AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

What do you think about the world?
User avatar
Zaelath
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4621
Joined: April 11, 2003, 5:53 am
Location: Canberra

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Zaelath »

Sirton wrote:In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Muehler v. Mena that questioning someone regarding their immigration status is not a violation of Fourth Amendment rights - provided that person is already lawfully detained.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 2&as_vis=1
At no point, did anyone, at any time, suggest, at all, that questioning someone about their immigration status, if already detained, was unconstitutional or racist.

But thanks for duuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
User avatar
Ashur
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2604
Joined: May 14, 2003, 11:09 am
Location: Columbus OH
Contact:

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Ashur »

Step 2, take away anchor-babys

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/15/arizon ... tml?hpt=C1
(CNN) -- A proposed Arizona law would deny birth certificates to children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents.

The bill comes on the heels of Arizona passing the nation's toughest immigration law.

John Kavanagh, a Republican state representative from Arizona who supports the proposed law aimed at so-called "anchor babies," said that the concept does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," said Kavanagh, who also supported Senate Bill 1070 -- the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers.

Under federal law, children born in the United States are automatically granted citizenship, regardless of their parents' residency status.

Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic state representative, strongly opposes the bill.

"Unlike (Senate Bill) 1070, it is clear this bill runs immediately afoul of the U.S. Constitution," she said.

"While I understand that folks in Arizona and across the country support S.B. 1070, they do so because we have seen no action from the federal government," said Sinema. "Unfortunately, the so-called 'anchor baby' bill does nothing to solve the real problems we are facing in Arizona."

Arizona Republicans are expected to introduce the legislation this fall.
This runs afoul of the 14th amendment to the constitution. So an amendment to the Constitution would be needed to strike it, no?

Is it possible the Republican Party has found the issue that will bring out their base for the next presidential election?
- Ash
User avatar
Spang
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4866
Joined: September 23, 2003, 10:34 am
Gender: Male
Location: Tennessee

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Spang »

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution wrote:Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Make love, fuck war, peace will save us.
User avatar
Ashur
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2604
Joined: May 14, 2003, 11:09 am
Location: Columbus OH
Contact:

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Ashur »

Right, so this law is unconstitutional.
- Ash
*~*stragi*~*
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3876
Joined: July 3, 2002, 1:59 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: kimj0ngil
Location: Ahwatukee, Arizona
Contact:

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by *~*stragi*~* »

no, it just means that citizens or people here legally won't be treated unconstitutionally.
User avatar
Winnow
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 27721
Joined: July 5, 2002, 1:56 pm
Location: A Special Place in Hell

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Winnow »

What if a Mexican lady launches a baby out of her womb from the Mexican side of the border, over the fence, and the baby lands in the U.S? U.S. Citizen?
User avatar
Aabidano
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4861
Joined: July 19, 2002, 2:23 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Florida

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Aabidano »

"Life is what happens while you're making plans for later."
User avatar
Kilmoll the Sexy
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5295
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:31 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: bunkeru2k
Location: Ohio

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Kilmoll the Sexy »

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
this is going to be the focus of a Supreme Court case before it is all said and done. The case law that has governed the rulings in courts for years was put in place in 1895 by the SC and was not a case that was challenging the status of a child that was born to parents here illegally.
User avatar
Zaelath
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4621
Joined: April 11, 2003, 5:53 am
Location: Canberra

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Zaelath »

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
this is going to be the focus of a Supreme Court case before it is all said and done. The case law that has governed the rulings in courts for years was put in place in 1895 by the SC and was not a case that was challenging the status of a child that was born to parents here illegally.
Case law? Which ass did you pull that out of? It's not even like the wording of the 14th is even remotely ambiguous.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
User avatar
Kilmoll the Sexy
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5295
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:31 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: bunkeru2k
Location: Ohio

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Kilmoll the Sexy »

The first case in the SC was Elk vs Wilkins in 1884 which set a precedent that not everyone born in the US was a citizen automatically. The case that set the precedent that has not been back to the Supreme Court (at least by any case that I have been able to find) was The U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark which was a case of a Chinese immigrant coule here legally having a child here who was the determined by the SC to be a legal citizen.

The second case has been the one that has been referred to in every case since. I really look for Arizona to push this to the Supreme Court to get a ruling that is going to give a ruling strictly on children of people here illegally. It really is abotu time a state stood up and started pushing the federal government to do it's job on illegal immigration. Bitch all you want about us rednecks, but the US is more lax than damn near every country on the planet on the issue. Look up the penalties in some countries for pulling this shit.
User avatar
Zaelath
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4621
Joined: April 11, 2003, 5:53 am
Location: Canberra

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Zaelath »

You mean wikipedia?

BTW, there's a lot of places you get citizenship through being born there, Canada and the US are the biggies though.

Australia tightened it's rules back in 1986 when we had our first modern bout of xenophobia: "The Australian Citizenship (Amendment) Act 1986 provided that children born in Australia on or after 20 August 1986 would only be Australian citizens if at least one parent is an Australian citizen or permanent resident." Which is pretty easy to achieve on a birth certificate given the only "proof" required is the mother naming the father.

Even if SCOTUS was to take a bullshit reading of the 14th, I still don't think they'd deny citizenship to a half USAdian child born in the US. Plus the cross-pollination births are probably a lot higher than the xenos suspect, so quite likely wouldn't affect the outcome greatly anyway. You might get your end away with the maid more often though.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
User avatar
Kilmoll the Sexy
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5295
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:31 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: bunkeru2k
Location: Ohio

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Kilmoll the Sexy »

It is not about children born to a couple where one resides here legally.....this is about people running across the border to have a kid to get him citizenship granted. The worst part of this is that if both parents are illegal, they are not paying the hospital bills to have that child here illegally......the taxpayers are. Let me tell you that the taxpayers are fed up with paying for shit for people that are breaking federal laws by even being here. The taxpayers are the ones that will be voting a lot of the clowns out of their jobs in Congress in November.
User avatar
Zaelath
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4621
Joined: April 11, 2003, 5:53 am
Location: Canberra

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Zaelath »

Jesus it's hard to find some numbers on this.. especially when the only people talking about it are rabidly against it. Quotes like "mexican ambulances drive across the border to deliver babies", I guess they also don't have to queue at the check points and no one checks the contents of an ambulance.. lol
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
User avatar
Aabidano
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4861
Joined: July 19, 2002, 2:23 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Florida

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Aabidano »

I don't see what the issue is myself, nothing stops parents of a minor US citizen from being deported unless they can prove extreme hardship. In fact it happens all the time.

It's a benefit for the kid at age 18 as they could claim US citizenship, doesn't do anything fro the parents\siblings until he\she turns 21.

This is a god way to get folks stirred up, but really seems to be a non-issue to me.

As an aside, the ancestors of one branch of my family entered the US illegally, in ~1740. Does that mean none of us should be citizens?
"Life is what happens while you're making plans for later."
User avatar
Sylvus
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 7033
Joined: July 10, 2002, 11:10 am
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: mp72
Location: A², MI
Contact:

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Sylvus »

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:It is not about children born to a couple where one resides here legally.....this is about people running across the border to have a kid to get him citizenship granted.
In all seriousness, how widespread a problem do you think this is? People crossing the border to have a kid to get him citizenship granted. Does whatever news source you like best have actual numbers on it?
"It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." - Barack Obama

Go Blue!
User avatar
Kilmoll the Sexy
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5295
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:31 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: bunkeru2k
Location: Ohio

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Kilmoll the Sexy »

I have not looked for numbers and do not care about numbers. I do care about 10 million people breaking federal law and nothing being done to remove them or stop the flow. This law would be completely and utterly moot if they would not be in the country illegally.

The stuff Arizona is doing right now really is not in place to make a difference.....it is about forcing the federal government to address it. If the federal government does not step up and do its job, then more states will enact these laws and take care of it themselves and that would have an effect. The actual laws they are passing right now really are nothing more than a symbolic gesture that they have had enough and are willing to fight the worthless feds to get something done.
User avatar
Aabidano
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4861
Joined: July 19, 2002, 2:23 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Florida

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Aabidano »

I can agree with you to some extent on that one, but the ride the the tea party is taking on it, and the gibberish they spew should be embarrassing to the people supporting them.
"Life is what happens while you're making plans for later."
User avatar
Zaelath
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4621
Joined: April 11, 2003, 5:53 am
Location: Canberra

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Zaelath »

Sylvus wrote:
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:It is not about children born to a couple where one resides here legally.....this is about people running across the border to have a kid to get him citizenship granted.
In all seriousness, how widespread a problem do you think this is? People crossing the border to have a kid to get him citizenship granted. Does whatever news source you like best have actual numbers on it?
Yeah, that's why I was looking. I always think of these things from a risk management perspective... there doesn't seem to be great sources for it even though the births would have to be registered for it to matter.. The even bigger question is how many appeals to bring parents and other relatives are made by these children?

I also find it interesting that Kilmoll doesn't think immigrants would deliberately get themselves knocked up by any local yahoo to create a future anchor if it was really that big a deal. Women in poor countries have sold themselves to the west for a lot less; like an income stream sent back home.
May 2003 - "Mission Accomplished"
June 2005 - "The mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight"
-- G W Bush, freelance writer for The Daily Show.
User avatar
Kilmoll the Sexy
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5295
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:31 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: bunkeru2k
Location: Ohio

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Kilmoll the Sexy »

I don't think people are getting knocked up in mexico then coming across while pregnant to give birth (at least not in great numbers). The issue is there are 10 million illegals here...and they are having kids while here. There is an immigration process in place and it has been ignored. The problem needs fixed.
User avatar
Aabidano
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4861
Joined: July 19, 2002, 2:23 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Florida

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Aabidano »

Zaelath wrote:...The even bigger question is how many appeals to bring parents and other relatives are made by these children?
As adults they're limited to how many immediate family members they can sponsor. Parents and possibly 1 or 2 siblings, as I noted before as a minor they can't bring in anyone.

As the sponsor bringing someone in with the intention of them immediately going on the dole are slim, the sponsored family members would just have their visas revoked or get deported. I've seen it happen a number of times when junior military folks brought in-laws in from overseas that they couldn't realistically support.
"Life is what happens while you're making plans for later."
User avatar
Xyun
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2566
Joined: July 3, 2002, 8:03 pm
Location: Treasure Island

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Xyun »

Fuck Los Po Po?
I tell it like a true mackadelic.
Founder of Ixtlan - the SCUM of Veeshan.
User avatar
Winnow
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 27721
Joined: July 5, 2002, 1:56 pm
Location: A Special Place in Hell

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Winnow »

Just back the fuck off bitches! Spineless left coasters!

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0624/ ... e-stalling
Why boycotts about Arizona immigration law are stalling

Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Jose have softened the boycotts they pledged in the wake of the Arizona immigration law's passage.

By Daniel B. Wood, Staff writer / June 24, 2010

Los Angeles

When Arizona signed its new immigration law, SB 1070, on April 4, the immediate response by several cities and states was to enact economic boycotts against the state, with the aim of pressuring legislators to rethink the law.

Now, with just over a month to go until the law takes effect July 28, maintaining those embargoes appears to have been tough going for most – especially in the wider economic downturn – and several have watered down their actions.

The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday granted itself an exemption to the city’s boycott of Arizona to keep a red light photo enforcement program operating. The program generates about $3.6 million in annual ticket revenue for the city. The day before, Oakland voted to approve a $1 million contract with a multinational advertising company with corporate offices in Phoenix.

San Jose, which has several contracts with Arizona companies cited potential economic harm in stopping short of a full boycott, voting instead for an official denunciation of SB 1070. The Arizona law allows police officers to question anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant, and makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.

“The comment ‘not so well’ looks to be fairly accurate,” says Jack Kyser, director of the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation, in describing how boycotts are progressing. From the beginning, Mr. Kyser says, an official boycott is much tougher than just getting the word out. It takes time and money for officials to go through rosters of suppliers and to analyze if another supplier costs more or not.

“Smaller cities and counties can do a boycott, but for larger areas and the state it could be difficult and somewhat embarrassing,” he says. The red light camera contract still has some time to go on it, he notes, even though Wednesday’s City Council action drew heated debate on operating costs, with some putting them higher than the ticket revenue coming in.

Kyser notes that a Los Angeles Police Department plan to send officers to Arizona for special terrorism training "was canceled due to the boycott,” but other actions have gone under the radar.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power awarded a contract for electric vehicle charging stations to a company in Arizona, Kyser says, “but nobody caught that."

Some cities have pulled back on their boycotts, claiming concern that the action hits only the businesspeople and employees involved – often Hispanic – and not the legislators who created the law. Others have gone scrambling to parse legal definitions – such as the difference between “corporate offices” and “corporate headquarters” – to rationalize which companies are subject to the intent of the boycott.

The main reasons that such boycotts are difficult are at least three fold, says Jack Pitney, Professor of American Politics at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, Calif.

“First you have to figure out which goods and services come from the state. In a complex economy, that determination can be very tricky.”

Next, officials must figure out which contracts may be lawfully canceled. Attorneys have to spend lots of billable hours on such questions, Mr. Pitney says.

“Then you have to arrange for goods and services from some other state," he says. "In many cases, the locality chose an Arizona company because it was the low bidder or was otherwise superior to the alternatives," he says. "In tough economic times," he adds, "it's hard to justify such a choice.”
User avatar
Ashur
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2604
Joined: May 14, 2003, 11:09 am
Location: Columbus OH
Contact:

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Ashur »

The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday granted itself an exemption to the city’s boycott of Arizona to keep a red light photo enforcement program operating. The program generates about $3.6 million in annual ticket revenue for the city.
Hah! Our spineless city (Columbus, Ohio) did the same thing. "Bad Arizona! City Boycott! (except traffic cam thing...)"
The ban on city-worker travel won't apply to police officers who might be dispatched to Arizona for criminal extraditions, Williamson said. And the review of Arizona contracts won't apply to the city's agreement with Phoenix-based Redflex Traffic Systems, which owns and operates 20 red-light cameras.

A new contract approved by council members this month will double the number of cameras posted at Columbus intersections to issue tickets to red-light-runners.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/lo ... izona.html
- Ash
User avatar
Kilmoll the Sexy
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5295
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:31 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: bunkeru2k
Location: Ohio

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Kilmoll the Sexy »

Whether this actually does end up being ruled unconstitutional or not, it is doing what it was intended to do.....getting federal action that should have been done years ago.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06 ... co-border/
PHOENIX -- Federal officials told Arizona's attorney general and a congresswoman Monday that 524 of the 1,200 National Guard troops headed to the U.S.-Mexico border will be deployed in the state by August or September.

U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and Attorney General Terry Goddard, both Democrats, met with Obama administration officials in Tucson along with dozens of law enforcement officials and community leaders. The federal officials included John Brennan, deputy national security adviser for homeland security.

Giffords spokesman C.J. Karamargin said the 524 troops are being trained for deployment in August, and Goddard said two drone aircraft also will be used in Arizona. Goddard called the commitment a first step.

Another 224 troops will head to California, 72 to New Mexico and 250 to Texas. A national liaison office will draw another 130.

The Arizona troops will be assigned to entry identification teams and deployed between ports of entry to help the Border Patrol spot illegal border crossers.
*~*stragi*~*
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3876
Joined: July 3, 2002, 1:59 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: kimj0ngil
Location: Ahwatukee, Arizona
Contact:

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by *~*stragi*~* »

Winnow wrote:What if a Mexican lady launches a baby out of her womb from the Mexican side of the border, over the fence, and the baby lands in the U.S? U.S. Citizen?
it came out in mexican airspace therefore mexican
User avatar
Funkmasterr
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 9022
Joined: July 7, 2002, 9:12 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Dandelo19
PSN ID: ToPsHoTTa471

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Funkmasterr »

*~*stragi*~* wrote:
Winnow wrote:What if a Mexican lady launches a baby out of her womb from the Mexican side of the border, over the fence, and the baby lands in the U.S? U.S. Citizen?
it came out in mexican airspace therefore mexican
:lol:
Bagar-
Star Farmer
Star Farmer
Posts: 434
Joined: September 20, 2007, 5:09 pm
Gender: Male

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Bagar- »

Image

Image

Image
Going out to play pool now with my fellow klan members. Have a nice night. - Midnyte
User avatar
Kluden
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1827
Joined: November 13, 2002, 7:12 pm
Location: D.C.

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Kluden »

A-....some of the coloring is bad. But funny!
User avatar
Spang
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4866
Joined: September 23, 2003, 10:34 am
Gender: Male
Location: Tennessee

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Spang »

Make love, fuck war, peace will save us.
User avatar
Noysyrump
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1202
Joined: January 19, 2004, 2:42 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Noysyrump »

When the constitution was writen, this country was barren wilderness, well as long as you dont count those pesky red people. A country simply could not be viable without population. The exsisting 'american' population of colinists and their descendants did not have the numbers to expand west in any reasonable time frame. So they simply saw the need to expand our population via immigration. So for the next hundred years we imported men, women, and children by the boatloads. The only criteria needed was that you could afford the trip and not have typhus. "Give us your meek and huddled masses"... yadda yadda.

So a couple hundred years later we have gone as far west as possible with the land we had at hand. And populations are getting a little 'thick'. So somone decides, ok we should stop the mass importation and they make it a little more difficult to gain entry (*). But it isnt that much more difficult. Yet people still sneak across. The vast majority that do so are just ignorant. They simply dont know what else to do. But there are also those that know exactly what they are doing. Those that are importing drugs or other people. It's those people that cause the real problems. And it's those that truelly need to be stopped.

* Cubans dont need to do anything but make the swim to gain asylum.

Now mexico originated roughly the same time we did. Their population for the most part grew right along with ours. Now they have people a plenty as we do, and a large number of them would rather live among the better governed and wealthier than continue scratching out an exsistance raising chickens or selling tacos for a nickel a piece. I cant say I blame them, and I wont say they shouldn't. I welcome them with open arms. Even the ignorant ones who snuck across without realizing they are making it more difficult on themselves. They are people, and in general people are bastard coated bastards with a bastard filling no matter where they come from. Instead of deportation, we should simply educate them on what they need to do to be here legally and put them on that track. Then perhaps we could focus on the real problems.

As far as the discusion on anchor babies. Yes it is widespread. There is no way to put a number on it as you know, undocumented aliens dont leave behind countable documents (duh). I live here in bordertown USA (aka San Diego CA) and a large number of my personal friends have come here in variose ways. Anchor baby is the most common. One of wich was born here but grew up back home as his parents simply snuck in to pop him out. Good for him, smart parents. He came here as a citizen and didnt speak a word of english at 19 or so. He's a great person and works hard raising a family. The country is a better place for him beeing here. One of my HOTTEST girlfriends came here legally but stayed beyond her visa allowed for whattever reason. She's been recently working on rectifying that situation but for a while there could have been considered Illegal. And any man in his right mind could not look at this girl and even think deportation for a second. That kinda tasty needs to stay here.

Now what it boils down to is the question of wether or not new population is bad. It isnt in the economic sense. It's not like the country is overpopulated. We still have huge areas of underpupulated land. Even our most populus areas in this country dont even come close to those in other areas in the world. LA is the largest city in area and New York the largest in populace. Yet in asia and europe they may as well be considered minor cities.

So the way I see it. There is no problem other than how we are handling it. We deport and they just come back... Instead simply document them, hand em an ID and say welcome to america. Not neccesarily as a citizen without the exsisting hurdles but as a legal resident.

:vv_twocents2:

By the way I consider myself a far right winger for those that dont know me.
Sick Balls!
User avatar
Spang
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4866
Joined: September 23, 2003, 10:34 am
Gender: Male
Location: Tennessee

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Spang »

Image
Make love, fuck war, peace will save us.
User avatar
Aabidano
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4861
Joined: July 19, 2002, 2:23 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Florida

Re: AZ's new anti-immigration law is racist & unconstitutional.

Post by Aabidano »

So, should we have open borders and allow anyone who wants to enter the US to come on in? Despite the fact that they'd have no future here due to a lack of education, resources, etc...

Who is supposed to support the legions that would love to come here with no chance of gainful employment outside the service or agricultural industries?

From what I've seen driving around south Hillsborough county FL and what I've seen working in Mexico, Asia and the middle east those at the bottom aren't really moving up too far in the great scheme of things when they come to the US with no skills. Though their children might.

What's the difference if you live in a dirty one room shack with 20 other people in Monterrey or Tampa? With no chance of getting out in either case? And very little chance that your children will get out, due to your own cultural prejudices?

Aren't Canada's requirements for immigration nearly identical?
"Life is what happens while you're making plans for later."
Post Reply