***Official Thread - SCOTUS Arizona Immigration Decision***

[sappstuf]

The other biggie...

I think the Arizona law will be largely upheld.

[okie52]

Hope you're right Sapp. Obama & Holder already lost one battle with AZ on punishing employers.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

The other biggie...

I think the Arizona law will be largely upheld.

Likely. The part of most interest to me is Arizona's criminalizing illegal presence.

My understanding is that if the law is upheld, the next round of challenges will be based on civil rights.

[okie52]

Likely. The part of most interest to me is Arizona's criminalizing illegal presence.

My understanding is that if the law is upheld, the next round of challenges will be based on civil rights.

Illegals civil rights?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Illegals have no constitutional rights...

[badger]

This will be very interesting to see what happens. I don't think that it can be debated that illegals are human beings who have the right to be treated like a human being. However, do governments have an obligation to harbor people who are not their citizens in a way that upholds their health, their economic stability, and their family members?

You might immediately declare "NO," but think about if you were traveling overseas and lost your wallet/passport and had a severe medical condition. Without knowing who you were (other than that you were obviously a foreigner) or knowing if they would be able to recoup costs, would whatever country you landed in have some obligation to try to keep you alive? To allow you be employed so that you can earn money to get home/take care of yourself? And if you were stranded with child, would the government be obligated to look after them while you get back on your feet and get on your way as well (schooling, healthcare, etc)?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Illegals civil rights?


Illegals have no constitutional rights...

So anyone who cops check is presumed illegal?

[sappstuf]

Key parts upheld.... Or maybe not...

[sappstuf]

The Court ruled largely in favor of the U.S. government, striking down three parts of the Arizona immigration law, but the Court did uphold one the most notorious provisions: A requirement that local police officers check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally.

The question now is can that single provision stand on its own, or does the court action mean Arizona has to go back to the drawing board on their immigration law.

...

[OULenexaman]

I think they just go back and reword it...

[KantoSooner]

Badger, most countries grant to foreigners within their borders legally or illegally basic human rights. Not open ended, not the 'same' as citizens, but a basic package of rights. We do, too. It is wrong to say that illegals have no rights. Try murdering an illegal and see what your local constabulary has to say. The process used to determine whether an individual is, in fact, illegal is also festooned with due process rights. Thought of most simply, it's just the way a civilized nation behaves.

(part of the same mental process that supports demanding that emergency rooms treat patients regardless of their ability to pay, at least until they are stable.)

[cleller]

Until employers of illegals start ending up in jail, none of this will have much impact. Too much effort, paperwork, and frustration to pick up illegals on a regular basis.

[cleller]

Oh, here's the story. A split decision:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-upholds-key-part-arizona-immigration-law-141927514.html

[okie52]

Employers will be the way to go...particularly since Obama isn't going to deport anybody anyway.

[pphilfran]

Employers will be the way to go...particularly since Obama isn't going to deport anybody anyway.

I agree...but how do you make the audits happen?

There are upwards of 10 million businesses in the US (some say upwards of 30 million)...

Are we going to "profile" the businesses that are more likely to hire illegals?

Will we do on the spot random audits..show us a random sampling of your employees....and then bring them in and let us see and talk to them?

How many auditors would we need?

How often should we audit?

It won't matter what we do...deport em all...pathway to citizenship...audit employers...it is going to cost a fortune...

[sappstuf]

I agree...but how do you make the audits happen?

There are upwards of 10 million businesses in the US (some say upwards of 30 million)...

Are we going to "profile" the businesses that are more likely to hire illegals?

Will we do on the spot random audits..show us a random sampling of your employees....and then bring them in and let us see and talk to them?

How many auditors would we need?

How often should we audit?

It won't matter what we do...deport em all...pathway to citizenship...audit employers...it is going to cost a fortune...

Step 1: Reelect Obama and cut that number in half...

[okie52]

I agree...but how do you make the audits happen?

There are upwards of 10 million businesses in the US (some say upwards of 30 million)...

Are we going to "profile" the businesses that are more likely to hire illegals?

Will we do on the spot random audits..show us a random sampling of your employees....and then bring them in and let us see and talk to them?

How many auditors would we need?

How often should we audit?

It won't matter what we do...deport em all...pathway to citizenship...audit employers...it is going to cost a fortune...

I don't know what AZ has prescribed as a methodology for audits. I'm hoping that they go after the big employers and let "fear" be a deterrent.

Illegals cost a fortune whether we go with the status quo or utilize AZ's approach. Paying for our past sins is never easy. Deferring it only exacerbates the problem in the future (see debt).

[okie52]

So anyone who cops check is presumed illegal?

Evidently they have the right to "ask" just like they already ask for driver licenses. Is that such a burden?

[KantoSooner]

It wouldn't have to cost much at all if you billed out the cost of enforcement as part of the fine. At least it wouldn't cost anything so long as you had a decent hit rate. If you were an enforcement officer, you could start with roofers and cement contractors and probably hand off your unfinished list of such companies 20 years later when you retired. I don't think either category has any legal employees.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Evidently they have the right to "ask" just like they already ask for driver licenses. Is that such a burden?

You dodged.

[sappstuf]

So anyone who cops check is presumed illegal?

When asked for a driver's license and they don't have it. Any id? No. Registration and insurance for the car? No. Wait, the tags don't match the car....

Pretty good idea something is amiss...

[okie52]

You dodged.

You're dodging.

No driver license while driving a car? No other papers?

[ictsooner7]

Until employers of illegals start ending up in jail, none of this will have much impact. Too much effort, paperwork, and frustration to pick up illegals on a regular basis.

Looks like cleller and I agree on something. Funny how it works..........all these illegals up here for jobs but no one who provides jobs for them is gone after.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

You're dodging.

No driver license while driving a car? No other papers?

Suspects still have civil rights, which is what you were questioning.


Illegals civil rights?

[jkjsooner]

I found Scalia's statement about sovereign state to be odd. I'm pretty sure it was settled long ago that the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" gives the federal government the sole power to regulate immigration.

[okie52]

Suspects still have civil rights, which is what you were questioning.

They have rights...I don't know if they are civil rights.

And you were stating that if the law was upheld then the next round would involve illegals civil rights...I'm saying where would the violation occur?

[The Profit]

In the past, I stated, over and over, that the way to end illegal workers was to go after the employers. Fine them $100,000.00 for each illegal worker, and give the CEO's a year or so in the federal pen and the problem goes away. Simple as that.

[Curly Bill]

In the past, I stated, over and over, that the way to end illegal workers was to go after the employers. Fine them $100,000.00 for each illegal worker, and give the CEO's a year or so in the federal pen and the problem goes away. Simple as that.

You and I don't agree on much, but you're on the right track with this. I think you could even dispense with the jail time and leave the monetary penalty in there and get it done.

[Midtowner]

This went where I said it'd be going for a long time. The feds have the sole and exclusive authority to deal with immigration matters. This issue being one of such matters, there was really very little choice for the SCOTUS. I did find the dissents interesting in that Scalia and Alito seemed to have vacillated along with Tea Party minded Conservatives. In the past, Scalia has been very ideologically pro-federalist and has often argued in favor of an expansive reading of federal mandates such as the commerce clause. For him to now make a statement like he did about Arizona no longer being a 'sovereign state' is simply not ideologically consistent with his track record. It's disturbing to me when you have justices who are going to vote a certain way and say certain things presumably (for what other reason could there be) because of who is currently occupying the Oval Office.

Reading the tea leaves, Kennedy writing a pro-federalism opinion on the eve of the healthcare law bodes well for the individual mandate.

[okie52]

In the past, I stated, over and over, that the way to end illegal workers was to go after the employers. Fine them $100,000.00 for each illegal worker, and give the CEO's a year or so in the federal pen and the problem goes away. Simple as that.

Obama and the Chambers of Commerce don't like that approach.

[sappstuf]

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

Federal officials said they’ll still perform the checks as required by law but will respond only when someone has a felony conviction on his or her record. Absent that, ICE will tell the local police to release the person.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/homeland-security-suspends-immigration-agreements-/

[SanJoaquinSooner]

They have rights...I don't know if they are civil rights.

And you were stating that if the law was upheld then the next round would involve illegals civil rights...I'm saying where would the violation occur?

I didn't say "illegals' civil rights," I said "civil rights."

The driver w/o a license is a non-issue. Arizona or any other state can already call ICE if a driver has no U.S. ID and let them determine if they are illegally present. It happens in California all the time.

But does Arizona's new law let them check proof of legal residency of passengers or by-standers/witnesses? or all residents of a home if the owner has violated some city ordinance, such as watering the lawn on the wrong day? Will ethnicity or language spoken be sufficient for "reasonable suspicion?" Would that be a civil rights violation OF INNOCENT PEOPLE DETAINED - to base reasonable suspicion solely on ethnicity or language spoken?

[The Profit]

I do.

[Midtowner]

- to base reasonable suspicion solely on ethnicity or language spoken?

All law enforcement needs is probable cause, meaning that all the officer needs is a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed.

Not speaking English doesn't mean you definitely are here illegally, but it probably does mean that you probably are. Combine that with other factors like the suspect is riding in the back of a pickup, is part of a yard or roofing crew, has Mexican gang tattoos and probable cause isn't hard to find. And yes, just being present, without ID in the United States in a border state and not speaking the language is likely probable cause, but this will be an issue for the Arizona courts to work out.

[okie52]

I didn't say "illegals' civil rights," I said "civil rights."

The driver w/o a license is a non-issue. Arizona or any other state can already call ICE if a driver has no U.S. ID and let them determine if they are illegally present. It happens in California all the time.

But does Arizona's new law let them check proof of legal residency of passengers or by-standers/witnesses? or all residents of a home if the owner has violated some city ordinance, such as watering the lawn on the wrong day? Will ethnicity or language spoken be sufficient for "reasonable suspicion?" Would that be a civil rights violation OF INNOCENT PEOPLE DETAINED - to base reasonable suspicion solely on ethnicity or language spoken?

Mid said it better than I would have. (see above).

[I Am Right]

The man who would be king.

[cleller]

Only in American can you be called a racist just because you support our laws.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Only in American can you be called a racist just because you support our laws.

Who are you accusing of calling someone a racist?

[Turd_Ferguson]

Throw a rock into a pack of dogs...the one that yelps is the one that got hit.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

All law enforcement needs is probable cause, meaning that all the officer needs is a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed.

Not speaking English doesn't mean you definitely are here illegally, but it probably does mean that you probably are. Combine that with other factors like the suspect is riding in the back of a pickup, is part of a yard or roofing crew, has Mexican gang tattoos and probable cause isn't hard to find. And yes, just being present, without ID in the United States in a border state and not speaking the language is likely probable cause, but this will be an issue for the Arizona courts to work out.

It probably means they came to the U.S. recently or they came when they were older and never learned the language that well. It also may depend if they live among a high concentration of foreign-language speaking immigrants, isolated from others. It does not mean they are probably illegal.


The "just being present without an ID" raises the question of what was the probable cause to ask for the ID - other than violating some other law. If they broke a law, of course they can ask. Speaking a foreign language or sporting a tattoo is not against the law.

[olevetonahill]

jaun, Its common for acoip to stop someone for say speeding, In the course of that stop , they can and usually do ask for ID from others in the vehicle

[cleller]

Who are you accusing of calling someone a racist?

Are you pretending that the term "racial profiling" has not been one of the cornerstones of the opposition to immigration enforcement? Its the entire platform. "Its not about enforcing the law, its about discrimination", la la la. The inference is clear. The proponents of immigration reform are held out to be small minded racists. Its the easiest and cheapest way to try and shame people into ignoring the issue.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

You can't be serious. Are you pretending that the term "racial profiling" has not been one of the cornerstones of the opposition to immigration enforcement? Its the entire platform. "Its not about enforcing the law, its about discrimination", la la la.

Sorry, but making an argument how a law gets enforced may violate the equal protection clause is not calling anyone a racist.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

jaun, Its common for acoip to stop someone for say speeding, In the course of that stop , they can and usually do ask for ID from others in the vehicle

I certainly have no problem with that and Arizona didn't need a new law to allow for this. It was already OK to ask for ID for a traffic violation.

But if I get caught speeding and my wife is a passenger, should they ask for her ID?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Well, in any case, I guess Gov. Brewer is all happy now that the Supreme Court threw her a bone.

[Turd_Ferguson]

But if I get caught speeding and my wife is a passenger, should they ask for her ID?Yes, same as I've been asked for ID as a passenger.

[olevetonahill]

I certainly have no problem with that and Arizona didn't need a new law to allow for this. It was already OK to ask for ID for a traffic violation.

But if I get caught speeding and my wife is a passenger, should they ask for her ID?

Yes, When i was a cop, it was fairly common for me to ax fer ID of others in the vehicle.
I always got suspicious of those who dint have any.

[cleller]

Sorry, but making an argument how a law gets enforced may violate the equal protection clause is not calling anyone a racist.

Never tried to insinuate you called anyone a racist. It's the mantra of the pro-illegal immigration bunch.

How about some equal protection for the citizens of Arizona? The citizens that would like to see the roads, schools, hospitals and jobs their work and taxes brought about be available to them? Now they are forced to share them with- or supply them to- non-citizens.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Yes, When i was a cop, it was fairly common for me to ax fer ID of others in the vehicle.
I always got suspicious of those who dint have any.

And did you call INS if they didn't have any?

[olevetonahill]

And did you call INS if they didn't have any?
That was 30 years ago. if they was messican we just shot em , and buried the bodies.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

That was 30 years ago. if they was messican we just shot em , and buried the bodies.

I think I saw that movie.

[Turd_Ferguson]

That was 30 years ago. if they was messican we just shot em , and buried the bodies.I didn't know you burned'm...I thought you poured concrick on'm...

http://www.revivalantiques.com/images/products/IMG_8172.jpg

[Curly Bill]

I'd have just shot them and left it at that.

[olevetonahill]

I'd have just shot them and left it at that.
But after a few days they go to pilin up and all that grease gets to stinkin.

[Curly Bill]

But after a few days they go to pilin up and all that grease gets to stinkin.

Yeah, I can see that. In that case I think I'd have burned the bodies. The grease would have been a natural accelerant.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I'd have just shot them and left it at that.

Kinda like you did Morgan Earp, huh?


Wyatt's gonna get you.

[Midtowner]

It probably means they came to the U.S. recently or they came when they were older and never learned the language that well. It also may depend if they live among a high concentration of foreign-language speaking immigrants, isolated from others. It does not mean they are probably illegal.


The "just being present without an ID" raises the question of what was the probable cause to ask for the ID - other than violating some other law. If they broke a law, of course they can ask. Speaking a foreign language or sporting a tattoo is not against the law.

Leaving scales in your front seat is also perfectly legal, except it would give a police officer probable cause to search your car for drugs.

[cleller]

Leaving scales in your front seat is also perfectly legal, except it would give a police officer probable cause to search your car for drugs.

Saw the Pima County sheriff on NBC last night, he said the court decision really changes nothing. Remarked that it doesn't take a genius to be able to tell who is an illegal immigrant. If the media would actually talk more to law enforcement they'd hear the same thing over and over. No one is going to make any more effort to arrest or detain illegals, regardless of what laws are on the books. There aren't facilities or manpower to do anything new.

The politicians are either professionally dodging the easiest solution or extremely naive. (I know I'm a broken record) Go after the employers. It is the ONLY thing that will have an impact. Take away the reason they are coming.

[olevetonahill]

So yer sayin if ya gots Pissants in yer house, Instead of spraying everyday, Sweep up the sugar?

[jkjsooner]

duplicate

[jkjsooner]

jaun, Its common for acoip to stop someone for say speeding, In the course of that stop , they can and usually do ask for ID from others in the vehicle

Seriously? It sure as heck has never happened to me.

Back about 20 years ago "show your papers" was a rally cry against communism. I guess the political winds have shifted.

I don't want to be bothered to carry my identification when I go on a jog wearing my pocketless shorts.

Where are our resident libertarians? They seem to conveniently disappear at times.


I wish the border states / counties could sue the federal government to recoup their excessive costs of services that are mandated by the feds. It is absurd that these areas pay such a price so that the business owners in other areas of the country can have cheap labor. (And you're lying if you don't think that many many Republicans aren't in favor of the status quo.)

[Midtowner]

It's funny how conservatives are trying to minimize the azz spanking they received here. You can really tell the bias of a publication from the headlines they chose, e.g., ARIZONA LAW PARTIALLY UPHELD! vs. ARIZONA LAW MOSTLY OVERTURNED! It was very much a glass half-empty versus half-full sort of thing.

The Sheriff is correct though, nothing changed. Why? Because most of this law has been subject to a TRO restraining the government from implementing it since just about day one. So yeah, nothing changed.

[olevetonahill]

Seriously? It sure as heck has never happened to me.

Back about 20 years ago "show your papers" was a rally cry against communism. I guess the political winds have shifted.

I don't want to be bothered to carry my identification when I go on a jog wearing my pocketless shorts.

Where are our resident libertarians? They seem to conveniently disappear at times.


I wish the border states / counties could sue the federal government to recoup their excessive costs of services that are mandated by the feds. It is absurd that these areas pay such a price so that the business owners in other areas of the country can have cheap labor. (And you're lying if you don't think that many many Republicans aren't in favor of the status quo.)

Cops are suspicious by nature as well as cynical as hell. Now I dont care what color ya are If ya look like you just left church they prolly wont ax, But if you look like yer gonna go rob a bank then Yer moren likely to have to hand the ID over,

[jkjsooner]

Yes, same as I've been asked for ID as a passenger.

And what happens if you don't have it? There is no requirement to carry ID or even have an ID.

I'm confused. Please explain to me the conservative stance. Requiring citizens to carry paperwork is no longer an attack on liberties but a national ID card is a communist plot.

[Midtowner]

^ You make the mistake of expecting party ideology to be internally consistent. That concept dies when money buys policy.

[jkjsooner]

^ You make the mistake of expecting party ideology to be internally consistent. That concept dies when money buys policy.

Also depends on who is in power. As we've seen with the individual mandate, a scheme to make the poor pay their fair share is a great idea when proposed by Republicans and an attack on the constitution when proposed by Democrats.

Can you imagine what would have happened if Obama had tried to pass the Patriot Act? (Given, plenty of conservatives have a problem with the Patriot Act but the talking heads do not.)

[olevetonahill]

Why dont you two Einstein's Just debate each other? Did anyone say , Never mind, Yall just try to spin it any direction you can

[dwarthog]

It's funny how conservatives are trying to minimize the azz spanking they received here. You can really tell the bias of a publication from the headlines they chose, e.g., ARIZONA LAW PARTIALLY UPHELD! vs. ARIZONA LAW MOSTLY OVERTURNED! It was very much a glass half-empty versus half-full sort of thing.

The Sheriff is correct though, nothing changed. Why? Because most of this law has been subject to a TRO restraining the government from implementing it since just about day one. So yeah, nothing changed.

Hmmm, courtesy of huffpo, hardly a bastion of conservative thinking.

Arizona Immigration Law Ruling: Supreme Court Delivers Split Decision

Hardly the headline one would find associated with an azz spanking...


Upholding that the Federal government is the one and only source on immigration policy really wasn't much of a reach .

Even Kennedy in his opinion noted Arizona's frustration with the way the Feds are handling their responsibilities.

[jkjsooner]

Why dont you two Einstein's Just debate each other? Did anyone say , Never mind, Yall just try to spin it any direction you can

What exactly am I spinning? In fact, my post you quoted was against the spinning we often see out of Washington. Criticism or acceptance of a policy has less to do with the policy itself and more to do with who proposed it.

I may have led us off-topic a bit but that isn't the same thing as spinning. I don't even have a reason to spin anything. I agree 100% with all aspects of this ruling.

[jkjsooner]

Hmmm, courtesy of huffpo, hardly a bastion of conservative thinking.

Arizona Immigration Law Ruling: Supreme Court Delivers Split Decision

Hardly the headline one would find associated with an azz spanking...

I didn't call it an arse spanking but as far as split decisions go, a 5-3 vote is pretty strong considering most controversial rulings go 5-4 and considering the person who abstained would have clearly been in the majority. I promise you if the individual mandate goes 6-3 there will be plenty calling it a spanking.


Even Kennedy in his opinion noted Arizona's frustration with the way the Feds are handling their responsibilities.

I bet. The border states are definitely not being served by the ineffective federal government.

[Midtowner]

Hmmm, courtesy of huffpo, hardly a bastion of conservative thinking.

Arizona Immigration Law Ruling: Supreme Court Delivers Split Decision

Hardly the headline one would find associated with an azz spanking...


Upholding that the Federal government is the one and only source on immigration policy really wasn't much of a reach .

Even Kennedy in his opinion noted Arizona's frustration with the way the Feds are handling their responsibilities.

Okay then, what broad new states' rights were carved out in this non-azz spanking?

[dwarthog]

I didn't call it an arse spanking but as far as split decisions go, a 5-3 vote is pretty strong considering most controversial rulings go 5-4 and considering the person who abstained would have clearly been in the majority. I promise you if the individual mandate goes 6-3 there will be plenty calling it a spanking.



I bet. The border states are definitely not being served by the ineffective federal government.

I'm sure there will be plenty of crowing and reading of the tea leaves etc. with regards to the final count on the individual mandate.

We are a funny bunch that way, seeking solace however/wherever we can find it for our cherished beliefs......

[Midtowner]

I bet. The border states are definitely not being served by the ineffective federal government.

I've thought for a long time that an ineffective border control policy actually is exactly what the feds and their Chamber of Commerce sponsors want.

Corporations love their slave labor and the feds aren't inclined to bite the hand that feeds 'em.

[cleller]

So yer sayin if ya gots Pissants in yer house, Instead of spraying everyday, Sweep up the sugar?

Mos def. You literally do seewamsayin.

Ask your grannies how to keep ants out.

[sappstuf]

I didn't call it an arse spanking but as far as split decisions go, a 5-3 vote is pretty strong considering most controversial rulings go 5-4 and considering the person who abstained would have clearly been in the majority. I promise you if the individual mandate goes 6-3 there will be plenty calling it a spanking.

I bet. The border states are definitely not being served by the ineffective federal government.

On the question of if Arizona can ask for papers, the SCOTUS ruled 7-0.

[okie52]

Okay then, what broad new states' rights were carved out in this non-azz spanking?

While I wish the all of the law had been upheld the right to ask for papers was the biggest irritant to the illegals and their supporters...therefore I am very happy to see that element upheld.

Combine that with the Obama epic fail on challenging AZ's right punish employers that hire illegals and the climate for illegals has gotten a lot colder.

If Obama should be defeated and his policy embracing illegals is removed you may start to see the tide turn on our noble invaders.

[Midtowner]

While I wish the all of the law had been upheld the right to ask for papers was the biggest irritant to the illegals and their supporters...therefore I am very happy to see that element upheld.

It wasn't so much upheld as it was sent back to the lower courts. If AZ is going to implement this policy, they're going to have to do it in such a way where no one can make an argument of racial profiling and no one can argue they were detained for an unreasonable period of time. Good luck getting Joe Arpaio to tiptoe around the law as the SCOTUS is suggesting he must.

[okie52]

It wasn't so much upheld as it was sent back to the lower courts. If AZ is going to implement this policy, they're going to have to do it in such a way where no one can make an argument of racial profiling and no one can argue they were detained for an unreasonable period of time. Good luck getting Joe Arpaio to tiptoe around the law as the SCOTUS is suggesting he must.

Sent back to the lower courts to do what? Wasn't the vote like 8-0?

[Midtowner]

Sent back to the lower courts to do what? Wasn't the vote like 8-0?

Yes, 8-0 that there wasn't any evidence of misuse of the statutes yet, but the door was left wide open for further proceedings with evidence of abuse.

[jkjsooner]

While I wish the all of the law had been upheld the right to ask for papers was the biggest irritant to the illegals and their supporters...therefore I am very happy to see that element upheld.

I don't know what you mean by "right to ask for papers" but the ruling clearly indicated that the immigrants are not required to carry papers. The police can check on the immigrants status if that's what you're referring to.

[okie52]

Yes, 8-0 that there wasn't any evidence of misuse of the statutes yet, but the door was left wide open for further proceedings with evidence of abuse.

So the SC didn't preemptively knock down the law on the basis abuse could happen? He11, that could be said of almost any law.

[okie52]

I don't know what you mean by "right to ask for papers" but the ruling clearly indicated that the immigrants are not required to carry papers. The police can check on the immigrants status if that's what you're referring to.

They have the right to detain them...certainly heretofore a debatable situation. And, what's really good is it upsets the hispanic community that are by and large illegal supporters.

The only real teeth out there right now is AZ's right to punish employers. Hopefully OK will adopt this as law soon.

[FtwTxSooner]

I hope any US citizen detained by AZ over immigration questions sues the hell out of them.

[okie52]

I hope any US citizen detained by AZ over immigration questions sues the hell out of them.

I'm hoping you're first. Jump on out there and show the country how you won't tolerate it. Speak only Spanish, get a good tan and drive over to Tuscon...maybe speed a little bit.

Put these baztards in their place.

[jkjsooner]

They have the right to detain them...certainly heretofore a debatable situation. And, what's really good is it upsets the hispanic community that are by and large illegal supporters.

The only real teeth out there right now is AZ's right to punish employers. Hopefully OK will adopt this as law soon.

Good luck with that. I think the farming lobby might just fight that one pretty hard.

[okie52]

Good luck with that. I think the farming lobby might just fight that one pretty hard.

Don't need any luck with that part....the SC has already ruled on it and upheld AZ's right to punish employers (as did the lower courts). A great victory over Obama and the Chambers of sellouts on that one. And there is very little Obama can do to stop it.

Edit: if you are talking about OK then we have had some of the toughest illegal laws in the country before they were held up in court...I don't see this as any different....but I could be wrong.

[Midtowner]

I agree...but how do you make the audits happen?

Pay bounties to whistle blowers.

[sappstuf]

http://global.nationalreview.com/images/photoshop_062612_A.jpg

[okie52]

http://global.nationalreview.com/images/photoshop_062612_A.jpg


Future White House invitees.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

And what happens if you don't have it? There is no requirement to carry ID or even have an ID.

I'm confused. Please explain to me the conservative stance. Requiring citizens to carry paperwork is no longer an attack on liberties but a national ID card is a communist plot.

You obviously have never traveled abroad... I never leave my passport alone, it is always with me. Same thing should be the norm for those in this country who are not citizens. You are always subject to removal from this country if you are not a citizen.

[okie52]

You are always subject to removal from this country if you are not a citizen.

Well if you are a murderous felon Obama might deport you but, if not, welcome to America.

[LiveLaughLove]

Well if you are a murderous felon Obama might deport you but, if not, welcome to America.

And remember to vote democrat. Oh yeah wait until you're legal <wink wink>

[okie52]

And remember to vote democrat. Oh yeah wait until you're legal <wink wink>

LOL.

[sappstuf]

Well if you are a murderous felon Obama might deport you but, if not, welcome to America.

A felon is ok.. Murderous felon puts you slightly beyond the line.

[olevetonahill]

And remember to vote democrat. Oh yeah wait until you're legal <wink wink>

Whats wrong wit Democrats, Ima registered Dem.

[okie52]

A felon is ok.. Murderous felon puts you slightly beyond the line.

Just barely, after all, we are a nation of immigrants.

[jkjsooner]

You obviously have never traveled abroad... I never leave my passport alone, it is always with me. Same thing should be the norm for those in this country who are not citizens. You are always subject to removal from this country if you are not a citizen.

I have traveled abroad and it is the one thing I dislike about it.

The problem with your statement about "if you are not a citizen" is the difficulty in determining which person who does not have identification is not a citizen. I guarantee you most people would assume the Mexican lady with broken English who cared for my son years ago (we wanted him exposed to a second language) was not a citizen but they would be wrong.

Anyway, if you want to enforce that non-citizens carry paperwork at all times then lobby the federal government to do so. Adding to immigration law is not the role of states.

[okie52]

I have traveled abroad and it is the one thing I dislike about it.

The problem with your statement about "if you are not a citizen" is the difficulty in determining which person who does not have identification is not a citizen. I guarantee you most people would assume the Mexican lady with broken English who cared for my son years ago (we wanted him exposed to a second language) was not a citizen but they would be wrong.

Anyway, if you want to enforce that non-citizens carry paperwork at all times then lobby the federal government to do so. Adding to immigration law is not the role of states.

Immigration law enforcement is evidently not in the role of the Obama federal government. The good news is while States can't punish the illegals they can punish those that hire them (in spite of Obama's efforts to the contrary).

[Midtowner]

Immigration law enforcement is evidently not in the role of the Obama federal government. The good news is while States can't punish the illegals they can punish those that hire them (in spite of Obama's efforts to the contrary).

Oh and good luck getting state governments to bite the corporate hand that feeds 'em.

When you support a party which has been bought and sold by its corporate masters, you're not going to see any sort of meaningful immigration reform. I'll tell you something that really wasn't a secret--just about everyone knew that the Arizona, Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., immigration laws were unconstitutional. Go search threads from last year and you'll see me talking about preemption. These rules were passed with the implicit approval of our corporate overlords because they knew that it'd motivate the angry white guys to vote and in the end, none of this would amount to a hill 'o beans unless that hill 'o beans involves large cash payments to groups like the ACLU for defending the rights of illegal immigrants (in these sorts of cases, the state ends up paying everyone's attorney fees).

Here in Oklahoma, our dumbass electorate is fooled by these sort of bait and switch tactics over and over. We vote for legislators who are in favor of liquor/wine sales reform, but every single time, the legislator has slipped some sort of unconstitutional, non-severable poison pill into the legislation. Same with immigration reform, same with anti-abortion laws, same with just about any of your social conservative issues.

A really good example is anti-abortion legislation in Oklahoma. The SCOTUS has graced us with a very clear standard for what states can do and what they cannot do. For some reason, Oklahoma keeps passing laws which are clearly beyond the pale and which don't embrace the clear language the Court has already handed down. If the state legislature wanted to convene a special session tomorrow and write a law which embraced the holding of Planned Parenthood v. Casey in that the state could proscribe all abortions after the fetus becomes viable outside of the womb absent a threat to the health of the mother, that'd be the law tomorrow and it'd be upheld. Our legislature though would rather have the issue than the solution, so they keep passing meaningless bullcrap which is continually struck down, which results in increased workload for the AG's office and results in hundreds of thousands of dollars being paid to pro-choice attorneys. How stupid are you people and how long will you continue to put up with the bait and switch routine?

[pphilfran]

I don't want to be in the "you people" group...

[okie52]

Oh and good luck getting state governments to bite the corporate hand that feeds 'em.

When you support a party which has been bought and sold by its corporate masters, you're not going to see any sort of meaningful immigration reform. I'll tell you something that really wasn't a secret--just about everyone knew that the Arizona, Oklahoma, Alabama, etc., immigration laws were unconstitutional. Go search threads from last year and you'll see me talking about preemption. These rules were passed with the implicit approval of our corporate overlords because they knew that it'd motivate the angry white guys to vote and in the end, none of this would amount to a hill 'o beans unless that hill 'o beans involves large cash payments to groups like the ACLU for defending the rights of illegal immigrants (in these sorts of cases, the state ends up paying everyone's attorney fees).

Here in Oklahoma, our dumbass electorate is fooled by these sort of bait and switch tactics over and over. We vote for legislators who are in favor of liquor/wine sales reform, but every single time, the legislator has slipped some sort of unconstitutional, non-severable poison pill into the legislation. Same with immigration reform, same with anti-abortion laws, same with just about any of your social conservative issues.

A really good example is anti-abortion legislation in Oklahoma. The SCOTUS has graced us with a very clear standard for what states can do and what they cannot do. For some reason, Oklahoma keeps passing laws which are clearly beyond the pale and which don't embrace the clear language the Court has already handed down. If the state legislature wanted to convene a special session tomorrow and write a law which embraced the holding of Planned Parenthood v. Casey in that the state could proscribe all abortions after the fetus becomes viable outside of the womb absent a threat to the health of the mother, that'd be the law tomorrow and it'd be upheld. Our legislature though would rather have the issue than the solution, so they keep passing meaningless bullcrap which is continually struck down, which results in increased workload for the AG's office and results in hundreds of thousands of dollars being paid to pro-choice attorneys. How stupid are you people and how long will you continue to put up with the bait and switch routine?

Geez, I should have seen the genius in voting for a social liberal that supports open borders, sanctuary cities, driver licenses for illegals, benefits to illegals, education for their offspring and, of course, citizenship. What visionaries. How could anyone be against that? Evidently we should listen to trial attorneys for proper guidance.

I don't have a problem with a state being smart about its approach to illegal immigration and I'm sure many times they aren't. Better to have meaningful legislation/municipal mandates like no drinks over 16oz, hate crimes, important gay figures in history classes, etc...you know, all that really important stuff that comes from enlightened legislators.

A lot of my views don't jive with social conservatives but, as is often the case, I'm faced with the choice of the lesser of two evils. In fact, I might be considered a social liberal on many issues. So you have to prioritize. Evidently you choose to support a party supports employers that hire illegal immigrants, that believes in the immediate availability and economic viability of green energy. A party that denies the nation its natural resources while importing 10,000,000 barrels of oil a day and is responsible for 2/3 of the US trade deficit. A party that would pass a unilateral cap and trade law. Or, like those gangbuster energy relevant bankrupt states, that would pass anti frac legislation without a shred of proof to support such a position. Yeah, these guys are geniuses as are the people that support them.

If you have ever bothered to read my past posts I have vehemently condemned the US Chamber of commerce, The OK state chamber and the OKC chamber for their support of illegal immigration. I'm certainly aware of the corporate greed factoring into the illegal equation just like a party selling out the country in the hopes of receiving votes for their betrayal.

And, BTW, there are some rulings that are favorable to states that have fought the feds on illegal immigration. Like it or not, the AZ law punishing employers is an important victory and AZ has pursued it. We'll see if OK, Bama and others do the same but at least the mechanism is there for punishment to be meted out.

So tell me now, how is it you people prioritize your selection of a party/candidate? Pro trial lawyer/anti loser pays? Anti energy? Hate crimes backer? Social issues over economic issues? Anti large soft drink?

[okie52]

I don't want to be in the "you people" group...

LOL. Evidently I am...something I'll have to live with.

[Midtowner]

So tell me now, how is it you people prioritize your selection of a party/candidate? Pro trial lawyer/anti loser pays? Anti energy? Hate crimes backer? Social issues over economic issues? Anti large soft drink?

Most Okie Dems are still pretty economically conservative. They really always have been. I don't recall them being anti-energy or backing hate crimes. Certainly there's a pro-plaintiff bias with Democrat Okies, but that's something I'm fine with. The 'pubs got into power making promises they couldn't constitutionally keep and inciting the moonbats. Now that they are solely in control just watch, nothing's going to change.

[okie52]

Most Okie Dems are still pretty economically conservative. They really always have been. I don't recall them being anti-energy or backing hate crimes. Certainly there's a pro-plaintiff bias with Democrat Okies, but that's something I'm fine with. The 'pubs got into power making promises they couldn't constitutionally keep and inciting the moonbats. Now that they are solely in control just watch, nothing's going to change.


OK dems...did any of them come out against Obama? Dan Boren (the only one I know of) stated "he would vote for Obama but wouldn't endorse him". If only his father had been as smart. Ole Dave as president of OU came out and endorsed Obama. That while he represents a university that receives most of its grants, etc... from the oil and gas industry. And the endorsement was totally unnecessary and had so much clout that Obama almost won a county in OK. Of course for Dave it wasn't to be the last time he put his foot in his mouth.

If you were endorsing Obama you were anti energy and definitely voting against the best interests of this state. Brad Henry endorsed Obama and within 6 months was writing Obama a letter appealing to him to quit persecuting the oil and gas industry. Was he surprised by Obama's actions since Obama campaigned for exactly what he tried to enact?

Now why am I going to trust someone that endorses Obama?

The pubs got into power because OK is a conservative state and always has been. It took longer than it should as was true for most the south since they had been dem states for over 100 years as the dems nationally got very liberal while the repubs went conservative. Until recently New England didn't have a repub rep in congress so they moved the opposite direction.

Inciting the moonbats? Maybe. Is that the same thing as agitating the libtards?

[Midtowner]

Okie Dems are certainly not yellow dogs anymore. That's for damn sure. Obama didn't even win the Democrat primary in many counties, so I think your characterization is a bit unfair.

They vote for Obama 'cuz he's their guy and Romney is a bought and paid for pawn of the Chamber of Commerce types who want a government of the corporations for the corporations and by the corporations.

As far as Obama's treatment of the O&G industry, I'm not really seeing it. We have record production right now and natural gas is so prolific that some analysts are starting to talk about negative prices for the commodity. This persecution just doesn't exist.

[okie52]

Okie Dems are certainly not yellow dogs anymore. That's for damn sure. Obama didn't even win the Democrat primary in many counties, so I think your characterization is a bit unfair.

They vote for Obama 'cuz he's their guy and Romney is a bought and paid for pawn of the Chamber of Commerce types who want a government of the corporations for the corporations and by the corporations.

As far as Obama's treatment of the O&G industry, I'm not really seeing it. We have record production right now and natural gas is so prolific that some analysts are starting to talk about negative prices for the commodity. This persecution just doesn't exist.

Persecution that he has tried to enact and still incites the libtards with their "tax breaks" that are received by every other manufacturer. Unilateral cap and trade passed the house but fortunately not the senate. Natural gas and oil would have both been severely punished under that bill. Both coastlines shut down to exploration only due to Obama...nobody else. That's only a few thousand miles of exploration. 2008 federal oil and gas lease sales $9,600,000,000. 2011 oil & gas lease sales $36,000,000. Twice ordered by the courts to reopen the Gulf. Then there is Obama's henchmen on the EPA ready to pounce on the oil and gas industry (see recent resignation of the EPA territorial head over OK) and their witchhunt on Fracking.

They vote for Obama because he is their "guy" while Romney is the bought and paid for candidate. LOL. Obama's the noble one. Surely you aren't so naive to not know the trial lawyers are the biggest supporters Obama's got and he's bought and paid for just like Romney...but only by people from the same economic spin as you. And these people would be happy with overcrowded dockets, totally unionized companies, open borders, etc...

You've really got to get past the ideology to be objective.

[Midtowner]

Our dockets aren't overcrowded because of any lawsuit abuse. They're overcrowded because Republicans in the Senate won't confirm any judges. It's absolutely ridiculous.

At the local level, we have overcrowded dockets because the number of judges we have is basically the same as 20-30 years ago and in some places where the population has grown, we have some very serious congestion issues. Take Cleveland County... 8 judges, 256,895 people. 32K:1 compared to Garfield County, population 60,756, 5 judges, 1:12K. Our legislature has failed at responsibly making sure each county has adequate judicial services. Even when we had an agreement with the executive recently, a Moore representative killed a bill which would have transferred one judge from Seminole County to Cleveland County because he wanted the judge to have to come from Moore.

Here in Oklahoma County, things aren't all that bad unless you're trying to get divorced. You can get a criminal trial real quick and you can get a civil trial almost any time you want one. If we could just get the Nomination Commission to keep up with the retirements, we'd be sitting pretty.

I also really liked former Speaker Lance Cargill's idea about creating specialized business courts in OKC and Tulsa to take on some of that complex litigation which small town judges mostly aren't too experienced with and would probably make Oklahoma, like Delaware a place you'd want to have your business because of our courts' expertise.

I've actually never voted for a Democrat for any national office until I had James Lankford show up on my ballot. McCain would have been an excellent President. Obama has been pretty bad. Romney, I think would be worse.

[okie52]

Our dockets aren't overcrowded because of any lawsuit abuse. They're overcrowded because Republicans in the Senate won't confirm any judges. It's absolutely ridiculous.

At the local level, we have overcrowded dockets because the number of judges we have is basically the same as 20-30 years ago and in some places where the population has grown, we have some very serious congestion issues. Take Cleveland County... 8 judges, 256,895 people. 32K:1 compared to Garfield County, population 60,756, 5 judges, 1:12K. Our legislature has failed at responsibly making sure each county has adequate judicial services. Even when we had an agreement with the executive recently, a Moore representative killed a bill which would have transferred one judge from Seminole County to Cleveland County because he wanted the judge to have to come from Moore.

Here in Oklahoma County, things aren't all that bad unless you're trying to get divorced. You can get a criminal trial real quick and you can get a civil trial almost any time you want one. If we could just get the Nomination Commission to keep up with the retirements, we'd be sitting pretty.

I also really liked former Speaker Lance Cargill's idea about creating specialized business courts in OKC and Tulsa to take on some of that complex litigation which small town judges mostly aren't too experienced with and would probably make Oklahoma, like Delaware a place you'd want to have your business because of our courts' expertise.

I've actually never voted for a Democrat for any national office until I had James Lankford show up on my ballot. McCain would have been an excellent President. Obama has been pretty bad. Romney, I think would be worse.

I like the business courts...wish it would be pursued.

Yeah, I'm not that high on candidates that throw religion into the political debate. I don't mind them being religious, just don't think it usually has anything to do with an issue. Lankford is one of them but I voted for him because I knew how he was on energy, immigration, etc...

I don't know if McCain would have been a good president but I'm sure he would have been better than Obama. Romney seems to be a flake on some issues but right now he is flaking my direction..Obama is a flake too but he has never flaked in my direction.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Any of you guy's flake in my direction...I'll ****'n kill ya...

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/attachments/so-much-gear-so-little-time/95079d1221152047-pets-studio-pics-lighten.jpg

[Midtowner]

I like the business courts...wish it would be pursued.

It makes a lot of sense, but try telling this legislature to create an entire new court and give money to the judiciary. Would it really help business in this state? Yes. Would it be a compelling reason for a lot of businesses to locate in Oklahoma? Yes. Would it be a boon to trial lawyers? Yes. Win-win-win.


Yeah, I'm not that high on candidates that throw religion into the political debate. I don't mind them being religious, just don't think it usually has anything to do with an issue. Lankford is one of them but I voted for him because I knew how he was on energy, immigration, etc...

Lankford is a clown. Never did anything before running for office more than run a church camp. Actually kicked my brother out of Fall's Creek for challenging camp leaders on their fire and brimstone bullcrap. FWIW, my brother is a devout Christian who is a soccer coach/history teacher at an inner-city school.


I don't know if McCain would have been a good president but I'm sure he would have been better than Obama. Romney seems to be a flake on some issues but right now he is flaking my direction..Obama is a flake too but he has never flaked in my direction.

McCain is a patriot. He has flashes of brilliance as a leader. What I loved about him is that he could break with party leadership and do something which was unorthodox (like support campaign finance reform) because it was the right thing to do. I thought he would have made a great President. I also thought Bob Dole would have been a hell of a President. We're talking about leaders vs. partisan hacks.

I guess my support of Obama this year is more because of my dislike of the direction the Republicans have taken under the leadership of their billionaire patricians. Obama doesn't really govern much like a wide-eyed liberal and at least his policies are aimed at trying to solve the problems of the everyman, sometimes at the expense of the 1%ers. There's not much difference between Obama and Romney except in who they answer to and I'll take 4 years of an Obama who doesn't have to give two ****s what anyone thinks or says to a Romney who will be beholden to his corporate overlords.

[soonercruiser]

Okie Dems are certainly not yellow dogs anymore. That's for damn sure. Obama didn't even win the Democrat primary in many counties, so I think your characterization is a bit unfair.

They vote for Obama 'cuz he's their guy and Romney is a bought and paid for pawn of the Chamber of Commerce types who want a government of the corporations for the corporations and by the corporations.

As far as Obama's treatment of the O&G industry, I'm not really seeing it. We have record production right now and natural gas is so prolific that some analysts are starting to talk about negative prices for the commodity. This persecution just doesn't exist.

Mid,
Please send a letter to George Soros and the unions to quit supporting Obama, Tides Foundation, ACORN (or whatever they call themselves this election). "Bought and paid for!!!?????"
You got to be kidding???
:torn:

[soonercruiser]

XXXX is a clown. Never did anything before running for office more than organize radicals...."......billionaire patricians.

Must be talking about Obamus Maximus.

[okie52]

It makes a lot of sense, but try telling this legislature to create an entire new court and give money to the judiciary. Would it really help business in this state? Yes. Would it be a compelling reason for a lot of businesses to locate in Oklahoma? Yes. Would it be a boon to trial lawyers? Yes. Win-win-win.



Lankford is a clown. Never did anything before running for office more than run a church camp. Actually kicked my brother out of Fall's Creek for challenging camp leaders on their fire and brimstone bullcrap. FWIW, my brother is a devout Christian who is a soccer coach/history teacher at an inner-city school.



McCain is a patriot. He has flashes of brilliance as a leader. What I loved about him is that he could break with party leadership and do something which was unorthodox (like support campaign finance reform) because it was the right thing to do. I thought he would have made a great President. I also thought Bob Dole would have been a hell of a President. We're talking about leaders vs. partisan hacks.

I guess my support of Obama this year is more because of my dislike of the direction the Republicans have taken under the leadership of their billionaire patricians. Obama doesn't really govern much like a wide-eyed liberal and at least his policies are aimed at trying to solve the problems of the everyman, sometimes at the expense of the 1%ers. There's not much difference between Obama and Romney except in who they answer to and I'll take 4 years of an Obama who doesn't have to give two ****s what anyone thinks or says to a Romney who will be beholden to his corporate overlords.


Amazing how you draw the lines.

Obama gives a $60,000,000,000 exemption on his health care plan to unions regardless of income but squeals like a stuck pig about $4,000,000,000 in write offs to the oil and gas industry that is received by every manufacturer in this country. Yeah, no overlords there.

He closed yucca in his first 6 months in office..not only dismissing the national academy of science, 4 previous administrations, 22 congresses, and billions to be paid by the American taxpayer for damages by not having a nuclear repository. Oh, and his secretary of energy supported yucca just 6 months before taking office. Yeah, this guy is golden.

So who is your guy answering to or is he just he just stupid? You know, the guy that fought the Az law punishing employers that employed illegals to the SC but lost. The same law that was signed by his current secretay of homeland defense...Janet Napolitano?

Glad you've found a guy that has risen above partisan politics and pursued the best interests of the country..l.like closing down both the Atlantic and pacific coasts to oil and gas gas exploration, yeah, there are so many countries in the world following that brilliant approach But i just can't find them...maybe you could point them out.

So when you actually wake up some day and realize this POS you support has been bought and sold by groups whose interests are far more subversive to America than anything Romney ever embraces...you might truly be enlightened.

[okie52]

It makes a lot of sense, but try telling this legislature to create an entire new court and give money to the judiciary. Would it really help business in this state? Yes. Would it be a compelling reason for a lot of businesses to locate in Oklahoma? Yes. Would it be a boon to trial lawyers? Yes. Win-win-win.



Lankford is a clown. Never did anything before running for office more than run a church camp. Actually kicked my brother out of Fall's Creek for challenging camp leaders on their fire and brimstone bullcrap. FWIW, my brother is a devout Christian who is a soccer coach/history teacher at an inner-city school.



McCain is a patriot. He has flashes of brilliance as a leader. What I loved about him is that he could break with party leadership and do something which was unorthodox (like support campaign finance reform) because it was the right thing to do. I thought he would have made a great President. I also thought Bob Dole would have been a hell of a President. We're talking about leaders vs. partisan hacks.

I guess my support of Obama this year is more because of my dislike of the direction the Republicans have taken under the leadership of their billionaire patricians. Obama doesn't really govern much like a wide-eyed liberal and at least his policies are aimed at trying to solve the problems of the everyman, sometimes at the expense of the 1%ers. There's not much difference between Obama and Romney except in who they answer to and I'll take 4 years of an Obama who doesn't have to give two ****s what anyone thinks or says to a Romney who will be beholden to his corporate overlords.


Amazing how you draw the lines.

Obama gives a $60,000,000,000 exemption on his health care plan to unions regardless of income but squeals like a stuck pig about $4,000,000,000 in write offs to the oil and gas industry that is received by every manufacturer in this country. Yeah, no overlords there.

He closed yucca in his first 6 months in office..not only dismissing the national academy of science, 4 previous administrations, 22 congresses, and billions to be paid by the American taxpayer for damages by not having a nuclear repository. Oh, and his secretary of energy supported yucca just 6 months before taking office. Yeah, this guy is golden.

So who is your guy answering to or is he just he just stupid? You know, the guy that fought the Az law punishing employers that employed illegals to the SC but lost. The same law that was signed by his current secretay of homeland defense...Janet Napolitano?

Glad you've found a guy that has risen above partisan politics and pursued the best interests of the country..l.like closing down both the Atlantic and pacific coasts to oil and gas gas exploration, yeah, there are so many countries in the world following that brilliant approach But i ust can't find them...maybe you could point them out.

So when you actually wake up some day and realize this POS you support has been bought and sold by groups whose interests are far more subversive to America than anything Romney ever embraces...you might truly be enlightened.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

The only real teeth out there right now is AZ's right to punish employers. Hopefully OK will adopt this as law soon.


Nikita Khrushchev must be smiling in his hellhole grave, communism burying capitalism, without firing missiles.

Think about it. "Let's solve the problem of workers illegally present by punishing employers." It boggles the mind that one needs permission to work. What next, needing permission to live a healthy lifestyle? to learn? to be loving? to be kind to neighbors? You need permission to be noble!

Here we have U.S. citizens thinking the Government should punish employers, instead of letting consumers decide who gets rewarded and who gets punished. How sad Adam Smith would be that it's government goons who are king instead of consumers.

Bureaucrat control of commerce, health care, marriage, king-sized cokes, ... you even need a license to be a hair dresser or barber! wtf!?!?

And of course disaster is the result when we put government in charge of charity instead of allowing private organizations do the work of charity.

And one central argument for government control of employment is that we don't want those without union cards (work permits/citizenship) to displace workers with union cards. It hurts them. Especially with 8.2% unemployment.

But it's a misleading and flawed argument. Allowing for a freer movement of labor would DECREASE unemployment and INCREASE GDP. Labor is a major cost of business. When government inhibits businesses from access to more productive labor that, in turn, inhibits economic activity. Closed shops inhibit economic activity. Overpaying less productive labor inhibits economic activity. Competition breeds excellence.

With an easily accessible pool of productive labor, many more businesses thrive, creating many more jobs. If one can get a business up and running, then he/she likely will require the services and products of others.

Let us not allow America to march further down the path of becoming the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics where government rewards and punishes businesses instead of King Consumers doing so.

If an employer wants to hire a worker, give the worker a damned permit for no other reason than the employer has judged the person as best qualified for the position. Long live free markets, including the free market of labor!

[olevetonahill]

[QUOTE=SanJoaquinSooner;3486325]Nikita Khrushchev must be smiling in his hellhole grave, communism burying capitalism, without firing missiles.

Think about it. "Let's solve the problem of workers illegally present by punishing employers." It boggles the mind that one needs permission to work. What next, needing permission to live a healthy lifestyle? to learn? to be loving? to be kind to neighbors? You need permission to be noble!


juan ya been hitin the Mescal tonight?


Ya kinda off the track with this statement which in MHO makes the rest of what you said moot

One thing is You talking like the Government is the Government of those people.
If the Illegal messicans want Government to protect em shouldnt it be their OWN ****in Government and Not OURS


It Boggles MY mind that you or any one else thinks that Illegals should have the same rights as Citizens

If I went down to messico to live and how would they treat me If I dint bring any money? Tried to Drive a car w/o buying insurance or having any ID .
Get real my friend

[SanJoaquinSooner]

[QUOTE=SanJoaquinSooner;3486325]Nikita Khrushchev must be smiling in his hellhole grave, communism burying capitalism, without firing missiles.

Think about it. "Let's solve the problem of workers illegally present by punishing employers." It boggles the mind that one needs permission to work. What next, needing permission to live a healthy lifestyle? to learn? to be loving? to be kind to neighbors? You need permission to be noble!


juan ya been hitin the Mescal tonight?


Ya kinda off the track with this statement which in MHO makes the rest of what you said moot

One thing is You talking like the Government is the Government of those people.
If the Illegal messicans want Government to protect em shouldnt it be their OWN ****in Government and Not OURS


It Boggles MY mind that you or any one else thinks that Illegals should have the same rights as Citizens

If I went down to messico to live and how would they treat me If I dint bring any money? Tried to Drive a car w/o buying insurance or having any ID .
Get real my friend

U.S. citizen employers should have the right to sign free agents. We should all be free agents. It has nothing to do with the free agents protected by the gov't. The gov't should be a servant to employers and consumers.

I never made an argument about the virtues of the Mexican gov't. They had 70 years of a corrupt PRI gov't and they haven't fully recovered from that. Just because the Mexican gov't does stupid things does not mean we should too.


Also, I never said illegal aliens should have the same rights. Workers given non-immigrant visas do not have all the rights of a citizen.

[olevetonahill]

[QUOTE=olevetonahill;3486327]

U.S. citizen employers should have the right to sign free agents. We should all be free agents. It has nothing to do with the free agents protected by the gov't. The gov't should be a servant to employers and consumers.

I never made an argument about the virtues of the Mexican gov't. They had 70 years of a corrupt PRI gov't and they haven't fully recovered from that. Just because the Mexican gov't does stupid things does not mean we should too.


Also, I never said illegal aliens should have the same rights. Workers given non-immigrant visas do not have all the rights of a citizen.

But jaun , The Illegals are what this whole discussion is about My friend
A Legal worker has no problem do they?

[okie52]

Nikita Khrushchev must be smiling in his hellhole grave, communism burying capitalism, without firing missiles.

Think about it. "Let's solve the problem of workers illegally present by punishing employers." It boggles the mind that one needs permission to work. What next, needing permission to live a healthy lifestyle? to learn? to be loving? to be kind to neighbors? You need permission to be noble!

Here we have U.S. citizens thinking the Government should punish employers, instead of letting consumers decide who gets rewarded and who gets punished. How sad Adam Smith would be that it's government goons who are king instead of consumers.

Bureaucrat control of commerce, health care, marriage, king-sized cokes, ... you even need a license to be a hair dresser or barber! wtf!?!?

And of course disaster is the result when we put government in charge of charity instead of allowing private organizations do the work of charity.

And one central argument for government control of employment is that we don't want those without union cards (work permits/citizenship) to displace workers with union cards. It hurts them. Especially with 8.2% unemployment.

But it's a misleading and flawed argument. Allowing for a freer movement of labor would DECREASE unemployment and INCREASE GDP. Labor is a major cost of business. When government inhibits businesses from access to more productive labor that, in turn, inhibits economic activity. Closed shops inhibit economic activity. Overpaying less productive labor inhibits economic activity. Competition breeds excellence.

With an easily accessible pool of productive labor, many more businesses thrive, creating many more jobs. If one can get a business up and running, then he/she likely will require the services and products of others.

Let us not allow America to march further down the path of becoming the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics where government rewards and punishes businesses instead of King Consumers doing so.

If an employer wants to hire a worker, give the worker a damned permit for no other reason than the employer has judged the person as best qualified for the position. Long live free markets, including the free market of labor!




San Joaquin-I know you are desperate to get your relatives into the US but I didn't realize you were fighting communism at the same time. Bravo!!!

What a great idea...to let the US chamber of commerce Archer Daniels Midland, Best Western, Hilton, et al determine our immigration policy. Problem solved.

King consumer (LOL)? So you want a monarchy?

I think Ole Vets right....you been nipping at the mescal a little too much.

[olevetonahill]

San Joaquin-I know you are desperate to get your relatives into the US but I didn't realize you were fighting communism at the same time. Bravo!!!

What a great idea...to let the US chamber of commerce Archer Daniels Midland, Best Western, Hilton, et al determine our immigration policy. Problem solved.

King consumer (LOL)? So you want a monarchy?

I think Ole Vets right....you been nipping at the mescal a little too much.

Its either that or he been werkin the fields with out his hat again.

[okie52]

Its either that or he been werkin the fields with out his hat again.

Lol.

San Joaquin is the modern day pancho villa.

[olevetonahill]

Lol.

San Joaquin is the modern day pancho villa.

Now Ole jaun is ok dude, He just likes him some fresh messican food.

[okie52]

Now Ole jaun is ok dude, He just likes him some fresh messican food.

He must want a lot of fresh Messican food.:cheerful:

[Midtowner]

Nikita Khrushchev must be smiling in his hellhole grave, communism burying capitalism, without firing missiles.

Think about it. "Let's solve the problem of workers illegally present by punishing employers." It boggles the mind that one needs permission to work. What next, needing permission to live a healthy lifestyle? to learn? to be loving? to be kind to neighbors? You need permission to be noble!

Here we have U.S. citizens thinking the Government should punish employers, instead of letting consumers decide who gets rewarded and who gets punished. How sad Adam Smith would be that it's government goons who are king instead of consumers.

Bureaucrat control of commerce, health care, marriage, king-sized cokes, ... you even need a license to be a hair dresser or barber! wtf!?!?

And of course disaster is the result when we put government in charge of charity instead of allowing private organizations do the work of charity.

And one central argument for government control of employment is that we don't want those without union cards (work permits/citizenship) to displace workers with union cards. It hurts them. Especially with 8.2% unemployment.

But it's a misleading and flawed argument. Allowing for a freer movement of labor would DECREASE unemployment and INCREASE GDP. Labor is a major cost of business. When government inhibits businesses from access to more productive labor that, in turn, inhibits economic activity. Closed shops inhibit economic activity. Overpaying less productive labor inhibits economic activity. Competition breeds excellence.

With an easily accessible pool of productive labor, many more businesses thrive, creating many more jobs. If one can get a business up and running, then he/she likely will require the services and products of others.

Let us not allow America to march further down the path of becoming the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics where government rewards and punishes businesses instead of King Consumers doing so.

If an employer wants to hire a worker, give the worker a damned permit for no other reason than the employer has judged the person as best qualified for the position. Long live free markets, including the free market of labor!

That's exactly what the American consumer needs! A permanent slave-wage class which will know their place. American jobs should be king, not corporate profits. Corporations can be profitable and still pay a living wage.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I have traveled abroad and it is the one thing I dislike about it.

The problem with your statement about "if you are not a citizen" is the difficulty in determining which person who does not have identification is not a citizen. I guarantee you most people would assume the Mexican lady with broken English who cared for my son years ago (we wanted him exposed to a second language) was not a citizen but they would be wrong.

Anyway, if you want to enforce that non-citizens carry paperwork at all times then lobby the federal government to do so. Adding to immigration law is not the role of states.
Fine, your houselady or whatever can carry her passport. Someone asks, she produces. She's then good to go. No problem.