Illegal immigrants living in AZ

[Magox]

I would take you serious, but I have my doubts you would ever complain about the military funding which consists of over 50% of the federal budget.

It does? Must be nice to make up your own facts.

[erynthered]

I would take you serious, but I have my doubts you would ever complain about the military funding which consists of over 50% of the federal budget. If you don't complain about that, I then understand your talking points stream straight from Rupert Murdoch and not your own brain.

 

 

The DOD needs a **** load of work also. Gov involvement in ALL of our daily life is too much. Nice dance move BTW. Shift O'blame works well with your ilk.

[/dev/null]

It does? Must be nice to make up your own facts.

 

95% of all facts are made up and 75% of the supporting stats are bubkus. The funny thing is only 10% of the population knows that and what's really annoying is that I'm only 65% sure that I'm making all this up

 

[Alaska Darin]

Being a Democrat does not make you a "big government apologist". There are many tenets of the party and many varying views within it. It could me an you are pro-environment or anti-corporatocracy or pro-choice or just sick of the overbearing hypocrisy in the Republican side, or most likely some combination of these types of things.

Here's a newflash: Joe's been here more than 5 minutes and I know a hell of a lot about his politics. Perhaps you should take that into account before you start lecturing me on giving him crap.

 

And "overbearing hypocrisy" is hardly limited to Republicans. All of the partisans are loaded with it and it's what's ruining the country.

[erynthered]

Between VA spending, and current military, it's very close. If you have different numbers then I'm not stuck on the exact percent. But please don't ignore the core point that the largest percents of our federal budget is spent on the military. As such, for me, it's hard to take fiscal conservatives serious if they don't mention this in their "we're going bankrupt" shpeel.

 

 

So you go from this?

 

I hate when healthcare, food, shelter, and education kill people. Those things are so dangerous.

 

To the DOD?

 

What next? American Idol?

[Alaska Darin]

Between VA spending, and current military, it's very close.

No, it isn't. Not that it isn't a huge problem but it's nowhere near 50% of the federal budget.

[DC Tom]

Between VA spending, and current military, it's very close. If you have different numbers then I'm not stuck on the exact percent. But please don't ignore the core point that the largest percents of our federal budget is spent on the military. As such, for me, it's hard to take supposed fiscal conservatives serious if they don't mention this in their "we're going bankrupt" shpeel.

 

No, it's not. DoD is the largest single budget item...but it's not half the budget. More like 20-25%%.

 

Still scandalous. The amount of waste in defense spending is nauseating. But you shouldn't need to make **** up to make that point.

[WisconsinBillzFan]

Sheriff Joe Arpaio destroys Al Sharpton

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rou7y5KDOVg

[Keukasmallies]

Is there anything funnier that listening to the talking heads, and reading the print media folks, as they express their ire over AZ's law making illegal immigrants illegal? Some very convoluted phrasings to say the least.

 

On the other hand, I suppose one could say that the opponents of the new AZ law seek to make it illegal to brand the illegal immigrants illegal....

[John Adams]

Is there anything funnier that listening to the talking heads, and reading the print media folks, as they express their ire over AZ's law making illegal immigrants illegal? Some very convoluted phrasings to say the least.

 

On the other hand, I suppose one could say that the opponents of the new AZ law seek to make it illegal to brand the illegal immigrants illegal....

 

Swing and a miss.

[Nanker]

Poorly written law.

The law should read that a law enforcement official may stop and ask any person within the state for their identification at any time. There should be no discernment attached to race, clothing, etc.

 

If the problem is as big as it's portrayed to be - and I believe it is - then all citizens should be equally willing to pony up their ID - no questions asked whenever a law officer requests it. At work, I'm required to wear an ID badge. If my state decided that it was under siege and took a similar measure, I would have no problem producing my ID for the authorities.

 

Talk about freedom FROM religion. How about freedom FROM illegal entrants.

[IDBillzFan]

Cafferty nails it.

 

JACK CAFFERTY: So Arizona passes a tough law against illegal immigration and suddenly they've got Washington's attention. One poll finds 70 percent of Arizona voters support this new law, so hey, maybe we better do something, too. And like the lemmings they are when they smell a chance to score some political points, and some of them need a lot of help with the midterms coming up, there is now talk of rushing immigration reform through Congress. President Obama called the Arizona law misguided. What's misguided, Mr. President, is the federal government's ongoing refusal to enforce the laws that are already on the books. Read the Arizona law. Parts of it are word-for-word the same as the federal statutes which continue to be all but ignored. Now we're hear all sorts of blathering from our Washington gerbils about the need for a new federal law. There'll be news conferences and interviews and committee hearings and draft legislation and polling, all the usual carnival acts that accompany any hot button Washington issue. Instead of simply closing the borders and enforcing the existing law so they could turn their attention to something like the national debt and the fact that the country is bankrupt, instead we're going to get this freak show. Washington's position on illegal immigration is patently dishonest from the top down. No enforcement, no border security. Just pandering to the Hispanic voters and the corporations that hire the illegals. And then, when one of our states that's being ravaged by the presence of 460,000 illegal aliens inside its borders does something about it, the President says that's misguided. What a shame. Here's the question: Will the federal government ever enforce our immigration laws?

[whateverdude]

You said:

 

 

 

What you said above could be done before this law was passed. This law expands the government's ability to challenge immigration status based on reasonable suspicion, even when some guy is reading the newspaper on a park bench.

 

I believe in AZ, as an enforcement policy, state and local police officers are told not to check or ask for the legal status of people. This was left to the feds. This law was passed because the feds failed to control the problem.

 

The way I read it this law does not give the local law enforcement any new powers, just re-enforces current ones and most importantly gives protection to the local individual law officer from civil law suits.

 

“some guy is reading the newspaper on a park bench” does not arouse reasonable suspicion now does it so it would not be lawful to check his legal status, unless of course he was doing coke off the paper.

[Nanker]

I believe in AZ, as an enforcement policy, state and local police officers are told not to check or ask for the legal status of people. This was left to the feds. This law was passed because the feds failed to control the problem.

 

The way I read it this law does not give the local law enforcement any new powers, just re-enforces current ones and most importantly gives protection to the local individual law officer from civil law suits.

 

“some guy is reading the newspaper on a park bench” does not arouse reasonable suspicion now does it so it would not be lawful to check his legal status, unless of course he was doing coke off the paper.

This is what NY de facto state law is as well as in NYC.

Teachers, police and all government workers are not allowed to ask for a person's citizenship status. And, if they do find out about them being in the country illegally they are required to do nothing about it - not even contact the US Immigration service. Step right up, send your kids to school, get a drivers license, sign up for whatever free program the government has and don't forget when you go to the ER - if you can't pay for the services you're entitled to there - they still have to provide them to you. It's the LAW!

[finknottle]

Between VA spending, and current military, it's very close. If you have different numbers then I'm not stuck on the exact percent. But please don't ignore the core point that the largest percents of our federal budget is spent on the military. As such, for me, it's hard to take supposed fiscal conservatives serious if they don't mention this in their "we're going bankrupt" shpeel.

 

2010 budget, in billions:

 

743 Medicare/Medicaid

695 Social Security

664 DOD

164 Interest on the Debt

79 Dept Health & Human Services

73 Dept Transportation

53 Veterans Affairs

52 Dept State

48 HUD

47 Dept Education

:

[* When compared to previous years these figures don't seem to include Welfare/Unemployment. I'm not sure why.]

 

DOD+VA spending is 20% of the budget. Social services related spending (SS, Medicare/Medicaid, DHHS, HUD) is almost half. I'll make the math simple: half the budget is two and a half times as big as 20%.

 

And for the record, the numbers are not appreciably different in the Bush years.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I think it's pretty safe to say most Americans have a pretty good idea of what is right for them, even though it may not be right for you.

 

Arizona is eyeballs deep in violent crimes committed by illegal aliens (gangs, kidnappings and murder), and I don't find it hard to understand how they they feel they've had enough. I'm sure the murder of Robert Krentz put them over the edge. Especially after they watched Rogert Barnett get hauled into court and forced to pay about $80,000 to illegals who didn't like the way they were treated when Barnett caught them trespassing on his property and held them at gunpoint. Apparently Barnett should not have used a gun...he should have put out a coffee service cart. Maybe some donuts.

 

Admittedly I am not sure to what extent I like this Arizona law, but I don't have a problem if Arizona chooses to protect its own...especially when 70% support the law. Have a problem with the law? Stay out of Arizona or carry your wallet.

 

To our lib friends on this board (I know you're not one, JA), if you don't like the law, just remember the insightful words you kept telling us when we complained about the health care law: "Hey, it's not perfect, but it's a start, and we have to do something because it's better than nothing. We can't settle for the status quo. We have to pass it to see what's in it."

 

I am a lib and I totally agree with your post LA.

[Chef Jim]

2010 budget, in billions:

 

743 Medicare/Medicaid

695 Social Security

664 DOD

164 Interest on the Debt

79 Dept Health & Human Services

73 Dept Transportation

53 Veterans Affairs

52 Dept State

48 HUD

47 Dept Education

:

[* When compared to previous years these figures don't seem to include Welfare/Unemployment. I'm not sure why.]

 

DOD+VA spending is 20% of the budget. Social services related spending (SS, Medicare/Medicaid, DHHS, HUD) is almost half. I'll make the math simple: half the budget is two and a half times as big as 20%.

 

And for the record, the numbers are not appreciably different in the Bush years.

 

Number 4....interest on the debt.

[Magox]

Number 4....interest on the debt.

Oh, and that number is expected to reach $900 B a year by 2020 if interest rates go to 6.6% under Obama's longterm budget outlook.

[finknottle]

Back to the topic at hand. Here is something you won't hear on Jon Stewart, MSNBC, Letterman, or your usual new sources.

 

There was a Supreme Court decision on states making laws about illegal immigrants.

http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/424/351/

 

In the early 1970's California passed legislation which imposed fines on employers who knowingly employ illegal aliens. The State was sued by migrant workers (De Canas v Bica), claiming that the law was infringing on a federal perogative (immigration). The state court ruled in their favor, but the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. In 1973 SCOTUS unanimously upheld the original law. The leader of the liberal wing, Justice Brennan, wrote the opinion of the court, stating "Power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power. But the Court has never held that every state enactment which in any way deals with aliens is a regulation of immigration and thus per se pre-empted by this constitutional power, whether latent or exercised." They explicitely ruled that California may investigate the status of workers and fine employers who have knowingly employed them.

 

In essence, the court said that when state laws are harmonous with federal regulations, the states are not excluded from enforcing them. The exception to this is when the Courts deem Congress' intention behind legislation to have been to uniquivacably grant itself exclusive domain. (Thus, while kidnapping is by law a federal crime, local authorities may also investigate such cases and make arrests on their own. Indeed, some plucky legislators may even require them to investigate where reasonable suspicion of a crime exists!)

[John Adams]

Back to the topic at hand. Here is something you won't hear on Jon Stewart, MSNBC, Letterman, or your usual new sources.

 

There was a Supreme Court decision on states making laws about illegal immigrants.

http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/424/351/

 

In the early 1970's California passed legislation which imposed fines on employers who knowingly employ illegal aliens. The State was sued by migrant workers (De Canas v Bica), claiming that the law was infringing on a federal perogative (immigration). The state court ruled in their favor, but the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. In 1973 SCOTUS unanimously upheld the original law. The leader of the liberal wing, Justice Brennan, wrote the opinion of the court, stating "Power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power. But the Court has never held that every state enactment which in any way deals with aliens is a regulation of immigration and thus per se pre-empted by this constitutional power, whether latent or exercised." They explicitely ruled that California may investigate the status of workers and fine employers who have knowingly employed them.

 

In essence, the court said that when state laws are harmonous with federal regulations, the states are not excluded from enforcing them. The exception to this is when the Courts deem Congress' intention behind legislation to have been to uniquivacably grant itself exclusive domain. (Thus, while kidnapping is by law a federal crime, local authorities may also investigate such cases and make arrests on their own. Indeed, some plucky legislators may even require them to investigate where reasonable suspicion of a crime exists!)

 

That case has nothing to do with this new law because it's not in harmony with the US Constitution. But the issue here is that the new law permits authorities to question LAWFULLY-acting people. That will run afoul of search and seizure in the Constitution.