Supreme Court upholds most important part of SB 1070, the Arizona Immigration Law.
Supreme Court upholds citizenship/immigration status check.
It has always been my contention that this aspect of the law is Constitutional. Checking your right to be her is no different then checking your license.
The RACIST scam is just that. Those on the far left, running scared that their illegal voter pool will shrink, ALWAYS play the racism card.
I'm hearing the criminal penalties have been struck down, but I'm OK with that, because for me, deportation and confiscation are the things we should be looking at.
Taking it a step more... if the police can require an immigration check... then so can social service agencies, schools and others.
And that's the start, I hope, of getting rid of the rather moronic illegals destination resort concept of "immigration law."
10 comments:
Walk me through your reasoning on this.
Do you think more than 5% of illegal immigrants will leave now? What about the other 95%? Aren't you just increasing the leverage of those who want to exploit them?
Besides satisfying your personal desire for punishment - what's the up side?
The upside is that this decision can, I believe, be expanded to ANY agency... social services, schools, etc. It can CERTAINLY be expanded to checking citizenship as a requirement to register to vote.
Martin, we have a difference of opinion.
These people are breaking the law. Period. We are, it's alleged, a nation of laws.
As for "exploiting" them, the fact is that they have no right to be here. If they feel "exoploited" then they can feel free to leave.
That's a harsh perspective, to be sure, but is it harsher then, say, Mexican immigration laws?
I think not.
Our economy is getting killed. We have a shortage of migrant workers... but we also have more illegals here now than ever before.
So, how can there be a shortage of migrant workers UNLESS the illegals are taking non-migrant worker jobs?
So, my concern is not their voluntary exploitation. Sorry.
That we're not taking any serious, systemic approach to addressing this relatively simple issue makes us the laughing stock.
If you don't like the law, then change it. But this bizarre concept that we can turn a blind eye towards the law and engage in selective, political enforcement?
I can't believe you'd support that.
I've read other of your postings where you were much more clear about supporting mass forced deportation - which is a legitimate solution. If that is what we as a nation choose to do then put me on the organizing committee. The fact that we're NOT doing that tells me The People are NOT supporting it.
However, if the choice is between ignoring the law or persecuting millions of people then fu*k the law.
Laws that people won't obey are simply political sledgehammers.
I don't know that I've been in the "round them up and ship them out" school as much as I've been for eliminating any advantage to their being here school.
No schooling, social services, work or housing allowed for illegals.
Confiscate their assets; confiscate the assets of those who hire and shelter them.
End the bizarre aspect of granting citizenship to those born here simply because they were born here, regardless of their parent's status.
When confronted with such a reality, why would anyone want to come here illegally?
But those who come here illegally, Martin... are you inferring that they didn't KNOW that even being here was illegal?
And that they ARE here illegally should not grant them any rights generally, and any rights American citizens can't get specifically?
And I have to disagree with your assertion:
"The fact that we're NOT doing that tells me The People are NOT supporting it."
The People around here don't support replacing the I-5 Bridge, Light rail or tolls. How is that stopping government generally and local government particularly from making every effort to ram it down our throats?
In Arizona, at least, every effort has been made to repeal 1070, and they've failed for the most part.
THERE, at least, they ARE both doing it AND, apparently, doing it with the people's support.
Forced deportations are not necessary. Eliminating the incentives to come here and risking deportation ala 1070 is the way to fix this problem.
Allowing these people to break our laws, giving some advantage based on proximity and putting these people ahead of those who actually respect our laws and stay out until they can come here legally?
How the hell does THAT address this issue and make it better, ie. reduce the number of illegal aliens here?
Last week I added "harass illegal aliens until they leave" to my "Conservative Values" list. I'm not trying to be rude or insulting with that observation. Personally, I'm sure it won't work which leaves illegals as a large unrepresented population - something I cannot countenance. That actually seems to be our main point of contention.
What would be your position towards the grandchildren of the illegals still in the U.S. 30 years from now?
"Fruits of the poisonous tree."
It's a rather well established legal principle concerning evidence, it should correspondingly apply to illegals, their offspring and so forth.
I have no problem with legal immigration. I have a major problem with those who violate our laws as opposed to those following the rules being rewarded for it.
That, say, a Canadian should get some consideration because they are here, inside our boarders illegally; over, say, a Filipino who is following the rules?
Never.
How is the "harass until they leave" strategy going to work for the grandchildren of today's illegals? Their population will at least double in 30 years to maybe 50 million people? An underclass of 50 million people sounds very dangerous. I think I know which side of the revolution they will be on...
If there is an "underclass" of maybe 50 million, there will be an "overclass" of 350 million.
I'd risk it, were I here in 30 years.
But I believe the laws will be changed to eliminate the anchor baby nonsense and many of the other provisions I've discussed will be implemented... because I fear for the survival of this country if they are not.
The Constitution is a guide... not a death warrant. And while the descendents of those here illegally can claim it's not their fault; I can also claim that it isn't mine, either, and that, therefore, none of us should have to pay for the decisions made by someone else to break the laws of this country and make OUR children suffer as a result.
Okay, here's a workable argument for you:
People who come into this country illegally will be persecuted - as they should be. However, under-18s can marry citizens which would make them citizens, and babies born here are already citizens. If the borders are shut solid now, all illegals will have left, died, married, or been born here in a couple generations. No 50 million non-citizen problem, and all laws the same as they are now.
You can win with this logic.
Kelly you said it so with "...But this bizarre concept that we can turn a blind eye towards the law and engage in selective, political enforcement?"
Sorry but I do believe this IS what has been done for how many generations? -- Jeremy
Post a Comment