Page two says the government of Arizona sucks.

The whole notion of excluding people, particularly folks with indigenous ancestry, can only be considered absurd, unjust, and immoral.

¡A la chingada con la migra!

6/17/2010 12:26:40 AM

Real anchors work better and are easier to tie the rope to.

6/17/2010 2:16:13 PM

^^

Quote :

"The whole notion of excluding people, particularly folks with indigenous ancestry, can only be considered absurd, unjust, and immoral."

I whole-heartedly agree. America is built of immigrants. (and a few natives left-over from our genocide)
But Arizona is not excluding people. They're simply enforcing immigration policies.
Every single person deported from Arizona as a result of this law is perfectly free to get in line to legally enter the US.
I agree that that line should move MUCH faster, but still -- You're wrong about them excluding people. Are there at least some racists in Arizona that view the law as "[racist] exclusion"? Sure. Does that actually make it that way? NO. Will you and other liberals point to these racists and declare that their support for the law means the law is racist? Yes.... ( )

Answer me this:
What would it take to speed up the legal immigration process to accommodate all-comers?
Why don't we do that?

6/18/2010 7:04:58 AM

isnt it racist to show a preference to one ethnic group (latinos) in regards to immigration policies, than to all of the others also trying to enter our country?

they all should have to follow the same rules.

6/18/2010 7:47:33 AM

I'm not sure how different rules apply there....
Also, racism is actively intentional, not passively unintentional.
I mean, shit. Arizona fucking borders Mexico. What do you expect?

Again, answer me this:
What would it take to speed up the legal immigration process to accommodate all-comers?
Why don't we do that?

6/18/2010 7:57:49 AM

i agree that legal applications should be sped up. red tape is a huge part of the problem.

the race thing has more to do with people wanting amnesty and a free pass for latinos. it is clearly showing a preference to a certain ethnic group.

we should treat all immigrants the same.

6/18/2010 8:28:37 AM

Quote :

"This was WAY over due. If only the federal government had enough common sense to adopt this federally. Sneaking into america to squirt out babies should not give you a free pass to stay and your kids the full rights and privileges of a normal citizen."

Oh really cool so basically that means every white person who arrived before the 20's should get out

actually this sounds like a good idea, you cracked the case HUR

[Edited on June 18, 2010 at 8:29 AM. Reason : .]

6/18/2010 8:29:09 AM

Quote :

"I agree with this. My problem is you have no idea what someone is up to when they are coming to this country by sneaking across the fence at 1am."

This quite likely applies to all of your ancestors

6/18/2010 8:35:27 AM

so are these babies without any citizenship to any country at that point?

6/18/2010 8:59:56 AM

^ I'm pretty sure that Arizona would be violating international law by doing this. You have to give the children US citizenship.

6/18/2010 9:09:25 AM

^^ If both parents are Mexican, they'll be Mexican citizens. Not sure about the other 3rd world shitholes below them though.

6/18/2010 10:53:35 AM

What if a baby mysteriously appears on a boat in international waters?

6/18/2010 11:59:35 AM

Quote :

"I whole-heartedly agree. America is built of immigrants. (and a few natives left-over from our genocide)"

It's more than a few left-over natives. The vast majority of the Mexican and Central American immigrants harassed by la migra have significant Amerindian ancestry. Native Americans who retain tribal identification also suffer from the frenzy for papers. The border between the United States and Mexico divides various groups such as the O'odham and makes travel more difficult.

Quote :

"But Arizona is not excluding people."

The border patrol literally expels folks at the point of a gun, sometimes taking the time to detain and torture them. If that's not exclusion, what is? If I tried go Colorado and some state-empowered asshole with a badge took me back here to New Mexico, I'd damn well say they excluded me from Colorado.

6/18/2010 11:59:46 AM

^
Glad you agree it was basically a genocide.
...And I'm aware of their continued plight. (I'm not entirely sure why natives shouldn't be given most of the country back.)

But anyway... It's not exclusion if you have a way in. They can legally enter, like every other legal immigrant.
Therefore, not excluded. They just have to come in "the front door", not "through the window".


More of you should address this:
What would it take to speed up the legal immigration process to accommodate all-comers?
Why don't we do that?

6/18/2010 12:12:46 PM

Quote :

"(most likely Juanita gets to stay now since we don't want to seperate a kid from his mom)"

Not necessarily...

Quote :

"RALEIGH -- It was just a single moment in a young woman's life, a few seconds on a video screen mashed among the moments of hundreds of other graduates. But even imagining it was enough to bring Norma Villeda to tears. "I would give anything to be with her," Villeda said by telephone on Thursday, knowing that she would be unable to watch her daughter walk across the stage to accept her high school diploma. Nancy Garcia graduated from Apex High School on Friday during a ceremony at the Raleigh Convention Center. Her mother, father and little brother were in Mexico. Nancy's parents, who were living in the country illegally, were deported last year and were the subject of a December story in The News & Observer. Nancy, 18, was born in this country and is a citizen. So she decided to stay behind and move in with family friends so she could finish her final year of high school. "

Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/06/12/528820/apex-high-student-stayed-to-graduate.html#storylink=misearch#ixzz0rDpzOvtr

6/18/2010 12:19:47 PM

^the thing about that story is that the girl who stayed behind will graduate, get a job, pay taxes, and contribute to society. why does arizona want to deny american born babies that same opportunity? how can that be defended by anything less than xenophobia? furthermore, by declaring the babies as illegal, they just put a further burden on the system by having one less person who will pay taxes (since everyone like to pretend the issue is about lowering the burden on american taxpayers).

6/18/2010 12:47:42 PM

^because it's going to take 18 years of state-provided care before there is any potential for return via taxes and full time work.

6/18/2010 3:29:16 PM

^ huh?

This girl was already in high school, and had been taken care of by her parents. The state was doing very little extra for them, considering it's hard to get services as an illegal, and they typically use less services than legal counterparts in the same income anyway.

It was a net gain for everyone.

6/18/2010 3:48:56 PM

Are we picking and choosing scenarios now?
Okay, okay!
I pick the one where the anchor baby uses a ton of public services and becomes an unemployed drunk-driving child-rapist.




(note: I'm on the fence with regard to anchor babies.)

6/18/2010 3:57:04 PM

Republicans are all about FAMILY VALUES but they're pissed off that INS allows parents to stay in the US when their children are citizens. Guess family values only counts if you're a white family.

And the Tea Party practically worships the sanctity of the Constitution but opposes the pesky 14th Amendment.

6/18/2010 4:17:01 PM

Quote :

"Republicans are all about FAMILY VALUES but they're pissed off that INS allows parents to stay in the US when their children are citizens. Guess family values only counts if you're a white family."

It's not about race, it's about nationality. For some reason, liberals are working overtime to convince people that supporting immigration laws and being racist are the same thing. Why not just attack the real issue? The issue isn't racism, it's immigration. I think people should be able to come here freely. We shouldn't be keeping people out. It has nothing to do with anyone's skin color.

Progressives (lol, as if they have a monopoly on progress, and everyone that opposes them is for going back in time) are playing the same game as the GOP. It's all about spreading misinformation and doing whatever necessary to make your party look good, while making the opposing party look evil. Misdirection is a great tactic, but it's not necessary if you can actually defend your position.

6/18/2010 4:54:30 PM

"liberals are working overtime to convince people that supporting immigration laws and being racist are the same thing"
"liberals are working overtime to convince people that supporting fiscal conservatism and being racist are the same thing"
"liberals are working overtime to convince people that supporting the constitution and being racist are the same thing"
"liberals are working overtime to convince people that supporting equality under the law and being racist are the same thing"
"liberals are working overtime to convince people that supporting neighborhood schools and being racist are the same thing"
"liberals are working overtime to convince people that supporting the death penalty and being racist are the same thing"
"liberals are working overtime to convince people that supporting tax cuts and being racist are the same thing"
"liberals are working overtime to convince people that opposing welfare and being racist are the same thing"
"liberals are working overtime to convince people that opposing affirmative action and being racist are the same thing"
"liberals are working overtime to convince people that opposing "Obamacare" and being racist are the same thing"
"liberals are working overtime to convince people that opposing anything Obama does and being racist are the same thing"

etc, etc, ETC.


(and they got to Nerdchick )

6/19/2010 9:43:16 AM

ITT we pretend that we're not racist while we try to stop brown people from crossing the border.

6/19/2010 10:38:53 AM

^

Quote :

"What would it take to speed up the legal immigration process to accommodate all-comers? Why don't we do that?"

6/19/2010 10:43:18 AM

OK fine. Family values only counts if your family is made up of legal Americans. I guess the bond between an illegal mother and citizen child is less legitimate or something.

And the Constitution only counts in parts that aren't the 14th Amendment.

6/19/2010 12:09:23 PM

Family values count all the time, but your child being an American citizen should not mean an express lane to legal immigration. As a child under the age of 18 can not legally live without a parent or guardian (except under extreme circumstances), it seems only natural that the preservation of the family unit would require the child to return with his/her parents to their country of origin if they are deported. That doesn't mean that the child isn't or shouldn't be a citizen, it simply means that as a citizen, they are subject to US jurisdiction which requires them to have a parent or guardian. Would it be preferable to take the child and place them into foster care so that they may remain in the country?

I agree that the immigration system needs to be heavily overhauled (didn't it take Mathfreak and his wife some 10 years even after they moved here legally?) but this ("anchor babies" and the new Arizona law both) are not the way to make that happen.

6/19/2010 12:22:17 PM

Quote :

"Arizona has totally lost it as of late. It's as if they're trying to win a xenophobia contest."

I think it's more of a series of escalating strategic moves to force the feds to address a federal issue.

6/19/2010 1:04:30 PM

Quote :

"What would it take to speed up the legal immigration process to accommodate all-comers? Why don't we do that?"

I agree with that, but most of our other immigrants are able to at least get green cards, and reworking our immigration policy to make it more fair and quick while maintaining security is not going to be an easy process.

6/19/2010 1:45:15 PM

Quote :

"I think it's more of a series of escalating strategic moves to force the feds to address a federal issue."

do the ends really justify the means, though? personally, i think it's pretty despicable that they are willing to throw an entire group under the bus in order to escalate federal legislation. i'm sure somebody will enlighten me as to how i'm wrong.

6/20/2010 11:58:23 AM

Quote :

"I think it's more of a series of escalating strategic moves to force the feds to address a federal issue. "

When you consider the statements of the Az politicians that are pushing these measures, i think its a little more than a strategic move. Hopefully the damage can be undone, but there are at least a handful of politicians who are really more interested in the race angle.

6/20/2010 12:08:35 PM

Quote :

"there are at least a handful of politicians who are really more interested in the race angle."

...You mean liberals playing the race card?

6/20/2010 1:42:59 PM

Quote :

"^ huh? This girl was already in high school, and had been taken care of by her parents. The state was doing very little extra for them, considering it's hard to get services as an illegal, and they typically use less services than legal counterparts in the same income anyway. It was a net gain for everyone. "

because the question was why deny american-born babies the same opportunity, not send this 17/18 yr old to mexico right before she graduates. It would be horrible for everyone involved if this student was sent away, but it's not the same if you send a 1 yr old away w/ their parents instead of taking the baby into foster care and now have the state paying for 17 years for every aspect of their life because they don't have any legal family members they can stay with or be adopted by.

6/20/2010 7:38:12 PM

Quote :

"What would it take to speed up the legal immigration process to accommodate all-comers? Why don't we do that?"

Well, the short answer is that it would need the American people to want more immigrants, which they don't. There are people who don't want any new people coming in here, especially if those people are Hispanic.

I think probably a big part of the reason for that last part is that there are already a very large number of Hispanics up here, and many whites (on some level) want to remain in the majority and many blacks (on some level) don't want competition for attention, help, or traditionally minority jobs. And, just in general, I think people are resistant to rapid demographic change.

But, in more general terms, most Americans don't want a rush of immigrants, because they think that newcomers will compete with them for jobs, alter the culture here, and in general threaten what they are used to. And for that reason they will not support a system that accommodates all comers, let alone does so with any speed.

6/20/2010 10:53:16 PM

Quote :

"Family values count all the time, but your child being an American citizen should not mean an express lane to legal immigration"

Sums it up. Their should not be a "reward" for coming here illegally and having children.

6/21/2010 5:19:38 PM

I'll be the asshole who points out that you're the asshole who doesn't speak English well enough to know the difference between "their" and "there."

I mean, I get that you're a troll, but beyond a certain level of obviousness it just becomes tiresome.

6/22/2010 1:41:13 AM

So, what about these Russian spy anchor babies?
Well, not exactly "anchors", but still. They are citizens now.
The ones that returned to Russia are free to return to the US.


Should US-born children of illegal spies automatically be citizens?
It's pretty clear the answer should be "No".

7/9/2010 7:13:48 AM

Really though, there's an 18 year delay. You cannot apply for status (green card, visa, citizenship), unless the person tying you to the US (the child) is 18 years old. So, having a US citizen baby is not going to give the undocumented immigrant parents a way into the country for at least 18 years. Then at that point, there's another wait based on the country you are coming from, and how many people of that connection (parent/child, spouse/spouse, brother/sister, etc) have applied overall.

Edit: This is the case *unless* there is a hardship suffered by not letting the parents stay here. This is as VERY hard standard to meet. Like the kid would have to have some debilitating disease that could only be treated at one hospital in the world, and the mother is a perfect match for a donation and has to stay with the child. Other than that, it is extremely hard to meet this standard.

[Edited on July 9, 2010 at 7:48 AM. Reason : exception.]

7/9/2010 7:46:49 AM

Quote :

"Well, the short answer is that it would need the American people to want more immigrants, which they don't. There are people who don't want any new people coming in here, especially if those people are Hispanic. I think probably a big part of the reason for that last part is that there are already a very large number of Hispanics up here, and many whites (on some level) want to remain in the majority and many blacks (on some level) don't want competition for attention, help, or traditionally minority jobs. And, just in general, I think people are resistant to rapid demographic change. But, in more general terms, most Americans don't want a rush of immigrants, because they think that newcomers will compete with them for jobs, alter the culture here, and in general threaten what they are used to. And for that reason they will not support a system that accommodates all comers, let alone does so with any speed."

i think this is well put, but i think that anyone thinking logically would add that beyond these feelings, there are also logistical problems in suddenly adding millions of people to the citizenry. how much more debt do we want to incur? it would be years before a generation of amnesty-provided immigrants were contributing enough to cover themselves in terms of tax dollars and government programs, especially while working the low wage jobs that most would occupy.

for example, do you want to add 1 million people to the SS rolls? how about to medicare/medicade?
what do you think would happen to those already bankrupt programs?

7/9/2010 12:19:44 PM

Quote :

"it would be years before a generation of amnesty-provided immigrants were contributing enough to cover themselves in terms of tax dollars and government programs, especially while working the low wage jobs that most would occupy."

In general poor people never pay as much in as they get out. This isn't surprising.

But you basically make my point for me. A lot of these programs are already bankrupt. They're broken whether or not there are suddenly Mexicans using them. I don't see any logic or benefit in maintaining an unjust immigration system in order to prolong the life of an incompetent entitlement system.

Also, let me add that I don't advocate "suddenly adding millions of people to the citizenry." I want people to be able to come here to live and work at will, sure. That does not mean that I want them to be able to become instant citizens. The current steps must remain in place, with some modification.

7/10/2010 4:33:21 PM