Tuesday, April 27, 2010


I have to tell yah, I have zero problem with what Arizona and its governor are doing. The people there are through with illegal immigration and the 436,000 undocumented law breakers they have put up with. I would be too. All this new law does is make officials enforce existing laws, which federal boarder patrol agents won’t do. We don’t need reform, or new laws, or congress to act. Barack Obama is standing up for these leaches and drug mules and even the few Mexican citizens. Ranchers are being shot on their own land and Obama says Arizona is overreacting. He says Arizona is profiling: My favorite catch phrase of the year. With over 70% of the people of Arizona favoring the move, Obama is not just in the minority, he’s a racist. He has a problem with white Americans standing up against unlawful entry into our country. Obama doesn’t like the law: Never has. You run with that Mr. President. You start right at the four corners and run for the boarder, my money’s on the people winning. You keep up doing what people tell you not to do. Let me know how that works for yah. Tell you what, if we could oust the 30-40 million illegal’s here now, we just might be able to end the unemployment problem.
But then again, Obama wants people to depend on government for a paycheck and healthcare and retirement money and mortgage bailouts and corporate welfare and…. Well…you get the idea.

Ask yourself one question: If Obama doesn’t like what Arizona is doing, why is he not in Arizona telling the people of Arizona they’re wrong?


Liberty said...

Hey Eman! Thanks much for visiting my blog. I loves commentses. :))

Now then, to answer your comment...

1. I find it disturbing mainly because it's so vague and gives a lot of powers to law enforcement that I think it shouldn't have. For instance, it expands the power of the informal "good faith" rule, making police officers make decision about someone's level of 'suspiciousness.' Not a good situation to be in. Also, it requires immigrants to carry about proof of their status, remnscient of Nazi Germany or the 1860s when blacks were required to do so. Of course, as someone on Teresa's blog pointed out, we all have to carry identification of some sort, but I could go on and on that issue, so I won't bore you. The short version is that I don't agree with all the identification measures currently in place. However, they are in place, and there isn't much I can do about it. Those rules were all instituted before I was born. This one was put in place not long ago.

2. Crime is going to happen. Whether it's perpetrated by illegals or nationals, citizens or immigrants, crime is going to occur. People are going to get killed, children will be abducted, and houses will be burglarized. Crime is a completely different issue than immigration, to my mind. When an illegal commits a crime, treat him as a criminal. If we catch an illegal, deport him. But I don't think that legal immigrants should be discriminated against and possibly harrassed merely because they are of a certain kind of people. That is not fair either to Americans in general nor to those immigrants.

3. Our immigration system doesn't work quite as efficiently as it should, hence why we have problems with illegal immigration I think. People could come here legally if it were easier to do so: for instance, if waiting periods were shorter, etc. So the laws don't need to be changed, per se, but the system needs to be streamlined. More immigration officials need to be put into the system, more money needs to be given to them (if we want them to do their job) and we need to have a better system in place to deport illegals we do catch.

I don't think it is okay for those people to come here illegally. I think it is just that- illegal, and it is wrong. So yes, they should be deported when we catch them. But this version of an anti-illegal law just seems to go too far. Perhaps instead of merely ostracizing them, we should make an effort to understand why they come here illegally. Do they come here merely because they are troublemaking feinds, or is there some other issue here? I would say probably the latter. So what is that issue? Is it lack of money at home? A need for work? If that is it, we should deport them, and then make an effort to educate them about our laws and then give them the option to work their way through the immigration process, that we would have hopefully made easier to negotiate.

I think these immigrants could understand the laws. They're not stupid. They just need someone who's willing to teach them and not automatically discount them with statements like "they're just troublemakers" and "they just want to steal our jobs" and "they don't understand our laws, so they need to go home."

I understand some illegals are just here to live the high life, make a little money, get a fast car, and get high. But that isn't the entirety of illegals, nor is it the entirety of immigrants. I do not think illegal immigration is right or good. However, I think we need to trace the reasons for it back to the root and fix the problems there instead of giving vaguely-worded mandates that increase the scope and power of government.

Eman said...

Hi Liberty, and thank you for coming to my blog as well. It's always nice to see well backed opposing views. Your comments are better factually that my liberal guests to be sure.
In reference to article one, if we trust our police force with the protection of the public and with the tools and means to protect themselves as well as the public, why do you feel suspicious of them when they are charged with the discretion of immigration? Are you saying we do not have the right to ask those who can’t speak the language or read the language or understand the language to provide proof of residency and citizenship? In a time of war with an enemy hell bent on the destruction of all we hold dear, is this not prudent? If not, why?

Article two: You said, “When an illegal commits a crime, treat him as a criminal. If we catch an illegal, deport him.” The reason they had to make this law is because ICE was not deporting them. They were allowing them to be released without deportation, hence the need to bring the laws intent to the foreground and force the issue of doing what the Federal Government agency would not do. They have estimated there are 400,000 illegal’s in Arizona, many on the run from the law in Mexico. Over 70% of the people in Arizona and 60% of the Mexican / Latino population agree this law needs to be in place if the feds are unwilling to uphold the law. How do you stop these people from crossing the boarder if you don’t start doing something about asking and establishing their illegal status?

Article three: Waiting periods are necessary. Who these people are and why they’re coming here MUST be determined to facilitate a change in status or citizenship. You can’t let peoples backgrounds go unchecked liberty because if you do you may be placing the public at risk which opens the door to law suits against the government. You may find it bad, but if we find out THEY are bad, it’s better than finding out WHEN they are bad while here.

You say this law goes too far: How so? It is almost word for word what the federal laws say and in most cases IS WORD FOR WORD.

Liberty must be protected, and not abused, and that is why we have laws to protect the public from unlawful entry into the U.S. Freedom is not free and in a time of war, freedoms must be scaled back in order to preserve public trust because the Federal Governments main charge is to protect the United States from harm. Your thinking suggests pre-9-11 philosophy. That’s dangerous and imprudent in a time of war.

Liberty said...

Hehe thank you. :)

I think that shouldn't be the whole basis for asking them. From what Teresa said on her blog however, this law does state that a crime has to have been committed before proof of citizenship/legal status can be asked for. So that's an interesting tidbit that adjusts my thinking just a bit.

Thank you for explaining that to me. I wasn't really sure why this law was even put into effect. Yes, the federal government has failed pretty spectacularly at that, haven't they (just like at everything else ^.^)?

I didn't say do away with waiting periods: I just said do our best to reduce the time. For instance- I imagine it would take less time to clear a mother with her baby, then a group of 20 year old males. I would imagine. Now I admit I'm not intimately familiar with the immigration process, etc., but I do know it's a bit neurotic. For instance, my dad had a Polish guy working with him. Nice guy, had come here with a couple who dad worked for, single, all that good stuff. Well, he decided he wanted to go back to Poland, find a nice girl, settle down, etc. etc. He gets to the airport and they won't let him leave because his green card had expired. They won't let him leave the country. At all.

Now....wouldn't we want those people to leave? You'd think so, but this guy ended up missing his plane, had to pay a fee to renew his green card, I think, then had to rebuy his plane ticket IIRC. So there's quite a bit of room for discretion, new rules, and a little bit of common sense in our immigration policy...like, for instance, letting people like Yavik with expired green cards...leave.

I didn't know it was basically the federal laws rehashed. ^.^ Good job for me, checking up on everything. >.> :P One thing I am concerned about is racial profiling. I know, I know, I sound like a liberal. Bear with me. According to my research, Arizona has 1.87 million Hispanic residents- presumably those are legal residents. So how do we prevent American citizens from being harrassed over this?

Oh please. Don't get me started on the wars. Teresa could tell you that's a pretty bad idea...

But here's the one thing- I don't think the government has any right to scale back any of my fundamental rights just because we're at war. So that sounds radical and a little cheesy. But I never see a waiver in the Constitution that says- "Oh yeah, you have these rights, but if we're at war, the President and Congress can change these rights up so you can be safe." Nup. Dun' see that. What I do see is that my rights will not be infringed. Period. So anyway...short little rant there. :P

I'm starting to change my opinion on this law, just slightly. If it is just the federal law, then perhaps the blame lies there, but like I said...it's difficult to get upset over stuff that happened years and years ago. ^.^

Eman said...

Welcome back liberty. There are a few aspects you're missing here and my research has opened my eyes more to this situation and as always, I will share these findings with you and my friends here.

The first one that rears its head is the politics of this struggle. If a state, or nation, has laws it will not enforce for political reasons, it mocks both the law and politics, to say nothing of the cultural order. In terms of resources and in terms of political will, it has become abundantly clear that the federal government refuses to make the right decisions in terms of enforcing the law and making the critical reforms necessary to drive down illegal immigration. Sadly, efforts in Congress have been more about gaining political votes through an unnecessary amnesty than on honest and effective reforms. If gaining votes in November is your goal, you have neglected the country for your party’s gain. You have to ask yourself Liberty, who is to gain by non-enforcement of the federal laws? If you said democrats, you’d be right. If democrats, who own both houses and the White House, enforce the laws, they inflict blame and derision on themselves. In terms of resources and in terms of political will, it has become abundantly clear that the federal government refuses to make the right decisions in terms of enforcing the law and making the critical reforms necessary to drive down illegal immigration. Sadly, efforts in Congress have been more about gaining political votes through an unnecessary amnesty than on honest and effective reforms.

But all the while, America suffers. For federal officials, including the president, to accuse Arizona of irresponsibility while the federal government is refusing to fulfill its responsibility to control the nation's borders, is passing strange and marches boldly into negligent. Such control is an essential and absolute attribute of national sovereignty. America is the only developed nation that has a 2,000-mile border with a developing nation, and the government's refusal to control that border is why there are an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona and why the nation, sensibly insisting on first things first, resists 'comprehensive' immigration reform.

Arizona's new immigration law shows what happens when a state on the front lines of a failed immigration policy reaches the bursting point. What you get is a blunt instrument that produces lawsuits, more political polarization (if that's possible) and the risk of hostility between the local police and the public. The law makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. without proper documents. It allows the police to stop anyone on 'reasonable suspicion' that they may be in the country unlawfully and arrest them on the spot if they can't produce identity papers. The police aren't required to have a search warrant or even to suspect some illegal action has occurred before questioning a person. Traditionally the federal government has enforced immigration laws, so this is an extraordinary state criminalization of a heretofore federal authority. ... The loud voices denouncing 'Arizona' should understand that the results of the nation's failed immigration policies have come down on this state. ... Congressional Democrats have no intention of enacting serious immigration reform before November. President Obama is surely playing politics with the situation in Arizona for gain in the fall. He'd like to pick a fight and define Republicans as anti-Hispanic going into the election, without having to propose anything substantive.
The most effective way to reduce illegal entries and defuse these tensions is to expand legal channels, including guest worker programs, and on this you and I would agree I believe. This would reduce illegal immigration and free up security resources to threats from drug gangs and the like. But so long as Republicans, Democrats and Mr. Obama mainly view immigration as an electoral weapon, the nation can expect more desperate laws like Arizona's.

Eman said...

We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

Theoretical physicist Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Liberty said...

A couple of the readers on my blog answered your comment over there. :) Thought you might like to take a look. ^.^ One of them is Sun Tzu, the gentleman I posted links to. :)) Anyway, I'll have to respond later...life is absolutely insane right now... >.>

Tragedy101 said...

My personal problem with the Arizona law is this:

US Citizens who could reasonably have known they were transporting an illegal (ID documents can only be verified by a federally trained and certified agent, anyone else who refuses false documentation presented to them on the premise it appears false faces a federal felony and a discrimination lawsuit.) must have their vehicle impounded and could face a felony charge in Arizona.

Why all the arrests of people attempting to hire illegals? Federal law mandates that an employer cannot seek documentation until he/she has offered to hire a person in filling out paperwork such as I-9's or W-4's (big fine and possible jail time per offense), which according to this law it is a crime to offer a job to a possible illegal immigrant.

So Arizona is placing employers in a "catch 22". The feds can bust them if they follow state law, the state will bust them if they follow federal law, and the illegal immigrant can sue for discrimination if an employer is looking to hire and doesn't offer him/her a job because of fear of this law.


This law does just rehash federal law: USAPATRIOT Act, only instead of the term terrorist, the term illegal immigrant is the key. I thought the wording was familiar, but couldn't quite place it.

Eman said...

well, let's look at how the founding fathers wanted it, shall we?

"Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular." --Thomas Jefferson

There’s this South Korean selling kosher tacos outside a mosque in Toledo Ohio…

This is culture? Not my idea of culture folks. Come on. Be realistic. You come here, you follow the rules. The law is the law. Now we see 70% of all Americans like this law. That’s huge! Over 60% of Hispanics like the law. Why? Because the illegal’s make it hard on the legal immigrants. You know, if you don’t know the right way to come across the boarder, then you better ask tragedy101. I have no sympathy for law breakers. Sorry, I just can’t muster the strength to hop off my principles for someone who willfully and/or ignorantly breaks the law. You can get upset with any particular part of this law, but when you say “This is bad” then “That is bad for him” and “This is bad for her and her kids” well, than you got squat! It’s the law, and don’t be surprised when Texas and California, Arkansas and many more follow suit. We can’t pay for their schooling and their healthcare and their mortgages any more.


Teresa said...

Great post and comments! :)

This is what I think needs to happen:

1) ICE needs to crack down on businesses hiring illegal immigrants to work.

2) There needs to be more immigration agents to fast track the immigration process so more immigrants can become legal quicker.
3) There needs to be a worker program like years ago, when immigrants were allowed to work here temporarily and go back to their home country after like 3 or so years. I forget what it this program is called but it was used and worked very well (that's what I heard from others).
4) I don't think separating the families of illegal immigrants that are already here is appropriate but they should go to the back of the line and pay a fine. But, if after a certain amount of time ( like 3 years?) they refuse to do what is necessary to become legal and assimilate into our society they should be deported.

5) Little tidbit of info: The only reason that Karl Rove and some others disagree with the law is because they don't think it is going to take of the issues realted to illegal immigration.

6) The primary concern of ours with relation to helping these immigrants should be in helping Mexico build up its infrastructure, incentivising companies to move down to Mexico and employ Mexicans and that would, to build up their economy and that would reduce their need to come to America. But, we must close the borders, because we don't want any terrorists to cross the border using Mexico as a conduit to enter the U.S.

Eman said...

If you cross the North Korean border illegally you get 12 years hard labor.

If you cross the Iranian border illegally you are detained indefinitely.

If you cross the Afghan border illegally, you get shot.

If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally you will be jailed.

If you cross the Chinese border illegally you may never be heard from again.

If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally you will be branded a spy and your fate will be sealed.

If you cross the Cuban border illegally you will be thrown into political prison to rot.

If you cross the United States border illegally you get:

1 - A job
2 - A driver's license
3 - A Social Security card
4 - Welfare
5 - Food stamps
6 - Credit cards
7 - Subsidized rent or a loan to buy a house
8 - Free education
9 - Free health care
10 - A lobbyist in Washington
11 - Billions of dollars in public documents printed in your language
12 - Millions of servicemens and women who are willing to - and do -die for your right to the ways and means of our constitution
13 - And the right to carry the flag of your country - the one you walked out on - while you call America racist and protest that you don't get enough respect.

Kim June said...

That's what you want America to be? Which one are you aspiring to be? North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, China, Venezuela or Cuba?

Eman said...

Kim, you are showing everyone here your compete ignorance. Your comment does not even deserve a response. Instead of insulting me, why not tell us about your experience or how your parents came here, or grand parents… But no, you have to come here and insult me and these patriots. If you have nothing constructive to add, then shut up!