I am so pleased to see this...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...ama_06-10.html
Perhaps we are responsible for starting a movenment that will sweep the nation?
Printable View
I am so pleased to see this...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...ama_06-10.html
Perhaps we are responsible for starting a movenment that will sweep the nation?
There, for a minute, I thought you were referring to forest fires. :mellow:
Half the population of Alabama can't prove they're human, much less American citizens.
That's a pretty big swing to claim ownership of fanatic racism, like it's some new trend.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
On another note, Alabama doesn't surprise me. So few of them are smart enough to even grasp the irony, no one wants to be in Alabama. For that matter, I doubt most of the people would want to be in Arizona, but it's just so close by and convenient. I've made bad late night food choices myself.
Half the population of Alabama can prove they're blood related.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
its not like they need these laws cause these bible thumpers will deport your ass illegally
Ah yes, the cries of racism! How dare the United States protect its borders from a foreign invasion?! We should not do anytihng to protect our national sovereignty. How dare we act like every other nation in the world who tries to protect itself? It's just not right! It's so unfair!
And yet, just to the south of us, the people who are the most critical of us, are far more strict when it comes to illegal immigration...
"Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. But Mexican officials haven't been sharing the idea with us as they press Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration-reform bill.
That's too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how to handle immigration; under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien.
As the Supreme Court and politicians seek to bring U.S. law in line with foreign legal norms, it's noteworthy that no one has argued that the United States look at what Mexico might teach us about how to solve our illegal-immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law, seeking to ensure that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
• In the country legally.
• Have the means to sustain themselves economically.
• Not destined to be burdens on society.
• Of economic and social benefit to society.
• Of good character, with no criminal record.
The law also seeks to ensure that:
• Immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor.
• Foreign visitors do not violate their visa status.
• Foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's internal politics.
• Foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported.
• Foreign visitors violating terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported.
• Anyone who aids in illegal immigration is imprisoned.
Who could disagree with such a law?
The Mexican constitution defines the rights of citizens, and the denial of many rights to non-citizens. The General Law on Population, spelling out Mexico's immigration policy, should cause Americans to ask: Why is our southern neighbor pushing us to water down our immigration laws and policies when its own restrictions are the toughest on the continent?
If a felony is a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico. Yet if the United States adopted such a law, Mexico would no doubt denounce it as a manifestation of American bigotry.
Mexico's main immigration law welcomes only foreigners deemed useful to Mexican society:
• Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
• Immigration officials must "ensure (that) immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and that of their dependents. (Article 34)
• Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence has upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics,"if they are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," if they are not good citizens in their own country, if they have broken Mexican laws, or if "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)
• The secretary of governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)
Mexican authorities keep track of every person in the country:
• Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request: i.e., help in the arrest of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
• A National Population Registry tracks every "individual who comprises (sic) the population of the country," verifying each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
• A national Catalogue of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), assigning each a tracking number. (Article 91)
Foreigners with fake papers or who enter the country under false pretenses may be imprisoned:
• Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned"
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."
And you can see this at work in terms of biology. Take our human bodies, for example. We have immune systems that try to prevent foreign organisms from entering our body and damaging us. How long do you think we would live without an immune system? Not very long. The liberals remind me a lot of cancer cells . Our own cells are turning against us, and will eventually destroy the very body they depend on for their lives, and our immune system has a difficult time recognizing them as the enemy because after all, they are own cells fighting against us.
What an open minded and typical liberal thing to say! I'm glad liberals aren't judgmental!Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
And let's not forgot, our own Supreme Court has upheld Arizona's employer sanctions law...
http://www.npr.org/2011/05/26/136678...-sanctions-law
The Supreme Court has upheld Arizona's law that penalizes businesses for hiring workers who are in the United States illegally, rejecting arguments that states have no role in immigration matters.
By a 5-3 vote, the court said Thursday that federal immigration law gives states the authority to impose sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers.
The decision upholding the validity of the 2007 law comes as the state is appealing a ruling that blocked key components of a second, more controversial Arizona immigration enforcement law. Thursday's decision applies only to business licenses and does not signal how the high court might rule if the other law comes before it.
It drives "huge loopholes through the long-standing federal immigration statute, which Congress enacted to get rid of patchwork state immigration schemes," NPR's Nina Totenberg tells All Things Considered co-host Robert Siegel.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a majority made up of Republican-appointed justices, said the Arizona's employer sanctions law "falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states."
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, all Democratic appointees, dissented. The fourth Democratic appointee, Justice Elena Kagan, did not participate in the case because she worked on it while serving as President Obama's solicitor general.
"The federal law makes the federal government the exclusive enforcer of immigration violations, but there is a caveat, exempting state licensing provisions," Totenberg said. "Arizona defines licensing to include virtually all business permits, from incorporation documents to partnership agreements.
"Under state law, if an employer knowingly hires an illegal worker, the business can be fined for the first offense, and a second offense can mean you lose the right to do business in the state."
Breyer said the Arizona law upsets a balance in federal law between dissuading employers from hiring illegal workers and ensuring that people are not discriminated against because they may speak with an accent or look like they might be immigrants.
Employers "will hesitate to hire those they fear will turn out to lack the right to work in the United States," he said.
Business interests and civil liberties groups challenged the law, backed by the Obama administration.
The measure was signed into law in 2007 by Democrat Janet Napolitano, then the governor of Arizona and now the administration's homeland security secretary.
The employer sanctions law has been only infrequently used. It was intended to diminish Arizona's role as the nation's hub for immigrant smuggling by requiring employers to verify the eligibility of new workers through a federal database. Employers found to have violated the law can have their business licenses suspended or revoked.
Lower courts, including the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, previously upheld the law."
All of this is being done because our Federal government flatly refuses to enforce the illegal immigration laws already on the books and refuses to secure our borders.
9, I sure hope your cut-n-paste skills come in handy at college because they exceed your abilities as a critical thinker.
Just for grins, what do you think happens to US agricultural production if a plan like McCain's were to magically be implemented today?
--Said the cancer cell to the immune system.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
These parts of the Alabama law, in particular, would save our state millions of dollars and help us balance our budget...
--Public schools will have to confirm students’ legal residency status through birth certificates or sworn affidavits.
■Illegal immigrants are banned from attending state colleges.
...since over 51% of our state budget is spent on education. And a large percentage of that is going to educate people who shouldn't even be here.
I know Mexico wouldn't allow Arizonans to cross the border illegally and go to their public schools at their taxpayers' expense. Why should we?
In case you were wondering, that's not an answer.
Wouldn't you just love to be one of my professors this fall? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
If you could for me highlight which of these DOES NOT exist/apply in US law it would be just so peachy.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
You mean there's joy in failing an idiot? No, quite the opposite, there's no reward in the entire experience. You see those kinds of students, just going through the motions and they're not there to really do anything for themselves or their minds. They were just expected to go to college, and just because their caretakers could afford it, they go. It's a rather depressing and disappointing spectacle to behold.Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999Wouldn't you just love to be one of my professors this fall? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
You talk about these illegal immigrants as if they were not human beings. Should the U.S. send your family back to Austria? There are quite a few austrians 'Hiding' in the Americas. Not for one minute am I suggesting your family belong in this group, then again your attitude to the preference for fair haired white superiority makes me think.
.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flkuZJ1did8&feature=fvsr
Can you give us a list of the things you have earned in your life? What makes you any more entitled to a quality life/education than anyone else?Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999Wouldn't you just love to be one of my professors this fall? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker