QuoteState Rep. Randy Terrill (R), who sponsored the measure, has expressed a desire to go beyond the Arizona law when he introduces a bill next year that would seize property from businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants. Terrill cited the arrest last week of an alleged Mexican drug cartel member in Oklahoma as evidence that an "Arizona-plus" measure is needed urgently. He said the effect of Arizona's law has been to push illegal immigrants "straight down Interstate 40" toward Oklahoma.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/07/AR2010070703017.html?hpid=topnews
How about making it easier for those here illegally to become legal?
Quote from: SXSW on July 08, 2010, 03:55:57 PM
How about making it easier for those here illegally to become legal?
Why? People who take the correct path usually find it difficult. And it should be.
I know I'm going to be out of lockstep with most of my liberal brethren, but I agree with HB1804, and some parts of the Arizona bill. Not the profiling, which would have gone on.
We need to quit marginalizing illegal immigration. It's illegal. There's a reason it's called that. I could spend two hours talking about this subject (and have at length to several people, mainly relatives).
No more anchor babies. Makes it too easy for people to gain citizenship in a back-handed manner. When you're an American citizen, and you travel abroad, and your wife should deliver your child in, say, Australia, would that make you Australian as well as the baby? I don't believe it does. It seems that's what happens here.
Quote from: Hoss on July 08, 2010, 04:05:03 PM
Why? People who take the correct path usually find it difficult. And it should be.
I know I'm going to be out of lockstep with most of my liberal brethren, but I agree with HB1804, and some parts of the Arizona bill. Not the profiling, which would have gone on.
We need to quit marginalizing illegal immigration. It's illegal. There's a reason it's called that. I could spend two hours talking about this subject (and have at length to several people, mainly relatives).
No more anchor babies. Makes it too easy for people to gain citizenship in a back-handed manner. When you're an American citizen, and you travel abroad, and your wife should deliver your child in, say, Australia, would that make you Australian as well as the baby? I don't believe it does. It seems that's what happens here.
It's not really a political thing, though this administration is bent on making it so. Hoss is right, we make it easier to break the law and live here, than to abide by the law and live here.
Quote from: Hoss on July 08, 2010, 04:05:03 PM
No more anchor babies. Makes it too easy for people to gain citizenship in a back-handed manner. When you're an American citizen, and you travel abroad, and your wife should deliver your child in, say, Australia, would that make you Australian as well as the baby? I don't believe it does. It seems that's what happens here.
If you are an American Citizen and your child is born in another coutnry, that child is said to have dual citizenship. In the case you bring up id would be Australian/US. By the same token if you are here in the US from another country and a child is born that child becomes a dual citizen US/insert country here.
From the website: https://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/dual-citizenship.html (https://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/dual-citizenship.html)
"What is Dual Citizenship: Dual citizenship means that an individual is a citizen of two countries at the same time. It is also possible to be a citizen of three or more countries. However, every country has its own laws regarding dual citizenship. Some countries allow it and others do not, while some countries have no particular laws regarding dual citizenship. Dual citizenship is not something that can be applied for. It is a process that happens when a person becomes a citizen of another country, in addition to his or her country of birth. Dual citizenship occurs automatically for some individuals. For example: a child is born in the United States to foreign parents. In this example this child has U.S. Dual Citizenship since the child is automatically a citizen of the United States and a citizen of its parent's home country. The same applies to children of U.S. citizens born abroad where the child is both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth. "
I worked with someone in the mid 90's who's father was French and became a US citizen and his mother was American. He was born in France and was given dual citizenship. IIRC when he reached the age of 21 he had to declare his permanent citizenship, and he went to INS and declared US and he had to surrender his French passport.
I think that if you are in the US from a foreign country, and you have a child, and it is found that you entered the country illegaly, the US Citizenship status of that child should be revoked, and the family put on the next plane, train, bus or boat back to their country of origin. If you came legally and are going through the process to become a US citizen you must complete the process for that child or any other children you have, while in the US, to keep their US Citizenship.
I know this sounds simplistic, but something has got to be done.
From a wiki article:
"In a September 3, 2008, debate in Danville, Virginia, Republican Congressman Virgil Goode declared that the greatest threat to America's national security was "anchor babies". He discussed H.R. 1940, the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007"[18] that would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national; (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces. Goode argued that H.R. 1940 would "end the anchor baby situation", and he blamed Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the fact that H.R. 1940 has not gone anywhere; his opponent, Democrat Tom Perriello, noted that similar legislation did not even make it out of committee when the Republicans controlled Congress, and that the Republican leadership, including then-President George W. Bush and then-Republican Presidential nominee John McCain, did not support the bill either.[19]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby)
And H.R. 1940:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h1940ih.txt.pdf (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h1940ih.txt.pdf)
dbacks, you seem to be under the impression that just because a person has a citizen child, that entitles them to remain here. It does not. Anchor babies are the new welfare queens. Makes good copy, but doesn't actually exist.
Quote from: nathanm on July 08, 2010, 05:15:08 PM
dbacks, you seem to be under the impression that just because a person has a citizen child, that entitles them to remain here. It does not. Anchor babies are the new welfare queens. Makes good copy, but doesn't actually exist.
No, not under that impression at all. I know that "Anchor Baby" doesen't really exist. I was explaining the process that Hoss brought up with regards to children born in the US to foreign nationals and what the legal process is and was backing it up with facts and ran into more info about this subject. Just trying to support my comments and not get bashed as it being my opinion.
" Dual citizenship occurs automatically for some individuals. For example: a child is born in the United States to foreign parents. In this example this child has U.S. Dual Citizenship since the child is automatically a citizen of the United States and a citizen of its parent's home country. The same applies to children of U.S. citizens born abroad where the child is both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth."This is the point I was trying to make. It does not make that child an Anchor Baby, it does not give the parents anything. The child has dual citizenship.
The 14th Amendment:
"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/ (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/)
Nowhere does it say anything about the parents.
Quote from: dbacks fan on July 08, 2010, 05:29:24 PM
This is the point I was trying to make. It does not make that child an Anchor Baby, it does not give the parents anything. The child has dual citizenship.
Yes, that is the case. Sorry if I misunderstood your earlier comment.
To be fair, in some cases it gets the parent the benefit of greater use of ICE's discretionary authority to not actually hold them in jail while awaiting deportation, but it doesn't get them out of deportation entirely.
On the overall subject, I'd like to think that if the system were less arbitrary and was more realistic in the numbers of immigrants admitted we might see less illegal crossing by otherwise law-abiding aliens. As it stands, it's an expensive and completely arbitrary process to get a visa, and even then you get harangued at the border and possibly denied entry.
And even if you get a visa to come pick the fields this year, you might well not get one next year. Everything I've heard from people who have immigrated legally is that the process is discouraging at best. If we could entice more people to do it the legal way, at least then we'd know who was coming in the country. Having more definite criteria and a more clear process would help to that end.
There's pretty much nothing that can be reasonably done at the state level to combat the problem that won't make the situation worse. Having police act as immigration enforcement just leads to unreported crime and vigilante justice when people are afraid to call the police. Worse, it makes it harder to solve crime, as illegal immigrants will be less willing to speak to law enforcement. If a person is actually arrested, sure, it's reasonable to investigate their status if there's reason to believe they are an illegal alien. In other situations, not so much.
Uh oh! Turns out Rhode Island has a law similar to Arizona, that has been enforced for years.
In 2008, Governor Donald L. Carcieri, a Republican, issued an executive order mandating immigration checks on all new state workers and ordering State Police to assist federal immigration officials.
Sitting in his office in an old farmhouse off a country highway, Doherty said the State Police had collaborated with federal immigration officials before, but the relationship has become more formal in recent years. In 2007, he said, he trained all state troopers in how to deal with noncitizens because of widespread confusion and because Congress did not resolve the issue of illegal immigration. Troopers learned to notify consulates when noncitizens are arrested, how to recognize different forms of identification, and how to deal with different cultures.
In 2009, Doherty took it a step further and enrolled in the 287(g) program, which designated four troopers as immigration task force agents to assist in investigating drug and human trafficking and other crimes.
They also help regular troopers report illegal immigrants to ICE. Troopers say the issue typically comes up during criminal investigations or when motorists don't have driver's licenses, and police need to verify their identities with the center in Vermont.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2010/07/06/ri_troopers_embrace_firm_immigration_role/
Quote from: guido911 on July 07, 2010, 08:34:22 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/07/AR2010070703017.html?hpid=topnews
I think this is a good thing. The assets seizure forfeiture laws that apply drug dealers and other criminals who profit from and or use their funds for illegal activities should apply to those who hire illegals. This is the right step.
Quote from: jamesrage on July 09, 2010, 02:12:11 PM
I think this is a good thing. The assets seizure forfeiture laws that apply drug dealers and other criminals who profit from and or use their funds for illegal activities should apply to those who hire illegals. This is the right step.
I thought part of the E Verify Law penalized employers who hired illegals? I'll have to look and see, but I thought there a provision for suspendng or revoke a business owners license for not verifying status.
Quote from: dbacks fan on July 09, 2010, 02:21:49 PM
I thought part of the E Verify Law penalized employers who hired illegals? I'll have to look and see, but I thought there a provision for suspendng or revoke a business owners license for not verifying status.
I agree with revoking and suspending a business license of someone who deliberately hires illegals, but what would stop that individual from putting that business in someone else name on paper.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 09, 2010, 07:54:33 AM
Uh oh! Turns out Rhode Island has a law similar to Arizona, that has been enforced for years.
Actually, no. Arizona law puts an affirmative duty on the LEO to check immigration status if he believes they might be an illegal alien. Rhode Island law
allows a LEO to do that, but does not require it.
Quote from: nathanm on July 09, 2010, 09:10:55 PM
Actually, no. Arizona law puts an affirmative duty on the LEO to check immigration status if he believes they might be an illegal alien. Rhode Island law allows a LEO to do that, but does not require it.
It is still similar, and they both give the locals a tool to fight illegal imigration, which the opponents say should only be the job of the federal government. Not to mention that there is really little differance considering the fact that in AZ all they have to do is say they did not believe they were illegal if they don't want to run the person. Still comes down to what the cop chooses to do.
Quote from: jamesrage on July 09, 2010, 02:29:09 PM
I agree with revoking and suspending a business license of someone who deliberately hires illegals, but what would stop that individual from putting that business in someone else name on paper.
Why don't we just shoot them?
Quote from: swake on July 10, 2010, 10:41:55 AM
Why don't we just shoot them?
I support the modesty of your proposal.
Quote from: we vs us on July 10, 2010, 12:54:06 PM
I support the modesty of your proposal.
That's what Mexico does to illegals.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 12, 2010, 08:31:55 AM
That's what Mexico does to illegals.
It's obviously always a good idea to copy the policies of 3rd world nations that border on being failed states.
Quote from: swake on July 12, 2010, 08:51:56 AM
It's obviously always a good idea to copy the policies of 3rd world nations that border on being failed states.
And real slick for presidents of third world human dumps to come to our country and assail us for our immigration policies in our own HOR.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 12, 2010, 09:08:04 AM
And real slick for presidents of third world human dumps to come to our country and assail us for our immigration policies in our own HOR.
+1
While I don't approve of shooting people accused of illegal immigration (obviously), we need stricter enforcement (that's my 'duh' moment of the day).
Pretty much everyone here should know my stance on it. I don't believe one iota in amnesty. You're sending the message that it's ok to violate the law, and even if you're caught, you may still get a free pass. Make them work for citizenship just like all the people I know who've done it the right way. It's meant to not be easy.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 12, 2010, 09:08:04 AM
And real slick for presidents of third world human dumps to come to our country and assail us for our immigration policies in our own HOR.
Look, you are smarter than that. These "leaders" of Latin American countries that are so dependent on the United States are summoned to Washington for this or that reason, they are by and large going to do what they are told, but they have to save face in some way to preserve the illusion back home that they are not just a lackey of the United States, when in fact they largely are.
In Mexico's case, we want Mexico to take on the drug lords to help keep drugs out of the US, it's ripping Mexico apart but they are doing it, and doing it at our direction. So the Mexican president comes to the US, he gets his orders and gets a photo op with Obama where he is publically lectured by the US President on whatever we need them to do. So in turn President Calderon takes a small, soft, swipe back when it's his turn at the podium in the White House. It plays in the press back home showing he's independent and working for his people. We in turn pay exactly zero attention to what was said, because we can. Calderon's statement wasn't an insult or a demand he expects us to listen to, it was him just playing politics back home. He's doing what he's told so we would do well to just ignore what he said.
It is getting harder for me to employ Hispanic workers. I hired a mariachi band and got two gringos named Murray and Archie.
Quote from: Hoss on July 12, 2010, 09:13:25 AM
+1
While I don't approve of shooting people accused of illegal immigration (obviously), we need stricter enforcement (that's my 'duh' moment of the day).
Pretty much everyone here should know my stance on it. I don't believe one iota in amnesty. You're sending the message that it's ok to violate the law, and even if you're caught, you may still get a free pass. Make them work for citizenship just like all the people I know who've done it the right way. It's meant to not be easy.
Please, this is in no way that simple. If you are college educated from England you can immigrate at any time with no waiting, if you are poor and Mexican, good luck with that. And how hard was it for your ancestors to immigrate and join our club? I bet not near as hard as it is today for the average poor kid from Guatemala.
Our legal immigration is often racially biased with quotas that are just way too small given demand, both internal (job demand)and external(interested immigrants). We have for over a hundred years winked at illegal immigration because we have always had such a huge need for cheap, unskilled labor. Your home, your food, your roads were all provided by the cheap labor of largely undocumented workers. And this is not a new phenomenon, huge portions of previous waves of immigrants were not documented either. Over the last 130 years Chinese, Italians and other large immigrant groups all had large portions of their immigrant communities that were not here legally. Today their great-grandkids are completely legal citizens, you very well might be one of them. We have always just winked at the "crime" of illegal immigration. You want an example how this is true, being an illegal in the United States carries less of a penalty then a parking ticket. In fact, there is no penalty what so ever except to stop breaking the law (deportation).
Overall immigration has been very good for this country, legal and not. We take the most ambitious, the hardest working, the most striving, the smartest people from failing countries around the world and over time they add a great deal of productivity and innovation to America. It's a big part of our nation's success.
I don't mean this to say that I think illegal immigration is a good thing, I don't, but I also don't think we should brand all illegals as some kind of drug dealing violent criminals. Some are certainly, but the vast majority are not. A little known fact is that Immigrants overall, legal and not, commit fewer crimes than native born Americans and pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. The real issue, other than racist right wing identity politics, is that there are some very bad people that come across the border and we need to stop them. By enforcing legal immigration caps we end up having no control over and knowing nothing about 50-60% of the total yearly immigrants into this country.
The first thing we need to do is to remove the caps on legal immigration to remove the pressure for people to enter illegally. Allow anyone without a criminal record or illness to immigrate. Kick the legs out from under the industry that sneaks people into the United States and remove the pressure on the border. This isn't revolutionary. It is how we used to handle immigration. Before 1882 with the Chinese Exclusion Act we had no real immigration rules at all and admitted 98% of applicants. Ever since we have been talking about but also not really fighting illegal immigration. Going back to those rules would allow the border patrol to know that anyone sneaking across is a very likely a very bad person, because that's the only reason to sneak across. We then should harden the border against those truly bad people.
We should then start to deport people en-mass. Encourage illegals to leave and enter legally on their own, if they don't do it we will do it for them. But no amnesty, just leave one way or another, get checked on the way back in and then be here legally fully participating in taxes and laws. After a period of time to allow the millions illegals already here to leave and reenter legally make it a real crime with teeth to be here illegally. Because again, with an open immigration policy there is no reason other than being a criminal for a person to be in the US illegally.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/us/12iht-letter.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/web/20070507-chinese-exclusion-act-california-chester-a-arthur-immigration-san-francisco-earthquake-of-1906-paper-sons.shtml
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/immigration_chron.cfm
Quote from: swake on July 12, 2010, 11:11:23 AM
The first thing we need to do is to remove the caps on legal immigration to remove the pressure for people to enter illegally.
Unfortunately, you can't just do that. Immigration caps are there for a reason mostly to keep from overwhelming the job market and social services. I don't think there's a country anywhere on earth which does not have some sort of quotas. Why would we want unlimited immigration if we didn't have enough jobs to support these people?
As Americans we enjoy many freedoms and a great standard of living. I have no problem sharing that with people who want the same opportunities people like you and I were born into. I simply don't think you can throw open the gates and remove quotas.
I find it interesting that people believe for the most part that our laws cause people to violate our laws. That's not the case, it's a lack of respect for our laws which causes people to violate them.
Quote from: swake on July 12, 2010, 11:11:23 AM
Kick the legs out from under the industry that sneaks people into the United States and remove the pressure on the border.
Just exactly how do you propose this be done? You can arrest all the coyotes on this side of the border, but how do you propose to kick the legs out of the people on the other side of the border? As for the ones arrested here, theres probably two more people that will take that persons place.
Quote from: dbacks fan on July 12, 2010, 11:42:44 AM
Just exactly how do you propose this be done? You can arrest all the coyotes on this side of the border, but how do you propose to kick the legs out of the people on the other side of the border? As for the ones arrested here, theres probably two more people that will take that persons place.
Or the coyote is deported back to the other side and starts over. It's a minor inconvenience in an otherwise lucrative career.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 12, 2010, 11:23:49 AM
Unfortunately, you can't just do that. Immigration caps are there for a reason mostly to keep from overwhelming the job market and social services. I don't think there's a country anywhere on earth which does not have some sort of quotas. Why would we want unlimited immigration if we didn't have enough jobs to support these people?
As Americans we enjoy many freedoms and a great standard of living. I have no problem sharing that with people who want the same opportunities people like you and I were born into. I simply don't think you can throw open the gates and remove quotas.
I find it interesting that people believe for the most part that our laws cause people to violate our laws. That's not the case, it's a lack of respect for our laws which causes people to violate them.
Are you under the impression that this would expand immigration? Illegal immigration may be down as much as 50% over the last several years because of a lack of jobs. When there are jobs, more immigrants come in to fill those jobs, when there are no jobs, fewer come and some leave. It's supply and demand. And when there is demand for immigrant labor, the immigrants do get here, legally or not. Today we have about 60%-40% legal vs. illegal immigration split with some percentage of the illegals being people we really don't want to be here. If we opened it up so that we know who is entering, we can better keep out the 5% we don't want here. If we would fix legal immigration, I think overall immigration would be at worst static (because again, supply and demand of unskilled jobs) and might even FALL by keeping that 5% out better. Much of that 5% isn't really what we would call working and filling jobs so there's little economic pressure to replace them with other immigrants.
Quote from: dbacks fan on July 12, 2010, 11:42:44 AM
Just exactly how do you propose this be done? You can arrest all the coyotes on this side of the border, but how do you propose to kick the legs out of the people on the other side of the border? As for the ones arrested here, theres probably two more people that will take that persons place.
If you legalize immigration through standard channels it removes the reason for the human smuggling industry to even exist. It's zeros out demand for their product.
Not Illegal Aliens
Not Illegal Immigrants
Not undocumented workers
Not even Immigrants
Now according to Harry Reed. . .Undocumented Americans!
Still any doubt about where this is headed?
"This week we will vote on cloture and final passage of a comprehensive bill that will strengthen border security, bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows, and keep our economy strong." Harry Reid
They're already Americans, we just haven't finished the paperwork! :D
Quote from: Gaspar on July 12, 2010, 01:26:59 PM
Not Illegal Aliens
Not Illegal Immigrants
Not undocumented workers
Not even Immigrants
Now according to Harry Reed. . .Undocumented Americans!
Still any doubt about where this is headed?
"This week we will vote on cloture and final passage of a comprehensive bill that will strengthen border security, bring the 12 million undocumented Americans out of the shadows, and keep our economy strong." Harry Reid
They're already Americans, we just haven't finished the paperwork! :D
Can you provide a link?
Quote from: dbacks fan on July 12, 2010, 06:15:34 PM
Can you provide a link?
http://www.nysun.com/opinion/undocumented-americans/56282/
Or you can watch it
He even put it on his website
http://reid.senate.gov/
Heck, he is now using it every time he refers to illegal aliens. We're in trouble. :o
I'm stunned. I'm sending a donation to Sharron Angle's campaign this morning. Listen to the moronic metaphor by our President while stumping for Harry the turd (sorry I can no longer honor Reid by calling him "Senator" he's an insult to the office):
"The president compared Las Vegas residents to those in the Gulf affected by the BP oil spill – whose livelihoods depend on tourism, and attacked Angle's stance on the spill, saying her answer was to deregulate the oil industry. He brought up Rep. Joe Barton's (R-Texas) apology to BP CEO Tony Hayward, in which he called a $20 billion escrow account to compensate those affected a "shakedown."
"Harry's opponent agreed with this guy, she called the compensation we provided a slush fund," the president said. "A few hours later, her campaign puts out a memo saying 'she didn't say that'... . They said there was some 'confusion'. I'm sure she meant 'slush fund' in the nicest possible way," he quipped."
Huh?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/president-obama-stumps-for-harry-reid-attacks-opponent-sharron-angle.html
Quote from: Conan71 on July 13, 2010, 09:40:59 AM
I'm stunned. I'm sending a donation to Sharron Angle's campaign this morning. Listen to the moronic metaphor by our President while stumping for Harry the turd (sorry I can no longer honor Reid by calling him "Senator" he's an insult to the office):
You really want to support a person who whined that if she didn't win, her supporters should turn to "second amendment solutions?"
Quote from: nathanm on July 13, 2010, 10:49:04 AM
You really want to support a person who whined that if she didn't win, her supporters should turn to "second amendment solutions?"
You bet I would rather than to support a knock-kneed liberal who shat upon our troops declaring the war as "lost" and now calling illegal aliens "Undocumented Americans".
Quote from: Conan71 on July 13, 2010, 11:20:25 AM
You bet I would rather than to support a knock-kneed liberal who shat upon our troops declaring the war as "lost" and now calling illegal aliens "Undocumented Americans".
Good to know that you're in favor of armed revolution.
Quote from: nathanm on July 13, 2010, 10:49:04 AM
You really want to support a person who whined that if she didn't win, her supporters should turn to "second amendment solutions?"
Do you have a link to that statement?
If so, no one should vote for her.
Since Mexico is part of North America, there are several countries in Central America, and of course there is the South American continent , "Undocumented Americans" could be technically correct. I don't think that was the intent though.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 13, 2010, 11:59:05 AM
Do you have a link to that statement?
If so, no one should vote for her.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/sharron_angle_floated_possibil.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hbvfn96wsY
The WaPo link has a link to the audio from the radio show.
Harry Reid may be an idiot, but at least he's not an escapee from the loony bin.
Correction: There is no period after "et" because it is not an abbreviation. Et is a complete word.
Anyway, I've been following the depressing conversation about immigrants here for five years and like I've said before Oklahoma is at the beginning of a very long learning curve. Meanwhile, I've watched local hate mongers throw everything they can at the immigrants and I have to say that if I had a dollar to bet I'd put it on the Latin community.
Most of the hate flows from Oklahoma's Poor White Community who see immigrants as a direct threat to their livelihoods just like they saw Blacks as a threat to their livelihoods in 1921 before our famous race massacre.
Tulsa doesn't have a lot going for it these days. One of the few bright spots on Tulsa's horizon is our vibrant, growing, prosperous and hard working Latin community. They are the epitome of the American Dream.
At the same time, the needs of our Poor White community are overwhelming. They are the one demographic in our nation without an advocate. Our job is two fold: One, create a guest worker program with a path to citizenship. Two, rewrite our affirmation action laws to address the needs of our nation's Poor Whites.
Rant all you want, the Browning of the U.S. is a done deal. And we'll be far better for it.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 13, 2010, 11:59:05 AM
Do you have a link to that statement?
If so, no one should vote for her.
Citations aren't Nate's strong point:
"Angle: I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who's in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical...
Manders: If we needed it at any time in history, it might be right now.
Angle: Well it's to defend ourselves. And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.
The sentiments are not a one-off."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/06/what-are-sharron-angles-2nd-amendment-remedies-to-reids-oppression.html
"Nevada Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle just sat down for an interview with Jon Ralston, one of the top political reporters in the state, on the NBC station in Reno. And a big question that Ralston had for her was just what she meant by people having "Second Amendment remedies."
Ralston played back the audio, with accompanying on-screen text, from an interview that Angle gave with a conservative talk radio host back in January. "You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said, it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years," Angle said. "I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, my goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you, the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."
"A lot of people think that's pretty outrageous rhetoric," Ralston said, referring to the language about "take Harry Reid out," and asked Angle whether she thought President Obama was a tyrant comparable to King George III.
"Well, I was speaking broadly, as you saw, about the Constitution, and that was the context of that rhetoric," Angle responded. "I admit that was a little strong to say 'take him out,' but you know what I meant. I meant take him out of office, and taking him out of office is a little different. I changed my rhetoric, to 'defeat Harry Reid.'"
Ralston continued to ask Angle whether she had gone too far.
"You know what, Jon," Angle responded, "I think it's interesting that we're nitpicking on all the little topics that Harry is putting out there."'
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/angle-i-was-speaking-broadly-about-second-amendment-remedies.php
Quote from: RecycleMichael on July 13, 2010, 11:59:05 AM
Do you have a link to that statement?
If so, no one should vote for her.
Audio is better. It was from the Lars Larson show and taken out of context on Huffington and others. She made two separate statements, one to the effect that the way things are going in congress people should be happy they still have second amendment rights. The way she said it was inflammatory.
"I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around?"
Larson agreed with her statement and then her next sentience was:
"I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."
Not referring to the use of arms, none the less, when the spinners at Huff got it she was calling for the execution of Harry Reid. She immediately issued an apology and clarified her statement.
Quote from: Hometown on July 13, 2010, 12:07:58 PM
Correction: There is no period after "et" because it is not an abbreviation. Et is a complete word.
Anyway, I've been following the depressing conversation about immigrants here for five years and like I've said before Oklahoma is at the beginning of a very long learning curve. Meanwhile, I've watched local hate mongers throw everything they can at the immigrants and I have to say that if I had a dollar to bet I'd put it on the Latin community.
Most of the hate flows from Oklahoma's Poor White Community who see immigrants as a direct threat to their livelihoods just like they saw Blacks as a threat to their livelihoods in 1921 before our famous race massacre.
Tulsa doesn't have a lot going for it these days. One of the few bright spots on Tulsa's horizon is our vibrant, growing, prosperous and hard working Latin community. They are the epitome of the American Dream.
At the same time, the needs of our Poor White community are overwhelming. They are the one demographic in our nation without an advocate. Our job is two fold: One, create a guest worker program with a path to citizenship. Two, rewrite our affirmation action laws to address the needs of our nation's Poor Whites.
Rant all you want, the Browning of the U.S. is a done deal. And we'll be far better for it.
Thanks a pant-load for the cheerful post HT.
Quote from: nathanm on July 13, 2010, 12:07:20 PM
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/sharron_angle_floated_possibil.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hbvfn96wsY
The WaPo link has a link to the audio from the radio show.
Harry Reid may be an idiot, but at least he's not an escapee from the loony bin.
In case you haven't noticed, she's echoing the sentiment of close to 1/2 the country, Nate. That percentage seems to keep growing by the day.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 13, 2010, 12:11:03 PM
Citations aren't Nate's strong point:
You make me laugh.
Not only do you accuse me of not providing a citation, when I did so prior to your post but you also engage in the same "parsing" behavior you claim I do.
Gaspar is right, the audio is better. I hope everyone goes to the WaPo link, downloads it, and listens to it themselves. Then they can decide what they think she meant.
Yeah, half the country wants to use "second amendment remedies" against the Congress. You're talking as nutty as Angle.
Edited to add: Or another way to look at it is that more than half the country subscribed to Obama's agenda. Oops.
Quote from: nathanm on July 13, 2010, 12:15:35 PM
You make me laugh.
Not only do you accuse me of not providing a citation, when I did so prior to your post but you also engage in the same "parsing" behavior you claim I do.
Gaspar is right, the audio is better. I hope everyone goes to the WaPo link, downloads it, and listens to it themselves. Then they can decide what they think she meant.
Yeah, half the country wants to use "second amendment remedies" against the Congress. You're talking as nutty as Angle.
Edited to add: Or another way to look at it is that more than half the country subscribed to were fooled by Obama's Emanuel's agenda. Oops.
FIFY
Awww you beat me to it by four minutes. You rarely provide citations to support your claims so I figured I would oblige. I was in the process of finding some when you posted yours.
You obviously don't seem to be very well read on what the Tea Party movement is all about nor why Americans were given a 2nd Amendment in the first place.
Take a look at the polls, apparently less than half are happy with Pres. Obama's agenda.
Glee on brother....
Quote from: Conan71 on July 13, 2010, 12:21:29 PM
You obviously don't seem to be very well read on what the Tea Party movement is all about nor why Americans were given a 2nd Amendment in the first place.
I get why we have a Second Amendment. It's so we have a nice trained militia to fall back on in case we get invaded and to prevent the Government from taking away our guns in case they get overzealous. It's one thing to recognize that, it's a completely different thing to call for the use of "second amendment remedies" if Harry Reid ends up winning.
The radio interview I linked to isn't the only one. I have to dig it up, but a couple days later she dug herself in deeper with an even more inflammatory comment. I should have bookmarked it.
And yeah, I never cite. Only every time someone refuses to believe what I'm saying.
Take a look at the election results, which were based on Obama's far more left-wing campaign promises than his decidedly moderate approach once elected.
News Flash: Ireland's Economy Crashes
Prediction: Tulsa (with it's Irish roots) is probably already experiencing an influx of undocumented Irish immigrants (as it has before). It will be interesting to see how our draconian anti-immigrant laws are applied to Irish immigrants.
Terrill. That's an Irish name.
Quote from: Hometown on July 13, 2010, 12:07:58 PM
At the same time, the needs of our Poor White community are overwhelming. They are the one demographic in our nation without an advocate. Our job is two fold: One, create a guest worker program with a path to citizenship. Two, rewrite our affirmation action laws to address the needs of our nation's Poor Whites.
Rant all you want, the Browning of the U.S. is a done deal. And we'll be far better for it.
Why do we have to put labels of color or race on people. Poor is poor. Not all illegal aliens are Hispanic.
There is a path to citizenship. We are not barring anyone from taking it. Sure, it needs adjustment, but most of our illegal aliens NEVER attempt to come here legally.
No one is talking of racial hatred. We're not calling them illegal Hispanics. The cries of racism are coming from the Hispanic community, and that's understandable. It's a card they can put in play.
Affirmative Action laws are based on quotas and serve to harm the very people they intend to help by establishing a racial bias. We are a long way from a colorblind nation when we subjugate people into groups in the name of fairness. Can you imagine how horrible it must feel to know that you were offered a job, not because of your skills, but because of the color of your skin or the sound of your last name? To be a token? A check mark on a list?
I remember when I was just out of college interviewing for Pharmaceutical sales jobs. The manager I interviewed with asked me a series of questions related to my race. "Gaspar, that's a Hispanic name isn't it?" I asked him why he wanted to know and he said that you get extra points and bonuses based on recruiting minorities. He showed me all of the races on his list that were eligible and asked if I "fell into any of these categories." I was shocked. This was literally my first interview out of school, and it was based more on racial quotas than skill.
Racism is wrong, and it has two faces. You can persecute based on race, or you can reward based on race. They are the same crime!
Quote from: nathanm on July 13, 2010, 12:24:15 PM
I get why we have a Second Amendment. It's so we have a nice trained militia to fall back on in case we get invaded and to prevent the Government from taking away our guns in case they get overzealous. It's one thing to recognize that, it's a completely different thing to call for the use of "second amendment remedies" if Harry Reid ends up winning.
The radio interview I linked to isn't the only one. I have to dig it up, but a couple days later she dug herself in deeper with an even more inflammatory comment. I should have bookmarked it.
And yeah, I never cite. Only every time someone refuses to believe what I'm saying.
Take a look at the election results, which were based on Obama's far more left-wing campaign promises than his decidedly moderate approach once elected.
The Second Amendment banter has become more symbolic than anything about citizens wanting to take our country back from corporate and other special interests and end the plunder of the U.S. Treasury. If you are picturing a real armed insurrection you are the one who should be in the looney bin.
So where is POTUS Obama's "mandate" now? The reason people are becoming disenchanted is because they have seen the chicanery and back room deals which turned legislation like Obamacare into relative shells of what was promised. Spare us the excuses of how the Republicans have watered down all of his agenda and ruined it for him. That's total BS and it's got few takers.
Quote from: nathanm on July 13, 2010, 12:24:15 PM
Take a look at the election results, which were based on Obama's far more left-wing campaign promises than his decidedly moderate approach once elected.
Nah, more the anyone but Bush or anyone associated with him vote.
Plus, Obama is very charismatic on the campaign trail. Maybe not so much in office.
Quote from: Hometown on July 13, 2010, 12:29:07 PM
News Flash: Ireland's Economy Crashes
Prediction: Tulsa (with it's Irish roots) is probably already experiencing an influx of undocumented Irish immigrants (as it has before). It will be interesting to see how our draconian anti-immigrant laws are applied to Irish immigrants.
Terrill. That's an Irish name.
I want all illegal immigrants dealt with equally, I don't care if they are Mexican, Japanese, Canadian (eh?), British, Irish, German, African, Australian. Doesn't matter. If they are here illegally they need to be dealt with all the same and are under any and all immigration bills states have been passing.
Why did you mention the name Terrill?
Appearently, racial profiling is legal at the federal Border Patrol level, and by wording of SB 1070, it can be apllied locally as well.
"In a 1975 case regarding the Border Patrol's power to stop vehicles near the U.S.-Mexico border and question the occupants about their citizenship and immigration status, United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, the high court ruled that the "likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor." In 1982 the Arizona Supreme Court agreed, ruling in State v. Graciano that "enforcement of immigration laws often involves a relevant consideration of ethnic factors."
Arizona's immigration law states that a "law enforcement official or agency . . . may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution." Although supporters of the law, including Gov. Jan Brewer (R) and other state officials, have said repeatedly that racial profiling is prohibited in its enforcement and that those charged with carrying out the law will be trained to avoid it, the fact that the legislature included this careful exception is significant."
Full article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/12/AR2010071204049.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/12/AR2010071204049.html)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 13, 2010, 12:37:25 PM
I want all illegal immigrants dealt with equally, I don't care if they are Mexican, Japanese, Canadian (eh?), British, Irish, German, African, Australian. Doesn't matter. If they are here illegally they need to be dealt with all the same and are under any and all immigration bills states have been passing.
Why did you mention the name Terrill?
Rep Randy Terrill from Moore. A Tea Party favorite and our anti-immigration and English only standard bearer. Also dirty as hell and a racist.
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-state-rep.-randy-terrill-got-home-loan-during-bankruptcy/article/3469776
http://www.muskogeepolitico.com/2010/03/randy-terrill-and-opea-sweetheart.html
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=12606333
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20081028_12_OKLA735778
http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/1220/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQBzAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA
Quote from: Conan71 on July 13, 2010, 12:34:24 PM
The Second Amendment banter has become more symbolic than anything about citizens wanting to take our country back from corporate and other special interests and end the plunder of the U.S. Treasury. If you are picturing a real armed insurrection you are the one who should be in the looney bin.
Spare us the excuses of how the Republicans have watered down all of his agenda and ruined it for him. That's total BS and it's got few takers.
Does the Second Amendment have provision relating to something other than arms? Did I miss something? What else could someone mean by "second amendment remedy." Get to parsing.
The Democrats are watering down their own bills, both because the vast majority of them are corporatists just like the Republicans, and in some misguided attempt to get some Republican support. No, the Republicans aren't at fault for the
content. They are at fault for the Congress' inability to get legislation passed.
BTW, my statement that the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with overthrowing a tyrannical government is belied by the numerous armed rebellions put down in the early years of our republic. It's not actually true. ;)
Quote from: dbacks fan on July 13, 2010, 12:56:14 PM
Appearently, racial profiling is legal at the federal Border Patrol level, and by wording of SB 1070, it can be apllied locally as well.
"In a 1975 case regarding the Border Patrol's power to stop vehicles near the U.S.-Mexico border and question the occupants about their citizenship and immigration status, United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, the high court ruled that the "likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor." In 1982 the Arizona Supreme Court agreed, ruling in State v. Graciano that "enforcement of immigration laws often involves a relevant consideration of ethnic factors."
Arizona's immigration law states that a "law enforcement official or agency . . . may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution." Although supporters of the law, including Gov. Jan Brewer (R) and other state officials, have said repeatedly that racial profiling is prohibited in its enforcement and that those charged with carrying out the law will be trained to avoid it, the fact that the legislature included this careful exception is significant."
Full article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/12/AR2010071204049.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/12/AR2010071204049.html)
Show me the wording that makes racial profiling legal.
Here is the bill: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Quote from: Gaspar on July 13, 2010, 01:09:25 PM
Show me the wording that makes racial profiling legal.
Here is the bill: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
"Arizona's immigration law states that a "law enforcement official or agency . . . may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection
except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution."
While the fourth ammendment has not been changed, the US Supreme Court, 9th Circuit has upheld that racial profiling is allowable. This is what I take from the article from the WaPo.
"In case after case, in states including Florida, Iowa and New York, defendants arguing that Border Patrol stops constituted unlawful searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment have encountered claims by the U.S. government -- including the current administration -- that "Mexican" or "Hispanic" appearance, along with other factors, justified an immigration stop. Border enforcement officers regularly admit in court that "Hispanic appearance" is one reason for an immigration stop."
Quote from: dbacks fan on July 13, 2010, 01:15:26 PM
"Arizona's immigration law states that a "law enforcement official or agency . . . may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution."
While the fourth ammendment has not been changed, the US Supreme Court, 9th Circuit has upheld that racial profiling is allowable. This is what I take from the article from the WaPo.
"In case after case, in states including Florida, Iowa and New York, defendants arguing that Border Patrol stops constituted unlawful searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment have encountered claims by the U.S. government -- including the current administration -- that "Mexican" or "Hispanic" appearance, along with other factors, justified an immigration stop. Border enforcement officers regularly admit in court that "Hispanic appearance" is one reason for an immigration stop."
First scenario:
So, lets say you are a cop in Arizona and have stopped a driver for speeding. He has no license, no insurance, and speaks no English. You have been charged with the responsibility of verifying his citizenship. What do you do?
Second scenario:
You are a cop in Arizona. A van drives by and you see 12 Hispanic occupants. What do you do?
Quote from: Gaspar on July 13, 2010, 01:54:00 PM
First scenario:
So, lets say you are a cop in Arizona and have stopped a driver for speeding. He has no license, no insurance, and speaks no English. You have been charged with the responsibility of verifying his citizenship. What do you do?
Second scenario:
You are a cop in Arizona. A van drives by and you see 12 Hispanic occupants. What do you do?
First scenario: Take the person into custody until identification can be determined.
Second scenario: With only twelve in the van, it probably says maid/landscape service on the side of it. Not enough people inside. Twenty five is the minimum. Also the van load would attempt to flee.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 13, 2010, 01:54:00 PM
First scenario:
So, lets say you are a cop in Arizona and have stopped a driver for speeding. He has no license, no insurance, and speaks no English. You have been charged with the responsibility of verifying his citizenship. What do you do?
Second scenario:
You are a cop in Arizona. A van drives by and you see 12 Hispanic occupants. What do you do?
Well, in the second case so long as everyone is legally seated and belted and the van is in legal physical condition with legal tags the cop has no right to even pull the van over.
In both cases Swake & DBack you are following the law correctly.
So where would the Arizona law allow you to legally profile?
Can you show me any scenario where the law gives you the authority to profile?
Quote from: swake on July 13, 2010, 12:57:51 PM
Rep Randy Terrill from Moore. A Tea Party favorite and our anti-immigration and English only standard bearer. Also dirty as hell and a racist.
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-state-rep.-randy-terrill-got-home-loan-during-bankruptcy/article/3469776
http://www.muskogeepolitico.com/2010/03/randy-terrill-and-opea-sweetheart.html
http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=12606333
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20081028_12_OKLA735778
http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/1220/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQBzAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA
Terrill is a troglodyte, but none of your citations squarely points to him being a racist and the "conspiracy" issue is not dissimilar from the recent controversy surrounding the Obama administration for offering Joe Sestak a job to get him to drop out of a political race. Nor is there anything apparently sinister about him getting a mortgage for his new home unless IBC Bank is a contributor to his political campaigns.
He's a typical politician from what I'm reading in the stories you posted. I'm not a particular fan of his, but you are playing a little fast with the facts.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 13, 2010, 02:44:18 PM
Terrill is a troglodyte, but none of your citations squarely points to him being a racist and the "conspiracy" issue is not dissimilar from the recent controversy surrounding the Obama administration for offering Joe Sestak a job to get him to drop out of a political race. Nor is there anything apparently sinister about him getting a mortgage for his new home unless IBC Bank is a contributor to his political campaigns.
He's a typical politician from what I'm reading in the stories you posted. I'm not a particular fan of his, but you are playing a little fast with the facts.
He also hid assets during his bankruptcy and was caught taking illegal campaign contributions. On top of the current charges that's more than enough to call him dirty.
And there's this, if he had just written the immigration bill, he might have an argument that he's not a racist, but then he adds his English only bill to remove doubt about his motivations, and then it turns out his immigration bill was written by a group funded by White Supremacists and run by a man under watch by the ADL? Come on Conan, there's a lot more than smoke there.
Quote from: swake on July 13, 2010, 03:06:52 PM
He also hid assets during his bankruptcy and was caught taking illegal campaign contributions. On top of the current charges that's more than enough to call him dirty.
And there's this, if he had just written the immigration bill, he might have an argument that he's not a racist, but then he adds his English only bill to remove doubt about his motivations, and then it turns out his immigration bill was written by a group funded by White Supremacists and run by a man under watch by the ADL? Come on Conan, there's a lot more than smoke there.
I could go that direction by associating President Obama with the New Black Panthers or Jeremiah Wright. God only knows what could ultimately come out of the Blago trial.
Terrill sounds pretty much like most every other politician out there.
When politicians say "I'm in politics," it may or may not be possible to trust them, but when they say, "I'm in public service," you know you should flee. – Albert Jay Nock
Quote from: Gaspar on July 13, 2010, 02:25:53 PM
In both cases Swake & DBack you are following the law correctly.
So where would the Arizona law allow you to legally profile?
Can you show me any scenario where the law gives you the authority to profile?
I had to think about this one, and I came up with a scenario (that I remember seeing on "Real Stories Of the Highway Patrol" from back in the mid 90's).
A Texas state trooper noticed two hispanic men filling up a Honda Civic with gas along either I-10 or I-20 in western Texas. He noticed that they spent a very short time at the pump. Less than 100 miles down the road he saw them go through the same actions putting gas in the car. He later noticed them repeating the same thing less than 100 miles again, which led him to believe that something was in the gas tank besides gas. On instinct he pulled them over for a minor traffic violation, found that they had no DL, and brought out a drug dog that hit on the car, and after impounding the car found that the gas tank would only hold about two gallons of gas with the drugs that were packed inside. He acted on the fact that the highway they were on was a known drug route, and figured Hispanic, stopping for gas three times in less that 200 miles were clues.
The other one is a duh. Two vehicles traveling on I-10 from Tucson to Phoenix, engaged in a gun battle in morning rush hour traffic in the south Tempe/Ahwatukee area of the valley. Or the video I previously posted, a Hispanic in a 15 passenger van that appears overloaded and the officer runs the tag and it comes back as stolen or doesn't match the vehicle it's on.
Call it instinct, intuition, training or luck, that's fine. At least we are not San Francisco that is a Sanctuary City, where the police by city ordinance work under a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy where if you are an illegal from where ever, even if you tell the officer you are illegal they will not report you.
Time Magazine article:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1826850,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1826850,00.html)
http://www.sfgsa.org/index.aspx?page=1067 (http://www.sfgsa.org/index.aspx?page=1067)
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/Drivers-arrest-ignites-sanctuary-city-debate-97831849.html (http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/Drivers-arrest-ignites-sanctuary-city-debate-97831849.html)
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=7115921 (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/san_francisco&id=7115921)
Guess the winds of change are blowing:
"The Secure Communities program, which has been rolled out in more than 160 local jurisdictions and is expected to be nationwide by 2013, automatically checks the immigration status of anyone arrested or booked for either a misdemeanor or felony."
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2010/05/san-francisco-no-longer-a-sanctuary-city.html (http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2010/05/san-francisco-no-longer-a-sanctuary-city.html)