I thought the whole birther argument was a joke. The democrats do some wrong shit in the name of seeking votes, I do not see though why they would make some elaborate conspiracy to make one particular man qualified to be president without thinking their to be anyway for the story to leak out. If all they wanted was to elect a black man, I think they could have found someone else. After all the GOP did run with the McPalin ticket lol

5/2/2010 11:35:09 PM

I'ma post in this thread again:

1) Econ issues

2) Cheating thread reminder

3) Paper to write.



TWW TO DO LIST.

5/2/2010 11:53:28 PM

Other states are following suit!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100511/ts_csm/300547

Quote :

"Given the anger sparked by Arizona's immigration bill nationwide – including protests and calls to boycott Arizona – the campaign promises of Colorado gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis could be seen as a bit of a surprise. He has vowed to follow Arizona's lead and pass a tough new anti-illegal immigration law. “We are stopping the retreat. No more retreat,” he said in a local radio interview. “Federal government, if you are not going to do it, we are going to do it.” Mr. McInnis's comments are but one example of how the Arizona firestorm has hardly scared off politicians in other states around the country. In some cases, it might actually be encouraging them. Oklahoma is looking at passing tougher penalties for illegal immigrants caught with firearms. South Carolina might make it illegal to hire workers on the side of the road. In addition, state immigration legislation is also being considered in Idaho, Utah, Missouri, Texas, North Carolina, Maryland, Minnesota, and Colorado. In many cases, the potential legislation is merely part of the perpetual national debate about immigration, which has taken form in more than 200 state-level immigration bills being signed into law each year from 2007 to 2009, notes Catherine Wilson, a political scientist at Villanova University in Philadelphia. But there could be at least a shade of political opportunism as well, says Steven Schier, a political scientist at Carleton College in Northfield, Minn. “This all means that Republicans elsewhere see political advantage in pressing for Arizona-style laws,” he says. Arizona law: A tipping point for states?That would not be unprecedented. In 2004, Arizona approved Prop. 200, which barred illegal immigrants from receiving most nonessential state benefits and services. Many other states followed. Anti-illegal immigration advocates argue that the new Arizona immigration law represented a tipping point that other states are now following. “What we are witnessing around the country is that the public’s patience is wearing out with the federal government’s failure to enforce immigration laws and protect the interests of American workers and taxpayers,” says Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). “Local officials – who tend to be more in-tune with the concerns of their constituents – are responding and doing what they can to address a serious problem for their states and communities,” he says. But the movement among statehouses to enact immigration-related legislation began to take shape well before the Arizona law, says Professor Wilson. She pinpoints 2006, and notes that the 200 immigration-related bills passed between 2007 and 2009 included 40 states and ranged in topic from law enforcement and employer verification to identification and licenses. New levels of frustrationThe public’s renewed focus on immigration issues, together with recent events like the high-profile killing of an Arizona rancher, are expected to increase the tide of legislation. Three national polls have shown wide support for Arizona's SB 1070 in particular and crackdowns on undocumented immigrants in general. “We should expect this trend of state-level activity to accelerate this year in the absence of federal legislation on immigration," Wilson says. President Obama’s tacit acknowledgment that immigration reform is not feasible in the short term and his recent quips at a White House correspondents' dinner – where he mocked the Arizona law – have fueled frustration, says Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College. Immigration activists have posted a video to YouTube that juxtaposes his comical remarks with statistics on soaring drug smuggling and narcotics prosecutions. The video includes the punch line: “President Obama, broken borders are not a laughing matter. Do your job and secure the border.” “President Obama's mockery of the Arizona law has handed ammunition to its proponents,” says Professor Pitney, pointing out that the ad is paid for by Arizona’s Republican governor, Jan Brewer."

Quote :

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

5/11/2010 8:56:27 AM

Quote :

"Immigration activists have posted a video to YouTube that juxtaposes his comical remarks with statistics on soaring drug smuggling and narcotics prosecutions. The video includes the punch line: “President Obama, broken borders are not a laughing matter. Do your job and secure the border.”"

As long as there is so much money to be made from the artificially high value of illegal drugs, no possible amount of border security is going to stop the flow..Arrest one person and three are waiting to take their place.

and it seems like a consumption tax as opposed to income taxes would solve many of the commonly cited immigration problems

5/11/2010 9:26:43 AM

Legalize all drugs.
Deport illegals that commit other, even minor, crimes.
Disallow government benefits, services, college admission (let alone loans), etc. for all illegals.
Offer a path to citizenship for otherwise law-abiding illegals, including a fine, and back-of-the-line.





AMIRITE?

5/11/2010 10:23:59 AM

U Rite.

5/11/2010 10:36:28 AM

Quote :

"Legalize Soft all drugs (i.e. pot, shrooms, coca leaves, etc). Deport illegals that commit other, even minor, crimes not including traffic offenses or minor drug possession chargers but including DUI. Disallow government benefits, services, college admission (let alone loans), etc. for all illegals. Agreed I am not sure they can collect government benefits but this sounds good to put it in writing. Offer a path to citizenship for otherwise law-abiding illegals, including a fine, and back-of-the-line. "

One More...

Amend the constitution such that a baby born to illegal immigrant parents are not automatically given US citizen status.

5/11/2010 11:20:13 AM

Legalizing soft drugs -- I'm down.

Deporting illegals that commit other crimes -- I'd want to hear the details, but I'm probably down.

Disallow benefits -- I'm basically with you on that. They can't get much in the way of benefits as it is. My one point of contention would be college admission. If they're going to be living here, I'd rather them be educated for our benefit as well as theirs. The country is not well-served by artificially holding immigrants back a generation.

Path to citizenship -- obviously. Though before "back-of-the-line" could have any meaning, you'd have to radically restructure the line. Part of the reason they come here illegally is that the line is so long they probably won't get in until they're dead.

Quote :

"Amend the constitution such that a baby born to illegal immigrant parents are not automatically given US citizen status."

Not only do I have ethical issues with this, but just in practical terms, how often do you think this happens?

And do you not see the problem in creating a system whereby you could conceivably have people with no citizenship?

5/11/2010 1:50:21 PM

Quote :

"Amend the constitution such that a baby born to illegal immigrant parents are not automatically given US citizen status. "

Im actually warming to this idea. I thought all countries did that, turns out they dont.

5/11/2010 2:20:28 PM

you don't pick tobacco....you prime tobacco

5/11/2010 8:51:17 PM

Quote :

"(CNN) -- Fresh on the heels of a new immigration law that has led to calls to boycott her state, Arizona's governor has signed a bill banning ethnic studies classes that "promote resentment" of other racial groups. Gov. Jan Brewer approved the measure without public statement Tuesday, according to state legislative records. The new law forbids elementary or secondary schools to teach classes that are "designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group" and advocate "the overthrow of the United States government" or "resentment toward a race or class of people." The bill was pushed by state school Superintendent Tom Horne, who has spent two years trying to get Tucson schools to drop a Mexican-American studies program he said teaches Latino students they are an oppressed minority. There was no immediate response from the Tucson Unified School District, the law's main target. Brewer's signature comes less than a month after she approved a state law that requires immigrants to carry their registration documents at all times and allows police to question individuals' immigration status in the process of enforcing any other law or ordinance. Critics of the law say it will lead to racial profiling, while supporters say it involves no racial profiling and is needed to crack down on increasing crime involving illegal immigrants. On Wednesday, the Los Angeles City Council overwhelmingly approved a boycott of Arizona-based businesses and governments unless the state repeals the new immigration law. The city's legislative analyst reported that Los Angeles currently has $56 million in contracts with companies headquartered in Arizona. Several other California cities, including San Francisco and Oakland, have already adopted resolutions requesting city departments to not sign any new contracts with Arizona companies."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/12/arizona.ethnic.studies/index.html?hpt=C1




"you're not oppressed, sancho. papers, please"

it's like all of the nations fears of losing the white-anglo-saxon-protestant majority of the USA is manifesting itself into one state of arizona paranoia.

5/13/2010 4:25:15 AM

if sancho is legal, he is already required to carry his "papers" by law.

this whole thing is much ado about nothing. illegal is illegal. either enforce the law or get it off the books.

5/13/2010 7:50:40 AM

Quote :

"fears of losing the white-anglo-saxon-protestant majority of the USA"

I was unaware that this had anything to do with illegal immigration. ...except for a very small racist minority that should be ignored, and a somewhat larger liberal minority that routinely wrongly accuses everyone who disagrees with them as being necessarily racist, that should also be ignored.

I mean really. How do idiot liberals like you explain the many legal Hispanic and Latino Americans that are anti-illegal-immigration and anti-illegal-immigrant-amnesty? Are they self-deprecating racists that hate their own kind? I mean, as you suggested, only racists could be anti-illegal-immigration and anti-illegal-immigrant-amnesty... No. The fact is, race and ethnicity do not have anything to do with this.

[Edited on May 13, 2010 at 11:39 AM. Reason : ]

5/13/2010 11:37:09 AM

I don't know how many of them overtly hate any given race, or even nonwhites in general.

I do think that if you asked a bunch of white people, "Would you be OK with living in a white-minority country?" then a majority, answering honestly, would say "No."

The idea even makes me a little uncomfortable, though (I hope) it's more because any dramatic change makes me uncomfortable at first.

5/13/2010 1:37:48 PM

Quote :

"No. The fact is, race and ethnicity do not have anything to do with this."

LOL

how can you delude yourself like this, when it's blatantly obvious the racial undertones in this when you look at who is writing the bill, and how earlier revisions of the bill are written?

5/13/2010 1:43:20 PM

The fact that racist people exist, and do things surrounding an issue, doesn't make that issue, in and of itself, have anything to do with racism.

Just like:

Issue X, in and of itself, has nothing to with race.
I support issue X.
I'm not a racist.
Racists support issue X.
People label issue X a racial issue, because racists support issue X.
People view supporters of issue X as racists.
I must now defend myself against accusations of racism, because people view supporters of issue X as racists, and I support issue X.

Fuck you liberal race-card players.
I must hate racism more than you do, because I don't exploit race like you do.
(....and if I'm not mistaken, moron is TWW's primary race-card player. Am I right?)

5/13/2010 2:52:00 PM

From another thread:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704247904575240812672173820.html

Quote :

"Divisions were even sharper between whites and Hispanics. Among Hispanic respondents, 70% opposed the law, while 69% of whites in the survey supported it. "

Nope. Nothing racial about this law at all.

5/13/2010 4:06:48 PM

^
How does that statistic make the law racial?

5/13/2010 4:21:50 PM

Nothing really.

It just shows that seventy percent of white and Hispanic respondents are racist minorities, that race and ethnicity do not have anything to do with this, and that these seventy percent of respondents are race-card players.

5/13/2010 4:29:53 PM

Quote :

"(....and if I'm not mistaken, moron is TWW's primary race-card player. Am I right?)"

That would be gronke (god). But he IS a racist.

5/13/2010 4:37:19 PM

^^
That's supposed be clever?
You didn't answer me.

5/13/2010 4:55:23 PM

No. It was meant in all seriousness.

Seriously.

5/13/2010 5:05:44 PM

Quote :

"How do idiot liberals like you explain the many legal Hispanic and Latino Americans that are anti-illegal-immigration and anti-illegal-immigrant-amnesty?"

i'm also anti illegal-immigration. but just because i am anti illegal-immigration doesn't mean that i should support a law that specifically targets one group of people and encourages harassment and xenophobia.

really. honestly answer me this if you can: how is a cop supposed to know who is legal and who is possibly illegal? what kind of behavior is exclusive to that of an illegal? if you can't answer that question without suggesting that skin color also be considered, then i will stand by my comment over arizona's fear of losing the white majority. a part of me wants to fast-forward in time and see what kind of label is put on this part of history. we've already seen things such as the great migration, white flight, etc. what are we gonna call this?

[Edited on May 13, 2010 at 5:47 PM. Reason : ]

5/13/2010 5:42:17 PM

Robert Gibbs, the worst White House press secretary in history, is flummoxed by the following question:

Quote :

"REPORTER: Right now, there are dozens of so-called sanctuary cities that have their own policies that might potentially conflict with federal law. . . . [I]f Arizona's in violation of federal law, then so are these localities. So, my question is, why did the president only ask DOJ to look at Arizona and not [other areas]?"

Quote :

"GIBBS: Uh. . .yeah. But let me. . . Let me see if I can get. . . . I. . .I. . .I don't know the answer to that, but I will try to seek some. . .uh. . .some answer on, uh. . .uh. . .some answer on that."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBorsbVHh1k

LOL!

Furthermore, "racial profiling"--the issue that so many left-wingers have been howling about--isn't even mentioned in the DOJ suit. Don't you find that at least somewhat curious?

[Edited on July 8, 2010 at 1:38 PM. Reason : Right?]

7/8/2010 1:19:51 PM

Hispanic GOP Group to Announce Support for Arizona Immigration Law
July 21, 2010

http://tinyurl.com/2b85csg

RACISTS!!!1

7/23/2010 12:39:52 PM

Judge partially suspends enforcement of Arizona immigration law
July 28, 2010

Quote :

"U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton moved Wednesday to partially suspend enforcement of Arizona's controversial immigration law. Bolton blocked the part of the law that requires officers to determine the immigration status of people who are detained or arrested, Reuters reported. She also blocked the portion that makes it a crime to not carry immigration registration papers. Bolton also blocked the part of the law that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek or perform work, according to Reuters."

http://tinyurl.com/27a77c5

This is one of the worst rulings in history. And the Democrats will pay a heavy price at the polls come November and beyond.

7/28/2010 1:31:47 PM

^That is by far the dumbest thing ive heard in a long time....the rulings that is

[Edited on July 28, 2010 at 1:45 PM. Reason : ;]

7/28/2010 1:45:42 PM

Quote :

"This is one of the worst rulings in history. And the Democrats will pay a heavy price at the polls come November and beyond."

7/28/2010 2:02:40 PM

Having pleasant conversation at dinner parties is more important to this judge than the rule of law.

7/28/2010 2:12:32 PM

^ Yeah, I guess she doesn't want to be called a McCarthyite or a fascist or some other colorful thing.

7/28/2010 2:21:58 PM

I'm quite pleased with the decision.

And while I can understand people disagreeing with it, "one of the worst rulings in history?" Really? You're gonna put it up there with the rulings that supported slavery and segregation?

And I flat refuse to believe it's the dumbest thing anybody on the wolfweb has heard in "a long time." Unless that post is the only one you've read all day, it's probably not the dumbest thing you've heard in the last fifteen minutes.

You guys really think the Arizona law is not only constitutional, but rather it is so blatantly, obviously constitutional that to have a pause to consider the issue is the dumbest thing you've heard in ages?

[Edited on July 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM. Reason : ]

7/28/2010 2:59:05 PM

^ It's a fair point concerning the "worst in history" thing. I should've posted "in recent history" or "in recent memory" or something along those lines.

I am just frustrated. The Arizona law parallels federal law and it should be fully implemented and it should be the law in every state of the union.

I suppose state employers should now stop asking for I-9 forms, too? The Obama administration's case is preposterous--and I am confident that it will ultimately be shown to be so.

In any event, I have never been so ready for elections in my life! I cannot wait to vote out Democrats at the national level and help in any way that I can to see that they are put out of office.

[Edited on July 28, 2010 at 3:43 PM. Reason : And it's not because I think Republicans are so great. These are the choices I have.]

7/28/2010 3:41:55 PM

i say get rid of all of them

more republicans in office is just going to mean MORE dysfunctional politics, nothing will get accomplished, and the things that do get passed will be bloated shadows of the legislation's original intent

7/28/2010 3:49:20 PM

^ Yeah, that sounds great--but we currently have a two-party system. What's your alternative?

7/28/2010 3:52:45 PM

i'm ok with the two party system

if only the two parties weren't filled with crazies

7/28/2010 3:54:00 PM

Quote :

"What's your alternative?"

7/28/2010 3:54:47 PM

Quote :

"i say get rid of all of them"

them = incumbents

7/28/2010 3:55:24 PM

hooksaw is right. This is the worst decision I can think of in recent memory. This is flat out judicial activisim......plain and simple. They can't hide from this one though. The public knows whats up and come Nov., there will be changes...

7/28/2010 3:58:49 PM

^^ What? So, you don't mind if we vote in Republicans and Democrats (I'm guessing mostly Democrats), just so long as they're not incumbents?

Incumbents, too, were once newly elected. And some experience isn't a bad thing--I mean, the new people often don't even know where the bathrooms are.

^ Thanks. I hope we're both right.

[Edited on July 28, 2010 at 4:01 PM. Reason : .]

7/28/2010 4:00:10 PM

I honestly don't really give a shit, either way, I just like how it has the liberals all in a tizzy.

7/28/2010 4:23:56 PM

I'd say Kelo v. City of New London was a worse ruling

7/28/2010 4:53:49 PM

^ Both are very bad. And I revised and extended my remarks to reflect the ruling in question as one of the worst in recent memory.

7/28/2010 5:09:38 PM

After reading the order, it seems the legal reasoning and conclusions are spot on. I would love to hear specific examples from someone who thinks otherwise.

7/28/2010 5:54:08 PM

^ What, that the federal government has utterly failed in its responsibility to enforce immigration laws--and has admitted this failure--and now a judge has ruled that Arizona can't even request that the federal government enforce those laws?

Your position is that the ruling in question is based on sound "legal reasoning" and its "conclusions are spot on." Please list the portions of the law that you think meet your own stated standard.

7/28/2010 6:09:03 PM

i think he told you, here ya go:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34998325/U-S-v-Arizona-Order-on-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction

hooksaw, would you like to respond to his request for specific objections? line numbers would be great. thanks.

[Edited on July 28, 2010 at 6:39 PM. Reason : .]

7/28/2010 6:37:10 PM

well the opinion first explains how the constitution sets out the theory of federal preemption (i.e. federal law has priority over certain issues -- such as immigration -- both legal and illegal (think sep. of powers)). So, unless you disagree with the constitution, federal preemption theory must be accepted.

the judge then sets out the constitutional authority that grants the federal government the authority to govern immigration issues.

the court then discussed Arizona's law,

explained the federal immigration laws already in place,

and then pointed out the specific provisions of the Arizona law that conflicts with the areas federal immigration law already encompasses.

the judge then cut out the areas that preempt federal law and kept the provisions that don't. along the way she cited much precedent that, in my limited review, is on point and seemingly sound.

I must admit I haven't spent the hours upon hours that would be required to go into a more technical review. But, from my initial impression, it is sound (maybe spot on was a little much).

I am completely open to hearing how the judge's reasoning was off--that's why I asked.

7/28/2010 7:07:59 PM

and now hooksaw will call you an idiot and post a link to an opinion piece by a talking head who doesn't know anything about the ruling beyond the headline

7/28/2010 7:29:11 PM

while I support the over-all intent of the law, especially the requirement to check immigration status, the judge kind of has it right in this instance. HOWEVER, she leaves room for an amended version of the requirement.

As I read it, the ruling was that every person who was arrested/detained/whatever had to have their immigration status determined before release, according to the law. The ruling then says that this is impermissible, because it puts an undue burden on DHS and on the individuals. I can't disagree with that, frankly.

The ruling also says that some legal aliens may have trouble having the required information readily available... That is an interesting question, and one that flies in the face of the federal requirement for them to have that information available. I'm not sure how that will wind up, as the person is already guilty of not carrying the required information, so it's hard to use "but they might not have it" as a legal defense when they are expressly required to have it. More than likely, though, an amended version of the requirement that allows for possession in the home or "nearby" would pass muster without question.

What I don't see great evidence for is the assertion that the requirement to check papers is not allowed. There was no comment on racial profiling. The ruling says that "the federal government has long rejected a system by which aliens’ papers are routinely demanded and checked", but I think one could rightly question if this law makes papers be "routinely demanded and checked."

7/28/2010 7:42:35 PM

Quote :

"As I read it, the ruling was that every person who was arrested/detained/whatever had to have their immigration status determined before release, according to the law. The ruling then says that this is impermissible, because it puts an undue burden on DHS and on the individuals. I can't disagree with that, frankly. "

completely agree with this part of the ruling

Quote :

"The ruling also says that some legal aliens may have trouble having the required information readily available... That is an interesting question, and one that flies in the face of the federal requirement for them to have that information available. I'm not sure how that will wind up, as the person is already guilty of not carrying the required information, so it's hard to use "but they might not have it" as a legal defense when they are expressly required to have it. More than likely, though, an amended version of the requirement that allows for possession in the home or "nearby" would pass muster without question."

this is the part of the law I MOST disagree with primarily because citizens are not required to have any form of identification on them (unless operating a vehicle) and could easily get swept up in this requirement of the new law.

7/28/2010 8:06:32 PM

Quote :

""The ruling also says that some legal aliens may have trouble having the required information readily available... That is an interesting question, and one that flies in the face of the federal requirement for them to have that information available. I'm not sure how that will wind up, as the person is already guilty of not carrying the required information, so it's hard to use "but they might not have it" as a legal defense when they are expressly required to have it. More than likely, though, an amended version of the requirement that allows for possession in the home or "nearby" would pass muster without question." "

I see your point and think it's a good one. I think the order points out that not ALL of the various legal immigration statuses require a person to carry immigration documentation with them at all times. Honestly, I am not sure of all the various statuses, but it seems that some groups are not required--or don't have--documentation that can be made readily available. Thus, making it a state specific requirement in Arizona would arguably preempt/expand the requirements already set by the federal government. Not to mention, IMO, it is just silly to give local cops the power/authority to go through the various immigration documents to determine whether the person they have detained is legal pursuant to federal regs--that's ICE and other fed agency's job.

Also, I am not sure whether the "nearby" version suggested would pass muster so easily. For one thing, I think it would be very unworkable--officer will you follow me home and I will get my papers. ICE and other immigration enforcement agencies routinely check the statuses of persons in custody. Seems to me this system is in place by federal agencies and should be changed at the federal level instead of the state level; I think reworking at the federal level would pass muster, but allowing the states to determine the standard of enforcement would be very problematic.

Quote :

""What I don't see great evidence for is the assertion that the requirement to check papers is not allowed. There was no comment on racial profiling. The ruling says that "the federal government has long rejected a system by which aliens’ papers are routinely demanded and checked", but I think one could rightly question if this law makes papers be "routinely demanded and checked.""

I would argue strongly that allowing cops to check immigration status after a lawful stop, detention, etc, based on reasonable suspicion (reasonable suspicion of illegal status, not reasonable suspicion w/r/t the stop, as i understand the law) would lead to very routine checking. A lawful detention or stop can amount to a cop stopping you to ask questions about a possible crime--lawful detention arguably. A lawful detention or stop can amount to you being in a car that is alleged to have been speeding--lawful stop. The police stop people all the time for questioning, investigation, short detentions, terry frisks, etc--even people uninvolved in criminal activity. As a result of all of these stops, the Arizona law would require (if not demand) that a cop check the immigration status of the subject if they have "reasonable belief" the person is an illegal alien. In fact, the law includes a provision that allows persons to sue if the immigration laws are not being upheld to the fullest extent. IMO, this opens a huge, ugly can of worms. If you ever spend much time in District Court, you will learn very quickly that cops can almost always articulate enough suspicion to reach the "reasonable suspicion" standard.

7/28/2010 8:41:38 PM