quote:

ORIGINAL: Smutmonger

I'm glad they passed this-Arizona is one to the border states these criminals pass through.

quote:

ORIGINAL: twistedreality

I have no problem with this. I am tired of criminals having more rights than the law abiding citizens.I am tired of the financial drain put on our schools due to the free lunches, free breakfasts and other resources required for illegals. My relatives came to this country legally. They learned the language, so that they could contribute to this melting pot of experiences. In a time when so many legal residents are out of work and the national debt is at an all time high, we must reign in these expenses. What does it cost to print government documents in so many languages?

I get stopped often, under similar circumstances. I appreciate that the law is there to protect my rights and priveledges and protect me from those who prey on us and our system.Come here legally, and with the intent of being an American and I will bend over backwards to help you.

quote:

merc is incapable of following a discussion. He routinely blurs the lines since he is incapable of making a point...

quote:

This thread was not about road blocks it is about "the new law would allow,amongst other unsavory things, authorities to demand proof of entry into the United States from anyone suspected of being in the country illegaly."

quote:

Sorry about hijacking this towards the gov't going after Goldman.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

merc is incapable of following a discussion. He routinely blurs the lines since he is incapable of making a point...

I soooo enjoy and love your focus on me!

quote:

This thread was not about road blocks it is about "the new law would allow,amongst other unsavory things, authorities to demand proof of entry into the United States from anyone suspected of being in the country illegaly."

Other than your hijack regarding Goldman; which post wasn't pointed to your personal interpretation of the OP?

The subject is enforcement of a law. AZ had chosen, and considers appropriate the plan they have implemented. I see everyone saying there are other ways; with little disagreement on the fundamental, and cause of this affect,

You have made a prejudicial determination that anyone "suspected" would be racially profiled. Where exactly is that either in the OP or in Arizona's enforcement plan? There are illegal workers originating from just about every country in the world. I seem to remember a number of the individuals identified with the 9/11 attack were in the country illegally. If, when they bought their airline ticket, or at any of the 'road-block' type check points they were required to prove their residence and/or legal status for being in the US perhaps 9/11 could have been avoided, or at minimum been more difficult to implement. I wonder if your personal bigotry and prejudice blinds you to that reality?

No matter where they are from, people here with expired visas, no visas, or no worker papers, are breaking the law, and should have to suffer the consequence of doing so. Perhaps there is a personal sacrifice of time for compliance; however the benefit, financially and security, in my opinion outweighs it. Considering all the "rights" sacrificed thus far mandated by the government - this one is much less infringing versus many I've incurred throughout my lifetime.

quote:

Sorry about hijacking this towards the gov't going after Goldman.

I bet you are!

quote:

You are more than happy to sacrifice your personal freedoms to try and insure that the next 9-11 might be adverted....I am not

quote:

Until they are changed I will oppose racial profiling. How else are you going to determine someone is here illegally? Are you going to stop every white person because they might be here illegally from the UK?

quote:

Nothing changes with you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


How Much Will Arizona's Immigration Bill (SB1070) Cost?
April 21, 2010

Washington, D.C.- Frustrated by Congress' failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform, states across the country continue considering legislation that relies heavily on punitive, enforcement-only measures which not only fail to end unauthorized immigration but also have the potential to dig their state's finances deeper into a hole. The latest example of this kind of policy nose dive is in Arizona. A recent bill, "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" (SB 1070), was passed by the Arizona State legislature and awaits the signature of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. As the Governor ponders whether or not to put her signature on SB 1070, she should consider the potential economic impact of the bill, which would require police to check a person's immigration status if they suspect that person is in the United States illegally. This bill, if it becomes law, will likely affect not only unauthorized immigrants, but all immigrants and Latinos in general. Given the vital role that immigrants and Latinos play in Arizona's economy, and considering Arizona's current budget deficit of $3 billion dollars, enacting SB 1070 could be a perilous move.

At a purely administrative level, Gov. Brewer should take into consideration the potential costs of implementation and defending the state against lawsuits. As the National Employment Law Project (NELP) points out in the case of other states that have passed harsh local immigration laws, Arizona would probably face a costly slew of lawsuits on behalf of legal immigrants and native-born Latinos who feel they have been unjustly targeted. This is in addition to the cost of implementation. For instance, NELP observes that "in Riverside, New Jersey, the town of 8,000 had already spent $82,000 in legal fees defending its ordinance" by the time it was rescinded in September, 2007. Also in 2007, the county supervisors in Prince William County, Maryland were unwilling to move forward with the police enforcement portion of an immigration law after they found that the price tag would be a minimum of $14 million for five years.

More broadly, Gov. Brewer should keep in mind that, if significant numbers of immigrants and Latinos are actually persuaded to leave the state because of this new law, they will take their tax dollars, businesses, and purchasing power with them. The University of Arizona's Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy estimates that the total economic output attributable to Arizona's immigrant workers was $44 billion in 2004, which sustained roughly 400,000 full-time jobs. Furthermore, over 35,000 businesses in Arizona are Latino-owned and had sales and receipts of $4.3 billion and employed 39,363 people in 2002 - the last year for which data is available. The Perryman Group also estimates that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time. Putting economic contributions of this magnitude at risk during a time of recession would not serve Arizona well.

With Arizona facing a budget deficit of more than $3 billion, Gov. Brewer might want to think twice about measures such as SB 1070 that would further imperil the state's economic future and try instead to find ways in which she can bring additional tax revenue to her state while pursuing smart enforcement that will actually protect Arizonans.

From a Press Release of the Immigration Policy Center.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

So my buddies from school, that "look" Mexican, but were born in South Central, can get stopped anytime, anywhere in AZ and have to prove their citizenship?  What a crock of shit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00
And there you have it, highlighted in bold.  And wouldn't they (native-born Latinos) have a right to a lawsuit.  Not only is it discrimination and prejudice against an American.  It's unconstitutional!

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smutmonger

I'm glad they passed this-Arizona is one to the border states these criminals pass through.

Criminals???
What law is being violated?

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

And they're not a terribly good looking group of people either! Some of them are real scary looking!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


How Much Will Arizona's Immigration Bill (SB1070) Cost?
April 21, 2010

Washington, D.C.- Frustrated by Congress' failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform, states across the country continue considering legislation that relies heavily on punitive, enforcement-only measures which not only fail to end unauthorized immigration but also have the potential to dig their state's finances deeper into a hole. The latest example of this kind of policy nose dive is in Arizona. A recent bill, "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" (SB 1070), was passed by the Arizona State legislature and awaits the signature of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. As the Governor ponders whether or not to put her signature on SB 1070, she should consider the potential economic impact of the bill, which would require police to check a person's immigration status if they suspect that person is in the United States illegally. This bill, if it becomes law, will likely affect not only unauthorized immigrants, but all immigrants and Latinos in general. Given the vital role that immigrants and Latinos play in Arizona's economy, and considering Arizona's current budget deficit of $3 billion dollars, enacting SB 1070 could be a perilous move.

At a purely administrative level, Gov. Brewer should take into consideration the potential costs of implementation and defending the state against lawsuits. As the National Employment Law Project (NELP) points out in the case of other states that have passed harsh local immigration laws, Arizona would probably face a costly slew of lawsuits on behalf of legal immigrants and native-born Latinos who feel they have been unjustly targeted. This is in addition to the cost of implementation. For instance, NELP observes that "in Riverside, New Jersey, the town of 8,000 had already spent $82,000 in legal fees defending its ordinance" by the time it was rescinded in September, 2007. Also in 2007, the county supervisors in Prince William County, Maryland were unwilling to move forward with the police enforcement portion of an immigration law after they found that the price tag would be a minimum of $14 million for five years.

More broadly, Gov. Brewer should keep in mind that, if significant numbers of immigrants and Latinos are actually persuaded to leave the state because of this new law, they will take their tax dollars, businesses, and purchasing power with them. The University of Arizona's Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy estimates that the total economic output attributable to Arizona's immigrant workers was $44 billion in 2004, which sustained roughly 400,000 full-time jobs. Furthermore, over 35,000 businesses in Arizona are Latino-owned and had sales and receipts of $4.3 billion and employed 39,363 people in 2002 - the last year for which data is available. The Perryman Group also estimates that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time. Putting economic contributions of this magnitude at risk during a time of recession would not serve Arizona well.

With Arizona facing a budget deficit of more than $3 billion, Gov. Brewer might want to think twice about measures such as SB 1070 that would further imperil the state's economic future and try instead to find ways in which she can bring additional tax revenue to her state while pursuing smart enforcement that will actually protect Arizonans.

From a Press Release of the Immigration Policy Center.

And there you have it, highlighted in bold.  And wouldn't they (native-born Latinos) have a right to a lawsuit.  Not only is it discrimination and prejudice against an American.  It's unconstitutional!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Police in California have a "hunch"on a Friday night that people are driving and drinking. Regularly they have traffic stops pulling people over to verify that hunch.

The people here illegally are violating a law as are those driving drunk. Both are criminals, both should incur the legal consequences of their actions.

quote:

Allowing your hijack - Obama was complicit, according this report Wall Street provided three of Obama's seven biggest sources of contributors for his presidential bid. In 2007 and 2008, Goldman Sachs employees and family members gave him $994,795, Citigroup Inc. $701,290, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. $695,132. he was paid handsomely to do so. A few hundred billion of tax payer money pay back in return for being elected and funding executive bonus plans.

I can't imagine anyone but a faithful, party apologist fool would find it difficult to appreciate the complicity in that action. Unless that is you - how do you explain it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Popeye you really don't have a clue do you.....Kittin's right you are simply too funny to be offensive.But it's damm close.Please as an Irish American that fairly cringes on each successive post....prior to posting count till 20, then walk away from the computer.The rest of the Irish- American community will thank you....seriously.