Metal Sludge Gossip Board

Federal law makes it illegal to cross the border into the United States without legal authorization. The Feds refuse to enforce the law.
Mexicans invade America across the Arizona border. Crime soars in Arizona. A rancher is killed. Phoenix becomes the kidnapping center of the U.S. Drugs flood across the border while the The Feds do virtually nothing.
Finally Arizona passes a law making what is already a crime under federal law a crime under State law.
The Arizona law gives Arizona law enforcement the authority to do what federal law enforcement officers can already do ... but aren't.

Democrats see Hispanic votes slipping away if the law is enforced.

Obama instructs a lawsuit to be filed citing "usurping federal authority."
Notice there is no mention of racial profiling or any of that other nonsense Obama and the liberals were whining about.

So here's my question:
Robbing a federally insured bank is a federal crime. It's also a crime under the statutes of the State of Arizona. Should the Justice Department file a lawsuit against Arizona demanding that Arizona law enforcement officials cease enforcing Arizona's law against robbing banks because it usurps federal authority? Just wondering.

The federal government is tasked with the sole authority over immigration by the Constitution. The Constitution does not mention armed robbery.

MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:The federal government is tasked with the sole authority over immigration by the Constitution. The Constitution does not mention armed robbery.

SO why is the federal government not suing San Francisco?
Yeah, we know why.

Nevermind wrote:

MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:The federal government is tasked with the sole authority over immigration by the Constitution. The Constitution does not mention armed robbery.

SO why is the federal government not suing San Francisco?
Yeah, we know why.

The Constitution does not mention homosexuality either.

MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:

Nevermind wrote:

MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:The federal government is tasked with the sole authority over immigration by the Constitution. The Constitution does not mention armed robbery.

SO why is the federal government not suing San Francisco?
Yeah, we know why.

The Constitution does not mention homosexuality either.

You doofus, San Francisco and other sanctuary cities are "usurping the federal government" by having their own immigration policy.

How exactly does enforcing the law lead to a loss of democrat votes? Do illegals vote?

bane wrote:How exactly does enforcing the law lead to a loss of democrat votes? Do illegals vote?

Illegals don't vote, but I suppose that legal immigrants who feel like the Arizona law is racial profiling would potentially not vote Democrat next election if they didn't stop it. At least that's what I got out of it.

bane wrote:How exactly does enforcing the law lead to a loss of democrat votes? Do illegals vote?

Why not? They don't check IDs at any polling place I've been to in the last 10 years. I show up give my name and pull the lever.

noam_bombsky wrote:

bane wrote:How exactly does enforcing the law lead to a loss of democrat votes? Do illegals vote?

Illegals don't vote, but I suppose that legal immigrants who feel like the Arizona law is racial profiling would potentially not vote Democrat next election if they didn't stop it. At least that's what I got out of it.

there is a HUGE contingent of legal hispanic immigrants who are sympathetic to the illegals and prove it every election cycle.

WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:

noam_bombsky wrote:

bane wrote:How exactly does enforcing the law lead to a loss of democrat votes? Do illegals vote?

Illegals don't vote, but I suppose that legal immigrants who feel like the Arizona law is racial profiling would potentially not vote Democrat next election if they didn't stop it. At least that's what I got out of it.

there is a HUGE contingent of legal hispanic immigrants who are sympathetic to the illegals and prove it every election cycle.

Whether legal hispanic immigrants sympathize with the illegal plight or not should be mostly irrelevent in this case. Republicans will definitely push for deportations and enforcement, it's a huge rallying cry for their base these days, so how is enforcement by a democrat administration automatically a loss of votes? In that regard, I'd think it's at best a wash. The only way I can see a loss of votes out of an enforcement scenario is if you're thinking far enough ahead to assume that the children of illegals, who would be citizens if they are born here, would be a loss of votes for the dems if their parents were deported before they were born or something. That's a bit of a Machavellian stretch if you ask me.

bane wrote:How exactly does enforcing the law lead to a loss of democrat votes? Do illegals vote?

Yes.

bane wrote:

Whether legal hispanic immigrants sympathize with the illegal plight or not should be mostly irrelevent in this case. Republicans will definitely push for deportations and enforcement, it's a huge rallying cry for their base these days, so how is enforcement by a democrat administration automatically a loss of votes? In that regard, I'd think it's at best a wash. The only way I can see a loss of votes out of an enforcement scenario is if you're thinking far enough ahead to assume that the children of illegals, who would be citizens if they are born here, would be a loss of votes for the dems if their parents were deported before they were born or something. That's a bit of a Machavellian stretch if you ask me.

I don't know of any elected Republican who is pushing for mass deportation. However if Obama were to actually apply the rules of law that already exist, that's what should happen.
What you guys are missing is, Obama is will settle for nothing less than "comprehensive immigration reform". What that really means is amnesty for all of he illegal invaders into this country.
Democrat + Amnesty for illegal invaders = Democrat votes.

Nevermind wrote:

MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:

Nevermind wrote:
SO why is the federal government not suing San Francisco?
Yeah, we know why.

The Constitution does not mention homosexuality either.

You doofus, San Francisco and other sanctuary cities are "usurping the federal government" by having their own immigration policy.

Really?

They have a policy that city officials will not enforce immigration law. That's a law enforcement and public service policy. They are not granting or denying citizenship nor do they prevent the US government from it's constitutionally mandated role. Right or wrong, they are not usurping the authority of the US government.

MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:

Nevermind wrote:



They have a policy that city officials will not enforce immigration law. That's a law enforcement and public service policy. They are not granting or denying citizenship nor do they prevent the US government from it's constitutionally mandated role. Right or wrong, they are not usurping the authority of the US government.

The Obama Administration is asserting that cities do not have the constitutional authority to establish any immigration policies. Sanctuary cities exist and some communities have taken legal action to provide benefits to illegals, and various states have established policies that favor illegal immigrants for state benefits.

What the US government is doing is EMBARRASSING and if Obama had any sense at all he'd support what Arizona is doing here. He's essentially putting the 'feelings' of ILLEGAL aliens over the good of the American people.

They are here ILLEGALLY! They broke the damn law!

Why is this even an issue? How in the blue fuck is this a civil rights issue?

A lot of shit that happens with politics I disagree with, but this is just inarguable as far as I'm concerned and I don't see how ANYBODY can defend what the Obama admin is doing here.

Nevermind wrote:

MasterOfMeatPuppets wrote:

Nevermind wrote:



They have a policy that city officials will not enforce immigration law. That's a law enforcement and public service policy. They are not granting or denying citizenship nor do they prevent the US government from it's constitutionally mandated role. Right or wrong, they are not usurping the authority of the US government.

The Obama Administration is asserting that cities do not have the constitutional authority to establish any immigration policies. Sanctuary cities exist and some communities have taken legal action to provide benefits to illegals, and various states have established policies that favor illegal immigrants for state benefits.

The 'sanctuary cities' have not adopted any immigration policy. They have decided to NOT carry out immigration policy.

JakeYonkel wrote:What the US government is doing is EMBARRASSING and if Obama had any sense at all he'd support what Arizona is doing here. He's essentially putting the 'feelings' of ILLEGAL aliens over the good of the American people.

They are here ILLEGALLY! They broke the damn law!

Why is this even an issue? How in the blue fuck is this a civil rights issue?

A lot of shit that happens with politics I disagree with, but this is just inarguable as far as I'm concerned and I don't see how ANYBODY can defend what the Obama admin is doing here.

x2

JakeYonkel wrote:What the US government is doing is EMBARRASSING and if Obama had any sense at all he'd support what Arizona is doing here. He's essentially putting the 'feelings' of ILLEGAL aliens over the good of the American people.

They are here ILLEGALLY! They broke the damn law!

Why is this even an issue? How in the blue fuck is this a civil rights issue?

A lot of shit that happens with politics I disagree with, but this is just inarguable as far as I'm concerned and I don't see how ANYBODY can defend what the Obama admin is doing here.

It isn't about feelings or civil rights. It's a matter of economics. Enforcing the law that we have ignored for so long will cause a huge financial mess. Nobody ever seems to pay any attention to that little reality. Enforcing the law now after all these years of looking the other way isn't good for the American people IMO. It's knee jerk reaction to a problem that requires a more sophisticated answer. Enforcement now is cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's a dumb idea. The answer isn't all that complicated, it's just not a very popular one.

bane wrote:

JakeYonkel wrote:What the US government is doing is EMBARRASSING and if Obama had any sense at all he'd support what Arizona is doing here. He's essentially putting the 'feelings' of ILLEGAL aliens over the good of the American people.

They are here ILLEGALLY! They broke the damn law!

Why is this even an issue? How in the blue fuck is this a civil rights issue?

A lot of shit that happens with politics I disagree with, but this is just inarguable as far as I'm concerned and I don't see how ANYBODY can defend what the Obama admin is doing here.

It isn't about feelings or civil rights. It's a matter of economics. Enforcing the law that we have ignored for so long will cause a huge financial mess. Nobody ever seems to pay any attention to that little reality. Enforcing the law now after all these years of looking the other way isn't good for the American people IMO. It's knee jerk reaction to a problem that requires a more sophisticated answer. Enforcement now is cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's a dumb idea. The answer isn't all that complicated, it's just not a very popular one.

This is true, and I don't care what anyone says, Americans will NOT do many of the jobs that illegal Hispanic workers do. Not at ANY wage.

I sympathize with Arizona, because what they are really trying to do is fight the horrendous crime wave that is pouring in from Mexico, the drug cartel wars and the kidnappings and murders. I can see why this law was seen asa solution.

But if the Feds are gonna bust their ass on it, then at this point I think they need to change their tactics and specifically go after the drug dealers and kidnappers more aggressively. The way to do that would probably be by undercover and infiltration, followed with raids in force.

There are likely plenty of Hispanics in the border states who are interested in law enforcement who could be trained for these kinds of ops and blend into these gangs, and bring them down from the inside.

Probably a better use of resources than the idea of the current law. Arizona doesn't have the law enforcement personnel to seal its border; hell, the US doesn't have a big enough military for that even if we brought everyone home.

I don't like the border being so open, but the vastness of it really precludes effectively sealing it. So then what? We have to address that question.

The labor cost effect is an obvious concern, but the potential economic impact runs deeper than that. When you include the loss of business from industries that rely on immigrants as a customer base, the impact gets to be pretty staggering. International phone cards, for example are a 4 billion dollar industry.

As to border violence, I think it's more propaganda than it is legitimate concern, but regardless, I see it as a different issue than immigration. One has little to do with the other. We aren't going to build a Great Wall of China, and we aren't going to militarily police the border with any effectiveness. Stopping cartel violence is as simple as stopping the drug war.

bane wrote:The labor cost effect is an obvious concern, but the potential economic impact runs deeper than that. When you include the loss of business from industries that rely on immigrants as a customer base, the impact gets to be pretty staggering. International phone cards, for example are a 4 billion dollar industry.

As to border violence, I think it's more propaganda than it is legitimate concern, but regardless, I see it as a different issue than immigration. One has little to do with the other. We aren't going to build a Great Wall of China, and we aren't going to militarily police the border with any effectiveness. Stopping cartel violence is as simple as stopping the drug war.

Agreed on the economic impact. Illegals pay rent and buy groceries in their millions, beyond the phone card business, there's huge money in food and lodging alone.

As far as the border violence, though, it's not jst propaganda in Arizona, the kidnappings and killings associated with Mexican drug wars are very real. In Houston, not so much, you are hundreds of miles from the Mexican border. Phoenix, as a huge city in itself and as a way station to Los Angeles, is a lot more under the gun.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the border violence isn't a problem, I just think that the level of concern over it is blown out of proportion to the real danger for propaganda purposes. I don't live anywhere close to the border, true, but I'm originally from
El Paso and a large chunk of my family still lives there. I spend a good amount of time there and talk to my relatives who live there all the time. It's given me a pretty good snapshot of how things really are down there. Juarez is a nightmare, but the vast majority of the problem is still on that side of the border.

WhiteHouseSubsAC wrote:

noam_bombsky wrote:

bane wrote:How exactly does enforcing the law lead to a loss of democrat votes? Do illegals vote?

Illegals don't vote, but I suppose that legal immigrants who feel like the Arizona law is racial profiling would potentially not vote Democrat next election if they didn't stop it. At least that's what I got out of it.

there is a HUGE contingent of legal hispanic immigrants who are sympathetic to the illegals and prove it every election cycle.

although, polls show that legal immigrants favor the arizona bill.
demo's ignore that.
consensus shows that hispanics are the largest rising minority and that's what they are focusing on. hey, if they can manage to push through amnesty before 2012.. would people be grandfathered to vote?
i don't know, but i wouldn't put it past our politicians.
mccain claimed favor for amnesty as well.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the border violence isn't a problem, I just think that the level of concern over it is blown out of proportion to the real danger for propaganda purposes.

border violence is a problem, MORE SO, life and death, if you live there.
and if you feel threatened and shoot someone, well then you're in another mess. your rights won't supercede the illegal's.

this was just three weeks ago. did you hear anything about it?

http://www.uncoverage.net/2010/06/mexic ... texas-dam/

Unless all you wankers are so precisely careful about where you shop, eat or play....you are just as much a part of the problem as anyone.

Does that restaurant have a legal kitchen staff, does that landscaper have a legal crew, does that chicken farm, stockyard, farmer have a legal crew, do the fruit growers have legal crews? Fish plants, grocery stores, big box stores, etc., etc.

Really, as long as you enjoy the benefits that illegal immigrants give in cheap labour, then it's all wankery.

Unless you are boycotting EVERY business that uses illegal immigrants and telling them exactly why you not buying their product or service then you are as guilty as anyone. It ain't just about them, it's about you.

Not to mention the dope smokers who don't care where their pot comes from.

vlad wrote:Unless all you wankers are so precisely careful about where you shop, eat or play....you are just as much a part of the problem as anyone.

Does that restaurant have a legal kitchen staff, does that landscaper have a legal crew, does that chicken farm, stockyard, farmer have a legal crew, do the fruit growers have legal crews? Fish plants, grocery stores, big box stores, etc., etc.

Really, as long as you enjoy the benefits that illegal immigrants give in cheap labour, then it's all wankery.

Unless you are boycotting EVERY business that uses illegal immigrants and telling them exactly why you not buying their product or service then you are as guilty as anyone. It ain't just about them, it's about you.

Not to mention the dope smokers who don't care where their pot comes from.

Well, Mexican pot sucks these days, homegrown is better than that stuff!

Thing is, Vlad, poeople go to restaurants and grocery stores assuming the owners abide by the law. By your lights you could say that if you use money, you're as guilty as criminals who rob, steal and kill because you are connected to them by some degree of separation.

I agree that our economy is dependent on illegal workers, both for their labor and for their own consumption, but I think your implication is a little much, that's all.

Kinda like saying if you drive a car, you're to blame for the BP oil spill. Would you buy that one? I don't, because BP would exist if I walked everywhere on shoes made of hemp from birth to death.

lerxstcat wrote:

vlad wrote:Unless all you wankers are so precisely careful about where you shop, eat or play....you are just as much a part of the problem as anyone.

Does that restaurant have a legal kitchen staff, does that landscaper have a legal crew, does that chicken farm, stockyard, farmer have a legal crew, do the fruit growers have legal crews? Fish plants, grocery stores, big box stores, etc., etc.

Really, as long as you enjoy the benefits that illegal immigrants give in cheap labour, then it's all wankery.

Unless you are boycotting EVERY business that uses illegal immigrants and telling them exactly why you not buying their product or service then you are as guilty as anyone. It ain't just about them, it's about you.

Not to mention the dope smokers who don't care where their pot comes from.

Well, Mexican pot sucks these days, homegrown is better than that stuff!

Thing is, Vlad, poeople go to restaurants and grocery stores assuming the owners abide by the law. By your lights you could say that if you use money, you're as guilty as criminals who rob, steal and kill because you are connected to them by some degree of separation.

I agree that our economy is dependent on illegal workers, both for their labor and for their own consumption, but I think your implication is a little much, that's all.

Kinda like saying if you drive a car, you're to blame for the BP oil spill. Would you buy that one? I don't, because BP would exist if I walked everywhere on shoes made of hemp from birth to death.

Lerx, everyone I know (seriously) knows full well that there are illegals in the restaurants and everywhere else. It's a wink-wink thing. I am just tired of the hypocrisy is all.

Get rid of the illegals and start to pay what Americans feel they are due for the same labour and you will hear a collective high wail across the country. "Too expensive!!!!!"

Well, it depends. Mexican restaurants, sure. I don't see 'em in Chinese restaurants though.

Point is, people do NOT always know. Several months ago they busted Howard Industries' electronic controls factory in Laurel, MS for hiring illegals. They make controls for heating equipment. I would've never thought they'd be using illegal Hispanic workers, but sure enough.

Now if I am a repair plumbing and heating technician, am I supposed to tell my customer to get a different kind of heater? IF if can find a brand and verify that they DON'T use illegal Hispanic workers, that is? Or do I but the part anyway at my local supply house and fix my customer's heater?

It's not as much a matter of choice as you might think...

bane wrote:How exactly does enforcing the law lead to a loss of democrat votes? Do illegals vote?

DOJ Whistleblower: Obama Administration is Planning November Vote Fraud

Organized and intentional voter fraud is what we have suspected of the “community-organizer-in-chief” Barack Obama and now the proof. A very brave former employee who was working under Obama political appointees has quit his job and is spilling the truth to Fox News and Pajamas Media. Tea parties and Republican party organizations around the country should take note, clean up those voter rolls in every county and organize volunteers to monitor each and every polling place in this country.

Former Department of Justice attorney and now whistleblower J. Christian Adams keeps lobbing more “political grenades” at the Obama administration.

Adams has now testified under oath to the U.S. Civil Rights commission that the “motor voter” registration records will not be purged for ineligible voters (dead, illegal aliens etc) in time for the November 2010 election, per orders from the Obama adminstration.

http://www.uncoverage.net
07 July 2010