory law from ever taking effect.”

Linton Joaquin, NILC’s general counsel, added that the Arizona law “sends a strong message to all immigrants to have no contact with any law enforcement officer.” He said the “inevitable result” would not only be to make immigrants more vulnerable to crime and exploitation, “but also to make the entire community less safe by aggressively discouraging witnesses and victims from reporting crimes.”

The Rev. Eve Nunez of the Arizona Latino Commission and National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference said the Arizona law will be divisive and demonstrates the need for Congress to pass an immigration reform bill.

“A lot of pastors are very fearful they will be fined for transporting members of their congregation in their church vans. Churches are already losing members,” she said. “There is great fear in the Hispanic community. It is very sad that in a state that should be welcoming the stranger, we are allowing oppressive laws to pass.”

Mr. King defended the bill, saying Arizona and other states are being forced to “step up and fill the void” left by the failure of the Obama administration and Homeland Security Department to secure the nation’s borders.

“I commend Arizona for standing up for the rule of law,” he said.

Mr. King also noted that critics of the law have distorted what it says. He said the law allows state authorities to inquire into the immigration status based only on a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is unlawfully present in the United States.

As a state senator in Iowa, he was the principal sponsor of a workplace drug and alcohol testing bill in 1998 that also relied on “reasonable suspicion.” That bill allowed the taking of urine or other samples from employees for whom there was a reasonable suspicion that they were under the influence.

“That bill passed into law in 1998 and there has not been a constitutional challenge to it yet,” Mr. King said.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, the bill’s author, said a constitutional challenge would “determine whether our nation enforces its immigration laws and secures its borders or becomes victim to its enemies.”

[clocker]

Did you know that the Obama administration has deported more illegals in three years than Bush did in eight?
That there are three times as many immigration forces currently deployed than under Bush?
That illegal immigration has declined in every year since 2009?

No, you didn't.
Actually, you seem to be quite ignorant about all the subjects you like to rant about.

[bigboab]

In all fairness to 69 it is harder to find immigrants under a bush.

[clocker]

Well played.

[999969999]

"Because of the byzantine rules of Mexican and U.S. bureaucracies, tens of thousands of those children without Mexican citizenship now find themselves without access to basic services in Mexico -- unable to officially register in school or sign up for health care at public hospitals and clinics that give free checkups and medicines."

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2012/07/18/20120718us-born-kids-lose-basic-rights-mexico.html#ixzz21ARCTbnr


Once again, Mexico treats illegal aliens far worse than we do.

But we're the evil ones, right?