The Arizona Situation Sickens Me….

I have been hoping to write this particular article for a couple of weeks now. Ever since the law passed and the liberal side began saying so many inaccurate things about it, I knew that I would write about the law and what I thought of it. Fortunately, the longer I have waited to sit down and write the article, the more idiotic the left has gotten over it. The lies and false dilemmas have spiraled out of control. We even have the President and the Attorney General of the United States making boneheaded and misleading statements about the law. We have groups boycotting, hell we have cities boycotting. We have potential Constitutional challenges and lawsuits and everything else you can think of. We have protests and rhetoric and all the crucial components that make up what passes for political discussion in today’s America. What we don’t have are people discussing the situation rationally and honestly. I will attempt to engage in such ludicrous action here tonight.

The situation for me has come down to the fact that I am sincerely angry about the things being said and done around this bill. Those who know me will tell you that it takes a lot to actually make me angry. But I really am. The lies, the false claims, the fear mongering, all of it. It is ridiculous and the fact that people are accepting this type of behavior from their communities and even further, their government officials, is truly sickening and makes me fear that stupidity is in the driver’s seat in America, while reason and honesty are relegated to a role as passengers in a cart being pulled behind the truck.

Let’s start with at least being honest and stating what is actually in the bill. It isn’t a long bill, only ten pages long. Let’s start with the intent of the law, as written in the first sentence of the bill (items bolded are mine):

The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.

The quick summary of the important part of the intent, they are looking to simply enforce the federal laws that are already on the books! They then added the following to existing laws:

Added to Article 8:

A. No political subdivision of Arizona shall make a law or policy that limits or restricts enforcement of Federal immigration law

B. When there is a lawful contact with a person in Arizona, if there is reason to suspect that the person is an illegal immigrant, the law enforcement officer or agency will make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status. This will be done by verifying the person’s immigration status with the Federal government according to US Civil Code 1373(c).

C. If an illegal immigrantis convicted of a crime, upon completion of imprisonment or fine for said crime, they will be transferred to the custody of I.C.E. or US Customs and Border Protection.

D. Authorities may transfer illegal aliens to the proper federal processing centers.

E. Without a warrant, a law enforcement officer may arrest any person that they have a reason to believe has committed a crime that would make them not eligible to remain in the United States.

F. All governmental agencies, except where prohibited by federal law, will not restrict or prohibit information sending, receiving, or storing in relation to immigration status for the following purposes.

  1. Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service, or license.
  2. Verifying claims of residence or domicile
  3. Identifying individuals who are detained
  4. If the person is an alien, determining whether they are in compliance with federal registration laws prescribed by Title II, Chapter 7 of The Federal Immigration and Nationality Act.

G. Basically states that legal action can be brought against any agency that restricts the ability to enforce existing federal immigration laws.

H. Deals with the collection of fines in regard to legal action from G.

I. Protects law enforcement officers from heavy fines unless they are found to have acted in bad faith (acted illegally or unethically)

J. All of the above shall be implemented “in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons, and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.”

Here ends the actions that are taken to add to Article 8 of the Federal Laws on immigration. This gets you to page three of the new ten page monster. I see absolutely NOTHING thus far that does a single thing other than enforce federal laws. The Arizona bill again and again simply states that Arizona agencies will be required to operate within the letter of the federal laws. No new actions. No new powers. No new nothing. Simply enforcing federal law, and absolutely nothing else.

The next section basically sets the classification of crimes by illegal immigrants and the fines that are imposed on them upon conviction. It further upgrades the classifications if while committing the crimes they are in possession of drugs, drug making materials, weapons, or terrorist materials. It also sets up that any fines or monies collected under violations will be put into an account for the gang task force for Arizona.

Section three gets a little more specific in identifying what is illegal in terms of smuggling human beings for profit or commercial purposes. It upgrades the classification if they do so using threats of harm or dangerous weapons. It further upgrades the classification of the crime if the person smuggled is under 18 not not accompanied by a family member over 18 (read as smuggling children without their parents, meant to stop prostitution rings).  Section 4 deals with the practice of stopping your vehicle to hire illegal immigrants and also identifies it as illegal for someone not lawfully in the country to work here. It also identifies it as illegal to hire illegal aliens or to knowingly hide them or help them evade law enforcement.

The next section deals with employers who intentionally employ illegal aliens. They actually spend about 5 pages of the ten in the bill doing nothing but defining what it means to intentionally employ illegals, what the consequences are, how complaints are filed, what constitutes entrapment, and what is required to make a complaint.

That is it. That is the law. There are no new ways to entrap illegal immigrants. There are no new requirements to carry documentation if you are an immigrant. There are no new ways to racially profile people based on the color of their skin. There is really no new anything! Arizona’s immigration law does nothing at all except enforce federal immigration law. THOSE ARE THE FACTS. So why is it that I am hearing all of this other stuff from the main stream media, the President, the Attorney General, the pundits, the city councils, the surrounding states, etc? Let’s look at some of the lies….

Let’s start with Attorney General Eric Holder. Mr. Holder claimed that he found the law “troubling”. He concluded that the law is “divisive” (yet he didn’t seem to have any issue with the Health Care bill, and I haven’t seen any legislation that divisive in quite some time). He claimed that the law opens the door for racial profiling. That is an outright lie. Arizona immediately passed another law that required that law enforcement officers must have a different reason for stopping someone other than their possible immigration status. This bill does nothing to make racial profiling more probable or easier to do. If someone would racially profile, this bill had nothing to do with it. And to top it off, when under oath before a congressional committee, Holder admitted this week that he has not read the bill. I read the entire thing….. twice….. tonight. Yet the Attorney General has all this to say about it and hasn’t read it?

What about the President of the United States? He stated that, “We can’t start singling out people because of who they look like, or how they talk, or how they dress. We can’t turn law-abiding American citizens, and law-abiding immigrants, into subjects of suspicion and abuse.” Apparently the President hasn’t read the bill either. Because, as pointed out above, there is nothing in this bill that doesn’t what the President is claiming. This is more rhetoric meant to mis-inform the public about what the bill is. And even worse that it is coming from the President himself.

The President further railed against the bill as irresponsible. He stated, “Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.” First of all, the people who don’t trust the police, felt that way long before this bill and the bill won’t change that one way or another. More important Mr. President, you claim that this has opened the door to irresponsibility by others and single out Arizona. Let’s look at this realistically. Federal law exists. The federal government doesn’t enforce it. Arizona is under siege by illegal immigrants, so they pass a law that requires that state officers enforce the federal laws that the federal officers refuse to enforce. And you say that it is ARIZONA that is acting irresponsibly? I say it is YOU, Mr. President. It is the federal government’s irresponsibility that has caused Arizona to finally act responsibly to protect its citizens. The lies begin right at the top, I see.

One of the claims that has irritated me more than others is this false notion being pushed by the liberal media pundits that Arizona has turned into some sort of Nazi fascist state. That they are all the sudden just like the SS, asking everyone in a harsh german accent, “your papers please.” This is absolute bullshit. Immigrants in this country are required by law to carry their green card with them at all times. That is the law, and it has been the law for a very long time. All Arizona did was state that they would use the federally required green card as the means for identifying legal immigrants. Immigrants were not required to do anything different, or carry anything more, than federal law already required. These are outright lies being pushed by the liberal media. I found stories making this claim on EVERY single one of the major liberally biased news sources (CBS, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN, HuffPo, NPR). A coordinated lie being told to the American people to make them believe that something is happening in Arizona that is not happening. Disgusting and shameful. And for any of you that fell for it, shame on you.

Then of course we have the boycotts. Protests at the Arizona Diamondbacks baseball games. Many liberal groups boycotting travel to Arizona altogether. There are several groups demanding that Major League Baseball pull the upcoming All-Star game, scheduled for 2011 in Phoenix. That’s a good idea, punish the baseball fans in Arizona. The city of Los Angeles boycotted Arizona, with the city council voting to do no business with the state until they repeal the law. Other cities have done the same, such as San Francisco, San Diego, Oakland, and Austin. Ridiculous.

A school in Illinois revoked the girls basketball team from attending a basketball tournament in Arizona. Those girls have won their first conference tournament in 26 years and they sold cookies for 5 months to pay for the trip. But the school decided that the state was not safe for the girls to visit, because of the new immigration law. I saw their team picture. Even if the racial profiling claims were true, none of those girls is going to get mistaken for illegal immigrants. Mid-western all American girls. But the truth lies in the rest of the statement from the school, that a trip to Arizona would no longer be within the school’s beliefs and values. So they are punishing these girls to make a political statement about Arizona values. Oddly, they have not canceled a school group’s upcoming trip to China. Apparently the school in Illinois believes that China is safer for their students than Arizona, and that China is more aligned with the school’s beliefs and values. The school also allowed past trips to the Czech Republic and South America. Bizarre indeed.

The bottom line here is that Arizona has done what they needed to do. Illegal immigration is a gigantic problem in Arizona. We all read the story of the rancher killed there, after years of leaving food and water out for them. Illegal immigrants account for 9 percent of the state’s population, 12 percent of the workforce and 15 percent of public school students – giving Arizona the highest percentage of illegal immigrants in the country. Phoenix is the number one city for kidnapping in the United States, with nearly one person abducted every single day on average. Arizona officials seize roughly 1.5 tons of marijuana crossing the border a day. Their problems are big, and their people are afraid. Arizona took steps to protect its citizens because the federal government has utterly failed to secure the border and protect its citizens. I applaud them for doing so.

And is apparent that, despite the rhetoric and hard work that is being put out there, Americans overwhelmingly support Arizona’s new immigration law. I have seen two polls this week. One said 70% of respondents agree with the law and the other said 64% agreed. I won’t get into the solutions part of this quite yet, as I will be posting a “Let’s Fix It” article on immigration soon. But I do have to ask those who have such a big problem with Arizona’s actions, what exactly would you have them do? Sit and watch things continue to spiral downward waiting for the Federal government to get off its ass? As much as I hate to agree with Sarah Palin, I must on this one, when she says that if the federal government doesn’t like what Arizona has done, then they should get off their ass and secure the damn border. Do your job Mr. President! (my words, I don’t think she used foul language in her speech). As for all the rhetoric coming from the far left on this issue, the time has come to dismiss them for the fear mongers that they are being on this issue and tell them to simply tell the truth or shut the hell up.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. Cyndi P says:

    You mean there won’t be Liberals in Arizona??? SWEET!!!!!! That’s where I’m headed on my next stateside visit!

    🙂

    • Let me know when you will be here Cyndi, and we’ll fire up the BBQ. We live up in the North West corner not too far from Kingman and even closer to Lake Mead.

      • Cyndi P says:

        Sounds good. Maybe Anita will join us. And we’ll need horses. I miss riding horses!

        🙂

    • Mathius says:

      I’m torn.. I love the dry heat of an Arizona summer.. 110 and no humidity.. but I really dislike this law.. then again, there are In ‘n’ Out’s in Arizona..

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        What, specifically, do you dislike? Since the vast majority of the law is merely stating that Arizona State and Local Law Enforcement will enforce existing Federal Law, perhaps you don’t like the existing Federal Law?

        • Mathius says:

          Yup.

          But I also see no way to enforce this law that doesn’t involve cops accosting innocent legal citizens who arouse “reasonable suspicion” of being illegal and demanding to see their papers. There’s something fascist and police-state-like about it.

          But let me say this, yet again, IMMIGRANTS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM! Crime is the problem, and that’s because cause by this war on drugs and we cannot win the ‘war on drugs’ because we are funding both sides of it. End that – establish a sensible drug policy – make it much more practical for people to immigrate and there would be no issues. Leave the people who are just trying to find an honest day’s work along. And, if nothing else, remember that the US economy depends on them – they are every bit the life-blood of our economy. Ask any California farmer, Florida orange grower, suburbanite with a yard to mow, etc.

          • Matt, the only reason our economy “depends on them” is because of minimum wage laws. Like the drug laws, I think those need to go. Then poor and young americans would at least have work available to them.

            If you don’t like that idea, and you care so much about the immigrants, then why do they get the raw deal of low wages with no employee conditions protection?

            None of the economics arguments on either side of this issue are worth a crap. The issues that matter are crime and freedom. I agree that immigrants are not the problem, violence is, and we need to squash the violence.

            • Mathius says:

              Well at least we’re mostly on the same page.

              But, once again, I’m not ok with illegal immigrants not having the protections of the law and minimum wage and safe working environments – in fact, I think it’s another reason to allow them to work legally so that they can receive these protections.

              Whether the minimum wage is a bad idea in the first place is a different question and one we can discuss another time.

              • It is a discussion I would like to have. I think it is at the root of a lot of our labor issues. It is not just the access to free money from the government that makes Americans not want to do certain jobs, it is the fact that employers wont offer them to Americans because they cannot legally do so, nor would an American accept an under the table offer of a low wage in most cases due to the mentality the minimum wage creates.

          • Matt, what you are saying is to surrender to the drug cartels of south America? Really? Have you listened to yourself?

            Get this little FACT = Because of the drug runners the city of phoenix is the kidnap capitol of the world. Literally every night on the news we hear of at least one kidnapping, rape or murder perpetrated by ILLEGALS who have entered this country to bring drugs. They do not come here to look for work. They come here to commit crimes. If you want to stop crime, then you have to get rid of the criminals. If you want drugs, then you have to hobnob with criminals. But those of you who want it both ways just don’t care. I have heard that drugs are a victimless crime all my working life over and over again. Tell that to the 22 year old handicapped girl that was kidnapped and repeatedly raped over a three day period last week because her kidnappers thought her parents were in the drug trade. This was done by four men who came here carrying drugs from Mexico.

            You do not like it that drugs are illegal because you want drugs, and you do not like this nations immigration laws because drugs are transported across our southern border, and if we shut that down you might not get your illegal drugs. I know that you will say this is not true, but what else would you expect someone to think? Your statements just do not sound reasonable.

            • Mathius says:

              Follow the logic, GA.

              (A) My personal drug use – in and of itself – does not harm anyone but myself.

              (B) The government has make buying drugs illegal. But people (of course, not me though) continue to buy them illegally.

              (C) Now the drugs must be imported illegally, which necessitates all kinds of unscrupulous behavior.

              (D) The profit margins are HUGE in the drug trade because of the restricted suppose, but undiminished demand.

              (E) The criminals enter the drug trade. Unlike the trade in legal drugs done by reputable companies and distributed by pharacies, these are transported and sold distributed by gangs.

              (F) This make a lot of money for the gangs.

              (G) This is called an ‘economic profit’ as opposed to a ‘normal profit’. So other gangs try to enter the business.

              (H) These gangs go to war against each other and innocent people get caught in the crossfire.

              (I) Immigrants are not all drug mules. Stopping immigration will not stop the flow of drugs. Stopping the flow of drugs will not stop immigration.

              Now, look at this again. Where is the root of the problem? We’ve made something illegal and forced it into the criminal sphere where it generates mass amounts of money leading to violence. As there is no good reason for it to be illegal in the first place, you can pull the plug on the whole issue by removing the illogical step – the bad law.

              As for immigrants, the argument is different. It goes like this:

              (A) Immigrants are human beings.

              (B) You have no right to tell people where they can and cannot live.

              (C) Therefore, they should be free to come and go as they please.

              • Matt, you said “Where is the root of the problem?” . . . The root is in your own statements;

                (A) My personal drug use – in and of itself – does not harm anyone but myself.

                WRONG! You are harming FUTURE generations, but you don’t care about that just so long as you can get high.

                (B) The government has make buying drugs illegal. But people (of course, not me though) continue to buy them illegally. – Seriously, you can lie from now until hell freezes over, but that won’t make me believe you. The reason narcotics are illegal is that they not only harm you, but your future generations. I know that you don’t care about that just because you are way too young and do not have the life experience to understand that what we do now will have a serious effect on the future.

                You also said “(B) You have no right to tell people where they can and cannot live.”

                Therein lies your biggest problem, not understanding just what a “country” really is. This is the United States of America and We The People, as a sovereign nation, have every right to say who can and cannot live in our country – THAT IS OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT! And again, your immaturity is glaringly obvious. I know that you purport to be a “liberal”, however, by your own statements and ineffective arguments you have shown that you do not have any firm idea of your own as to what a liberal really is. FYI – If you continue to listen to those who feed you lies couched in just enough fact to make you think that it is the truth, you are doomed to a life of blissful disillusionment.

              • G.A. Rowe

                THAT IS OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT

                NO SIR!

                God gave MEN rights, not countries!

                Thus, the basis of your understanding is flawed from the get-go, hence, the constant mistake of application of force, law and violence.

              • BF, if you are going to argue a point, then argue the ENTIRE point! The entire sentence is; “We The People, as a sovereign nation, have every right to say who can and cannot live in our country – THAT IS OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT!”

                Men form countries . . . Countries do not form men. Therefore my statement still stands as correct.

              • G. A. Rowe,

                BF, if you are going to argue a point, then argue the ENTIRE point! The entire sentence is; “We The People, as a sovereign nation, have every right to say who can and cannot live in our country – THAT IS OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT!”

                I argued the entire point.

                As I said with V. H.

                a “nation” is an abstraction and HAS NO RIGHTS.

                Humans have rights.

                There exists NO right for you to attack an non-violent man – and therefore your bizarre abstraction has no right either

                Men form countries . . . Countries do not form men.

                Sir, I wish you’d actually seize that concept to the depth of your soul.

                All human action is ultimately individual

                It matters not what you may write on a piece of paper and what power you give that piece of paper.

                Rights are held by humans.

                And it is at THAT level that Human Action is determined to be Rightful… or found to be of breach

  2. Thank you, USW, for your article here tonight.

    I have just learned, earlier this evening, that one of the “organizations” (for lack of a better word) that has decided against Arizona is the Republican National Committee by selecting Tampa, FL for their national convention instead of Phoenix. To me, actions speak much louder than words.

    Oh, dammitol, now I have to find another political party to align myself with!

    I was a Democrat until George McGovern came upon the scene back in 1968 and I switched to Republican. The pickens’ out there are mighty slim.

    Forget it, BF, I have always voted ever since I became eligible to vote and I am not going to change now. 😉

  3. Murphy's Law says:

    Excellent article, USW!

    Does it seem to anyone that the left’s craziness in their response to conservative action is directly proportional to how close an issue has been correctly nailed? IMO Arizona has really hit it out of the park with this law, and the left is showing just how much they can’t stand it when someone gets it right…..

    Murf

    • Canine Weapon says:

      I suppose it’s possible that we on the left think that they got it horribly horribly wrong, and that’s why we’re going nuts about it..

  4. A Puritan Descendant says:

    USW says > “It is ridiculous and the fact that people are accepting this type of behavior from their communities and even further, their government officials, is truly sickening and makes me fear that stupidity is in the driver’s seat in America, while reason and honesty are relegated to a role as passengers in a cart being pulled behind the truck”.

    ‘Anything goes’ without a moral basis to begin with. Right is wrong; truth is false; spin spin spin….

  5. Good Morning All! 🙂

    I have to agree with USW’s assertion that there have been lies spewed by the MSM and government people. Several other states are considering a similar law, including Ohio. Have a good day everyone, I’ll be stuck in contract negotiations all day 😦

    Peace!

    G!

  6. While I take issue with the federal laws on immigration, I see that a lot must change before they can even begin to. Regardless, I see no issue with Arizona’s law if they stay within its parameters. I don’t even know where to begin criticizing the president and others who are lying about the law. I also think that, if the issues with Arizona are so huge, then those issues are with the federal laws too. Maybe if more states did enforcement of federal law people would realize how bad federal law has become. Also, G.A. Rowe, the libertarian party welcomes you. 🙂

    • The problem with the Libertarian Party is that they advocate the wholesale slaughter of unborn children and the unfettered use of narcotics for recreational use.

      • Correct on point 2, point 1 is still hotly debated among libertarians, and a point I remain largely undecided on. To be consistent in my philosophy, I find it difficult to dictate that a person be forced to bow to the demands of another person. On the other hand, that person making the demands (the child) is not there by his/her own choice, but, at least indirectly, by the choices of two other persons. Considering that the adults were making the choice, I tend to lean towards the side of anti-abortion. However, for those who do not believe that a person is a person until birth or a certain stage of development, I understand that they are not viewing themselves as in violation of rights to life or anything else. It really comes down to the definition of “living human”.

        I think the established platform position is pro-abortion, however, and I certainly understand why that is a serious issue and a deal killer for a great many people. I would encourage you to look at the Constitution party, it is a little more socially conservative. Do at least look seriously at third parties, it is about time the two big parties felt the sting of votes going elsewhere, it is the only threat to their power.

        • Jon, thank you for your response. I consider myself a Constitutional Conservative politically.

          I personally believe that life actually begins at conception and that ending a human life unjustly is nothing short of murder.

          As far as someone getting an abortion just because she does not want a baby (I have a niece that has had seven abortions just for that reason alone)is not only a fool, but is aiding and abetting a murderer as well. Abortions are not needed for the simple reason that there are just way too many preventive products and measures to list here, and they all are readily available at very economic prices at your local drugstore to anyone of any age with the correct amount of the purchase in hand.

          I have posted my dissatisfaction with the RINO party on my website, and I have informed the Republican candidate for congress that I had been a volunteer for that I can no longer support anyone in that party for just that reason. I have also sent my complaint to the RNC via email. I personally cannot and will not support anyone who turns their back on this nation for any reason whatsoever.

          We need our borders secured. We need to stop this invasion. By any and all means necessary. If the Federal Government won’t do it, then We The People will, and then we will replace ALL of our politicians with those who will do the job they have been hired to do.

  7. codecrackx15 says:

    I hope Georgia (where I live) becomes wise like Arizona. Arizona and Texas seem to be where all the people with common sense moved to. The dumbest of the dumb still reside in New York and California though…. not everybody but the vast liberal mooching majority of them.
    Keep up the good work Arizona!!!

    • Mathius says:

      On behalf of the New York liberals, I resent that. Sometimes people think differently than you, and that doesn’t mean that they’re mooches or dumb.

      Adding, via the federal government, there is a massive flow of funds from California and New York and the other liberal bastions to the red states. Though Georgia is relatively innocuous in the list, it receives $1.01 for every dollar it pays to Washington in taxes (a/o 2005).

      CA gets 0.78 for every dollar
      New York gets 0.79
      New Jersey 0.61 per dollar
      (to be fair, I’ll point out that Texas is a net payer, too: 0.94)

      On the opposite side:
      New Mexico gets $2.03 per dollar
      Arizona gets 1.19
      Alaska 1.84
      Mississippi $2.02

      http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

      See the trend? Now, let’s try again. Who are the mooches?

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        Curious how you forgot to mention how Washington D.C. gets about $9.00 for every dollar THEY pay in….

        • Mathius says:

          Washington DC gets about $5.55 per dollar. Note, however, that as the seat of the Federal government, this not really a fair indication.

          $5.55 is such an outlier (where the second highest is about 40% of that). DC is poor so the amount paid in taxes is low to begin with, and when you add the massive spending on security, government buildings, etc (all of which would count as “spending received”), you get an inflated numerator over a depressed denominator. This is hardly a fair indication that the trend I’m suggesting is wrong, but rather that there are going to be a few states that don’t fit nicely with the regression line.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        People in New Mexico, Arizona, Mississippi, and Alaska have a much lower per-capita income than people in California and New York; therefore, according to YOUR OWN PARADIGM, it is only FAIR that the wealthy people from New York and California have their wealth redistributed to poorer States.

        • For the common good of course 😉

          • Mathius says:

            Yup. And I’m ok with it. (bet you didn’t see that coming).

            But I do resent being called a dumb mooch when I’m paying more so you can pay less.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Mathius,

              You are not paying more so that I can pay less.

              If we have the same income (we probably do not, but for the sake of this argument stipulate that we do), then we are PAYING THE SAME AMOUNT.

              I cannot help it if more of your income is being redistributed to some State other than your own because that State is not as well off as your State in aggregate. Redistribution is SUPPOSED to take money from States that are well off and send it to States that are not as well off!

              Your argument that you are paying more so that someone else can pay less is ridiculous though.

              BY YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, IF SOMEONE MAKES LESS THAN YOU, IT IS ONLY FAIR THAT YOU PAY MORE THAN THEM, right??

              • Mathius says:

                Yes, that is correct. I do not mind this situation. I am happy to subsidize your poorer state (ostensibly – I assume live in one of the many states receiving money from NY).

                If we earn the same and pay the same federal taxes, you still receive money from me because my money goes to your state and, indirectly, to you. So, you get more for an equal price, or put another way, I am paying more for what I get than you are. Look at it with numbers:

                I pay 10 in taxes and receive 9.
                You pay 10 in taxes and receive 11.
                Your price per dollar is .91
                Mine is 1.1.

                So I am paying more than you in terms relative to our payback, though in terms irrespective of what we get back, we are paying the same. Does that clarify?

                But all this is irrelevant: my only argument is that codecrackx15 called New Yorkers dumb mooches when we are net payers into the system. I don’t mind that we are net payers, but I don’t think we should be called mooches at the same time. Fair?

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Your math does not work.

                My poorer state only makes (in aggregate) a 0.8 compared to New York’s 1.2, so when you and I pay the same amount and New York only gets 0.9 while my poorer state gets 1.1, New York is still coming out ahead 🙂

              • Mathius says:

                That’s because New York is better than your state. Period. (note: It does not matter which state you live in, this will always be true. Unless you also live in New York, in which case your state is equal to New York) (Note #2: Buck, you live in New Jersey. Get over it.)

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Isn’t Northern Jersey really the same as New York? Kinda like South Jersey is really Philadelphia?

              • Mathius says:

                No. New Jersey smells. If you have to take a path train to get into The City (note capitals), you are not a New Yorker. Period.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                I remember being up in NYC 2 years ago to watch Red Sox-Yankees on 7/4 – stayed at a hotel right off Times Square and enjoyed many liquid refreshments at an Irish bar right in the same area – still have the horrid stench of hot garbage burned into memory.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Apparently you don’t live in Atlanta.

      Or have visited Dallas/Ft. Worth (esp Plano)

      Geographic bigotry won’t score you many points

      • Agreed Ray. There are a lot of people on the dole in the fly over states. They may not be the types that would post here, but geography is not the point. Race is not the point. Moochers is the point. I don’t have an issue with non-mooching, non-violent immigrants regardless of their legal status. I do have a problem with the ones who are either of those things, again, regardless of their legal status.

  8. Gotta love Thomas Paine!

    • Mathius says:

      I enjoyed this. I especially enjoyed when he said “the rule of law,” but pronounced it “lawr” with a Long Island accent. 🙂

  9. Ray Hawkins says:

    A few comments/questions to ruffle some feathers……

    The Arizona bill in question is SB 1070 – what was the follow-up bill you are referencing USW? (bill that requires LE to have ‘some other reason’ to stop someone other than suspecting II)

    The original text that I think is really at issue (sorry for the caps):

    “FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR 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. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).”

    So – perhaps our current/former LE can help clarify this – what reasonable suspicion is one looking for that may indicate unlawful presence in the United States? I’m not asking for your secret sauce recipe – more so the apparently glaringly obvious signs that distinguish a legal immigrant from an illegal one? (or any other distinction for that matter). I think this is the core of the issue – and yes – given that the preponderance of illegal immigrants in Arizona are going to be of Mexican descent – there is an obvious need for at least some profiling. The question some of us big scary liberals are asking is what other criteria is there? (and I thought I have read several LE-types expressing concern over enforceability of this law.)

    Last – and I know D13 somewhat answered this bell a while ago – there are numerous reports coming out of Arizona that the crime issue from II is somewhere South of the “under siege” characterization USW used. D13 has offered that intel reports that his SF86 prevent him from discussing paint a different picture. Is it safe to say that the truth is somewhere in the middle (in terms of ‘escalation’ of crime)? There certainly is a problem – but placing it in the proper context is just as important I would think.

    Thanks,

    Ray

    • Mathius says:

      So – perhaps our current/former LE can help clarify this – what reasonable suspicion is one looking for that may indicate unlawful presence in the United States? Ooh! I can answer this one: reasonable suspicion can be satisfied if the person in question has brown skin.

      Hope this helps.

      Mathius

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Mathius,

        I am unsurprised that you would fall in with the liars and fear-mongers on this one, but unfortunately for you, Arizona made it pretty clear that “having brown skin” was not sufficient reason, in and of itself, for invoking law enforcement action against someone.

        Nice try though 🙂

        • Mathius says:

          Oh, great.. well then I retract my assertion.

          But… don’t suppose you could elaborate on how they’ve made it “perfectly clear”? The term ‘Lawful Contact’ doesn’t seem to mean much more than that the police office is not committing a crime when he comes into contact with the immigrant. So, the cop isn’t allowed to break into immigrants’ homes and arrest them, but if he sees them on the street, that would certainly qualify as lawful contact. And at that point, we’re relying on the term ‘reasonable’ which means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Every time I drive past the on ramp and see a dozen day laborers looking for work, I have a reasonable suspicion that they didn’t get her through legal means. So we have legal contact and reasonable suspicion – so if I were a cop in Arizona, I’d be required to demand their papers. Or am I missing something?

          Thanks!

          • SK Trynosky Sr says:

            Yes, you are missing common sense. Will there be abuses? Absolutely. Will they be in a quantity worth noting to anyone other than the ACLU? Probably not. Will they result in lawsuits guaranteeing the aggrieved party freedom from ever working again? As they used to say on “Laugh in” , “You bet your bippy”. Did Randy Weaver ultimately get a settlement from Uncle Sam for a dead wife and son? Yup.

            • Mathius says:

              The Laugh-In?!? Just how old do you think I am?

              And I prefer my laws written in such a way that they don’t depend on the common sense of those trusted to enforce them. I find that common sense is not so common, and a cop told to arrest people he suspects to be illegal is simple going to go around demanding papers from everyone who fits the physical description.

              But you tell me, using common sense, how do you see this playing out? What guidelines are the police supposed to use if not physical appearance? Or is it ok with you if they do?

              • Matt,

                How about YOU explaining to US how it is going to hurt the LEGAL immigrants to show their LEGAL papers. Did you not have to show your LEGAL papers when you were pulled over recently?

              • Mathius says:

                I did. But then again, I was committing a crime (got it pleaded down a minor violation). Let me ask you, Anita – if you were a legal citizen of Mexico and cops pulled you aside to demand to see your papers because you looked different, would you have a problem with it then?

              • NOT AT ALL. HONESTLY.

              • Mathius says:

                Below.

              • Furthermore if I was there ILLEGALLY there would be swift and severe punishment. Why then can’t our laws match theris?

              • Mathius says:

                You think the US should be more like Mexico?

              • Fine, you don’t like the wording-than suggest better wording-I find it sad that people would rather condemn Arizona and try to destroy her instead of acknowledging that she has a huge problem. Why don’t we as a country actually try to solve the immediate problem with sensible recommendations and criticism instead of just ignoring one problem and elevating the other to unreasonable levels.

              • Mathius says:

                Sure. First sensible thing I’ve heard all day. We can start by ending the “war on drugs.”

              • I said the immediate problem

              • Mathius says:

                That is the immediate problem. We’re funding both sides of this ‘war’ and that’s financing the violence and gangs. Immigrants aren’t inherently violent any more than you or I.

              • That may or may not be the cause but it is not the immediate problem. The problem is that people are being killed and the states are going bankrupt paying for illegal aliens.

              • The problem is not Arizona’s law-it is the federal government. They will not enforce our laws and we are not changing the laws. So states like Arizona are left to fight or die.

              • So you’ll have to excuse me if the ever so principaled, not, condemnation oof Arizona makes me sick to my stomach

              • naten53 says:

                guidlines for them to follow-

                Page 16
                (22) C. This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal
                (23) laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and
                (24) respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.

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

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                As pointed out. there has to be probable cause. Obviously,in a traffic stop it will be license and registration. In a street stop for drugs, it will be ID. I would assume that an inability to speak English might be a further tip off or heavily accented English but only in the course of a stop initiated for another purpose.

                There is no law, devised by man which will be perfect enough to fit your criteria. As they used to say in Catholic School, “Only God is perfect, man can strive for perfection but cannot achieve it”. Trying to create a standard to find the “perfect” one size fits all law leaves you with a quandary resulting in no law at all. This I might point out is what we have now. In an effort to be perfect, to not offend anyone, to cover all possible bases, we do nothing. Nothing, may I point out, is not working.

                Officers who repeatedly exceed their authority should be bounced, no pension and if they have actually injured someone,(other than feelings) they should serve some time.

                I can give you three instances in my 63 years when I had to deal with Police Officers who either exceeded their authority or used that badge as if it were a nightstick. It was not pleasant. Do I mistrust the police as a result of that? Generally speaking no. Most are good decent men and women trying to do the right thing in a very difficult environment. I actually think that everyone who routinely criticizes the cops ought to follow them around some Saturday night. As a young man back in the late ’60’s and early ’70’s I was very critical. I was challenged by a Sergeant I knew to join the Auxiliary Police in NYC. I did for four years and it was an eye opener. I still was critical in the end but it had more to do with the failings and frailty of individual officers rather than the Precinct or Department and that, in the time of Serpico..

                The war on drugs ain’t gonna end and yes, on the issue of immigration, I think it only fair just and proper that we mimic the laws of Mexico. Seems like an idea to me.

                “Laugh In” is an historic part of American Culture and should be taught in all grade schools. “Sock it to me!” as Nixon once said.

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      Well, I just finished hosting for the weekend a friend who is a legal immigrant from Germany. He is in the area from Western PA where he lives because the Department of Homeland Security wants him to have a new “Green Card” and he must come, in person to New York City to secure it. Apparently, he is required to carry this document with him at all times. So, if you are legal, you have a card. If you are illegal, you do not.

      In addition, seems to me that if I can go to a gun show or a gun dealer and have an instant national criminal background check run on me through the FBI, local cops should be able to do the same. As far as I know, no one has complained about this system being inadequate. Why it is not broadened I can’t understand. Simple logic would seem to indicate that if I, a legal, law abiding citizen have to undergo a background check to exercise my 2nd amendment rights (and incidentally possibly forgo my rights against self-incrimination under the 5th Amendment), a questionable “alien” who has already been stopped for probable cause shouldn’t complain. I do not see anyone opposing the Arizona law jumping up to defend my 2nd amendment rights ever! But then again, I am using only common sense here.

    • naten53 says:

      There is nothing in this bill that does not sound like standard procedures for the police.

      First a link to the law, I am actually surprised USW didn’t include it, and Ray didn’t call him out on it yet or that this pdf version of the bill is (gasp) 16 pages and not 10.
      http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

      I even put the page number from this link and line # in parentheses so that you don’t even have to scan through everything just look for the line that I linked. After each copy and paste I will comment.

      Page 1
      (20) 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).

      So, what exactly is lawful contact? I think it means that when an officer has a reason to suspect you of a crime they are allowed to question you. Like any traffic offense, or a robbery and you are found inside the building. What are some of the first things they do? When it is safe for them to ask for your ID they will ask for your ID every time. I see no reason for them not to.

      Page 1
      (37) E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
      (38) IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
      (39) ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

      So how is this different then an officer in any other state? If they have “PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE” wouldn’t anyone get arrested? Isn’t that how the police works? If they see something and suspect a crime, and then believe that the alleged person committed the crime they will arrest the person. This is no different than any other state.

      Page 1-2
      (40) F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS
      (41) STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS
      (42) STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,
      (43) RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF
      (44) ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY OTHER FEDERAL, STATE
      (45) OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL PURPOSES:
      (1) 1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE
      (2) PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
      (3) STATE.
      (4) 2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF
      (5) RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL
      (6) ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.
      (7) 3. CONFIRMING THE IDENTITY OF ANY PERSON WHO IS DETAINED.
      (8) 4. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN
      (9) COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER
      (10) 7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.

      So no agency is allowed to choose not to comply with providing identification information. Seems to me like steps 2, 3, and 4 would be done by any officer in the process of identifying someone they have just arrested or detained under suspicion of the crime they are investigating.

      Page 2
      (27) I. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
      (28) OFFICER’S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY
      (29) FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR
      (30) PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A
      (31) PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW
      (32) ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS
      (33) ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.

      This looks pretty boiler plate for when you are allowed to sue an officer “EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.” Isn’t this the same every where. If an officer acts far outside of their duties and commits abuses, then they are should be sued, or investigated for their offenses.

      Page 5
      (6) A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN OCCUPANT OF A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS STOPPED
      (7) ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY TO ATTEMPT TO HIRE OR HIRE AND PICK UP
      (8) PASSENGERS FOR WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR
      (9) IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.
      (10) B. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO ENTER A MOTOR VEHICLE THAT IS
      (11) STOPPED ON A STREET, ROADWAY OR HIGHWAY IN ORDER TO BE HIRED BY AN OCCUPANT
      (12) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND TO BE TRANSPORTED TO WORK AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION IF
      (13) THE MOTOR VEHICLE BLOCKS OR IMPEDES THE NORMAL MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC.

      So if someone blocks the movement of traffic, and a cop pulls up to investigate why a car is stopped, it could be anything, this is also common practice.

      Page 9
      (27) K. IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS
      (28) SECTION THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTRAPPED.
      Page 13
      (18) K. IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO A VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION A OF THIS
      (19) SECTION THAT THE EMPLOYER WAS ENTRAPPED.

      Sounds boiler plate here also, you cannot entrap someone trying to hire someone else, the details of what entails entrapment are listed afterwards, you can look yourself, but there is nothing that doesn’t sound like common knowledge.

      Page 16
      (22) C. This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal
      (23) laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and
      (24) respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.

      So in general it seems that people are protesting because they think the cops can go up to anyone and ask to see their papers. We all have heard of stories of cops abusing their power, but the vast majority of them do not. This bill provides action against the cops that do abuse their power.

      There is nothing in this bill that does not sound like standard procedures for the police.

      • Mathius says:

        So, what exactly is lawful contact? I think it means that when an officer has a reason to suspect you of a crime they are allowed to question you. Is it a crime to be in the country illegally? Yup. A little circular perhaps, but it took me all of 2 seconds to shoot a hole in that one. Don’t tell me that no one would use this. I think he’s here illegally, that’s a crime, therefore I suspect him of a crime, therefore I can question him about his immigration status. Bah.

        • So how do we enforce the law? What words can we use to make the meaning more clear. Please give me a definition for reasonable. We use these words for other laws, so please tell me how we enforce our immigration laws without the possibility for abuse. How do we enforce any law based on reasonable suspicion without the possibility of abuse? I know I am sounding like a broken record but this is a reasonable question-it is the question we should be asking, unless our intent is just to condemn and ignore the underlying problems created by illegal immigration.

          • V.H.

            Consistently, you fail to understand a fundamental Law of Nature

            If you use LAW to enforce upon NON-VIOLENT MEN, you will pervert the core of society to such a degree that society’s ability to sustain itself will be undermined

            So your demand of “how do we enforce law” is completely irrelevant if the law you wish to enforce is immoral and evil.

            Your enforcement of evil law is destroying YOU!

            • BF Like it or not we are a country of laws-The government does not have the right to pick and choose which ones they are going to enforce. You as an individual may well have a right to choose to ignore them but he government has enough power without adding-we will only enforce the ones that the currant admin. likes.

              • V.H.

                BF Like it or not we are a country of laws-The government does not have the right to pick and choose which ones they are going to enforce. You as an individual may well have a right to choose to ignore them but he government has enough power without adding-we will only enforce the ones that the currant admin. likes

                And, thus, you doom yourself and your children to a life in hell.

                Your argument:

                “We must enforce evil law, because if we do not, we cannot enforce ‘good’ law”!

                Does that really make sense to you??

              • That is a misrepresentation of what I said BF and you know it. 🙂 We have enough of a problem with all the crap the government is doing without allowing them to choose which and when they are going to enforce the laws we have to live under.

              • V.H.

                That is exactly what you said

                Review your own statements.

                You wish to 1. Enforce law and at the same time 2. Don’t enforce “the wrong law”.

                Yet you have no idea how to distinguish one from the other.

              • That isn’t what I said. lets say we have two laws they must enforce both-not one this month and then next month decide to enforce the other. Either enforce them or get rid of them.

              • V.H.

                Then get rid of them.

                If they fail the test of Righteous Principles, do not support them, or offer them, or suggest them, or advocate for them.

                Instead…

                Deny them, ridicule them, anger at them, demand them to be withdrawn.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              “If you use LAW to enforce upon NON-VIOLENT MEN, you will pervert the core of society to such a degree that society’s ability to sustain itself will be undermined”

              Silly question BF, but what if you are using law to enforce upon VIOLENT MEN as opposed to the non-violent ones?

              • Peter,

                Then it is called “self defense” – and that is the RIGHTFUL use of violence – you use violence to defend yourself from violence.

                Thus, the ONLY Law that is Rightful is law which defends, protects, mitigates and reconstitutes from the initiation of violence.

                All other ‘law’ that does not fulfill those requirements is ‘artificial’, and EVIL.

              • darn spell checker

                Reconstitutes??

                Eeek!!

                I meant
                RESTITUTION

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Don’t worry, I am prety good at reading what you meant as opposed to what you actually wrote 🙂

        • naten53 says:

          Page 16
          (22) C. This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal
          (23) laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and
          (24) respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.

          • naten53 says:

            So they go up to an american of mexican ancestry and suspect them of being in the country illegally because they look Mexican. They don’t have an id on them because they don’t have to and arrest them. This is racial profiling and is not legal, and will result in a lawsuit. This will not happen because the amount of American citizens that are of foreign ancestry.

        • naten53 says:

          Mathius
          “Lawful contact” revised by HB2162 linked by USW in a reply below to Ray.

    • USWeapon says:

      Ray,

      The follow up bill was hb2162. You can see what they changed by reading through here:

      http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/h.hb2162_ccmemo.doc.htm

      USW

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Thanks Wep – go Flyers! 😉

        • USWeapon says:

          That hurt Ray. I am still smarting over the B’s collapse. At least the Celtics started to ease my pain a little yesterday. The Flyers certainly looked good last night. They are going to be tough as long as they play like that.

          USW

          • Ray Hawkins says:

            The Bruins collapse shocked me – I really didn’t think the Flyers would get by them. The Habs scare me – given what they did to Pittsburgh and Washington.

      • naten53 says:

        That “reasonable suspicion” language remains. But the language about “contact” is replaced with a reference to “stop, detention or arrest.” Paul Senseman, the governor’s spokesman, said the changes effectively reduce checking immigration status to “secondary enforcement.”

        “There have to be other steps, such as another law being broken first,” he said, before an officer could, with reasonable suspicion, inquire if a person is a citizen or legal resident.

        http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_584c7a04-ab2b-576b-9b50-280b8da7ce99.html

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @Naten53 – do you know if that law has actually passed or is it still in the AZ House?

          Given those conditions, if this is the process and approach, then I am not sure there is anything inherently wrong with asking for identification – it just seems there may be the additional burden of validating the immigration status angle.

    • Displaced Okie says:

      Ok, Ray I’ll try to give a little insight into the LE side of this. The idea that this law will lead to cops specifically hunting for illegals is kind of misleading. What a law like the AZ law most likely does is to cause all off the illegals who were arrested to be deported. Before, when a illegal was arrested they would be booked into a local or county jail and ICE would be notified. If ICE did not place a detainer (which they probably would only do if the person had a felony record) before the person was released then illegal could walk free. As I understand it, the AZ law requires state and local authorities to deliver illegal to ICE or CBP custody. I also see a law like this leading to lot more illegals being picked up from routine traffic stops, of course most of them should have been arrested anyway because illegals typically don’t have licenses or insurance verification which is an arrest-worthy offense in most states, then they would also be subsequently delivered to ICE/CBP custody. As you can see, just handling those to groups of illegals would most likely keep the local police busy enough without cruising around looking for people who “look’ like illegal immigrants.

      I think it also important to note that there is no requirement of U.S. citzens to prove that they are U.S. citizens. For example, if a “hispanic” looking person were to be stopped for some reason and asked about his immigration status, all he would have to say is that he is a U.S. citizen and it ends there. Now, I could forsee a situation where an officer doesn’t believe him and tries to develop probable cause that the person is an illegal immigrant. I know that federally it is a crime to make a false claim of citzenship. However, I am not sure how this works on a state level. I am also pretty sure that if an officer were to above and beyond to prove that someone was illegal when they were legal, that officer would be opening himself up to all kinds disciplinary action and/or lawsuits.

      Anyway, I hope this helps you get a little of the LE perspective you were asking for. Keep in mind I am not a local cop or an ICE/CBP agent, but from my experience in LE that is how I see it. If you have any more questions let me know and I’ll see if I can answer them.

      Stay safe and Live Free,
      Displaced Okie

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        Thanks Okie – appreciate the response. I supposed like any law it can be abused. I would hope those in protect/serve mode are not too tied up in delivering II’s to ICE/CBP and they are still spending proper time on the beat. Maybe think out of the box and use a constables service or something.

  10. We have immigration laws, so just how are we supposed to enforce them? I personally can see the problem, this law could be abused but so can most of our laws. So is the issue really the possible profiling or is it just that people don’t want any immigration laws? If the left is so against the enforcement of our immigration laws than why aren’t they attacking the federal law instead of Arizona? And just a side note but I think this is a picture of one of the problems we have with our laws and even the interpretation of the Constitution-we no longer, if we ever did, look at the whole, the intent, we just dissect every line to try and find loop holes. Oh common sense and responsibility-where have you gone.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      I’m unclear why you think “the Left” would be against enforcing immigration laws? I wholly advocate securing our borders and having a transparent onboard process for people who want to immigrate here.

      And so you understand VH – the reason lines must be dissected is because there are so many times when a lack of specificity and “getting it right” has enabled the Government to grow even more bloated. We need things explained to us, because as is smack-you-in-face obvious – we do not all think the same (and therefore all agree on intent).

      • I’m generalizing Ray-in general the left is for amnesty -I also don’t think it’s all that hard to find the intent if you read the whole-it is however very easy to misrepresent the intent if you dissect every line and word. But if you disagree-please write a perfect law. It is impossible, so it is necessary to use common sense to interpret using the intent as the guide. People are not supposed to come into our country without documentation-so I ask again how are we to enforce that law?

      • Ray: Perhaps if you quit dissecting every little thing and look at the big picture, which is the safety and financial stability of our nation we wouldnt be in the position we are in. Your wasting time looking for some other answer puts us further and further in danger. What part of that don’t you get? Why can’t we just enforce our already existing laws? You may have been young at the time but YOUR OWN FAMILY bolted from the boarder state. And you have sympathy for your friends who are still there. How can you possibly argue given your personal interest in that region? OH that’s right.. the greater good BS. What about AMERICA?

        • Mathius says:

          financial stability?????

          Are immigrants:
          A. Damaging our economy
          B. Doing the jobs our nation depends on for low wages which Americans refuse to do

          Can you even imagine the havoc that would occur if every illegal immigrant just up and left the country tomorrow?

          • Mathius,

            Absolutely correct.

            These “illegal” immigrants put billions of dollars in American pockets.

            And here are these same Americans complaining about it!

            Absolutely bizarre

            A guy is pushing dollars into American hands, and the Americans are punching them in face for it.

            • You want to argue that there shouldn’t be immigration laws, fine, but the reality is that we have them and we have some immediate problems that illegal immigration is causing individual states-these problems have to be handled and we cannot wait another who knows how many years for decisions to be reached. What are the short term answers?

              • Mathius says:

                Incorrect.

                Illegal immigration is not the problem. Drug and gang violence is the problem.

              • Mathius says:

                You’re trying to kick out a whole demographic of people because a small percentage of them commit crimes. That’s like deporting all Jews because some of them are white collar criminals.

              • Matthius that is like saying the problem isn’t that people are breaking into ones home and robbing and killing, the problem is that the people doing the crime are desperate, so we should just continue to let them rob and kill. It may be the cause but the problem still has to be stopped, the reason doesn’t justify the crime.

              • Mathius says:

                You’re heading in the right direction..

                If you were desperate enough, you would rob houses too – regardless of the applicable laws. So maybe the correct approach is to address the real underlying issues instead of just the surface ones. You say “kick them out” and I say if you do others will carry on the drug/gang violence in their absence because there is a lot of money to be made.

                The wellspring of the violence are bad laws that criminalize actions that should not be criminalized and force a lot of people to have no recourse but violent behavior while we quietly fund both sides of an unwinnable war. I could argue this all day, but we have to be careful since Flag is watching and he doesn’t care how long his posts are.

              • I happen to believe that there are other reasons to have immigration laws Matt-I don’t think anyone is against haveing immigrants but none the less, it is illegal to just walk into this country and it can’t just be allowed.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              BF,

              The reason that illegal immigrants are putting money in the pockets of Americans is because many of them work for less than Americans would work for, and they are willing to work in conditions that we consider sub-standard or even hazardous.

              Mathius would ORDINARILY have a huge problem with that, but apparently not as long as the people working for substandard wages and working in substandard conditions are not here legally 🙂

              • Mathius says:

                I must have said something that came off wrong that people keep putting those kinds of words in my mouth..

                I think that they should able to be here legally so that they can receive the benefits of being treated decently and paid fairly, in addition to a number of other factors.

                It is not OK to take advantage of them. Mathius DOES have a problem with this.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            If every illegal immigrant up and left the country tomorrow, businesses would still want their toilets cleaned.

            Because they could not find an illegal immigrant to do it for $2.50 per hour, they would have to hire someone who was here legally to do it for $7.50 an hour plus at least minimal benefits. This would raise the cost of doing business for many businesses, but not all. Some businesses use illegal immigrants at $2.50 per hour to clean toilets, other businesses already use people who are here legally and already pay them $7.50 per hour plus minimal benefits.

            Farmers would still want their crops picked. Instead of paying illegal immigrants a few dollars per hour and forcing them to work 14 hours per day in 90 degree heat with no breaks, they would have to use people who were here legally, pay them $7.50 per hour, and give them adequate breaks from the heat. This would raise the cost to produce food in many places.

            Any argument that “the work simply wouldn’t get done” is false. The work would get done. The cost of getting the work done would go up, because certain standards (which you USUALLY SUPPORT) would need to be met, and these standards are usually NOT MET when the workers in question are illegal immigrants.

            From that particuar standpoint, I am APPALLED that you seem to think it is ECONOMICALLY NECESSARY to use mistreated, underpaid, and generally abused workers in order to get the work done. Don’t you think that it is an oppressive practice that is little better than slavery?

            • Mathius says:

              Yup. Which is why I support letting them be here legally. They they could be protected by the government. They would get the decent wages they deserve. They would get the breaks they need, etc. They would get the benefits that they are entitled to.

              But that doesn’t change the truth of the matter that they are extremely valuable members of society.

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Mathius,

                If they suddenly became “legal citizens” and were afforded all of the protections thereof, their economic benefit which we are now taking advantage of would disappear instantaneously.

              • Mathius says:

                not quite.. there are a lot of minimum wage jobs that people don’t want. I see signs looking for workers despite the major unemployment rate. On top of that, I hire “guest workers” who I pick up at the deli to do my lawn – I pay them $10/hr plus a lunch break (I provide the lunch). This is a good wage and reasonable benefits and conditions. I would sure like to be able to do this legally. Note, by the way, that there are no US citizens lined up at the deli despite the fact that this is the going rate.

              • Well, that’s because the ones who want to do your work legally-run ads in the newspaper. They don’t stand on the corner. They usually run business’s and pay taxes.

              • Mathius says:

                Maybe, but they also charge twice as much – and not all of that difference is attributable to the taxes they pay.

              • Please explain how you determing the going rate-if the business’s who are legally in business all charge more.

              • Cyndi P says:

                Mathius,

                Do you think that generous unemployment benefits might play a role in discouraging American workers to take lower paying jobs? If I found myself recieving unemployment benefits I would be VERY selective about what job I accepted. Why should I bust my behind when I can make about the same sitting at home looking for something more suitable? Personally, I prefer small government and a truly free market system. Since that isn’t anything like what we have and I’m forced to exist within the present system (damn all those other countries with strict immigration laws that are enforced), I will use it to my advantage. Why should I put myself out when I don’t have to? Let the people who insist on making my life easier do it. What do I have to lose by milking the system? I prefer not to have the system but since there isn’t anything I can do about I might as well make the most of it.

              • We all support them to be here legally. So go through the legalization process.

          • SK Trynosky Sr says:

            I hate to call it a crock but it is a crock. Come to the big city, see the services provided and used. Explain to me how the illegals pay that back. See St. Vincent’s Medical Center go bust and close after 130 years because of un reimbursed expenses.

            Did I mention illegal drugs, dealers, murder in the streets, drive by shootings, little kids shot, Pre-teens becoming local drug mules or any of that stuff? How about neighborhoods going down the shitter, nobody complains about that because the real estate tycoons will pick up what had been formerly middle class property for a dime on the dollar, wait till it burns down and then re-develop it selling dollars on the dime.

            See low wage scale workers, see them constantly undercut by illegals, how do they get their leg up in society?

            As a descendant of Slavic immigrants brought to the Coal fields to bust the unions at the turn of the 20th century, I’m bright enough to see how my Robber Baron Capitalist friends are replaying that one right now.

            Hey, nobody wants legal immigration, takes away power from the left and takes away money from the right. Keep it just the way it is, Rich get richer, poor get poorer and it is something, that for totally different reasons, the left and right can fully agree on.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @Anita – details matter – they matter very greatly. I’m not sure why you don’t get that. If you will take the time to actually read what I write/wrote you’d realize I am an advocate for securing our borders and enforcing our existing laws. I am not a fan of poorly written laws, which I feel the AZ law is. The only ‘greater good’ I see coming from it, is that perhaps now the proper attention will be placed on a proper solution. Please don’t pick a fight for the sake of just picking one.

          To be clear – my family moved from Arizona because (a) my parents found better paying work in their disciplines at Fort McPherson outside of Atlanta and (b) to be closer to my recently (at the time) widowed Grandmother. Please don’t try and make it anything more than that. We weren’t chased out of Arizona by raging/roving bands of II’s.

          • details matter – they matter very greatly. I’m not sure why you don’t get that

            Ray..,

            Puffing your chest out does nothing for me?

            Why would even start a debate with VH if YOU were not wanting to pick a fight. You pick a fine time to start debating fairness of laws. How bout keeping YOUR eye on the ball?

            • And before you get me in your crosshairs……..

              I did read your post that you are for securing the boarders.

              I’m just totally dumbfounded that you would pick THIS as the time to start justify-ing fairness of laws.

              What is the right time to Stand up for Ameirca?

              We’re talking about securing the boarders. You want to talk fairness of laws. In the meantime, American citizens are being KILLED trying to enforce EXISTING LAWS.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              @Anita – no chest puffing – you interjected your comments that were baseless – why you choose to do so is anyone’s guess.

              I was addressing the blatant and misleading statement that those from the left are somehow against II enforcement. That’s bullshit and both you and VH know that. Generalizations are loaded and dangerous and undermine the very purpose of thoughtful debate when they are used to caste lies. Its like me saying all Tea Partiers are racist because some are. Some Tea Partiers are racist, but that does not give me the right to make a crass generalization.

              Make sense yet Anita?

              I kept my eye on the ball Anita – and hit it. See if you can catch it. 😉

              • Ray,

                I came to SUFA with a sense that things just aren’t right in the country. I have never claimed any different. I don’t know all the answers and I have a hard time arguing with you guys because I’m not into all the research required to keep up with you. All I know is we’re in trouble. You are much smarter than I. You should know better than me that we’re in trouble. Why you feel the need to beat up on me is anyone’s guess.

                It is not a generalization that the left is against enforcement and I’ll let Mr. O’reilly explian it better for me. My comment was not baseless.

                I’ll also give up here and let you have this in your victory column.

                The Factor” has been investigating just who exactly is supporting the pro-illegal alien lobby, and we have zeroed in on two main organizations, both extreme left.

                America’s Voice, founded by a man named Frank Sharry, is driving anti-Arizona sentiment through the mail and by petitions. America’s Voice receives millions of dollars from the far-left Carnegie Corporation. On the board of Carnegie are former U.N. chief Kofi Annan and Janet Robinson, the president of The New York Times. It takes money to organize protests and boycotts, and America’s Voice has money.

                Also, the Center for American Progress, John Podesta’s left-wing organization, is hammering Arizona in a number of ways. The point person here is Angela Kelley, and the effort is funded in part by the Ford Foundation, one of the most radical money enterprises in the world. For example, the Ford Foundation has given La Raza more than $3 million. Last year alone, Ford gave Podesta’s outfit $1.3 million.

                So you can see there is big time radical-left money behind the campaign to marginalize Arizona, and if President Obama gets tied in with these people, it will hurt him. Already, the Obama administration is making noise that it will not accept illegal aliens detained by Arizona. If ICE does not take them, the state will face chaos in its justice system.

                Now, there is no question the USA needs a fair immigration system and tough new laws to control abuse. It is President Obama’s job to get a fair new law on the books.

                But if the debate over Arizona’s action is any indication, the situation will become yet another polarizing exercise full of racist charges and hatred.

                “Talking Points” believes America is basically a fair country, but the illegal immigration debacle is anything but fair. It’s not fair to law-abiding Hispanic-Americans; it’s not fair to the aliens themselves who are often exploited; it’s not fair to the people of Arizona and other states who are seeing their localities veer out of control; and it’s not fair to the police who, believe me, do not want to be chasing down house painters.

                Enough is enough with this brutal situation. The media is flat-out dishonest in reporting it, and our political leadership is largely cowardly in solving it. We the people have to demand the federal government, not Arizona, control the dangerous border problem. And if they don’t, we’re going to have to throw them out with our votes.

                And that’s “The Memo.”

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Anita – I am not smarter than you, or anyone else here. We all bring something different to the party. If it was seen as me being harsh I apologize – I saw something I thought was in error so I spoke up. When I felt what I perceived was a sharp right hook from places unseen I had to turn and see where it came from. No ill will intended here.

                As for the extreme left – well – I am outspoken that I abhor any extremes. Ignoring the border problem is a serious mistake.

              • Wow, a little generalization warrants such harsh pronouns. Just for you Ray-Most people on the left 🙂 although when speaking of the democrat politicians which is who I am normally talking about-it really isn’t a very big generalization but for the sake of accuracy, even though you are just being argumentative 🙂 , I will change my words mainly because you’re arguments are right. 😦

              • Actually Ray, it is not baseless to say that many, if not most, of the left are against shutting the border. I find you to be unusual compared to people I speak to on the left.

                There are several possible reasons for this:
                1) I have not talked to many people on the left.

                2) I consider many whom you consider to be part of the left as not on the left.

                3) I am basing this more on the vocal left, the leadership, not the rank and file.

                I think the last one is the most likely, but all are plausible. I certainly understand, even if Anita and VH and myself are not accurate, where we got the impression from. If you listen to the left in the news and in politics, you would understand it too.

                I consider you an anomaly of most on the left. You are a thinking person. In fact, in my experience, anyone on the left who is on this site is an anomaly.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Understood Jon – works both ways – just remember that. As long as we’re clear on who we are referring to when we generalize then I am okay with that.

              • Me too. I know it works both ways.Igetthecriticismsoflibertariansallbeingpotheadsandallthoseothergeneralizationsallthetime.Thereisnoshortageofprejudicein the human race.

  11. Ellen Spalding says:

    I dont like this law but not for reason people would think. I dont like it because it seems like they are putting a bandaid on a bullet wound. So you are going around trying to collect up people who are here illegally, but the very large gapping borders are still not being address in my book.

    I will not stand and judge Arizona or any other border state for trying to fix a problem them deal with everyday. They see and know the problem better than a lady who lives in Wisconsin. If they have set rules on this law and how it is being enforced then so be it.

    • A Puritan Descendant says:

      I do like the Arizona law as a step in the right direction but otherwise agree with you 100%.

      All the reasoning in the world will do a person no good if they fail to use common sense to begin with.

      You Ellen, have common sense!

  12. I’ve posted this once late in the evening.

    Ray..I originally posted this to you when you wondered how to SIMPLIFY your life.

    Let’s just quit justify-ing and get back to basics

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Ah yes – the great philosopher James Ritchie – who can forget his other notable prescription of: “Bawitdaba da bang a dang diggy diggy diggy said the boogy said up jump the boogy”? Often, when I am struggling with life’s challenges, trying to reset my moral compass, or just screaming to the heaven’s “WHY” – bawitdaba often grounds me. 🙂

      In all seriousness – I’m wired to consider variables Anita – because they are there and cannot be ignored. It doesn’t mean there are never simple answers – but it also means that not every answer is going to be simple. Make sense?

  13. Omnes mala ferent.

  14. Mathius says:

    Anita –

    The gist:
    Me: would you be upset if you were racially profiled.
    Anita: nope

    Mathius: I would have said the same thing, honestly. But I went to Grenada for my honeymoon last year and had some interesting experiences. There is a certain amount of profiling that goes on there. My bags were searched an extra time, my wife and I were singled out for pat downs. Local cops stared at us. Street vendors kept a close eye on us near their stalls. Not sure why we (blond haired, blue eyed, white, and obviously tourists) should set off these kinds of reactions, but they did. And I get really annoyed with it really quick. I wasn’t doing anything wrong so what gives?! I came home and it was over with.. but what if that was home? Why should I have to live that way?

    Anyone here at SUFA a legal citizen of Mexican ethnicity? Maybe you could share your insights..

    • naten53 says:

      From dictionary.com
      profile: 9. a set of characteristics or qualities that identify a type or category of person or thing

      Everyone profiles.

      You pass a parking lot. It has 500 cars. 499 cars are blue, one is red. Your eyes are drawn to the red car because it stands out. You make a trip to Grenada, everyone there looks different then you. When they a crowd you stand out.

      Everyone notices the “qualities that identify a type or category” it is natural to see the things that stand out when they are different then the majority.

      • Mathius says:

        sure.. but our brains are set up to profile on obvious visible criteria which do not necessarily bear any resemblance to the important characteristics. We see BLACK! WHITE! BROWN! but that doesn’t really tell you much about who they are underneath. There are lots of good and bad people of all races. So we should be fighting our instincts to profile this way. Want to profile? Do it in a way that targets the discriminating factors, not just the obvious ones.

        As Ron White said: I was arrests for DUI, but see, it wasn’t really fair. They were pulling over everyone driving on that particular sidewalk on that particular day. And that’s profiling. And profiling is wrong.

    • Cyndi P says:

      My mother is a “pocha”. She’s a legal immigrant from Peru, with light brown skin (I’m not talking suntan brown either). She is all for this law and wishes California would do the same as Arizona.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Mathius,

      I would suggest that you Google “Mexican Immigration Law”.

      You will find that theirs is FAR MORE STRICT than ours is, and in addition, they actually enforce it.

      Even if you are in Mexico LEGALLY, but they make a determination that you are not a “contributing member of society” they can deport you at their discretion (and they actually do it in many cases).

      As a freedom-loving individual, I think any and all immigration law is crap.

      As a realist, I have to say that if you are going to have immigration laws, it is STUPID to not enforce them. Unenforced laws or laws which are not uniformly enforced should be automatically purged from the “law” every 7 years by automatic process.

      (Yeah, like THAT is ever gonna happen).

      Also Mathius, why is it that you are FOR Illegal Immigrants working in this country?

      1. Many work for less than minimum wage.
      2. Many work in substandard working conditions.
      3. Many have no benefits.
      4. Many work for undocumented cash so they pay no taxes.
      5. Many sign up for various kinds of “public assistance” without paying anything into “the system”.

      If these were US citizens you would be against all of that, right? So why are you ok with it as long as it is “illegal immigrants” doing it? Do these poor downtrodden opressed immigrants have to suffer with a below-minimum-wage-substandard-working-condition-probably-hazardous job simply because you deem them to be “making a valuable contribution to the economy”????

      • Mathius says:

        1-4. Allow them to be here legally (legal immigrant or guest worker) and this will not be an issue. They would pay taxes if they were allowed to be here.
        5. So me evidence. I’m sure some fraud occurs but most laws are written so that illegal immigrants are no eligible.

        Just because I don’t like that they have to suffer from lousy pay/work conditions doesn’t mean they aren’t valuable members of society. I think they could receive better wages and working conditions if they were entitled to the protections of the US government instead of having to hide from it.

        • Matthius are you saying we should have completely open immigration-no limits just documentation that they are here.

          • Mathius says:

            ……..

            no…….

            ……..

            not quite.. but close..

            I’m more for the original model.. you get here, you sign your name (in this day and age that would include a finger print and retinal scan), maybe some other demographic information, give your country of origin and swear to be loyal and faithful to your new country and you’re in. (throw in a quick background check with the information you gathered). All said, you’re a citizen maybe 6-12 hours after applying. No quotas.

            It lets us keep track of who’s here and isn’t.. it lets people migrate here without undue hassle or major inconvenience, it doesn’t trample people’s rights to live where they want, it doesn’t create a massive “criminal” class of illegal immigrants, let the current illegal aliens report to any number or INS buildings to become registered citizens.

            • You do not see any possible ramification of just letting a numberless amount of people into our country. An economic problem.

              • V.H.,

                Explain your economic theory that offers an explanation where men working causes economic problems.

                Further, as I said to Peter, life is problems.

                However, the SOLUTIONS to these problems – if done by Rightful means – avoids the undermining and destruction of the core of society

              • If the men are working I see no problem-the problem comes when there aren’t enough jobs. Now if our society is willing to let people go without benefits of any kind, okay-but that is not where we are.

              • Mathius says:

                People enter – they spend money. People must provide goods and services for that money. Those people earn money. They will spend that money. And around and around it goes..

              • Only id you ignore reality., do you think this balances the cost compared to their contrabution.

              • V.H.,

                Like Peter,

                you are wholly unqualified to judge or determine or measure or account for the balance of contribution or withdrawal

                PS: No one is qualified.

                Therefore, using such a fantasy that such can be determined, and therefore the measure, of worth of the use of violence destroys society

              • V.H.

                You are oblivious to the economics

                There are TONS of jobs out there …. or how do you think the Mexicans are getting jobs?????

                Americans do not want those jobs.

                Because of welfare, they are willing to do nothing until the job they want appears.

                But there are – literally – millions of unfilled jobs in America!

              • I don’t see the truth in that statement. You say it but we have huge unemployment, we have states going bankrupt from paying for illegal alien ‘s medical and educational needs.

              • I’m with you on this one. I think we need to solve our entitlement problems before we just let everyone in. If we let anyone in who wants to come AND keep in place all of our social programs it could be disastrous. But if your goal is to break the system (BF), then that might not be a bad way to do it.

              • Jennie,

                NO!

                You will NEVER fix systemic evil by INCREASING the acts of evil!

                If entitlements are a problem, you do not fix it by stopping men from working.

                You bet the influx of immigrants will strain the system – and the perverted system will stop or change.

                You will not get such a change by increasing more evil.

              • I am not advocating any increase in evil. I am advocating decreasing it in a certain order. I think you have misunderstood my position.

              • Jennie,

                First you want stop non-violent men from earning a living ….. an act of evil …. to buy you a length of time (infinite, IMO) to solve an evil that NO ONE in the Nation really wants solved.

              • Okay, one last try!

                A. We have laws that only allow a certain number of people into the country.

                B. We have social programs that give citizens a certain standard of living.

                I personally think it would be wise to eliminate B before A, but I don’t know. Maybe if we eliminate A first people will realize we can’t afford B, and then eliminate B, but I think it more likely that the whole system will collapse.

            • Actually, I would consider that model Matt.

              VH, there are a host of problems with our economy, and a host of things that cause economic problems. Too many people is not one of them. It worked fine for us back when we were a free country. Population density does not seem to harm Hong Kong or Japan or Singapore when they operated freely. Hong Kong had more people and fewer resources than Mainland China, but it did a lot better economically. Why? Freedom.

              It is an economic problem only because of our lack of freedom and restriction of the market’s ability to adjust for changes.

              • Well, ya’ll keep saying it but I just don’t see it- 🙂 we do have a lack of freedom in the markets-so lets open the door and let say, I don’t know a million people in and see if it causes some problems-I simply do not see how it wouldn’t. Let some in, build up the economy, let some more in-is the only way that makes any sense to me.

              • V. H.

                What problem do you think will come from a million men working their jobs???

              • Again, I do not see a problem with a million men working-I see a problem with a million men looking for work at the same time. While our government supports them.

              • If your idea works , please explain, the questions aree not making anything anymore clearer.

              • V.H.,

                There are MILLIONS of jobs – more than the entire world’s population.

                The question is not the job, it is the willingness to do the work.

              • V.H.,

                You have no faith in freedom, nor in the free market.

                Thus, you hold fear of those that seek such freedom.

              • I see your point V, I just dont see how I can support squelching freedom just to salvage what is left of our unfree country. Is money so important that we need to save what’s left?

                My point is that stopgaps to prevent a downward slide caused by an overbearing and massive government that involve more restrictions and more government just dont make sense.

                I am all about supporting using our military and resources to defend the citizens on the border, but I cannot support locking the border down entirely. It is violence I want to defend against, not loss of security, financial or otherwise.

          • Cyndi P says:

            Hi V.

            As you know, I’m looking to permanently escape from Obamaland. I’ve been looking into other countries laws. EVERY country on the planet strictly controls who comes into their country and how they behave when there. Many Latin American countries require that you prove that you have at least $1500 dollars a month income. They will not let you get a job. If you have enough money they’ll let you start a business according to their rules. I wish the rest of the world had had the easy immigration requirements of the US. If all I had to do was show up, get a job, obey the laws and learn some of the language of my new country, whichever one I decide on, I’d be grateful. I promise to show my papers on demand to any country that will allow me to escape Obamaland and its oppression.

            • I agree with your statements but if you think about your words. I think you will find that even in Obamaland, at least as of right now, this is still the best country to live in-Don’t jump out of the frying pan into the fire.

              • Mathius says:

                That’s funny – back in ’04 people were saying the same thing about wanting to leave JesusLand in favor of The United States of Canada.

              • Cyndi P says:

                Too bad they were full of shit. I am not. I’m already overseas, and have been for near on three years this time. The only thing that keeps me from applying for a second passport (I’m already a ‘resident’) is that this government is as corrupt as the US government and blatentaly racist. If you weren’t born on one of these islands to citizens, you don’t have the same rights. The natural born citizens have brown skin, thus are not called on their racism.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Cyndi – serious question here – you have shared with us that you live/work on a remote island somewhere in the Pacific – likely I am presuming as a contractor to the U.S. Federal Government, likely living in government housing on a base and thereby subject to its rules, regulations, etc. (please correct any of that I have wrong). Please help me understand how, under those conditions, you feel so oppressed by President Obama, Democrats, Liberals, etc? I just don’t get it. I could try (and would like to) see things through your eyes – but given you’re experience must be inherently different than many of the rest of us – I do wonder if you could share some anecdotes of your oppression?

                Thanks,

                Ray

              • Cyndi P says:

                I have been asked many times to sew dresses for other women on this island. We have one shop that sells limited merchandise. For me to sew for tohers, I must obtain a license, but only if the one shop decides to allow me to do so. Then, I must obtain my supplies by NOT using our ONLY post office for my businiess. The mail is routinely monitored with special attention given to known business owners who ARE NOT given the benefit of the doubt (guilty unless proven innocent). I may not decline service to anyone, even known PITA (pain in the ass) people.

                Any personal visitors to the island must receeve preauthorization(or find themselves sent to the jail on Ebeye). I am permitted only 90 days of visiting by off island people per year.

                Smoking is not permitted in the Unaccompanied Personnel quarters. Our rooms are subject to unannounced inspections to search for contraband, stuff like hot plates, or anything with a heating element and pretty much anything some else can complain about (including evidence of smoking).

                If we don’t park our bicycles (no private cars allowed) in the correct location or don’t have them registered, the bike will be confiscated by the police department.

                The chowhall has the cheapest crapiest food that is mostly starches. The powers that be have determined that the food is healthy. Yes, there is a snack bar and a grocery store, but ooops, we’re not allowed to cook in our rooms.

                No political activites are permitted. The liberals here try to impose on the rest of us. All they have to do is complain to the command about something sombody said/did. I recently had a short film accussed of ‘Racisim’. The base commnader found the accusations to be without merit. Lucky for us the base commander has plenty of good sense and doesn’t show favoritism. As of now, things don’t get out of hand.

                I could go on all day about this but I think you get the idea. I stay here because I have a very specialized job skill that I enjoy very much. All the places on earth that can utilize me have similar arrangements. So I put up with the restrictions because I enjoy my job. I have the option of leaving anytime I’m ready to go do somethink else.

              • Ray Hawkins says:

                Holy Crap Cyndi – one would think if your skill set was so specialized (and therefore rare?) then the restrictions would ease a little.

                Those things you shared – is the root the US Feds or the Island folk or both?

              • Cyndi P says:

                Hey V,

                Obamaland is deteriorating rapidly. I expect violence in the not too distant future. The only way to prevent the demise of America is with a huge die off of liberals. Since that isn’t going to happen, it will be America that dies. The America I grew up in is already dead. I have little interest in living in Obamaland which will be the furthest thing from what all the hopey-changey voters expect.

              • If you can find a better place-you have my sincere best wishes-I just don’t think you can-perhaps I am brainwashed but I believe the saying that America is the last best hope for freedom and going somewhere else is useless. Anyway, if all our freedoms are going to go away-I will fight-I will probably die but at that point my life without freedom wouldn’t mean much anyway.

              • V.H.

                Yet, you fight AGAINST another man’s freedom!

                How do you believe that a fight for YOUR freedom will be successful when you UNDERMINE the freedom of another non-violent man?

              • I do not acknowledge his right to walk into my door uninvited.

              • V.H.

                No man has a right to impose on YOUR property.

                But WHAT RIGHT DO YOU HAVE to make that determination for another man???

                If I want a man to work for me, what business is it of yours?

                If you make it your business, I will as surely make your business may concern too.

                You do not want a pirate determining how you want to live.

                So, you keep your “nose” out of my business, and I’ll do the same back.

              • I actually look at America as private property BF, it belongs to the citizens of the US , so we have rights.

              • Cyndi P says:

                America is dying and too many Americans want to see it happen, the rest refuse to acknowledge that its happening. You can stay and fight if you choose. I have better things to do. For the moment what used to be America is the best thing going, but to all good things must come an end. Fin America.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Mathius,

          As I said above, if all illegal immigrants were given citizenship and all of the protections thereof, then all of the economic benefit which we get from them doing the “jobs that no one else wants to do” would disappear instantly.

          • Mathius says:

            I don’t see any legal citizens lining up at the deli to work on my yard. The pay is well above minimum wage…

            • Displaced Okie says:

              I graduated college during a recession then 9/11 hit so finding a “real” job was a little difficult. So, I (a Legal Citizen) basically did the stand around and try to get a job for the day thing–We didn’t have a deli we used a Quickie mart :). It sucked but the were no temp agencies in the small town I was from (not that any one would have used them, becuase you have to pay the temps more than someone off the street).

              So, there ya go, a legal citizen basically in a day worker line. Oddly enough, I was paid less than the illegals.

        • They use public education. They are eligible for WIC. They can live in public housing.

          • Mathius says:

            Yet another reason to let them be here legally – they’d pay taxes.

            • So go through the legalization process.

            • SK Trynosky Sr says:

              In order to pay taxes and not draw Earned Income Credit, you have to be making decent money. Do you really think these folks will be at that level? With even less regulation/restriction on immigration that you seem to advocate do you not see downward pressure on salaries? Have you never heard of the 19th Century or read Dickens?

              • SK,

                Do you know that era?

                Do you realize it was the single greatest increase in prosperity for a class of people who, prior, were on the edge of starvation for centuries.

                Dickens’ Father was a debtor and was thrown into Debtor’s prison. He was significantly influenced by this perverse act.

                But do not misunderstand the era because Dickens was distorted in his imagery due to a childhood circumstance.

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                I know that people moved from the country to the city. I know that the industrial age began. I know that people were exploited.

                I also know that living improvements were brought about not by kindly benefactor employers (although there were some) but through a series of social movements and organization.

                There is no doubt that there was, a great leap forward but that leap did not just happen. History does not take sides. It was the people who lived through those times that made things happen.

                People, because of their imperfect nature will exploit other people. It has happened throughout history. It will continue to happen. We have coyotes who smuggle aliens in, employers who exploit aliens and a government that colludes with them for its own reasons. Looking around me these days I see a great number of people who, despite the fact that their forebears were nothing but serfs, somehow have fooled themselves into thinking that they have somehow been infused with the royal purple. Unfortunately, they act accordingly. Don’t believe me? Just pay close attention to how waitstaff are treated.

                There is a gigantic pendulum out there. When it swings too far to one side it is supposed to self correct.Hence we had the power and size of the unions turn into their weakness and much smaller size today. It is interesting to watch, not pleasant mind you, just interesting.

          • Jennie,

            So your complaint is because there are systemic perversions of society (welfare), you want to increase the perversion of society (stop men from working) to stop others from indulging in other perversions of society.

            • Actually I was just pointing out that they do use certain government programs. You can make what you will of it. I do believe that when solving a problem sometimes the order of the steps is critical.

              • Jennie,

                I agree – the order IS important.

                That is why creating MORE evil, first, to solve a past evil is precisely BACKWARDS.

                The result: More Evil!!

                You stop evil by not acting in evil.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Mathius,

      I am genuinely surprised that you thought that the way you were treated in Grenada was somehow unusual….

      • Mathius says:

        What do you mean? It was definitely unusual for me..

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I am saying that you should not be surprised that if you stand out in a crowd and clearly appear to be “foreign” that you are treated differently from the “locals”, and even reacted to with suspicion when only doing the most innocuous of things.

          Unfortunately, this is not “profiling”, it is a natural human reaction. In fact, it is part of the survival mechanism. Anything appearing foreign has always, throughout history, been treated as a potential invader. It is hard-wired into our biology.

          • Mathius says:

            A lot of things are hard wired to our biology. I was down in the cafeteria and saw a gorgeous girl – a total knockout, black wavy hair, amazing figure, generous *cough* attributes *cough*, vaguely Italian looking, wearing high heals and business attire (that drives me wild) and glasses – so of course my reptile brain started issuing orders. That’s why I hit her over the head with my club and dragged her back to my cave.

            Because everything we’re hardwired to do must be correct.

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              Mathius,

              Everything we are hardwired to do is, in fact, correct. It is there because at some point in the history of our species it has aided us in our own survival or in the successful propegation of our genes in the gene pool. Certainly, we use different METHODS now than hitting the hot chick over the head with a club and dragging her back to our cave, but nonetheless, the GOAL is still to get the hot chick back to the cave!

              However, you already have a hot chick who has agreed to reside in your cave in perpetuity, and will perhaps even allow you to propegate your genes into the gene pool (if you two decide to have kids), so your drive to hit the hot chick at the deli over the head with a club and drag her back to the cave was MITIGATED by the fact that you already have a chick in the cave and the knowledge that said chick probably wouldn’t have been too happy with you had you dragged chick #2 home with you 🙂

              However, this does not make your DESIRE to drag hot chick #2 home from the deli with you WRONG in any way, shape, or form 🙂

              • Mathius says:

                Please explain how it is correct. I need to know so I can convince Emilius not to be mad when I drag stunned hot girls home.

              • Mathius says:

                Adding.. how do you know Emilius wouldn’t be happy if I dragged an unconscious girl home? Maybe she’d like it. I think the only way to know for sure is to try it and see..

              • Mathius,

                I so enjoy watching insane men act….

                …as a business venture, I’ll be selling popcorn and beer outside your home and tickets to others to watch the fireworks….maybe there will be blood too! Woohoo!

  15. V.H.

    You want to argue that there shouldn’t be immigration laws, fine, but the reality is that we have them and we have some immediate problems that illegal immigration is causing individual states-these problems have to be handled and we cannot wait another who knows how many years for decisions to be reached. What are the short term answers?

    There are NO SHORT TERM ANSWERS!!!

    That is PRECISELY the PROBLEM!

    You want short term answers – which always requires action with massive long term consequences!

    The War on Drugs – attack people who use drugs = short term answer…..
    -long term consequence; the militarization of police; use of military to as police enforcement; jailing of 10% of Americans; enrichment of drug lords and the corruption of most of Latin America… etc. etc.

    You (as in Americans) cannot handle the severe, long term, negative consequences of short term answers

    You (as in Americans) must stop attempting to pervert, distract, realign, create, design outcomes. You are guaranteed, 100%, to miss your goal.

    You (as in Americans) must focus on the means and underlying principle of action!

    Take care of the means, and the ends will take care of themselves.

    • We(as Americans) have no choice but to handle some problems with short term answers-common sense demands that you don’t sit back and debate when people are dying. The problem is that we have no consistency when it comes to immigration-one admin. wants to enforce the laws, the next not so much. So we as Americans have to protect ourselves the best way we can. I personally believe that Arizona passed this law for two reasons 1. to protect themselves 2. to try and force the government and the country to make some of these decisions that have been debated forever.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      BF,

      As with most things, taking care of the means is by no means a straightforward process.

      As far as I am aware, ALL countries have immigration laws, most of which are far more strict than ours are. So, by saying it is only a problem for Americans, your focus is far too narrow.

      In my view, everything is pretty much global now. If we unilaterally eliminated our immigration laws but all other countries did not change their laws, I strongly suspect the end result would not be the result that you idealize in your mind.

      I agree that immigration law, like most other law, actually violates the rights of free people; however, simply eliminating our American immigration laws regardless of what other countries do COULD have negative consequences that we do not foresee. Sometimes the ends take care of themselves, but they don’t always end up being the ends you were hoping for.

      • Peter

        As with most things, taking care of the means is by no means a straightforward process.

        It is incredibly straightforward.

        The test is simple: is it Right or is it Evil?

        As far as I am aware, ALL countries have immigration laws, most of which are far more strict than ours are.

        Maybe, maybe not.

        But that is wholly irrelevant

        Your argument:
        “Because Bobby does it, why can’t I?”

        I bet your Mom didn’t fall for this argument! 🙂

        So, by saying it is only a problem for Americans, your focus is far too narrow.

        Arizona happens to be in America. Mexico happens to be a neighbor.

        How Russia deals with Iran is irrelevant.

        In my view, everything is pretty much global now. If we unilaterally eliminated our immigration laws but all other countries did not change their laws, I strongly suspect the end result would not be the result that you idealize in your mind.

        It would be what it would be.

        But if one supports evil means, one gets evil

        Would there be problems? Sure…. but we would ALSO avoid SOLUTIONS that UNDERMINE the core of society.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I see what you are saying; the new problems would still be problems, but they would not be problems brought on by our own use of evil.

          The problems could still be VERY SIGNIFICANT though…

  16. Ellen Spalding says:

    A quick story that I thought fits this topic. I am in college finishing my degree and I am in a required Spanish Culture class. Which is actually been alot of fun due to the teacher. He and his wife came here from Madrid, Spain 18.5 yrs ago. They came as students then became college professors. They have filed all the paperwork every year, paid all the fee’s all these years. And come August they find out if they will be allowed to take the citizen exam to become a US Citizen. He finds this law amoung other things need to address. He had done it the right way and is still waiting for their chance to be a citizen.

    Meanwhile others who come are offended that we expect them to go through a process at all.

  17. Bama dad says:

    If California is serious with this Arizona boycott, then they need to exclude everything coming from Arizona, including the water that a large portion of Southern California depends on. Hey fair is fair, close that Colorado River Aqueduct today.

  18. Good article USW.

    You missed another Administation official who is bashing this law….in China no less!

    http://michellemalkin.com/

  19. OK, I’ll offer my 2 cents here. The first thing that needs to happen IMO is to secure the border…nothing in, nothing out. Then address the immigration laws.

    There are no short term fixes for this problem, and the folks in Washington are so scared to touch this it isn’t even funny. If the borders can be secured and some common sense immigration laws create then ENFORCED it would be something that most could live with…

  20. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    BF seems to think that as long as we have “borders” and “laws” and “governments” there actually IS NO SOLUTION to this problem, because “borders”, “laws”, and “governments” ARE THE PROBLEM.

    In that, I do pretty much agree with him.

    HOWEVER,

    Once again, from a PRACTICAL STANDPOINT we have to figure out how to get from here to where we want to be. As I said in an earlier post, if we unilaterally decide to open our borders and do away with our immigration law, the consequences are not likely to end up being the consequences we were hoping for.

    • Peter,

      They will be EXACTLY the proper consequences that need to be dealt with!

      You cannot solve the problem of evil by applying more evil to it.

      Certainly the removal of evil will cause other (but RIGHTFUL) problems.

      These problems can be solved by other RIGHTFUL means, which will cause a host of other RIGHTFUL problems, which will demand other RIGHTFUL means to solve, and on and on until the end of time.

      • BF, I don’t have much time, but wanted to ask you a question. Do you obey the laws of the area in which you reside…or visit?

        Like it or not, the US is a country of laws…one of which deals with illegal immigration. Are they perfect…no, but they are the law. I assure you that if I went to Mexico, I would do my best to adhere to their laws.

        I know you are against…well pretty much any law except natural law, but unless we either obey them or somehow get them changed there will be consequences if we break them.

        • Terry,

          A question back:
          Would you obey a law that demand you kill left-handed blond people on sight?

          Why or why not?

          I mean, this would be a nation of law that made such a law – so you’d pick up a machete and hack blond left-hand children to death?

          • Terry,

            So while you ponder that question above:

            Do you obey the laws of the area in which you reside…or visit?

            I am free, no matter what rules surround me.

            If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them.

            I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

            I assure you that if I went to Mexico, I would do my best to adhere to their laws.

            My actions do not change because I happen to be in a different country.

            Because it may be legal to act in evil in another country does not influence me to act in evil.

            I know you are against…well pretty much any law except natural law, but unless we either obey them or somehow get them changed there will be consequences if we break them.

            All human action is ultimately individual.

            All action has consequences

            If by obeying evil law, you inflict evil upon the innocent, it is you who is evil no matter how hard you may lie to yourself that you are merely a robot and a machine under the control of your masters.

            • Terry,

              So the next question:

              If by doing great evil you avoid harm upon yourself

              ..would you do the evil?…

              • That is also against my basic philosophy…which is to do onto others as you would have them do onto you. So in short, doing great evil upon someone else is something I will not do.

              • Terry,

                Thus, demanding evil be done on non-violent men in your name would contradict your philosophy, even if this evil benefits you.

                Thus, demanding that working men be hunted like animals – so that you benefit (in some way) would also contradict your philosophy.

              • I have never demanded that working men be hunted like animals.

                If I go to another nation and disobey their laws, I would most likely be hunted, so I don’t…that simple.

              • Terry,

                So you do NOT support immigration laws, correct?

          • I would not, because it goes against my basic philosophy, and that is a rather nonsensical comparison IMO. There are laws I don’t agree with but comply with them none the less.

            I have answered your question, now answer mine.

            • Terry

              it goes against my basic philosophy

              So you slam face first into your own contradiction.

              You demand that I follow your law – yet, you insist that you have the right to pick and chose which law YOU follow based on “some” philosophy of yours.

              So, you get to pick, but deny that anyone else can get to pick… so much for your notion of “a nation of law”…

              • You still have not answered my question.

              • I make no such demands on anyone. I simply follow as closely as possible the law as it exists.

              • Terry,

                Do you obey the laws of the area in which you reside…or visit

                I think I did – completely.

                I do not care what other men write on paper and demand men to obey

                I care about WHAT I DO and whether if fits MY philosophy and core principles.

                What other do or do not, say or say not matters not one wit to me.

                I do not impose upon them and resist their imposition upon me.

              • BF, I hear what you are saying and do not disagree. The problem is that if the laws written by other men are violated by me then possibly I could face retrobution that would not only put me at risk, but my family as well.

                It is a cruel world that we live in. Laws are supposed to be designed to mitigate that cruelty…do they always, no.

                There are laws that I really hate…seatbelt law jumps to mind. If I do not follow that law I can be ticketed, so I wear the stupid thing. Please understand that I agree with you but that is simply not the world we live in.

              • Terry,

                Then you contradict your own core philosophy – and hence evil grows.

                Certainly there are risks in resisting evil.

                Often, evil wins.

                But you live in the world YOU make

                If you chose to avoid consequences inflicted by evil, and thus, confirm and support actions of evil – you are the evil.

                In past posts, I described my own journey away from such contradiction, and the consequences were massive, severe and crushing.

                But if one demands adherence to one’s own principles – what is the alternative?

              • Terry,

                I make no such demands on anyone. I simply follow as closely as possible the law as it exists.

                You infer:
                but unless we either obey them or somehow get them changed there will be consequences if we break them.

                …that obedience to evil law is the best way to avoid consequences.

                I ask again….

                …do you do evil so to avoid harm upon yourself?

              • There are no laws that I am aware of that requires me to do evil to others…Could you be a bit more specific?

              • Terry,

                Do you support immigration law?

                Min. wage?

                Taxes?

                Zoning law?

                etc.

                Pick up any law book.

                Any law that makes an edict upon a non-violent man is an evil law.

              • That is simply not realistic. For example you stated…”But you live in the world YOU make”. I never made the immigration law, or any other law for that matter, so to say that I live in the world I make is only true in the most local sense…much smaller than the WORLD.

                I will not impose on you…or anyone else for that matter. I pretty much mind my own business.

                If you define me imposing on you as obeying the law, then that is simply your definition, not mine.

    • Hear! Hear!

  21. Peter,

    The reason that illegal immigrants are putting money in the pockets of Americans is because many of them work for less than Americans would work for, and they are willing to work in conditions that we consider sub-standard or even hazardous.

    You are wholly unqualified to determine the motives or reason for a man to employ himself

    I leave it to the man to chose for himself how he acquires the goods he needs or wants with his own voluntary effort.

    It is obvious that the choice he is making is BETTER THEN THE CHOICES HE ABANDONED

  22. Welcome To BUYcott Arizona – Supporting Arizona’s Lead To Defend Our Borders

    http://www.buycottarizona.com

    We support LEGAL immigration. We wonder why anyone would boycott in the name of ILLEGAL activity?

    • Mathius says:

      Mathius: Because all that is legal is not good. All that is good is not legal.

      Dread Pirate Mathius: All laws are bad!

      Mathius: Shut up down there.. it stays quiet in the basement or it gets the hose again.

      • Dread Pirate:

        Whoops!

        Not ALL Law is bad. The Law of Gravity seems to have some key benefits 😉

        Any Law that protects FROM violence is GOOD.

        Any Law that applies to non-violent men is BAD.

        • Mathius says:

          The pirate was just having one of his outbursts. I’m sure he would have clarified if I had been slower on the hose. If he doesn’t behave himself, I’m going to have to take away his iPad.

  23. V.H.

    I don’t see the truth in that statement. You say it but we have huge unemployment, we have states going bankrupt from paying for illegal alien ‘s medical and educational needs.

    You do not see because you do not look.

    Certainly huge unemployment – because Americans are not willing to work at jobs they do not want to do, and there is a system that supports this.

    There are MILLIONS of jobs waiting to be filled.

    Your complaint:
    Our perversions of society are bankrupting us, therefore we have a Right to shoot non-violent, productive men in the back of the head to solve our bankruptcy

    • No, I said you can’t do one without the other. I also see the US as a big individual when it comes to other countries and I do not see where we are obligated to shoot ourselves in the head. I also still do not see all these jobs of which you speak. It would be nice if there were no borders and all countries allowed man to come and go but they do not-so US-separate entity-Mexico-separate entity-obligations-only those of which we agree to.

      • V.H.

        My daughter saw an elderly lady cleaning her walk. She went over and cleaned it for her. The woman paid her $20 heartily.

        My daughter went to the local ball diamond, and picked up nearly $30 in cans and bottles.

        This is a child.

        Yet you do not see.

        • BF: With all due respect, your agruement has nothing to do with illegal immigration. Your daughter, or I, can do that with or without laws. 😉

          • Anita,

            The point was V.H. “not seeing jobs”.

            If my kid can wander around and “pick” up $50/day ….. I’d suggest an adult might be able to do better….

            • BF, we have discussed on this blog the harm that all our regulations and all the new laws are doing to business-companies are laying people off-companies are going out of business, our security nets are in place and growing daily but you continue to say just open the door, let as many people who choose too, to come in there are enough jobs for everyone. I’m sorry, maybe I’m not smart enough but this does not compute-it does not make any sense. Your daughter being able to make money by helping an old lady does not prove that there are enough jobs to cover an unknown number of people. I can see your point based on the principal that freedom is the guide point on what is evil when talking about government laws but the economic ones don’t seem to work unless you are assuming that people who can’t find work can just walk right into another country to get one. Until we can I want immigration laws, maybe they need to be loosened up but I can’t see them going away as long as we as the US want to be a healthy sovereign country.

              • V.H.

                BF, we have discussed on this blog the harm that all our regulations and all the new laws are doing to business-companies are laying people off-companies are going out of business, our security nets are in place and growing daily but you continue to say just open the door, let as many people who choose too, to come in there are enough jobs for everyone.

                Correct!

                The economic distortion has nothing to do with Mexican immigration.

                The economic distortion is a MIS-ALLOCATION of labornot a case of TOO MUCH labor!!

                Think of it this way:

                It is not a short of land to grow crops, it is the growing of the wrong crops….

                you are assuming that people who can’t find work can just walk right into another country to get one.

                Check out your own argument to its roots:

                (1) There are “jobs” in America.

                (2) The employer would rather take a Mexican, who can barely speak the language, has a non-American education, and a whole ton of other issues in PREFERENCE to a local American, who can speak English, has a local education, and whole LACK of a ton of other issues.

                ….

                Please explain why (2).

                Until we can I want immigration laws, maybe they need to be loosened up but I can’t see them going away as long as we as the US want to be a healthy sovereign country.

                Do you really believe unemployment would be solved if there were no Mexicans in the USA?

              • We have to look at the whole picture-you want market forces to control the economics when the hands of the market are tied by numerous laws. illegal immigration isn’t tied to the same rules so they put American citizens at a disadvantage-get rid of the laws that handicap freedom and the free markets and then I will contemplate putting illegals before the legal.

              • V.H.

                So now the argument is:

                “As long as there are SOME evil law, let’s make MORE evil law until ALL the evil law is revoked”.

              • My premise hasn’t changed, open immigration bad for the country.. Controlled immigration good.

              • V.H.

                “Freedom of non-violent men is evil, using evil on non-violent men is good”.

              • I am at this point repeating myself-we are a sovereign c9ountry, we the people own the land so we have a right to make rules regulating entry onto our property.

  24. Bottom Line says:

    USW – “The bottom line here is that Arizona has done what they needed to do.”

    BL – Yup, that’s what I was thinking.

    I don’t give a damn if it’s racial profiling or not. If it’s part of the solution, I say go for it. Means to an end. What the hell does anyone expect AZ to do? The US is literally being invaded by foreigners. The last time we had this issue, Mexico got invaded by the US Army. This time the feds do nothing so AZ makes a simple law and folks are complaining about getting their feelings hurt? WTF?

    I lived in Phoenix for part of 2008. I was only there for a few months, but it was just long enough to see what a problem illegal immigration is for Arizona. It doesn’t differ much from Texas.

    I thought it was interesting what was happening with Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Janet Nepolitano was Governor at the time, and had taken part of his funding away to limit his capacity to perform raids. When the public found out, they started sending private donations, …and a lot of them.

    The people in Arizona are sick of it and want illegals and their problems gone…even the brown ones. I wish you could all hear some of what I have heard come out of the mouths of 2nd-4th generation Mexican-Americans. It’s not about race, thats for sure.

    The bottom line of the illegal immigration/border security issue in general is that Mexico has a shit-load of problems that are spilling over into the United states. Their problems are not our responsibility. Our responsibility is protecting our country.

    That’s what the law in Arizona does. It takes responsibility for our problems, …even if it hurts people’s feelings.

  25. Jennie,

    You are heroic in your attempt to run backwards!

    Okay, one last try!

    A. We have laws that only allow a certain number of people into the country.

    B. We have social programs that give citizens a certain standard of living.

    I personally think it would be wise to eliminate B before A, but I don’t know. Maybe if we eliminate A first people will realize we can’t afford B, and then eliminate B, but I think it more likely that the whole system will collapse.

    It would be wise to eliminate both.

    However, (B) will never be eliminated by choice. Impossible, in the most specific meaning of the word “impossible”.

    Thus, collapse is inevitable.

    Therefore, in eliminating (A) will not change what is inevitable. It may accelerate it, but delaying will not prevent collapse.

    So the question:

    Do you want to deal with the consequences of such a collapse

    or

    Weasel out of it, and dump it on your children instead?

    • I would not call trying to fix the entitlement problem weaseling out of anything. I personally think it would be much more irresponsible to do what you are suggesting.

      I’m not convinced collapse is inevitable. I may be swimming upstream with the falls of certain death behind me, but you won’t convince me to turn around and swim the other direction.

      • Jennie

        I would not call trying to fix the entitlement problem weaseling out of anything. I personally think it would be much more irresponsible to do what you are suggesting.

        Please provide your economic and social theory that will:

        (1) convince People, who wholly depend on Social Services, to kill themselves so for you to end such program.

        (2) explain how providing goods for no effort will reduce the demands on such goods.

        I’m not convinced collapse is inevitable.

        Provide your economic and social reasoning that shows Social Services is sustainable.

        I may be swimming upstream with the falls of certain death behind me, but you won’t convince me to turn around and swim the other direction.

        There is nothing more sad than a person in futile action.

        (1) Acting with futility subtracts from actions with purpose. You cannot spend the same second doing two different and opposite things. You are either working on TRUTH or you SUBTRACTING from it.

        Pounding your fist into the ocean hoping to push back the sea prevents you from building a retaining wall.

        This is why you have seen my arguments regarding “changing” government. It is worse than a waste of effort and time.

        It is worse because it PREVENTS actual effort and the time required to do something PURPOSEFUL and MEANINGFUL.

        • I don’t think social services are sustainable. That’s why I want to end them. Will people who use them resist? I think so. Gonna try anyway. Is it futile? We’ll see. By the way, why don’t you get off the computer and go do something PURPOSEFUL and MEANINGFUL with your life!

          • Jennie,

            I am!

            I’m playing poker!

          • Jennie

            That’s why I want to end them. Will people who use them resist? I think so. Gonna try anyway. Is it futile? We’ll see

            This is where I believe people make terrible mistakes.

            They engage in actions that they have not fully thought through in the potential of success.

            They have not studied “Public Choice” theory to determine if their efforts will hold merit.

            And because they do not, they attempt futile and impossible actions.

            If you lived forever, it wouldn’t matter.

            But by the time you find out all your work is pointless – you will be so far down the road of life, you will not be able to do much else.

            You cannot spend again the second you spent on futile action. Time is cruel and unforgiving on those that engage in futile action.

            • You are right. Arguing with you is the ultimate in futile action. I should go do something else.

              • Jennie,

                The frustration you feel comes from your own set of contradictions, and not from me.

                I am merely the messenger.

              • What contradictions are you talking about? My frustrations come from your seeming inability to understand what I’m saying sometimes.

              • Jennie,

                I DO understand what you are saying.

                I DO NOT BELIEVE you understand the implications of what you are saying.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            His definition of purposeful and meaningful and yours may not be the same.

            He may do purposeful and meaningful things on his own schedule, which may or may not be on YOUR schedule.

            What he is doing on the computer obviously has purpose and meaning, or you wouldn’t be getting worked up over it! 🙂

            • I’m not in the least bit “worked up”. I was just joking since we are both spending time on the computer arguing with another hard-headed person we’ve never met.

  26. Bottom Line says:

    Flag,

    I read your comments under D13’s articles as well as today’s.

    You’re out of your mind.

    Violence,prostitution,kidnappings,etc…aren’t because there is a border, or because drugs are illegal. It’s not the goverment’s fault. It’s not because people are desperate. It’s not because they want a better life…

    IT’S BECAUSE THEY’RE UNCIVILIZED SAVAGES.

    They don’t give a shit about anything but their own gain. They don’t care about the law, American OR Mexican. The law is irrelevent to them. They see it as a simple obstacle. If you legalize prostitution, they will target the legal brothels. If you legalize drugs, they will target the legal suppliers. They mean to cancel out the competition or exploit it for their own gain.

    If they wanted to live a peaceful life, they just simply would, no matter the law or location.

    Yes, I know…If you eliminate government and/or make everything legal, then eventually it will all fall into place. But how long will it take, a century? Two?

    I suppose we could wait till Mexico has their shit together, then integrate…But again, how long will that take? And what do we do to cope in the meantime? And why haven’t they got their shit together yet? They’ve had as long as we have. Will they ever?

    • Bottom Line says:

      BF – “All human action is ultimately individual.”

      • BL,

        You got it!

        Your argument:

        “Because we beat men like dogs, we are surprised they act like dogs”.

        Perhaps the application of violence on men might make such men violent?

        Your argument that drug dealers will “target” legal drug sellers is wholly unsupported.

        I guess you’ve noticed the slaughter of liquor store owners by the Mafia since the end of Prohibition?

        I guess you’ve noticed the slaughter of cigarette store owners by the Mafia wanting an “in” on the tobacco market.

        • Bottom Line says:

          BF – “Your argument:

          “Because we beat men like dogs, we are surprised they act like dogs”.”

          BL – My arguement – men that act like dogs should be beaten like dogs. Men that act like dogs should not be ignored when they shit on the carpet or snap at the children.

          BF – “Perhaps the application of violence on men might make such men violent?”

          BL – Or, perhaps the application of violence would make such violent men non-violent. Dead men don’t kill. Dead men don’t rape. Dead men don’t kidnap.

          BF – “Your argument that drug dealers will “target” legal drug sellers is wholly unsupported.”

          BL – They do what they want to do. They target anyone that gets in their way. They are savages. Your argument that drug dealers WON’T “target” legal drug sellers is wholly unsupported as well.

          If you made murder legal, would it stop?

          If you made rape legal, would it stop?

          If you made kidnapping legal, would it stop?

          • Bottom Line

            men that act like dogs should be beaten like dogs. Men that act like dogs should not be ignored when they shit on the carpet or snap at the children.

            Perhaps.

            But that STILL does not give you a right to beat a non-violent man.

            BF – “Perhaps the application of violence on men might make such men violent?”

            BL – Or, perhaps the application of violence would make such violent men non-violent. Dead men don’t kill. Dead men don’t rape. Dead men don’t kidnap.

            So, your argument here is;

            “Kill them all – just in case”

            BF – “Your argument that drug dealers will “target” legal drug sellers is wholly unsupported.”

            BL – They do what they want to do.

            You have no demonstration of the concern you claim.

            You are making it up out of thin air.

            Your argument that drug dealers WON’T “target” legal drug sellers is wholly unsupported as well.

            No, I have historical and current proof and demonstration.

            Men sell liquor without being slaughtered.

            Men sell cigarettes without being slaughtered.

            If you made murder legal, would it stop?

            Nope.

            If you made rape legal, would it stop?

            Nope

            If you made kidnapping legal, would it stop?

            Nope.

            But such Law acknowledges a human right to defend one’s self against an attack.

            • Bottom Line says:

              BF – “Perhaps.

              But that STILL does not give you a right to beat a non-violent man.”

              BL – I didn’t say that it did. And if some whacko barges into my house acting like a dog, shits on my carpet and starts biting children, he’s going to get his ass beat for sure.

              BF – “So, your argument here is;

              “Kill them all – just in case””

              BL – No. My arguement is that we need to quit phuqing around and secure the border to protect our country from all of this evil, that we need to stop worrying about people’e feelings and start getting something done instead of letting stray dogs shit on our carpet and snap at our children.

              Shoot the dog snapping at the children, not the one digging into the trash in the alley.

              BF – “You have no demonstration of the concern you claim.

              You are making it up out of thin air.”

              BL – So there isn’t any border violence? There isn’t a bunch of evil violent drug cartels?

              BF – “No, I have historical and current proof and demonstration.

              Men sell liquor without being slaughtered.

              Men sell cigarettes without being slaughtered.”

              BL – Men sell illegal liquor without being slaughtered.

              Men sell illegal cigarettes without being slaughtered

              Men sell marijuana illegally without being slaughtered.

              Women sell themselves illegally without being slaughtered.

              People do lots of illegal things without being slaughtered.

              Is it about the law or evil savage people?

              BF – “But such Law acknowledges a human right to defend one’s self against an attack.”

              BL – The concept of defense – Exactly.

              • BL

                BF – “Perhaps.

                But that STILL does not give you a right to beat a non-violent man.”

                BL – I didn’t say that it did. And if some whacko barges into my house acting like a dog, shits on my carpet and starts biting children, he’s going to get his ass beat for sure.

                All well and good.

                But how do you further claim you can do this preemptively attack a non-violent man?

                secure the border to protect our country from all of this evil,

                t

                Your broad axe hacks down non-violent men, thus the evil in such action.

                BF – “You have no demonstration of the concern you claim.

                You are making it up out of thin air.”

                BL – So there isn’t any border violence? There isn’t a bunch of evil violent drug cartels?

                Your argument is disjointed.

                You claimed that if drugs were LEGAL, the sellers would be attacked by cartels.

                Here, you point to border violence in part due to ILLEGAL drug trade.

                You have missed a connection somewhere.

                People do lots of illegal things without being slaughtered.

                All correct.

                But your argument was that LEGAL sellers WOULD BE SLAUGHTERED.

                So, now you’re arguing with yourself.

                Is it about the law or evil savage people?

                Both.

                Use of law to do evil creates evil.

                BL – The concept of defense – Exactly.

                You have not justified self-defense upon non-violent men at all.

              • Bottom Line says:

                BF – “Your broad axe hacks down non-violent men, thus the evil in such action.”

                So does yours, you just don’t realize(or are in denial) that you admitted it a few weeks ago.

                ~”But how do you further claim you can do this preemptively attack a non-violent man?”

                ~”Protect …. from who?

                Non-violent men looking for work????”

                ~”You have not justified self-defense upon non-violent men at all.”

                BL – Not yet, but this debate has gone as expected.

                Justification for violence against the non-violent,…Now we’re getting somewhere.

                I have been waiting for this, so I am just going to throw the crazy hypothetical analogies and semantics aside for a minute.

                A threat can come in more forms than just violence.

                You agree.

                Violence against an unwaivering threat, violent or not, is justifiable – It’s still a threat.

                You agree.(yes you do)

                What we disagree about is the premise of what constitutes a non-violent threat justifying violent action.

                What we agree on concerning the premise of what constitutes a non-violent threat justifying violent action are the origins of the problem.

                I.E. – I say that they are a threat to the job market and therfore the economy and socioeconomic mobility of Americans.

                We are in the system and required to pay this and do that. They are not in the system and are subsequently not subject to the same demands, so they are able to work for lower wages and unfairly outcompete working class americans trying to be responsible and accumulate wealth.

                (This is where we agree.) If we didn’t have the same demands of us by government, it wouldn’t be a problem.

                I could work for a lower wage and still have my needs met. And because I could be more competetive, I wouldn’t have to worry about illegals underbidding my wage.

      • BL:

        More….

        it will all fall into place. But how long will it take, a century? Two?

        Your (rephrased) argument:
        “We have to be evil, because it may take other men awhile to behave themselves”

        ‘nuf said!

        • Bottom Line says:

          YOUR (rephrased) arguement:

          We should tolerate the greater of two evils while we wait for men to behave themselves.

          • BL:

            What “greater” evil? Allowing non-violent men employment???

            You have strange definitions of evil.

            • Bottom Line says:

              evil = rape, murder, kidnapping

              Lets just open the border, get rid of all laws and wait for men to behave themselves. In the mean time, tell the guy that kidnaps your daughter to make her turn tricks, that you’ll give him a job doing your landscaping for $8/hr. instead.

              That’s like saying that you’d offer vegetables to starving men invading your home with guns. Do you remember that from a few months ago? They don’t give a shit ’bout whether you want to share. They will kill you and take them all for themselves.

              It’s not because they are desperate that they do what they do – It is because they are evil.

              I’ve had some desperate times and I have never killed, raped, or kidnapped anyone.

              • BL:

                Why do you believe Laws against violence are not good laws?

                Why do you believe that to have “good” Laws, you need to install 90 times more “bad” laws?

              • Bottom Line says:

                Why do you keep trying to put words in my mouth?

                I don’t believe either of those. I just believe we have a responsibilty to protect our country.

              • BL;

                Protect …. from who?

                Non-violent men looking for work????

              • Bottom Line says:

                Yes.

                Read above. I’m getting to that.

  27. BF…had to move down…way too squishy. You said”Terry,

    Do you support immigration law?

    Min. wage?

    Taxes?

    Zoning law?

    etc.

    Pick up any law book.

    Any law that makes an edict upon a non-violent man is an evil law.”

    Do I support or obey…to me they are distinctly different.

    • Terry,

      I ask “support”.

      You may pay min. wage, and your taxes, and line up to get your papers …. but that’s your Right.

      But if you SUPPORT min. wage, labor law, taxes, etc. then that is evil.

  28. Terry,

    That is simply not realistic.

    Resisting evil is not realistic?

    Hmmm……

    For example you stated…”But you live in the world YOU make”. I never made the immigration law, or any other law for that matter, so to say that I live in the world I make is only true in the most local sense…much smaller than the WORLD.

    Do you support law, and the genre of law it represents?

    Do you support drug laws?

    Do you support laws against immorality?

    If you define me imposing on you as obeying the law, then that is simply your definition, not mine.

    Support of evil is evil.

    You can obey whomever you wish.

    Your support of the demand for others to such obedience is evil.

  29. G. A. Rowe,
    D13,

    I read an interesting piece regarding the War on Drugs.

    It suggests that the War on Drugs is a CIA creation. By establishing certain drugs to be illegal, they created an economic opportunity for themselves to generate “black op” money – outside the review of government budgets and therefore oversight.

    His evidence was the Contra Affair – most of which was whitewashed by the media. In this evidence, the CIA was using drug running to provide money for weapons. This established procedure to raise “black” cash was wholly ignored.

    • SK Trynosky Sr says:

      One wastes an awful lot of time in life looking for conspiracies.

      Perhaps the old saw, that truth is stranger than fiction, is absolutely right.

    • SK,

      So the Oliver North disclosures are NOT a conspiracy?

      • SK Trynosky Sr says:

        As Clinton said, its all in the meaning of the word. Some thought that it was just very interesting poker.

    • Hi BF…..I have no first hand evidence on this theory. I will simply say that I know that in Vietnam and Laos, certain war lords were protected so that THEY, not the CIA, could do their drugs to finance their own armies.

      I also did observe, first hand, the protection of certain rubber plantations from being bombed because we were buying our rubber from them for our tires and such…I refer to the Michelin Rubber Plantation in northern Cambodia that was a safe haven for North Vietnamese troops during the Vietnam War. I doubt that it is still there after all these years…but there is a rubber tree that had….”TEXAS WAS HERE” carved on it with a very large K Bar…this was done while observing troop movements of the North Vietnamese.

      But I cannot confirm nor deny CIA transportation or creation or selling of drugs.

  30. Let’s keep our eye on the ball

    • This “person” and I use that lightly should be arrested and tried for TREASON.

      Then put him on a boat and let him pick his next home. But it aint here.

    • USWeapon says:

      Arrest him, try him for inciting violence and revolution, and deport him.

      My favorite line was, “we are all one people, no borders”, said shortly after he made sure to mention that white people are not included.

      Hates capitalism, but came to America to benefit from it. IF he love Chavez, and Castro, why didn’t he move to Venezuela or Cuba?

      Piece of trash.

  31. SK Trynosky Sr says:

    GOOD NEWS !!!

    The President’s auntie has been granted Political Asylum! She will not be deported. She will continue to live in Boston Public Housing and will now be able to apply for a variety of programs she was unable to access before.

    Can anyone say Earned Income Credit?

  32. Cyndi P says:

    Over here Ray,

    This entire island is a US Army isntallation. I presume that the restrictions are a result of Federal and Military action. I didn’t get into everything that is regulated. Try to take a shell off this island. Technically, you’re not to remove ANYTHING, even a piece of broken glass becaue it is part of the Marshallese culture. There’s lots of broken eveything here. During WWII there was a huge battle here and artifacts turn up regularly, even bombs. You need a permit to dig more than six inches down. That one makes plenty of sense so I’m okay with it. I wouldn’t want to hit a 500lb WWII era bomb with a shovel.

    Life here is VERY restricted, yes. The command enforces regualtions with a light hand when possible, but we get a new commander every two years. The new guy always comes in and shows everyone who’s in charge. The current commander leaves in July 😦

    I’m a field engineer in a telemetry ground station. How many of those do you see?

  33. Racial profiling is bad…Not so much. If I see a lion, he might eat me. If I see a cute bunny rabbit I know I am safe. Cavemen were the first profilers. They knew what could eat them and took the necessary action. Walk into the projects and I am going to guess its not the white guy you have to worry about. If you watch the news and see who is committing the crimes then you develop a common sense natural tendency to protect yourself from those committing the crimes. If we trained a camera on the African savannah and saw the lions killing other animals on a regular basis you too would develop this sense of self preservation.

    Now that we have our basis together. If someone walked around said savannah and went “oh crap theres those lions” Should he be lambasted for profiling? I think not. If you watch the news and see who is doing the killing in your local community you develop your own opinions about who is safe and who is not. Just because black folks kill more people in my community I am not supposed to be wary of them? Profiling is another word for recognizing potential threats to your well being. Profile away.

    You want it changed then show me a bunch of black people doing the right thing and stop killing each other.

    As a side note. Two 6’2″ 205 pound white guys wait in line at the local Walmart behind 5 black folks. The line moves along and and the two white guys are next. Ttwo black girls walk straight up to the counter without waiting and start asking questions. Guess who the black girl behind the counter helps first? When the white guys made an issue out of it…the black girl behind the counter turned her back on them and continued her phone conversation with one of the store departments to help you guessed it… NOT the White guys. RACISM….you bet.

  34. SK Trynosky Sr

    I know that people moved from the country to the city. I know that the industrial age began. I know that people were exploited.

    Based on what theory?

    Why do you compare them to you?

    Why do you not compare their lives before to the lives they had?

    Your “exploitation” is their prosperity!

    I also know that living improvements were brought about not by kindly benefactor employers (although there were some) but through a series of social movements and organization.

    Humanity, under free market, gets better – and now you just figured that out?

    I will guess for you – in the next few generations, it will probably be better in the future they you have it now….as long as we are free.

    There is no doubt that there was, a great leap forward but that leap did not just happen. History does not take sides. It was the people who lived through those times that made things happen.

    It did happen, but it took NO ONE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

    It was the voluntary decisions of millions of people in their own self-interest that made it “happen”.

    No “super genius” decided this.

    People, because of their imperfect nature will exploit other people.

    You vision is subjective and colored.

    You are applying your subjective opinions upon the VOLUNTARY choices of other man and judging those actions.

    There is no judgment necessary.

    Men act. Period.

    • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

      let’s not have to go into the little match girl stuff, child labor etc.

      i have an unrealistic view of humanity myself, I believe in the innate goodness of people. I was at the WW 2 museum in new Orleans last week and was a bit annoyed with the “racist” stuff about the US attitude towards the japanese. the war was a war for survival. the japanese were not nice, not nice to us, to the Chinese, the British, the Koreans or anyone else they came into contact with. To compare the US to the japanese is moral equivilency gone amok. I love to watch pictures of marones and GI’s taking care of the old people and the kids on Okinawa. racist my ass.

      Anyway, I digress. despite my belief in humanity’s basic goodness there is no doubt that humanity has participated in mass exterminations. Generally speaking that view would re-inforce your own about the evils of government. Most mass extermiinations, holocausts, pogroms were caused by government not individually organized. I do ask you however, how a large board room filled with either one ultimate boss like an Andrew Carnagie or a board room filled with multiple directors differs from a government? They both control vast resources and have absolute power over the people who work for them. Like government Flag, they are quite capable of evil. Don’t explain to me how they are different because they are “free market” and must return a profit. A profit can be returned in many ways, some are not that good.

      As I mentioned before I am a descendent of Coal crackers from pennsylvania. Dad told me Molly McGuire stories that he got from an old Molly as a boy. I did research on my own. Profit at any cost was the mantra of the Pennsylvania RR boys in the late 18th Century. Things got progressively better over the years but it still didn’t stop my dad from watching his father cough up his lungs in the early 30’s and my Mom from watching her dad do the same in the early ’40’s.

      ” You lug 16 tons, what do you get,
      another day older and deeper in debt.

      St. Peter don’t you call me cause I can’t go,
      I owe my soul to the company store”.

      Subjective? Absopositively!

      • SK

        I do ask you however, how a large board room filled with either one ultimate boss like an Andrew Carnagie or a board room filled with multiple directors differs from a government? They both control vast resources and have absolute power over the people who work for them. Like government Flag, they are quite capable of evil. Don’t explain to me how they are different because they are “free market” and must return a profit. A profit can be returned in many ways, some are not that good.

        You jest.

        What CEO has slaughtered 200 million souls in 100 years???

        Men ARE capable of evil.

        The difference is that when a CEO does evil – you do not sit back in your chair and claim he had a right to do so – that is, his evil is illegitimate.

        When the same action is done by government you DO sit back and claim it was Right – that is – you legitimize this evil.

        That is a core, key, powerful and ultimately devastating difference.

        Profit at any cost was the mantra of the Pennsylvania RR boys in the late 18th Century. Things got progressively better over the years but it still didn’t stop my dad from watching his father cough up his lungs in the early 30′s and my Mom from watching her dad do the same in the early ’40′s.

        And what you did NOT get to see is your father starving to death, or your Mom, or perhaps you.

        You measure only on what you *see* and ignore the alternative *starvation*

        Certainly things get better as the progress from starvation to sustainability creates new problems which requires new solutions from your generation, which creates problems which requires new solutions from your children’s generation which creates problems which requires new solutions from your grandchildren and so on until the end of time.

        See all comments on this post here.

        WordPress

        WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
        Manage Subscriptions | One-click Unsubscribe | Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post by Email feature.

        Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

        • SK Trynosky Sr/. says:

          While I could cheap shot you with the words “Tobacco” and “asbestos” I won’t. Regardless of whether the corporations that produced them and marketed them knew they were dangerous, the information and choice was out there for people to make.

          No. My dad did not starve because, in 1932 as a 15 year old boy, he quit school and did whatever was necessary to support his mother and four siblings. My only complaint about him ever was that he did not take advantage of that Government GI Bill program after the war. He figured at 29 with a wife (and me on the way) he was too old to go back. That was a shame. Mom was already supporting herself when her dad died. During the depression, at age 16, she was farmed out to domestic service by her family. One less mouth to feed.

          I am an equal opportunity kind of guy. I would condemn either government or business for acting as you would say with violence.

          While there is legend galore surrounding the “Mollie McGuires” in the coal region and advocates both for and against them, the simple fact of the matter is that Franklin Gowan and Alan Pinkerton were not nice people. The Philadelphia and Reading railroad and their subsidiary corporations were, in regard to the anthricite fields, one of the worst examples of unfettered capitalism. The collusion between the Police, Government, Private investigators, and corporations such as the P&RRR was ttruly something to behold.

          • SK Trynosky Sr,

            I would condemn either government or business for acting as you would say with violence.

            Government does so everyday in thousands of ways that would take longer than a day to cite.

            Few complain.

            , one of the worst examples of unfettered capitalism. The collusion between the Police, Government, Private investigators, and corporations such as the P&RRR was ttruly something to behold.

            I smirk every time some one says “Unfettered capitalism” and then points to an gross example of COMPLETELY “Fettered” MERCANTILISM.

            Collusion of GOVERNMENT is NOT Capitalism!

            It is MERCANTILISM, which is a state of FASCISM

  35. Hi Ya’ll 🙂

    After reading all the posts and catching up, I have formulated a solution of sorts. So here goes: 1. Leave the illegals alone. 2. Increase the social programs, after all, we can’t let anyone starve. 3. Raise taxes to pay for higher cost of social programs. 4. Legallize all drugs. 5. Increase unemployment benefits so they are never ending. 6. After all this happens, and there is no way to pay for social programs, then I guess the illegals will just go back to their country and the problem will be solved.

    And at this point, How many that post here would want to be in my shoes?

    Food for thought!

    G!

    • Oh, my first batch of homemade brandy came out wonderful!

    • Congrats on the brandy! 🙂

      I do not come to the conclusion you did, but I have a feeling something like that might actually happen….

      If it does, we will all be in your shoes, and only the strong will survive.

      • Hi Jon 🙂

        I guess my post was aimed at the many differing posts (one way or the other). I giggled when I read Black Flag’s post to Mathius about “you attack from the left and I will from the right”. It made me pause and think, so I wrote my post on both positions. BF knows about the exhaustion of resources and Mathius wants everyone to hold hands a sing kum-by-ya because everyone is on equal status. That was my answer to both, left and right attacks, as presented.

        I believe both can see wy view on this, as both are smart. But, there comes a time when problems must be solved, I took the middle and let the outcome be up to one’s own imagination. You, see the end result, only the strong and prepared will move on. Maybe someone can develope a better plan, that will not lead to this. Now, I think a redo of Operation Wetback, lock down the border, breath alittle, and go slow from there. And that may not be the best way either! So I’m not whole heartedly defending that idea. 🙂

        Peace !

        G!

  36. V.H.

    I actually look at America as private property BF, it belongs to the citizens of the US , so we have rights

    The “USA” does not have rights – the People have rights. Abstractions do not have rights.

    You contradict yourself again.

    If you believe my property, life and work is subject to your arbitrary rule, then I do not understand why you complain about Obama and crew.

    They are doing precisely what you demand. You agree other people’s live, property and business is subject to public choice, then your life, your property and your business is subject to public choice.

    What you demand of others will be demanded of you.

    But you have complained bitterly about these demands – so I do not know how you believe you can demand from others, but exempt yourself?

    • V.H.

      we people own the land so we have a right to make rules regulating

      Therefore, you have no right to complain about the “People” seizing your money, property and life.

    • The USA has rights in the same way that organizations have rights which represent a group of people. In this country we have public property which is owned by all it’s citizens, it isn’t owned by every human being in the world. the fact that I share ownership of the public property does not give the organization the right to take away my private property or to infringe upon my rights to such property. It only means they can control the shared property through whatever agreed upon process is used to determine the groups rules .

      • V. H.

        The USA has rights in the same way that organizations have rights which represent a group of people.

        You can only grant the rights that you have yourself.

        You have no right to tell me what to do in my peace, nor determine who should work for me, or impose upon my freedom or the freedom of others.

        If you believe you DO have rights to impose upon me, you have granted everyone the right to impose upon you.

        I urge that you contemplate deeply before you grant such to other people.

        the fact that I share ownership of the public property does not give the organization the right to take away my private property or to infringe upon my rights to such property. It only means they can control the shared property through whatever agreed upon process is used to determine the groups rules .

        I declare that you do not own such property as I am such owner of property.

        If you claim such ownership by nefarious means, so stands my claim.

        Thus, everyone has such a claim upon you. Thus, and I repeat, you have no cause to complain about the government action upon you by Obama or anyone else.

  37. A Puritan Descendant says:

    I think we should, SECURE THE DAMN BORDER !!!

    GN all !

  38. Interesting redundant discussion today.

    Topic = Arizona’s law.

    It is a good law as near as I can tell. It will not impose upon the civil liberties of citizens or legal visitors in and of itself. Possible ambiguity in the original law was fixed by the second law which amended the first.

    This will cost more money for Arizona law enforcement. So be it. That is the legitimate role of govt.

    We are a soveriegn nation within a world of nation states. As such we the people have the AUTHORITY to establish such rules as we see fit to determine who we will let visit our home and how they must conduct themselves while here.

    Being as this is America we have some of the most liberal such laws in the world and certainly much more liberal than those of the mother country where all these whiners and subverters come from. They can Piss Off in my humble opinion.

    Close the freakin border.

    Deport all the illegals we find.

    Arrest and fine heavily those providing illegal migrants with jobs.

    If the criminals continue to invade our country and kidnap and murder our citizens and those who WE have allowed to visit then invade freakin Mexico and annex as much as is needed to eliminate the SOB’s. Maybe if the “border state mentality” is moved closer to Mexico City they will decide it is time to address their own damn problems and stop exporting them to us.

    The day that Mexico adopts the same liberal laws and cleans up its corruption and allows free migration in BOTH directions then I will stand up and support an open border policy with Mexico.

    While I support legalizing pot the reality is that this one action will not stop the violence along the border or within the USA that is being driven by gangs and sabatouers, whose goal is to reclaim the Mexican lands we stole fair and square.

    Tha, tha, tha, thats all folks.

    P.S. This crap running in the press and the behavior of this Administration regarding the Arizona law is so repugnant and vile I can not find a word to describe it. It is beyond evil when orchestrated by those in power as it has been. I have more respect for those who find love with animals than I do for this collection of meat bags.

    Sorry, I lost my head for a moment. Did I forget to say they should be skun and their hides hung on a fence.

    😦 😦 😦 😦 😦

    • Good post and thanks for keeping a sane (well almost, the love with animals….) head!

  39. BL,

    BF – “Your broad axe hacks down non-violent men, thus the evil in such action.”

    So does yours, you just don’t realize(or are in denial) that you admitted it a few weeks ago.

    Please explain how non-violence is violence.

    You are making very little sense.

    BL – Not yet, but this debate has gone as expected.

    I am not sure what “debate” you are making.

    I have been waiting for this, so I am just going to throw the crazy hypothetical analogies and semantics aside for a minute.

    BL,

    “Hypothetical” or “analogies” are NOT an argument!! You know better than that!!

    You must provide a coherent ARGUMENT, and to EXPLAIN parts of your argument, you use analogies and examples.

    A threat can come in more forms than just violence.

    You agree.

    Yes, under the Clear and Present Danger doctrine.

    Violence against an unwaivering threat, violent or not, is justifiable – It’s still a threat.

    You fail the doctrine.

    Your threat is not clear. It is vague and generalized.

    It is not Present as they are not on your doorstep.

    And you have failed to show how a non-violent man is Dangerous.

    You haven’t met one – let alone the requirement to meet ALL – of the requirements of Clear and Present Danger.

    What we agree on concerning the premise of what constitutes a non-violent threat justifying violent action are the origins of the problem.

    No, we do not.

    There does not exist such a thing as a non-violent action justifying violence.

    Such justification is the justification of Barbarians.

    I.E. – I say that they are a threat to the job market and therfore the economy and socioeconomic mobility of Americans.

    I am a threat to your job. That gives you ZERO rights to inflict violence on me.

    I am smarter, faster, better and cheaper than you in your job – that gives you ZERO rights to inflict violence on me.

    We are in the system and required to pay this and do that. They are not in the system and are subsequently not subject to the same demands, so they are able to work for lower wages and unfairly outcompete working class americans trying to be responsible and accumulate wealth.

    You argue that a system is evil, thus, you support evil upon others.

    Then you wonder why the system is evil..

    (This is where we agree.) If we didn’t have the same demands of us by government, it wouldn’t be a problem.

    A system of evil exists because the People love to use the evil because they believe it benefits them.

    Such a short-sighted belief is the cause of their suffering.

    I could work for a lower wage and still have my needs met. And because I could be more competetive, I wouldn’t have to worry about illegals underbidding my wage.

    You can do that now. You have no excuse except yourself.

  40. Birdman says:

    Off topic but good video:

    http://inflation.us/videos.html

  41. Thought I would put this up, minus any names for privacy reasons. Take tis for what it says, as it was posted today as an appeal to confirm. I will add any known conformations if they come available.

    We had a report of the following this morning, and are asking for confirmatory reports, photographs and video. This report came from a driver who is also a member.

    At approximately 0715 a convoy of 25-30 camouflaged military, Humvees and armored vehicles with

    UN markings was observed traveling westbound between State , PA, and Milroy, PA on US. Route 322.

    At approximately 0900 the same member encountered another convoy of UNMARKED military vehicles, refueling at Toms’s Travel Center on U.S. Route 322 at Milroy, PA. The member tried to engage the troops, but was ignored. They were in uniforms without insignia, but the covers did have ranks, from colonel to private. Convoy was a similar size, with Humvees and personnel carriers.

    IT is hard to say what the destination is so I am posting onstate sights west and south of Milroy, PA. I am speculating possible routes are 322 W, 99S, 70W, 81 S. 322 is not a major interstate, so it is possible secondary routes are being use. If you see the convoy, please photograph and video.

    As a note, Pa folks have a lengthy network to get info out. I know RT 322 very well, and it is not the fastest way to get from point A to Point B in most cases, that would be IS 80.

    Just thought this was interesting and may apply (barely) to the immigration issue.

    G!

    • Cyndi P says:

      Sounds more like it more it has to do with martial law and international troops to help enforce it. Let me know if it turns out to be more than rumor…..

      • If there is anything to this, I’ll know in time. Could just be normal troop movement of local NG, but I’ll know in short time.

        G!

  42. USW…no one is listening. Amazing. Nothing but philosophy and people saying that their position is better than the other. Rome burns and the fiddlers are fiddling.

    Let me be clear…………Do away with the drugs in its entirety……nothing will change the drama….it simply shifts from the drug trade to kidnapping and extortion and bribery. The murders will not go down, they will go up. The gangs will not go away. It is about money. That is all. I urge everyone on here to look at the statistics….start with Brownsville, Texas….In 2006, 2007, and 2008….the drug trade was severely hurt due to increased L/E activity. Since the drugs declined, the kidnappings rose exponentially. The extortion rose…exponentially. It is about money….period! Nothing more. Do away with drugs…the money will still be made and the gangs will not go away.

    Ok legalize the drugs. If you do that, you will need to legalize prostitution. If you do that, you will need to legalize extortion. If you do that, you will need to legalize kidnapping.

    The other thing that is not being reported is the open border concept is bringing in the criminals. It has brought in terrorist cells, as they are now finding out.

    Close the border….all this crap about everyone has a “right” to go wherever they want in the world…is just that….crap. You think that you have that right….jump in your car and go to our southern “neighbor”…see how far you get without being stopped and asked for your papers. Apply for their schools and see what you are told. Go to the Mexican Consulate and ask for an FM-3 and see what restrictions you have…..Apply for their medical and see where you get…..drive your car to the 12 kilometer check point and don’t stop…see where you end up…..drive into Mexico without your sticker and see what your fines are..not to mention your car being impounded.

    Close the border and start from scratch. Walmart will not close. Yards will not become overgrown. Construction will not cease. Trash will not stack up. The economy will not falter.

    Arizona is correct. They felt it necessary to make a State Law that mirrored the Federal Law…Let the state’s handle it. We DO NOT NEED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

    Oh, and a side note…..do not put any CREDENCE at all in what the City Council of Austin does or says. This is the same City Council that passed a resolution to change the State Mascot to an armadillo. This is the same City Council passed a resolution to outlaw the wearing of street shoes in Burnett Park. This is the same City Council that passed a resolution to protect the Honey Bee’s in Bee Caves, Texas from exploitation of…making honey. The State Representatives from Texas are still going to Scottsdale, Arizona this summer for their meeting. They will also play golf at Desert Hills Country Club and Troon. As I previously stated, the Austin City Council has always been…well….out of the mainstream of things. It is our token liberal enclave.

    • D13, your are exactly right. When alcohol was legalized, did the Mafia go out of business? No, it just morphed into other lines of illegal work. 60 Minute had a piece last night on the number of citizens from non-latin countries coming across the border. The numbers are significant including many from the ME. Not all are looking for work. I support what AZ has done and wish my own state CA had the &^lls to follow their lead.

      60 Minutes also had a piece on the oil platform blowout. It is what I suspected, multiple failures mostly human from work speed up, short cuts, over confidence, and too many bosses. Most such massive disasters are the result of multiple failures that result in accidents just waiting to happen. Pearl Harbor, the Challenger, 9-11 all fall in this category.

    • Ok D13, you want next steps, I will reiterate, since I have spent more time clarifying philosophy than working through the reasoning of the immediate steps.

      1) Put troops on the border to combat the gang and cartel violence. Because of the percentage of violent persons or persons being used as pawns by violent persons, stop all those coming across unauthorized areas or into private property, unless private citizens request no interference from the military/enforcement arm of government on their property.

      2) Gradually eliminate victimless crime, starting with weed, since it is the rational place to start such a rollback of the nanny state. This will allow fewer resources to be spent on drug law enforcement and prison, etc. This will also gradually reduce the drug related revenue for the gangs and cartels. There will be an increase in other money making illegal activities as the money stream is sought to be maintained. Again, that is why step one is to bring the power of our military to bear on the situation.

      3) Begin reducing the difficulties of immigrating and increasing the immigration limits with the goal of eliminating them. Increase the ease of obtaining work visas and offer them to current illegals. If, after a reasonable campaign, a year or so, there are still illegals here with easy work visas to be had, deport them for non-compliance.

      4) Reduce the restrictions on private citizens to obtain and use weapons and resources to defend themselves and their property.

      5) Begin cutting social programs. Immediately apply them to citizens only, but begin reducing other benefits as quickly as it can be politically accomplished.

      6) Reduce minimum wage levels and minimize barriers to employment. This will cut the motivation of employers to pay under the table, especially to illegals.

      7) Begin eliminating spending on secondary languages at the government level. No more bi-lingual documents and instruction. English is the official language. Any and all people should be encouraged to learn as many languages as they can, but taxpayer dollars should not be spent to cater to persons who have not learned our official language.

      There is a lot more than those steps needed to fix the problem, and certainly there are many more steps to reach the place we need to get. Ultimately, open immigration would be the goal, with a few basic layers that need to be gone through, but no hurdles and no limits. Ultimately the military presence on the border will decline as the need for them declines. Ultimately a free market that adjusts for the fluctuations in the labor market will be realized. Ultimately no one will be on the dole, and people will be immigrating for the opportunity at a free and successful life, not with any guarantees. I hope that my order is correct and so forth, I hope that we never get comfortable with the steps before the final goals are reached. I will never support the next steps without a clear concept of the long-term goal. To do that would be to risk the steps going in the wrong direction, or stopping altogether.

      • Hi John…….good start. I have no problem with any of it except in one area and it might be because I am not reading it properly.

        I, like you, am not against immigration at all. I am against illegal immigration and it matters not to me if our southern neighbor is in trouble or not.

        I do not want to see the militarization of the American border but I see no alternative. It can be accomplished very easily by the respective State National Guard.

        Arizona, New Mexico, and California needs to take a page out of the right to protect private property. We can and do use deadly force.

        I agree with making it very difficult on the employers. Book ’em Dano.

        I agree with making it impossible to secure ANY……ANY…..ANY entitlement program until you are an American Citizen.

        Thorough back ground checks should be necessary to becoming a citizen and stop this bullshit amnesty and political asylum.

        We have a duty to our own citizens BEFORE we have a duty to anyone else.

        Shorten the procedures. In this age of technology, the procedure can be shortened….easily. Just do it and it can be paid for through a work program.

        All your suggestions pretty much mirrored mine that I posted weeks ago in an article.

        You are on the right track, IMO. It is unfortunate that these steps have to be taken but open arms without discipline = problems.

  43. Bottom Line

    reasonable example of immigration enforcement.

    I believe it was in support of Clear and Present Danger doctrine.

    You basically said that it was okay to stop a man from entering the country if he had a potentially dangerous communicable disease.

    Correct.

    When I read it, it caught my attention because it was a contridiction to idealism you’ve always espoused.

    No.

    A reasoned man does not need to wait until the knife penetrates his heart before his chooses to act.

    He needs a doctrine, however.

    Clear
    Present
    Danger.

    If you can satisfying all three tenants, then you can act preemptively.

    Two out Three isn’t good enough.

    I thought “Wow! Did I just catch the anarchist pirate, Black Flag, supporting a statist concept?” I had to stop and think about it. I had to analyze the premise.

    It has absolutely nothing to do with the State.

    It is a Human Right encompassed in Self-Defense.

    ~ ‘Stop a man from entering the country because he has a potentially dangerous communicable disease’

    * Stop a man from endangering you.

    How large you wish to encompass your voluntary association and determine said “community” is irrelevant.

    Calling it a “country” doesn’t change a thing.

    Calling it a city doesn’t change a thing.

    Calling it your house doesn’t change a thing.

    The danger threat must be to you.

    ~ Stop a man from = by whatevermeans necessary = potential use of force/violence

    ~ entering the country = crossing political boundaries

    As pointed out, it is irrelevant.

    You could as easy argue *in this specific case, due to biology* that the threat could be from within another country, city or whatever.

    So, according to your logic, the use of violence against the non-violent for crossing imaginary lines is justifiable if it is for the greater good. I agree with this logic…

    You would agree, but I would not.

    “Greater good” has zero to do with it.

    It is a threat to you that is Clear, Present and Dangerous.

    Now, apply the same logic to other aspects of the immigration issue. It begs the question of what constitutes a threat.

    I do apply precisely the same logic – Clear and Present Danger.

    It fails in the case of immigration, thus the doctrine cannot be applied.

    BF – “I am smarter, faster, better and cheaper than you in your job”

    Wrong, I can out-perform you any day. You are just cheaper.

    Fine. I still win.

    The economic reality (as Pete mentions it) is that it is all about cheap.

    So, by your logic, you’d justify GM bombing Kia motors because they are cheaper – and to you “cheap” justifies an act of war!

    Have you ever heard of the “Contractor’s Square?” (Imagine a triangular squaring tool.) There is cheap, fast , and good,…You cannot have all three at once. You can get a job done cheap and fast, but not good. You can get it done good and fast, but not cheap. You can get it done good and cheap, but not fast.

    Because they arent in the system and aren’t subject to the same demands, they’re able to offer the option of MUCH cheaper. The contractor sees the difference in profit and says ” To hell with fast and/or good, cheap makes me more $”

    Yep, and guess what?

    It is not your right to determine for me which side of the triangle is most important for me

    You do that for YOU.

    I do that for ME.

    Butt out of MY decision – it’s not yours to make.

    If cheap is what I want – it is my right to chose “cheap”.

    Result: tax revenue lost – FRN’s taken out of circulation of the US – Americans lose jobs and $ – etc…

    Do you really think that holds any argument value for me?

    If I didn’t have to pay taxes and purchase insurance, I could afford to work for shit wages too.

    Then, why do you not?

    So, what we have is a double whammy for the skilled American worker.

    That is a choice.

    You and they do not want to do want another man is willing to do, therefore they do not get what another man gets.

    That is to say that blue/green collar America is being squeezed out by both the increasing demands of government and the increasing competition with cheap slave labor.

    And perhaps they will, one day, wake up to realize where the real problem lies – and it isn’t with the man earning a living by working.

    And by demanding such of Americans while simotaneously neglecting to protect them, the government is in support of the economic threat of illegal immigration.

    So, perhaps the point of your gun should be aimed at the real problem, no?

    So, when I say that “If I didn’t have to pay taxes and purchase insurance, I could afford to work for shit wages too.”, it brings us back to …”What we agree on concerning the premise of what constitutes a non-violent threat justifying violent action are the origins of the problem.”

    No, it brings us back to your choice.

    You have no right to chose for another man.

    You have made your choices and you suffer or gain by those consequences.

    Origin of the jobs problem = government

    So…

    BL reiterates – “If you eliminate government and/or make everything legal, then eventually it will all fall into place. But how long will it take, a century? Two?

    I suppose we could wait till Mexico has their shit together, then integrate…But again, how long will that take?”

    We don’t have time to wait for the political/social utopic nirvana known as Anarchy to evolve.

    Who cares about Mexico does or does not do for themselves?

    They are NOT my problem.

    Take care of your freedom and do not impose upon the freedom of others and the root of this problem will evaporate.

    Just know another problem will appear – but it will be a problem as a consequence of moral means.

    We cannot afford to give any more handouts.
    We cannot afford the strain on our system.

    We have to do something now.

    Yep, and its called doing nothing.

    End your support for all government action. Inhibit and interfere with as much government action as you can without being a martyr.

    But leave non-violent men earning a living alone. It you do, they probably will become your allies.

    But you are hell-bent on turning non-violent, working me into your mortal enemies, and in doing so, empowering the greatest enemy of all mankind.

    • Arg.

      But you are hell-bent on turning non-violent, working MEN into your mortal enemies, and in doing so, empowering the greatest enemy of all mankind.

%d bloggers like this: