AZ immigration laws

[ruthabagah]

First (disclaimer) I am against illegal immigration and as such will never give business to any company/contractor that cannot prove me that their employee are in this country legally (work permit, green cards). I once, send back home a full roofing crew because they could not show me their GC.

 

Now as a US citizen, I am just wondering, in light of the new laws in Arizona: how do you prove you are a US citizen?

Where does it show on the only documents that you and I are carrying today that we are indeed US citizens?

Drivers License? nope, can have one with a visa that may have expired…

Social security card? No picture on it...

Do we now have to carry a passport everywhere we go?

I find it disturbing that nobody is thinking how much more government control we are going to experience with this kind of law.

[Lex_Luthor]

Government-issued barcode, tattooed on each citizen's throat.

[weirjf]

Government-issued barcode, tattooed on each citizen's throat.

Woohoo! End times! I'll get my MREs and ammo!

[COvigilance]

If the police run a drivers license can they get that info????? I don't know, just popped into my head. But as a consumer, you are right, there is no way to tell if you are using the services of a business that hires illegals.

[bellavite1]

For starters deport anybody that cannot speak English.
I learned it BEFORE moving here.

[Ranger]

For starters deport anybody that cannot speak English.
I learned it BEFORE moving here.

That would be one way to know they didn't go through the proper citizenship process since English is a requirement.

[ruthabagah]

For starters deport anybody that cannot speak English.
I learned it BEFORE moving here.

Ok. But, what if I am a canadian spy? And I have some Cajun friends that would be deported on the spot....

[HBARleatherneck]

i know...first CLOSE AND SECURE ALL BORDERS. INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO.


NORTHERN BORDER, SOUTHERN BORDER. PACIFIC OCEAN FRONTAGE, ATLANTIC OCEAN FRONTAGE, GULF OF MEXICO AND ANY OTHER BORDER WE HAVE. All container ships coming or going. check all cargo. all of it. period. use the troops we pull out of iraq and afghanistan. now. right now.

then we start cleaning out the ones allready here.

[mutt]

For starters deport anybody that cannot speak English.
I learned it BEFORE moving here.

Yeah that's an idea... Too bad there's plenty of legal alien residents who can't speak English yet. Sure, let's deport them. Glad you weren't around when my Mom was trying to learn to read and write English way back when. Not everyone has the luxury of learning the language BEFORE coming here. Are you trying to say my Mom is somehow less deserving of the citizenship she earned?


That would be one way to know they didn't go through the proper citizenship process since English is a requirement.

Except for those who are here legally but not citizens. And starting the citizenship processes doesn't require proficiency, just finishing it does.

AZ's attempt to enforce immigration controls is a colossal waste of time and resources since a state has no real authority to enforce immigration controls. Again, this is a federal problem. All this will do is start ensnaring people who happen to fit a certain racial profile. The only real thing that can prove citizenship on the spot is carrying around your original birth certificate or naturalisation papers. And no one is required to do that just to move around the country.

[Elhuero]

AZ's attempt to enforce immigration controls is a colossal waste of time and resources since a state has no real authority to enforce immigration controls. Again, this is a federal problem. All this will do is start ensnaring people who happen to fit a certain racial profile. The only real thing that can prove citizenship on the spot is carrying around your original birth certificate or naturalisation papers. And no one is required to do that just to move around the country.

no, the colossal waste is the resources that governments at the state and local level have to expend to deal with all the problems that illegal immigrants bring with them.

people who are so vehemently opposed to this effort, calling it racist, because they know it will work.

cry about oppression all you like, illegal is illegal.

[mutt]

people who are so vehemently opposed to this effort, calling it racist, because they know it will work.

cry about oppression all you like, illegal is illegal.

Really? How exactly will it work? Will AZ deport those it deems illegal? It can't. Only the Federal Government can deport someone. All AZ can do is call ICE on someone suspected of being illegal. If ICE refuses to pick them up, what are they going to do? Detain that individual indefinitely? Pretty sure they can't do that even if they wanted to.

How many white skinned people are going to be asked to proved their legal status during a traffic stop? Zero, nada, ziltch. How many American citizens of hispanic, arabic, or non-white descent are going to be detained and forced to prove their status? Plenty.

And I'm not vehemently opposed to immigration reform and enforcement. I'm vehemently opposed to what will become nothing more than a means to harass American citizens who fit a certain profile. And we'll still have tens of millions of illegals moving about and entering the country. Fix the problem where it should be fixed - at the borders and at the federal level. Until Washington chooses to enforce the law on its books, nothing will get fixed.

[ruthabagah]

 
Good points.

But let’s explore another one: force all small business to verify the work status of their employee / daily worker. Let the news spread in Chihuahua or Montreal that you can’t get a job anymore, they won’t cross the border….
One of my client is in the landscaping business, and he is always complaining that there too many immigrant in this country, yet when I asked him if he always check the GC of his seasonal employee, he laughed really hard, and admitted that he couldn’t stay competitive if he did that….
 
 
 
 

[Elhuero]

How many white skinned people are going to be asked to proved their legal status during a traffic stop? Zero, nada, ziltch. How many American citizens of hispanic, arabic, or non-white descent are going to be detained and forced to prove their status? Plenty.

well boo freakin' hoo hoo.



Until Washington chooses to enforce the law on its books, nothing will get fixed.

you do realize you're attacking your own point of view, right? this is the exact reason why AZ is taking action. the fed govt dropped the ball for decades, and the locals in AZ paid for it. now they're trying to fix things, by drafting a bill that is LESS RESTRICTIVE than the federal immigration laws.

of course the law is immediately attacked as racist, because it is completely racist to try and enforce laws if the people breaking the law are of a sufficiently homogeneous background.

francisco jose del la cruz ramirez sanchez is here illegally. he runs a stop sign and gets pulled over. cop is going to write him a ticket, but lo and behold paco can't prove he's a citizen, becuase he's not. paco goes bye bye back to sinaloa.

the only racism in that situation your own, that you expose by eschewing the rule of law in favor of selective obedience to the law for a few.

[mutt]

Good points.

But let’s explore another one: force all small business to verify the work status of their employee / daily worker. Let the news spread in Chihuahua or Montreal that you can’t get a job anymore, they won’t cross the border….
One of my client is in the landscaping business, and he is always complaining that there too many immigrant in this country, yet when I asked him if he always check the GC of his seasonal employee, he laughed really hard, and admitted that he couldn’t stay competitive if he did that….



That law already exists. Employers can't knowingly hire illegals. Of course the Federal Govt doesn't really give businesses a means to accurately check status because businesses wants cheap labor. Now states are free to put in their own laws regarding checks but if the Federal government won't give them the means to accurately verify legal status, then again it's a waste of time. And even if one is caught employing illegals, they basically just get a slap on the hand.

Immigration is broken because certain groups want it that way. Until this country chooses to do what's right for the country over what's good for business, nothing will change.

[mutt]

well boo freakin' hoo hoo.

Yeah, until you're the one who's stopped and detained for hours or days because you couldn't prove your legal status on the spot. Funny how we don't care what happens to others so long as it doesn't affect us. Then again I'm guessing you're probably caucasian, so you have little chance of actually being asked to prove legal status/citizenship.



you do realize you're attacking your own point of view, right? this is the exact reason why AZ is taking action. the fed govt dropped the ball for decades, and the locals in AZ paid for it. now they're trying to fix things, by drafting a bill that is LESS RESTRICTIVE than the federal immigration laws.


I don't follow your logic on how I'm attacking my own point of view. My point of view is States DO NOT have the authority to deport or make immigration policy. Passing any immigration law is pointless since states can't enforce anything. All they can do is transfer custody of an immigration violation suspect to ICE. If ICE refuses to take custody, which they do regularly, what is a state going to do?



francisco jose del la cruz ramirez sanchez is here illegally. he runs a stop sign and gets pulled over. cop is going to write him a ticket, but lo and behold paco can't prove he's a citizen, becuase he's not. paco goes bye bye back to sinaloa.


No, Paco will be turned over to ICE because AZ has no authority to deport. ICE, even if it accepts custody, will probably just catch and release like they do now. Again, this problem is a federal one. The federal govt needs to enforce its own laws and quit pandering to the special interests. Your belief that states have some kind of power over immigration is misguided. All these initiatives are nothing more than grand standing, and AZ knows it.

[HBARleatherneck]

the other big step, while we are securing the border, is to stop all instant citizenships to foreigners in this country. what i mean is if you are here illegaly, your kids dont get free citizenship. if you are here legally, but not a citizen your kids do not become instant Americans. They can enter the system though to become citizens. this will stop alot of the illegals of whatever color. asking for proof of citizenship at the social services will help. no free money, without proof. period.

[mutt]

the other big step, while we are securing the border, is to stop all instant citizenships to foreigners in this country. what i mean is if you are here illegaly, your kids dont get free citizenship. if you are here legally, but not a citizen your kids do not become instant Americans. They can enter the system though to become citizens. this will stop alot of the illegals of whatever color.


And that's going to require another constitutional amendment clarifying exactly what 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' actually means in Section 1, Clause 1 of the 14th. I personally agree that children of illegals should not be instant citizens because their parents were not subject the jurisdiction of the United States, but the courts over the years have interpreted this differently.



asking for proof of citizenship at the social services will help. no free money, without proof. period.

Bingo. And states do have the right and authority to do so. Asking people to provide documentation before getting state services is totally valid and would be far more effective than asking cops and hospitals to act as immigration officers. Yet many states do not have proof of citizenship as a requirement before providing social services. Funny. Effective tools are ignored while ineffective ones are touted to show how 'tough' politicians are on illegals. Seems no one has any interest in really fixing anything so long as there is money to be made off a steady flow of illegal, and underpaid, labor.

[ChunkyMonkey]

@Mutt

USCIS - E-verify


U.S. law requires companies to employ only individuals who may legally work in the United States – either U.S. citizens, or foreign citizens who have the necessary authorization. This diverse workforce contributes greatly to the vibrancy and strength of our economy, but that same strength also attracts unauthorized employment.

E-Verify is an Internet-based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States. E-Verify is fast, free and easy to use – and it’s the best way employers can ensure a legal workforce.

E-Verify is constantly improving to better serve you.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=75bce2e261405110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=75bce2e261405110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD

@Ranger,
The most downloaded USCIS pdf forms are in Spanish. Most if not all new UCCIS new hires are spanish speaking. Unless US declares its National Language, one can claim it is his right to sign contract/form in his language. On my personal experience, I have been to Citizenship sworn in 4-5 times now. It's funny how if you go to the local USCIS office, I'd estimate 90% of the applicants are spanish speaking - which is along the line of number ratio of the illegal immigrants in the country. However, at the citizenship sworn in, 80% of the new citizens are Europeans, Asians, among others and I would say less than 10% are hispanic. I would say stop the bilingual BS and make it fair for everyone... by declaring a National Language.

@Ruthabagah,
The idea behind the ID check is because non permanent resident immigrants can obtain ID upto the expiration date on the visa. Driver license offices in CO stop issuing 10 year ID/DL if you are a visitor or temporary visa holder. They match the expiration to the visa. LE or even ICE officers use ID/DL as the first indication of status. The mind boggling part is the conservatives do not want National ID system, while we want border security. The liberals want stronger National ID system while trying to protect illegal immigrants at the same time. Anyone else sees the contradiction?

[mutt]

@Mutt

USCIS - E-verify



http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=75bce2e261405110VgnVCM1000004718190aRCR D&vgnextchannel=75bce2e261405110VgnVCM1000004718190a RCRD

@Ranger,
The most downloaded USCIS pdf forms are in Spanish. Most if not all new UCCIS new hires are spanish speaking. Unless US declares its National Language, one can claim it is his right to sign contract/form in his language. On my personal experience, I have been to Citizenship sworn in 4-5 times now. It's funny how if you go to the local USCIS office, I'd estimate 90% of the applicants are spanish speaking - which is along the line of number ratio of the illegal immigrants in the country. However, at the citizenship sworn in, 80% of the new citizens are Europeans, Asians, among others and I would say less than 10% are hispanic. I would say stop the bilingual BS and make it fair for everyone... by declaring a National Language.

@Ruthabagah,
The idea behind the ID check is because non legal immigrants can obtain ID upto the expiration date on the visa. Driver license offices in CO stop issuing 10 year ID/DL if you are a visitor or temporary visa holder. They match the expiration to the visa.


E-verify is voluntary for most employers. Only the federal govt, federal contractors, some H-1B visa instances and OPT extensions are required to use e-verify. Previous attempts to make it mandatory for all employers have been shot down in congress. Huh. Again, effective tools are ignored. Seems congress talks the talk to the public while pandering to the special interests behind closed doors. Imagine that.

Arizona is among some states that have made e-verify checking mandatory for all businesses (within their right), yet they still have an illegal problem. Seems people who hire illegal workers don't bother putting them on the books to begin with. Guess the profits are greater than the risk. Maybe Arizona should make enforcing their current laws a priority instead of making new, ineffectual ones. Then again, I don't think politicians in AZ are really serious about solving anything. They just want to look tough so they can get votes at election time.

[Ranger]

Except for those who are here legally but not citizens. And starting the citizenship processes doesn't require proficiency, just finishing it does.


That was tongue and cheek my friend... Try not to take it personally.

[Ranger]

Ah, well, crap, now I have something to say :).

So you say you don't think racial profiling is fair and just? Perhaps it not, maybe its not the American way, but it's the Israeli way and has been working pretty good for a while. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well it must be a duck. If it looks muslim and acts muslim then it must be muslim.

WHOA now, that of course (of frickin' course) makes me a racist! You don't want to "card" those of brown skin? That's just not fair. Life isn't fair. I'm all up for being carded every time a cop pulls me over if it means there are less illegals here. Let's face it, the Canadians aren't hurting anyone (you know, that bad-ass Canadian Mafia is SCAAAAAAARY).

Do I have an answer? Sure, but the answers I have serve my own purposes and no matter what that answer is it's going to piss someone off. Like I really care! Close the border, put our boys on it and shoot every bastard that tries to cross illegally, that will discourage many others. If we offend some folks in the meantime, so be it.

I just had to vent, if I hurt your feelings then let me quote another post in this thread and say "WELL BOO FRICKIN HOO HOO!". I'm so sick of the bleeding hearts who think they have all the answers and I'm sick of our government doing little or nothing to enforce the immigration laws we have, so if Arizona and Texas want to enforce their own borders then more power to them. They have a contract with the feds and it's currently not being honored.

Rant over, hate all you want!

[ChunkyMonkey]

In regards to e-verify, since there is a mean to check, it is businesses' responsibility to use it imho. If the majority of businesses refuse to use it, we already lost this battle. I am so against having more laws as the current ones are not even being enforced. I think the key is awareness. Most businesses don't even know what e-verify is.

I don't see how requiring more paperwork for the businesses will change anything. Afterall, most businesses who hire illegals know exactly what they are doing.

[mutt]

That was tongue and cheek my friend... Try not to take it personally.

My apologies Ranger.

[ruthabagah]

@Ruthabagah,
The idea behind the ID check is because non permanent resident immigrants can obtain ID upto the expiration date on the visa. Driver license offices in CO stop issuing 10 year ID/DL if you are a visitor or temporary visa holder. They match the expiration to the visa. LE or even ICE officers use ID/DL as the first indication of status. The mind boggling part is the conservatives do not want National ID system, while we want border security. The liberals want stronger National ID system while trying to protect illegal immigrants at the same time. Anyone else sees the contradiction?

Me. I am just wondering if a dl will be enough. Back in Jan 2004 I was with a group of clients/co-workers on a late night, bar hopping trip,  in San Antonio, TX. After all the bar had closed on the river/canal, we ended up in a small joint where aside from us, most patron were Latinos.  Around 2 am the local PD made a descent on the bar, along with a young ICE agent. They started checking the DL of everybody in the room starting with the “darkest’ color skin… when it was my turn they asked me, in Spanish, for my ID. I replied that I did not speak Spanish, and provided my DL. The ICE agent then stepped in front of the local PD, and repeated again in Spanish that he needed some form of ID from me….. (Note: I look as Latino as Tom Cruise does…. I am not saying that I look like Tom… let say that physically I am between Tom Cruise and Danny DeVito!) Anyway: After pulling my SS card, and one of my GVT work credential I finally got the guys off my case…. Then it was my friend’s Anthony’s turn. You see, Tony looks like a young version of the actor Ricardo Montalban. (so much so that his nick name is Khan….)  he his half Scott half Italian…The local PD as well as the ICE agent repeated the same “game” and asked him to provide his ID (in Spanish first), which he did, then more ID which unfortunately he did not have….After spending 2 hour in the company of the ICE in their office, Tony was released around 6 am, along with Carole, one of my French-Canadian co-worker, who was also travelling light and left her passport in the hotel, with no apology.
 
Maybe this was a one off experience, but I hope this is not the kind of society we are going to, where anybody,  anytime could be in a situation where they would have to prove their citizenship with whatever they have in their pocket.
 

[mutt]

Ah, well, crap, now I have something to say :).

So you say you don't think racial profiling is fair and just? Perhaps it not, maybe its not the American way, but it's the Israeli way and has been working pretty good for a while. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well it must be a duck. If it looks muslim and acts muslim then it must be muslim.


I have a lot of respect for how Israel handles certain things, but their country is essentially a theocracy where only jews have rights and non-jews are 'tolerated' second-class citizens. All men are definitely not created equal there and it's codified law. Are you really suggesting we should emulate Israel? OR am I missing the tongue in cheek again? [Tooth]



WHOA now, that of course (of frickin' course) makes me a racist! You don't want to "card" those of brown skin? That's just not fair. Life isn't fair. I'm all up for being carded every time a cop pulls me over if it means there are less illegals here. Let's face it, the Canadians aren't hurting anyone (you know, that bad-ass Canadian Mafia is SCAAAAAAARY).


So to maybe solve a problem you're willing to give up equal protection and treatment under the law? That's a slippery slope. Pretty sure good old Ben had something to say about giving up liberty for safety.



Do I have an answer? Sure, but the answers I have serve my own purposes and no matter what that answer is it's going to piss someone off. Like I really care! Close the border, put our boys on it and shoot every bastard that tries to cross illegally, that will discourage many others. If we offend some folks in the meantime, so be it.

That's an option and within the rights of the federal govt to do so. But TX or AZ aren't allowed to do so. That's the crux of this whole debate. Who has the power and authority to solve this and why aren't they doing it?



I just had to vent, if I hurt your feelings then let me quote another post in this thread and say "WELL BOO FRICKIN HOO HOO!". I'm so sick of the bleeding hearts who think they have all the answers and I'm sick of our government doing little or nothing to enforce the immigration laws we have, so if Arizona and Texas want to enforce their own borders then more power to them. They have a contract with the feds and it's currently not being honored.

Rant over, hate all you want!
Venting is good.

[Ranger]

That's an option and within the rights of the federal govt to do so. But TX or AZ aren't allowed to do so. That's the crux of this whole debate. Who has the power and authority to solve this and why aren't they doing it?

Whether Texas or Arizona have the right to do that is indeed under debate, so to say they aren't allowed is implying which side of this debate you are on. I personally believe they not only have the right but an obligation to the citizens to do so and that if the federal government doesn't do what they are obligated to do (keep in mind that we ALL pay taxes for the government TO DO this, it is not suppose to be at their discretion to do so) then the states need to take whatever actions they feel best for themselves.

[weirjf]

Whether Texas or Arizona have the right to do that is indeed under debate, so to say they aren't allowed is implying which side of this debate you are on. I personally believe they not only have the right but an obligation to the citizens to do so and that if the federal government doesn't do what they are obligated to do (keep in mind that we ALL pay taxes for the government TO DO this, it is not suppose to be at their discretion to do so) then the states need to take whatever actions they feel best for themselves.

Come on... how can we possibly expect to choose the safety of American citizens over turtle tunnels and monkey habitats. Get your priorities straight! Think about the poor turtles!

[mutt]

Whether Texas or Arizona have the right to do that is indeed under debate, so to say they aren't allowed is implying which side of this debate you are on. I personally believe they not only have the right but an obligation to the citizens to do so and that if the federal government doesn't do what they are obligated to do (keep in mind that we ALL pay taxes for the government TO DO this, it is not suppose to be at their discretion to do so) then the states need to take whatever actions they feel best for themselves.

Since shooting Mexicans or Canadians trying to enter our borders is basically an act of war against a foreign state, the Constitution pretty much lays out who can do what:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
...

State governors or legislatures are not given this power. On the contrary:

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
...
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
...

A bunch of unarmed fence hoppers do not equal an imminent Danger or invasion force. Now if The People would like that changed so States can engage in acts of war with foreign states, we have a process for amending our Constitution. Good luck.

[Byte Stryke]

I just had to vent, if I hurt your feelings then let me quote another post in this thread and say "WELL BOO FRICKIN HOO HOO!". I'm so sick of the bleeding hearts who think they have all the answers and I'm sick of our government doing little or nothing to enforce the immigration laws we have, so if Arizona and Texas want to enforce their own borders then more power to them. They have a contract with the feds and it's currently not being honored.

Rant over, hate all you want!


Completely agree.

I FEEL (This implies a personal perspective not necessarily based in fact) that when the Federal government delays or falters in its duties to protect the common good and citizens of the union then it does fall to the States to enforce the federal laws. Unless you really think the Colorado National guard is just for show.. because let's face it, Wyoming isn't going to invade.


Just my 2 cents

[Drilldov2.0]

Since shooting Mexicans or Canadians trying to enter our borders is basically an act of war against a foreign state, the Constitution pretty much lays out who can do what:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
...
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
...

State governors or legislatures are not given this power. On the contrary:

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
...
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
...

A bunch of unarmed fence hoppers do not equal an imminent Danger or invasion force. Now if The People would like that changed so States can engage in acts of war with foreign states, we have a process for amending our Constitution. Good luck.


With 11 million illegals coming into the U.S.A. you think it is not an invasion? as far as unarmed, you need to do some research.

Mind you, they are called "illegal" for a reason.

The big picture, try to find it.

[Byte Stryke]

With 11 million illegals coming into the U.S.A. you think it is not an invasion? as far as unarmed, you need to do some research.

Mind you, they are called "illegal" for a reason.

The big picture, try to find it.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=33790
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Denver_police_officer_shooting
http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/political-view/150599-illegals-shoot-deputy-az.html
http://www.desertconservative.com/2010/08/14/illegals-shoot-a-trooper-their-penalty-amnesty-something-is-wrong/
http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/7997305/

and this one is terrifying
http://blutube.policeone.com/media/4115-Dashcam-footage-of-officer-being-shot/




damned those unarmed illegals and their loaded non-guns

[rockhound]

Ah, well, crap, now I have something to say :).

So you say you don't think racial profiling is fair and just? Perhaps it not, maybe its not the American way, but it's the Israeli way and has been working pretty good for a while. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well it must be a duck. If it looks muslim and acts muslim then it must be muslim.

WHOA now, that of course (of frickin' course) makes me a racist! You don't want to "card" those of brown skin? That's just not fair. Life isn't fair. I'm all up for being carded every time a cop pulls me over if it means there are less illegals here. Let's face it, the Canadians aren't hurting anyone (you know, that bad-ass Canadian Mafia is SCAAAAAAARY).

Do I have an answer? Sure, but the answers I have serve my own purposes and no matter what that answer is it's going to piss someone off. Like I really care! Close the border, put our boys on it and shoot every bastard that tries to cross illegally, that will discourage many others. If we offend some folks in the meantime, so be it.

I just had to vent, if I hurt your feelings then let me quote another post in this thread and say "WELL BOO FRICKIN HOO HOO!". I'm so sick of the bleeding hearts who think they have all the answers and I'm sick of our government doing little or nothing to enforce the immigration laws we have, so if Arizona and Texas want to enforce their own borders then more power to them. They have a contract with the feds and it's currently not being honored.

Rant over, hate all you want!


YEAH THAT [UZI][UZI][AR15][UZI][AR15]


HAVE YOU READ YOUR CONSTITUTION, I AM SURE SOME OF YOU HAVE.

THE PRESIDENT TAKES AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

I WILL QUOTE YOU ARTICLE 4 SECTION 4 OF YOUR CONSTITUTION.

THE UNITED STATES SHALL GUARANTEE TO EVERY STATE IN THIS UNION A REPUBLIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND SHALL PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION; AND ON APPLICATION OF THE LEGISLATURE, OR OF THE EXECUTIVE (WHEN THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT BE CONVENED) AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

IN MY OPINION THIS IS AN INVASION, AND THE VIOLENCE IT HAS BROUGHT (I DONT THINK I REALLY HAVE TO MENTION ALL THE DEATHS RELATED TO THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS) SHOULD BE PROTECTED AGAINST BY OUR FEDERAL GOVT.

FAILURE TO TO SO SHOULD BE A CRIME ON THE PART OF ANY SITTING PRESIDENT (DEM OR GOP) AND SHOULD BE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT.

[rockhound]

MUTT YOU AND I MUST HAVE BEEN TYPING AT THE SAME TIME [Beer]

[Byte Stryke]

YEAH THAT [UZI][UZI][AR15][UZI][AR15]


HAVE YOU READ YOUR CONSTITUTION, I AM SURE SOME OF YOU HAVE.

THE PRESIDENT TAKES AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

I WILL QUOTE YOU ARTICLE 4 SECTION 4 OF YOUR CONSTITUTION.

THE UNITED STATES SHALL GUARANTEE TO EVERY STATE IN THIS UNION A REPUBLIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND SHALL PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION; AND ON APPLICATION OF THE LEGISLATURE, OR OF THE EXECUTIVE (WHEN THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT BE CONVENED) AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

IN MY OPINION THIS IS AN INVASION, AND THE VIOLENCE IT HAS BROUGHT (I DONT THINK I REALLY HAVE TO MENTION ALL THE DEATHS RELATED TO THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS) SHOULD BE PROTECTED AGAINST BY OUR FEDERAL GOVT.

FAILURE TO TO SO SHOULD BE A CRIME ON THE PART OF ANY SITTING PRESIDENT (DEM OR GOP) AND SHOULD BE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT.


MUTT YOU AND I MUST HAVE BEEN TYPING AT THE SAME TIME [Beer]

pssst, its the one between "Shift" and "Tab"

:D

[mitch]

YEAH THAT [UZI][UZI][AR15][UZI][AR15]


HAVE YOU READ YOUR CONSTITUTION, I AM SURE SOME OF YOU HAVE.

THE PRESIDENT TAKES AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

I WILL QUOTE YOU ARTICLE 4 SECTION 4 OF YOUR CONSTITUTION.

THE UNITED STATES SHALL GUARANTEE TO EVERY STATE IN THIS UNION A REPUBLIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND SHALL PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION; AND ON APPLICATION OF THE LEGISLATURE, OR OF THE EXECUTIVE (WHEN THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT BE CONVENED) AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

IN MY OPINION THIS IS AN INVASION, AND THE VIOLENCE IT HAS BROUGHT (I DONT THINK I REALLY HAVE TO MENTION ALL THE DEATHS RELATED TO THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS) SHOULD BE PROTECTED AGAINST BY OUR FEDERAL GOVT.

FAILURE TO TO SO SHOULD BE A CRIME ON THE PART OF ANY SITTING PRESIDENT (DEM OR GOP) AND SHOULD BE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT.

Man, you REALLY don't like Reagan eh?