Arizona requires you to carry your papers

[Texsox]

The point is, an out of work financial planner who was earning $75,000 annually is not switching careers and working in a nursery for 20 years. Those are not equal jobs. Replacing $50,000 jobs with $20,000 isn't equal at all.

[Jenksismyhero]

The point is, an out of work financial planner who was earning $75,000 annually is not switching careers and working in a nursery for 20 years. Those are not equal jobs. Replacing $50,000 jobs with $20,000 isn't equal at all.

 

What does this have to do with anything? So because a lawyer doesn't want to become a McDonalds cashier we should allow people to act illegally? SOMEONE will fill those jobs. And if those employers can't find workers, guess what, they'll have to give more incentives. That's how the system works (and should work).

 

 

[mr_genius]

The point is, an out of work financial planner who was earning $75,000 annually is not switching careers and working in a nursery for 20 years. Those are not equal jobs. Replacing $50,000 jobs with $20,000 isn't equal at all.

 

there's a lot of people doing just that. millions actually. many people are taking whatever they can get.

[bmags]

GMAFB jenks, you are SHOCKED that we are sympathetic to these people even though they broke a law? Think of other laws that people have broken that you are still sympathetic to. If I am against the policy, why wouldn't I show the poor affects of that policy as a reason why it's a stupid approach. No, I don't really care that they are breaking a law.

[Jenksismyhero]

GMAFB jenks, you are SHOCKED that we are sympathetic to these people even though they broke a law? Think of other laws that people have broken that you are still sympathetic to. If I am against the policy, why wouldn't I show the poor affects of that policy as a reason why it's a stupid approach. No, I don't really care that they are breaking a law.

 

Then what's the point of having laws? Christ. Next time someone robs a bank and gives the excuse that he's going through a rough time i guess we should just forgive him and feel bad for him. Nevermind that 99% of the rest of the country gives a damn and follows laws.

 

 

[bmags]

Then what's the point of having laws? Christ. Next time someone robs a bank and gives the excuse that he's going through a rough time i guess we should just forgive him and feel bad for him. Nevermind that 99% of the rest of the country gives a damn and follows laws.

 

Am I in law enforcement? Am I willfully ignoring a bunch of illegal immigrants under my nose I have a duty to send back? No. We are talking about you not understanding how I could not care about why, even if I'm pro-immigration, I am not upset that these people are breaking the law. It's because I think we have bad policy that is making lives of current citizens, and potential productive citizens, and their future productive kids, harder than it should be.

[Texsox]

You said jobs are jobs. I showed that all jobs are not equal. We've steadily better jobs overseas than we have created here. We have allowed legal immigrants to work high dollar jobs and complain about someone taking a minimum wage job. A job is NOT a job. There are huge differences between jobs.

What does this have to do with anything? So because a lawyer doesn't want to become a McDonalds cashier we should allow people to act illegally? SOMEONE will fill those jobs. And if those employers can't find workers, guess what, they'll have to give more incentives. That's how the system works (and should work).

[StrangeSox]

Then what's the point of having laws? Christ. Next time someone robs a bank and gives the excuse that he's going through a rough time i guess we should just forgive him and feel bad for him. Nevermind that 99% of the rest of the country gives a damn and follows laws.

 

You missed his point. Completely. Your analogy is only valid if he feels laws against robbing the bank and anti-robbing policy is fundamentally flawed.

[vandy125]

Looks like AZ is taking another step in the illegal immigration battle

Illegal Immigrant's Kids Denied Citizenship

 

Not sure how it would ever pass off as constitutional, but there it is, a law to not allow citizenship to kids that are born in the US but have illegal immigrant parents.

[Jenksismyhero]

You said jobs are jobs. I showed that all jobs are not equal. We've steadily better jobs overseas than we have created here. We have allowed legal immigrants to work high dollar jobs and complain about someone taking a minimum wage job. A job is NOT a job. There are huge differences between jobs.

 

You knew what I meant. You were claiming that people wouldn't take those jobs and that business might get hurt. My point was and is that someone will fill those jobs because they are jobs and people need them. There is no law out there that says only illegals will work those jobs.

[Jenksismyhero]

You missed his point. Completely. Your analogy is only valid if he feels laws against robbing the bank and anti-robbing policy is fundamentally flawed.

 

No, I got his point, I just don't agree. Like I said, I agree that the system is messed up and should be better. That doesn't mean I sympathize with someone that complains about life being hard because they chose to do something illegal. This isn't minor traffic law we're talking about. They've illegally entered our country, utilized our services without paying a dime, and get the benefit of reproducing so that their kids can be citizens. And they're complaining that this law now means they'll be targeted and inconvenienced? Boo-hoo.

[Texsox]

I was claiming that there are people who have been out of work for months, even years, who cannot take those jobs. Either the kjobs are seasonal and the unemplyed person has a family and can't "follow the crops" or the job doesn't pay enough to support their current bills. If they are willing to accept the job, the employer knows they will quit as soon as they can find something closer to their old salary. You do understand having someone leave after a few weeks of months is very costly to an employer. So again I disagree that jobs are jobs. There is a reason that immigrants have been filing these jobs since before WW1.

You knew what I meant. You were claiming that people wouldn't take those jobs and that business might get hurt. My point was and is that someone will fill those jobs because they are jobs and people need them. There is no law out there that says only illegals will work those jobs.

[Balta1701]

Looks like AZ is taking another step in the illegal immigration battle

Illegal Immigrant's Kids Denied Citizenship

 

Not sure how it would ever pass off as constitutional, but there it is, a law to not allow citizenship to kids that are born in the US but have illegal immigrant parents.

I'm sure the Latino community in Arizona will be pleased to have the tea party strongly on their side on an issue that is a clear violation of the Constitution.

[bmags]

No, I got his point, I just don't agree. Like I said, I agree that the system is messed up and should be better. That doesn't mean I sympathize with someone that complains about life being hard because they chose to do something illegal. This isn't minor traffic law we're talking about. They've illegally entered our country, utilized our services without paying a dime, and get the benefit of reproducing so that their kids can be citizens. And they're complaining that this law now means they'll be targeted and inconvenienced? Boo-hoo.

 

the following is heavyhanded, but drives home the core of the point:

 

Jenksismyb**** 1963:

"Yeah, okay, I understand that some people may feel blacks should be able to enter the same areas as whites, but this Martin Luther King Jr guy broke the law! Where is the outrage over that?"

[Jenksismyhero]

the following is heavyhanded, but drives home the core of the point:

 

Jenksismyb**** 1963:

"Yeah, okay, I understand that some people may feel blacks should be able to enter the same areas as whites, but this Martin Luther King Jr guy broke the law! Where is the outrage over that?"

 

lol, really?

[NorthSideSox72]

Looks like AZ is taking another step in the illegal immigration battle

Illegal Immigrant's Kids Denied Citizenship

 

Not sure how it would ever pass off as constitutional, but there it is, a law to not allow citizenship to kids that are born in the US but have illegal immigrant parents.

Not only is it not Constitutional, Arizona doesn't even have legal standing to decide citizenship in any form. This is completely for show, and what a stupid show it is.

 

[Balta1701]

Not only is it not Constitutional, Arizona doesn't even have legal standing to decide citizenship in any form. This is completely for show, and what a stupid show it is.

But if the police are willing to follow orders, they can make it Hell for anyone with non-white skin to live there.

[kapkomet]

Not only is it not Constitutional, Arizona doesn't even have legal standing to decide citizenship in any form. This is completely for show, and what a stupid show it is.

 

 

What's not constitutional, Mr. Scholar?

[bmags]

states aren't allowed to decide who is a citizen of the country. One of the things the constitution does is decide who is in charge of what, it's an actual existing document with words, and people can read it! It's not just some magical document you can point to whenever you want to act like you are a righteous patriot.

[Texsox]

Two for one:

 

This might me a surprise, but there does need to be a change to our current citizenship laws. Too many Mexican nationals walk over as "tourists" and give birth here. The hospitals here deliver an amazing number of "tourist" babies. Hundreds of years ago, when citizenship was determined by birth, people were not as mobile. 2010 calls for laws from this century, not the 1700s.

 

My son just received his new Social Security card, it says you should not carry this with you, but keep it secured at home. Should they add an asterix for Arizona.

 

And a bonus. Of course states should not be the ones to decide who is a citizen of the US.

[Balta1701]

Two for one:

 

This might me a surprise, but there does need to be a change to our current citizenship laws. Too many Mexican nationals walk over as "tourists" and give birth here. The hospitals here deliver an amazing number of "tourist" babies. Hundreds of years ago, when citizenship was determined by birth, people were not as mobile. 2010 calls for laws from this century, not the 1700s.

 

My son just received his new Social Security card, it says you should not carry this with you, but keep it secured at home. Should they add an asterix for Arizona.

 

And a bonus. Of course states should not be the ones to decide who is a citizen of the US.

There really is no way you can do this with a law. You've got to amend the 14th amendment to do it.

[kapkomet]

states aren't allowed to decide who is a citizen of the country. One of the things the constitution does is decide who is in charge of what, it's an actual existing document with words, and people can read it! It's not just some magical document you can point to whenever you want to act like you are a righteous patriot.

 

 

States cannot decide who is a citizen? Well, no crap. Now, tell me, where does the state of Arizona under the current law as written do exactly that?

[Texsox]

From the post quoted a few up . . .

 

 

"Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.

 

Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop. (See the battle for Arizona: will a border crackdown work?)

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/time/us_t...1993872,00.html

 

 

[Texsox]

Why is it I can agree that something should be done about the automatic citizenship and still think these guys are crazy?

[lostfan]

It's pretty easy to see how that law is unconstitutional, on its face, without even thinking for very long about it. So easy that it probably wouldn't even make it to the Supreme Court because it wouldn't be necessary. If you're born here, you're a citizen, that's what the Constitution says (this is one of the main Birther arguments btw since a lot of them decided to claim it was never about whether Obama was born here but because only his mother was a U.S. citizen and not both parents that he is not a natural born citizen - basically making up laws). If you don't like it you have to amend the Constitution.