OT: Mexico v. Arizona - with help
Bob-tx
the people who frequent this NG, I thought it would be of interest to
several of you .
Bob
Please take a couple minutes to at least start to watch this vid clip.
I encourage you to forward this, but you decide.
The person in this video is a professor (Ph.D.) at Yavapai College
in Prescott, Arizona.
He puts a different spin on what Obama is doing to help Arizona and he
repeats the important parts and speaks slow enough to allow you to follow
what he's saying; must be why he's rated highly by his students - 3.8 on a
4.0 scale.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsH8xvjTAlo
Bob-tx
Frank Provasek
> I apologize for off topic, but from what I have observed about many of
> the people who frequent this NG, I thought it would be of interest to
> several of you .
>
>
Sorry, Bob-tx,
US Border Patrol arrests in Arizona are up 8,000 in a 6 month period
in 2010 compared to the Bush era.
http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/051910_border_crossers
Immigration is the SOLE reponsibility of the federal government, just
as states may not make treaties or issue money.
There are similar cases going back to the 1800s which the states lost,
accoring to Peter Spiro, a constitutional law
professor at Temple University who has studied immigration law
Even Fox News' Judge Napolitano said "it's so unconstitutional that I
predict a federal judge
will prevent Arizona from enforcing it as soon as they attempt to do
so."
Yavapai College offers seven associate degree programs: Associate of
Arts/Associate of Science, Associate of Business Degrees, Associate of
Arts in Elementary Education, Associate of Fine Arts Degree, Associate
of General Studies Degree Program, Associate Degree in Nursing, and
Associate of Applied Science Degree
And the famous Yavapai College Gunsmithing School.
Lovell has a business PhD and teaches in a 2 year community college.
but of course that makes him more qualified than attorney general
Holder, who
has a Juris Doctor from Columbia Law School,, has worked for the
Justice Dept for 35 years, was appointed a judge by Reagan,
,
and prosecuted two corrupt Democratic Congressmen John Jenrette and
Dan Rostenkowski.
Frank Provasek
PS
I pointed out his errors (with sources) as a comment on his video. I
suspect
I will get a nasty reply.
Bremick
"Frank Provasek" <fr...@frankcoins.com> wrote in message
news:54e240d1-64ec-4e2a...@u9g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 24, 1:14 pm, "Bob-tx" <No Spam no contact> wrote:
> I apologize for off topic, but from what I have observed about many of
> the people who frequent this NG, I thought it would be of interest to
> several of you .
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsH8xvjTAlo
>
Sorry, Bob-tx,
US Border Patrol arrests in Arizona are up 8,000 in a 6 month period
in 2010 compared to the Bush era.
_________
Those with a different agenda might point out that 8,000 more aliens made it
through a porous border in 2010 than during the same period a few years ago?
Peter
> Immigration is the SOLE reponsibility of the federal government, just
> as states may not make treaties or issue money.
Hmmm ...
I am not a resident of Ariz., nor am I a constitutional scholar. Even
so, the professor's video, while a bit strident is not completely
unreasonable. Note that article 4, section IV of the constitution
indicates clearly that the federal government has an obligation to
protect the states from invasion. What some describe in Ariz. has
some of the properties of invasion. Consequently, the concern the
video expresses that the federal government is not providing
sufficient protection may have a non-trivial basis. If so, it is
fundamentally a claim that Ariz.'s covenant with the central
government is broken.
I guess that this is a point that might be litigated and it may be
that some of what the professor says is correct. Equally, the claim
that what the state is attempting is entirely unconstitutional seems
to have at least some possibility of support.
Also, I believe that if states wish to do so, they may issue money
(gold or silver, at least). Why they would bother when everyone takes
federal paper is another matter entirely.
Frank Provasek
> Also, I believe that if states wish to do so, they may issue money
> (gold or silver, at least).
No.
US Constitution:
Article I, Section 10, provides that "No State shall enter into any
Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and
Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold
and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of
Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of
Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
Frank Provasek
> _________
>
> Those with a different agenda might point out that 8,000 more aliens made it
> through a porous border in 2010 than during the same period a few years ago?
Facts don't change based on an agenda.
In the first half of the last decade, an average of 850,000 people a
year entered the United States without
authorization. As the economy plunged into recession between 2007 and
2009, that number fell to 300,000.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/01/AR2010090106940.html
Florida's illegal immigrant population fell by 375,000, to an
estimated 675,000, between 2008 and 2009, and Nevada's decreased by
50,000 to an estimated 180,000 during that period. The US Government
is actually sending them back faster than they are coming over.
That's a huge improvement over the 1.5 million a year
that got through during the 1980s. 9/11 was followed by much better
border security, to Bush's credit, Under Obama, it has improved
further with the stimulus funds of $100 million for new inspection
systems, including drones and night vision cameras, $300 million for
more border stations, $60 million for improved communication
equipment, $100 million for aid to states, and $420 million for
construction of the fence.
http://www.propublica.org/special/the-stimulus-plan-a-detailed-list-of-spending
Deportations
http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/123/deportations.jpg
beekeep
<fr...@frankcoins.com> wrote:
>On Jan 24, 9:10=A0pm, "Bremick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
>> _________
>>
>> Those with a different agenda might point out that 8,000 more aliens made=
> it
>> through a porous border in 2010 than during the same period a few years a=
>go?
>
>Facts don't change based on an agenda.
>
>In the first half of the last decade, an average of 850,000 people a
>year entered the United States without
> authorization. As the economy plunged into recession between 2007 and
>2009, that number fell to 300,000.
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/01/AR201009010=
>6940.html
>
> Florida's illegal immigrant population fell by 375,000, to an
>estimated 675,000, between 2008 and 2009, and Nevada's decreased by
>50,000 to an estimated 180,000 during that period. The US Government
>is actually sending them back faster than they are coming over.
>That's a huge improvement over the 1.5 million a year
>that got through during the 1980s. 9/11 was followed by much better
>border security, to Bush's credit, Under Obama, it has improved
>further with the stimulus funds of $100 million for new inspection
>systems, including drones and night vision cameras, $300 million for
>more border stations, $60 million for improved communication
>equipment, $100 million for aid to states, and $420 million for
>construction of the fence.
>
>http://www.propublica.org/special/the-stimulus-plan-a-detailed-list-of-spen=
>ding
>
>Deportations
>http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/123/deportations.jpg
>
For that much money we could have bought Mexico and had much less
boader to patrol!
beekeep
Peter
Exactly how to interpret, "...emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but
gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts..." was the reason
for my remark. They would be prohibited from issuing US coinage,
indeed. They might issue other coins or accept other coins. Franklin
described such a system himself and at various times (even now) in
some places in the US local currencies continue, although for narrow
purposes.
States (e.g.,Illinois and California) may not call them bills of
credit, but have issued a torrent of state and local credits. Their
debt instruments trade openly on markets.
Now that the federal money says it is a "note", the distinction is
less clear than when the federal money was a valuable thing in and of
itself.
Bremick
On Jan 24, 9:10 pm, "Bremick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
> _________
>
> Those with a different agenda might point out that 8,000 more aliens made
> it
> through a porous border in 2010 than during the same period a few years
> ago?
Facts don't change based on an agenda.
In the first half of the last decade, an average of 850,000 people a
year entered the United States without
authorization. As the economy plunged into recession between 2007 and
2009, that number fell to 300,000.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/01/AR2010090106940.html
Florida's illegal immigrant population fell by 375,000, to an
estimated 675,000, between 2008 and 2009, and Nevada's decreased by
50,000 to an estimated 180,000 during that period. The US Government
is actually sending them back faster than they are coming over.
That's a huge improvement over the 1.5 million a year
that got through during the 1980s. 9/11 was followed by much better
border security, to Bush's credit, Under Obama, it has improved
further with the stimulus funds of $100 million for new inspection
systems, including drones and night vision cameras, $300 million for
more border stations, $60 million for improved communication
equipment, $100 million for aid to states, and $420 million for
construction of the fence.
_________
In spite of all this perported "spending", the number of illegals who made
it through in a 6 month period in 2010 reportedly grew by 8,000? The last I
heard, that expensive massive hi-tech border surveillance system was found
to be a bust and will be abandoned. And according to those on the ground,
little of these funds have yet to be put to use, so they can't come into
play yet in the illegal alien control cause and effect statistics game.
Hasn't the number of border security guards been mentioned as vulnerable in
the proposed domestic belt-tightening?
Frank Galikanokus
The Arizona law is unconstitutional, period.
Right wing assholes go on and on about following the US Constitution, when it suits them.
Then they wipe their asses with it when they disagree with it.
If you righttards were constant I could almost respect your opinion.
JAM
Frank Galikanokus
Why not put the responsibility on those that create the problem? The people that hire
illegals.
The reason they cross the border is because they know some low life will hire them.
JAM
Bremick
"Frank Galikanokus" <FrankGal...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4D3EED15...@nospam.net...
Sure. Okay. Now what.
Bob-tx
" Right wing assholes go on and on about following the US Constitution, when it suits them. Then they wipe their asses with it when they disagree with it."
But That's the way it is. We'll live with it. Some of them will grow up someday and see the light.
Bob-tx
Bob-tx
"Frank Galikanokus" <FrankGal...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:4D3EED15...@nospam.net...
Finally, a good point and not a single nasty word. You are maturing and one
day you will be one of us. Thanks,
Bob-tx
mazorj
"Bob-tx" <No Spam no contact> wrote in message
news:4d3f15a0$0$9116$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
Bob-tx
===========================================
Oh, knock off the sanctimonious holier-than-thou act, Bob. When's the last
time you heard Limbaugh or Beck or any of that crowd admit an error? Ditto
for your average conservative. If conservatives do admit their errors in
significant numbers, you must be doing it in closed rooms "sub rosa" where
the rest of us can't hear it. ;-) Many is the time I've stopped some lib
in his/her tracks by citing some fact that made them back off to reconsider
a less dogmatic leftist view on something. With most conservatives, citing
facts only made them dig in deeper and speak louder against me. YMMV, all I
can do is cite personal experience and observation.
While it's true that some liberals can be just as adamant about not
admitting errors, IMO they aren't any better than conservatives when they do
that. However, *on average* most libs tend to be the more open-minded of
the two. That's because typically their positions already have undergone
the extensive "on the other hand" scrutiny that conservatives mistake for
waffling and an eggheaded inability to come down decisively on issues.
The fact is, most "liberal" views (of necessity, defined here as "not
conventional neocon dogma") already have undergone more rigorous examination
than the reflexive "What did Rush say?" thinking process that an awful lot
of conservatives engage in. I'm not saying that liberals are perfect or
always correct, or that conservatives are always wrong. It's just that the
typical lib tends to be more open-minded *before the fact* in deciding their
views. When they finally do decide on an option, often they are burdened
with the "on the other hand" knowledge that inhibits them from seeing
solutions as black or white and requires a thoughtful selection of which
shade of gray is most appropriate.
Liberals also tend to be more open-minded because research has shown that
liberals tend to fight over ideas and policy options, which requires a fair
amount of skull sweat. Conservatives tend to fight to defend their culture
and religion, which encourages (and to some extent actually requires) a more
shoot-from-the-hip approach. "On the other hand? Don't need no stinking
'on the other hands'! The answer is simple, black and white, I'm 100% right
and you're 100% wrong!"
Of course, there are numerous exceptions to these generalizations on both
sides. I've been delighted to have spirited conversations with thoughtful
conservatives, and roll my eyes at unthinking liberals who always come down
way on the left; but from my personal observations these generalized
characterizations are more accurate than wrong.
And as to vulgarity and name calling, what rock have you been living under?
Both sides do it, too.
Bremick
"Bob-tx" <No Spam no contact> wrote in message
news:4d3f1617$0$8692$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
Actually, he passes the buck. The illegals certainly couldn't be
responsible for their actions. It's everyone else. It's the Americans who
will employ them. Not the fault of their home country either where living
conditions drive them to chance a shot at our border. Not the fault of
their greedy countrymen who round up and rip off their brothers and sisters
to sneak them across the border for profit.
It's always those darn Americans who use drugs that are causing all the drug
problems in Mexico. At the same time, it's those darn American gun dealers
who cause Mexican cartels to buy thousands of guns here and bring them home.
We just can win here.
Beanie
"Bremick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ihnab7$2g1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Actually, he passes the buck. The illegals certainly couldn't be responsible
> for their actions. It's everyone else. It's the Americans who will employ
> them. Not the fault of their home country either where living conditions
> drive them to chance a shot at our border. Not the fault of their greedy
> countrymen who round up and rip off their brothers and sisters to sneak them
> across the border for profit.
>
> It's always those darn Americans who use drugs that are causing all the drug
> problems in Mexico. At the same time, it's those darn American gun dealers
> who cause Mexican cartels to buy thousands of guns here and bring them home.
> We just can win here.
Without looking to pass the buck, I'd have to opine that I don't blame illegals
for coming here for a better life.
I'm not happy about, I think our own government is doing a terrible job watching
the borders, I think that Americans who employ illegals should be jailed for
life, I think the Mexican government is a joke and a failed narco-state but I
still can feel compassion for people who desperately want a better life for
their children.
Bob-tx
"mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ihn93f$6rv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Hey guy, I'm proud of you. You didn't use a single nasty word. You are
on the way. Won't be long before you are off the welfare rolls, earning a
living on your own merit, and soon you will see the light and be
conservative.
Bob-tx
Bob-tx
"Beanie" <b...@ea.ne> wrote in message news:ihne6j$mnr$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
A common sense comment. Although being jailed for LIFE. WOW.
How about jailed for 5 years and a million dollar fine?
Thanks
Bob-tx
Beanie
"Bob-tx" <No Spam no contact> wrote in message
How about life in front of a firing squad AND a million dollar fine?
Jerry Dennis
All of this talk forces me to pose the question... Is it really that
difficult to get a working permit green card (or whatever the
bureaucratic term is)? There are very few, if any, illegal aliens
this far north in upstate NY (do Canadians count?), so I really have
no idea.
Jerry
Pondering
Jerry Dennis
> "mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ihn93f$6rv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bob-tx" <No Spam no contact> wrote in message
> >news:4d3f15a0$0$9116$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bob, shame on you. Maz and I have had some prety spirited debates
that would hae made O'Reilly proud (Maz with Juan Williams, me with
Mary Katherine Ham). Both of us presented our views and justified
them. Both of us are open-minded enough to at least try to see the
other's point of view. I can't think of a single time either of us
lowered ourselves to name-calling. Thus, I have a great respect for
Maz and enjoy debating politics with him.
Jerry
Bremick
For many generations we've welcomed immigrants who desperately wanted a
better life here for their children. But there has always been a
immigration process to follow, just like in most other countries-- in fact
a lot more lenient and non-restrictive policy than many other countries.
The ancestors of most of us followed those policies and watched their
descendants prosper.
I can't dispute that those who thrive by hiring illegals should be
prosecuted, but I also wouldn't put *all* the blame on them for immigrants
sneaking into this country.
Peter
>
> - Show quoted text -
The US is actually the nation that is most welcoming to immigrants in
the sense of a historical view of how many it accepts. In some years
it has accepted more immigrants than all other countries. Sometimes,
for whatever reason, it takes a more limited number. Setting limits
is not unreasonable. Limits mean that some may be rejected. Many
simply don't know how to make a proper request. Some, even wish to do
us harm and would not reasonably be accepted. The latter groups are
sometimes aided by people who make a business of clandestine
immigration.
Getting a green card is a process whereby a US employer permits a
foreign applicant to work in the US with the approval of the
government. In some ways it is more complex than simply immigrating.
The first step is a job offer. At the moment this is somewhat more
difficult than finding a job, from outside the country. Even within
the country, jobs are hard to find. Not everyone wishing to immigrate
needs a green card.
mazorj
"Bob-tx" <No Spam no contact> wrote in message
So you agree with my characterizations. Good.
What makes you think I'm not conservative on any issues?
Dogman
Maryland that. There law enforcement officers do exactly what SB1070 does,
they check immigration status on all there traffic stops. Now what are you
going to come up with next?? Not to mention that there are many other states
adopting almost verbatum what SB1070 does. Any explanation for that? I can
tell you why. Let the illegals cross the border, once they are in, get that
vote for Omammy!!!
"Frank Provasek" <fr...@frankcoins.com> wrote in message
news:8d2f5876-1120-472d-
Frank Galikanokus
>
> Oh really?? That news to everyone. Maybe you should tell the state of
> Maryland that. There law enforcement officers do exactly what SB1070 does,
> they check immigration status on all there traffic stops. Now what are you
> going to come up with next?? Not to mention that there are many other states
> adopting almost verbatum what SB1070 does. Any explanation for that? I can
> tell you why. Let the illegals cross the border, once they are in, get that
> vote for Omammy!!!
In what state are illegals allowed to vote?
JAM
Bill
"Frank Provasek" <fr...@frankcoins.com> wrote in message
news:8d2f5876-1120-472d...@a28g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Peter
wrote:
> In what state are illegals allowed to vote?
>
> JAM
My impression is that most people are encouraged to register to vote
when they apply for or renew a driver's license.
The instructions, in MD, say, "What information do I need to provide
on the application?
In addition to basic identifying information, federal law requires
that you must provide a Maryland driver's license or MVA ID Card
number or, if you do not have a driver's license number, at least the
last four digits of your social security number on your voter
registration application. Your application will NOT be processed
unless you provide this information or affirm, under penalty of
perjury, that you do not have a driver's license or social security
number."
I'm not entirely sure how this is administered in MD (and I have
reason to think that MD is more careful than some other states). Even
so, I have been advised that there is a cottage industry of folks that
"help" people apply for a drivers license. They seem to specialize in
coaching applicants in English (or perhaps even appearing in their
place). One source of this information was from employees of the
Motor Vehicle Administration that I chatted with when obtaining a MD
license after an extended period overseas.
Whether in some states (or even MD) there is significant leakage of
illegals into the voting rolls, I cannot say for sure. Even so, it is
clear that the critical document to register to vote in many states is
a driver's license and MD is quite anxious that some may be evading
their scrutiny.
Jud
> Whether in some states (or even MD) there is significant leakage of
> illegals into the voting rolls, I cannot say for sure. Even so, it is
> clear that the critical document to register to vote in many states is
> a driver's license and MD is quite anxious that some may be evading
> their scrutiny.
When I went to the DMV to change my address on my driver's license,
they asked me for proof of citizenship! Another trip to the DMV with
my passport required.
Jud -Pure American-