Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51011121314151617 LastLast
Results 281 to 300 of 326
  1. #281  
    I have an answer, instead of making a law saying that cops can check id of people they think are illegal, just make a law to check everyone. I am quite happy to show my right to be here.
  2. wjclint's Avatar
    Posts
    40 Posts
    Global Posts
    41 Global Posts
    #282  
    Quote Originally Posted by seeker92677 View Post
    I have an answer, instead of making a law saying that cops can check id of people they think are illegal, just make a law to check everyone. I am quite happy to show my right to be here.
    Really . . . You would be OK with road blocks/checks, random stops, etc. to check every person's, citizen or not, papers? If you don't have your proper identification showing your citizenship status you can be detained until your citizenship status is determined? (or did I miss some sarcasm that doesn't come across in the typed word).

    I am not happy to show my right to be here to any law enforcement official even though I was born here. I am not quite happy with the idea of granting our government that type of intrusive authority with no probable cause to believe that any crime was committed. The only time I should be forced to give up my liberty, even if it is just my liberty to tell the law enforcement official to go away is if probable cause exists to believe I have committed a crime.
    Phone History: VisorPhone --> Treo180 --> Treo650--> Treo700p--> PalmCentro --> HTCTouchDiamond (2weeks) --> PalmCentro --> Palm Pre
  3. #283  
    I was serious. It is called a drivers license or id card. I always carry mine. I never said anything about road blocks and neither does the law, but with how many times you need to show some form of id I think most legal citizens carry it with them all the time.
  4. #284  
    Quote Originally Posted by seeker92677 View Post
    I have an answer, instead of making a law saying that cops can check id of people they think are illegal, just make a law to check everyone. I am quite happy to show my right to be here.
    I have no doubt in my mind that you are an Arizona Congressman. YOU!

    Would you mind if the cop then noticed you had a 6-pack with only 5 beers in the car?? And then told you to, "Step out of the vehicle, please." And then told you to, "Touch your right thumb to your anus." And then told you to, "Hold still! This might hurt." ??? You wouldn't mind all that?

    If a cop gave me any such order, I would pull out a pen and paper and write him a bill for $3,500 and then tell him to sign the dotted line before we proceed. I'll be more than willing to oblige if he accepts the bill. If he doesn't accept, then how can I place his order??

    UCC, guys!!
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #285  
    Wall Street Journal - OPINION: DECLARATIONS MAY 1, 2010

    The Big Alienation
    Uncontrolled borders and Washington's lack of self-control.
    By PEGGY NOONAN

    We are at a remarkable moment. We have an open, 2,000-mile border to our south, and the entity with the power to enforce the law and impose safety and order will not do it. Wall Street collapsed, taking Main Street's money with it, and the government can't really figure out what to do about it because the government itself was deeply implicated in the crash, and both political parties are full of people whose political careers have been made possible by Wall Street contributions. Meanwhile we pass huge laws, bills so comprehensive, omnibus and transformative that no one knows what's in them and no one—literally, no one—knows how exactly they will be executed or interpreted. Citizens search for new laws online, pore over them at night, and come away knowing no more than they did before they typed "dot-gov."

    It is not that no one's in control. Washington is full of people who insist they're in control and who go to great lengths to display their power. It's that no one takes responsibility and authority. Washington daily delivers to the people two stark and utterly conflicting messages: "We control everything" and "You're on your own."

    All this contributes to a deep and growing alienation between the people of America and the government of America in Washington.

    This is not the old, conservative and long-lampooned "I don't trust gummint" attitude of the 1950s, '60s and '70s. It's something new, or rather something so much more broadly and fully evolved that it constitutes something new. The right never trusted the government, but now the middle doesn't. I asked a campaigner for Hillary Clinton recently where her sturdy, pantsuited supporters had gone. They didn't seem part of the Obama brigades. "Some of them are at the tea party," she said.

    None of this happened overnight. It is, most recently, the result of two wars that were supposed to be cakewalks, Katrina, the crash, and the phenomenon of a federal government that seemed less and less competent attempting to do more and more by passing bigger and bigger laws.

    Add to this states on the verge of bankruptcy, the looming debt crisis of the federal government, the likelihood of ever-rising taxes. Shake it all together, and you have the makings of the big alienation. Alienation is often followed by full-blown antagonism, and antagonism by breakage.

    Which brings us to Arizona and its much-criticized attempt to institute a law aimed at controlling its own border with Mexico. It is doing this because the federal government won't, and because Arizonans have a crisis on their hands, areas on the border where criminal behavior flourishes, where there have been kidnappings, murders and gang violence. If the law is abusive, it will be determined quickly enough, in the courts. In keeping with recent tradition, they were reading parts of the law aloud on cable the other night, with bright and sincere people completely disagreeing on the meaning of the words they were reading. No one knows how the law will be executed or interpreted.

    Every state and region has its own facts and experience. In New York, legal and illegal immigrants keep the city running: They work hard jobs with brutal hours, rip off no one on Wall Street, and do not crash the economy. They are generally considered among the good guys. I'm not sure New Yorkers can fairly judge the situation in Arizona, nor Arizonans the situation in New York.

    But the larger point is that Arizona is moving forward because the government in Washington has completely abdicated its responsibility. For 10 years—at least—through two administrations, Washington deliberately did nothing to ease the crisis on the borders because politicians calculated that an air of mounting crisis would spur mounting support for what Washington thought was appropriate reform—i.e., reform that would help the Democratic and Republican parties.

    Both parties resemble Gordon Brown, who is about to lose the prime ministership of Britain. On the campaign trail this week, he was famously questioned by a party voter about his stand on immigration. He gave her the verbal runaround, all boilerplate and shrugs, and later complained to an aide, on an open mic, that he'd been forced into conversation with that "bigoted woman."

    He really thought she was a bigot. Because she asked about immigration. Which is, to him, a sign of at least latent racism.

    The establishments of the American political parties, and the media, are full of people who think concern about illegal immigration is a mark of racism. If you were Freud you might say, "How odd that's where their minds so quickly go, how strange they're so eager to point an accusing finger. Could they be projecting onto others their own, heavily defended-against inner emotions?" But let's not do Freud, he's too interesting. Maybe they're just smug and sanctimonious.

    The American president has the power to control America's borders if he wants to, but George W. Bush and Barack Obama did not and do not want to, and for the same reason, and we all know what it is. The fastest-growing demographic in America is the Hispanic vote, and if either party cracks down on illegal immigration, it risks losing that vote for generations.

    But while the Democrats worry about the prospects of the Democrats and the Republicans about the well-being of the Republicans, who worries about America?

    No one. Which the American people have noticed, and which adds to the dangerous alienation—actually it's at the heart of the alienation—of the age.

    In the past four years, I have argued in this space that nothing can or should be done, no new federal law passed, until the border itself is secure. That is the predicate, the commonsense first step. Once existing laws are enforced and the border made peaceful, everyone in the country will be able to breathe easier and consider, without an air of clamor and crisis, what should be done next. What might that be? How about relax, see where we are, and absorb. Pass a small, clear law—say, one granting citizenship to all who serve two years in the armed forces—and then go have a Coke. Not everything has to be settled right away. Only controlling the border has to be settled right away.

    Instead, our national establishments deliberately allow the crisis to grow and fester, ignoring public unrest and amusing themselves by damning anyone's attempt to deal with the problem they fear to address.

    Why does the federal government do this? Because so many within it are stupid and unimaginative and don't trust the American people. Which of course the American people have noticed.

    If the federal government and our political parties were imaginative, they would understand that it is actually in their interests to restore peace and order to the border. It would be a way of demonstrating that our government is still capable of functioning, that it is still to some degree connected to the people's will, that it has the broader interests of the country in mind.

    The American people fear they are losing their place and authority in the daily, unwinding drama of American history. They feel increasingly alienated from their government. And alienation, again, is often followed by deep animosity, and animosity by the breaking up of things. If our leaders were farsighted not only for themselves but for the country, they would fix the border.

    Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

    This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

    Dow Jones Reprints - Reprint and Permission Service for the Wall Street Journal, Barron's, Newswires, and MarketWatch
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6.    #286  
    Quote Originally Posted by PJaE00 View Post
    Wasnt This Country Founded By Immigrants? Now We Are Anti-Immigration.

    ILLEGAL BORDER CROSSING IS NOT IMMIGRATION!!!

    now put the koolaid down and think on your won.
    Attached Images Attached Images
  7. #287  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Wall Street Journal - OPINION: DECLARATIONS MAY 1, 2010

    The Big Alienation
    Uncontrolled borders and Washington's lack of self-control.
    By PEGGY NOONAN

    We are at a remarkable moment. We have an open, 2,000-mile border to our south, and the entity with the power to enforce the law and impose safety and order will not do it. Wall Street collapsed, taking Main Street's money with it, and the government can't really figure out what to do about it because the government itself was deeply implicated in the crash, and both political parties are full of people whose political careers have been made possible by Wall Street contributions. Meanwhile we pass huge laws, bills so comprehensive, omnibus and transformative that no one knows what's in them and no one—literally, no one—knows how exactly they will be executed or interpreted. Citizens search for new laws online, pore over them at night, and come away knowing no more than they did before they typed "dot-gov."

    It is not that no one's in control. Washington is full of people who insist they're in control and who go to great lengths to display their power. It's that no one takes responsibility and authority. Washington daily delivers to the people two stark and utterly conflicting messages: "We control everything" and "You're on your own."

    All this contributes to a deep and growing alienation between the people of America and the government of America in Washington.

    This is not the old, conservative and long-lampooned "I don't trust gummint" attitude of the 1950s, '60s and '70s. It's something new, or rather something so much more broadly and fully evolved that it constitutes something new. The right never trusted the government, but now the middle doesn't. I asked a campaigner for Hillary Clinton recently where her sturdy, pantsuited supporters had gone. They didn't seem part of the Obama brigades. "Some of them are at the tea party," she said.

    None of this happened overnight. It is, most recently, the result of two wars that were supposed to be cakewalks, Katrina, the crash, and the phenomenon of a federal government that seemed less and less competent attempting to do more and more by passing bigger and bigger laws.

    Add to this states on the verge of bankruptcy, the looming debt crisis of the federal government, the likelihood of ever-rising taxes. Shake it all together, and you have the makings of the big alienation. Alienation is often followed by full-blown antagonism, and antagonism by breakage.

    Which brings us to Arizona and its much-criticized attempt to institute a law aimed at controlling its own border with Mexico. It is doing this because the federal government won't, and because Arizonans have a crisis on their hands, areas on the border where criminal behavior flourishes, where there have been kidnappings, murders and gang violence. If the law is abusive, it will be determined quickly enough, in the courts. In keeping with recent tradition, they were reading parts of the law aloud on cable the other night, with bright and sincere people completely disagreeing on the meaning of the words they were reading. No one knows how the law will be executed or interpreted.

    Every state and region has its own facts and experience. In New York, legal and illegal immigrants keep the city running: They work hard jobs with brutal hours, rip off no one on Wall Street, and do not crash the economy. They are generally considered among the good guys. I'm not sure New Yorkers can fairly judge the situation in Arizona, nor Arizonans the situation in New York.

    But the larger point is that Arizona is moving forward because the government in Washington has completely abdicated its responsibility. For 10 years—at least—through two administrations, Washington deliberately did nothing to ease the crisis on the borders because politicians calculated that an air of mounting crisis would spur mounting support for what Washington thought was appropriate reform—i.e., reform that would help the Democratic and Republican parties.

    Both parties resemble Gordon Brown, who is about to lose the prime ministership of Britain. On the campaign trail this week, he was famously questioned by a party voter about his stand on immigration. He gave her the verbal runaround, all boilerplate and shrugs, and later complained to an aide, on an open mic, that he'd been forced into conversation with that "bigoted woman."

    He really thought she was a bigot. Because she asked about immigration. Which is, to him, a sign of at least latent racism.

    The establishments of the American political parties, and the media, are full of people who think concern about illegal immigration is a mark of racism. If you were Freud you might say, "How odd that's where their minds so quickly go, how strange they're so eager to point an accusing finger. Could they be projecting onto others their own, heavily defended-against inner emotions?" But let's not do Freud, he's too interesting. Maybe they're just smug and sanctimonious.

    The American president has the power to control America's borders if he wants to, but George W. Bush and Barack Obama did not and do not want to, and for the same reason, and we all know what it is. The fastest-growing demographic in America is the Hispanic vote, and if either party cracks down on illegal immigration, it risks losing that vote for generations.

    But while the Democrats worry about the prospects of the Democrats and the Republicans about the well-being of the Republicans, who worries about America?

    No one. Which the American people have noticed, and which adds to the dangerous alienation—actually it's at the heart of the alienation—of the age.

    In the past four years, I have argued in this space that nothing can or should be done, no new federal law passed, until the border itself is secure. That is the predicate, the commonsense first step. Once existing laws are enforced and the border made peaceful, everyone in the country will be able to breathe easier and consider, without an air of clamor and crisis, what should be done next. What might that be? How about relax, see where we are, and absorb. Pass a small, clear law—say, one granting citizenship to all who serve two years in the armed forces—and then go have a Coke. Not everything has to be settled right away. Only controlling the border has to be settled right away.

    Instead, our national establishments deliberately allow the crisis to grow and fester, ignoring public unrest and amusing themselves by damning anyone's attempt to deal with the problem they fear to address.

    Why does the federal government do this? Because so many within it are stupid and unimaginative and don't trust the American people. Which of course the American people have noticed.

    If the federal government and our political parties were imaginative, they would understand that it is actually in their interests to restore peace and order to the border. It would be a way of demonstrating that our government is still capable of functioning, that it is still to some degree connected to the people's will, that it has the broader interests of the country in mind.

    The American people fear they are losing their place and authority in the daily, unwinding drama of American history. They feel increasingly alienated from their government. And alienation, again, is often followed by deep animosity, and animosity by the breaking up of things. If our leaders were farsighted not only for themselves but for the country, they would fix the border.

    Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

    This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

    Dow Jones Reprints - Reprint and Permission Service for the Wall Street Journal, Barron's, Newswires, and MarketWatch
    hmmm ok what happened to all the noise about the minute men doing the patroling down there,, oooh right that was part of the Patriot act that was put in place.. to protect the people,, that was ultimately decided to be too restrictive of your average american.. geesh people you forget your own history i just dont get it,, in one breath you guys are screaming the big bad govt is coming into our lives,, then the next your screaming the govt is not doing enough.. seems kind a hypocritcal if ya know what i mean.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  8. #288  
    Quote Originally Posted by seeker92677 View Post
    I was serious. It is called a drivers license or id card. I always carry mine. I never said anything about road blocks and neither does the law, but with how many times you need to show some form of id I think most legal citizens carry it with them all the time.
    Really?

    Did you not know that we, as sovereign men and women, have the common law right to travel?!? And that means that, you don't need to ask for permission to travel in your horse & buggy, your car[riage], or your bicycle?!? If you ask for permission, you contractually oblige to turning your right into a permission. If you really want to be subordinate to the government, that's your choice... but not mine.

    Look up Michael Badnarik; he's the "Most Famous American to travel in a car without a license". Heck, while you're at it... it would do you A WHOLE LOTTA GOOD if you watched his Constitution Class, so long as you truly want to talk about the differences between rights and privileges. Nobody does it better than Michael Badnarik.

    I don't need a driver's license, I don't need a Carry Concealed Weapons permit, and I don't need a marriage license. I have the RIGHT to do these things without having to ask for permission from a corporation. These are RIGHTS, *NOT* PRIVILEGES. One is given by your Creator; the other is given by the Government, which We the People created, in order to protect the rights of all free men. AT ANY TIME THAT OUR GOVERNMENT IS NOT PROTECTING OUR RIGHTS, THEY HAVE OVERSTEPPED THEIR BOUNDARIES THAT VERY INSTANT, AND ANY LAW THEY MAKE BECOMES UNCONSTITUTIONAL (VOID AB INITIO) FROM THE BEGINNING!! I think this is the part that you guys aren't realizing.

    Do I *have* to have a SSN? Of course not. People with SSNs are government agents that use SSI as their employee pension plan that you pay into. I choose not to have such a thing.

    I do not deal with THE UNITED STATES, the corporation, EVER!!

    I am a Freeman, who lives somewhere in Mississippi State, but not THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. I will exercise all my common law rights, because I know them... and I know how to claim them.

    </DISCUSSION>
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #289  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    hmmm ok what happened to all the noise about the minute men doing the patroling down there,, oooh right that was part of the Patriot act that was put in place.. to protect the people,, that was ultimately decided to be too restrictive of your average american.. geesh people you forget your own history i just dont get it,, in one breath you guys are screaming the big bad govt is coming into our lives,, then the next your screaming the govt is not doing enough.. seems kind a hypocritcal if ya know what i mean.
    Hey, I just posted her opinion for review and discussion. I think she makes some valid points (and I bet if you put the koolaid cup down for a sec, you would too), but Noonan and I definitely aren't on the same page on all things.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10. #290  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I don't think that's what you said but, fine.
    That is EXACTLY what I said:

    ME:

    If ICE gets an anonymous tip and they check it out, but there are no illegals, does that not mean that the tipster is the one doing the profiling?

    I've never, ever said that businesses who hire illegal aliens shouldn't face fines or other penalties. I'm just asking why its racial profiling to ask an individual for citizenship but not it's not racial profiling to go to a business, based on tips and other investigation, and ask for employees' I-9 forms. Of course, it depends on what the "tip" involved but it certainly seems susceptible to racial profiling. Don't you think?
    A "tipster" profiling is one thing, but it is another thing to let a government agency freely profile. The "tipster" is not working on my dime, ICE does. If I call the cops and tell them I think my neighbor is steeling cars, do the police automatically assume that he is a criminal and investigate or do they just investigate the complaint?

    If I go to a construction site and see a bunch of people working there that "looK' like they may not be legal and call ICE, what am I doing?
    You would be profiling and ICE would be investigating a complaint.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  11. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #291  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    A "tipster" profiling is one thing, but it is another thing to let a government agency freely profile. The "tipster" is not working on my dime, ICE does. If I call the cops and tell them I think my neighbor is steeling cars, do the police automatically assume that he is a criminal and investigate or do they just investigate the complaint?

    You would be profiling and ICE would be investigating a complaint.
    Seems like a distinction without a practical purpose. ICE can't consider certain elements in their investigation but civilians can?

    Again, why is it okay for ICE to go after corporations and not for police to go after individuals? Example, in Los Angeles, if you report a suspected illegal immigrant, your complaint will go nowhere because the police can't ask. Even if that person is suspected to be engaged in a criminal act, the police can't automatically ask for proof of citizenship. They can only do that once the suspect is booked.
  12. #292  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Seems like a distinction without a practical purpose. ICE can't consider certain elements in their investigation but civilians can?

    Again, why is it okay for ICE to go after corporations and not for police to go after individuals? Example, in Los Angeles, if you report a suspected illegal immigrant, your complaint will go nowhere because the police can't ask. Even if that person is suspected to be engaged in a criminal act, the police can't automatically ask for proof of citizenship. They can only do that once the suspect is booked.
    If you deport one, two more will come back and take his place, and the companies will hire them because they are not penalized for it. The illegals are coming here because they can get hired. If you clamp down on the companies and employers who hire the illegals, you eliminate their reason for crossing the border.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  13. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #293  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenanator View Post
    If you deport one, two more will come back and take his place, and the companies will hire them because they are not penalized for it. The illegals are coming here because they can get hired. If you clamp down on the companies and employers who hire the illegals, you eliminate their reason for crossing the border.
    Once again, I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, companies that hire illegals should not be pursued and penalized. I'm just asking why the different standard for individuals. If its a civil liberties thing then it would seem the same abuses could be committed by company informants.
  14. #294  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Once again, I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, companies that hire illegals should not be pursued and penalized. I'm just asking why the different standard for individuals. If its a civil liberties thing then it would seem the same abuses could be committed by company informants.
    Like I said:

    A "tipster" profiling is one thing, but it is another thing to let a government agency freely profile. The "tipster" is not working on my dime, ICE does. If I call the cops and tell them I think my neighbor is steeling cars, do the police automatically assume that he is a criminal and investigate or do they just investigate the complaint?

    ICE would be performing audits and investigate complaints. That is what we pay them to do. They are representatives of our government, anonymous tipsters are none of that! Not hard to figure out.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  15. #295  
    People are missing some simple facts in the situation. I'll keep it short and as simple as I can. There is a war going on in Mexico and it is spilling into the border states. MS-13, which is rumored to be funded by Hezbollah, is one of the most notorious gangs in this war. Phoenix is the #2 city in the world for kidnappings just behind Mexico City. The citizens of the state of Arizona are terrified and the federal government refuses to enforce laws already on the books. The AZ legislature essentially mirrored the federal law and passed it with an overwhelming majority. Now they can protect themselves. This law is about true security. Not the flash of the TSA in the airport. The left wing has blown the whole issue out of proportion to make it about racism and immigration. Not true.

    I am more worried about the ever increasing policing powers of the federal government validated through the Supreme Courts. They are prying into our lives in so many ways and throwing the Constitution and Bill of Rights out the window. The Obama administration is moving faster at this than the Bush Administration ever did.
  16. #296  
    I was just actually thinking to myself....

    I would be totally fine with cops being able to stop people if they cannot speak English.

    I am totally with Ron Paul on that issue. English should be "our language". If the illegal aliens don't want to go, they need to learn the language quick... and they better have the right "papers" to get a job.

    BUT DON'T GO AFTER EVERY MAN AND WOMAN, JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN. Cops crossed the line with the Patriot Act, and I'm sure that could possibly be here, too.

    The fact that it's a state issue, makes me feel more confident about the effect of the deal. But, I wouldn't mind discriminating against people who can't speak English at all.

    Now that you mention it... wasn't there a guy who had a Birth Cert, and got transfered a couple hundred miles away or some shiz? I'd be fine with it if they "detained" him for a few days to call somebody. If he couldn't call somebody and couldn't tell you any information to help himselves find a person or two to verify what he's saying within 3 days (gotta give 'em 3 days grace, man)... give him the boot with all the other illegals that you tricked into working for free that past 2 weeks.

    Can't speak English? Better learn! But only in AZ -- for now.

    Is it really wrong to discriminate against somebody who cannot speak English? Hmm...
  17. #297  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Seems like a distinction without a practical purpose. ICE can't consider certain elements in their investigation but civilians can?

    Again, why is it okay for ICE to go after corporations and not for police to go after individuals? Example, in Los Angeles, if you report a suspected illegal immigrant, your complaint will go nowhere because the police can't ask. Even if that person is suspected to be engaged in a criminal act, the police can't automatically ask for proof of citizenship. They can only do that once the suspect is booked.
    To me... the thing comes down to not wanting people to start checking me for ANY OLD REASON.

    If you want to check me out, because, maybe perhaps, I can't speak a lick of English. Then... yea, maybe I'd want to see some papers.

    I guess... If they strictly worded the bill as such, then yea... I'd be happy with it.

    "Can't speak English?
    Then I need papers."

    Sounds totally fair to me for AZ to implement and see how things roll.

    EDIT: Hmm... didn't realize this was in the same thread.
  18. #298  
    I have read on the European invasion. the colonies where the Indians lived were invaded by the European. The majority of the Indians were exterminated
    and others were locked up in reservations. (Jailed in their own country)

    I know that there are countries that invade other countries, steal their resources and then say that they are there to "protect the invaded county freedom" (deja-vu somebody)

    I also know about people that work for less than 5 dollars a day, under the worst conditions (job, weather etc) just to give their family something to eat while we buy PlayStation (yes a made in china item by the way) to our misguided children just to keep them busy and far from us.

    That poor people work for the big USA enterprises, the ones making big money and probably their sons (the sons of the big entrepreneurs) are the first in line protesting against immigration.

    I see a lot of hypocrisy here.

    A big percent of the American soldiers are immigrant decedent or even from other countries that come here, fight for this country and then wait for the breadcrumbs this country offer them. The worst is that a big percent if the “Born in the USA and proud of it” citizens not even make their parents
    proud of them, never served in the military and some times they no even go to college.
  19. #299  
    Quote Originally Posted by predator70 View Post
    I have read on the European invasion. the colonies where the Indians lived were invaded by the European. The majority of the Indians were exterminated
    and others were locked up in reservations. (Jailed in their own country)

    I know that there are countries that invade other countries, steal their resources and then say that they are there to "protect the invaded county freedom" (deja-vu somebody)

    I also know about people that work for less than 5 dollars a day, under the worst conditions (job, weather etc) just to give their family something to eat while we buy PlayStation (yes a made in china item by the way) to our misguided children just to keep them busy and far from us.

    That poor people work for the big USA enterprises, the ones making big money and probably their sons (the sons of the big entrepreneurs) are the first in line protesting against immigration.

    I see a lot of hypocrisy here.

    A big percent of the American soldiers are immigrant decedent or even from other countries that come here, fight for this country and then wait for the breadcrumbs this country offer them. The worst is that a big percent if the “Born in the USA and proud of it” citizens not even make their parents
    proud of them, never served in the military and some times they no even go to college.
    I couldn't have said it better my self! I have also seen this hands on, my wife's younger brother had been wanting to be a marine since he was in junior high, unfortunately, later on he found out he would not be able to fight for this country.
  20. #300  
    soooooooo many ignorant comments here

Posting Permissions