Columbus Mayor bans travel to AZ, will other Ohio cities follow?
This was reported earlier by the Columbus Dispatch, with a follow up story today by them, (link) that is creating some national attention. So far Columbus is the only Ohio city to institute a ban on travel to Arizona. Part of the Dispatch article:
According to the Associated Press, other cities that have approved various forms of boycotts or resolutions against Arizona include Seattle, Los Angeles, San Diego, Berkeley, Calif., and El Paso and Austin, Texas.
In Columbus, some City Council members were mildly critical of Coleman for imposing the travel ban without telling them. But they didn’t criticize his reasons for taking the step.
Williamson said the mayor had no intention of making a “media splash” with the travel ban. He told department heads about two weeks ago, and it became public yesterday after inquiries from The Dispatch.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.
Rescinding that program “wouldn’t make sense to the taxpayers,” Williamson said.
My, my! It will not apply to the red light camera company because it won’t make sense to taxpayers. This whole ban thing doesn’t make sense to taxpayers!
May 20th, 2010 at 10:16 pmI hope the idiot is voted out of office when running again. There is no appreciation of the problems that Arizona is going through.
May 20th, 2010 at 10:42 pmOh yeah… because I’m sure there are so many trips to Arizona from Columbus… Well I guess maybe to check on the red light camera processing
Insane…
May 20th, 2010 at 11:23 pmmmm, the Arizona law is almost identical to federal law http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU7fhIO7DG0&feature=player_embedded
May 20th, 2010 at 11:54 pmit s a quick read , read the law . Just be here legally!
Not surprising. Columbus isn’t exactly a bastion of government genius. This is the same city that enacted an assault weapon ban in 2005 and caused the NRA to cancel taking their 2007 convention there…along with the 15-20 million it would have brought in.
Have you heard that Arizona’s utility commisioner has threatened to cut off Los Angeles from the 25% of electricity it gets from Arizona?
May 21st, 2010 at 2:39 amGood for Coleman! The new Arizona law is completely un-American. For the police to stop ANYONE on the street and demand proof of citizenship is ridiculous. If I got stopped most days I couldn’t prove my citizenship without a trip to my safely deposit box.
Crime is down in Arizona by 43% from 1995 (only 30% for the rest of the country) and yet crime ‘reason’ for the new law. This is basically conservatives being bullies as usual against the weak, the poor and the sick. It’s easy to go against poor minorities or people on welfare, but no talk about new tough standards for hiring illegal or regulation for the banks or a stand against the bail out of BP.
In the end, this will turn the Hispanic population of Arizona against the Republicans like proposition 187 did in California. 40% of Hispanic voters in Arizona voted for McCain in 2008, while in California only 26% voted for McCain. I predict that within the next 10 years Arizona will become a solid blue state in presidential elections.
May 21st, 2010 at 8:43 amSensorG:
Following the rule of law is not ‘un-American.” Protecting one’s border, or property, is a natural right in keeping with every nation’s constitution around the world, not too mention the charter of United Nations.
Also, if you do an internet search for Hispanic polling through out the US you’ll see American’s of Hispanic descent are overwhelmingly behind stricter illegal immigration laws and border protection.
Let’s stop with the knee jerk reactions and the whole left right paradigm. Let’s start using our heads. This has nothing to do with democrats or republicans, but with our sovereignty.
Mexico is a third world country controlled by criminals at every level. It’s time the Mexicans fixed their country. Stop pointing the finger at the US; it’s time to put the spot light on the Mexican oligarchs that are enslaving the Mexican population. That is the real problem, not US.
May 21st, 2010 at 9:20 amThis is a complete overstepping of government power. It allows the government to stop ANYONE for ANY reason and demand proof of citizenship. They could stop YOU or ME and lock us up if we don’t have the right papers. This is no different than if a law was passed allowing the police to search any car or any house at will for anything because something illegal MIGHT be going on. This is a direct assault on AMERICAN freedom.
May 21st, 2010 at 9:43 amThat’s not what the bill says, SensorG. Come on!
May 21st, 2010 at 9:47 amToo bad the American Indians didn’t have immigration laws.
May 21st, 2010 at 9:53 amYou have to ‘Show your papers’ everytime you visit the bank or make a credit card purchase, and even get finger printed to cash a check, if you are a law abiding citizen what is the big deal? Illegals steal jobs and benefits from Amercan citizens, let them change their own country if they don’t like it there instead of changing ours, or if they like our country so much become an Amercan Territory and get it over with!
May 21st, 2010 at 9:54 amBring our troops home and seal the border, legalize pot and tax it, then use the revenue to stop ALL smuggling into this country!
SensorG, can you site the reference in the bill that says they can stop anyone for any reason and demand papers?
thisjustin, too bad they didn’t. We are proof of what happens when you don’t enforce any. I guess we should start enforcing our to protect our way of life before we lose it like they did.
May 21st, 2010 at 9:58 amI don’t have to prove my citizenship or proof of residency to cash a check or use my credit card. You’re a law abiding citizen, would care if the police decided to search your home, you have nothing to hide right? You don’t want people to come here illegally, then create massive penalties to the people and corporations that hire them.
May 21st, 2010 at 10:04 amThe law REQUIRES the police to question and demand papers from ANYONE they suspect is in the country illegally. That is so wide open that’s not even funny.
May 21st, 2010 at 10:10 amAnswer Doug’s question SensorG. Where does it say they can “stop ANYONE for ANY reason”?
May 21st, 2010 at 10:11 amHuh? The police are REQUIRED to stop anyone THEY suspect is in the country illegally. That’s open season for abuse and interpretation by the government. Any police office could decide that I “looked illegal” and demand my papers.
May 21st, 2010 at 10:21 amThats what I thought. You can’t. Way to misrepresnt something. Maybe you were reading Mexico’s law?
May 21st, 2010 at 10:27 amFrom SensorG: This is a complete overstepping of government power. It allows the government to stop ANYONE for ANY reason and demand proof of citizenship.
It doesn’t. The legislation mirrors Federal law, and was enacted because the State cannot force the Federal government to enforce its own law. I blogged about it here.
May 21st, 2010 at 10:30 amWhy any government, including Arizona included,thinks they can stop crime at any level is laughable.
Bank robberies, private and public fiscal mismanagement, profiling, airport security, etc and so on.
Give me a break, do you feel safer everyday?
Name me one area of this county that doesn’t have crime occuring on a regular basis.
Whether it’s immigration or traffic stops the current thought in this country is “I got mine” now screw the rest of ya!
May 21st, 2010 at 10:33 amIf the government was doing its job, Arizona wouldn’t have to do it.
I doubt the Columbus mayor will be in politics too much longer.
May 21st, 2010 at 10:35 amLet’s get real. First of all, most Mexican illegals work, and they work at jobs that most Americans don’t want to do.
Second, I guess it’s all right for the NRA to boycott Columbus to protest a law passed there, but it’s wrong for Columbus, or any other organization or governmental agency to boycott Arizona because the don’t like a law passed there. Columbus and Arizona have the right to pass the laws they want. The NRA, the City of Columbus, or anyone else, has the right to boycott in protest to a law or laws they don’t like.
Finally, I find it so ironic that Americans are so upset about Mexicans coming into the Southwest of the United States. These are states we stole from Mexico after we provoked a war with them ostensibly over the correct border between Mexico and Texas. The U.S. used this as an excuse to invade Mexico, march into Mexico City, after very heavy fighting, and force the Mexican Government to sign over half of the country as it existed at the time. As far as I’m concerned, the Mexicans are just moving back into areas that were taken by force from Mexico over 160 years ago! Does “might make right”?
My greatest concern about our borders, is with terrorists entering illegally. I may be wrong, but I don’t remember any terrorist threats from Mexican illegals! And doesn’t diverting attention toward these MOSTLY peaceful people who just want to have a decent life, away from the terrorists, play right into the hands of those who would do us harm??
May 21st, 2010 at 10:52 amJeff,
We are the government.
May 21st, 2010 at 10:52 amI really like this part of the bill -
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
What if the governmet passed a law saying -
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY TAKE A PERSON’S GUN AWAY IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE.
I mean, in either case, the police would never abuse their power right?
May 21st, 2010 at 11:05 amSend the statue of liberty back to France, I don’t think she has “papers”
May 21st, 2010 at 11:06 amdalepertcheck,
First: Lets really get real. Most Americans won’t do that work because they dont HAVE to. Why would they when the welfare checks from Uncle Sam pay more? If people started going hungry, you would see a whole lot more Americans willing to clean some toilets and mow some grass.
Second: A city boycotting another city is not the same as an organization boycotting a city. Why does Columbus care what Arizona does? Does it affect Columbus? There are a ton of laws that are different from city to city, state to state, how insane would it be if they all started boycotting each other for every little infraction? When NRA boycotts Columbus, it does nothing to me. When local government start boycotting, there will be beaurocracy to manage it and THAT costs US money.
FInally: Let’s see, Mexico was taken from the natives by Europeans, we took the southwest from the European Mexicans. How far back should we go? Aztecs, Mayans, Incas? Please, your logic is flawed. By your estimation we would need to criticize every border ever, that is how they get made. What gives Germany the right to thier border, they took it from Poland and I’m sure Poland got it from some other country even further. The list is endless. Hell by your estimation, we should be assisting Israel with the dismantling of Palestine, I mean it was ORIGINALLY Isreal’s right?
thisjustin,
Um isn’t that the point of government? It is really the only thing they should exist for is to protect the rights of law abiding citizens. I won’t even bother responding to any argument you might make against this, it would be a waste of time if your that far gone.
May 21st, 2010 at 11:29 amHow has this law been reported? One example, New York Daily News:
Then Politifact – (link)
This should establish the fact aspect so we can move on from there.
May 21st, 2010 at 11:46 am“gray area” “future court decisions” “even in the abscence of suspicion”
Key phrases!
May 21st, 2010 at 11:56 amThere is gray area in every law when the law enforcement is invovled. Just like the quoted “driving while black” law. Should we not have speed limits and stop lights because cops might profile who they decide to stop? Arizona has done as much as reasonably possible to restrict this type of behavior but there is not perfect answer of what they can do within the restrictions of the Federal laws they are emulating. I garuntee the first cop that even appears to racially profiling will be burned at the stake, just as it should be.
May 21st, 2010 at 11:58 amDoug,
When was the last time you checked the cultural makeup of who exactly is on welfare in our fair country?
As far as being “that far gone” I must have lost my mind while watching the “View” and doing the dishes while the wife is at work.
May 21st, 2010 at 12:01 pmWhile the AZ law might be legal it is open to interpretation by law officials.
I’m the daughter of a Holland immigrant. But my daughters father was French Canadian. And a couple of my grandchildren look like their grandfathers side of the family. My daughter who lives in NM is mistaken for a Hispanic all the time. Unless you carry your birth certificate how do you prove you are a legal citizen? Just seems to me there could easily be mistakes on who is legal or not.
The majority of people who need assistance from the government are elderly white senior citizens. Hunger and poverty are seen across all racial and age groups. It effects every facet of America’s population.
May 21st, 2010 at 12:53 pmhttp://michellemalkin.com/2010/05/20/calderone-bashes-arizona/
From SensorG: “This is a complete overstepping of government power.”
You have just described obamacare
Will Columbus and other cities boycotting Arizona, boycot Mexico for their immigration laws?????
May 21st, 2010 at 1:17 pmWow Pam, Michelle Malkin? That’s who you run too to make your point? What Mexician immigration law Pam? Please enlighten us…
May 21st, 2010 at 1:47 pmA MODEST PROPOSAL…
Michigan residents don’t pay any property tax in Ohio. However our roads are in good repair, whereas theirs are still crumbling like Berdan street in the late 90’s.
Then as we all know, their drivers can’t seem to find a lane, turn indicator, or brake pedal. Their oversized ‘dualie’ trucks are turning NW Ohio’s roadways to rubble.
I posit that we do not recognize Michigan driver’s licenses, or license plates as valid in our state.
If they want to come to Ohio? They must pay for and pass our driver’s test and rent a car. If they want to just pass through? We can have taxis and shuttles waiting at the border. The tax on all of this will of course support our state’s economy.
This will of course help pay for ‘the wall’ which will permanantly seal off our border to the North. As an added perk, this will no longer keep the stream of drugs and prostitutes flowing through our interstates. All of this activity will need be re-routed through the I-69 pathway through Indianapolis. Where the Indiana State Patrol can stop and search any vehicle they like after pulling them over with their unmarked cars. (In Ohio, unmarked cars, and searches without probable cause will still remain illegal.) The reduction in traffic stops and prisoners in our state system, will also help fund the wall.
By Jan 2012 we should be able to keep those ‘North of the Border’ out! If people who look like they are from MI are spotted by our police, they should be questioned, searched, detained, and sent back over that border.
If it is good enough for Arizonia, and it is good enough for Ottawa Hills, it should be good enough for all of Ohio!
Consider the alternative; if we let these people keep coming across, they will ruin our roads, take our jobs, make out children learn their silly university’s fight song, and even worse, send all of their money back to Michigan!
Have a good weekend everyone.
May 21st, 2010 at 1:50 pmDoug,
Much of this is opinion. If the organization you like boycotts an entity you dislike, that’s a good, fair boycott. If the object of a boycott is one you like; however, the boycott is wrong! I uphold the right to boycott wherever it is legal to do so, whether I agree with the boycotters or not!
As far as the NRA boycott of Columbus not affecting you, “…it does nothing to me…”, you’re just wrong! With the NRA cancelling their convention in Columbus, the Columbus economy took a hit of several millions of dollars. Part of that money would gone into the state’s general fund as sales tax payments. That is lost revenue that makes Ohio’s economic situation worse. After all, isn’t that what a boycott is intended to do? Whether you like it or not, many organizations and/or governmental agencies are boycotting the State of Arizona. This will hurt Arizona’s economy.
People vote. They express their will at the polls. They have every right to do so! But they must be made aware that their actions will cause reactions…some positive, some negative. Maybe some pro-Arizona organizations will go out of their way to schedule activities IN Arizona and offset part or all of the impact from the various boycotts. Only time will tell.
May 21st, 2010 at 1:59 pmI made no comment whatsoever on the cultural makeup of welfare recipients. I can’t, wow, I uh… I just can’t figure your argument out anymore. Seems like your grasping at straws here, was this some kind effort to make it look like I was making a racial comment? It’s like a poorly played move from a radical playbook.
May 21st, 2010 at 2:00 pmMarty…loving your comments!!
May 21st, 2010 at 2:03 pmSensorG,
Do you deny the behavior of the democrats shown in the video? There is video proof at the link I provided showing how they gave the Mexican president that bashed our Country and our laws a standing ovation. Do you support that?
Here you can watch Wolf Blitzer of CNN and Calderon where Calderon admits how his country handles illegals. I’m sure Wolf Blitzer is on your approved list of media sources. Watch and be enlightened.
http://www.newsmax.com/Manage/Videos/VideoGallery/Wolf-Blitzer-Exposes-Calderon-s-Border-Hypocrisy
Transcript of the interview here –
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1005/19/sitroom.01.html
May 21st, 2010 at 2:03 pmSensorG Says:
“Wow Pam, Michelle Malkin? That’s who you run too to make your point?”
Just because you don’t respect conservative journalists doesn’t mean what Ms. Malkin exposes on her blog is not true. She backs up what she exposes and provides proof. Would you say the same thing to anyone linking Glass City Jungle in the same way I linked to Michelle Malkin’s blog?
May 21st, 2010 at 2:24 pmI don’t think you can compare what I do with Malkin, so if we could keep things as close to the topic at hand as possible, that’d be appreciated.
May 21st, 2010 at 2:36 pmSensor chose to go off topic and I replied to his remark. It was a valid question to ask of him since he chose to criticize a source I linked when commenting on this thread.
May 21st, 2010 at 2:48 pm>> is with terrorists entering illegally.
I heard on 60 Minutes that one property owner in Arizona found two copies of the Qur’an on their property.
And Americans my not want the jobs that illegal immigrants do, but when the gravy train runs out they will have too.
May 21st, 2010 at 2:56 pmIf Mexico wants it’s citizens to enjoy the rights of Americans why doesn’t it apply for U.S. annexation?
May 21st, 2010 at 3:02 pmSensor chose to go off topic
Yeah Lisa, he started it. Why are you always picking on me?
In reality, unless someone told the Arizona State government that the city of Columbus, Ohio was boycotting them, I don’t think they would notice. Check the response of Arizona to Los Angeles boycott – if you like your lights on, you best back off. Comprende?
May 21st, 2010 at 3:35 pmToo funny…You just got compared to Michelle Malkin Lisa! If that doesn’t get someone band I don’t know what will!
Pam – We’ve derailed the thread long enough, if you want to see the other side of Michelle Malkin author of Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror simply Google “Michelle Malkin idiot” for fun or “Michelle Malkin liar“ for more info.
Madjack, while agree that no one in Arizona would notice a Columbus boycott, sometime you have to stand on principles. As for AZ not selling CA power…AZ can’t afford not to. Many of Arizona’s electric plants, including the Palo Verde nuclear-power facility, are actually owned by California utilities.
May 21st, 2010 at 3:45 pmThis is so stupid! coleman has lost his marbles. He has been destroying the city of CBus for years now and now wants to get in this debate.
The federal law is almost identical to this Arizona law, so it will be upheld.
Anyone see those angry and destructful mobs that were protesting SB1070?
May 21st, 2010 at 3:59 pmI just didn’t want the topic to go off into what Malkin does versus what I do, or even about Malkin in general and to issue a general reminder to everyone as to trying to remain at least to the topic of immigration and the Mayor of Columbus banning AZ travel.
The never ending focusing where the material comes from versus the actual topic aside, I recommend the link from Politifact since they reference the section of the law that is at issue.
AZ does have the right to retaliate back against those who boycott, which means it will be interesting to see who’s boycotting who and who is boycotting back and how long that lasts.
This will end up being decided by the court system, I think that’s something most of us agree on when it comes to how AZ will put this into practice.
My opinion on illegal immigration has not changed, the problem is not the illegals, it’s those who hire the illegals. If the government either AZ or Federal went after those who hire illegal immigrants since there are actual standards that are supposed to exist when it comes to employment documentation, we’d actually solve the problem.
If no illegal aliens were hired? There would be no motivation for them to come here and the companies/individuals who hire them would have to hire legal citizens. They are the ones who benefit from the situation and the ones who create the situation in the first place.
May 21st, 2010 at 4:00 pmIf you have never watched the 2004 movie, “A day without a Mexican” – I recommend it. You can watch it online here.
May 21st, 2010 at 5:30 pmDoug,
If I misread your comment on welfare, I apologize.
May 21st, 2010 at 8:18 pmIt seems to me that any state that allows boycotts or sanctions to be imposed on another state is a clear violation of the tenth amendment regarding interstate commerce and should be deemed illegal by the federal government immediately. Although expecting this administration to uphold the constitution is kind of laughable.
Secondly, why are they imposing these ridiculous boycotts on Arizona? Why are they no imposing them on Mexico instead for allowing their citizens to violate both U.S. and Mexican law by crossing the border illegally? The Arizona law is almost an exact copy of the federal law that has been in place forever.
Lets be honest. This is just a way for the socialist democratic party to get peoples minds off of the trillions of dollars wasted by them on programs like Obama-care, bank bailouts, and failed stimulus programs that did nothing but raise un-employment and drive us into debt. And lets not forget that more than 70% of Americans support the Arizona bill.
May 21st, 2010 at 8:58 pmCorrection…the bank bailouts happened up Bush with the support of McCain and Palin. Currently conservatives (mostly Republicans) are arguing for the bail out of BP at the expense of the American tax payer.
May 21st, 2010 at 9:06 pm70% of 500 polled support Arizona’s decision, not 70% of Americans if you are citing Rasmussen. There’s a huge difference.
As to the legality factor, it’s just as illegal for AZ to threaten LA with the possibility of cutting 25% of their electricity sales as it is for Columbus or any other city/state to ban travel or other sales to AZ.
While the argument has been raised that this is okay since it mirrors federal law, critics have consistently pointed out that’s not completely accurate. Not having the proper papers under Federal ID law is a civil offense, not a criminal one.
If you are interested in the legal arguments against what AZ is doing, I recommend visiting the ACLU.
May 21st, 2010 at 9:18 pmThe bank bailouts were also passed by a democratically controlled congress so whats your point? It time our government started upholding the constitution and the laws of the land. As for BP, anyone who even considers a bailout for them should be impeached immediately.
May 21st, 2010 at 9:18 pmlet s boycott Mexico . There view of illegals seems very strict
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
•In Mexico 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 and have no criminal records; and
•Contributors to the general well being of the nation.
“The law also ensures that:
•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 the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
•Those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.”
Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense,” Waller states with unassailable logic.
Unfortunately, very little “perfect sense” is obvious in the ongoing debate on immigration reform here in the United States. Rather, the interests of the American people are often ignored or made subordinate by politicians from both parties.
Of greater interest to some in Washington, D.C., is feeding an insatiable corporate appetite for cheap labor, satisfying a wicked lust for cheap votes, and giving in to an inexplicable drive to promote America’s decay into a third-world abyss.
These ignoble interests trump rule of law, homeland security, economic and social stability, and preservation of American language and culture in the minds of some elected officials sworn to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.
By contrast, Waller notes that Mexican law and officials are focused on numero uno-that being Mexico!
Waller writes, “The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens – and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, both illegal and illegal.
“Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or General Law on Population spells out specifically the country’s immigration policy.
“It is an interesting law – and one that should cause us all to ask, ‘Why is our southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent?’
“If a felony is a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.
“If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce them as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.”
Waller supports his main thesis by citing key articles of Mexico’s main law.
Again quoting from the commentary at http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/waller5-8-06.html:
“We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. Now let’s look at Mexico’s main immigration law.
“Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
May 21st, 2010 at 9:56 pmCurious what happens when American citizens are found to be in other countries illegally.
Anyone care to visit Iran, The Soviet Union, China, Korea, Venezuela or Cuba without proper documentation just to give it a try?
May 22nd, 2010 at 4:51 am“70% of 500 polled support Arizona’s decision, not 70% of Americans if you are citing Rasmussen. There’s a huge difference.”
So Rasmussen isn’t reliable? I don’t get your point Lisa. They didn’t poll enough people? Please tell me all the details of that poll before you discredit it? Was it just Arizona residents?
May 22nd, 2010 at 8:03 amI find it interesting that so many Americans choose to retire in Mexico where it seems you get more bang for your buck.
Also there are a number of southern Californians who live in Mexico but continue to work in the states.
May 22nd, 2010 at 9:36 amMolsonator, it’s simple, polling 500 people no matter who the poll is done by is not the same as “more than 70% of Americans support the Arizona bill” — That’s without even going into if it is the Rasmussen poll being cited, that most are citing when they use the 70% number it was not Americans as in all over the nation – it was 500 Arizona residents who were polled.
Now if we voted as a nation on this and 70% of the American voters voted for it? It’d be accurate if stated in context. I’ve consistently had the same position on polling, no matter if it supports or does not support how I believe. As an FYI, the second question asked in the poll of the same 500 Arizona “likely voters”:
May 22nd, 2010 at 10:32 amHaving lived near the CA/AZ/MX border I can say I don’t doubt for one minute the statistic of 70% of Arizonans supporting the law. Arizona has seen a spike in kidnappings.
This has been linked DIRECTLY to the Mexican Drug Cartels who operate illegally crossing the border.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6848672&page=1
May 22nd, 2010 at 12:16 pmJeff S- #54, excellent point!!!
Chuck- #53, I am so with you on that! I have absolutely NO problem boycotting Mexico. Been there, done that, dealt with too much crap there.
On the other hand, any money I could/would have spent in Mexico will now go directly to a fund to travel TO Arizona!
Why not go somewhere in America where there’s a state government who actually gives a rats behind about its (legal) CITIZENS!
Too bad I’ve already made my summer travel plans…
May 22nd, 2010 at 12:39 pmLisa,
Excellent statistical information, as usual.
AZ supporters,
Regarding Mexican illegal immigration laws: It’s easy to write tight laws regarding immigration, when illegal immigration is not a big problem. Are there millions of people trying to get INTO Mexico illegally?? NO!!
Mexico also has strict environmental laws. Do they enforce these laws against most of the American corporations who operate there? NO!!
You are comparing the old “apples to oranges”.
May 22nd, 2010 at 3:24 pmFrom Lisa Renee: If no illegal aliens were hired? There would be no motivation for them to come here and the companies/individuals who hire them would have to hire legal citizens.
Not so. Mexicans cross the border all the time to have their babies in the U.S. Medical expenses are paid by US taxes. Then, since the new child is now a citizen of the United States despite the mother being in the country illegally, the child gets to stay, and so does the mother, which places a new load on social services. This is one reason why California is going broke.
Additionally, you are presenting a logical fallacy here, which is the lack of choice; one being mutually exclusive of the other. Actually, Arizona wants both. They want to deport illegal aliens as well as arrest and fine people who hire them.
May 22nd, 2010 at 4:00 pmConsidering Mexico will have socialized medicine by 2012 as one factor and the second factor that the majority of those who cross the border do so for jobs, not to have babies and the many US citizens who cross the border into Mexico for prescriptions as well as medical procedures…
I still stand by my belief that the only way illegal immigration will stop is when the government goes after those who hire the illegals instead of just sending illegals back. We have illegal immigrants here from Mexico, our law enforcement knows about them, immigration knows about them. When the workers are caught, they pay bail, are released from jail and promise to go back to Mexico. Most times they don’t…until they are ready to go back on their own. The businesses that use them, do so because they can pay them less, not have to follow laws as far as overtime, etc., and they know if one or two get arrested? More will come.
May 22nd, 2010 at 4:24 pmThe bank bailouts were under a lame duck Bush with the expressed approval of the president-elect.
How about all the folks who apparently love illegal aliens so much take them in and use their own money to pay for their every need?
That’s right, because they only toss money around like it’s going out of style when it’s someone ELSE’S.
May 22nd, 2010 at 4:38 pmLOL, This whole argument is becoming really laughable. Everything, everything in Mexico is crap. The water, the food, the health-care. Everything. Mexicans have every reason to come to this country. As for Mexico having socialized health-care, lol, they have no doctors. And what doctors they do have are extremely under-educated. The polls all say the same thing. The the majority of the American people are on the side of Arizona. Including the majority of democrats. You can continue to make all the excuses you want but its one simple fact. THEY ARE HERE ILLEGALLY!!! PERIOD!!!
May 22nd, 2010 at 5:23 pmI’m not making excuses, merely pointing out facts. Over 600,000 Americans live in Mexico City alone and I have personal experience with family living in Mexico and near the border.
That’s more reliable than polls or being rude.
May 22nd, 2010 at 5:32 pmIf thats true, I guarantee the 600,000 Americans living in Mexico city are there LEGALLY. They are not there to rape the system, kidnap citizens, smuggle drugs, get welfare, or any of the other illegal activity that the illegal Mexicans do in our country. The problem with all these excuses is that it makes it hard for the legal Mexican immigrants who came to this country by working, saving and going through the proper channels to obtain their temporary work visa and or citizenship. These stupid arguments of racial profiling are almost as bad as the people arguing against red light cameras. If you a citizen living in Arizona then carry your license or I.D. and help law enforcement do their job and help catch these criminals. If you dont want a red light ticket then dont run a red light. If you let someone drive your car and they get one in your car then make them pay it or dont let them drive it again. Its about personal responsibility and being a good citizen.
And one last thing. This is a free country and Arizona is a free state. If people dont like the laws in Arizona then they can leave. If they dont like the laws in our country then they can leave. Im sure Mexico or Canada will be happy to have ya.
May 22nd, 2010 at 9:47 pmThis is Ohio and I’d suggest if you can’t follow civil rules of discussion, that you leave.
People can disagree with laws, they do not abdicate their citizenship by expressing opinions or facts, especially when done so without name calling or insults.
May 22nd, 2010 at 9:50 pmFirst of all, I called no names and insulted nobody. I merely stated facts. And your right. This is Ohio. This posting was about an Ohio mayor putting his nose into the business of another state. Another state who is suffering from a plague called illegal immigration. Anything else?
May 22nd, 2010 at 10:01 pmYou may not realize it, but when you edit a comment, the original is still sent to me via e-mail. If you don’t realize what you’ve written that was rude or not civil discussion, then I’m not sure how much we could possibly discuss.
May 22nd, 2010 at 10:04 pmThe reason I edited it and took out “you” and replace it with “they” is because that would have been rude and I wasnt talking about you. I was talking about people in general.
And one last thing. This is a free country and Arizona is a free state. If “people” dont like the laws in Arizona then “they” can leave. If “they” dont like the laws in our country then “they” can leave. Im sure Mexico or Canada will be happy to have “them”.
May 22nd, 2010 at 10:10 pmExactly my point, and when I wrote my comment? It was to your original comment before you decided to edit it.
May 22nd, 2010 at 10:12 pmJeff,
May 22nd, 2010 at 11:56 pmThe point is that we can agree to disagree without taking the, “I’m going to take my bat and ball and go home”, position when others disagree with us. I don’t think it adds anything to the discussion to tell people with whom you disagree to leave the country. This is supposed to be a country which treasures open discussion, which encourages differences of opinions to be expressed in the marketplace of ideas. The best ideas win! Let’s fight fair, shall we?
Arizona businesses miss their illegal workers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es3hq0XM-cw&feature=player_embedded
Of course when a business says they can’t find an American to do the work, they mean they can’t find an American who will do it for a really, really low wage.
So Arizona’s new solution to illegal aliens might be to make them all legal.
May 23rd, 2010 at 7:48 amAnd this country has been built on the backs of immigrants both legal and illegal.
May 23rd, 2010 at 7:50 amFrom Thisjustin: And this country has been built on the backs of immigrants both legal and illegal.
And the legal immigrants outnumbered the illegals many times to one, as you should know. More to the point, native born U.S. citizens outnumber both groups exponentially.
The argument of the United States being a free country, and if you don’t like the law you’re free to leave doesn’t hold much water. True, people are free to travel to a different State, but we have equal freedom to change the law in the State where we reside. We are also protected by the Bill of Rights, although that protection is being eroded constantly by the government and the justice system.
This new law in Arizona is not in violation of the US Constitution. It isn’t oppressive to the law abiding citizens of Arizona. The law expedites the arrest and deportation of people who are in the United States illegally. These people are breaking the law; they are criminals. Send them back to their homes in Mexico (or where ever they came from).
On a related subject, I read Jeff’s comments several times and I didn’t find them offensive. Strongly worded, yes; offensive, no. Jeff makes a few excellent points, such as the 600,000 U.S. citizens residing legally in Mexico City, and who are not consuming social resources illegally, nor are they Anglican gang members advocating the violent overthrow of the Mexican government and running drugs across the border.
May 23rd, 2010 at 10:21 amThey probably are there legally, since Mexico makes it easier for them to cross over legally. My reason for referencing the number was because Jeff said Mexico was crap as well as making references to their lack of quality of medical care and the comment before it was edited was rude, which Jeff himself partially admitted.
So far, rounding up illegals when caught and shipping them back or imprisoning them, has not worked. It will never work as long as there are jobs that pay enough for them to risk crossing the border not just in the border states but even here in Toledo.
May 23rd, 2010 at 10:28 amSensorG Says:
“Too funny…You just got compared to Michelle Malkin Lisa! If that doesn’t get someone band I don’t know what will!”
I think the word you wanted to use is “banned.” If anyone is banned it should be you for your lame attempt at humor.
By the way did you read the CNN Caulderon transcript I posted? It will answer “What Mexican immigration law” from your post 32.
Adios
May 24th, 2010 at 1:18 amI think Lisa is right in that it needs to go after the employer as well. It really does need to be a two pronged approach. The law needs to go after illegals being here as well as the employers that give them reason to be here. Something more than a slap on the wrist.
I also think they should change the law that says every person born in America is an American citizen. You should have to have at least one parent who is a legal US citizen.
As far as the employer goes, they should be required to make sure they are a legal citizen by keeping documentation such as birth certificate, state id, and social security number. This should be true whether you hire theym directly or through a hiring agency or a temp agency.
There should also be a government site tied to the Social Security department where they can check to make sure that the social security number matches the address provided and stuff like that.
If they are caught and have the documentation to back up that they thought they were a legal then ok it happens, try to find out how the illegal got the documentation. If they don’t have the documentation to back it up then make the fine so it’s a real deterrent, something like all back taxes on the illegal + 1% of revenue. If they continue to break the law then in addition to the fine they get jail time.
It does appear that the Arizona law has detterred some employers as that seemed to be the complaint of the illegals in some of the interviews, they they could no longer find work and would have to go to other states to do so.
As far as Mexico not having a problem with illegal immigration, they do have a problem with illegal immigration, but like us it is on thier southern border so we don’t hear about it that much.
May 24th, 2010 at 10:44 amLisa, it looks like Arizona did pass something to target businesses back in 2007. link It appears this new law IS the second step of a two pronged approach, the first just didn’t seem to get as much attention. I remember it though because my friend moved to Phoenix in anticipation of that law a few years ago creating opportunity for legal workers. He and a few of his friends went.
Here is another article that mentions the crackdown on business who hires illegals. It was listed as a reason for lower crime along with the recession and law enforcement being stricter. I mention/include this only because crime is one of the major factors for the new law. Crime decreases when you have less illegals, so it stands to reason that maybe if you want even LOWER crime (don’t we all?) get rid of more illegals if they are still a problem…
May 24th, 2010 at 1:04 pm#55 Molsonator – Agree completely. Rasmussen is highly respected by Dems, Republicans and others. Lisa already knows this. She discredits Rasmussen, because she doesn’t like Rasmussen – especially his results on hot-button topics like this one.
I can respect disagreeing with the majority of American opinion on any topic. I don’t respect trying to make it sound like polls are not legitimate because poll samples are of a limited number of people. ALL POLL SAMPLES ARE OF A LIMITED NUMBER OF PEOPLE. ANY poll can be dismissed on the basis of “Well it doesn’t agree with my opinion, so I will attack the messenger.”
The idea that any polling cannot be trusted because each and every American citizen is not polled on each and every issue… is patently ridiculous.
Here is a Democrat’s opinion of Rasmussen:
“Both Republican and Democratic candidates for office cite Rasmussen data in their correspondence. Susan Estrich, who managed the Presidential campaign for Michael Dukakis said, “If you really want to know what people in America think, you can’t find a smarter guy to ask than Scott Rasmussen.”
May 24th, 2010 at 3:44 pmTruthseeker, why you persist in making personal observations that are 100% incorrect, I’ll never know, but…
I have never stated anything of the sort directed at Rasmussen. I have consistently stated polls no matter who is doing them are only as reliable as how many people are polled and anyone with the slightest bit of common sense understands there is a huge difference between stating 70% of all Americans believe something and 70% of 500 Arizona residents who were polled believe something…
May 24th, 2010 at 4:11 pmState government officials should travel less all together and rely more on modern technology.
May 24th, 2010 at 4:18 pmYou and I have had the Rasmussen “debate” in the past, at which time I posted links backing up his reliability. It surprised me then and still surprises me that you try to find an angle to discredit his findings. The “huge difference” argument – well, with Molsonator, who said it first you notice… I don’t get your point either, and you didn’t answer his questions.
Polls are used to state what majority opinion is all the time – all the time. That’s why exit polls are done at elections, for instance, to predict the outcome beforehand. Polls are extrapolated to cover the general population all the time – that is precisely why they are done. So, with Molsonator, I’m asking what precisely IS your point?
May 24th, 2010 at 4:22 pmNot quite accurate, I’ve had the same consistent position on polling in general it’s not just related to Rasmussen and I’ve taken the same consistent position that polls are only truly useful for discussion purposes especially when the information about the polls as to what is the question actually asked and the breakdown as far as who is polled is not openly shared.
I don’t think you are in a position to speak to what I know or don’t know or believe or don’t believe.
May 24th, 2010 at 4:29 pmStill no answers to Molsonator’s questions? Also, what in #83 is “not quite accurate”?, because I honestly don’t understand what you mean by “not quite accurate”… what is not accurate? I can understand, by the way, not liking the result of a poll. I don’t personally care for Soros’ (I think it’s his) “factcheck.org”, which you have used more than once here, so I have every legitimate reason to believe that you trust that website, but I would never waste time trying to discredit any of his/their results.
Why? Because, results speak for themselves. Rasmussen’s credibility is high because his results are highly accurate. That’ll have to do it for me – I’m not even going to come back to see if you are going to answer Molsonator’s questions, as you want to make this about me personally, and my interest on any topic extends only to the logic side of any argument.
May 24th, 2010 at 4:47 pmTake Kos’s criticism with a bit of partisan salt, but he makes a lot of good points..
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5/19/867829/-Rasmussens-(dishonest)-game
May 24th, 2010 at 5:04 pmThe 70% factor… Correct me if I’m wrong.
Consider the two statements:
On the question of freedom of speech and governmental media content controls: In a recent Gallup poll, 70% of the 1000 people surveyed stated that they preferred some form of media content control, while 20% were in favor of leaving media censorship and control as it is now and 9% stated that the GOP should control all media. 1% stated that media should not be controlled at all.
versus this one:
In a recent poll we found that the majority of US citizens, 70%, stated that they would prefer government to control media content.
In the first case it’s clear that the results of a 1000 person survey are being quoted. In the second statement it is inferred that all the adult citizens of the US were consulted and 70% are in favor of governmental censorship.
There is a difference between the two, which is what I believe Lisa is getting at.
May 24th, 2010 at 5:11 pmTruthseeker, nice attempt at a twist but you are the one who made this personal and was inaccurate, I addressed the previous questions, 70% of Americans did not state they supported the AZ law, the poll of 500 was Arizona residents deemed “likely voters.” I resist the mantra that citing polls somehow makes a position or a candidate seem to have more support, even if it’s a poll that demonstrates agreement with a position I have.
You typically make a habit of making things personnel, since you say you aren’t coming back to this thread, which you’ve also done before then come back…my advice probably won’t matter. Yet I’d suggest being a bit more accurate when you are trying to state what you think I believe or better yet, stick to your own opinions instead of trying to make it about me.
May 24th, 2010 at 5:18 pmMadjack…Bingo
May 24th, 2010 at 5:19 pmMadjack,
Thank you!
May 25th, 2010 at 11:11 amThe Columbus mayor is supporting lawlessness and political rhetoric, while depriving his employees of the benefits of training offered in Arizona.
Now, if fiscally speaking, Columbus employees should not be traveling that far — different argument. But to base the restriction on the misinformation and propoganda that is surrounding the Arizona State law, is a shame.
TAHL
May 25th, 2010 at 3:58 pmI can tell you one thing, I am not going to have a discussion about this issue with one more numbskull who has an opinion about something they haven’t read.
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right – here I am stuck in the middle again.
May 25th, 2010 at 5:10 pmHow about a dose of reality here. About two hours ago, I spoke to a friend of over 30 years who is Mexican-American. On her mother’s side of the family, she is a SEVENTH GENERATION American!! She has a son living in Phoenix — an EIGHTH GENERATION American. She warned him to be sure to take his ID with him wherever he goes. Of course, he teases her for being an overly protective mother.
However, a friend of his, who is Puerto Rican in ethnic background, but was BORN AND RAISED IN THE UNITED STATES, was almost deported because he was stopped and questioned at a time when he did not have his ID with him. BTW…Anyone born in Puerto Rico is an American citizen by birth also, but he was born in the states. He was arrested and detained.
A full scale investigation was done. I don’t know if he was incarcerated for hours or days, but he came close to being sent to Mexico, and he was born in America, and wasn’t even Mexican in ethnicity!!
That’s the reality of this Arizona law, whether you want to admit it or not. As it will continue to be enforced, some will use it improperly to harass many who are natural born Americans based upon their “looking” like a Mexican! And you can say that it’s a simple thing to carry proper ID with you, but I wouldn’t have to worry about being harassed this way. It’s a matter of fairness.
Meanwhile, no one has really addressed the issue I brought up early in this thread about the diverting of our efforts away from terrorists trying to enter this country by focusing on Hispanics, most of whom just want a decent job!! I’ve been to California many times. I’ve seen Hispanic males standing on busy street corners in groups looking for day work. I may not be looking on the right street corners, but I’ve yet to see groups of non-Hispanics looking for those same types of jobs!
You can take this to the bank…the terrorists are laughing at us over this issue!! The terrorists are thrilled that we are spending so much time and effort trying to arrest and harass hard-working Hispanics, legal or illegal!!
May 25th, 2010 at 6:48 pmDale,
Not to be the doubting Thomas here, but if the story is as you’ve said it to be, then isn’t it the smoking gun that all people/news agencies against the Arizona immigration law? I personally have not seen any news related to the Arizona immigration law except for speculation, but there is a chance it’s a developing story depending on recency (you mention speaking to the person’s mom 2 hours ago, but not when the incident actually occurs)
It does leave a few questions in the telling of the story, which is now 4th hand (person->friend->mother->you). How did the person come in contact with the police? What caused them to require his identification?
Without the answers to those questions makes a huge difference between working as intended or a discrimination case. If he did something illegal that caused the police to ask for identification then it’s working. If he didn’t then it seems to me it is the holy grail of news stories, the cop that arrested him should be fired if not worse, and he’s probably due some sort of settlement.
As far as terrorism goes, if you have a secure border then you put a severe dent in terrorism. As far as I am concerned illegal immigration is a form of economic terrorism.
While I have not been to California to see the street corners, I have been around Toledo and have seen many people of different ethnic backgrounds standing around with signs “Will Work for Food”. Also if you think about it, it is the only the place as an illegal that you can really go to find work. If you are doing anything more than just day labor you had better have your paperwork in order. Of course, in Arizona there are laws against the employer that are meant to handle this as Doug pointed out in #79 that no one on here has touched with a 10 foot pole after the giant calling for laws against the employer.
May 25th, 2010 at 11:59 pmJohn,
As far as the timing is concerned, it is recent, but I don’t know exactly when this occured. As far as “probable cause”, I was not informed about that either, except that once his legal status was established, the young man was released and no charges were maintained.
And, John, seriously, this type of “profiling” has been going on for so long!! This type of arrest has been on the news many times! Cities all over the nation are paying much higher premiums for their liability coverage because of this!
BTW…I didn’t solicit any of this information. My friend offered this as part of a general conversation about how her children were doing.
Our borders…we have more than a 1000 mile border with Mexico and about a 4000 mile border with Canada. And this doesn’t take into account thousands of miles of coastline. If you really want to see government grow, if you really want to see taxes increase, get an estimate of what it would take to have enough border patrol or soldiers and sailors to seal off our borders! It would be a nightmare to most American taxpayers.
We have a limited amount of money. Do you really want to see so much of our limited resources going toward policing people who just want a job? And isn’t that why so many of all of America’s ancestors came here in the first place? And, if things are so bad in America, why do so many millions of people still want to come here? Don’t you want people to want to come here? I do!! I also want them to come here legally, but I want to concentrate our limited resources on the real bad people — terrorists.
Furthermore, I don’t view illegals as “economic terrorists”. I reserve this title for Communist China!! And China has been coddled by every President since and including Richard Nixon. That’s because the giant international corporations, who don’t care at all about this country, only profit margin, run this country and demand that China be a place where they can take advantage of the slave economy and no enforcement of environmental laws!! The government of Communist China is the center of economic terrorism against the United States!!
May 26th, 2010 at 9:01 amDale, the story you’ve related is, at best, anecdotal evidence. It’s one case, and one case does not make a panoptic crises in our law enforcement system. At worst, the story is fictional and is being offered to support an emotional argument against the law in Arizona.
Your argument about terrorists vs. illegal aliens doesn’t hold water. It contains the ‘limited choice’ logic fallacy. You would have people believe we cannot defend the country against terrorism while deporting illegal aliens, which is not true. The United States is able to do both, as evidenced by a distinct lack of successful terrorist attacks inside the U.S. borders.
Now, if you could produce a convincing, rational argument I’d be willing to consider revising my own opinions. Since you’re unable to do that, and since you’re not back in your classroom with a captive audience and a bully pulpit, you’ll just have to try something else.
Have you actually read the law?
May 26th, 2010 at 9:38 amFrom DalePertcheck: Furthermore, I don’t view illegals as “economic terrorists”. I reserve this title for Communist China!!
So we should all, what? Stop eating at Chinese restaurants? Stop selling chopsticks to those heathen Chinese? Stop taking Tai-Chi lessons?
May 26th, 2010 at 9:41 amDale,
The law isn’t meant to be used in a profiling manor… if I went down to Arizona and didn’t have my ID and was arrested I would expect the same treatment as I could easily be an illegal Canadian or European immigrant without my papers saying otherwise…
As far as cost, Obama has been pressured into sending 1,200 national guard to the border granted not to patrol, but to “assist with the battle against drug smugglers, working primarily on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance until more Border Patrol agents can be hired and trained”
Realistically though, if you used those 1,200 to patrol, it would be a little over 2 miles to patrol for 8 hour shifts… if you doubled that amount it would less than a mile and all the Mexico-America border would be covered. We have 59,000 troops in Afganistan and 95,000 in Iraq. A fraction of this could easily cover all the US borders. If we used all those troops we could cover the US land borders so that every 500 feet would be covered. It wouldn’t be near the nightmare for tax payers that the health care legislation that passed is going to be.
As far as your questions:
Do you really want to see so much of our limited resources going toward policing people who just want a job? Yes, they are breaking our laws. Couldn’t the same thing be said about policing us for parking and other minor traffic violations, noise control, and other such minor things?
And isn’t that why so many of all of America’s ancestors came here in the first place? Yes… and the majority came legally.
And, if things are so bad in America, why do so many millions of people still want to come here? Because while things are bad in America they are worse elsewhere or we are percieved to be better off by them.
Don’t you want people to want to come here? Yes… legally
We do agree on China
Also wanted to point out that according to this article from the NY Times, the Arizona law doesn’t go into effect till August which means this was an urelated case…
May 26th, 2010 at 9:56 amIf we annex Mexico we don’t have to worry about those foreigners taking our jobs.
I’m just saying.
May 26th, 2010 at 12:38 pmJack #96,
I have read the law. Reading of the law does NOT inform anyone about the manner in which the law is enforced. The environmental laws in Mexico and China read well, too. They are just not enforced!!
You don’t have to believe anything I post. It was unsolicited and spontaneous. It is anecdotal, but an often repeated experience of minorities throughout this country. I guess you’ve never known anyone who was stopped by police for “DWB…driving while Black” or “DWH…driving while Hispanic”. It happens — often!
Jack #97,
It is NEITHER Chinese culture NOR the Chinese people, especially those who have chosen to live in America, many illegally I might add, that are the problem. The problem is a Cummunist dictatorship that treats China as a giant plantation and the federal government which does the bidding of the giant corporations in enabling that subjugation of over 1.3 billion people!! For the record, I LOVE all kinds of Asian cuisine and culture, and enjoy a friendship with an owner of a Chinese restaurant who has had my wife and me at celebrations of the Chinese New Year!! Keep going, Jack. Defend the Communist dictators in China!!
Let’s not get personal with these posts. please. You don’t know me at all. One Thanksgiving, my wife and I had for dinner with my family, three Chinese graduate students from UT, our Korean-born adopted cousin, his ethnically Chinese girl friend who was from Malaysia, a Japanese couple and their son, and two of our best friends who were born and raised in India and their son!
John #98
I guess that you have never griped about why so many of our limited law enforcement resources are assigned to parking violators and minor traffic violations, instead of investigating crimes. You would be the first person I know who has not!
Great idea on the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan! The Iraqi War was predicated upon a ton of misinformation! Pulling out of Afghanistan where the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 trained, would likely result in the return to power of the Taliban government who allowed that terrorist training!
You are making my point! You want to use resources which are now fighting terrorists directly, and divert them to keeping people out who just want a job! GREAT IDEA!!
May 26th, 2010 at 1:05 pmMikeyA,
May 26th, 2010 at 1:11 pmWe DID annex half of Mexico in the 1840s!! It’s now called, California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and much of Texas!! The United States instigated a war over the border between Texas and Mexico, and we took what we wanted by force. Of course, we suffered several hundred casualties in doing so, but I guess that’s just “collateral damage” and acceptable when it comes to U.S. relations with a neighbor with whom we share a border. Might makes right!!??
Dale,
I have griped quite a lot about why our limited law enforcement is playing traffic cop… I do however grip why our limited law enforcement is assigned to parking violators and minor traffic violations… $$$$
There isn’t any money in solving thefts, murders, illegal immigration, and such crimes… at least not yet…
As far as Iraq and Afganistan go… didn’t Obama run on getting the troops out of there… So really they should be available to patrol the border… oh wait, they’re not here…
Fortunately we have a lot of other bases around the world such as Europe and Asia that could be pulled back to do what our Federal government is supposed to do, protect us.
Of course I guess we could just give in the illegal immigration, pay the illegal immigrants $5 a day to patrol our borders… I mean they’re just coming here for a job so let’s give them one…
MikeyA… it’s ok, I’m pretty sure Dale believes we stole the colonies from England as well.
May 26th, 2010 at 1:46 pmDale,
Do you suggest we not have traffic laws because there might be profiling? That is the logic your using against the Arizona law is all I’m saying…
You are also presenting a very limited view on all the details of how Texas and much of the southwest came to be in the United States. We didn’t just come in an instigate a war between Texas and Mexico, they were already in a revolution that started when Santa Anna changed thier constitution. There were also purchases to Mexico for even more land in that area. What is your solution anyway? Open borders for everyone?
May 26th, 2010 at 1:52 pmFrom John Meyer: We have 59,000 troops in Afganistan and 95,000 in Iraq. A fraction of this could easily cover all the US borders.
This is a nice point John, and one that I was idly wondering about earlier. You know, if the U.S. President followed through on his campaign promise to return the troops home to the U.S., this would work.
As a bonus, maybe a few of us could finally take MikeyA out for a well-deserved beer or two.
And, as another bonus, any malcontents or trouble makers could patrol the Canadian border during the winter.
Just a thought.
May 26th, 2010 at 2:12 pmFrom DalePertcheck: Might makes right!!??
Sure does, Dale. We took the colonies from England, who took the land to build those colonies from whatever Indians they found living there. That procedure worked out pretty well for the victors, so our ancestors – my ancestors – headed West. The rest is history.
From MikeyA: If we annex Mexico we don’t have to worry about those foreigners taking our jobs.
Uh-huh. Okay, if we did that just where are we going to find all the money to pay for Mexico’s ObamaCare? We’re already in debt up to our eyes and you want to go and spend more money.
I’m beginning to wonder about you, Mikey.
May 26th, 2010 at 2:21 pmDoesn’t the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibit the use of military for law enforcement within the United States unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress.
Also, now there is talk in AZ about ignoring the 14th amendment and not allowing the children of illegal immigrants to be US citizens.
Funny how the political echo chamber has been about “getting back to the Constitution” but here are a couple of cases where people are quick to “ditch” it. Maybe I’m wrong and there will be a Tea Party lead “enforce the 14th amendment” rally in the near future.
May 26th, 2010 at 2:37 pmOf course the proponents of AZ’s new law say it has nothing to do with race, but is a matter of following the law. Now they are targeting legal immigrants and natural born citizens as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLgUVL3rdg8&feature=player_embedded
The Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html
Again – funny how all this happened at once, lead by the same group of people.
May 26th, 2010 at 2:48 pmSensorG…
The law hasn’t even gone into effect yet… how can they be using it all?
As far as troops not being able to enforce laws within the United States, I’m not sure how this works with the National Guard. I do believe, and could be wrong, that the border is considered a special place. Of course I guess we could just shoot invaders on site at the border if it would make you feel better.
In regard to the 14th Amendment, they could push to have the 14th Amendment changed as the 18th was. By the constitution the right to decide citizenship was given up by the states. In my personal opinion it should be changed to be born to at least 1 current American citizen or an immigrant on legal route to become a US citizen legally residing in the US. That is the first I had heard of Arizona wanting to enact law stating otherwise.
AS far as the Arizona Department of Education goes, it makes sense. You have to be qualified for the job and unfotunately if you’re teaching students are still in the process of learning English you need to be able to speak. It would be akin to a math teacher who didn’t know that 2+2 = 4.
May 26th, 2010 at 3:46 pmThe teachers they are targeting aren’t in the “process of learning English” they know English perfectly fine; they just have accents that are suddenly arbitrarily unacceptable to some people. I’ve heard some Arkansas and Celtic accents that are much harder to understand than any Hispanic one I run across on a daily basis.
May 26th, 2010 at 4:06 pmThe teachers aren’t in the process of learning English, but the students are (although if the teachers are having gramatical issues maybe they should still be learning English).
Unfortunately you have to remember that the students are with the with the teacher 6-8 hours a day and will pick up the accent even if the student started with no accent to begin with. It is akin to someone from the south moving to the midwest. They start with an accent but eventually lose it and gain the new areas accent or a hybrid version of it.
It is something we take for granted here in this area because we basically speak the way they do on television (with some mumbling) and is generally considered the most understandable version of American English. Of course in places where they have an accent to us, they don’t to each other…
A few examples, my grandmother came from Germany and had little to no accent, if you didn’t know she was from Germany you would probably never pick out she was from another country. My brother-in-law around Cincinnatti has a not quite southern accent, but my wife has none. A neighbor of mine went to the same grade school as me, had no accent but went to a different high school and gained in her freshman year what could best be described as a valley girl accent.
Of course you’ll also notice a lot of people that can turn it on and of like actors. Unfortunately not all of us are like that. My sister has that ability, but whenever I pick up parts of an accent I’m stuck with it until it fades out (basically overwritten by people speaking around here)
So while it is a little concerning, the age group they’re saying to speak without accent to them is the same group that will pick up the accent easily and will because they are with the teacher for a long period of time each day.
May 26th, 2010 at 5:01 pmI love how some people want us to feel bad that we took Cali, Arizona, NMexico from the Mexicans. LOL
May 26th, 2010 at 5:31 pmWOW!! So much for response. Here goes:
John Meyer #102 — Obama ran on the platform of removing troops from Iraq, NOT from Afghanistan. In fact, he stated that it was probable that we would have to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan since THAT IS WHERE THE TERRORISTS WHO ATTACKED US WERE TRAINED, and he didn’t want the Taliban to get back into power who had allowed and encouraged Al Qaeda to do those attacks.
I am very disappointed that Obama has not pulled our troops out of Iraq, but he is confronted with those who want to brand him as weak on these international issues. If he would order all American forces out of Iraq, and if Iraq would become a dictatorship again, the right wing-nuts would have a field day attacking Obama as a weak leader.
We didn’t steal the colonies from England. I don’t know about you, but my ancestors were in Eastern Europe at the time of the American Revolution. Most of the non-native people in America were from the British Isles. They wanted independence FROM THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT. That’s a very different proposition. The Europeans DID steal the land from the Native Americans. There were tens of millions of people living in the Americas before any Europeans arrived. Most died of diseases to which they had never been exposed. One of the primary reasons Africans were brought over as slaves is that enslaved Native Americans kept dying off, and the Africans has been exposed to the same diseases as the Europeans and the Asians, who all lived in close enough proximity to each other to share such things.
Doug #103:
A traffic ticket is NOT in the same category as being deported WHEN YOU ARE A LEGAL CITIZEN, perhaps of several generations!! Harassment is always harassment, however.
I try to keep these comments as short as possible. I guess that some people need more information about their own history. Texas had been an independent nation for over 9 years. Their southern border was always in dispute, and Mexico would not even acknowledge Texas independence. Polk ran for President on an expansionist platform. Previous American Presidents had NOT wanted a war with Mexico, and, therefore, had refused to sponsor Texas statehood. Not so with Polk! The point I was making is that the origin of the Mexican War had nothing to do with ANY OTHER AREA BUT TEXAS. Since we won the war and had a large army in Mexico City, we forced the Mexican leaders to sign away all of what now are our Southwestern states as well as recognizing the Rio Grande border between Texas and Mexico, instead of the Nueces River. Is that enough detail for you, or do you desire more? As I stated before, “Might makes Right!” I do find it to be most ironic that the people currently living in our Southwest are so upset with the descendants of those from whom we stole this land, wanting to move there.
John Meyer #108:
Let’s talk about an area where you and I agree! The origin of the 14th Amendment was to undo the part of the Dred Scott decision of 1857 which stated that no one of African background could be a citizen of the United States. I think that that issue is now moot. Most nations in the world describe citizenship based upon the citizenship of the parents. America does state this as law, but we add the place of birth as an ADDITIONAL means to determine citizenship. I don’t think this is now necessary. We should do the same as most countries do.
BTW…for the right wing-nuts out there, no one disputes that Barack Obama’s mother was an American citizen; therfore no matter where he was born, Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. What if his father had been stationed in Europe? Would he STILL be a natural born American citizen? Of course! So is Obama!!
Finally…for all of you making the argument that we should withdraw our troops from around the world to patrol the Mexican border…you’re all making my argument for me. You’re more concerned about Mexicans who, mostly, just want a job, than you are about terrorists who are out to destroy everything America is supposed to stand for, including a pluralistic society!! How profoundly sad!!
May 27th, 2010 at 12:46 pmBTW…the Mexican border is almost 2000 miles long! I love your feigned concern about our borders with Canada! I also love how some of you are such experts on the deployment of people, that you KNOW how many people it would take to seal off these LLLOOONNNGGG borders!
I’m sorry but it is EXACTLY the same. You used the fact that there have been abuses by police who racially profiled black drivers in pulling them over for no reason other than their skin color. You say the AZ immigration law will be abused by police in profiling hispanic people and ask for thier identification simpley because of thier skin color/ accents. If you think that AZ law should not be in effect because the opportunity for police to profile is there then the same logic could be used for ‘driving while black’.
There is no law that I can think of that doesn’t have the opportunity for it to be abused by those that enforce it. That is what makes the racial profiling argument extremely weak in my opinion.
May 27th, 2010 at 1:59 pmDale,
You keep saying that is where the terrorists who attacked us trained, and I agree… nearly 10 years ago. The problem with terrorists is they don’t have a home base, they just move around where ever they can seek safe harbor or even managa to hide in a country unknowingly. Terrorists are the perfect enemy for a government that wants control because they can never be defeated. The only thing we can do against terrorists is to defend our country from them, but our forces are all over the world playing international peacekeeper rather than being where they need to be.
Unfortunately you can not make everyone happy, I personally would not hold him accountable for other people’s actions should they allow themselves to be taken over by dictator again. Some people are more willing to live under subjugation than others.
As far as Colonies/England goes, how different is it really from the South West/Texas/Mexico/US. If England would have won, we’d still be colonies. If Mexico had won the South West and possibly more would be Mexican.
Of course your example gives us all the more reason that we should be protecting our borders from illegal immigrants. The pioneers went into the South West, still had allegience to the US and so wanted to become the US eventually. I would venture a similar idea with illegal immigrants who are still allied with Mexico.
Can you really say that might doesn’t make right? Look at the world we live in and all of history. There’s a reason we have sayings like to the victor go the the spoils and the victor gets to write the history and such. We’ve spent the last 50 or so years trying to make ourselves believe that we’ve risen above that but look at the world around you, whether it’s one country smacking down another or the rich fat cat getting a minor slap on the wrist for something you’d be thrown away for life for we still live in the might makes right society.
It is nice to see that we actually agree on something (in regards to the 14th)
BTW… In DalePertcheck #95 it was you who said “we have more than a 1,000 mile border with Mexico” and while 1969 mi is more than 1,000 I had assumed you to be somewhat accurate in your assessment. For future reference the Canadian border is 5,525 mi including the border with Alaska. It is also not ignorance to determine how many people it would take to seal off these borders. It’s pretty easy math really. We have 7,494 mi or 39,568,320 feet of land border. An assumption of 500 feet per person gives us the people per shift = 79,137. Assume 3 shifts per day and we get 237,411 people required as bare minimum just to patrol… of course you could probably go with 750-1000 feet per person and still be a pretty safe border. Of course another option would be to electronically monitor the border and then have a quick response unit of 10 per mile and only need 22,482 on the actual border. This does not include the support staff for such an effort but 5-10% additional should cover it.
May 27th, 2010 at 2:55 pmDoug #113,
We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’m never going to convince you and you’re never going to convince me.
John Meyer #114,
The 2000 mile border statement was a correction on my part of my previous post. Pobody’s Nerfect.
We do agree on THAT PART of the 14th Amendment.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the comparison between the American Revolutionary War and the Mexican War.
We’ll also have to agree to disagree about the use of our troops. I don’t believe that in this modern world we can be “Fortress America”. We must find ways to work with those who share our interests to be constantly vigilant about terrorism. We must also understand that terrorists will try attacks, and there is a good chance that some attacks will be carried out. What we can never do is give in to terrorism!
May 27th, 2010 at 10:34 pmI must mention again that if we leave Afghanistan, there is a good chance that the Taliban will take over AGAIN, and provide a safe haven for Al Qaeda to train AGAIN. The only reason that Afghanistan is no longer used by Al Qaeda NOW, is that we support the current government that hates the Taliban and hates Al Qaeda.