Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law (1 Viewer)

[Parrothead]

I posted it when it came out.Its not taking advantage of anyone. For example, you can have a great programmer who has lack of experience. They may be worth $50k, but if a company offers $40k and that person takes it, is that company taking advantage of them? No, both parties agreed to it.Ill try to find that study cause I would be curious to read it. Simple math of $5 of $5,000 on groceries spent a year means only the increases only effects .1% of the product. Seems a bit low.

Yes, you are, and more than just the illegal you hire. Just because you serve a hungry man a #### sandwich doesn't mean you aren't taking advantage of them. People like you that will hire someone at such a rate are creating the demand which lures people across the border and you're supporting the system of non-taxpayers receiving tax funded benefits.

Wow that hilarious on several levels.First of all you are assuming that I hire people, second of all you are assuming that if I hire people I would hire illegals.If people are taking advantage of those people so bad, than why are they flocking over here to get screwed over? I'm sure your not rushing somewhere were you are going to be screwed over. Those people DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT PAY, IT IS THEIR CHOICE. It's not like slavery, were if they don't accept it they will be killed or beaten severely. If I give a hungry man a sandwich of ####, and he eats it I didn't take advtange of him. I may have been making a mockery of him, but I didn't take advantage of him.Finally, do you realize alot of these illegals pay taxes on legal people's paper out of fear they don't get caught?Why would any business owner pay more for labor if they can get it cheaper? Now, if I said "You better take $5/hr or I will report you to ICE" then yes, I will agree that is exploiting someone, but as long as BOTH PARTIES FIND IT FAIR then it is never taking advantage of someone.

First and second, for some reason I read it as your example being you hiring because of this

Mininum wage is for citizens of the US. If I can hire a worker for $5/hr and he is #### grin happy about it because it is the equivalent of him making $10/hr in his own country, then why wouldn't I?

, sorry about that. However, that and your second paragraph pretty much sums up that you are still exactly the kind of person that I thought you were, whether in thought or deed. If the jobs and pay that the illegals are getting are so fair then why aren't the American unemployed flocking to them? Because they're not fair. You say some of them pay taxes so that they don't get caught? Well why do you think they accept terrible pay? Because they don't want to get caught! Who are they going to complain to, ICE? People that hire illegals are going to pay as little as possible for labor, as you pointed out (btw, the reason they shouldn't get labor as cheap as possible is because it's ILLEGAL to do so, which you don't seem to care about) so if they refuse $5 an hour, someone else will take the job. Agreeing to do the job doesn't = agreeing that it's fair. These people know that whoever hires them has them by the balls and they have no recourse either here or where they came from. Not sure if you realized this, but a #### job here that pays #### is still better than what they had back home, but that doesn't make it fair. That's why they're here, because some lawbreaking exploiters know they can hire the cheapest possible labor and that there is little to no recourse for their employees and little fear that they will be busted for hiring illegals because it's the illegals that are demonized. Please note, I am not mitigating the illegal status of the illegals, however they are here for basic subsistence while employers are motivated to break laws for profits and provide the demand for the workers in the first place. Your own post provides the reasons for why your own arguments are false. Until businesses that hire illegals are curtailed, there is a market for cheap labor. Doing the job is not a tacit acceptance of a fair deal, it's the knowledge that they have no other choice.

though we may disagree with the Arizona law, this is a damn good post..

 

[timschochet]

If the jobs and pay that the illegals are getting are so fair then why aren't the American unemployed flocking to them? Because they're not fair. You say some of them pay taxes so that they don't get caught? Well why do you think they accept terrible pay? Because they don't want to get caught! Who are they going to complain to, ICE? People that hire illegals are going to pay as little as possible for labor, as you pointed out (btw, the reason they shouldn't get labor as cheap as possible is because it's ILLEGAL to do so, which you don't seem to care about) so if they refuse $5 an hour, someone else will take the job. Agreeing to do the job doesn't = agreeing that it's fair. These people know that whoever hires them has them by the balls and they have no recourse either here or where they came from. Not sure if you realized this, but a #### job here that pays #### is still better than what they had back home, but that doesn't make it fair. That's why they're here, because some lawbreaking exploiters know they can hire the cheapest possible labor and that there is little to no recourse for their employees and little fear that they will be busted for hiring illegals because it's the illegals that are demonized. Please note, I am not mitigating the illegal status of the illegals, however they are here for basic subsistence while employers are motivated to break laws for profits and provide the demand for the workers in the first place. Your own post provides the reasons for why your own arguments are false. Until businesses that hire illegals are curtailed, there is a market for cheap labor. Doing the job is not a tacit acceptance of a fair deal, it's the knowledge that they have no other choice.

You conveniently forget that illegal immigrants leave everything in their lives behind, break laws and risk their lives to get into this country to accept such jobs. The reason that American unemployed aren't flocking to them is pretty simple: because Americans born here tend to have higher expectations. That hardly defines the jobs as "not fair". They are simply a lower rung on the ladder, but even then they are preferable to the jobs most illegals could get back home in Mexico or other Latin American countries. Besides, it is a rung on the ladder. Illegals know that they are improving their lives, and that their children will not have to work under such conditions, and that hopefully their children's children will be millionaires. That is the American ideal. You call it exploitation; I call it capitalism.

 

[PolishNorbi]

I posted it when it came out.Its not taking advantage of anyone. For example, you can have a great programmer who has lack of experience. They may be worth $50k, but if a company offers $40k and that person takes it, is that company taking advantage of them? No, both parties agreed to it.Ill try to find that study cause I would be curious to read it. Simple math of $5 of $5,000 on groceries spent a year means only the increases only effects .1% of the product. Seems a bit low.

Yes, you are, and more than just the illegal you hire. Just because you serve a hungry man a #### sandwich doesn't mean you aren't taking advantage of them. People like you that will hire someone at such a rate are creating the demand which lures people across the border and you're supporting the system of non-taxpayers receiving tax funded benefits.

Wow that hilarious on several levels.First of all you are assuming that I hire people, second of all you are assuming that if I hire people I would hire illegals.If people are taking advantage of those people so bad, than why are they flocking over here to get screwed over? I'm sure your not rushing somewhere were you are going to be screwed over. Those people DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT PAY, IT IS THEIR CHOICE. It's not like slavery, were if they don't accept it they will be killed or beaten severely. If I give a hungry man a sandwich of ####, and he eats it I didn't take advtange of him. I may have been making a mockery of him, but I didn't take advantage of him.Finally, do you realize alot of these illegals pay taxes on legal people's paper out of fear they don't get caught?Why would any business owner pay more for labor if they can get it cheaper? Now, if I said "You better take $5/hr or I will report you to ICE" then yes, I will agree that is exploiting someone, but as long as BOTH PARTIES FIND IT FAIR then it is never taking advantage of someone.

First and second, for some reason I read it as your example being you hiring because of this

Mininum wage is for citizens of the US. If I can hire a worker for $5/hr and he is #### grin happy about it because it is the equivalent of him making $10/hr in his own country, then why wouldn't I?

, sorry about that. However, that and your second paragraph pretty much sums up that you are still exactly the kind of person that I thought you were, whether in thought or deed. If the jobs and pay that the illegals are getting are so fair then why aren't the American unemployed flocking to them? Because they're not fair. You say some of them pay taxes so that they don't get caught? Well why do you think they accept terrible pay? Because they don't want to get caught! Who are they going to complain to, ICE? People that hire illegals are going to pay as little as possible for labor, as you pointed out (btw, the reason they shouldn't get labor as cheap as possible is because it's ILLEGAL to do so, which you don't seem to care about) so if they refuse $5 an hour, someone else will take the job. Agreeing to do the job doesn't = agreeing that it's fair. These people know that whoever hires them has them by the balls and they have no recourse either here or where they came from. Not sure if you realized this, but a #### job here that pays #### is still better than what they had back home, but that doesn't make it fair. That's why they're here, because some lawbreaking exploiters know they can hire the cheapest possible labor and that there is little to no recourse for their employees and little fear that they will be busted for hiring illegals because it's the illegals that are demonized. Please note, I am not mitigating the illegal status of the illegals, however they are here for basic subsistence while employers are motivated to break laws for profits and provide the demand for the workers in the first place. Your own post provides the reasons for why your own arguments are false. Until businesses that hire illegals are curtailed, there is a market for cheap labor. Doing the job is not a tacit acceptance of a fair deal, it's the knowledge that they have no other choice.

Fair and being taken advantage of are two different things. You don't need to be an illegal to not have fair pay. Hell, there are thousands of employees taking good cuts on their deserved pay to keep their jobs, is that fair? Not really. Is the company taking advantage of a employee if they both agree to the cut? No.I will agree that is not fair completely, it is the way it is.In Arizona in 2007, we passed a bill that said any business caught hiring illegals twice will have their business license revoked. I don't think they can get more stringent than that, since sometimes things to slip and a one strike you are out rule would be to tough. Illegals have choices, they can go back to their own country. It is not just illegals in our country that this takes place. In Europe, people from countries like Poland travel to England/Germany to get paid more than at home. At the same time, they are not being paid what an English/German person would. Why? Because if a company could hire a local at the same price as a foreigner, why would he?Its a give/push type thing. If I am an illegal, I know I have to be cheaper by a good amount, to compete with legals. Its not just the business saying "You are illegal, you must work for minimum or under min. wage" Its also "Listen, I work for dirt cheap because I am illegal and I want to make more money than I do in Mexico, so min. wage is acceptable"

 

[Arch Stanton]

If the jobs and pay that the illegals are getting are so fair then why aren't the American unemployed flocking to them? Because they're not fair. You say some of them pay taxes so that they don't get caught? Well why do you think they accept terrible pay? Because they don't want to get caught! Who are they going to complain to, ICE? People that hire illegals are going to pay as little as possible for labor, as you pointed out (btw, the reason they shouldn't get labor as cheap as possible is because it's ILLEGAL to do so, which you don't seem to care about) so if they refuse $5 an hour, someone else will take the job. Agreeing to do the job doesn't = agreeing that it's fair. These people know that whoever hires them has them by the balls and they have no recourse either here or where they came from. Not sure if you realized this, but a #### job here that pays #### is still better than what they had back home, but that doesn't make it fair. That's why they're here, because some lawbreaking exploiters know they can hire the cheapest possible labor and that there is little to no recourse for their employees and little fear that they will be busted for hiring illegals because it's the illegals that are demonized. Please note, I am not mitigating the illegal status of the illegals, however they are here for basic subsistence while employers are motivated to break laws for profits and provide the demand for the workers in the first place. Your own post provides the reasons for why your own arguments are false. Until businesses that hire illegals are curtailed, there is a market for cheap labor. Doing the job is not a tacit acceptance of a fair deal, it's the knowledge that they have no other choice.

You conveniently forget that illegal immigrants leave everything in their lives behind, break laws and risk their lives to get into this country to accept such jobs. The reason that American unemployed aren't flocking to them is pretty simple: because Americans born here tend to have higher expectations. That hardly defines the jobs as "not fair". They are simply a lower rung on the ladder, but even then they are preferable to the jobs most illegals could get back home in Mexico or other Latin American countries. Besides, it is a rung on the ladder. Illegals know that they are improving their lives, and that their children will not have to work under such conditions, and that hopefully their children's children will be millionaires. That is the American ideal. You call it exploitation; I call it capitalism.

I didn't forget any of that, in fact I addressed several of the points you make, directly or indirectly, if you care to go back and re-read it. Your first sentence is why they have no recourse against being exploited by profit minded employers. I also addressed the part about #### wages here being better than what they had/have available at home. You're being relative. It's better than what they had so it's ok. That does not make it fair. If you don't consider employers giving illegals with no legal recousrses rock bottom wages (which btw, is not going to keep "their children from having to work under such conditions", it's subsistence level untaxed pay*) in direct violation of US labor, immigration and employment laws exploitation then you're completely (or willfully) ignorant of the definition. * and when you consider the religious tendencies of a majority of these immigrants and that religion's stance on birth control you're generally talking about an above average number of children all of whom will be receiving tax based benefits that neither their illegally present and illegally employed parents nor their parents' illegal employers are paying taxes on.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Yes, you are, and more than just the illegal you hire. Just because you serve a hungry man a #### sandwich doesn't mean you aren't taking advantage of them. People like you that will hire someone at such a rate are creating the demand which lures people across the border and you're supporting the system of non-taxpayers receiving tax funded benefits.

Wow that hilarious on several levels.First of all you are assuming that I hire people, second of all you are assuming that if I hire people I would hire illegals.If people are taking advantage of those people so bad, than why are they flocking over here to get screwed over? I'm sure your not rushing somewhere were you are going to be screwed over. Those people DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT PAY, IT IS THEIR CHOICE. It's not like slavery, were if they don't accept it they will be killed or beaten severely. If I give a hungry man a sandwich of ####, and he eats it I didn't take advtange of him. I may have been making a mockery of him, but I didn't take advantage of him.Finally, do you realize alot of these illegals pay taxes on legal people's paper out of fear they don't get caught?Why would any business owner pay more for labor if they can get it cheaper? Now, if I said "You better take $5/hr or I will report you to ICE" then yes, I will agree that is exploiting someone, but as long as BOTH PARTIES FIND IT FAIR then it is never taking advantage of someone.

First and second, for some reason I read it as your example being you hiring because of this

Mininum wage is for citizens of the US. If I can hire a worker for $5/hr and he is #### grin happy about it because it is the equivalent of him making $10/hr in his own country, then why wouldn't I?

, sorry about that. However, that and your second paragraph pretty much sums up that you are still exactly the kind of person that I thought you were, whether in thought or deed. If the jobs and pay that the illegals are getting are so fair then why aren't the American unemployed flocking to them? Because they're not fair. You say some of them pay taxes so that they don't get caught? Well why do you think they accept terrible pay? Because they don't want to get caught! Who are they going to complain to, ICE? People that hire illegals are going to pay as little as possible for labor, as you pointed out (btw, the reason they shouldn't get labor as cheap as possible is because it's ILLEGAL to do so, which you don't seem to care about) so if they refuse $5 an hour, someone else will take the job. Agreeing to do the job doesn't = agreeing that it's fair. These people know that whoever hires them has them by the balls and they have no recourse either here or where they came from. Not sure if you realized this, but a #### job here that pays #### is still better than what they had back home, but that doesn't make it fair. That's why they're here, because some lawbreaking exploiters know they can hire the cheapest possible labor and that there is little to no recourse for their employees and little fear that they will be busted for hiring illegals because it's the illegals that are demonized. Please note, I am not mitigating the illegal status of the illegals, however they are here for basic subsistence while employers are motivated to break laws for profits and provide the demand for the workers in the first place. Your own post provides the reasons for why your own arguments are false. Until businesses that hire illegals are curtailed, there is a market for cheap labor. Doing the job is not a tacit acceptance of a fair deal, it's the knowledge that they have no other choice.

Fair and being taken advantage of are two different things. You don't need to be an illegal to not have fair pay. Hell, there are thousands of employees taking good cuts on their deserved pay to keep their jobs, is that fair? Not really. Is the company taking advantage of a employee if they both agree to the cut? No.I will agree that is not fair completely, it is the way it is.In Arizona in 2007, we passed a bill that said any business caught hiring illegals twice will have their business license revoked. I don't think they can get more stringent than that, since sometimes things to slip and a one strike you are out rule would be to tough. Illegals have choices, they can go back to their own country. It is not just illegals in our country that this takes place. In Europe, people from countries like Poland travel to England/Germany to get paid more than at home. At the same time, they are not being paid what an English/German person would. Why? Because if a company could hire a local at the same price as a foreigner, why would he?Its a give/push type thing. If I am an illegal, I know I have to be cheaper by a good amount, to compete with legals. Its not just the business saying "You are illegal, you must work for minimum or under min. wage" Its also "Listen, I work for dirt cheap because I am illegal and I want to make more money than I do in Mexico, so min. wage is acceptable"

There's a legal minimum pay in this country, if you are illegally paying people less then you are taking advantage of people as well as being unfair. Yes, other people are underpaid for their jobs, they are not paid less than the legal minimum.I'm aware of the employer law, apparently they aren't enforcing it very well if they feel the need to create the current law are they? Stop comparing us to other countries. We are the USA, we're supposed to be better than England and other countries. What happens in other countries has to do with their laws, not ours.Your last paragraph is basically justifying the activity that your 2007 law is supposed to fight. BTW, minimum wage would be acceptable, however they are not paid anywhere near that.

 

[videoguy505]

Madison WI:

The Dane County Jail reported noncitizen inmates to authorities for years without attracting much attention. Former Sheriff Gary Hamblin, who went to the Wisconsin Department of Justice in 2007 after not seeking re-election, recalls that the practice during his tenure was to notify the consulate of the home country of a foreign national being taken into custody. Immigration authorities, too, sometimes were notified, he said in a recent interview, “but I don’t recall the guidelines.”

Jail booking policy today calls for reporting directly to immigration authorities any inmate who can’t produce proof of being in the United States legally. Flagging undocumented prisoners for ICE is not required by law, but Mahoney says he needs to do it to keep the jail community safe. It is not so much criminal conviction information that is received in return from ICE, but “intelligence” about inmates that clues deputies into any risk they pose, he says. Most jails in the state report inmates to ICE at least periodically, and 4,000 local jails and state prisons have participated in the federal Criminal Alien Program to net noncitizen criminals in the country illegally, says an agency spokesperson.

Controversy over the Dane County Jail reporting practice erupted in 2008, after local defense attorneys sounded the alarm that more clients were opting to take minor cases to court to avoid guilty pleas and a stay in jail that might expose them to immigration authorities. Advocates of Dane County’s fast-growing Latino immigrant community have tried since then to negotiate a change in jail policy with Mahoney. The issue was politicized by the Immigrant Workers’ Union, a grass-roots workers rights group that organized rallies against the practice.

The Dane County Immigration Task Force in May recommended an end to routine reporting to ICE at booking. Weeks later, the Madison City Council went on record in overwhelming opposition to the jail reporting policy, recommending that only inmates charged with felonies be flagged for ICE.

Mahoney says he won’t change his policy. “I have a moral and ethical responsibility to ensure the security of everyone in my institution,” he says.

Last year, the Dane County Jail released 149 inmates to ICE, according to information provided to The Capital Times under an open records request. That means that after they did their jail time, these inmates were not freed, but transported to the Dodge County Jail, which contracts with federal authorities to house prisoners on immigration “detainers.” The number of inmates turned over to ICE increased 57 percent from 2007, when federal authorities began to devote more resources to detaining and removing immigrants in custody on criminal charges.

Local professionals who work with undocumented immigrants, mostly Latinos, speak passionately of how fear of deportation because of the jail policy affects lives of immigrant families.

The fear can paralyze, says Prudencio Oyarbide, coordinator of Clinica Latina at Mental Health Center of Dane County, a nonprofit agency serving low-income people. He says that some of his clients greatly fear making a misstep that brings them to the attention of police, to jail, and then to deportation: “They have significant impairment. They can’t work, they can’t sleep, they obsess all day long about making a mistake that ends life as they know it.” He estimates that 10 percent of his caseload of 45 to 55 clients shows fear that rises to this level of disorder.

Amy Kucin oversees Mental Health Center programs for adults with drug and alcohol issues. She sees how the fear of deportation complicates the challenges of kicking a habit. “I have a client who was arrested for drinking and driving and is working on sobriety,” she says. “He has so much fear about being out in public that he has to remind himself that his problem is drinking and driving — not looking Latino in public. The anxiety around that is really a struggle. He drives to work and goes home. Other than that, he does not go out.”

A volunteer at UNIDOS Against Domestic Violence noticed late last year that a growing number of women calling in to the nonprofit agency that serves Spanish-speaking victims of domestic violence were conflicted over whether to report an abusive partner and risk his deportation. Word of the jail policy, and its effect, was getting around. “I advise them to call the police, but I have to tell them that deportation is possible,” says executive director Cecilia Gillhouse.

The prospect of losing a husband to deportation is especially frightening for immigrant women, because “many times the man is the only one working and the only one who speaks English,” she says. Immigrant women may not have access to or even know about their husband’s bank account. Many are isolated and have few contacts outside the home.

Those poor immigrants... living life afraid to commit crimes because they may be deported. Afraid to drive drunk in case they get pulled over and sent to ICE.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Those poor immigrants... living life afraid to commit crimes because they may be deported. Afraid to drive drunk in case they get pulled over and sent to ICE.

This is generally the reason offered for why they commit statistically so few additional crimes other than being here illegally.

 

[Card Trader]

Those poor immigrants... living life afraid to commit crimes because they may be deported. Afraid to drive drunk in case they get pulled over and sent to ICE.

This is generally the reason offered for why they commit statistically so few additional crimes other than being here illegally.

 

[timschochet]

Those poor immigrants... living life afraid to commit crimes because they may be deported. Afraid to drive drunk in case they get pulled over and sent to ICE.

This is generally the reason offered for why they commit statistically so few additional crimes other than being here illegally.

I think it's only part of the reason. I also believe that, because they struggled so hard to get here, they have a better appreciation of what it means to live in this country than many of those born here. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are the best Americans, IMO.

 

[Card Trader]

Those poor immigrants... living life afraid to commit crimes because they may be deported. Afraid to drive drunk in case they get pulled over and sent to ICE.

This is generally the reason offered for why they commit statistically so few additional crimes other than being here illegally.

I think it's only part of the reason. I also believe that, because they struggled so hard to get here, they have a better appreciation of what it means to live in this country than many of those born here. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are the best Americans, IMO.

Wow you are out of touch. Honest question tim...how many illegals do you know personally...not "know of"?

 

[timschochet]

Those poor immigrants... living life afraid to commit crimes because they may be deported. Afraid to drive drunk in case they get pulled over and sent to ICE.

This is generally the reason offered for why they commit statistically so few additional crimes other than being here illegally.

I think it's only part of the reason. I also believe that, because they struggled so hard to get here, they have a better appreciation of what it means to live in this country than many of those born here. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are the best Americans, IMO.

Wow you are out of touch. Honest question tim...how many illegals do you know personally...not "know of"?

About 3 or 4. I used to know a lot more when I taught ESL (English as a second language) a few years back. How many do you know personally?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Those poor immigrants... living life afraid to commit crimes because they may be deported. Afraid to drive drunk in case they get pulled over and sent to ICE.

This is generally the reason offered for why they commit statistically so few additional crimes other than being here illegally.

It was worded that way on purpose in order to avoid irrelevant nonsense to the point being made.

 

[Card Trader]

Those poor immigrants... living life afraid to commit crimes because they may be deported. Afraid to drive drunk in case they get pulled over and sent to ICE.

This is generally the reason offered for why they commit statistically so few additional crimes other than being here illegally.

I think it's only part of the reason. I also believe that, because they struggled so hard to get here, they have a better appreciation of what it means to live in this country than many of those born here. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are the best Americans, IMO.

Wow you are out of touch. Honest question tim...how many illegals do you know personally...not "know of"?

About 3 or 4. I used to know a lot more when I taught ESL (English as a second language) a few years back. How many do you know personally?

You mean other than the one I married 13 years ago, her entire family and about 2-3 dozen others? Not many.

 

[timschochet]

You mean other than the one I married 13 years ago, her entire family and about 2-3 dozen others? Not many.

Your wife is (or was) an illegal immigrant? Along with her family? I think that's great. But I'm surprised then in your position on this matter.

 

[Card Trader]

You mean other than the one I married 13 years ago, her entire family and about 2-3 dozen others? Not many.

Your wife is (or was) an illegal immigrant? Along with her family? I think that's great. But I'm surprised then in your position on this matter.

Yes. She was (not anymore). My position has been formed based on my interaction with many of them. A good majority of them were very hard workers, but the problem is they work hard for 6 months of the year here, save all their money and go live in Mexico for 6 months (turn themselves into ICE for the free ride)....rinse and repeat.Or, they send 70% of their money to family in Mexico. Tax free money that goes right to another Country, that among many other things upsets me about it and shouldn't surprise you to my stance, especially considering the increased violence committed by illegals in Arizona over the past couple of years.

 

[timschochet]

You mean other than the one I married 13 years ago, her entire family and about 2-3 dozen others? Not many.

Your wife is (or was) an illegal immigrant? Along with her family? I think that's great. But I'm surprised then in your position on this matter.

Yes. She was (not anymore). My position has been formed based on my interaction with many of them. A good majority of them were very hard workers, but the problem is they work hard for 6 months of the year here, save all their money and go live in Mexico for 6 months (turn themselves into ICE for the free ride)....rinse and repeat.Or, they send 70% of their money to family in Mexico. Tax free money that goes right to another Country, that among many other things upsets me about it and shouldn't surprise you to my stance, especially considering the increased violence committed by illegals in Arizona over the past couple of years.

Well. we've been over the before. The violence you mentioned is not backed up by statistics. The implication that you make about how illegals spend their money (70% back to Mexico) is also not backed up by statistics.) So we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Parrothead]

You mean other than the one I married 13 years ago, her entire family and about 2-3 dozen others? Not many.

Your wife is (or was) an illegal immigrant? Along with her family? I think that's great. But I'm surprised then in your position on this matter.

Yes. She was (not anymore). My position has been formed based on my interaction with many of them. A good majority of them were very hard workers, but the problem is they work hard for 6 months of the year here, save all their money and go live in Mexico for 6 months (turn themselves into ICE for the free ride)....rinse and repeat.Or, they send 70% of their money to family in Mexico. Tax free money that goes right to another Country, that among many other things upsets me about it and shouldn't surprise you to my stance, especially considering the increased violence committed by illegals in Arizona over the past couple of years.

Well. we've been over the before. The violence you mentioned is not backed up by statistics. The implication that you make about how illegals spend their money (70% back to Mexico) is also not backed up by statistics.) So we'll have to agree to disagree.

you are right, if only those illegal aliens would return their survey forms..

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You mean other than the one I married 13 years ago, her entire family and about 2-3 dozen others? Not many.

Your wife is (or was) an illegal immigrant? Along with her family? I think that's great. But I'm surprised then in your position on this matter.

Yes. She was (not anymore). My position has been formed based on my interaction with many of them. A good majority of them were very hard workers, but the problem is they work hard for 6 months of the year here, save all their money and go live in Mexico for 6 months (turn themselves into ICE for the free ride)....rinse and repeat.Or, they send 70% of their money to family in Mexico. Tax free money that goes right to another Country, that among many other things upsets me about it and shouldn't surprise you to my stance, especially considering the increased violence committed by illegals in Arizona over the past couple of years.

Well. we've been over the before. The violence you mentioned is not backed up by statistics. The implication that you make about how illegals spend their money (70% back to Mexico) is also not backed up by statistics.) So we'll have to agree to disagree.

Any competent economist would tell us that if people transport cash outside our borders, it doesn't hurt us at all. If the cash is never spent in the U.S., it's like the cash is set on fire — which benefits the rest of us. (You can tell it benefits us because it means that those foreigners performed work for Americans, but didn't demand American products or services in return — i.e., they worked for free, as far as we are concerned. Good for us.) In the more likely scenario that the cash is ultimately spent in the U.S., it doesn't matter that it first took a detour.

 

[GroveDiesel]

So it turns or that current federal law pretty much explicitely says that the Arizona law is legal. Unreal. I'm not sure how the Justice Department has any chance to win this lawsuit.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N...2I3NzYzNmYxMmI=

Sec. 1373. Communication between government agencies and the

Immigration and Naturalization Service

    (a) In general

      Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local

    law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may

    not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or

    official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and

    Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or

    immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.

    (b) Additional authority of government entities

      Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local

    law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a

    Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the

    following with respect to information regarding the immigration

    status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:

        (1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving

      such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization

      Service.

        (2) Maintaining such information.

        (3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State,

      or local government entity.

    © Obligation to respond to inquiries

      The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an

    inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to

    verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any

    individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose

    authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So it turns or that current federal law pretty much explicitely says that the Arizona law is legal.

I don't think that's what it says, but maybe I'm missing it. Can you identify the part which says that states can enact and enforce immigration laws?

 

[Christo]

So it turns or that current federal law pretty much explicitely says that the Arizona law is legal.

I don't think that's what it says, but maybe I'm missing it. Can you identify the part which says that states can enact and enforce immigration laws?

Part C certainly implies that state/local governments are allowed to "verify" & "ascertain" the citizenship and immigration status of persons within their jurisdiction. It's hard to believe they have the ability to do this but not the ability to codify their procedure for doing so.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So it turns or that current federal law pretty much explicitely says that the Arizona law is legal.

I don't think that's what it says, but maybe I'm missing it. Can you identify the part which says that states can enact and enforce immigration laws?

Part C certainly implies that state/local governments are allowed to "verify" & "ascertain" the citizenship and immigration status of persons within their jurisdiction. It's hard to believe they have the ability to do this but not the ability to codify their procedure for doing so.

The Arizona law goes well beyond allowing local officials to verify or ascertain information by communicating with the INS. It authorizes state police to arrest suspected aliens if they don't have their papers. There's nothing about that in the law GroveDiesel quoted, as far as I can tell.

 

[Christo]

So it turns or that current federal law pretty much explicitely says that the Arizona law is legal.

I don't think that's what it says, but maybe I'm missing it. Can you identify the part which says that states can enact and enforce immigration laws?

Part C certainly implies that state/local governments are allowed to "verify" & "ascertain" the citizenship and immigration status of persons within their jurisdiction. It's hard to believe they have the ability to do this but not the ability to codify their procedure for doing so.

The Arizona law goes well beyond verifying and ascertaining information by communicating with the INS. It authorizes state police to arrest suspected aliens if they don't have their papers. There's nothing about that in the law GroveDiesel quoted, as far as I can tell.

While not explicit, I don't see how it's not a reasonable extension of the implied power.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So it turns or that current federal law pretty much explicitely says that the Arizona law is legal.

I don't think that's what it says, but maybe I'm missing it. Can you identify the part which says that states can enact and enforce immigration laws?

Part C certainly implies that state/local governments are allowed to "verify" & "ascertain" the citizenship and immigration status of persons within their jurisdiction. It's hard to believe they have the ability to do this but not the ability to codify their procedure for doing so.

The Arizona law goes well beyond verifying and ascertaining information by communicating with the INS. It authorizes state police to arrest suspected aliens if they don't have their papers. There's nothing about that in the law GroveDiesel quoted, as far as I can tell.

While not explicit, I don't see how it's not a reasonable extension of the implied power.

That it's not explicit is one of the great understatements in FFA history.Maybe the Arizona law is permissible and maybe it isn't; but if it is, it's not because of the federal law quoted above.

 

[timschochet]

So it turns or that current federal law pretty much explicitely says that the Arizona law is legal.

I don't think that's what it says, but maybe I'm missing it. Can you identify the part which says that states can enact and enforce immigration laws?

Part C certainly implies that state/local governments are allowed to "verify" & "ascertain" the citizenship and immigration status of persons within their jurisdiction. It's hard to believe they have the ability to do this but not the ability to codify their procedure for doing so.

The Arizona law goes well beyond verifying and ascertaining information by communicating with the INS. It authorizes state police to arrest suspected aliens if they don't have their papers. There's nothing about that in the law GroveDiesel quoted, as far as I can tell.

While not explicit, I don't see how it's not a reasonable extension of the implied power.

You may not see it, but I'm betting the judge in question will.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

While not explicit, I don't see how it's not a reasonable extension of the implied power.

You may not see it, but I'm betting the judge in question will.

I don't think the issue will come up before a judge. I don't think Arizona will argue that the act is authorized by section 1373. It will instead argue that the act is authorized by the general doctrine of concurrent enforcement.

 

[Christo]

Part C certainly implies that state/local governments are allowed to "verify" & "ascertain" the citizenship and immigration status of persons within their jurisdiction. It's hard to believe they have the ability to do this but not the ability to codify their procedure for doing so.

The Arizona law goes well beyond verifying and ascertaining information by communicating with the INS. It authorizes state police to arrest suspected aliens if they don't have their papers. There's nothing about that in the law GroveDiesel quoted, as far as I can tell.

While not explicit, I don't see how it's not a reasonable extension of the implied power.

You may not see it, but I'm betting the judge in question will.

What's the basis for your confidence?

 

[Christo]

While not explicit, I don't see how it's not a reasonable extension of the implied power.

You may not see it, but I'm betting the judge in question will.

I don't think the issue will come up before a judge. I don't think Arizona will argue that the act is authorized by section 1373. It will instead argue that the act is authorized by the general doctrine of concurrent enforcement.

It's certainly worth considering putting in a footnote.

 

[videoguy505]

Part C certainly implies that state/local governments are allowed to "verify" & "ascertain" the citizenship and immigration status of persons within their jurisdiction. It's hard to believe they have the ability to do this but not the ability to codify their procedure for doing so.

The Arizona law goes well beyond verifying and ascertaining information by communicating with the INS. It authorizes state police to arrest suspected aliens if they don't have their papers. There's nothing about that in the law GroveDiesel quoted, as far as I can tell.

While not explicit, I don't see how it's not a reasonable extension of the implied power.

You may not see it, but I'm betting the judge in question will.

What's the basis for your confidence?

Wishful thinking.

 

[timschochet]

What's the basis for your confidence?

I admit I don't know or understand all the legal complexities; therefore, my confidence are based on more practical factors, mainly this: liberal judges tend to make decisions that inevitably lead to an outcome desired by liberals. Conservative judges tend to make decisions that inevitably lead to an outcome desired by conservatives. I am not trying to attack the integrity of decisions by either, but I do notice this seems to be the case more often than not. The judge hearing this particular case is a Clinton appointee, known to be progressive. It so happens that progressives tend to agree with my overall position on this issue (though why they should do so, and not conservatives, is another matter.)

 

[bueno]

So let's take the most conservative numbers from the figures I've posted, and the most liberal numbers from FAIR: they're costing us 116 billion, but are paying roughly half that (at least) in taxes. And they are spending at least 400 billion in the United States. So that means, for a cost of 60 billion, America is 400 billion dollars richer...hmm. Seems like, at the very worst, a pretty good investment.

More importantly, they help keep prices of products low for everyone.

This is a load of bull. Good talking point though.

Really?Explain to me why a company would hire a "illegal" working on legal papers, or no papers, if they could get legal labor at the same price? They can't. Whatever the business pays in increase you will pay. For example, landscaper charges you $50/mo to come out and maintain your property. If they now have to pay $10/hr for labor vs. $6/hr, and your property takes 4 hrs a month to maintain, you think that company is going to eat the $16 increase? Hell no they won't. And don't say "well I don't use illegals on any of my work" because probably one of the pieces of food you consumed today had something to do with an illegal.Edit -- Spelling.

Thus adding an extra $16/month to the GDP. Cool.

 

[Phurfur]

So it turns or that current federal law pretty much explicitely says that the Arizona law is legal.

I don't think that's what it says, but maybe I'm missing it. Can you identify the part which says that states can enact and enforce immigration laws?

Part C certainly implies that state/local governments are allowed to "verify" & "ascertain" the citizenship and immigration status of persons within their jurisdiction. It's hard to believe they have the ability to do this but not the ability to codify their procedure for doing so.

The Arizona law goes well beyond allowing local officials to verify or ascertain information by communicating with the INS. It authorizes state police to arrest suspected aliens if they don't have their papers. There's nothing about that in the law GroveDiesel quoted, as far as I can tell.

Are you claiming you read the bill because this is not true? No one can be arrested or questioned solely on the suspicion of being here illegally. Please come to Phoenix and drive through town at 100 MPH without any proof of identity. I guarantee that you will end out in jail.

 

[bueno]

Now to answer your question: I do believe that most illegals do care about being citizens. And to back it up, I will add this: if we give them a chance at citizenship and they refuse it, then I have no problem deporting them. If they don't want us, I don't want them. But again, I don't think this applies to most of them.

Tim, I don't think you could be more wrong on this point. I just know too many Mexicans who have come here and worked (legally and illegally) in order to make enough money to return home and live more comfortably, buy a mango orchard, or whatever. If they want to be here permanently, who do they send all of their discretionary income back to Mexico? You do know that is the second largest source of foreign income for Mexico right? I think a lot of their kids want to stay in the US, especially if they are born here, but they are already citizens by birth.

If you really want to eliminate illegal immigration, then you need to encourage Mexico to become a truly free economy, in which lower class and lower middle class have the opportunity to advance. I honestly don't know if this is possible.

My currently secretary, the youngest daughter of a truck driver, is going to be an OB-GYN when she graduates. Education is relatively cheap in MExico and the opportunity to advance is there.

Lastly, there are two reasons I am not in favor of any kind of guest-worker program: first, because government organized labor is inefficent. The influx of illegal immigration is actually representative of the best kind of capitalism, because the workers go to where they are needed. Second, because history has shown that "guest-labor" doesn't work- they never return. Take a look at the Chinese and Japanese guest labor in Hawaii and California at the start of the last century. It only creates greater tension. It is far better simply to acknowledge that these people are here to stay.

I'm not sure how you could argue that a guest worker program would be inefficient. A company recruits workers in Mexico, those workers get temporary Visas, and the workers do go where they are needed. Illegals sitting around Home Depot parking lots is inefficient. And the fact that guest laborers don't stay is irrelevant. Most illegals don't stay either, historically.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So it turns or that current federal law pretty much explicitely says that the Arizona law is legal.

I don't think that's what it says, but maybe I'm missing it. Can you identify the part which says that states can enact and enforce immigration laws?

Part C certainly implies that state/local governments are allowed to "verify" & "ascertain" the citizenship and immigration status of persons within their jurisdiction. It's hard to believe they have the ability to do this but not the ability to codify their procedure for doing so.

The Arizona law goes well beyond allowing local officials to verify or ascertain information by communicating with the INS. It authorizes state police to arrest suspected aliens if they don't have their papers. There's nothing about that in the law GroveDiesel quoted, as far as I can tell.

Are you claiming you read the bill because this is not true? No one can be arrested or questioned solely on the suspicion of being here illegally.

From the act: "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." About the only public offense that makes a person removable from the United States is being an illegal alien.

 

[timschochet]

Most illegals don't stay either, historically.

I don't believe this to be true. While it may be your own experience, none of the statistical data that I have ever read backs this up. Do you have any quantitative evidence that this is so? I ask because if it were true it would profoundly change my thinking on the entire issue of illegal immigration.

 

[Phurfur]

From the act: "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." About the only public offense that makes a person removable from the United States is being an illegal alien.

So you just have interpretation problems?

 

[bueno]

Most illegals don't stay either, historically.

I don't believe this to be true. While it may be your own experience, none of the statistical data that I have ever read backs this up. Do you have any quantitative evidence that this is so? I ask because if it were true it would profoundly change my thinking on the entire issue of illegal immigration.

The key word is historically. Before we started tighter enforcement during the Bush years, people would come up, work for a few years and go home. Then when they needed money again, they'd come back. They started staying longer when we started talking tough about border enforcement. They also stay longer because the cost of immigrating illegally (what the coyotes charge) has increased. Even so, there are estimates that currently about 1/4 million illegals leave the country each year (that number is from Pew, INS estimates as many as 500,000 return home each year). The numbers used to be higher when the border was more open. So we have about 750-800,000 entering, each year, 250-500,000 leaving. Where do you think illegal aliens go when they retire Tim? You think they stay in the USA? Another point: 40% of all illegals are people who have overstayed their visa. Do you feel differently about them than people who have sneaked in?

BTW: you might find this study of interest, http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf

 

[parasaurolophus]

If the jobs and pay that the illegals are getting are so fair then why aren't the American unemployed flocking to them? Because they're not fair. You say some of them pay taxes so that they don't get caught? Well why do you think they accept terrible pay? Because they don't want to get caught! Who are they going to complain to, ICE? People that hire illegals are going to pay as little as possible for labor, as you pointed out (btw, the reason they shouldn't get labor as cheap as possible is because it's ILLEGAL to do so, which you don't seem to care about) so if they refuse $5 an hour, someone else will take the job. Agreeing to do the job doesn't = agreeing that it's fair. These people know that whoever hires them has them by the balls and they have no recourse either here or where they came from. Not sure if you realized this, but a #### job here that pays #### is still better than what they had back home, but that doesn't make it fair. That's why they're here, because some lawbreaking exploiters know they can hire the cheapest possible labor and that there is little to no recourse for their employees and little fear that they will be busted for hiring illegals because it's the illegals that are demonized. Please note, I am not mitigating the illegal status of the illegals, however they are here for basic subsistence while employers are motivated to break laws for profits and provide the demand for the workers in the first place. Your own post provides the reasons for why your own arguments are false. Until businesses that hire illegals are curtailed, there is a market for cheap labor. Doing the job is not a tacit acceptance of a fair deal, it's the knowledge that they have no other choice.

You conveniently forget that illegal immigrants leave everything in their lives behind, break laws and risk their lives to get into this country to accept such jobs. The reason that American unemployed aren't flocking to them is pretty simple: because Americans born here tend to have higher expectations. That hardly defines the jobs as "not fair". They are simply a lower rung on the ladder, but even then they are preferable to the jobs most illegals could get back home in Mexico or other Latin American countries. Besides, it is a rung on the ladder. Illegals know that they are improving their lives, and that their children will not have to work under such conditions, and that hopefully their children's children will be millionaires. That is the American ideal. You call it exploitation; I call it capitalism.

He also conveniently leaves out that many of the unemployed can sit around and do nothing and still get paid more than 5 dollars an hour. Why would a factory worker that just got laid off go work in a field when he can sit at home sending out applications and get 250 bucks a week?

 

[bg0546]

A little background on David Salgado, the officer who's lawsuit was the first heard over this new immigration law:

CHANDLER, Ariz. -- Phoenix police officer David Salgado has often said he is fighting SB 1070 in court on moral grounds.

“I knew right then and there that I did the right thing,” Salgado said when he watched his attorney bring the first legal challenge to Arizona's new immigration law.

But Salgado, the point man for the suit, has a moment in his police past that raises serious moral questions.

“It’s a name I will never forget till I die, and I thought wow, I can’t believe that guy is in the news,” said W. Steven Martin, founder of the W. Steven Martin Police Toy Drive, a charity in the Valley where officers bring toys to families that have very little of their own.

Back in 1997, David Salgado and his police officer brother, Rick, were accused of taking toys intended for needy children and instead giving them to their own extended families.

“It was unbelievable that somebody would put personal greed over a family they could make a difference with for a lifetime,” said Martin.

Rick Salgado lost his job over the incident, but according to CBS5 news archives, the police review board recommended David Salgado be suspended for 240 hours. CBS 5 News called officer Salgado to ask him about his past.

“I was not suspended for 240 hours. That’s a lie. Put it this way, if you do your research, you’ll find out," said Salgado.

CBS 5 News talked to people familiar with the case, who said Salgado not only took toys, but he wrote down the name of a family known to be in dire need of help, and instead kept the toys for himself.

His personnel file shows no record of his discipline, but according to department policy, after ten years an officer is allowed to ask that his record be scrubbed clean.

“I believe in morals. Also too, I believe that we’re human beings and we all make mistakes,” Salgado said Friday.

“What happened 10, 15 years ago, doesn’t mean you can’t change, but it also means you should keep an eye on that person and always question, 'why would they do that then' and 'what are they looking for now,'” said Martin.

In the 25 years of the W. Steven Martin Police Toy Drive, the Salgado brothers are the only officers accused of such a crime. The judge who heard Salgado's challenge to SB 1070 has yet to make a ruling on it's merit.

http://www.kpho.com/news/24292722/detail.html

 

[Arch Stanton]

If the jobs and pay that the illegals are getting are so fair then why aren't the American unemployed flocking to them? Because they're not fair. You say some of them pay taxes so that they don't get caught? Well why do you think they accept terrible pay? Because they don't want to get caught! Who are they going to complain to, ICE? People that hire illegals are going to pay as little as possible for labor, as you pointed out (btw, the reason they shouldn't get labor as cheap as possible is because it's ILLEGAL to do so, which you don't seem to care about) so if they refuse $5 an hour, someone else will take the job. Agreeing to do the job doesn't = agreeing that it's fair. These people know that whoever hires them has them by the balls and they have no recourse either here or where they came from. Not sure if you realized this, but a #### job here that pays #### is still better than what they had back home, but that doesn't make it fair. That's why they're here, because some lawbreaking exploiters know they can hire the cheapest possible labor and that there is little to no recourse for their employees and little fear that they will be busted for hiring illegals because it's the illegals that are demonized. Please note, I am not mitigating the illegal status of the illegals, however they are here for basic subsistence while employers are motivated to break laws for profits and provide the demand for the workers in the first place. Your own post provides the reasons for why your own arguments are false. Until businesses that hire illegals are curtailed, there is a market for cheap labor. Doing the job is not a tacit acceptance of a fair deal, it's the knowledge that they have no other choice.

You conveniently forget that illegal immigrants leave everything in their lives behind, break laws and risk their lives to get into this country to accept such jobs. The reason that American unemployed aren't flocking to them is pretty simple: because Americans born here tend to have higher expectations. That hardly defines the jobs as "not fair". They are simply a lower rung on the ladder, but even then they are preferable to the jobs most illegals could get back home in Mexico or other Latin American countries. Besides, it is a rung on the ladder. Illegals know that they are improving their lives, and that their children will not have to work under such conditions, and that hopefully their children's children will be millionaires. That is the American ideal. You call it exploitation; I call it capitalism.

He also conveniently leaves out that many of the unemployed can sit around and do nothing and still get paid more than 5 dollars an hour. Why would a factory worker that just got laid off go work in a field when he can sit at home sending out applications and get 250 bucks a week?

I don't think you understand "conveniently leave out" or unemployment. You remind me of someone else whose comprehension skills are troubled and is obsessed with unemployment. Oh, oh, oh who could it be? I don't know how a laid off factory worker can live off of $250/week for 6 months (that's the max time you can have ue). Also if businesses actually hired legal Americans instead of illegals then the pay would be at least $8/hour which blows away your theory of doing nothing and making the same. In addition, Tim was wrong on his post, I mentioned many of the things in there that he says I didn't, but he didn't respond to my pointing that out. He's usually pretty good about admitting he was wrong* so I will just chalk it up to him not seeing it.*unlike some who run away from a thread after they've been thoroughly refuted.

 

[jonessed]

Part C certainly implies that state/local governments are allowed to "verify" & "ascertain" the citizenship and immigration status of persons within their jurisdiction. It's hard to believe they have the ability to do this but not the ability to codify their procedure for doing so.

The Arizona law goes well beyond verifying and ascertaining information by communicating with the INS. It authorizes state police to arrest suspected aliens if they don't have their papers. There's nothing about that in the law GroveDiesel quoted, as far as I can tell.

While not explicit, I don't see how it's not a reasonable extension of the implied power.

You may not see it, but I'm betting the judge in question will.

What's the basis for your confidence?

She's a Clinton appointee.

 

[Statorama]

Mexican drug cartel takes control of two Texas ranches

Developing...

In what could be deemed an act of war against the sovereign borders of the United States, Mexican drug cartels have seized control of at least two American ranches inside the U.S. territory near Laredo, Texas.

Two sources inside the Laredo Police Department confirmed the incident is unfolding and they would continue to coordinate with U.S. Border Patrol today. “We consider this an act of war,” said one police officer on the ground near the scene. There is a news blackout of this incident at this time and the sources inside Laredo PD spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Word broke late last night that Laredo police have requested help from the federal government regarding the incursion by the Los Zetas. It appears that the ranch owners have escaped without incident but their ranches remain in the hands of the blood thirsty cartels.

Laredo Border Patrol is conducting aerial surveillance over the ranches to determine the best way to regain control of the U.S. ranches, according to the Laredo Police department.

The approximate location of the U.S. ranches are10 miles northwest of I-35 off Mines Road and Minerales Annex Road. Just off 1472 (Mines road) near Santa Isabel Creek north of the city of Laredo, Texas.

The Los Zetas drug cartel is an offshoot of the elite Mexican military trained in special ops. The mercenary organization is said to include members of corrupt Mexican Federales, politicians as well as drug traffickers. The group was once part of the Gulf cartel, but has since splintered and now directly competes with the Gulf cartel for premium drug smuggling routes in the Texas region.

The new leader of Los Zetas is Heriberto “El Lazca” Lazcano and is considered the most violent paramilitary group in Mexico by the DEA.

Recently the drug organization has kidnapped tourists, infiltrated local municipalities and continues to smuggle narcotics into a very hungry U.S. market.

The violence south of the border continues to spin out of control and has left Nuevo Laredo, Mexico on virtual lockdown with businesses refusing to open the doors. Last week a particularly violent attack by the Los Zetas included the use of grenades and resulted in a dozen deaths and 21 injuries.

The hostile takeover of the ranches has met with silence with local and national media; however sources say they could be waiting to report the stories once the ranches are back in U.S. control. This journalist questions if this was a Middle Eastern terrorist attack if the media would sit on their hands.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Laredo Police Spokesman: "We haven't heard anything about this."

The report, which spread like wildfire among blogs Saturday afternoon, appears to have initially been posted on a blog called Diggers Realm.

The blogger wrote that he got a tip from a San Diego, Calif., minuteman named Jeff Schwilk, who said that the Zetas, former enforcers of the Gulf Cartel, had crossed into the United States and taken over two ranches off Mines Road, about 10 miles northwest of Interstate 35.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It wasn't all that long ago that the Examiner was trying hard to be a credible news source.

 

[timschochet]

It wasn't all that long ago that the Examiner was trying hard to be a credible news source.

Those days are long since gone. You can tell the slant of the article from the opening words- only Minutemen and their sympathizers regard Mexican gang activity as "an act of war" against the United States. A real act of war is of course, by the government of another state.Anyhow, the initial important decision on this law should come down this week. I'm pretty confident it will be stayed. That's going to make a lot of conservatives very angry I suspect. Stay tuned.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Laredo Police Spokesman: "We haven't heard anything about this."

The report, which spread like wildfire among blogs Saturday afternoon, appears to have initially been posted on a blog called Diggers Realm.

The blogger wrote that he got a tip from a San Diego, Calif., minuteman named Jeff Schwilk, who said that the Zetas, former enforcers of the Gulf Cartel, had crossed into the United States and taken over two ranches off Mines Road, about 10 miles northwest of Interstate 35.

Awesome. And not at all surprising. I await with bated breath the latest in what is now apparently a daily series of "mea culpas" from irresponsible frothing-at-the-mouth right wing media types.

5 User(s) are reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

2 Members: TobiasFunke, Dvorak

Los Zetas drug cartel seizes 2 U.S. ranches in Texas

July 24, 11:18 AMSan Diego County Political Buzz ExaminerKimberly Dvorak

Perhaps the frothing-at-the-mouth right wing media type is already here?

 

[Statorama]

It wasn't all that long ago that the Examiner was trying hard to be a credible news source.

Yikes, they were the most credible source I had on the subject. I thought they were the "mainstream" paper in SD.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It wasn't all that long ago that the Examiner was trying hard to be a credible news source.

Yikes, they were the most credible source I had on the subject. I thought they were the "mainstream" paper in SD.

If you honestly thought for even a second that a "mainstream" paper would print something in that voice, you should take a good long look at where you get your news.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It wasn't all that long ago that the Examiner was trying hard to be a credible news source.

Yikes, they were the most credible source I had on the subject. I thought they were the "mainstream" paper in SD.

There are (or were) three newspapers the The Baltimore Examiner, The San Francisco Examiner, and The Washington Examiner. The Baltimore Examiner is the source of my comment that they were trying hard to be credible as they competed against the editorally liberal Baltimore Sun. But it folded. Now the Examiner.com "operates a network of hyperlocal news websites, allowing citizen journalists to share their city-based knowledge on a blog-like platform, in 238 markets throughout the United States and parts of Canada". Look at the Criticism on wikipedia for this gem:
Examiner.com has been criticized for its lack of verification and fact-checking of stories published on the site.[15] L.J. Williamson, a writer who was briefly employed by Examiner.com, drew attention to the site's lack of editorial oversight by publishing a series of satirical prank articles,[16] which went unnoticed by Examiner.com's staff until Williamson published what she described as an homage to a well-known satirical piece written by Hunter S. Thompson, in which Thompson claimed that presidential candidate Edmund Muskie showed symptoms of being under the influence of Ibogaine. In Williamson's satirical piece, she claimed that actress Jenny McCarthy advocated Ibogaine as a treatment for autism. Examiner.com staff only noticed and withdrew Williamson's prank stories when lawyers for McCarthy contacted them and demanded that the piece be removed.[17]

So I guess the claim that they don't even try to screen the nonsense that is posted is news to me also.

 

[videoguy505]

Looks like this is going to be kicked up one more level.

One thing I don't get: the judge blocked the part of the law requiring immigrants to carry their citizenship papers at all times. But this is an existing, 70-plus-year-old, federal requirement. So what's the deal with that? It's still illegal to not carry a green card, just not part of state law? A state cop can still detain someone for a federal crime, though, right?