Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law (2 Viewers)

[Neofight]

AZ does have a high crime rate when look at states like ND, SD.

Just give the Canadians some time. I hear the Québécois may be looking for some prime real estate if their nationalist goals can't be met north of the border, don'tcha know?

 

[timschochet]

I was listening this morning to a woman from the National Council of Churches protesting this law. She did a fine job, up until she was asked why the law was so popular among the American public. Her answer, as best as I can recall:

What the public really is in favor of is comprehensive immigration reform. This law was passed out of a sense of frustration because we don't have comprehensive immigration reform. We need to urge Congress to pass this- the public is ready for it.

This response is completely disingenous. The term "comprehensive immigration reform" is a code word among liberals for a path to citizenship. Apparently, liberals use these words because they don't want to admit to even their own followers what it is they're talking about. As I have written numerous times, I am in favor of this. But the vast majority of Americans are not. And the people in favor of SB1070 are certainly not in favor of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

I have never understood why it is so important for most people arguing a position, whatever their political ideology, to insist that the public supports them. How much more honest and refreshing would it have been for this woman to say, "Well, the majority of the public doesn't agree with us on this one. But we still believe we're right." But it never happens.

 

[Phurfur]

I was listening this morning to a woman from the National Council of Churches protesting this law. She did a fine job, up until she was asked why the law was so popular among the American public. Her answer, as best as I can recall:

What the public really is in favor of is comprehensive immigration reform. This law was passed out of a sense of frustration because we don't have comprehensive immigration reform. We need to urge Congress to pass this- the public is ready for it.

This response is completely disingenous. The term "comprehensive immigration reform" is a code word among liberals for a path to citizenship. Apparently, liberals use these words because they don't want to admit to even their own followers what it is they're talking about. As I have written numerous times, I am in favor of this. But the vast majority of Americans are not. And the people in favor of SB1070 are certainly not in favor of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

I have never understood why it is so important for most people arguing a position, whatever their political ideology, to insist that the public supports them. How much more honest and refreshing would it have been for this woman to say, "Well, the majority of the public doesn't agree with us on this one. But we still believe we're right." But it never happens.

Link, or are you making things up again?

 

[timschochet]

I was listening this morning to a woman from the National Council of Churches protesting this law. She did a fine job, up until she was asked why the law was so popular among the American public. Her answer, as best as I can recall:

What the public really is in favor of is comprehensive immigration reform. This law was passed out of a sense of frustration because we don't have comprehensive immigration reform. We need to urge Congress to pass this- the public is ready for it.

This response is completely disingenous. The term "comprehensive immigration reform" is a code word among liberals for a path to citizenship. Apparently, liberals use these words because they don't want to admit to even their own followers what it is they're talking about. As I have written numerous times, I am in favor of this. But the vast majority of Americans are not. And the people in favor of SB1070 are certainly not in favor of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

I have never understood why it is so important for most people arguing a position, whatever their political ideology, to insist that the public supports them. How much more honest and refreshing would it have been for this woman to say, "Well, the majority of the public doesn't agree with us on this one. But we still believe we're right." But it never happens.

Link, or are you making things up again?

Don't have any link, but I don't think I'm making things up here. Do you truly believe that most of those in favor of this law are also in favor of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants? That would be a severe contradiction, wouldn't it?

 

[Phurfur]

I was listening this morning to a woman from the National Council of Churches protesting this law. She did a fine job, up until she was asked why the law was so popular among the American public. Her answer, as best as I can recall:

What the public really is in favor of is comprehensive immigration reform. This law was passed out of a sense of frustration because we don't have comprehensive immigration reform. We need to urge Congress to pass this- the public is ready for it.

This response is completely disingenous. The term "comprehensive immigration reform" is a code word among liberals for a path to citizenship. Apparently, liberals use these words because they don't want to admit to even their own followers what it is they're talking about. As I have written numerous times, I am in favor of this. But the vast majority of Americans are not. And the people in favor of SB1070 are certainly not in favor of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

I have never understood why it is so important for most people arguing a position, whatever their political ideology, to insist that the public supports them. How much more honest and refreshing would it have been for this woman to say, "Well, the majority of the public doesn't agree with us on this one. But we still believe we're right." But it never happens.

Link, or are you making things up again?

Don't have any link, but I don't think I'm making things up here. Do you truly believe that most of those in favor of this law are also in favor of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants? That would be a severe contradiction, wouldn't it?

Talk about being out of touch. There already is a path to citizenship; all the 1070s want is for everyone to use it! HTH

 

[timschochet]

Talk about being out of touch. There already is a path to citizenship; all the 1070s want is for everyone to use it! HTH

OK. Since you're being deliberately obtuse, let me spell it out further- though I think you already know exactly what I mean. But just in case you don't:When I use the terms "comprehensive immigration reform" and "path to citizenship" I am speaking specifically of allowing illegal immigrants already here to stay here, pay a fine, and apply for citizenship which they will eventually get. They do not have to return to their home country. In other words, amnesty. (Though technically the paying of a fine is not amnesty.)I do not believe the majority of those who are in support of SB 1070 are in favor of this. Do you?

 

[Phurfur]

Talk about being out of touch. There already is a path to citizenship; all the 1070s want is for everyone to use it! HTH

OK. Since you're being deliberately obtuse, let me spell it out further- though I think you already know exactly what I mean. But just in case you don't:When I use the terms "comprehensive immigration reform" and "path to citizenship" I am speaking specifically of allowing illegal immigrants already here to stay here, pay a fine, and apply for citizenship which they will eventually get. They do not have to return to their home country. In other words, amnesty. (Though technically the paying of a fine is not amnesty.)I do not believe the majority of those who are in support of SB 1070 are in favor of this. Do you?

Wrong! Give them a work permit and let them stand in line for citizenship like everyone else.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Talk about being out of touch. There already is a path to citizenship; all the 1070s want is for everyone to use it! HTH

OK. Since you're being deliberately obtuse, let me spell it out further- though I think you already know exactly what I mean. But just in case you don't:When I use the terms "comprehensive immigration reform" and "path to citizenship" I am speaking specifically of allowing illegal immigrants already here to stay here, pay a fine, and apply for citizenship which they will eventually get. They do not have to return to their home country. In other words, amnesty. (Though technically the paying of a fine is not amnesty.)I do not believe the majority of those who are in support of SB 1070 are in favor of this. Do you?

Wrong! Give them a work permit and let them stand in line for citizenship like everyone else.

Tim's claim is that supporters of SB 1070 don't want to give amnesty to illegals. So I think you meant either:"You're right! Give them a work permit and let them stand in line for citizenship like everybody else."Or:"Wrong! Give them amnesty!"The way you have it doesn't really make sense.

 

[videoguy505]

Talk about being out of touch. There already is a path to citizenship; all the 1070s want is for everyone to use it! HTH

OK. Since you're being deliberately obtuse, let me spell it out further- though I think you already know exactly what I mean. But just in case you don't:When I use the terms "comprehensive immigration reform" and "path to citizenship" I am speaking specifically of allowing illegal immigrants already here to stay here, pay a fine, and apply for citizenship which they will eventually get. They do not have to return to their home country. In other words, amnesty. (Though technically the paying of a fine is not amnesty.)I do not believe the majority of those who are in support of SB 1070 are in favor of this. Do you?

Wrong! Give them a work permit and let them stand in line for citizenship like everyone else.

Tim's claim is that supporters of SB 1070 don't want to give amnesty to illegals. So I think you meant either:"You're right! Give them a work permit and let them stand in line for citizenship like everybody else."Or:"Wrong! Give them amnesty!"The way you have it doesn't really make sense.

Have to give Phurfur a break, he's not good at following a logical conversation.

 

[timschochet]

Have to give Phurfur a break, he's not good at following a logical conversation.

What's ironic about his challenge to me was that, in this instance, my criticism was not intended for him or any of the other supporters in the FFA of SB 1070. When you guys (the supporters) claim that the bulk of the American people are behind you, you are correct. If for some reason you derive moral strength from this knowledge, that's your perogative, though personally I don't understand why. But at least you guys are not the dishonest ones. The dishonest ones are the liberals, who share my position somewhat, but couch it in terms like "comprehensive immigration reform" when we all know what we're really talking about. And they are even more dishonest by claiming that the majority of Americans really want the sort of "comprehensive immigration reform" they are referring to. Maybe the public will want this someday. I hope they do. But they don't now, and this is very clear, and liberals are only deceiving everyone (and themselves) by claiming otherwise.My "side" is in the minority. We're not going to win any popularity contests. The sooner we accept that fact, the better chance we will have of really dealing with this issue.

 

[Statorama]

A lot of the problems that we're having with immigration today is the lack of an efficient process to obtain citizenship. I get the whole thing that it SHOULD be difficult to obtain, and I'm not advocating that the process be easy. It's just that we're always ready to throw money at all kinds of different projects (both conservatives and liberals) yet we don't throw enough money at the immigration office to give them enough manpower to handle all of the citizenship claims.

Once the process is streamlined and efficient, then there are no excuses for being here illegally.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Have to give Phurfur a break, he's not good at following a logical conversation.

What's ironic about his challenge to me was that, in this instance, my criticism was not intended for him or any of the other supporters in the FFA of SB 1070. When you guys (the supporters) claim that the bulk of the American people are behind you, you are correct. If for some reason you derive moral strength from this knowledge, that's your perogative, though personally I don't understand why. But at least you guys are not the dishonest ones. The dishonest ones are the liberals, who share my position somewhat, but couch it in terms like "comprehensive immigration reform" when we all know what we're really talking about. And they are even more dishonest by claiming that the majority of Americans really want the sort of "comprehensive immigration reform" they are referring to. Maybe the public will want this someday. I hope they do. But they don't now, and this is very clear, and liberals are only deceiving everyone (and themselves) by claiming otherwise.My "side" is in the minority. We're not going to win any popularity contests. The sooner we accept that fact, the better chance we will have of really dealing with this issue.

Do you have any evidence that the 30% of the population that agree with your view is broken down party lines?

 

[Statorama]

Feds release illegal alien that killed a nun

Obama's do-nothing ICE department claims another innocent victim.

The Virginia man suspected in a drunken-driving crash that killed a Catholic nun in Prince William County this weekend is an illegal immigrant and repeat offender who was awaiting deportation and whom federal immigration authorities had released pending further proceedings, police said Monday.

Carlos Montano, a county resident, has been charged with involuntary manslaughter and drunken driving. Mr. Montano had been arrested two other times on drunken-driving charges, and on at least one of those occasions county police reported him to federal authorities.

"We have determined that he is in the country illegally. He has been arrested by Prince William County Police in the past, said police spokesman Jonathan Perok.

He said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was notified at the time of one of those arrests. "At the time of this incident, the accident yesterday, he was in the deportation process and was out on his recognizance for court proceedings."

The crash at around 8:30 Sunday morning killed Sister Denise Mosier and injured two other nuns as they were driving to a retreat at the Benedictine Monastery in Bristow, Va. The two injured nuns were in critical but stable condition late Monday, according to St. Gertrude High School in Richmond run by the Benedictine Sisters of Virginia.

Mr. Montano was being treated for injuries he received in the crash and was expected to be released from the hospital into police custody as early as Monday evening.

Messages left with ICE and the Homeland Security Department were not returned, but the incident raises questions about the agency's policy of detaining only some illegal immigrants awaiting deportation.

"I have been saying for months now that this administration's new policy of concentrating almost solely on 'criminal aliens,' and not enforcing the laws by deporting known illegal aliens, would have devastating consequences. Now, we see the tragic results this 'virtual amnesty' policy of the Obama administration has caused," said Rep. Harold Rogers of Kentucky, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations homeland security subcommittee.

 

[timschochet]

Have to give Phurfur a break, he's not good at following a logical conversation.

What's ironic about his challenge to me was that, in this instance, my criticism was not intended for him or any of the other supporters in the FFA of SB 1070. When you guys (the supporters) claim that the bulk of the American people are behind you, you are correct. If for some reason you derive moral strength from this knowledge, that's your perogative, though personally I don't understand why. But at least you guys are not the dishonest ones. The dishonest ones are the liberals, who share my position somewhat, but couch it in terms like "comprehensive immigration reform" when we all know what we're really talking about. And they are even more dishonest by claiming that the majority of Americans really want the sort of "comprehensive immigration reform" they are referring to. Maybe the public will want this someday. I hope they do. But they don't now, and this is very clear, and liberals are only deceiving everyone (and themselves) by claiming otherwise.My "side" is in the minority. We're not going to win any popularity contests. The sooner we accept that fact, the better chance we will have of really dealing with this issue.

Do you have any evidence that the 30% of the population that agree with your view is broken down party lines?

Nothing but anecdotally. There are of course, free market conservative/libertarian types who believe in open borders. But these are significantly a minority of Republicans. There are also those in the Democratic leadership who see this issue only as a means to gain future voters among Hispanics, and there are those Republican leaders who see this issue as a means to drum up immediate populist support.

 

[Statorama]

Virginia Attorney General says officers can check immigration status of people they stop

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

Virginia Attorney General says officers can check immigration status of people they stop

 

[bg0546]

Nothing but anecdotally. There are of course, free market conservative/libertarian types who believe in open borders. But these are significantly a minority of Republicans. There are also those in the Democratic leadership who see this issue only as a means to gain future voters among Hispanics, and there are those Republican leaders who see this issue as a means to drum up immediate populist support.

So, much like your assertion that the illegals leaving Arizona are doing so for economic reasons and not because of the hostile environment towards illegals in AZ, you're just guessing again?

 

[timschochet]

Nothing but anecdotally. There are of course, free market conservative/libertarian types who believe in open borders. But these are significantly a minority of Republicans. There are also those in the Democratic leadership who see this issue only as a means to gain future voters among Hispanics, and there are those Republican leaders who see this issue as a means to drum up immediate populist support.

So, much like your assertion that the illegals leaving Arizona are doing so for economic reasons and not because of the hostile environment towards illegals in AZ, you're just guessing again?

My assumption is that the vast majority of Americans, in both political parties, are in favor of tightening our borders and getting tougher with illegal immigrants, and they like the Arizona law. Do you agree with this assumption?

 

[bg0546]

Nothing but anecdotally. There are of course, free market conservative/libertarian types who believe in open borders. But these are significantly a minority of Republicans. There are also those in the Democratic leadership who see this issue only as a means to gain future voters among Hispanics, and there are those Republican leaders who see this issue as a means to drum up immediate populist support.

So, much like your assertion that the illegals leaving Arizona are doing so for economic reasons and not because of the hostile environment towards illegals in AZ, you're just guessing again?

My assumption is that the vast majority of Americans, in both political parties, are in favor of tightening our borders and getting tougher with illegal immigrants, and they like the Arizona law. Do you agree with this assumption?

That's not an assumption. That's a fact backed up by numerous polls. But it has nothing to do with your generalizations about conservatives/libertarians and liberals. But, the fact that you're just making assumptions pretty much answers my question, doesn't it?

 

[timschochet]

Virginia Attorney General says officers can check immigration status of people they stop

There is a difference here- the Arizona law requires the police to check immigration status. This statement says that police can do it if they want. However, it's still a terrible idea in so many ways. I continue to believe that it will result in racial profiling and racial harassment.

 

[timschochet]

Nothing but anecdotally. There are of course, free market conservative/libertarian types who believe in open borders. But these are significantly a minority of Republicans. There are also those in the Democratic leadership who see this issue only as a means to gain future voters among Hispanics, and there are those Republican leaders who see this issue as a means to drum up immediate populist support.

So, much like your assertion that the illegals leaving Arizona are doing so for economic reasons and not because of the hostile environment towards illegals in AZ, you're just guessing again?

My assumption is that the vast majority of Americans, in both political parties, are in favor of tightening our borders and getting tougher with illegal immigrants, and they like the Arizona law. Do you agree with this assumption?

That's not an assumption. That's a fact backed up by numerous polls. But it has nothing to do with your generalizations about conservatives/libertarians and liberals. But, the fact that you're just making assumptions pretty much answers my question, doesn't it?

Which of my assumptions do you disagree with? The part that the majority of those that agree with me on this issue are liberal? The part that a small minority of libertarians also generally agree with me? I think all of this is pretty obvious.

 

[bg0546]

Nothing but anecdotally. There are of course, free market conservative/libertarian types who believe in open borders. But these are significantly a minority of Republicans. There are also those in the Democratic leadership who see this issue only as a means to gain future voters among Hispanics, and there are those Republican leaders who see this issue as a means to drum up immediate populist support.

So, much like your assertion that the illegals leaving Arizona are doing so for economic reasons and not because of the hostile environment towards illegals in AZ, you're just guessing again?

My assumption is that the vast majority of Americans, in both political parties, are in favor of tightening our borders and getting tougher with illegal immigrants, and they like the Arizona law. Do you agree with this assumption?

That's not an assumption. That's a fact backed up by numerous polls. But it has nothing to do with your generalizations about conservatives/libertarians and liberals. But, the fact that you're just making assumptions pretty much answers my question, doesn't it?

Which of my assumptions do you disagree with? The part that the majority of those that agree with me on this issue are liberal? The part that a small minority of libertarians also generally agree with me? I think all of this is pretty obvious.

Just like you thought it was obvious that the illegals were leaving AZ due to the economy and not due to the hostile environment in that state?

 

[timschochet]

Just like you thought it was obvious that the illegals were leaving AZ due to the economy and not due to the hostile environment in that state?

I still happen to believe that- though I hope I'm wrong. Whatever, bg0546. Your side is winning, you should be happy. You've got support from the public. Sure, the law's been prevented for now, but it will end up going to the Supreme Court where a majority of conservative judges will probably affirm it. The positions I hold are getting less and less popular with the public and I don't see any kind of amnesty on the horizon. So you've won. No need to rub it in.

 

[bg0546]

Just like you thought it was obvious that the illegals were leaving AZ due to the economy and not due to the hostile environment in that state?

I still happen to believe that- though I hope I'm wrong. Whatever, bg0546. Your side is winning, you should be happy. You've got support from the public. Sure, the law's been prevented for now, but it will end up going to the Supreme Court where a majority of conservative judges will probably affirm it. The positions I hold are getting less and less popular with the public and I don't see any kind of amnesty on the horizon. So you've won. No need to rub it in.

We still have between 12 and 20 million illegals in this country. El Paso still has holes in it's city hall from bullets fired across the border. Our federal government is still ignoring their constitutional duty of protecting it's citizens from foreign invasion. I haven't "won" anything.

 

[Road Warriors]

Virginia Attorney General says officers can check immigration status of people they stop

There is a difference here- the Arizona law requires the police to check immigration status. This statement says that police can do it if they want. However, it's still a terrible idea in so many ways. I continue to believe that it will result in racial profiling and racial harassment.

I understand you don't agree with our country's laws in this regard, but as we have a legal process for aliens to be in this country, be it work visa or other immigration status ( all of which can be proven, and therefore not at risk from any of these requests from law enforcement), and if we find through the course of standard law enforcement process (ie. someone that has been arrested ), that the arrested party is not in compliance with our current laws, that we have the duty under the rule of law to enforce the laws that this country has enacted?Or do you believe we should only enforce the laws you agree with?

 

[greenroom]

Feds release illegal alien that killed a nun

Obama's do-nothing ICE department claims another innocent victim.

The Virginia man suspected in a drunken-driving crash that killed a Catholic nun in Prince William County this weekend is an illegal immigrant and repeat offender who was awaiting deportation and whom federal immigration authorities had released pending further proceedings, police said Monday.

Carlos Montano, a county resident, has been charged with involuntary manslaughter and drunken driving. Mr. Montano had been arrested two other times on drunken-driving charges, and on at least one of those occasions county police reported him to federal authorities.

"We have determined that he is in the country illegally. He has been arrested by Prince William County Police in the past, said police spokesman Jonathan Perok.

He said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was notified at the time of one of those arrests. "At the time of this incident, the accident yesterday, he was in the deportation process and was out on his recognizance for court proceedings."

The crash at around 8:30 Sunday morning killed Sister Denise Mosier and injured two other nuns as they were driving to a retreat at the Benedictine Monastery in Bristow, Va. The two injured nuns were in critical but stable condition late Monday, according to St. Gertrude High School in Richmond run by the Benedictine Sisters of Virginia.

Mr. Montano was being treated for injuries he received in the crash and was expected to be released from the hospital into police custody as early as Monday evening.

Messages left with ICE and the Homeland Security Department were not returned, but the incident raises questions about the agency's policy of detaining only some illegal immigrants awaiting deportation.

"I have been saying for months now that this administration's new policy of concentrating almost solely on 'criminal aliens,' and not enforcing the laws by deporting known illegal aliens, would have devastating consequences. Now, we see the tragic results this 'virtual amnesty' policy of the Obama administration has caused," said Rep. Harold Rogers of Kentucky, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations homeland security subcommittee.

Were you saying the same crap when Bush let go the same illegal aliens that committed crimes or are you just bagging on Obama?

Look this issue has been brewing for a while and to me its on McCain and Congress to have passed better laws than it is to be on the President who is doing the same enforcement that had been the normal. Not saying it was right.. but you have to love the GOP for saying that Obama is the bad guy on this issue.

 

[Christo]

Virginia Attorney General says officers can check immigration status of people they stop

There is a difference here- the Arizona law requires the police to check immigration status. This statement says that police can do it if they want. However, it's still a terrible idea in so many ways. I continue to believe that it will result in racial profiling and racial harassment.

No, it doesn't

 

[Bronco Billy]

Virginia Attorney General says officers can check immigration status of people they stop

There is a difference here- the Arizona law requires the police to check immigration status. This statement says that police can do it if they want. However, it's still a terrible idea in so many ways. I continue to believe that it will result in racial profiling and racial harassment.

I'd sure wish that you - among many, many others - would actually make a modicum of an effort to actually understand the law before you speak conclusively on it. You once again do not know what you are talking about.

 

[timschochet]

Virginia Attorney General says officers can check immigration status of people they stop

There is a difference here- the Arizona law requires the police to check immigration status. This statement says that police can do it if they want. However, it's still a terrible idea in so many ways. I continue to believe that it will result in racial profiling and racial harassment.

I understand you don't agree with our country's laws in this regard, but as we have a legal process for aliens to be in this country, be it work visa or other immigration status ( all of which can be proven, and therefore not at risk from any of these requests from law enforcement), and if we find through the course of standard law enforcement process (ie. someone that has been arrested ), that the arrested party is not in compliance with our current laws, that we have the duty under the rule of law to enforce the laws that this country has enacted?Or do you believe we should only enforce the laws you agree with?

I don't know how to enforce laws against illegal immigrants without resort to racial profiling and racial harassment. I have not seen evidence that anyone else knows how either. Because of this, I am against the enforcement of these laws. As to your overall question, I think there is a certain practicality that must be involved when it comes to the enforcement of laws. In my neighborhood, there are at least 3 households that I know of in which the inhabitants smoke pot on a regular basis. There is one household that once a month, on Friday nights, hosts an illegal poker game that I have been to. And so forth. I am sure the police are aware of these petty crimes in every neighborhood. But a strict enforcement of the laws would not only stretch their limits, it would also, IMO, damage the relationship between the public and authority.

 

[timschochet]

Virginia Attorney General says officers can check immigration status of people they stop

There is a difference here- the Arizona law requires the police to check immigration status. This statement says that police can do it if they want. However, it's still a terrible idea in so many ways. I continue to believe that it will result in racial profiling and racial harassment.

No, it doesn't

From the article Stat linked:But in an interview with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren, Cuccinelli underscored that in Virginia pursuing immigration offenses is up to the officers -- not required, as it is under Arizona's controversial immigration law

.

"We are not mandating to our law enforcement that they make these inquiries on every stop," Cuccinelli said, noting that Arizona's law requires officers to check the immigration status of anyone stopped for other reasons when there is reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally.

If I misunderstand this law, then I guess so does Fox News. And the Virginia Attorney General.

 

[timschochet]

Virginia Attorney General says officers can check immigration status of people they stop

There is a difference here- the Arizona law requires the police to check immigration status. This statement says that police can do it if they want. However, it's still a terrible idea in so many ways. I continue to believe that it will result in racial profiling and racial harassment.

I'd sure wish that you - among many, many others - would actually make a modicum of an effort to actually understand the law before you speak conclusively on it. You once again do not know what you are talking about.

Please see the above post in response to Christo.

 

[Christo]

Virginia Attorney General says officers can check immigration status of people they stop

There is a difference here- the Arizona law requires the police to check immigration status. This statement says that police can do it if they want. However, it's still a terrible idea in so many ways. I continue to believe that it will result in racial profiling and racial harassment.

No, it doesn't

From the article Stat linked:But in an interview with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren, Cuccinelli underscored that in Virginia pursuing immigration offenses is up to the officers -- not required, as it is under Arizona's controversial immigration law

.

"We are not mandating to our law enforcement that they make these inquiries on every stop," Cuccinelli said, noting that Arizona's law requires officers to check the immigration status of anyone stopped for other reasons when there is reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally.

If I misunderstand this law, then I guess so does Fox News. And the Virginia Attorney General.

I don't care what the article says. As for you, I find it funny you're relying on that distinction (whether it's true or not) given your position that such laws necessarily require racial profiling. Perhaps you can explain why there's a difference.

 

[timschochet]

I don't care what the article says. As for you, I find it funny you're relying on that distinction (whether it's true or not) given your position that such laws necessarily require racial profiling. Perhaps you can explain why there's a difference.

Well first off, of course you don't care what the article says. Or what the Virginia Atty Gen. says. Or what the judge in Arizona says. When it comes to issues of the law, Christo is always right, and if anyone disagrees, then they're just wrong. Now to answer your point: I don't really care about the distinction. I only made it because I felt that Stat's title of his link was somewhat deceptive, and because the Virginia Atty. Gen. did draw this distinction. I do believe that forcing an officer to go this route is worse than giving him the choice, but both are bad.

 

[Christo]

I don't care what the article says. As for you, I find it funny you're relying on that distinction (whether it's true or not) given your position that such laws necessarily require racial profiling. Perhaps you can explain why there's a difference.

Well first off, of course you don't care what the article says. Or what the Virginia Atty Gen. says. Or what the judge in Arizona says. When it comes to issues of the law, Christo is always right, and if anyone disagrees, then they're just wrong. Now to answer your point: I don't really care about the distinction. I only made it because I felt that Stat's title of his link was somewhat deceptive, and because the Virginia Atty. Gen. did draw this distinction. I do believe that forcing an officer to go this route is worse than giving him the choice, but both are bad.

So you can't.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I was listening this morning to a woman from the National Council of Churches protesting this law. She did a fine job, up until she was asked why the law was so popular among the American public. Her answer, as best as I can recall:

What the public really is in favor of is comprehensive immigration reform. This law was passed out of a sense of frustration because we don't have comprehensive immigration reform. We need to urge Congress to pass this- the public is ready for it.

This response is completely disingenous. The term "comprehensive immigration reform" is a code word among liberals for a path to citizenship. Apparently, liberals use these words because they don't want to admit to even their own followers what it is they're talking about. As I have written numerous times, I am in favor of this. But the vast majority of Americans are not. And the people in favor of SB1070 are certainly not in favor of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

I have never understood why it is so important for most people arguing a position, whatever their political ideology, to insist that the public supports them. How much more honest and refreshing would it have been for this woman to say, "Well, the majority of the public doesn't agree with us on this one. But we still believe we're right." But it never happens.

Maybe exaggerating the support for any particular piece of legislation, but...
Yet the NBC/MSNBC/Telemundo poll shows early public support for comprehensive immigration reform, with 60 percent of all adults favoring it and 29 percent opposing it.

Also, supermajorities back the individual components of this reform.

For example: 73 percent support imposing new fines on businesses that hire illegal immigrants; 71 percent support increasing border security by building a fence along the border and training more Border Patrol agents; and 65 percent support allowing undocumented immigrants who are already in the country to pay a fine, learn English and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become U.S. citizens.

 

[videoguy505]

I was listening this morning to a woman from the National Council of Churches protesting this law. She did a fine job, up until she was asked why the law was so popular among the American public. Her answer, as best as I can recall:

What the public really is in favor of is comprehensive immigration reform. This law was passed out of a sense of frustration because we don't have comprehensive immigration reform. We need to urge Congress to pass this- the public is ready for it.

This response is completely disingenous. The term "comprehensive immigration reform" is a code word among liberals for a path to citizenship. Apparently, liberals use these words because they don't want to admit to even their own followers what it is they're talking about. As I have written numerous times, I am in favor of this. But the vast majority of Americans are not. And the people in favor of SB1070 are certainly not in favor of a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

I have never understood why it is so important for most people arguing a position, whatever their political ideology, to insist that the public supports them. How much more honest and refreshing would it have been for this woman to say, "Well, the majority of the public doesn't agree with us on this one. But we still believe we're right." But it never happens.

Maybe exaggerating the support for any particular piece of legislation, but...
Yet the NBC/MSNBC/Telemundo poll shows early public support for comprehensive immigration reform, with 60 percent of all adults favoring it and 29 percent opposing it.

Also, supermajorities back the individual components of this reform.

For example: 73 percent support imposing new fines on businesses that hire illegal immigrants; 71 percent support increasing border security by building a fence along the border and training more Border Patrol agents; and 65 percent support allowing undocumented immigrants who are already in the country to pay a fine, learn English and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become U.S. citizens.

is "comprehensive immigration reform" defined when doing the poll? Or is it: "Do you want comprehensive immigration reform? Yes/No"

 

[timschochet]

is "comprehensive immigration reform" defined when doing the poll? Or is it: "Do you want comprehensive immigration reform? Yes/No"

Exactly right, videoguy. Most people don't know what the term means. You know me, I'd love to believe that the majority of Americans was in favor of giving illegals already here a form of amnesty. But it's dishonest to imply that a majority of Americans want this. They don't.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

is "comprehensive immigration reform" defined when doing the poll? Or is it: "Do you want comprehensive immigration reform? Yes/No"

Can't find the actual poll (though I need to quit looking) so I'm guessing no. But I doubt that the democratic congress of today, and for sake of argument after election day could survive the "code war" legislation of Tim's post either. The nation wants comprehensive immigration reform in some form, the details are the tricky part but I'd guess most are indifferent to the details as long as the status quo changes.

 

[videoguy505]

is "comprehensive immigration reform" defined when doing the poll? Or is it: "Do you want comprehensive immigration reform? Yes/No"

Can't find the actual poll (though I need to quit looking) so I'm guessing no. But I doubt that the democratic congress of today, and for sake of argument after election day could survive the "code war" legislation of Tim's post either. The nation wants comprehensive immigration reform in some form, the details are the tricky part but I'd guess most are indifferent to the details as long as the status quo changes.

I'm shocked the poll managed to find 29% of the population to answer "no" to the question if the term is undefined. I want 'comprehensive immigration reform', if I can define it as 'seal the borders and throw all the illegal immigrants out'.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

is "comprehensive immigration reform" defined when doing the poll? Or is it: "Do you want comprehensive immigration reform? Yes/No"

Can't find the actual poll (though I need to quit looking) so I'm guessing no. But I doubt that the democratic congress of today, and for sake of argument after election day could survive the "code war" legislation of Tim's post either. The nation wants comprehensive immigration reform in some form, the details are the tricky part but I'd guess most are indifferent to the details as long as the status quo changes.

I'm shocked the poll managed to find 29% of the population to answer "no" to the question if the term is undefined. I want 'comprehensive immigration reform', if I can define it as 'seal the borders and throw all the illegal immigrants out'.

Page 12 and 13

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

is "comprehensive immigration reform" defined when doing the poll? Or is it: "Do you want comprehensive immigration reform? Yes/No"

Exactly right, videoguy. Most people don't know what the term means. You know me, I'd love to believe that the majority of Americans was in favor of giving illegals already here a form of amnesty. But it's dishonest to imply that a majority of Americans want this. They don't.

Page 5
Creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay here and apply to legally remain in this country permanently if they had a job and paid back taxes

Favor 81%

 

[timschochet]

is "comprehensive immigration reform" defined when doing the poll? Or is it: "Do you want comprehensive immigration reform? Yes/No"

Exactly right, videoguy. Most people don't know what the term means. You know me, I'd love to believe that the majority of Americans was in favor of giving illegals already here a form of amnesty. But it's dishonest to imply that a majority of Americans want this. They don't.

Page 5
Creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay here and apply to legally remain in this country permanently if they had a job and paid back taxes

Favor 81%

Bottomfeeder, I would be sooo happy if this were true. I would absolutely love it if 81% of the American people were in favor of this. But I just don't believe it. If these polls really are accurate, then the politicians will move toward making this happen. Somehow, I doubt they will.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

is "comprehensive immigration reform" defined when doing the poll? Or is it: "Do you want comprehensive immigration reform? Yes/No"

Exactly right, videoguy. Most people don't know what the term means.

What exactly does it mean? Is there a definition for it that is generally agreed upon as the definition? When I see this term used, I really have no idea of exactly what they mean. The term itself seems pretty vague and could mean a million different things.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

is "comprehensive immigration reform" defined when doing the poll? Or is it: "Do you want comprehensive immigration reform? Yes/No"

Exactly right, videoguy. Most people don't know what the term means. You know me, I'd love to believe that the majority of Americans was in favor of giving illegals already here a form of amnesty. But it's dishonest to imply that a majority of Americans want this. They don't.

Page 5
Creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay here and apply to legally remain in this country permanently if they had a job and paid back taxes

Favor 81%

Bottomfeeder, I would be sooo happy if this were true. I would absolutely love it if 81% of the American people were in favor of this. But I just don't believe it. If these polls really are accurate, then the politicians will move toward making this happen. Somehow, I doubt they will.

If there was work being done on finalizing a bill going through congressional house and senate committees the "party of no" would have their public opinion machine using their boogie man fear to drive this number way down, but like health care before it the general public wants reform and they won't care about the particulars until they are told to.

 

[bg0546]

http://www.cis.org/kephart/ICE-mission-melt-1

And people wonder why states are taking matters in to their own hands.

 

[Phurfur]

http://www.cis.org/kephart/ICE-mission-melt-1

And people wonder why states are taking matters in to their own hands.

259 -0

 

[Phurfur]

is "comprehensive immigration reform" defined when doing the poll? Or is it: "Do you want comprehensive immigration reform? Yes/No"

Exactly right, videoguy. Most people don't know what the term means. You know me, I'd love to believe that the majority of Americans was in favor of giving illegals already here a form of amnesty. But it's dishonest to imply that a majority of Americans want this. They don't.

Page 5
Creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay here and apply to legally remain in this country permanently if they had a job and paid back taxes

Favor 81%

Bottomfeeder, I would be sooo happy if this were true. I would absolutely love it if 81% of the American people were in favor of this. But I just don't believe it. If these polls really are accurate, then the politicians will move toward making this happen. Somehow, I doubt they will.

just like health care.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Bottomfeeder, I would be sooo happy if this were true. I would absolutely love it if 81% of the American people were in favor of this. But I just don't believe it. If these polls really are accurate, then the politicians will move toward making this happen. Somehow, I doubt they will.

just like health care.

The majority of Americans favored health care reform. Then the actual bill was worked on and the support declined. It was then signed into law and the numbers have been slowly growing such that now a plurality favor it.

 

[Statorama]

Bottomfeeder, I would be sooo happy if this were true. I would absolutely love it if 81% of the American people were in favor of this. But I just don't believe it. If these polls really are accurate, then the politicians will move toward making this happen. Somehow, I doubt they will.

just like health care.

The majority of Americans favored health care reform. Then the actual bill was worked on and the support declined. It was then signed into law and the numbers have been slowly growing such that now a plurality favor it.

Did you not see the news about that Missouri vote? The more people know about it, the more they despise it.People want healthcare reform. Not some Obama power grab.

 

[Statorama]

One thing that I truly love about Obama is that he's always good for a laugh.

Obama: Let's do everything we can to stop Arizona from helping us enforce the illegal immigration laws

Pollsters: Obama isn't tough on illegal immigration

Obama: Have AP put out a story that ICE deported 47,000 illegal immigrants

Windsock.