Texas lawmaker to introduce anti-immigration bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted

That's a lot of work for illegal immigration; seems to suggest something else: smugglers.

Smugglers are not interested in living in America-- only money.
Click to expand...

and the Americans are paying them a great deal of money.
 
Steinhauer said:
Oh Snap!

Look what I found:

Well, I am not trying to imply which nationality the majority of illegals are from in Arizona, but they aren't exactly dropping in on parachutes from across the ocean.

1917 Constitution of Mexico
Click to expand...

That's why his argument was rejected. Time to update your knowledge with 14th Amendment.
 
Wirelessly posted

Yep, and it's not exactly hard for a smuggler to go off the radar.

There's a reason why they mostly come out at night, mostly.

Edit: stupid BlackBerry.
 
Last edited:
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted

Yep, and it's not exactly hard for a struggler to off the radar,

There's a reason why they mostly come out at night, mostly.
Click to expand...

Go Miami Vice! :cool2:
 
Now, Maryland is thinking of joining the bandwagon.
 
Wirelessly posted

Quick, wear a burkha, Shel. We don't want anyone mistakening you for a Mexican.
 
Illegal Mexicans are criminals? Sure, I know a loving and good father who escaped from Mexico to take care of his wife and kids, yes, he is having hard time to find a job but he always manage to find a job that doesn't require SSN and immigration status. Does it make him a criminal? No. He cooked the steaks and chickens for me and his family a couple days ago.

I'm not saying that all illegal Mexicans should stay here; For example, I'm saying that if they are behaving good, they can stay as long as they avoid to walk in the US Border Patrol stations for the free deport to Mexico. If they're bad such as scumbags, criminals, drug dealers and others, who are enough to make trouble and police caught them, then yeah, go back to Mexico or stay in prison for long time and then deport them back to Mexico.
 
Texan Guy said:
Illegal Mexicans are criminals? Sure, I know a loving and good father who escaped from Mexico to take care of his wife and kids, yes, he is having hard time to find a job but he always manage to find a job that doesn't require SSN and immigration status. Does it make him a criminal? No. He cooked the steaks and chickens for me and his family a couple days ago.

I'm not saying that all illegal Mexicans should stay here; For example, I'm saying that if they are behaving good, they can stay as long as they avoid to walk in the US Border Patrol stations for the free deport to Mexico. If they're bad such as scumbags, criminals, drug dealers and others, who are enough to make trouble and police caught them, then yeah, go back to Mexico or stay in prison for long time and then deport them back to Mexico.
Click to expand...

Yup, agreed with you.

Just better to improves the security border on between US and Mexico.
 
Texan Guy said:
Illegal Mexicans are criminals? Sure, I know a loving and good father who escaped from Mexico to take care of his wife and kids, yes, he is having hard time to find a job but he always manage to find a job that doesn't require SSN and immigration status. Does it make him a criminal? No. He cooked the steaks and chickens for me and his family a couple days ago.

I'm not saying that all illegal Mexicans should stay here; For example, I'm saying that if they are behaving good, they can stay as long as they avoid to walk in the US Border Patrol stations for the free deport to Mexico. If they're bad such as scumbags, criminals, drug dealers and others, who are enough to make trouble and police caught them, then yeah, go back to Mexico or stay in prison for long time and then deport them back to Mexico.
Click to expand...

I'm sure lot of illegals are nice people and a dang hard-working bunch but if they are nice - they should be nice enough to enter this country legally. life is hard yes but just don't make our life harder by adding more problem to our illegal immigration problem.
 
You missed a word in the thread title- "illegal". It's not entirely your fault, however. After all, the AP left it out too.

It seems to me that if you truly care about immigration and diversity, you'd support making it a whole lot easier to enter this country through legitimate means so we get more of a diversity of people coming in from all sorts of different countries- not just the ones luckiest enough to border the United States. The real focus should be on how we treat those who are trying to get here legally.
 
There are two sides here. One, there are illegal aliens. The other, legal aliens. One broke the law getting in while the other obtained legal means via proper documents. One is a criminal. The other is not.
 
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted

Quick, wear a burkha, Shel. We don't want anyone mistakening you for a Mexican.
Click to expand...

I don't know what would have you worse off. Burka or looking "Mexican."
 
see above. The state law CANNOT supersede the federal law and/or do the federal job. Is that fascism when the state supersedes the federal law?
Click to expand...

There is nothing Unconstitutional about State Enforcement of a federal law.

Here, let me give you a few examples:

Legal Drinking Age - 21.

National Minimum Drinking Age Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Every State has LEO's that enforce this Federal (and State) law.

When a consumer purchases alcohol, they are *** required *** to provide proof of age.

According to your logic and argument opposing Arizona's new law, and applying it to another Federal Law - this would be "age profiling" as well as "age discrimination" therefore .... unconstitutional.

The requirement to provide ID proving the consumer is 21 or older would also be unconstitutional and (like many here who have argued this point) the same as Nazism in that it is required to "show papers".

The fact that State LEO's enforce a Federal Law (in your opinion) would also be unconstitutional because Federal Law supercedes that of State Law, and a State LEO lacks the required authority.

Its a silly argument.
 
Steinhauer said:
There is nothing Unconstitutional about State Enforcement of a federal law.

Here, let me give you a few examples:

Legal Drinking Age - 21.

National Minimum Drinking Age Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Every State has LEO's that enforce this Federal (and State) law.

When a consumer purchases alcohol, they are *** required *** to provide proof of age.

According to your logic and argument opposing Arizona's new law, and applying it to another Federal Law - this would be "age profiling" as well as "age discrimination" therefore .... unconstitutional.

The requirement to provide ID proving the consumer is 21 or older would also be unconstitutional and (like many here who have argued this point) the same as Nazism in that it is required to "show papers".

The fact that State LEO's enforce a Federal Law (in your opinion) would also be unconstitutional because Federal Law supercedes that of State Law, and a State LEO lacks the required authority.
Click to expand...
lol.

Steinhauer said:
Its a silly argument.
Click to expand...
that's how I feel about your post. I will give you a night to figure it out when I get back from party. please come up with your own argument and research... please stop regurgitating it from forums that preach of forming up a so-called militia to combat against federal government.
 
Jiro said:
lol.


that's how I feel about your post. I will give you a night to figure it out when I get back from party. please come up with your own argument and research... please stop regurgitating it from forums that preach of forming up a so-called militia to combat against federal government.
Click to expand...

List one forum this has been posted on .....

You are listening to the logic of an American born and raised citizen.
 
Steinhauer said:
List one forum this has been posted on .....
Click to expand...
oh I'll find it one day :wave:

You are listening to the logic of an American born and raised citizen.
Click to expand...
because of what's going on lately - I have a doubt since most of them scored poorly in civic test.
 
Where would our country be today if we had these laws when the country was young and starting out! How many of us have grandparents or parents that came from another country! My dad was born in Russia and was in
WW 1! He fought for his new country , USA and he had to lies about his age to do it! Some of us may not be alive if our grandparents or parents where send back to their country!
 
whatdidyousay! said:
Where would our country be today if we had these laws when the country was young and starting out! How many of us have grandparents or parents that came from another country! My dad was born in Russia and was in
WW 1! He fought for his new country , USA and he had to lies about his age to do it! Some of us may not be alive if our grandparents or parents where send back to their country!
Click to expand...

I guess I will have to repeat this AGAIN.

Arizona's law is NOT targeting LEGAL IMMIGRANTS

Now ... what was that other thread about English teachers? (I can see the point clearly now). :D
 
Jiro said:
meanwhile - have fun with have fun with http://www.alldeaf.com/war-political-news/77377-legal-showdown-arizonas-immigration-law.html :wave:
Click to expand...

All posted by you no doubt :roll:

Posters (such as myself) have not been saying illegals have no civil rights, they have been saying it is not a civil right to enter the U.S. Illegally.

Here it is in plain English for you. Is there a difference between driving and drunk driving?

Is a licensed driver allowed to drive legally? Is an unlicensed driver allowed to drive legally?

Is a licensed driver allowed to drive drunk?

Is it a civil right to drive drunk? Is it a civil right to drive without a drivers license?

Of course not. So why then, is there a protest about prosecuting those who violate the law?

If an LEO ticketed a sober licensed driver as being drunk, that would be abuse. That is not happening. They do not target sober licensed drivers, they target unlicensed drunk drivers. Those who do not belong on the road are the ones being prosecuted.

If a high number of those individuals are women, it is NOT gender bias.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top