PDA

View Full Version : The Illegal Immigration Thread



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

faxman75
04-29-2010, 11:19 AM
This story isn't going away any time soon so I am starting a thread for all illegal immigration chatter. I know there are a large number of boardies that live in border states as well.

Here's the AZ bill that was just signed into law.


http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf


Apparently I.C.E. is going to play ball and start enforcing the federal law that was ignored for so long as well.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/91769419.html


Abdon was told he did not have enough paperwork on him when he pulled into a weigh station to have his commercial truck checked. He provided his commercial driver’s license and a social security number but ended up handcuffed.

An agent called his wife and she had to leave work to drive home and grab other documents like his birth certificate.

Jackie explains, “I have his social security card as well and mine. He’s legit. It’s the first time it’s ever happened.”

Both were born in the United States and say they are now both infuriated that keeping important documents safely at home is no longer an option.

Jackie says, “It doesn’t feel like it’s a good way of life, to live with fear, even though we are okay, we are legal…still have to carry documents around.”

A representative at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) returned 3TV’s calls after researching the incident and she said this was standard operating procedure.


I'm also wondering how the police are going to have the time to figure out who is illegal and isn't when they pull over a family of mexicans.

It's also worth noting a drivers license will not be sufficiant in proving citzenship.

TomAz
04-29-2010, 11:21 AM
Boycott Arizona. srsly. teach the mormon fascists a lesson.

JustSteve
04-29-2010, 11:29 AM
i think the city of san francisco already has plans to do so. boycotting any non-critical supplies that come from the state.

PlayaDelWes
04-29-2010, 11:30 AM
Aren't there enough gatecrasher threads already? It's like walking around the polo fields without a wristband.

Don’t you think it’s a little hypocritical of everyone to cry for more security to stop people from sneaking into our concert illegally, but when it comes to someone else’s state, all the sudden we’re all up in arms? Wear your goddam wristband you you’ll be fine.

Maybe GV could learn a thing or two from Arizona.

faxman75
04-29-2010, 11:30 AM
Steve, what sense does that make? Why punish an Arizona business for something our unelected governor signed into law?

marooko
04-29-2010, 11:33 AM
Get legal.

And I'd imagine an "unelected" governor would be a more important issue.

daxton
04-29-2010, 11:35 AM
Aren't there enough gatecrasher threads already? It's like walking around the polo fields without a wristband.

Don’t you think it’s a little hypocritical of everyone to cry for more security to stop people from sneaking into our concert illegally, but when it comes to someone else’s state, all the sudden we’re all up in arms? Wear your goddam wristband you you’ll be fine.

Maybe GV could learn a thing or two from Arizona.

The motivation for sneaking into Coachella and sneaking into the US are completely different. Generally one is for fun and the other is a bit more serious. I don't claim to know a ton about immigration or immigration law, but shit's not as black and white as some make it out to be.

faxman75
04-29-2010, 11:37 AM
Get legal.

And I'd imagine an "unelected" governor would be a more important issue.

Not really. She had to step in when Janet went to Washington. It just adds insult to injury.

JustSteve
04-29-2010, 11:39 AM
Steve, what sense does that make? Why punish an Arizona business for something our unelected governor signed into law?

i'm just posting what i heard on the news a couple nights ago. i didn't add any commentary on how i felt.

PrettyRagdoll
04-29-2010, 11:47 AM
Aren't there enough gatecrasher threads already? It's like walking around the polo fields without a wristband.

Don’t you think it’s a little hypocritical of everyone to cry for more security to stop people from sneaking into our concert illegally, but when it comes to someone else’s state, all the sudden we’re all up in arms? Wear your goddam wristband you you’ll be fine.

Maybe GV could learn a thing or two from Arizona.

*shrugs* this is truth

faxman75
04-29-2010, 11:47 AM
i'm just posting what i heard on the news a couple nights ago. i didn't add any commentary on how i felt.

I gotcha. So I take it the commentary failed to address that issue.

fatbastard
04-29-2010, 11:49 AM
Can't make the wedding now.

faxman75
04-29-2010, 11:50 AM
ha ha ha look at these idiots!

http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/04/29/diamondbacks-become-target-in-fight-over-arizona-immigration-law/

rasooli
04-29-2010, 11:52 AM
where is the murder capital (your location)?

Richmond?
Compton?
Indio?
Detriot?

faxman75
04-29-2010, 11:56 AM
Phoenix is the kidnapping capital in this country. Those in favor of this bill use this as an argument for it.

corbo
04-29-2010, 11:57 AM
Arizona, you are fucking lame. that is all.

rasooli
04-29-2010, 12:03 PM
being the kidnapping capital and the murder capital are two completely different things....

faxman75
04-29-2010, 12:05 PM
being the kidnapping capital and the murder capital are two completely different things....

You don't say?

Does this mean we can't hold the Arizona Diamondbacks responsible for murder?

BlackSwan
04-29-2010, 12:10 PM
Fucking Arizona. There is a way to do this without taking away people's rights... Enforce the law that makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants. Target the employers, not the employees.

brando4n82
04-29-2010, 12:12 PM
I'm not touching this thread with a 40 foot pole

amyzzz
04-29-2010, 12:24 PM
Oh yeah... All that violence and kidnapping leaking in from Mexico. I don't agree with the law, but that is a strong argument for it. Some rancher recently got murdered, supposedly by a Mexican illegal, and I think that incident is also fanning the flames.

TomAz
04-29-2010, 12:30 PM
Only Mexicans commit crimes. Let's deport them all.

captncrzy
04-29-2010, 12:36 PM
Oh yeah... All that violence and kidnapping leaking in from Mexico. I don't agree with the law, but that is a strong argument for it. Some rancher recently got murdered, supposedly by a Mexican illegal, and I think that incident is also fanning the flames.

There's a strong argument for a law; there's not a strong argument for giving Joe's henchmen the ability to racially profile and arrest legal citizens of this country. (See truck driver issue above).

Gribbz
04-29-2010, 12:38 PM
Tucson cop first to sue to block AZ immigration law...

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/article_e8a094d4-53ab-11df-92c8-001cc4c002e0.html



Pima County Sheriff declares immigration law an 'embarrassment'

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_c5aa1fc4-fd7a-5ed6-968a-0899ffcdbad1.html

faxman75
04-29-2010, 12:39 PM
Oh yeah... All that violence and kidnapping leaking in from Mexico. I don't agree with the law, but that is a strong argument for it. Some rancher recently got murdered, supposedly by a Mexican illegal, and I think that incident is also fanning the flames.

This law does nothing to address the border violence issue.

guedita
04-29-2010, 12:40 PM
Requiring people to carry around their immigration documents at all times is fucking ridiculous.

daxton
04-29-2010, 12:41 PM
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/article_e8a094d4-53ab-11df-92c8-001cc4c002e0.html




http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_c5aa1fc4-fd7a-5ed6-968a-0899ffcdbad1.html

Good for them.

Gribbz
04-29-2010, 12:42 PM
Good for them.

Yeah... Tucson is pretty much a blue town in a red state.

faxman75
04-29-2010, 12:44 PM
Requiring people to carry around their immigration documents at all times is fucking ridiculous.

Especially when those documents along with Social Security cards are always supposed to be kept in a safe place. Identity thefts may go up as well as kidnappings. Being a legal documented or natural born Mexican is really going to suck. Just imagine how much of a hot commodity your papers will be and knowing you have them on you is going to make you a target not just for the cops but for the illegals who want steal indentities so they can appear legal.

daxton
04-29-2010, 12:46 PM
Maybe we can just get chips implanted when we get SSNs. That'll solve everything!

guedita
04-29-2010, 12:46 PM
Especially when those documents along with Social Security cards are always supposed to be kept in a safe place. Identity thefts may go up as well as kidnappings. Being a legal documented or natural born Mexican is really going to suck. Just imagine how much of a hot commodity your papers will be and knowing you have them on you is going to make you a target not just for the cops but for the illegals who want steal indentities so they can appear legal.

Wow, I hadn't even think about that aspect of it. That makes me even more upset.

amyzzz
04-29-2010, 12:47 PM
I said I don't agree with the law, Tom and Jen.

TomAz
04-29-2010, 12:58 PM
Amy's gonna start a group called Racists Against SB 1070

hacking my dreams
04-29-2010, 01:10 PM
Arizona, you are fucking lame. that is all.

Arizona is beautiful.

Gribbz
04-29-2010, 01:11 PM
Arizona is beautiful.

True, but there are a lot of terrible people who live here.

hawkingvsreeve
04-29-2010, 01:12 PM
Are you this stupid outside of the internet? Is it a daily struggle for you?

hacking my dreams
04-29-2010, 01:14 PM
There are terrible people everywhere. See above.

And below.

hawkingvsreeve
04-29-2010, 01:19 PM
So, so terrible.

J~$$$$
04-29-2010, 01:20 PM
DEY TOOK ERRRRRR JERBS!!!!

hacking my dreams
04-29-2010, 01:21 PM
Anyways, I'm happy we have this thread. Anyone in Phoenix going to any of the rallys? I guess it's too late for rallying? I'd like to put my energy into motion on this one, and would love to attend a protest. In any form.

hawkingvsreeve
04-29-2010, 01:26 PM
Anything to get you away from the computer sounds like a win. Have fun.

TomAz
04-29-2010, 01:34 PM
I wonder whose alias that is.

hawkingvsreeve
04-29-2010, 01:39 PM
Oh, he's real.

hacking my dreams
04-29-2010, 01:42 PM
and I have my papers to prove it.

Inthecolumbiagorge
04-29-2010, 01:44 PM
Arizona is beautiful.

You are right......Arizona is beautiful....but as a 6 month visitor from Oregon....I can't wait to get home!!! These people are cuckoooooooooo! We build maps for utility companies and truly I can't count the number of times here in AZ that we have been met at the gate with a drawn weapon! No where else...even in the back country of Alaska have we been confronted so much as here! These people are so paranoid it is unbelievable! I can't tell if the general citizenry is a large percentage of lowlifes....... or if there is something in the soil.......Valley fever perhaps???? (have your heard of that...? It is real and not funny...something in the soil that can make you and your pets sick!!!) Why is everyone here so flipping suspicious? Makes you wonder what they are all doing to be so paranoid!!! Seriously.....great place to visit, but there is no way I would live here for ANY length of time. No offense Arizona but holy moley...what is the matter with these people? Giving up personal rights to catch some illegal folks from Mexico that will cross the border as soon as they can again because they need to feed themselves and their families? Why they would come here anyway is beyond me as there are no jobs here....? Close proximity I understand but I have to think that most illegal Mexicans crossing the border here are on their way somewhere else because there is no work here for the average person. Some of the biggest unemployment in the country.

Anyway....can't wait to move back to Oregon where peoples rights still count for something....unless you are being shot at by the PoPo in Portland....looks like those guys can get away with anything!

J~$$$$
04-29-2010, 01:46 PM
holy moley.

obzen
04-29-2010, 01:46 PM
Profile shoes.

shoegazer76
04-29-2010, 01:46 PM
I got no problem with Mexican folk coming into this country to better their lives. If they're caught smuggling tar heroin they should be executed on the spot.

captncrzy
04-29-2010, 01:48 PM
........sooooo.................................... .......................................popo....... .................................................. .................................................. ...not funny............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .........so....................................... ...........cukooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. .................................................. .................................................. ...

faxman75
04-29-2010, 01:50 PM
I got no problem with Mexican folk coming into this country to better their lives. If they're caught smuggling tar heroin they should be executed on the spot.

You should be executed on the spot.

Just sayin'

hacking my dreams
04-29-2010, 01:51 PM
Armed at the gate of the utility companies? What gate? Perhaps its a good idea for us to protect our utilities so that *terrorists* can't poison/destroy our water or nooclear plants.

But the sight of a drawn weapon makes me ill, and now AZ says you can carry a concealed weapon without a Permit. The Permit, which costs money, of course would make the state some money back, but of course, its more important to be able to carry concealed weapons around than to bring your state out from bankruptcy.

amyzzz
04-29-2010, 01:51 PM
Amy's gonna start a group called Racists Against SB 1070
I don't agree with the law.

PrettyRagdoll
04-29-2010, 01:51 PM
Maybe we can just get chips implanted when we get SSNs. That'll solve everything!

There's already chips in our passports I wouldn't be surprised if the SSN would be next

faxman75
04-29-2010, 01:56 PM
I don't agree with the law.

True but you have to admit you didn't read or understand it either because it didn't have anything to do with securing our border or addressing the violence at the border.

shoegazer76
04-29-2010, 01:57 PM
Yeah I should be shot on the spot huh cause I'm against selling death to suburbian kids & families. Shoot me so I can be with all my friends that are dead from this garbage.

faxman75
04-29-2010, 01:58 PM
There's already chips in our passports I wouldn't be surprised if the SSN would be next

I think Obama wants us all microchipped....

http://mariopiperni.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/microchip_obama.jpg

hacking my dreams
04-29-2010, 01:58 PM
Yeah I should be shot on the spot huh cause I'm against selling death to suburbian kids & families. Shoot me so I can be with all my friends that are dead from this garbage.

your friends were stupid. no offense.

faxman75
04-29-2010, 01:59 PM
Yeah I should be shot on the spot huh cause I'm against selling death to suburbian kids & families. Shoot me so I can be with all my friends that are dead from this garbage.

You can shoot yourself if you like. The mule isn't the problem or the supplier, that's my issue with you wanting to execute people.

hacking my dreams
04-29-2010, 02:02 PM
http://www.reelingreviews.com/mariafullofgracepic.jpg

Maria Full of Grace

weeklymix
04-29-2010, 02:07 PM
Maria Full of Grace

Do you actually know anything about the topic at hand or are you just conjuring up things that barely relate from a film class you took a few years ago?

And Tom, he's not an alias.

hacking my dreams
04-29-2010, 02:08 PM
Your posts make me go cross-eyed.

shoegazer76
04-29-2010, 02:10 PM
Yeah absolutely they were stupid. In their defense tho I'm sure they weren't expecting to get tar heroin cut with fetanyl. Heroin use to be incredibly expensive back in the midwest going for $150 to $200 a gram. Now the smugglers are flooding the market with heroin that costs $6 to $10 for a tenth of a gram. Cheap enough for kids in school to afford with their lunch money. But hey we're a nation of consumers & we love drugs & cheap shit so tar heroin is the pefect fit for our way of life. Open the flood gates & let the good times roll. Oh wait they've been wide open for a good while already.

faxman75
04-29-2010, 02:12 PM
cool story bro

amyzzz
04-29-2010, 02:12 PM
True but you have to admit you didn't read or understand it either because it didn't have anything to do with securing our border or addressing the violence at the border.
I'm saying this is what other people in my state are thinking about. I am not thinking about that. I am against the law.

faxman75
04-29-2010, 02:13 PM
I'm saying this is what other people in my state are thinking about. I am not thinking about that.

Wait, you post other peoples thoughts that aren't your own? How confusing.



I am against the law.

In 50 states and in Mexico! Holla!

hacking my dreams
04-29-2010, 02:14 PM
Do you actually know anything about the topic at hand or are you just conjuring up things that barely relate from a film class you took a few years ago?


i saw maria (have you?) and yes, the plot of the film has everything to do with the topic at hand. mules aren't the problem. do you think or just react?

sonofhal
04-29-2010, 02:15 PM
Arizona Uber Alles.

hacking my dreams
04-29-2010, 02:17 PM
Good news is Arizona has Medical Marijuana on its November ballot. And it's garnishing support from all sides. Seemingly.

TomAz
04-29-2010, 02:17 PM
You are right......Arizona is beautiful....but as a 6 month visitor from Oregon....I can't wait to get home!!! These people are cuckoooooooooo! We build maps for utility companies and truly I can't count the number of times here in AZ that we have been met at the gate with a drawn weapon! No where else...even in the back country of Alaska have we been confronted so much as here! These people are so paranoid it is unbelievable! I can't tell if the general citizenry is a large percentage of lowlifes....... or if there is something in the soil.......Valley fever perhaps???? (have your heard of that...? It is real and not funny...something in the soil that can make you and your pets sick!!!) Why is everyone here so flipping suspicious? Makes you wonder what they are all doing to be so paranoid!!! Seriously.....great place to visit, but there is no way I would live here for ANY length of time. No offense Arizona but holy moley...what is the matter with these people? Giving up personal rights to catch some illegal folks from Mexico that will cross the border as soon as they can again because they need to feed themselves and their families? Why they would come here anyway is beyond me as there are no jobs here....? Close proximity I understand but I have to think that most illegal Mexicans crossing the border here are on their way somewhere else because there is no work here for the average person. Some of the biggest unemployment in the country.

Anyway....can't wait to move back to Oregon where peoples rights still count for something....unless you are being shot at by the PoPo in Portland....looks like those guys can get away with anything!

I am paranoid about outsiders coming to Arizona and overrunning our state with excessive punctuation.

J~$$$$
04-29-2010, 02:19 PM
I am all for this bill. Its time to send those filth mexicans packing. Papers or get the fuck out.

TomAz
04-29-2010, 02:19 PM
Packing to Colorado to lay granite.

weeklymix
04-29-2010, 02:24 PM
i saw maria (have you?) and yes, the plot of the film has everything to do with the topic at hand. mules aren't the problem. do you think or just react?

Yes I've seen the movie. All you have to contribute to the discussion is that you've seen a relatively popular movie relating to drug mules and the concept that everything will be somewhat better because people will have access to weed in Arizona.

Did I miss something?

Edit: Sorry for hijacking. Bye.

J~$$$$
04-29-2010, 02:29 PM
Packing to Colorado to lay granite.

All full here. Im on a mission to get the asians and russians deported also.

hacking my dreams
04-29-2010, 02:29 PM
I contributed the face of the mule who we were talking about shooting. real people, in tough situations. to be thought of as human.

And your contribution is...?

shoegazer76
04-29-2010, 02:29 PM
How much of the violence along the border that is being talked about is related to drug smuggling? Yeah I recant my statements against south american/mexican heroin suppliers & manufacturers. Both the casual & addicted user are 100% entirely responsible for heroin trafficking from start to finish.

J~$$$$
04-29-2010, 02:30 PM
Also anyone that shops at walmart and republicans.

J~$$$$
04-29-2010, 02:32 PM
Anyone the drives a hybrid and lives in a 10,000 sq ft home lives in boulder and calls themselves a democrat.

J~$$$$
04-29-2010, 02:32 PM
and the handicapped.

hacking my dreams
04-29-2010, 02:33 PM
The land of the free and the home of the brave

shoegazer76
04-29-2010, 02:35 PM
cool story bro

I wish it was only a story.

faxman75
04-29-2010, 02:35 PM
Both the casual & addicted user are 100% entirely responsible for heroin trafficking from start to finish.

The user is entirely responsible for all illegal drugs they put into their body. Keep it simple.

amyzzz
04-29-2010, 02:49 PM
Wait, you post other peoples thoughts that aren't your own? How confusing.

No, I meant this is what I'm hearing in the news. This is what I am hearing other people say. The thoughts that they talk about. I am saying I can see it from their point of view, but I don't think that way.

Goddamnit, shut up, faxy.

hawkingvsreeve
04-29-2010, 02:50 PM
and the handicapped.

Hey. HEY.

TomAz
04-29-2010, 02:54 PM
No, I meant this is what I'm hearing in the news. This is what I am hearing other people say. The thoughts that they talk about. I am saying I can see it from their point of view, but I don't think that way.



You are befuddled.

dorkfish
04-29-2010, 02:58 PM
apparently bands (don't remember the list, it include Stars) have declared that they are boycotting Arizona by skipping the state on all of their upcoming tours.

marooko
04-29-2010, 02:59 PM
Come on folks, you ain't gonna solve this in 3 pages. Get's a posting already, this is serious business.

hacking my dreams
04-29-2010, 03:00 PM
that's the stupidest thing a band could do. boycott AZ? Fine. Where's the list? Don't post this nonsense unless you have done your fact checking.

marooko
04-29-2010, 03:02 PM
I'm gonna skip Arizona next time I'm asked a to name the 50 states.

hawkingvsreeve
04-29-2010, 03:02 PM
He doesnt post factless claims. You would know this if you could shut the fuck up for 5 minutes to do some reading around here.

hacking my dreams
04-29-2010, 03:03 PM
Well, a list would have been nice.

marooko
04-29-2010, 03:03 PM
Mods, you should make Arizona ****.

hawkingvsreeve
04-29-2010, 03:03 PM
Looking for a tutor?

marooko
04-29-2010, 03:05 PM
I'm gonna ask my girlfriend to call her dad and see if he's okay. Arizona just doesn't exist anymore to me, that's how much I'm ignoring it.

hawkingvsreeve
04-29-2010, 03:05 PM
Oh look at you completely changing your post.

You're learning quickly.

weeklymix
04-29-2010, 03:06 PM
This thread.

amyzzz
04-29-2010, 03:07 PM
apparently bands (don't remember the list, it include Stars) have declared that they are boycotting Arizona by skipping the state on all of their upcoming tours.
ok, now I am mad.

marooko
04-29-2010, 03:07 PM
Learn to swim.

dorkfish
04-29-2010, 03:09 PM
Well, a list would have been nice.
1. Stars
2. others

dorkfish
04-29-2010, 03:10 PM
Also, San Francisco is voting to kill off all political business contracts with businesses based in Arizona.

amyzzz
04-29-2010, 03:10 PM
This is like that MLK day nonsense all over again. Ugh. I hate the majority party in this state.

marooko
04-29-2010, 03:10 PM
Eta Carinae, for one, has already made a public statement.

captncrzy
04-29-2010, 03:15 PM
Haha, a fight between Stars and Fucked Up



Home | Financial Post | News | Opinion | Arts | Life | Sports | Homes | Cars | Blogs | Multimedia | Classifieds

Main | About | Contact Editor | Subscribe RSS

Montreal band Stars to boycott Arizona over immigration bill
Posted: April 28, 2010, 12:37 PM by Brad Frenette
Music, Stars, F**ked Up



[Don't expect to see this anytime soon, Arizona. Credit: Andersju]


The Arizona fanbase of melancholic-rockers Stars will have to wait to see the Montreal band.

In a Twitter message posted yesterday (@montrealstars), the band stated: "We love AZ. but until its racist new immigration law is repealed, stars (and many others) will boycott this state."

The law, Senate Bill 1070, was passed last week, and is considered the toughest of its kind in the US. It states that immigrants in Arizona are required to have legal status documentation on their person at all times.

After Stars put their message out, Damian Abraham, the lead singer of Canada's current Polaris Prize winner, the Toronto-based punk band F**ked Up retorted with this message, via his own Twitter account (@leftfordamian): "Don't get me wrong, I think the AZ immigration bill is horrible and must be repealed but I also think that indie bands boycotting the state is inane. Do Stars honestly think that by denying the state their brand of dreamy pop that they're going to force the governor's hand? All this does is not give the people that like your band enough credit and assumes that they are in someway supportive of the bill. Mind you, if you are Nickleback and a fan base of those types of douche bags then boycotting is a good strategy."

The conversation has extended over Twitter over the past day. It would be a stretch to call it a feud, more like a polite disagreement:

Stars:
just heard F**ked Up don't support a boycott of AZ. um...one of them has a job on fox news...so..yeah....we all have a voice! lets use it!
boycotts work for many reasons . one of which is they incite discussion and debate and thought....its not about our shitty pop band.......
Props to F**ked Up for taking up the argument but of course stars wont change anything....but TOGETHER people can change the world...

Abraham:
@montrealstars 1st: No I don't work for Fox, nice try ;) 2nd: I kinda like your band. 3rd: No dis, I just think your analysis lacks nuance.

Stars:
@leftfordamian nuance ain't a twitter characteristic, thats fer sure. well, sir: what is to be done? lemme hear it.

Abraham:
@montrealstars shows as an opportunity to engage the people there to get involved (they are the ones after all capable to affecting change in the state), use press ops before the show to talk about what is going on in the local media, donate some of the guarantee to nomoredeaths.org or other such groups that work on the front lines fighting draconian immigration laws.... hell even get them to table at the show.

Stars:
@leftfordamian 1. it goes without saying that fucked up are pretty fucking awesome. 2. of course many folks there are appalled. but...
@leftfordamian 3. publicity rules in this culture. and until AZ feels the economic effects of this, their politicians are going to keep...selling fear....cause it's wirkig for them. tell you what all 35 stars fans in AZ, organize a protest concert! we'll be there...



Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/theampersand/archive/2010/04/28/montreal-band-stars-to-boycott-arizona-over-immigration-bill.aspx#ixzz0mXAHUkjA

psycobetabuckdown
04-29-2010, 03:15 PM
I actually think boycotting businesses and such makes a lot of sense. It sucks for the businesses (and fans of Canadian indie bands), but eventually the message will get to the right place.

amyzzz
04-29-2010, 03:19 PM
I actually think boycotting businesses and such makes a lot of sense. It sucks for the businesses (and fans of Canadian indie bands), but eventually the message will get to the right place.Oh fuck you.

I heard people are trying to collect signatures to put this on the November ballot so we can vote this fucking thing out of existence. Which would be nice.

TomAz
04-29-2010, 03:19 PM
Do Stars honestly think that by denying the state their brand of dreamy pop that they're going to force the governor's hand? All this does is not give the people that like your band enough credit and assumes that they are in someway supportive of the bill.

Hard to argue with this.

psycobetabuckdown
04-29-2010, 03:23 PM
Oh fuck you.

I heard people are trying to collect signatures to put this on the November ballott so we can vote this fucking thing out of existence. Which would be nice.

Boycotting's faster.

weeklymix
04-29-2010, 03:24 PM
Boycotting's faster.

No it's honestly just showier.

Gribbz
04-29-2010, 03:27 PM
Hard to argue with this.

Pretty much.

faxman75
04-29-2010, 03:40 PM
I actually think boycotting businesses and such makes a lot of sense. It sucks for the businesses (and fans of Canadian indie bands), but eventually the message will get to the right place.

I believe in spitting on legal mexicans because eventually the illegal ones will understand we don't like any brown people.

Where's Tommy, he's first. Marooko you're next.

faxman75
04-29-2010, 03:41 PM
Oh fuck you.


Fuck yea, get em'!

psycobetabuckdown
04-29-2010, 04:08 PM
I believe in spitting on legal mexicans because eventually the illegal ones will understand we don't like any brown people.

Where's Tommy, he's first. Marooko you're next.

What are you babbling about?

faxman75
04-29-2010, 05:16 PM
Your nonsensical rationale of how boycotting works.

lickety_spit
04-29-2010, 05:21 PM
"tell you what all 35 stars fans in AZ, organize a protest concert! we'll be there..."

stars are either very modest or very ignorant.

marooko
04-29-2010, 05:30 PM
It's just another law that isn't gonna be enforced.

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
04-29-2010, 09:13 PM
April 29, 2010
Op-Ed Contributor
Why Arizona Drew a Line
By KRIS W. KOBACH
Kansas City, Kan.

ON Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a law — SB 1070 — that prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens and makes it a state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration crimes. It also requires police officers who, in the course of a traffic stop or other law-enforcement action, come to a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal alien verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.

Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, insist the law is unconstitutional. Less predictably, President Obama declared it “misguided” and said the Justice Department would take a look.

Presumably, the government lawyers who do so will actually read the law, something its critics don’t seem to have done. The arguments we’ve heard against it either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. As someone who helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms individually:

It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers ... you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.

“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.

For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.

The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.

It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license. Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.

State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter. While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.

And it’s very necessary: Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.

President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken care of with “comprehensive immigration reform” — meaning amnesty and a few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking many of them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the laws that we already have.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has scaled back work-site enforcement and otherwise shown it does not consider immigration laws to be a high priority. Is it any wonder the Arizona Legislature, at the front line of the immigration issue, sees things differently?

Kris W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration law and border security from 2001 to 2003.



Home
World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Automobiles Back to Top
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company
Privacy Policy Terms of Service

suprefan
04-29-2010, 09:29 PM
B9ohsvJHkbY

Sleepingrock
04-29-2010, 09:36 PM
"tell you what all 35 stars fans in AZ, organize a protest concert! we'll be there..."

stars are either very modest or very ignorant.

Probably was a joke cause they were said to not have a big fanbased, compared to nickleback

TomAz
04-29-2010, 09:37 PM
Kris W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration law and border security from 2001 to 2003.


...

PlayaDelWes
04-29-2010, 09:37 PM
What the fuck is there to boycott from Arizona anyway?

TomAz
04-29-2010, 09:42 PM
What the fuck is there to boycott from Arizona anyway?

Golfers are not exactly the boycotting type, are they.

PlayaDelWes
04-29-2010, 09:48 PM
If you wanna call it boycotting, I guess you can say I started avoiding US Air / America West about 10 years ago.

canexplain
04-29-2010, 10:28 PM
Denver Public Schools passed a ban on all travel to Az on any DPS business ...

mickflyy
04-29-2010, 11:16 PM
Hey spiney can I see you're proof that you are a legal U.S. citizen.

GnarVee
04-30-2010, 12:10 AM
expect a few RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE shows arizona.

Johnnynae
04-30-2010, 04:40 AM
The user is entirely responsible for all illegal drugs they put into their body. Keep it simple.

Bullshit. There is nothing simple about young children having access to heroin. Regardless of where it is coming from.

I find it amusing that sooo many people are getting upset about this immigration law while we have a commie president taking away our rights daily. No problem there though, huh faxman? ....and btw social profiling has been going on for years. This isn't anything new, & expect more of it with this "one world order" crappola being shoved done our throats.

daxton
04-30-2010, 04:50 AM
I'm really enjoying this thread.

TomAz
04-30-2010, 05:02 AM
I find it amusing that sooo many people are getting upset about this immigration law while we have a commie president taking away our rights daily.

Red herring.

sonofhal
04-30-2010, 05:07 AM
Bullshit. There is nothing simple about young children having access to heroin. Regardless of where it is coming from.

I find it amusing that sooo many people are getting upset about this immigration law while we have a commie president taking away our rights daily. No problem there though, huh faxman? ....and btw social profiling has been going on for years. This isn't anything new, & expect more of it with this "one world order" crappola being shoved done our throats.

Is he commie and fascist at the same time? Now that is impressive.

Also, what rights have you lost? The right to watch poor people die?

Inthecolumbiagorge
04-30-2010, 06:06 AM
Bullshit. There is nothing simple about young children having access to heroin. Regardless of where it is coming from.

I find it amusing that sooo many people are getting upset about this immigration law while we have a commie president taking away our rights daily. No problem there though, huh faxman? ....and btw social profiling has been going on for years. This isn't anything new, & expect more of it with this "one world order" crappola being shoved done our throats.

Couldn't pass on this one....which rights exactly have you lost? If you have lost any in the last 2 years you probably live in Arizona! Commie president? Not even close! Hmmm, let me guess, you probably watch Rush Limbaugh (what a sweet guy:-) or Glen Beck (can you say liar, all he does is spread hate, fear and misinformation!) Just vile propaganda you can't even back up with facts or reality! How can people even voice this? Head in the religious right/conservative sand clogging up your brain and your ears? Certainly your hearts! Hatred is not the way to affect our country in any positive way!

gaypalmsprings
04-30-2010, 06:35 AM
I'm still going to NASCAR in Phoenix. Now I won't have to dodge illegals crossing I-10.

gaypalmsprings
04-30-2010, 06:41 AM
http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/green5.jpg

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
04-30-2010, 06:48 AM
I'm still going to NASCAR in Phoenix. Now I won't have to dodge illegals crossing I-10.

actually you might. then time going into the other direction.

downingthief
04-30-2010, 06:58 AM
I'm in Palm Springs currently, and for the weekend. Every time I have told someone that I am from AZ, the reaction generally is a somewhat patronizing , "Oh." One person followed that up with an, "I'm Sorry.

hacking my dreams
04-30-2010, 07:01 AM
I'm in Palm Springs currently, and for the weekend. Every time I have told someone that I am from AZ, the reaction generally is a somewhat patronizing , "Oh." One person followed that up with an, "I'm Sorry.

Thanks for the headz up.

canexplain
04-30-2010, 07:01 AM
EDUCATE YOUR SELFS ON BARRY SOETORO THERE IS A NEW CIVIL WAR COMING OR YOU WILL BE PUT IN DEATH CAMPS

PALIN 2012

So do we know who this spine (less) person is? An Alias or just a stupid person?

faxman75
04-30-2010, 07:02 AM
Bullshit. There is nothing simple about young children having access to heroin. Regardless of where it is coming from.

You didn't really convince me I was wrong here. It's kinda like you kicked rocks and said bullshit and left it at that. Even children make personal choices. That doesn't mean they are good or responsible choices but this all started because someone said they wanted to execute a drug mule. I disagree with that.



I find it amusing that sooo many people are getting upset about this immigration law while we have a commie president taking away our rights daily. No problem there though, huh faxman? ....and btw social profiling has been going on for years. This isn't anything new, & expect more of it with this "one world order" crappola being shoved done our throats.

I bring the best people into discussions some times. Tea Party?

psycobetabuckdown
04-30-2010, 09:43 AM
Rights Obama has violated or is in the process of violating?

The right to choose not to have health care, the right to 4th amendment protection (renewed the PATRIOT Act), the right to peaceably assemble (http://www.infowars.com/u-s-army-trains-to-take-on-tea-party/), there are probably several others, not to mention gratuitous violation of the Constitution, but that's expected from any 21st century politician.

I am all for this thread, but it seems people only notice this stuff when their rights are violated by people with opposing politics.

TomAz
04-30-2010, 09:47 AM
The right to choose not to have health care

I'm sorry, I don't see this in my copy of the constitution. I do however see the 16th Amendment.

Geno_g
04-30-2010, 09:50 AM
Everyone in this thread show me your papers...

faxman75
04-30-2010, 09:51 AM
I also don't see where Obama stopped people from protesting. That blog you linked doesn't evidence your claim. That blog claims to have heard from people in the military that protestors are borderline violent so the military better be ready in case. It says nothing about stopping the right to peacefully assemble.

Mind you I only read about the first 20 paragraphs and the page appears to be endless so i'm asking you to put up or shut up on that one.

faxman75
04-30-2010, 09:52 AM
Everyone in this thread show me your papers...

http://media.photobucket.com/image/zig%20zags/pjnspace/ZigZags.jpg

Geno_g
04-30-2010, 10:00 AM
http://media.photobucket.com/image/zig%20zags/pjnspace/ZigZags.jpg

"The papers, Josh, the papers..."

leo01g
04-30-2010, 10:04 AM
Everyone in this thread show me your papers...

http://shayanashop.com/Product_Images/big/Raw_KS_Rolling_Paper_1920.jpg

I should be fine right? all natural

shoegazer76
04-30-2010, 10:10 AM
Those "drug mules" make choices too. I don't buy the whole "I had to do it or the drug lords will execute my family" bullshit either. That scenario makes for a good movie. They do it because A.)They want to get into the U.S. B.) they wanna be set on easy street for awhile when they make it here. Illegal aliens caught trafficking heroin should experience extreme punishment & not at the tax payers expense. I'm sure Texas deals with it the right way.
And for the record all the rights that we've recently lost were during the G.W. Bush adminsistration.

psycobetabuckdown
04-30-2010, 10:16 AM
I'm sorry, I don't see this in my copy of the constitution. I do however see the 16th Amendment.

The fact that you don't see it is proof that we have the right. Liberty is innate. You think the 16th amendment gives the government the power to choose my doctor and health plan? I'm not following.

faxman75
04-30-2010, 10:19 AM
Those "drug mules" make choices too. I don't buy the whole "I had to do it or the drug lords will execute my family" bullshit either. That scenario makes for a good movie.

ha ha ha yeah those are silly empty threats. Those drug cartels aren't known for any violence. nevermind the threats to kill every child in a town in Texas or the the dead bodies all over the border region or the steady stream of stories regarding the brutal violence that these cartels inflict upon people. It's all bullshit. I bet they just ask cops nicely in the mexican towns if they can take over too.

It's all movies.

You sound completely ignorant to the entire situation.

faxman75
04-30-2010, 10:20 AM
Illegal aliens caught trafficking heroin should experience extreme punishment & not at the tax payers expense. I'm sure Texas deals with it the right way.
And for the record all the rights that we've recently lost were during the G.W. Bush adminsistration.

Really? How does Texas deal with it?

Sure looks like they are scared too.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5919-Norfolk-Crime-Examiner~y2010m4d4-Drug-cartel-threatens-to-kill-every-child-in-Mexican-border-town



This drug mule turned his life around! lol

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/21/teen.drug.smugglers/index.html

psycobetabuckdown
04-30-2010, 10:20 AM
I also don't see where Obama stopped people from protesting. That blog you linked doesn't evidence your claim. That blog claims to have heard from people in the military that protestors are borderline violent so the military better be ready in case. It says nothing about stopping the right to peacefully assemble.

Mind you I only read about the first 20 paragraphs and the page appears to be endless so i'm asking you to put up or shut up on that one.

I haven't heard of any instances of violence from any Tea Party assemblies, but maybe I haven't been paying enough attention. The document revealed on that blog is an order for the military to train to turn guns on American citizens who have by and large done nothing to warrant it. The Tea Party is not a terrorist organization; it's not even an organization. This tactic scares me almost as much as his assassination order earlier in the year.

faxman75
04-30-2010, 10:27 AM
I haven't heard of any instances of violence from any Tea Party assemblies, but maybe I haven't been paying enough attention. The document revealed on that blog is an order for the military to train to turn guns on American citizens who have by and large done nothing to warrant it. The Tea Party is not a terrorist organization; it's not even an organization. This tactic scares me almost as much as his assassination order earlier in the year.

As long as you admit the blog and the document shown prove nothing about Obama not letting people assemble. That's not a right he has taken away from anyone so you were wrong in your statement by using it as an example of rights obama has taken away.

TomAz
04-30-2010, 10:28 AM
Not paying attention.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/oath-keepers


Oath Keepers and the Age of Treason

Meet the fast-growing "patriot" group that's recruiting soldiers to resist the Obama administration.
By Justine Sharrock | March/April 2010 Issue


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE .50 CALIBER Bushmaster bolt action rifle is a serious weapon. The model that Pvt. 1st Class Lee Pray is saving up for has a 2,500-yard range and comes with a Mark IV scope and an easy-load magazine. When the 25-year-old drove me to a mall in Watertown, New York, near the Fort Drum Army base, he brought me to see it in its glass case—he visits it periodically, like a kid coveting something at the toy store. It'll take plenty of military paychecks to cover the $5,600 price tag, but he considers the Bushmaster essential in his preparations to take on the US government when it declares martial law.

His belief that that day is imminent has led Pray to a group called Oath Keepers [1], one of the fastest-growing "patriot" organizations on the right. Founded last April by Yale-educated lawyer and ex-Ron Paul aide Stewart Rhodes, the group has established itself as a hub in the sprawling anti-Obama movement that includes Tea Partiers, Birthers, and 912ers. Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, and Pat Buchanan have all sung its praises, and in December, a grassroots summit [2] it helped organize drew such prominent guests as representatives Phil Gingrey [3] and Paul Broun [4], both Georgia Republicans.

There are scores of patriot groups, but what makes Oath Keepers unique is that its core membership consists of men and women in uniform, including soldiers, police, and veterans. At regular ceremonies in every state, members reaffirm their official oaths of service, pledging to protect the Constitution—but then they go a step further, vowing to disobey "unconstitutional" orders from what they view as an increasingly tyrannical government.

Pray (who asked me to use his middle name rather than his first) and five fellow soldiers based at Fort Drum take this directive very seriously. In the belief that the government is already turning on its citizens, they are recruiting military buddies, stashing weapons, running drills, and outlining a plan of action. For years, they say, police and military have trained side by side in local anti-terrorism exercises around the nation. In September 2008, the Army began training [5] the 3rd Infantry's 1st Brigade Combat Team to provide humanitarian aid following a domestic disaster or terror attack—and to help with crowd control and civil unrest if need be. (The ACLU has expressed concern about this deployment.) And some of Pray's comrades were guinea pigs for military-grade sonic weapons, only to see them used by Pittsburgh police against protesters last fall.

Most of the men's gripes revolve around policies that began under President Bush but didn't scare them so much at the time. "Too many conservatives relied on Bush's character and didn't pay attention," founder Rhodes told me. "Only now, with Obama, do they worry and see what has been done. Maybe you said, I trusted Bush to only go after the terrorists.* [6] But what do you think can happen down the road when they say, 'I think you are a threat to the nation?'"

In Pray's estimate, it might not be long (months, perhaps a year) before President Obama finds some pretext—a pandemic, a natural disaster, a terror attack—to impose martial law, ban interstate travel, and begin detaining citizens en masse. One of his fellow Oath Keepers, a former infantryman, advised me to prepare a "bug out" bag with 39 items including gas masks, ammo, and water purification tablets, so that I'd be ready to go "when the shit hits the fan."

When it does, Pray and his buddies plan to go AWOL and make their way to their "fortified bunker"—the home of one comrade's parents in rural Idaho—where they've stocked survival gear, generators, food, and weapons. If it becomes necessary, they say, they will turn those guns against their fellow soldiers.



PRAY AND I DRIVE through a bleak landscape of fallow winter fields and strip malls in his blue Dodge Stratus as Drowning Pool's "Bodies"—a heavy metal song once used to torment [7] Abu Ghraib detainees—plays on the stereo. Clad in an oversize black hoodie that hides his military physique, Pray sports an Army-issue buzz cut and is seriously inked (skulls, smoke, an eagle). His father kicked him out of the house at age 14. Two years later, after working jobs from construction to plumbing—"If it's blue collar, I've done it"—he tried to enlist. It wasn't long after 9/11, and he was hell-bent on revenge. The Army turned him down. Blaming the "THOR" tattooed across his fist, Pray tried to burn it off. On September 11, 2006, he approached the Army again and was accepted.

Now Pray is both a Birther and a Truther. He believes he is following an illegitimate, foreign-born president in a war on terror launched by a government plot—9/11. He admires soldiers like Army reservist Major Stefan Frederick Cook, who volunteered for a deployment last May and then sued to avoid it—claiming that Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus unfit for command. Pray himself had been eager to go to Iraq when his own unit deployed last June, but he smashed both knees falling from a crane rig and the injuries kept him stateside. In September, he was demoted from specialist to private first class—he'd been written up for bullshit infractions, he claims, after seeking help for a drinking problem. His job on base involves operating and maintaining heavy machinery; the day before we met, he and his fellow "undeployables" had attached a snowplow to a Humvee, their biggest assignment in a while. He spends idle hours at the now-quiet base researching the New World Order and conspiracies about swine flu quarantine camps—and doing his best to "wake up" other soldiers.

Pray isn't sure how to do this and still cover his ass. He talks to me on the record and agrees to be photographed, even as he hints that the CIA may be listening in on his phone. Although I met him through contacts from the group's Facebook page, Pray, fearing retribution, keeps his Oath Keepers ties unofficial. (Rhodes encourages active-duty soldiers to remain anonymous, noting that a group with large numbers of anonymous members can instill in its adversaries the fear of the unknown—a "great force multiplier.") For a time, Pray insisted we communicate via Facebook (safer than regular email, he claims). Driving me from the mall back to my motel, he takes a new route. He says unmarked black cars sometimes trail him. It sounds paranoid. Then again, when you're an active-duty soldier contemplating treason, some level of paranoia is probably sensible.

The next afternoon we join Brandon, one of Pray's Army buddies, for steaks. Sitting in a pleather booth at Texas Roadhouse, the young men talk boastfully about their military capabilities and weapons caches. Role-playing the enemy in military exercises, Brandon says, has prepared him to evade and fight back against US troops. "I know their tactics," brags Pray. "I know how they do room sweeps, work their convoys—if we attack this vehicle, what the others will do."

A strapping Idahoan, Brandon (who doesn't want his full name used) enlisted as a teenager when he got his girlfriend pregnant and needed a stable job, stat. (She lost the baby and they split, but he's still glad he signed up.) Unlike his friend, he doesn't think the United Nations must be dismantled, although he does agree that it represents the New World Order, and he suspects that concentration camps are being readied in the off-limits section of Fort Drum. He sends 500 rounds of ammunition home to Idaho each month.




Pfc. Lee Pray vows he'll fight to the death if a rogue US government "forces us to engage."EVERY YEAR ON April 19, history buffs gather on the village green in Lexington, Massachusetts, to reenact the first battle of the Revolutionary War. For Stewart Rhodes, it was the ideal setting to unveil the organization his followers consider the embodiment of a second American Revolution.

Rhodes, 44, is a constitutional lawyer—his 2004 Yale Law School paper, "Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status," won the school's award for best paper on the Bill of Rights. He's now working on a book tentatively titled We the Enemy: How Applying the Laws of War to the American People in the War on Terror Threatens to Destroy Our Constitutional Republic. Raised in the Southwest, Rhodes enlisted in the Army after high school, receiving an honorable discharge after he injured his spine during a night parachute jump. He enrolled at the University of Nevada and in 1998, after graduating, landed a job supervising interns for Congressman Ron Paul. Rhodes has also worked as a firearms instructor and a sculptor—for Vegas' MGM Grand hotel, he produced a fiberglass Minuteman statue—and has practiced law in small-town Montana ("Ivy League quality without Ivy League expense"). He writes a gun-rights column for SWAT magazine. He's a libertarian, staunch constitutionalist, and devout Christian.

It was while volunteering for Ron Paul's doomed presidential bid that Rhodes decided to abandon electoral politics in favor of grassroots organizing. As an undergrad, he had been fascinated by the notion that if German soldiers and police had refused to follow orders, Hitler could have been stopped. Then, in early 2008, SWAT received a letter from a retired colonel declaring that "the Constitution and our Bill of Rights are gravely endangered" and that service members, veterans, and police "is where they will be saved, if they are to be saved at all!"

Rhodes responded [8] with a breathless column starring a despotic president, "Hitlery" Clinton, in her "Chairman Mao signature pantsuit." Would readers, he asked, obey orders from this "dominatrix-in-chief" to hold militia members as enemy combatants, disarm citizens, and shoot all resisters? If "a police state comes to America, it will ultimately be by your hands," he warned. You had better "resolve to not let it happen on your watch." He set up an Oath Keepers blog, asking soldiers and veterans to post testimonials. Word spread. Military officers offered assistance. A Marine Corps veteran invited Rhodes to speak at a local Tea Party event. Paul campaigners provided strategic advice. And by the time Rhodes arrived in Lexington to speak at a rally staged by a pro-militia group, a movement was afoot.

Rhodes stood on the common that day before a crowd of about 400 die-hard patriot types. He spoke their language. "You need to be alert and aware to the reality of how close we are to having our constitutional republic destroyed," he said. "Every dictatorship in the history of mankind, whether it is fascist, communist, or whatever, has always set aside normal procedures of due process under times of emergency...We can't let that happen here. We need to wake up!"

He laid out 10 orders an Oath Keeper should not obey [9], including conducting warrantless searches, holding American citizens as enemy combatants or subjecting them to military tribunals (a true Oath Keeper would have refused to hold José Padilla [10] in a military brig), imposing martial law, blockading US cities, forcing citizens into detention camps ("tyrannical governments eventually and invariably put people in camps"), and cooperating with foreign troops should the government ask them to intervene on US soil. In Rhodes' view, each individual Oath Keeper must determine where to draw the line.

The crowd was full of familiar faces from patriot rallies and town hall meetings, with an impressive showing by luminaries of the rising patriot movement. There was Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff who had refused to enforce the Brady Law in the mid-'90s. Also present was Mike Vanderboegh, whose Three Percenter [11] movement styles itself after the legendary 3 percent of American colonists who took up arms against the British. Rhodes singled out Marine Charles Dyer, a.k.a. July4Patriot—whose YouTube videos [12] advocate armed resistance—as a "man of like minds." When Rhodes finished, Captain Larry Bailey, a retired Navy SEAL, Swift Boater, and founder of the anti-antiwar group Gathering of Eagles [13], asked the crowd to raise their right hands and retake their oath—not to the president, but to the Constitution.

*Correction: An earlier version of this story omitted "Maybe you said." We have corrected the error.

RHODES' TIMING WAS impeccable. Twelve days earlier, the Department of Homeland Security had issued a report [14] warning that a black president, weak economy, and high unemployment rate had created a "fertile recruiting environment" for right-wing extremists—"disgruntled" vets from Iraq and Afghanistan, the report noted, could bring combat know-how to domestic terrorist groups. Predictably, veterans groups went ballistic, and the report itself became a potent Oath Keepers recruiting tool. "The No. 1 focus of DHS is not Islamic terrorists—it is me and you," Rhodes told followers. "They will unleash the government against you, silence you and suppress you!"

Lee Pray and his pal Brandon were left behind with injuries when their unit shipped off to Iraq. They spend their idle hours preparing for the day the government goes too far.Oath Keepers collaborates regularly with like-minded citizens groups; last Fourth of July, Rhodes dispatched speakers to administer the oath at more than 30 Tea Party rallies across America. At last fall's 9/12 march on Washington, he led a contingent of Oath Keepers from the Capitol steps down to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Afterward, Oath Keepers cohosted a banquet with the hawkish Gathering of Eagles. This February, a member of the group organized a Florida Freedom Rally featuring Joe the Plumber and conservative singer Lloyd Marcus. (Sample lyrics [15]: Mr. President! Your stimulus is sure to bust / it's just a socialistic scheme / The only thing it will do / is kill the American Dream.)

Rhodes has become a darling of right-wing pundits. In a column last October, Pat Buchanan predicted [16] that "Brother Rhodes is headed for cable stardom." Glenn Beck has cited the group [17] as a "phenomenal" example of the "patriot revival movement," while Lou Dobbs declared [18] that its platform "should give solace and comfort to the left in this country." Conspiracy-radio king Alex Jones even put an Oath Keepers segment, including footage of the Lexington speech, on his hit DVD Fall of the Republic. "I can't stress enough how much your organization is scaring the globalists," he told Rhodes [19] on his show.

All this attention has put Oath Keepers on the radar of anti-hate groups. Last year, the Anti-Defamation League [20] and the Southern Poverty Law Center [21] both name-checked the group in their reports on rising anti-government extremism. "They think the word 'patriot' is a smear," Rhodes countered during his Dobbs segment. SPLC's Mark Potok "wants to lump us in with white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and of course make the insinuation that we're the next McVeigh." But such attacks have only raised Oath Keepers' profile. After a combative Hardball interview in October—host Chris Matthews asked Rhodes [22] whether Oath Keepers had the "firepower to stand up against the federal government"—the group says it gained 2,000 members in three days.

As of mid-January, according to Rhodes, Oath Keepers had at least one chapter in every state and was adding dozens of members daily. Some 14,000 people had signed up as members on the Oath Keepers website while more than 15,000, including dozens of military recruiters, had done so on Facebook. And that doesn't include those who, fearing reprisal, do their networking offline. Volunteers are in the process of sending out some 1,000 "constitutional care packages" complete with Oath Keepers patches to soldiers serving overseas.



IT IS EASY ENOUGH to dismiss the Oath Keepers as (in the words of Britain's Independent [23]) "right-wing crackpots" or "extremist nimrods" (Huffington Post [24]). CNN stressed the group's conspiracy theories in its series on militias. But beyond the predictable stereotypes, "the reality is a lot of them are fairly intelligent, well-educated people who have complex worldviews that are thoroughly thought out," says author David Neiwert, who has been following the patriot movement closely since the '90s.

Rhodes' vision is simple—"It's the Constitution, stupid." He views the founding blueprint the way fundamentalist Christians view the Bible. In Rhodes' America, sovereign states—"like little labs of freedom"—would have their own militias and zero gun restrictions. He would limit federal power to what's stated explicitly in the Constitution and Bill of Rights; any new federal law affecting the states would require a constitutional amendment. "If your state goes retarded," he says, "you can move to another state and vote with your feet." The president would be stripped of emergency powers that allow him to seize property, restrict travel, institute martial law, and otherwise (as the Congressional Research Service has put it) "control the lives of United States citizens." The Constitution, Rhodes explains, "was created to check us in times of emergency when we are freaking out."

Much of this is familiar rhetoric, part of a continuous strain in American politics that reemerged most recently during the 1990s. Back then, a similar combination of recession and Democratic rule led to the rise of citizen militias, the Posse Comitatus movement, and Oath Keepers-type groups like Police & Military Against the New World Order. But those groups had little reach. Nowadays, through the power of YouTube and social networking, and with a boost from the cable punditry, Oath Keepers can reach millions and make its message part of the national conversation—furthering the notion that citizens can simply disregard a government they loathe. "The underlying sentiment is an attack on government dating back to the New Deal and before," says author Neiwert. "Ron Paul has been a significant conduit in recent years, but nothing like Glenn Beck and Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin—all of whom share that innate animus."

Oath Keepers' strength derives from what Rhodes calls "a very powerful common bond" (the vow of service) as well as the uniform—"a powerful source of credibility and respect" that allows members to "throw their weight into any movement...and tip any election." Rhodes is wary of "old-party asshole RINOs" (Republicans in name only)—he mentions Dick Armey, the former House majority leader turned Tea Party sponsor—who in his view are merely out to hijack the grassroots.

Most Oath Keepers may intend to disobey their commanders only in the instances the group highlights. But the group's ideas also appeal to extremists like Daniel Knight Hayden, whose inflammatory tweets [25] last April ("START THE KILLING NOW!") signaled his intent to wreak havoc at a Tax Day protest. On the morning of April 15 he sent out a tweet touting Oath Keepers, followed by "Locked AND loaded for the Oklahoma State Capitol. Let's see what happens." (The FBI arrested him at home a few hours later; he was eventually convicted for transmitting interstate threats.) Rhodes vigorously denounced Hayden, but the episode hinted at the power of the group's language. Rhetoric like Rhodes' ("Do you want them to kick down your door in body armor?") can have "an unhinging effect" on people inclined toward violent action, Neiwert explains. "It puts them in a state of mind of fearfulness and paranoia, creating so much anger and hatred that eventually that stuff boils over."

In the months I've spent getting to know the Oath Keepers, I've toggled between viewing them either as potentially dangerous conspiracy theorists or as crafty intellectuals with the savvy to rally politicians to their side. The answer, I came to realize, is that they cover the whole spectrum.



ON A CLEAR September evening, I found myself in suite 610 at the Texas Station casino in North Las Vegas mingling with two dozen Oath Keepers state leaders, directors, and hardcore devotees. It was past midnight, but the place—down to the American flag wallpaper in the bathroom—was awake with the sense of a movement primed to burst into the national consciousness. Mississippi director Chris Evans, who sports a long beard and cowboy hat, declared in his pronounced drawl that this gathering was so important to him that for the first time since 9/11 he'd succumbed to the "invasive breach of privacy" required to fly here. Rand Cardwell, who organized multiple chapters in Tennessee, only woke up, he told me, when the government began bailing out big companies and left ordinary people in the cold: "Pain causes action," he said. For others here, the aha moment came with the Patriot Act or when federal troops and contractors confiscated weapons in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

As techies swarmed around laptops discussing website tweaks, two shy Midwesterners who hoped to become state directors told me they were eager to learn recruiting tips. An energetic young veteran griped that hate-crime bills aim to police people's thoughts, and that the "Don't Tread on Me" bumper stickers popular with constitutionalists raise enough suspicion these days to get a person pulled over by the authorities. Over bottled water and microbrews, they swapped tips on how to involve members in state militias, spread viral YouTube videos of soldiers reaffirming their oaths, and reach out to other patriots. They boasted of recruiting at gun shows, approaching politicians and cops, and stuffing leaflets into magazines in veterans hospital waiting rooms.

The three-day conference was called posthaste after Rhodes realized that his group was growing beyond his control. On the first night, over a casino buffet of barbecue, goopy Chinese food, and key lime pie, core members scrutinized printouts of potential organizational structures before heading upstairs to sign legal documents, pick a board of directors, and start nominating state representatives.

Rhodes caught wind of my presence during the introductory meet and greet. Taking me aside, he told me he'd decided reporters weren't welcome. After I protested that the Oath Keepers website had described the conference as open to the public, he offered to refund my $300 entrance fee. Then I told him I'd read his Yale paper and shared many of his concerns about executive power; I really wanted to hear what Oath Keepers had to say. In the end, he agreed to let me stay and eventually invited me to hang out with the inner circle.

The next morning, in a casino ballroom, a hundred or so Oath Keepers exchanged business cards and schmoozed in between speeches about constitutional law, American Revolutionary history, and a soldier's obligation to disobey illegal orders—Nuremberg references on full display. Clad in suits, or slacks with button-downs, most of them could have been attending an insurance convention. One Oath Keeper handed out Gadsden-flag bumper stickers, while others sold T-shirts, baseball caps, and polo shirts featuring the group's minuteman logo and motto: "Not on our watch." There was a raffle, and James Sugra, one of the masterminds behind Ron Paul's fundraising "money bombs," scored a huge framed replica of the Constitution. To enthusiastic applause, a driver in the Lucas Oil Late Model Dirt Series (a hot new cross between NASCAR and monster truck rallies) announced that the Oath Keepers would get free ad space on his car. Their logo would be seen on television sets across America. During the talks, I sat between a libertarian who had biked across America, stopping at police stations to hand out recruiting materials, and a first-generation Chinese American stay-at-home dad from San Francisco who invited me to my local chapter's winter survivalist training and rifle practice—extracurriculars, he assured me.

Oath Keepers is officially nonpartisan, in part to make it easier for active-duty soldiers to participate, but its rightward bent is undeniable, and liberals are viewed with suspicion. At lunch, when I questioned my tablemates about the Obama-Hitler comparisons I'd heard at the conference, I got a step-by-step tutorial on how the president's socialized medicine agenda would beget a Nazi-style regime.

I learned that bringing guns to Tea Party protests was a reminder of our constitutional rights, was introduced to the notion that the founding fathers modeled their governing documents on the Bible, and debated whether being Muslim meant an inability to believe in and abide by—and thus be protected by—the Constitution. I was schooled on the treachery of the Federal Reserve and why America needs a gold standard, and at dinner one night, Nighta Davis, national organizer for the National 912 Project [26], explained how abortion-rights advocates are part of a eugenics program targeting Christians. I also met Lt. Commander Guy Cunningham, a retired Navy officer and Oath Keeper who in 1994 took it upon himself to survey personnel at the 29 Palms [27] Marine Corps base about their willingness to accept domestic missions and serve with foreign troops. A quarter of the Marines he polled said that they would be willing to fire on Americans who refused to disarm in the face of a federal order—a finding routinely cited by militia and patriot groups worried about excessive government powers.

From the podium, ex-sheriff Mack told the crowd that he wished he'd been the officer ordered to escort Rosa Parks off the bus, because not only would he have refused, he would have helped her home and stood guard there. These days, he said, it's not African Americans who are under attack, but Christians, constitutionalists, and people who uphold family values: This time "it's going to be Rosa Parks the gun owner, Rosa Parks the tax evader, or Rosa Parks the home-schooler."

Mack runs the "No Sheriff Left Behind [28]" campaign encouraging state and local authorities to disregard federal laws that they believe violate states' rights. During the 1990s, he successfully eviscerated a Brady Law provision requiring sheriffs to run background checks on handgun purchasers. Another sheriff who spoke, Mark Gower of Iron County, Utah, uses Mack's precedent to refuse to act against property owners who violate the Endangered Species Act. The conference's lifetime achievement award went to Army Specialist Michael New, discharged in 1996 for refusing to wear a United Nations helmet and patch while serving in Germany.

Oath Keepers steers clear of certain issues. Personally, Rhodes would prefer the list of objectionable orders to include detaining foreigners indefinitely at facilities like Guantanamo. And while he argues that torture should never be legal, the group takes no official stance on America's war on terror or overseas engagements. After an Oath Keeper who is also a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War [29] touted IVAW repeatedly on Oath Keepers' Web forum, Rhodes deleted the guy's online testimonial. "The IVAW have their own totalitarian mindset," he told me. "I don't like communists any more than I like Nazis."

On the conference's final day, National 912 Project chairman Patrick Jenkins stepped up to talk about the National Liberty Unity Summits [2] his group was organizing in cooperation with Oath Keepers. They would provide a chance, he said, for patriots to forge a common agenda and a plan to carry it out. At the first summit, in December, attendees included representatives of groups from FairTax Nation [30] to the Constitution Party [31] to Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum [32]. On hand were Ralph Reed Jr. (former director of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition [33] and recent founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition [34]), Larry Pratt (head of Gun Owners of America [35]), and Tim Cox (founder of Get Out of Our House [36], an organization praised on Fox News for its goal of replacing business-as-usual incumbents with "ordinary folks"). Most notable were representatives Broun and Gingrey, who according to summit organizer Nighta Davis have expressed willingness to introduce legislation crafted by summit attendees. (So, Davis says, have Steve King [37] [R-Iowa] and Michele Bachmann [10] [R-Minn.]. None of the representatives agreed to comment for this story.)

The December gathering was merely a windup. In mid-April, another summit is planned to coincide with a huge gun-rights march and a Tax Day Tea Party rally in Washington organized by Dick Armey's FreedomWorks [38] PAC and the American Liberty Alliance [39]—whose home page touts Oath Keepers as a key part of "the Movement." Organizers expect hundreds of thousands to turn out. The Oath Keepers will be there en masse.



IN VEGAS, Rhodes took me aside repeatedly to explain that many of those in attendance—including featured speakers like "Patriot Pastor" Garrett Lear ("When a government doesn't obey God, we must reform it")—might not represent Oath Keepers' official message. He and his Web staff have been overwhelmed, he told me, by the amount of policing required to keep people from posting "off message" commentary encouraging violence or racism. Last December, they shut down one forum because too many posters were using it to recruit for militias. The Constitution, of course, allows citizens to form militias so long as their intent is to defend and not overthrow the government, but active-duty soldiers can lose security clearances or get demoted for associating with them. Rhodes advises members to go ahead and join—just not in Oath Keepers' name. "As a matter of strategy, it is best to keep the two separate," he wrote in a post.

There may also be serious downsides for a soldier who follows through on his Oath Keepers pledge. Disobeying orders can mean discharge or imprisonment. "You have every right to disobey an order if you think it is illegal," says Army spokesman Nathan Banks. "But you will face court-martial, and so help you God if you are wrong. Saying something isn't constitutional isn't going to fly."

A soldier like Charles Dyer, who in his July4Patriot persona advocated armed resistance against the government, could risk charges of treason. As a Marine sergeant based out of Camp Pendleton, Dyer posted videos to YouTube last year, his face half-covered with a skull bandana. "With the DHS blatantly calling patriots, veterans, and constitutionalists a threat, all that I have to say is, you're damn right we're a threat," he said [40] in one. "We're a threat to anyone that endangers our rights and the Constitution of this republic...We're gathering in defense of our way of life." For a while, he ran a training compound in San Diego, teaching civilians his Marine combat skills.

Dyer, who with Rhodes' blessing represented Oath Keepers at an Oklahoma Tea Party [41] rally on July 4, was charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with uttering "disloyal" statements. He ultimately beat the charge, left the Marines, and reappeared unmasked on YouTube encouraging viewers to join him at his makeshift training area in Duncan, Oklahoma—"I'm sure the DHS will call it a terrorist training camp." In January, Dyer was arrested [42] on charges of raping a seven-year-old girl. When sheriff's deputies raided his home, they found a Colt M-203 grenade launcher believed to have been stolen from a California military base. He now faces federal weapons charges and is being hailed by fringe militia groups like the American Resistance Movement as "the first POW of the second American Revolution."

Shortly after I asked Rhodes about Dyer—before his arrest hit the news—his testimonial vanished from the group's website*. Rhodes once endorsed Dyer in glowing terms, but now claims he was never a member because he hasn't paid dues. Yet Dyer publicly referred to himself as an Oath Keeper, and Rhodes had previously insisted—to Lou Dobbs and anyone else who would listen—that you didn't need to pay dues to be a member.

In an interview prior to Dyer's arrest, Andrew Sexton, another uniformed YouTube star [43] who argues the need for armed resistance, criticized Dyer for making himself a target. Sexton, an Army reservist who served in Afghanistan with US Special Operations Command, also keeps his Oath Keepers ties under the radar. Most soldiers, he told me, don't talk openly about such things, but it's easy enough to tell which ones have been woken up. The Department of Defense, Sexton added, will be shocked by the number of service members willing to turn against their commanders when the time comes. "It's an absolute reality," he says. He views last April's DHS report on right-wing extremists as a "preemptive attack because they know it's coming."

Rhodes isn't calling for violence—indeed, he insists that his group is about laying down arms rather than turning them on citizens. Yet when he writes that "the oath is like kryptonite to tyrants, as the Founders intended. The time has come for us to use it to its full effect," some followers take that as a call for drastic action.

Chip Berlet, of the watchdog group Political Research Associates, who has studied right-wing populist movements for 25 years, equates Rhodes' rhetoric to yelling fire in a crowded theater. "Promoting these conspiracy theories is very dangerous right now because there are people who will assume that a hero will stop at nothing." What will happen, he adds, "is not just disobeying orders but harming and killing."

Rhodes acknowledges that there are certain risks. Freedom "is not neat or tidy," he says. "It's messy." For example, he concedes that "there may be a downside" to police refusing to engage during a riot situation. "Someone could be beaten or raped, but the potential risks involved are far less dangerous than having soldiers or police always do whatever they are told."



LEE PRAY thinks Rhodes downplays the threat Oath Keepers represents to a rogue administration. "They have to be careful because otherwise they will be labeled as terrorists," he says. "You have to read between the lines, but I wish they were more up-front with their members."

It's not hard to see the appeal of Oath Keepers for guys like Pray and Brandon, frustrated young men nervous about their future prospects. They signed up to defend the greatest country in the world, only to be cast aside. Even their injuries were suffered ingloriously. Brandon can't sit for long after being flung from a pickup truck; Pray now walks with a cane, possibly for good. The men sincerely believe their country is headed for disaster, but as broken warriors they are powerless to do anything about it. They have tried writing to Congress, signing petitions, and voting, all to no avail. Oath Keepers offers a new sense of pride and comradeship—of being part of something momentous.

And when the time comes, Pray insists he is battle ready. "If the government continues to ignore us, and forces us to engage," Pray says, "I'm willing to fight to the death." Brandon, for his part, is resigned about their odds fighting the US military. "If we take up arms, realistically we would lose, and they would label us as terrorists," he says. Pray nods sadly in agreement. But they'll take their chances. They consider it their duty.

psycobetabuckdown
04-30-2010, 10:29 AM
As long as you admit the blog and the document shown prove nothing about Obama not letting people assemble. That's not a right he has taken away from anyone so you were wrong in your statement by using it as an example of rights obama has taken away.

I said has taken away or is in the process of taking away. Intimidating an assembly via turning guns on them is not different from hindering their right to assemble.

edit: Tom, political threads are no place for tl;dr's

faxman75
04-30-2010, 10:34 AM
I said has taken away or is in the process of taking away. Intimidating an assembly via turning guns on them is not different from hindering their right to assemble.


You're still wrong. The military has never turned a gun on anyone at a tea party. It hasn't happened. It's not in the process of happening. It never will happen unless something turns violent and out of control.

TomAz
04-30-2010, 10:37 AM
edit: Tom, political threads are no place for tl;dr's

The article is about the militia closely affiliated with the Tea Party.

Sorry it was so long, I thought you liked to be kept informed.

psycobetabuckdown
04-30-2010, 10:41 AM
The article is about the militia closely affiliated with the Tea Party.

Sorry it was so long, I thought you liked to be kept informed.

Just joking. A fringe group is not evidence of widespread terrorist activity requiring special training though.

amyzzz
04-30-2010, 10:42 AM
I don't want to read anymore about these stupid right wing splinter groups. Just blow up something already or leave me the fuck alone.

psycobetabuckdown
04-30-2010, 10:45 AM
I don't want to read anymore about these stupid right wing splinter groups. Just blow up something already or leave me the fuck alone.

Agreed.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Weather-Underground-21jul03d.jpg

faxman75
04-30-2010, 10:49 AM
I actually read more of that blog you sourced. Wow was that ridiculous. You should really read what you are posting. Do you really believe the United States Government under the direction of Obama was going to plan a sneak attack and violently dismantle the tea party groups without provocation?

What's wrong with you lol seriously?

TomAz
04-30-2010, 10:50 AM
Just joking. A fringe group is not evidence of widespread terrorist activity requiring special training though.

This "fringe group" is quite tied to the Teabaggers.


Oath Keepers collaborates regularly with like-minded citizens groups; last Fourth of July, Rhodes dispatched speakers to administer the oath at more than 30 Tea Party rallies across America.

shoegazer76
04-30-2010, 10:50 AM
Its a very easy excuse for someone caught "muling" to use. They're caught coming in with a kilo or pound of tar & guess what excuse they use. The big time cartels are not using people to run small amounts like this. They're objective is to get bigger hauls across. Think about it. What good would it do them to they kill an entire town for such small amounts mules can carry across? It would serve none. The people are worth more to them as prospective mules so it would not benefit them to kill these people. I feel really bad for the mules that are being forced into doing this. However there are many other mules who are chomping at the bit to run as much as they can. If anybody knows anything about opiate addiciton you know about the severe physical dependency these fools have. Many addicts would like to quit if they could but simply cannot afford or have the access do so.

shoegazer76
04-30-2010, 10:51 AM
http://i971.photobucket.com/albums/ae199/mindpod/BsJF6ZwEWkKGrHqYH-DQEvLhrFtiBL2vUJC.jpg

J~$$$$
04-30-2010, 10:52 AM
weak.

faxman75
04-30-2010, 11:03 AM
Its a very easy excuse for someone caught "muling" to use. They're caught coming in with a kilo or pound of tar & guess what excuse they use. The big time cartels are not using people to run small amounts like this. They're objective is to get bigger hauls across. Think about it. They're going to kill an entire town because a kilo didn't make it through?
Those links are not in anyway related to the heroin trade. Your talking about thugs who don't have a pot to piss in so they're resorting to the lowest tactic they know of to make money.

The links were to represent the violence the cartels are capable of. You obviously didn't read the other link at all which was an article about a mule in texas who is now going to school here. He talks about how the mules in the area he is in are actually middle class teens. Not those who don't have a "pot to piss in".

The reason for our argument is because you think the Mexican cartels make empty threats against the families of mules but you're not showing any evidence to back up your defense and it's needed because the cartels are amongst the most violent and dangerous criminals we have seen.

psycobetabuckdown
04-30-2010, 11:06 AM
This "fringe group" is quite tied to the Teabaggers.

Ok Tom I've finished one of the three pages in the article and I think I have an idea of who the Oath Keepers are. What part of this article suggests to you that they are violent? Vowing to protect the Constitution in event of government tyranny and illegal orders is a noble act. All military officers take an oath to do so.

faxman75
04-30-2010, 11:08 AM
I don't want to read anymore about these stupid right wing splinter groups. Just blow up something already or leave me the fuck alone.

At least they haven't blown up something in this case yet. I know some left wing splinter groups who blew up stuff though.

My point is there are crazy violent splinter groups on both sides. We just happen to have a democratic president right now so we are hearing more about them right now.

Dems are plenty good at voilent protests though and they have done them throughout history and arguabley more violent but that's another discussion for another day. The fact is both sides have shown violence.

shoegazer76
04-30-2010, 11:25 AM
O.k. yeah the Texas link had much to do with the smuggling route. That was undoubtedly more of a tactic for them to gain control of the route on the Mexican side & get the civilians out so they could set up shop rather than to acquire money. I absolutely don't think cartels make empty threats. Its easy to say its a cartel when many of them are organized street gangs (the same as here in the states). I'm saying it is easy to dismiss all of the mules/smugglers as people that have been forced into this situation when many are not. I was one of the first to even bring up violence along the border in this thread. If a cartel(s) threatens an American town then military action is undoubtedly called for. Cartels are not going to risk confontations with U.S. special ops. Those threats are only that empty threats. The day they actually try to fuck with an entire U.S. town is the day they will have their asses handed to them.

faxman75
04-30-2010, 11:44 AM
I'm saying it is easy to dismiss all of the mules/smugglers as people that have been forced into this situation when many are not.

So somewhere we had miscommunication. I agree, many are not forced into the situation but who knows how many are or aren't?

I don't care about drug users and drug dealers and I certainly don't think they should be executed. As far as kids getting a hold of heroin that's someone elses responsibility and probably depends case by case how they got addicted. The mexicans can bring all the drugs into the country they want for all I care.

This leads me to my next question. If marijuana becomes legal in the state of Arizona, does that have a big impact on any of this border violence?

mountmccabe
04-30-2010, 11:52 AM
It's also worth noting a drivers license will not be sufficiant in proving citzenship.

False.

SB 1070 (http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SB1070) (read the House Engrossed Version as that is the one what actually went into law) says


A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating idenficiation license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.


To be fair an out of state driver license may not be sufficient...



Requiring people to carry around their immigration documents at all times is fucking ridiculous.

It's federal law that they need to carry around some sort of immigration ID. This new AZ law isn't more stringent that that... and, in fact, is less stringent than that.



"tell you what all 35 stars fans in AZ, organize a protest concert! we'll be there..."

stars are either very modest or very ignorant.

They are funny is the answer.

shoegazer76
04-30-2010, 11:55 AM
That would soley depend on the state's policy about importing it. There would be a clause in the law somewhere I would imagine. If it were for medical use I would think probably not because of quality standards. For recreational purposes though I think the state would allow importing. I really don't think it would have an impact on the border violence. The violence is pretty much a result of bigger money at stake involved with cocaine, heroin, & methamphetamine. I'm sure it would alleviate some of the violence but probably nothing noticeable. It would be a great victory for all if it did have a significant impact on border violence though.

mountmccabe
04-30-2010, 11:56 AM
For the record I am certainly no fan of SB1070... but our arguments against it should be based in reality.

What I want to know is what "lawful contact" is supposed to/going to mean.

From SB1070h (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.htm)


For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released.

Oh, shit. Now I'm seeing reports (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/in-response-to-critics-arizona-tweaks-new-immigration-law-92495249.html) that that language was modified by another bill (http://www.azleg.gov/search/oop/qfullhit.asp?CiWebHitsFile=/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/h.hb2162_ccmemo.doc.htm&CiRestriction=%22lawful+stop%22) [EDIT: which, it should be noted, is not (yet) signed into law]


So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

shoegazer76
04-30-2010, 11:59 AM
Undoubtedly I am bitter about the drug smuggling topic for all the friends I've lost & all the once good people I knew who became theiving, lying zombie bastards as a result of all the cheap smack hitting the streets. My execution comment came from this bitterness & sadness. I don't wish anybody dead.

faxman75
04-30-2010, 12:01 PM
False.

SB 1070 (http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SB1070) (read the House Engrossed Version as that is the one what actually went into law) says


Interesting yet that wasn't enough a few days ago when ICE detained a natural born american citizen until his wife showed up with their birth certificates. That happened here in Arizona. The guys drivers license was an Airzona license. Either way there is a ton of misinformation out there and I see loads of people saying a DL will not be sufficiant but they are obviously misinformed. Thank you for the link to the House Engrossed Version.

mountmccabe
04-30-2010, 12:08 PM
So wait.

Now SB 1070 just means that if someone is detained and/or arrested and/or guilty of something else... then their immigration status can be/has to be (different in different situations, I think) checked. And the accused can prove their immigration status as easily as with an Arizona driver license.

What is the issue now?

I was concerned that "lawful contact" was going to be taken broadly (it is lawful for a police officer to wander down the street and see people, it is lawful for a police officer to stop and offer assistance with a flat tire, etc) and I was concerned that the requirements for proving citizenship would be stringent... that folks would start needing to carry around passports or someshit... and it turns out both of these are false (or at least will be made false if HB 2162 goes into effect.)

So, wtf?

mountmccabe
04-30-2010, 12:11 PM
Interesting yet that wasn't enough a few days ago when ICE detained a natural born american citizen until his wife showed up with their birth certificates. That happened here in Arizona. The guys drivers license was an Airzona license. Either way there is a ton of misinformation out there and I see loads of people saying a DL will not be sufficiant but they are obviously misinformed. Thank you for the link to the House Engrossed Version.

Not sure of the details but ICE is the Federal Government.

SB1070 will apply to AZ officers, etc.

faxman75
04-30-2010, 12:35 PM
Not sure of the details but ICE is the Federal Government.

SB1070 will apply to AZ officers, etc.

Yes i'm aware ICE is federal.

faxman75
04-30-2010, 12:40 PM
So wait.

Now SB 1070 just means that if someone is detained and/or arrested and/or guilty of something else... then their immigration status can be/has to be (different in different situations, I think) checked. And the accused can prove their immigration status as easily as with an Arizona driver license.

What is the issue now?

I was concerned that "lawful contact" was going to be taken broadly (it is lawful for a police officer to wander down the street and see people, it is lawful for a police officer to stop and offer assistance with a flat tire, etc) and I was concerned that the requirements for proving citizenship would be stringent... that folks would start needing to carry around passports or someshit... and it turns out both of these are false.

So, wtf?


There are other issues. Those who don't have drivers licenses for one. It's not against the law to not have a drivers license. Those who are children and don't carry around their birth certificates. The issue is "reasonable suspicion" and what the government and law enforcement deems "reasonable suspicion" to initiate the contact to begin with.

The governor herself spent a lot of time explaininig that training would be done in advance to make sure profiling doesn't take place but we do not know what that entails and given what cops pull over and profile for already, it's hard to blindly trust her.

dorkfish
04-30-2010, 12:40 PM
http://stereogum.com/358701/op-ed-by-fucked-ups-pink-eyes-damian-abraham-bands-should-play-in-arizona-now-more-than-ever/franchises/op-ed/


I’m sure most of you know by now that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer recently signed SB 1070 into law. This law is purported to be a way of addressing what is a perceived to be a lacking in enforcement of immigration laws but it is felt by many — myself included — to be a massively flawed piece of legislation that is, at its core, out and out racism. In a very small nutshell: It requires all “immigrants” to carry their proof of citizenship with them at all times and police officers are required to demand that anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant to produce said proof, among other things (Example: Punishing anyone that helps out an “illegal.” A more complete picture can be found here.)

This thing you are reading, however, is not specifically about the law in question. I have made a major assumption when writing this: That you, the reader, already know about what is going on and think this is a travesty, that you do not buy the insane correlations being made between illegal immigration and drug violence, you think that this is one of the darkest moments in recent history, etc. If I have, however, assumed wrong then please stop reading now — and I am sorry you feel that way. I think that the problems with a law like this should be clear to everyone and thankfully I’m not alone in thinking this, as many people have stood up in solidarity with Arizonans that are opposed to this bill. Many are suggesting different strategies of addressing what is going on. One suggested strategy is boycotting Arizona. Some bands have also gotten on board and stated that they will not play the state until the law is repealed.

Before I go any further, I want to say that this is in no way meant as an attack on the bands that have chosen to boycott Arizona as a reaction to this bill. I think they have their reasons for choosing this tactic to try a force the repealing of this law. That said, I think this strategy is severely flawed. First, I think it makes assumptions about the people that like your band. It presupposes not only that the people like your band are incapable of coming to the reasonable idea about this bill, but that they are in favor of this bill. The fact is, this was a ugly divisive issue across the state and that there are a huge number of people in Arizona that were bitterly opposed to the legislation and are now disgusted that it has been made law.

I think instead of boycotting Arizona, bands should make a point of going there now more then ever. They should use whatever profile they have to address the issues around this law by talking about it in the local press. Bands should also engage the people at the show to get involved. This doesn’t necessarily require lecturing the people at the shows (They are, after all, living in the eye of the storm and are no doubt inundated with it all the time. The last thing they need is an outsider coming in and telling them about it). There are organizations throughout Arizona that have been working for years on the behalf of immigrants both “legal” and “illegal.” I’m sure any number of these organization would love the chance to set up a table, hand out literature and encouraging and empowering people to get involved. I think that by supporting and encouraging these people, the opportunity for producing change is far greater than with any sort of music embargo.

Boycotts certainly have a place in activism, but I feel they are only effective in certain situations. I just don’t think that this is one of those situations. There is such a huge number of people that are opposed to this law within Arizona that by trying to force a change through a boycott, the side effect is punishing these people. These people need support now more then ever. They probably feel marginalized enough as is. One of the worst possible outcomes of a boycott is inadvertently disenfranchising the people that you are siding with. I am not saying that this will happen, but at the same time I think it is important to show these people that they are in no way alone. Once again, I want to reiterate, in no way am I attacking those that have chosen to boycott. I think it is more important that groups of people have been moved to action by what they have see as an injustice. Hopefully one of these strategies will prove effective and this law will be overturned.

mountmccabe
04-30-2010, 01:07 PM
There are other issues. Those who don't have drivers licenses for one. It's not against the law to not have a drivers license. Those who are children and don't carry around their birth certificates. The issue is "reasonable suspicion" and what the government and law enforcement deems "reasonable suspicion" to initiate the contact to begin with.

The governor herself spent a lot of time explaininig that training would be done in advance to make sure profiling doesn't take place but we do not know what that entails and given what cops pull over and profile for already, it's hard to blindly trust her.

No, it is not against the law to not have a driver license. The state offers a non-operators license to folks that choose not to drive but want a state-issued ID.

And you're worried about children being detained/arrested for other illegal activity and then them not having ID on them to show they are citizens? I can't say that has me very concerned. The lack of an ID on you doesn't close the issue/trigger deportation.

HandBanana
04-30-2010, 01:08 PM
I have changed my Avatar in protest

canexplain
04-30-2010, 01:57 PM
I think TomAz and I actually agree on something. Something important even. ...

faxman75
04-30-2010, 02:01 PM
And you're worried about children being detained/arrested for other illegal activity and then them not having ID on them to show they are citizens? I can't say that has me very concerned. The lack of an ID on you doesn't close the issue/trigger deportation.

It has me concerned. So does the text here.


B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).


What text are you reading that shows they have to commit a crime before an investigation take place? Unless you equate reasonable suspicion with actual crime.

TomAz
04-30-2010, 02:05 PM
I agree with Mark here. Arpaio's office already checks immigration status for people they arrest; if that were the only thing this bill did then it wouldn't be necessary. The concern is that cops will be stopping hispanic-looking people and asking for their papers at will.

PlayaDelWes
04-30-2010, 02:06 PM
Now passed by the Arizona House and awaiting Senate approval, the amendments change the wording that gave rise to accusations of racial profiling. The amended version would read:


“A law enforcement official or agency … may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in establishing reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally.

The intent is to eliminate any consideration of race or ethnicity in developing reasonable suspicion of illegality. The amendment gives no direction about what law enforcement can or should consider in making such determinations.

The second significant change does away with the “any lawful contact” language and replaces it with,


“lawful stop, detention or arrest”.

mountmccabe
04-30-2010, 02:13 PM
Yeah, I may've been getting ahead of myself but HB 2162c (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm) is what I was on about (and what Wes is on about)

The version that was signed said that "any lawful contact" could initiate a stop and I feared that that would be interpreted broadly... but a new bill (HB 2162, not yet signed, as far as I can tell) will amend that to read "lawful stop, detention or arrest... in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state"... meaning only if they are stopping you for something else does anything come into play.

This new bill also adds "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution"... which while that doesn't convince me nothing untoward will happen is a good step, too.

TomAz
04-30-2010, 02:25 PM
When an alien lives with you in your land, do not ill-treat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt.

HowToDisappear
04-30-2010, 04:20 PM
We've camped a lot over the years in our local Anza-Borrego desert. The Border Patrol has always had a small, watchful, visible presence in the area in which we like to camp. That presence has evolved from BP car parked at the side of the road, to nowadays an armed encampment on S2. Multiple officers in camo, flak jackets and assault rifles(!) stop your car, stick their heads in the driver's side window and demand to know citizenship and where you are going. They're not a friendly bunch. I'm Eurasian. My appearance/ethnicity is very ambiguous. I'm often thought to be Mexican/Filipino/Native American/Russian/Godknowswhat.

Last winter, we camped with the girls, and they looked me over HARD when I said I was a US citizen, and demanded to know where I was born, then saw my brown-haired, brown-eyed daughters in the back, and demanded info about them as well. They were completely blown away, as this was their first encounter with the new, improved BP. These stops flabbergast and unnerve me every single time. I still can't get over how we can be on a family camp out, in the middle of a county in which we were all born and raised, and be questioned about our intentions/right to be there. And this is only in one small, isolated place. It's never a good feeling. I have great sympathy for anyone in AZ of ethnicity, ambiguous or otherwise, legal or non, who fears this could be a daily occurrence, from any peace officer, anywhere in the state.

faxman75
04-30-2010, 07:24 PM
So, this just happened. I saw a parade of marked Sheriff's SUV's and unmarked cars flying by on the shoulder around 4:45PM today. I'm guessing they were heading to this.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/30/arizona.deputy.shot/?hpt=T1

Here's part of the story.


(CNN) -- A sheriff's deputy in central Arizona was shot Friday afternoon by a suspected drug trafficker, authorities said.
The Pinal County deputy, who was not immediately identified, contacted authorities after being wounded in the desert, saying he had been shot by an illegal immigrant with an AK-47, said Lt. Tammy Villar, a sheriff's spokeswoman.
The deputy radioed that he had encountered five men, some wielding long guns and handguns, and said they were carrying a large amount of marijuana.
At one point the deputy lost radio contact with authorities, leading to a search by foot and by air for him and the shooter, according to CNN affiliate KNXV. Video from the scene shows that the deputy was located while sitting in desert brush, surrounded by cactus. He was able to walk to a helicopter that airlifted him to a hospital.

canexplain
04-30-2010, 07:32 PM
When an alien lives with you in your land, do not ill-treat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt.

Yep TomAz: Listen to him, or at least hear the reverb ..... Did you guys also read where they passed or are passing a bill where there can't be any more more "ethnic" classes taught, and the bigger issue: If you have an "ethnic" accent, you can no longer teach in school there ... That's too bad, if Einstein were still around, he couldn't teach in an Az school ...

faxman75
04-30-2010, 07:35 PM
I did read that today Ron.

Here's a bit more about that.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html?m od=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

The meat of the story.



The Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English.

State education officials say the move is intended to ensure that students with limited English have teachers who speak the language flawlessly. But some school principals and administrators say the department is imposing arbitrary fluency standards that could undermine students by thinning the ranks of experienced educators.

Honestly, it's probably a good idea to have these teachers at least be able to speak clearly and be understandable. Of course it will arbitrary standards. What other standards would they be able to go by?

canexplain
04-30-2010, 07:37 PM
I could never be a teacher there. "Hey what's up dudes?" Would be how I would greet a class :)

Have you ever been to Boston ... :) or Mobile Ala ...

gaypalmsprings
05-01-2010, 07:32 AM
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w302/gaypalmsprings/illegal.jpg

gaypalmsprings
05-01-2010, 07:34 AM
I did read that today Ron.

Here's a bit more about that.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html?m od=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

The meat of the story.



Honestly, it's probably a good idea to have these teachers at least be able to speak clearly and be understandable. Of course it will arbitrary standards. What other standards would they be able to go by?

What probably is happening is that such teachers are speaking Spanish to the kids. Spanish is illegal, right?

marooko
05-01-2010, 07:43 AM
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w302/gaypalmsprings/illegal.jpg

No but you look really stupid.

What's the issue with getting here legally? Seriously? Is it that it takes a long time? So that means we should just not have a process at all. Go to another country, decide to just live there, and see what happens.

faxman75
05-01-2010, 08:04 AM
It's time, money and the avenues to make it happen. Mexicans don't have money and the immigration process is costly.

I don't have an exact amount but you are easily looking at a grand depending on how many forms you have to file. It also takes a long time.

gaypalmsprings
05-01-2010, 08:14 AM
It costs 5 grand to come to Palm Springs via a coyote.

faxman75
05-01-2010, 09:01 AM
What would engaged have to do with anything? Anyone can say they are engaged. What does "can't get the paperwork through" mean? There is a process.

suprefan
05-01-2010, 12:35 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html?m od=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5


Honestly, it's probably a good idea to have these teachers at least be able to speak clearly and be understandable. Of course it will arbitrary standards. What other standards would they be able to go by?



Go teach it yourself if youre english is just perfect ok?



edit: my response to you, Mark, will be this: ''Go find caucasian teachers who can teach the language properly so then school districts feel better about the image they are portraying.'' If you actually have a problem with somebody of another ethnicity that is trying to contribute to society by wanting to teach, you got some fucking issues.

malcolmjamalawesome
05-01-2010, 12:52 PM
This thread has the worst "appears facially to be informative" to "actually informative" ratio I've ever seen. Many of you are dealing with concepts you have no business attempting to grapple with.

suprefan
05-01-2010, 12:54 PM
Tell that to Ron and Mark.

JebusLives
05-02-2010, 07:31 AM
I haven't been keeping up in this one. Is Ron pretending to be a tolerant liberal on this issue, or is he still mad about the proximity of the mexican food aisle?

gaypalmsprings
05-02-2010, 07:43 AM
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/HippiePelosi.JPG

faxman75
05-02-2010, 10:13 AM
Go teach it yourself if youre english is just perfect ok?

This made me lol



edit: my response to you, Mark, will be this: ''Go find caucasian teachers who can teach the language properly so then school districts feel better about the image they are portraying.'' If you actually have a problem with somebody of another ethnicity that is trying to contribute to society by wanting to teach, you got some fucking issues.

Who are you quoting yourself? lol It has nothing to do with ethnicity or finding only Caucasian teachers. I know plenty of people of every ethnicity that can speak clearly. Now your last comment is the best. No matter how much of a marble mouth or grammatical idiot someone is, the schools should look the other way because they are trying to contribute to society and want to teach?

This is specifically in cases of students who are still learning English, did you read that part? If you're still learning the language why would it be terrible to have someone who speaks it and understands it best teaching it?

Bud Luster
05-02-2010, 10:25 AM
Militarize the border.

mountmccabe
05-02-2010, 12:42 PM
Yeah, I may've been getting ahead of myself but HB 2162c (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm) is what I was on about (and what Wes is on about)

The version that was signed said that "any lawful contact" could initiate a stop and I feared that that would be interpreted broadly... but a new bill (HB 2162, not yet signed, as far as I can tell) will amend that to read "lawful stop, detention or arrest... in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state"... meaning only if they are stopping you for something else does anything come into play.

This new bill also adds "A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in the enforcement of this section except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution"... which while that doesn't convince me nothing untoward will happen is a good step, too.

So this passed. HB 2162 was signed by Governor Brewer on Friday.

Which means that this:


I have great sympathy for anyone in AZ of ethnicity, ambiguous or otherwise, legal or non, who fears this could be a daily occurrence, from any peace officer, anywhere in the state.

should no longer be a fear. Someone has to be stopped for breaking an unrelated law to be questioned.

malcolmjamalawesome
05-02-2010, 12:44 PM
Am I wrong, or is mountmccabe a consistently intelligent poster?

Somewhat Damaged
05-02-2010, 12:46 PM
You're not wrong. He's one of the beacons of hope on this board.

gaypalmsprings
05-02-2010, 12:59 PM
You're not wrong. He's one of the beacons of hope on this board.

Or is that bacon of hope?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_AskEXcbx4sk/SPT_WBf5SYI/AAAAAAAAAFM/Bkyq4Ka5BeA/s400/bacon_is_hope_sm.jpg

malcolmjamalawesome
05-02-2010, 01:02 PM
GPS with the fucking pun ftw

faxman75
05-02-2010, 01:05 PM
We should take the changes of the law the governor signed on Friday to be a small victory. Without the public outcry and the protests would these changes have been made?

Instead many are still screaming foul and saying the changes actually broaden the scope by allowing cops who issue citations for city laws like barking dogs or open container laws to also verify citizenship. My problem is with the potential of breaking up families where the parents are illegal and the kids aren't. We all can agree the conditions in Mexico aren't favorable and many are coming here for a better life, so stealing that better life from a child who was born on this soil and a full natural born citizen according to the constitution would be dangerous. When the federal government stops sitting on its hands with this issue, I expect there will be a movement to change that article of the constitution as well. I just think any new city and state laws regarding illegal immigration aren't going to be very useful until we get the border issue resolved.

faxman75
05-02-2010, 01:22 PM
This is interesting. Between 1994-2004 illegal immigration doubled but over the same period of time crime has dropped significantly?

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/02/20100502arizona-border-violence-mexico.html


While the nation's illegal-immigrant population doubled from 1994 to 2004, according to federal records, the violent-crime rate declined 35 percent.

bmack86
05-02-2010, 01:31 PM
No but you look really stupid.

What's the issue with getting here legally? Seriously? Is it that it takes a long time? So that means we should just not have a process at all. Go to another country, decide to just live there, and see what happens.

I worked at an immigration law firm for awhile: The process is pretty much broken. We dealt solely with people who were getting in either because they were married to a US Citizen or were actually employed in the US. Celebrities would get their papers within a year. We had hispanic clientele who had filed their cases up to 20 years prior and had made no progress because there are so many people filing. And, with those cases, they have to make periodic payments to update their status and renew their temporary alien cards. One month without payment, they become illegal aliens, and can lose their place that they've held for decades. So, yeah, it's more than just a small issue.

heart cooks brain
05-02-2010, 03:34 PM
Let Illegal Immigrants stay, Deport the Juggaloes!

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Illegal-immigrants-can-stay-deport-the-juggalos/374713143529?ref=ss

stuporfly
05-02-2010, 04:03 PM
Let Illegal Immigrants stay, Deport the Juggaloes!

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Illegal-immigrants-can-stay-deport-the-juggalos/374713143529?ref=ss

This is far more useful than the Pickle/Nickelback page (of which I am also a "fan").

mountmccabe
05-02-2010, 06:04 PM
We should take the changes of the law the governor signed on Friday to be a small victory. Without the public outcry and the protests would these changes have been made?

Instead many are still screaming foul and saying the changes actually broaden the scope by allowing cops who issue citations for city laws like barking dogs or open container laws to also verify citizenship. My problem is with the potential of breaking up families where the parents are illegal and the kids aren't. We all can agree the conditions in Mexico aren't favorable and many are coming here for a better life, so stealing that better life from a child who was born on this soil and a full natural born citizen according to the constitution would be dangerous. When the federal government stops sitting on its hands with this issue, I expect there will be a movement to change that article of the constitution as well. I just think any new city and state laws regarding illegal immigration aren't going to be very useful until we get the border issue resolved.

The concerns about broadening the scope are ridiculous; the changes reign in the law. Cops approaching people for barking dogs or open containers could've questioned citizenship under the post-SB 1070 pre-HB 2162 law.

Beyond that it sounds like your concerns are with the federal laws rather than the newly revised Arizona laws. And, well, yeah, I certainly have problems with federal laws on the subject and the immigration process... but that means that those are what the problem is, not AZ law.

Similarly if people are concern that barking dogs or open container laws (right turns into anything but the right hand lane, or jaywalking, etc) or other relatively minor laws will lead to or be used as pretexts for checking legal status... then that is a problem with those laws.

faxman75
05-02-2010, 07:04 PM
I would think if they were concerned about being in the country illegally then they would be a bit more careful and avoid breaking any law no matter how small.

faxman75
05-02-2010, 07:25 PM
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/29/20100429immigrant-child-deportation-supported.html

Looks like the tea partiers are on it already. The deportation of natural born citizens who have illegal immigrant parents.

J~$$$$
05-04-2010, 07:18 AM
http://www.deprofiler.com/

TomAz
05-04-2010, 09:21 AM
Someone has to be stopped for breaking an unrelated law to be questioned.

That's how the law reads, yes. I do not trust Arpaio to follow it, however. Look for another jackbooted deputy sweep in Guadalupe soon.

mountmccabe
05-04-2010, 10:50 AM
Huh. I wonder how those're legal.

I'd like to think that when these new bills actually go into effect people arrested - or even just questioned as to their legal status - could sue (and make a good case, I mean)... but that is probably just wishful thinking.

faxman75
05-04-2010, 11:43 AM
Aren't those sweeps, profiling in general and abuse of power the reason Joe is has been under federal investigation for the past year? I'm surprised they haven't found anything. I remember the mayor of Guadalupe wanted the profiling and sweeps to end and Joe decided he would blackmail the town by letting their law enforcement contract expire. It seems there are so many reports of him influencing others and abusing his power yet no hard evidence to support any of it.

downingthief
05-05-2010, 08:47 AM
Huh. I wonder how those're legal.

I'd like to think that when these new bills actually go into effect people arrested - or even just questioned as to their legal status - could sue (and make a good case, I mean)... but that is probably just wishful thinking.

This.

Which would lead to more costs for the state.

Also, I think the new "section" that was passed really does nothing. It is way too broad with way too many loopholes. If what you stated is true, then it is exactly what was already in place; police had the right to check status during another law related matter (speeding ticket, red light running, etc). Since that is the case, 1070 should be stripped from the record completely.

bmack86
05-05-2010, 09:01 AM
So, I've got a question for y'all: has anyone read the bill yet?

I just did, and while some of the language goes along with federal law and is not at all shocking in the context of US law, some of the other stuff in here is pretty wild. It's now illegal to pick up someone or enter a car for purposes of employment if that car in any way impedes the flow of traffic. A traffic officer can stop a car on reasonable suspicion of human trafficking (the only reasonable suspicion of human trafficking that I could really ascertain at a traffic level would be a very crowded car.) It's illegal to transport an Alien throughout the state once you know they're an alien, and your car can be impounded for doing so. For this, they use a recklessness standard, so you simply should have known.

So, yeah...

downingthief
05-05-2010, 09:04 AM
So, I've got a question for y'all: has anyone read the bill yet?

I just did, and while some of the language goes along with federal law and is not at all shocking in the context of US law, some of the other stuff in here is pretty wild. It's now illegal to pick up someone or enter a car for purposes of employment if that car in any way impedes the flow of traffic. A traffic officer can stop a car on reasonable suspicion of human trafficking (the only reasonable suspicion of human trafficking that I could really ascertain at a traffic level would be a very crowded car.) It's illegal to transport an Alien throughout the state once you know they're an alien, and your car can be impounded for doing so. For this, they use a recklessness standard, so you simply should have known.

So, yeah...

I have read it. Multiple times. A few of my lawyer friends were amazed at some of the language.

westcoastpirate
05-05-2010, 09:05 AM
http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns/articles/2010/05/04/20100504phoenix-suns-immigration-law-bickley.html


Phoenix Suns owner's bold statement on immigration changes focus of Game 2

by Dan Bickley, Republic Columnist - May. 4, 2010 06:50 PM
The Arizona Republic

On an off day in Portland, Robert Sarver went to work with his basketball team. He put on a Suns' T-shirt and black silk shorts. And as players mingled with the media on the main floor of the Rose Garden, Sarver began sprinting up the steps of the arena, one section at a time.

Some reporters were stunned. Was he that desperate for a workout? Or was he that desperate for attention?

Like it or not, the Suns owner has caused a huge stir this time around. His team will wear orange "Los Suns" jerseys Wednesday night in Game 2 of the Western Conference semifinals against the Spurs, a maneuver designed to celebrate the NBA's diversity and illustrate his displeasure with Arizona's new immigration law.

"It's two-fold," Suns General Manager Steve Kerr said. "One, it is Cinco de Mayo. And, two, it is a political statement. We felt the law, however well intended, was not right."

Sarver is a banker by trade, and his stance is as much about money as it is about civil rights. As a businessman, he does not want to see economic boycotts, cancelled conventions and big events removed from our region. That lowers the tide for everyone in Arizona, at a time when his basketball team is struggling to sell tickets for playoff games.

It's also brilliant public relations. The move comes during peak visibility of the NBA season. The Suns and Spurs have all the ingredients - a history, a rivalry and a stunning contrast of styles - to guarantee great television ratings. This decision will help soften the national image of Arizona, countering all the body shots we've received from pundits, politicians and late-night comics.

It also will mute the scene expected outside US Airways Center before Game 2.

"We hear there will be some protesters outside the building," Kerr said. "From what I gather, there will be a march from a local church to the arena. So there was going to be some hoopla anyway."

Kerr said the idea occurred to Sarver during a recent road trip to Portland. The Suns quickly received an endorsement from the league, which doesn't like anything interfering with potential customers and revenue streams.

Before the 2008 Beijing Olympics, LeBron James and other NBA players said they were going to speak out against the atrocities in Darfur, and bring attention to China's history in human rights. The league effectively stifled that banter, reminding the players that they all had huge economic stakes in China, a market the NBA and Nike both consider an untapped gold mine.

Yet even with the NBA's blessing, say this for Sarver: He had the good sense to ask his team for permission, and not jam it down its throat.

"They were all for it," Kerr said. "We said, 'Look, if this is going to be a distraction, you guys tell us and we won't do it.' For them, it means they answer some questions (Tuesday) and they wear orange jerseys (Wednesday night)."

To the contrary, the Suns seemed stoked to make such a bold statement. Amar'e Stoudemire said it was great to "let the Latin community know we're behind them 100 percent."

Then again, though most professional athletes prefer the politics of richness, the Suns are a bit different this way. Especially their point guard, who tends to care deeply about things such as global warming, human rights and gun control.

"I think it's fantastic," Steve Nash said. "I think the law is very misguided, and unfortunately, to the detriment of our society and our civil liberties. And I think it's really important for us to stand up for things we believe in . . .

"It doesn't feel good to have people around the world and around the country look at our state as less than equal, less than fair. So as a proud (resident) of this state, I want us to be held in the highest esteem. I think we have a lot of great attributes and a lot of great people, and I think we need to be very cautious in how we respect our civil liberties, and the tone we're setting, and the precedent we're setting going forward."

The statement doesn't come without risk. In his statement, Sarver called the immigration law "flawed," and that won't endear him to people who support the measure. And if the Suns stink up the place in Game 2, losing home-court advantage in the process, the entire organization will be criticized for distracting the great focus the team displayed in Game 1.

"Look, it's a major issue here in Arizona," Kerr said. "It's much bigger than a basketball game. It doesn't mean we're crafting a new immigration bill. We're not claiming to be politicians and we don't have the answer. But there were Latino people who feel offended. A lot of people feel offended. I felt offended. I don't think we should live in a country where you have to show papers wherever you are."

Say this for the Suns owner: It's a bold move. And much trickier than any of those steps he scaled in Portland.

suprefan
05-05-2010, 03:23 PM
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/44943

canexplain
05-05-2010, 04:07 PM
Add Boulder Colorado to the gov't that are now banning any travel to Az ....

BeaverCat
05-05-2010, 04:11 PM
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/44943

Aw dammit! You beat me to it!

MassonaBlackEyes
05-05-2010, 04:23 PM
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/44943

extreme win

heres the youtube

Bk7I5WP9on4

faxman75
05-06-2010, 09:30 AM
Governor Jan Brewer apparently has time to write op eds for ESPN and address the sports community. She is worthless. She has over 100 bills on her desk right now that demand attention and she's writing ESPN?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=brewer/100505


By Gov. Jan Brewer
Special to ESPN.com
Archive
In my 28 years of public service, I have made a lot of tough calls. But with a federal government unwilling to secure our border for years and years, Arizona is left with little choice. Imagine a sporting event in which rules have been agreed to for 70 years, but the umpires refuse to enforce those rules. It makes no sense. Although I recognize that Arizona Senate Bill 1070, as amended, is not the entire solution to our illegal immigration problem in Arizona, most people are united in the hope that it will finally inspire the politicians in Washington, D.C., to stop talking and to start action now.

By now, sports fans everywhere have heard something about the passage of Senate Bill 1070, a measure I signed into law. It has resulted in protests outside ballparks hosting our Arizona Diamondbacks and has led to calls on Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig to strip the City of Phoenix's opportunity to host baseball's Midsummer Classic in July 2011.

Urging Major League Baseball to take away next year's All-Star Game from Phoenix is the wrong play. In Arizona, both proponents and opponents of Senate Bill 1070 have stated that economic boycotts are an inappropriate and misguided response to an issue that is clearly worthy of proper public debate and discourse. Put simply, history shows that boycotts backfire and harm innocent people. Boycotts are just more politics and manipulation by out-of-state interests. As a border state, Arizona has already paid a heavy price for the federal government's failure -- hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in unreimbursed costs -- and its citizens should not be punished further.

It is critically important that all Americans understand the impetus for this new law and have a clear understanding of the law itself. Our neighbor to the south, Mexico, is in a massive battle with well-organized drug cartels. Because of Washington's failure to secure our southern border, Arizona has become the superhighway of illegal drug and human smuggling activity. In December 2008, the U.S. Justice Department said that Mexican gangs are the "biggest organized crime threat to the United States." In 2009, Phoenix had 316 kidnapping cases, turning the city into our nation's kidnapping capital. Almost all of the persons kidnapped were illegal immigrants or linked to the drug trade.

Essentially, our border leaks like a team with a last-place defense. The very same week that I signed the new law, a major drug ring was broken up and Mexican cartel operatives suspected of running 40,000 pounds of marijuana through southern Arizona were indicted.

While drug smuggling is the principal cause of our massive border-violence problem, many of the same criminal organizations also smuggle people. Busts of drop houses, where illegal immigrants are often held for ransom or otherwise severely abused, are not uncommon occurrences in Arizona neighborhoods.

Today, Arizona has approximately 6,000 prison inmates who are foreign nationals, representing a cost to our state of roughly $150 million per year. Arizona taxpayers are paying for a vast majority of these incarceration expenses because the federal government refuses to pay what it owes. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, as governor of Arizona, sent numerous requests to the federal government to pay for these prisoners -- only to be given the same answer she and President Barack Obama are now giving Arizona: They will not pay the bill.

When I signed the legislation, I stated clearly I will not tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling in Arizona. My administration worked for weeks with legislators to improve SB 1070, to specifically clarify and strengthen its civil rights protections. I issued an executive order to implement proper training and enforcement protocols for our police so that the intent of the language could not be misconstrued. Although it is already against the law, the new law undeniably prohibits law enforcement officers from considering race, color or national origin in implementing the new statute.

I have worked for years without fail to solve problems diligently and practically. I have done so always with an eye toward civility, and always with the greatest respect for the rule of law.

This new law is no different. As committed as I am to protecting our state from crime associated with illegal immigration, I am equally committed to holding law enforcement accountable should this statute ever be misused to violate an individual's rights.

There have been countless distortions, honest omissions, myths and bad information about Arizona's new law -- many, undoubtedly, spread to create fear or mistrust.

So here are the facts:

1. The new Arizona law creates a state penalty to mirror what already is a federal crime. Despite the most vile and hate-filled portrayals of proponents of the law as "Nazis," actions that have been condemned nationally by the Anti-Defamation League, it is ALREADY a federal requirement for legal aliens in the United States to carry their green card or other immigration document. The new Arizona law enforces what has been a federal crime since before World War II. As anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar laws.

2. Contrary to many of the horror stories being spread -- President Obama suggested families risk being pulled over while going out for ice cream -- law enforcement cannot randomly ask anyone about their immigration status. Much like enforcement of seat belt laws in many states, under SB 1070 there must first be reasonable suspicion that you are breaking some OTHER non-immigration law before an officer can ask a person about their legal status. Only then, after law enforcement officers have a "reasonable suspicion" that another law has been broken, can they inquire about immigration status -- but ONLY if that individual's behavior provides "reasonable suspicion" that the person is here illegally.


"Reasonable suspicion" is a well-understood concept that has been thoroughly vetted through numerous federal court cases. Many have asked: What is reasonable suspicion? Is it race, skin color or national origin? No! Racial profiling is prohibited in the new law. Examples of reasonable suspicion include: a person running away when approached by law enforcement officers, or a car failing to stop when the police turn on their lights and siren.

3. Arizona's local law enforcement officers, who already reflect the great diversity of culture in our state, are going to be trained to enforce the new immigration law in a constitutional manner. It is shameful and presumptive for opponents to question the good will and the competence of Arizona's law enforcement personnel. The specter that is raised of rogue, racist police harassing people is insulting to those in Arizona who risk their lives in the name of law enforcement every day.

President Theodore Roosevelt said, "No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor." Arizona has been more than patient waiting for Washington to act. Decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation. Arizona has acted to enforce the rule of law equally and without bias toward any person.

It is time for our country to act to resolve our border security problem; an economic boycott in Arizona would only exacerbate it -- and hurt innocent families and businesses merely seeking to survive during these difficult economic times.

A boycott that would actually improve border security would be to boycott illegal drugs. Dramatically less drug use and production would do wonders for the safety of all our communities.

Jan Brewer is the governor of Arizona.

humanoid
05-06-2010, 10:11 AM
Governor Jan Brewer apparently has time to write op eds for ESPN and address the sports community. She is worthless. She has over 100 bills on her desk right now that demand attention and she's writing ESPN?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=brewer/100505


It's not like she's doing extraneous, unrelated sports opinion pieces. If she wrote a piece discussing how she felt about the college football BCS system, I could see having a problem with that.

Gribbz
05-06-2010, 10:56 AM
"The protester, who identified herself only as Karen from Glendale, held a sign which read The Phoenix Suns support drug runners; armed coyotes; drop houses; extradition; forced labor; forced prostitution of illegals; murder of Arizona citizens on their own property; assault on law enforcement officers."


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/news/story?id=5166080


MOTHER FUCKIN' ARMED COYOTES.

seandlr
05-06-2010, 11:30 AM
I'm terribly sorry if this was already posted. Very interesting/fucked up:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/arizona-ethnic-studies-cl_n_558731.html


Arizona Ethnic Studies Classes Banned, Teachers With Accents Can No Longer Teach English


Arizona's new immigration law is just about crime, its supporters say, but given that the state's new education policy equates ethnic studies programs with high treason, they may not be using the commonly accepted definition of "crime."

Under the ban, sent to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer by the state legislature Thursday, schools will lose state funding if they offer any courses that "promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."

As ThinkProgress notes, the Tucson Unified School District's popular Mexican-American studies department is the target here. The state superintendent charges that the program exhibits "ethnic chauvinism."

Meanwhile, in a move that was more covert until the Wall Street Journal uncovered it, the Arizona Department of Education has told schools that teachers with "heavy" or "ungrammatical" accents are no longer allowed to teach English classes.

As outlined by the Journal, Arizona's recent pattern of discriminatory education policies is ironic -- and is likely a function of No Child Left Behind funding requirements -- given that the state spent a decade recruiting teachers for whom English was a second language.

In the 1990s, Arizona hired hundreds of teachers whose first language was Spanish as part of a broad bilingual-education program. Many were recruited from Latin America.

Then in 2000, voters passed a ballot measure stipulating that instruction be offered only in English. Bilingual teachers who had been instructing in Spanish switched to English.
Teachers who don't meet the new fluency standards have the option of taking classes to improve their English, the Journal reports, but if they fail to reach the state's targets would be fired or reassigned.

humanoid
05-06-2010, 11:32 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/news/story?id=5166080


MOTHER FUCKIN' ARMED COYOTES.



http://mklasing.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/wileecoyote.jpg

daxton
05-06-2010, 11:33 AM
^ Perfect.

faxman75
05-06-2010, 11:43 AM
seandlr, that was posted but my question is why people would be angry about holding teachers who are teaching the language to students who don't know the language to higher fluency standards. Supre tripped out about that but never responded to my questions.

It seems they also offer those teachers who would be harder to understand more training in fluency as well.

It's not like they are saying someone with an accent can't teach social studies or science. They are saying they want those who are teaching english to be be understandable.

If i'm taking spanish the person teaching better speak the language well. If there was language saying these heavily accented people were going to be fired then sure I would have an issue. They are teaching english though so have someone who speaks it well teach. That's all.

mountmccabe
05-06-2010, 11:45 AM
I have to admit that other than the sore thumb sports terminology and the conflation and confusion of the immigration issue with the drug and kidnapping issues... that is a reasonable statement on the issue. There really is a lot of disinformation out there; hopefully some will read that and have a better understanding of what is going on.

It is only through understanding what we're opposing that we're going to be able to effectively fight it.

amyzzz
05-06-2010, 11:49 AM
http://fashionablygeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/gi-joe-the-battle-shirt.jpg

faxman75
05-06-2010, 11:53 AM
I'm wondering which side of the marijuana legalization the tea partiers are going to fall on. The governor I would assume is going to be against it. I haven't heard a whole lot but i'm wondering what legalization would do to the gang violence and kidnappings we constantly hear about. Not to mention the budget crisis.

seandlr
05-06-2010, 12:20 PM
seandlr, that was posted but my question is why people would be angry about holding teachers who are teaching the language to students who don't know the language to higher fluency standards. Supre tripped out about that but never responded to my questions.

It seems they also offer those teachers who would be harder to understand more training in fluency as well.

It's not like they are saying someone with an accent can't teach social studies or science. They are saying they want those who are teaching english to be be understandable.

If i'm taking spanish the person teaching better speak the language well. If there was language saying these heavily accented people were going to be fired then sure I would have an issue. They are teaching english though so have someone who speaks it well teach. That's all.

I get your argument, but it is simple. I have taken three different spanish courses and all of my professors have all been white and all of them had an american accent and still, my instruction was of what was expected. I'm sure all schools/colleges/universities have some type of evaluation system, and I believe it is that and other types or systems that determine whether a teacher should lose their job or be transfered to another subject. These teachers should not transferred/fired just because of the fact that they have a heavy accent. If students and maybe colleagues are reporting that such a teacher isn't helping their students progress is the language than yes, that should be acceptable. Also to take into consideration, if someones first language was Spanish and say they're taking an English class, the spanish accent is extremely helpful to that student to give them a better understanding of that language.

faxman75
05-06-2010, 12:37 PM
It's helpful as long as it's clear and perfectly understandable. It says they will get them the training to get them up to those standards you speak of or they will teach other courses. I would like to know how they figure out these fluency standards though. They have people monitoring but what are the guide lines?

I'm also in favor of mandatory spanish in grade school by the way. I just don't understand who's losing their job and why higher standards are a bad thing.

The bill clearly states "heavy" accents and "ungrammatical". My grandfather had a heavy accent, you could understand him but it was difficult. Why would we want to make things more difficult. That sounds counter productive to getting these children a good education.

I also don't understand the tie in to the illegal immigration debate.

I do like the WSJ article as it gives some specific examples, gives numbers of schools and explains how it has effected some schools. Nobody has lost their job or been fired and from what I can tell they basically shuffle teachers around so to fit the strengths of the teachers ability.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html

It's all pointless really. Our schools are terrible and more budget cuts are coming so this is going to be a non issue for the most part and in the few cases where a teacher is reassigned, I don't think it's a bad thing or has anything to do with being anti mexican or whatever.

westcoastpirate
05-06-2010, 12:52 PM
Governor Jan Brewer apparently has time to write op eds for ESPN and address the sports community. She is worthless. She has over 100 bills on her desk right now that demand attention and she's writing ESPN?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=brewer/100505

It's official, Jan Brewer is a bitch. I like how she basically said 1070 isn't the solution and that they are just trying to light a fire under the Federal Government's ass. Thanks Jan, you also lit a fire under everyone else's ass outside AZ to boycott our state for political gain.

This op ed makes me very sick to see how Brewer is completely shut off to the other side of the argument.

EDIT...the only good thing this op ed piece shows is that the boycotts are working, as Brewer is basically pleading for MLB to keep the All Star game in Phoenix in 2011.

downingthief
05-06-2010, 02:13 PM
I have to admit that other than the sore thumb sports terminology and the conflation and confusion of the immigration issue with the drug and kidnapping issues... that is a reasonable statement on the issue. There really is a lot of disinformation out there; hopefully some will read that and have a better understanding of what is going on.

It is only through understanding what we're opposing that we're going to be able to effectively fight it.

Sorry, I cannot agree with this, as this is the same woman who went on National television and expressed how the citizens of Arizona were being "terrorized" by illegal immigrants. Again..."terrorized". Disgusting use of the English language there.

All this article was, in my opinion, was an attempt at some serious CYA. Nothing more.

canexplain
05-06-2010, 02:25 PM
Faxy on the accent thing like I posted way back. How then you would answer my question about someone from the Deep South or say Boston. I have a hard time understanding them sometimes and I have lived in both places. Would this mean that an English teacher could not have a deep “American” accent either? Double standard? Do they all have to sound like the nerd teacher in Ferris Bueller? Wait he talks too slow. No english teachers that talk too slow. How about then no teachers that _________ ...

faxman75
05-06-2010, 02:46 PM
Faxy on the accent thing like I posted way back. How then you would answer my question about someone from the Deep South or say Boston. I have a hard time understanding them sometimes and I have lived in both places. Would this mean that an English teacher could not have a deep “American” accent either? Double standard? Do they all have to sound like the nerd teacher in Ferris Bueller? Wait he talks too slow. No english teachers that talk too slow. How about then no teachers that _________ ...

Ron the law says nothing about Mexican so the same law applies ot those form say the deep south or boston. If their accent is so thick that it's not even understandable then those teachers fall into the same category. \

I have no idea what double standard you are talking about since there isn't even a standard that's been enforced at this point.

My basic point is i'm ok with them holding english teachers to higher english standards when teaching children the language for the first time. Nothing more. This has nothing to do with talking slow so i'm not sure why you mentioned that.

faxman75
05-06-2010, 02:52 PM
Sorry, I cannot agree with this, as this is the same woman who went on National television and expressed how the citizens of Arizona were being "terrorized" by illegal immigrants. Again..."terrorized". Disgusting use of the English language there.

All this article was, in my opinion, was an attempt at some serious CYA. Nothing more.

Is terrorized really disgusting when you read the stories on the border? Beheadings? Extreme torture and kidnappings? Mind you i'm not talking about the illegals who are here for a better life, i'm talking about the ones who are the problem running drugs, murdering and kidnapping.

That said the problem is largely exagerated and this story was kind of ignored when it came out. It's my opinion the cartels are in fact terrorists by definition. If we cut the media and the sensational journalists out of the picture and look at the raw numbers there's no reason to even discuss the words being used. You can't deny the most important fact to me as a citizen which is underlined. That tells me all of the politicians and journalists who trumpet the violent crimes aren't doing their job and looking at the real problems surrounding illegal immigration.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/02/20100502arizona-border-violence-mexico.html

The entire story is a good read, here is part of it.

While the nation's illegal-immigrant population doubled from 1994 to 2004, according to federal records, the violent-crime rate declined 35 percent.
More recently, Arizona's violent-crime rate dropped from 512 incidents per 100,000 residents in 2005 to 447 incidents in 2008, the most recent year for which data is available.

In testimony to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security last month, Dennis Burke, U.S. attorney for Arizona, noted that Arizona now has more than 6,000 federal law-enforcement agents, with the majority of them employed by the Border Patrol. That represents nearly 10 agents for every mile of international line between Arizona and Sonora.

Border Patrol presence has been backed by increases in counter-smuggling technology and intelligence, the establishment of permanent highway checkpoints and a dramatic increase in customs inspectors at U.S. ports.

"The border is as secure now as it has ever been," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a Senate panel last week.

mountmccabe
05-06-2010, 02:59 PM
Sorry, I cannot agree with this, as this is the same woman who went on National television and expressed how the citizens of Arizona were being "terrorized" by illegal immigrants. Again..."terrorized". Disgusting use of the English language there.

All this article was, in my opinion, was an attempt at some serious CYA. Nothing more.

I am not showing support for Governor Brewer; I probably should've gone a step or so further with the exceptions... but once she actually gets to the information about the bills, the "here are the facts" part, I don't see how there could be major disagreement on that. The texts are what they are.. and what she's saying here is far more reasonable than the police state, carry around your birth certificate, racial profiling, random stops on the street type of fearmongering I'm getting from the anti- side.

That article is all kinds of dumb.. but compared to most of what I've seen on these bills - from all sides - it is well above average.

westcoastpirate
05-06-2010, 03:09 PM
The only thing I got from the espn article was that if you run away from the cops or try to drive off after they pull you over that is considered "reasonable suspicion".

I'd also like to know more about this "training" local law enforcement is going to receive per Jan Brewer's "executive order".

faxman75
05-06-2010, 03:09 PM
John, fact #2 specifcially calls out an Obama quote which was made shortly after the first bill was signed. Pulling that quote out days after she changed the wording of the bill is a bit disingenuous. No?

downingthief
05-06-2010, 03:13 PM
I am not showing support for Governor Brewer; I probably should've gone a step or so further with the exceptions... but once she actually gets to the information about the bills, the "here are the facts" part, I don't see how there could be major disagreement on that. The texts are what they are.. and what she's saying here is far more reasonable than the police state, carry around your birth certificate, racial profiling, random stops on the street type of fearmongering I'm getting from the anti- side.

That article is all kinds of dumb.. but compared to most of what I've seen on these bills - from all sides - it is well above average.

Fair enough, but I think the clarification from her should have mentioned that those points that you bring up were from the Amendment, not the original bill. She's giving the impression that was how the bill was written all along.

Also, her explanation of the "reasonable suspicion" is a bit scary...for example, why would the cops have their lights on in the first place? She doesn't state that there was a violation of any type. How many people actually "run" from the police on sight? If they aren't wanted for anything, they would have no reason to run.

westcoastpirate
05-06-2010, 03:13 PM
http://www.azcentral.com/members/blog/ejmontini/80311


Brewer whines about boycott on ESPN.com

Gov. Jan Brewer had an essay published on ESPN’s web site Wednesday in which she explained why she believes SB1070 was necessary and why she believes that criticism of it, including calls for boycotts and the possibility of losing next year's MLB all-star game, are unwarranted.

As usually happens when a politician tries to explain a public policy, Brewer produced some very strong arguments — against herself.

She points out, correctly, that the biggest problems with the border are drug smuggling and human smuggling — neither of which can be prevented by the provisions in SB1070.

She cites the failure of the federal government to secure the border, again correctly, but can point to nothing in SB1070 that would do anything to correct that, either.

After all, while the federal government has yet to send National Guard troops to the border, neither has Brewer.

Finally, she reiterates her determination to make sure that racial profiling of any kind will not be a part of the “reasonable suspicion” that could lead law enforcement personnel to check a person’s papers. Then, she tries to explain what “reasonable suspicion” means.

She writes:

“‘Reasonable suspicion’ is a well-understood concept that has been thoroughly vetted through numerous federal court cases. Many have asked: What is reasonable suspicion? Is it race, skin color or national origin? No! Racial profiling is prohibited in the new law. Examples of reasonable suspicion include: a person running away when approached by law enforcement officers, or a car failing to stop when the police turn on their lights and siren.”

Doing either of those two thing would get a person arrested no matter what nationality they happened to be. And once arrested and booked into jail, immigration status is automatically checked.

So, what would “reasonable suspicion” be for a person who cooperates with police?

Speaking Spanish?

The governor and the state legislature wanted to do something to make themselves look like they were getting tough on immigration. It wasn’t the media who heralded SB1070 as the “toughest immigration law in the country.” It was the politicians.

Now that people across the country have condemned the law, and Arizona may soon suffer economic consequences because of it, Brewer and her lawmaker pals want to play the part of victims.

Too bad for us.

The politicians will be fine. They’ll probably get reelected, as they’d hoped.

But the state will suffer. If Brewer and lawmakers had taken a minute before passing the bill to consider the potential cost to the state versus the benefit, none of this might have happened.

But then, they wouldn’t have been able to brag about having the “toughest immigration law in the country.”

suprefan
05-06-2010, 03:51 PM
HmjcFBquzo4