Perhaps this is why the states are acting since the Feds aren't .....

http://www.wsbtv.com/video/23438021/index.html

Well, here's an interesting reason to really support Arizona.
Folks watch it to the end --- it might make some of you think a bit before knee jerk reactions against Arizona and others who support the law.

I have no problem with securing the nation's borders. My beef with AZ's SB1070 is that it has substantial potential to invoke racial profiling. I don't think AZ police will be stopping Ahmed bin Talaal and asking him for papers, they will be looking for Pedro and Maria.

Have you been to/lived in Arizona? Not too many Ahmeds running around, trust me. And if the few they do have (possibly in bigger cities + towns) are questioned, sure as shitcakes the AZ cops will be accused of being ignorant racists for thinking they are Mexican (what with the brown skin and all). It's catch-22 for law enforcement.

Now you're reading their minds - and making assumptions.

If the ranchers turn in a muslim prayer rug or two and a few pamphlets that are not written in spanish that advocate the overthrow of the government - don't you think they'll act on that?

Or do you think all cops not from your area are Barney Fife and Andy Taylor?

First of all, I'll admit I haven't watched the link in Liz's post. But, if it's what I'm thinking it is, I've already seen it. There was a two part special on the link between securing the borders and the war on terror. A case was made that terrorists were using our lax border security as a way of getting into the U.S. precisely because they looked somewhat hispanic. Some basic language training and they could pass as just another part of the flood of illegals coming from Mexico. It could very well be that our enemies are using our laws against us, jujitsu style.

Well, when most of the criminals are a certain ethnicity, of course they will be questioned more often and more closely. Why shouldn't they be? It seems foolish not to in a case like this.

I really hope that you read this reply, because I've tried to make it considerate and clear.

No officer can initiate a stop or contact because they think someone is in the country illegally. They can only question folks about their residency status if a stop has been initiated for another reason, and if a reasonable person would suspect someone was here illegally. An example would be an officer pulling someone over for speeding, finding no driver's license or insurance, and noting a vehicle packed to the brim with people that cannot communicate with him. Not speaking English doesn't mean that you're not a citizen, but only someone trying to obscure the point would deny that it is a red flag meriting further investigation. Given the fact that Arizona is a major path for human trafficking, it is also reasonable to find cars with more passengers than they are rated for suspicious.

At least 90% of the folks in the state of Arizona illegally were born in Mexico. By those numbers, it is only reasonable that they are going to arrest more Mexicans than Arabs- 9-10 times more. Arabs don't share an easy border with us like Mexicans do either, and they don't share a border with Mexico like Arizona does. Could they sneak in? Sure, I suppose, but if they do, they are going to most likely go through Mexico's customs and immigrations system unless something super commando happens.

We have a problem with illegal immigration in this country. We need to deal with all illegal immigration while making it easier for people to immigrate here legally. The fact is that the bulk of our illegals are from Mexico.

Thus, if we deal with illegal immigration, we are dealing primarily with illegal immigrants from Mexico. These are known as "Mexicans." But while Mexicans are the largest group to be affected, this isn't an anti-Mexican policy. Turn your eyes away from race, and focus on the real issue: Illegal Immigration.

Further, lets assume we are able to shut down illegal immigration from Mexico. Now, add up an imaginary group called Flanadians (lets assume they're a redneck Dutch-English hybrid from Zimbabwe seeking political assylum), and lets make them the next biggest group of illegal immigrants. If they are getting in by boat in the northern most part of Maine illegally, and we increase coast guard patrols in the area and turn back all their boats... is that racist? No, it's saying "OK, here is our biggest source of illegal immigrants. Let's turn it off."

To me, this is simple. You deal with a problem by dividing it into sections and attacking the easiest areas first.

Now tell me where I'm wrong.

"Other Than Mexican":

Speak of the devil AKA El Diablo.....

weren't we talking about brown skinned muslim folk blending in with our leaf-blowing friends from South of The Border? Just sayin'.....

Feds Issue Terror Watch for the Texas/Mexico Border

By Jana Winter
- FOXNews.com

The Department of Homeland Security is alerting Texas authorities to be on the lookout for a suspected member of the Somalia-based Al Shabaab terrorist group who might be attempting to travel to the U.S. through Mexico, a security expert who has seen the memo tells FOXNews.com.

• print
• email
• share
• recommend (3)

The Department of Homeland Security is alerting Texas authorities to be on the lookout for a suspected member of the Somalia-based Al Shabaab terrorist group who might be attempting to travel to the U.S. through Mexico, a security expert who has seen the memo tells FOXNews.com.
The warning follows an indictment unsealed this month in Texas federal court that accuses a Somali man in Texas of running a “large-scale smuggling enterprise” responsible for bringing hundreds of Somalis from Brazil through South America and eventually across the Mexican border. Many of the illegal immigrants, who court records say were given fake IDs, are alleged to have ties to other now-defunct Somalian terror organizations that have merged with active organizations like Al Shabaab, al-Barakat and Al-Ittihad Al-Islami.
In 2008, the U.S. government designated Al Shabaab a terrorist organization. Al Shabaab has said its priority is to impose Sharia, or Islamic law, on Somalia; the group has aligned itself with Al Qaeda and has made statements about its intent to harm the United States.
In recent years, American Somalis have been recruited by Al Shabaab to travel to Somalia, where they are often radicalized by more extremist or operational anti-American terror groups, which Al Shabaab supports. The recruiters coming through the Mexican border are the ones who could be the most dangerous, according to law enforcement officials.

We need a american foreign legion oldfella thats were we be putting hese illegals they fight are wars including the one year od babies who arehere illegally.

Fuck "racial profiling". I'm tired of hearing that overplayed term.

Easy!!!!

The northernmost point in Maine is landlocked and no one is getting in by boat there!

Gah! There is a teeny bit of land farther north than that river!

Like I said, I have no problem with securing the border. IIRC, the big problem with McCain/Kennedy was that it did not address the main problem.. The porous border. You can look back at my posts from 2007 and see that I didn't like that bill due to that.

Looking at the language in SB1070 now compared to initial news reports on it, the language has changed quite a bit. If what apostle said is true and it seems to be so, then I have no problem with it. If the initial reports that required police to stop and demand proof of citizenship based on nothing other than a "resonable suspicion" that the person was here illegally, then yes, I'd say that this vague language was bad law and could only lead to racial profiling.

Exactly, and since caucausians are statistically more likely to be the culprit in most crimes...

I appreciate this dialogue.

It is my understanding that the initial reports weren't true. They were emotionally driven, and ignored the facts.

Further, you have the Attorney General commenting on it while acknowledging he hadn't read it, and was relying on media reports. Same thing for the Homeland Security Secretary. The entire thing is sensationalism, driven by groups like La Raza (Mexican Nazis who believe Mexicans with Indian blood are the master race).

I found it interesting that after this controversy began, the Mexican President gave an interview to Wolf Blitzer. He made the case that this was "racist." Wolf asked him what would happen if someone entered Mexico illegally, without permission. The Mexican President said, apparently without realizing the purpose of the question, that they would send them back where they came from!

[yt="Watch This To See the Interview"]jBOuHOXo1Vk[/yt]

Start watching at 1:08. I love the end of the video: "If somebody do that... without permissions... we send back them." Exact transcript, posted not to make fun of his English (which is excellent) but to point out the irony.

Yup. Immigrants, including the illegal kind, are disproportionately unlikely to commit crime. People with green cards want to keep them, and people here illegally want to avoid drawing attention to themselves. If you target international criminal organizations and various people who come to this country with the express purpose of committing some nonimmigration crime, that's perfectly reasonable as a crime measure, but targeting immigrants--even illegal immigrants--is simply unrelated to crime prevention and reduction efforts.

What it really comes down to is that the hysterical people among us think that simply being here illegally after crossing the Mexican border is, on its own, some world shattering Republic destroying crime that has to take top law enforcement priority in-and-of itself. Why they would think this when people here illegally are more law abiding than average and contribute far more to our society via productivity than they take out in benefits is left as an exercise to the reader.

Well, except for the 100% crime rate of them being in the States illegally....

And if you are speaking of Sampsons work, then no, he explicitly did not say that illegals commit less crime. Why? Because the majority of jurisdictions he took research from weren't allowed to ask immigration status, let alone check up on that answer. He speculated on it, which isn't exactly the same thing, now is it? Yet it's been held up ever since, despite not having any stats whatsoever to back it up.

Besides, if someone breaks into my home and moves in, even if they don't steal anything else, they are still a criminal.

And I should not be forced to allow them to live in my home simply because they don't like their own cheap shack.

No, we don't think it's world shattering.
WE THINK IT'S ILLEGAL. IT'S BREAKING THE LAW.
IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MUCH THEY CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY AFTER THE FACT. THE FACT IS THAT THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW.
WE DON'T LIKE LAW BREAKERS. NO MATTER WHAT LAW WAS BROKEN.

Actually, I disagree with that assessment. When I think a law is a bad law, I admire those who dare to break it. Where would the civil rights movement have gotten if some people hadn't dared to break some pretty bad laws?

And I have a real hard time working up much outrage over illegal immigrants whose only crime is in being illegal immigrants. One of the steps I would favor to deal with the current situation is making the immigration process much easier. And some kind of federal duty (military service, or the equivalent in some sort of program for civilian service to the country) as a way to amnesty for those who are already here.

I am a big believer in immigrants, as long as they learn our language, obey our laws, and respect our culture. When they expect us to change to accomodate them, that's nonsense, but if all they're looking for is a better way of life, well, that's kind of what America is supposed to be all about, IMO.

The difference right now is that the civil rights movement KNEW they were breaking the law and didn't mind being imprisoned/fined/whatever the penalty was. They accepted it and caused folks to question the law as it was and change it.
Right now, the illegal immigrants are trying to avoid paying the price for being illegal - being deported back to their home country and not being able to come back (as is the case in several of the countries who's illegals come here and who are castigating us for our way of handling the illegals). Nor are they willing to assimilate into the American lifestyle.
When I find an illegal who is 1)learning English and 2)attempting to find a way to become legal besides asking for amnesty I might feel the same way.
But until then, they have broken into my home, set up housekeeping and demanded that I follow their ways. And they have broken the law.

What nonsense.

Excuse me? You mean they DIDN'T know they were breaking the existing laws of the time? That they fought not to be arrested?
Funny, I don't remember seeing resistance when they were arrested when the news was airing the stories back in the day.
They were following the passive resistance of Gandhi, and MLK. Which meant they knew they were breaking the law, and they knew they would be arrested and fined or serve a jail sentence.

Now you tell me that the illegal immigrants don't know they're breaking the law?
Why do they run when they see ICE agents if they don't think they're breaking the law? Or if they're trying to change it, why aren't they doing what the folks back in the '60s did, passively resist arrest, but still get arrested?

...why would they run from ICE if they don't think they're breaking the law?

They might not thi nk what they're doing is wrong, but they know they're breaking the law.

Either way, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

This is an interesting take on the issue.

Of course they knew they faced arrest, fines and everything else. So do illegal immigrants. Your argument was that civil rights agitators were different in that they "didn't mind" facing the penalties. That is false.

I was responding to Async who was trying to compare what is going on today to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. I was pointing out major differences between what went on then: civil disobedience with the people allowing themselves to be arrested; and today: active disobedience and avoidance of arrest.