Should we work on immigration in light of the Arizona unconstitutional bill, right now? I just read an article in Huff post that said that they were going to introduce the climate change bill this Monday but decided to drop that and work on immigration. They hope to do both climate and immigration this year but want to do immigration first. ALso Lindsey Graham threatened to walk on his support for climate change if they did immigration first, which is not a good thing for the Republicans if they don't help in this bill.

What are people's thoughts on immigration? What impact will this have on the deficit? Should we have amnesty or kick them all out? Your thoughts

Edited April 25, 201016 yr by tdslf1

thats what i don't understand how is it a prejudice against "Hispanics in Arizona" where for one thing it doesn't only apply to them and the second thing ITS A LAW; BEING IN UNITED STATES ILLEGALLY IS AGAINST THE LAW

its a law already when it was made and from what i am aware of (and i could be wrong) no protest

they just let it happened if it was such a big deal it should have been a big protest stating thats wrong.

i mean should everyone protest drinking and driving lets say a guy get pulled over for driving drunk and he says

"well cop i know I'm drunk but i was driving because i had to pick up my kids they are sick"

the drunk driver has a good reason his kids are somewhere and he needs to get them so should they send him on his way should he get locked up for drinking and driving because it is against the law

and should his family start a whole protest about drinking and driving, and say "you should only drink and drive for important reason so his kids were sick so he almost hit someone he had a (litgetiment(:biggrin:) reason to drive drunk" lol pleaseeeeeeeee

:confused:A LAW IS A LAW POINT BLANK

I think the first thing is a BIG BAD A-- border fence. High enough where they can be seen crossing and hard enough so they think twice about climbing. Lets do that first on ALL borders, top and bottom. There are many Canadians here illegally too. They just look more like the native pop.

I think the first thing is a BIG BAD A-- border fence. High enough where they can be seen crossing and hard enough so they think twice about climbing. Lets do that first on ALL borders, top and bottom. There are many Canadians here illegally too. They just look more like the native pop.

I'm all for fencing up the south, but the number of illegals from Canada just doesn't justify the money needed to add a fence there at this time. Where as there are close to 12 million illegals nationwide, with about 78% percent coming from Mexico and latin America. All of Europe and Canada make up only about 6%. Asian countries make up about 13%. So while I know you were being facetious, I think it's a good idea.

There was no facetiousness about it. Keep 'em all behind the fence, then we will have no need for this outrage in the future when canadians decide that USA might be more prosperous.

There was no facetiousness about it. Keep 'em all behind the fence, then we will have no need for this outrage in the future when canadians decide that USA might be more prosperous.

Whats the plan for the ones who are here already?

Round 'em up and make 'em eat Canadian bacon while pledging allegiance to the flag!

Round 'em up and make 'em eat Canadian bacon while pledging allegiance to the flag!

OMG, I just laughed so hard I peed a little.

Leroy,

You crazy, lol.

Arizona Immigration Law: AG Eric Holder Admits "I Have Not Read It".

LiveLeak.com - Arizona Immigration Law: AG Eric Holder Admits "I Have Not Read It".

Sad... :redface:

What is your point about Chris?

from the Washington Post:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has said that Arizona's tough new immigration law could drive a wedge between police and immigrant communities. He has expressed concerns it could lead to racial profiling, and he has made it clear that his Justice Department is considering a lawsuit to block the legislation from taking effect.

On Thursday Rep. Ted Poe (R-Tex.) at a House Judiciary Committee, asked Holder, "Have you read the Arizona law?"

Holder responded that he had not yet thoroughly read it but his staff was in the process of reviewing it.

Holder said he based his comments about the legislation on reading news reports, watching television and talking to Justice Department lawyers who are reviewing it. "I've not reached any conclusions as yet" about the law's constitutionality."

Holder's spokesman, Matthew Miller, said Friday that his boss "has been thoroughly briefed on the law, which has already been amended since the initial version passed, and has heard concerns from a range of law enforcement and community officials. He and the Department will continue to review it in detail to determine what options are available to the federal government."

_______________________________________________

In my opinion Holder got caught with his pants down. Before threatening a lawsuit he should have read it. That doesn't mean I think the "law" is OK, just that he should have waited until it was fully investigated before saying too much.

By the way, LiveLeak is a racist site. Listen to the radio broadcasts and it will give you the chills.:redface:

Holder said they were reviewing the case. That is double speak for we will sue if it is politically viable to do so pending american reaction. Trust me, Holder has probably read that law and specific section regarding probable cause many times. He has worked in that office for a while. He know the AZ immigration law. According to many posters, it is the same as the federal law, except a few inserts. If you think he doesn't know the law and is waiting to see what impact these rallies and protest will have, you don't know too much about "washington speak".

What is your point about Chris?

Point is here is the Attorney General threatening lawsuits and he hasn't even read a 10 page law? Whats he there for ?

Sad is what it is !

Point is here is the Attorney General threatening lawsuits and he hasn't even read a 10 page law? Whats he there for ?

Sad is what it is !

Looks like the LA city council is in the same boat as Holder.

LA City Councilman blasts AZ law for provisions in CA penal code

Share

129

POSTED AT 10:55 AM ON MAY 17, 2010 BY ED MORRISSEY

PRINTER-FRIENDLY

Before critics of Arizona’s new immigration law make fools of themselves, they should really try to read the bill. And if those critics are officials of other states or cities, maybe they should take a quick tour of their own laws first, too. Kerry Picket at the Washington Times interviewed Los Angeles City Councilman Ed Reyes, who said that he would need his passport to travel in Arizona, but she points out that the very same provisions to which Reyes objects exist in California’s own penal code:

The Los Angeles City Council’s vote to boycott Arizona caused more consternation than anything else. LA City Council members voted an overwhelming 13 – 1 to terminate any city contracts with Arizona (worth around $7.7 million) as did other American cities who have considered resolutions to protest the Arizona law or seek boycotts. Among these cities are San Francisco and Saint Paul, Minnesota. …

“I cannot go to Arizona today without a passport,” Los Angeles Councilman Ed Reyes, a Democrat, said before the vote. “If I come across an officer who’s had a bad day and feels the picture on my ID is not me, I could be summarily deported — no questions asked. That is not American.”

Kerry has plenty of audio within the Times article, but transcribes the key points:

PICKET: Where exactly in the law does it say that? Considering that it prohibits that? As I’m asking here, federal law which has been around for about seventy years has been saying that undocumented individuals have to be carrying papers, so what exactly has changed between federal law of the last seventy years and Arizona’s law?

REYES: What’s changed is you have a very active effort to round up people that look a certain way, and if you have proof you are an American citizen that let you go, and if you don’t they deport you. So now, that I look like a Mexican, and I am Mexican American, I become a target.(AUDIO)

PICKET: Why is this law considered any different than what has been around for the last seventy years…because it’s being enforced?

REYES: Why does a state have to call that out? Why can’t it just follow the federal law like you said for the past seventy years? (AUDIO)

Well, why does California have to call it out, Councilman Reyes? Kerry did a little digging and found this nugget in Section 834b in the California Penal Code:

(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. (:thumbup: With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status. (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States. (3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity. © Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.

Sounds very similar to the provisions of SB 1070, the bill that prompted LA’s City Council to launch its boycott of Arizona. Will they also now boycott their own state? They do seem to be conducting a boycott of common sense and legal scholarship at City Hall.

San Diego is trying to back pedal and say they aren't really boycotting AZ, it's political not personal. Well it looks like Arizonian's don't really care, they're saying "you boycott us, we'll boycott you."

Some in Arizona canceling trips to S.D.

Outrage over local censure votes may be a misunderstanding

BY LORI WEISBERG, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

FRIDAY, MAY 14, 2010 AT 12:04 A.M.

San Diego tourism leaders and hoteliers fear they could lose a sizable chunk of business this summer from valued “Zonies” who are so angered by elected leaders’ recent censure of Arizona for its illegal-immigration law that they’re mounting an informal boycott of their own.

The San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau and several hotels report receiving e-mails and letters from Arizona visitors saying they intend to change their plans to travel here in light of local outcry over their home state’s anti-illegal-immigration stance.

Tourism officials are striking back. In an open letter, they urge Arizona residents to overlook local politics and come to San Diego just as they always have for its mild climate, beaches and attractions. The visitors bureau, in conjunction with the San Diego County Hotel-Motel Association, plans to circulate the letter to media outlets and in advertising this weekend in The Arizona Republic.

The bureau says it has received about 25 to 30 e-mails from Arizona residents reacting to resolutions passed last month by the San Diego City Council and school board, which were little more than symbolic protests aimed at the neighboring state’s lawmakers.

Still struggling from the prolonged economic downturn, San Diego’s visitor industry can ill afford to lose any of the 2 million Arizonans it counts on annually, said ConVis President Joe Terzi.

“We’re in a very tough environment already because of everything else going on, and we don’t need another negative impact to our industry,” Terzi said. “This affects all the hardworking men and women who count on tourism for their livelihoods, so we’re saying, don’t do something that hurts their livelihoods.”

Although the summer months typically are an economic bonanza for the San Diego visitor industry, the recession and continued high unemployment have eaten away at lodging revenue as hotels have steeply discounted rates to fill their rooms. The Convention & Visitors Bureau spent $9 million last year promoting the region for the spring and summer months and is dedicating $7 million toward that effort this year.

“I’ve been approached by a number of hotels who are very concerned because they’ve received cancellations from Arizona guests,” said Namara Mercer, executive director of the county Hotel-Motel Association. “It’s a huge piece of business for not just the hotels but for all of San Diego. Everybody’s excited because they think occupancies will be stronger this summer, and now this.”

In some cases, it appears that Arizona residents misconstrued the votes taken by San Diego’s elected leaders as calls for an actual boycott of Arizona as opposed to statements of opposition.

In one letter received by the Sofia Hotel in downtown San Diego, a “boycott” was cited as the reason for canceling a planned trip to the city.

“Nothing against the Sofia; however, wanted to let you know that we were planning on coming out in August and staying for 10-14 nights,” read the letter. “Since San Diego decided to boycott AZ, we decided to do our part and vacation elsewhere. Really sorry since we truly like staying at your place and will miss it.”

In many of the e-mails to the visitors bureau, Arizonans bluntly expressed their displeasure with San Diego’s stance on the illegal-immigration law and said that staying away was the best way of registering their protest.

“So you see when people in government start to boycott it goes both ways,” said one e-mail. “You just lost our visits to our favorite places in your city and the $3,500 we had in our budget to spend there.”

In a draft letter yet to be approved by visitors bureau and hotel association leaders, Terzi sought to clarify the city’s position on the immigration law while stressing the respect the region has for Arizona’s visitors.

“While immigration is a complex and sensitive issue for our nation, we believe it needs to be addressed independent of actions that would harm our economies and hardworking residents,” states the letter. It implores prospective visitors to “look past the political posturing and make your travel decision for all the right reasons.”

Charles Holladay, manager of the Ramada Plaza in Mission Valley, noted that as much as 50 percent of his summer business originates in Arizona, and he already has received a cancellation from a regular customer.

“I understand the City Council was being passionate about their politics, but I don’t think they thought it through,” Holladay said. “If it negatively impacts hotel revenue, it impacts the transient occupancy tax, and that goes right into the general fund, so they’ll have less money for their programs.”

San Diego Councilwoman Donna Frye said she believes some Arizona residents are acting out of a misunderstanding.

“The City Council did not pass a resolution boycotting Arizona, and I would hope that the good citizens of Arizona understand that and will continue to visit San Diego,” Frye said.

School board President Shelia Jackson said that while she was disappointed to hear of people opting to stay away from San Diego, she doesn’t regret her vote.

“It’s sad that people would cancel their plans to come here in reaction to that, but I still think we did the right thing,” Jackson said. “Certainly, we know how important tourism is to San Diego, and it wasn’t my intent to impact the tourism trade.”