ICE chief won't process illegals from Arizona

Well, I guess his job is going to get even easier after reading this today:

"17 States Now Filing Versions of Arizona"

in thecoffinman's thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by jaynkeel

 

Illegal aliens have "free reign" now? Really? They aren't subject to the same laws we are once they are in the country? They aren't arrested for rape, murder, burglary, or anything like that?

Well when you stop defending the border and you don't enforce the laws until someone is caught, yes I would consider that free reign, or at least freedom. Freedom that was stolen and not earned through the proper ways that many law abiding immigrants had to go through to be granted a citizen of this country. Look at how they must feel, and yes one of the only ways we apprehend these criminals is when they break the law, shouldn't they be stopped before braking the law, wouldn't that be more effective? I bet if you were a victim of one of the crimes you exampled your attitude would different. Your example is like letting the wolf live in the hen house because it's wrong to deny him although he clearly does not belong in the hen house.

reply to post by jaynkeel


You didn't answer my question.

Do illegal aliens have free reign to commit murder, rape, burglary, etc.?

No, they don't. They've violated a law, and no one is saying that they haven't. The problem isn't that they have free reign in our legal system, it's that the government isn't enforcing one law.

Try not to sensationalize. It's not becoming.

Wow, so much to address, so little time.

First, I can't understand how any citizen of the United States isn't utterly appalled at the stance of the federal government, on this issue.

Timeline:

Thursday, 13 May, Attorney General Eric Holder publicly acknowledges he has not read the Arizona law, although he has been critical of it. His words "I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law." ?????

Monday, 17 May, Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano publicly acknowledges she has not read the law, although she has critical of it. Her words "It's a bad law enforcement law," she said. "I believe it mandates and requires local law enforcement or puts them into a position many do not want to be placed in." How can she believe anything about something she has not read? Wouldn't the correct word be "assume"? Also, since when do we allow law enforcement officers to choose what laws they are comfortable enforcing? Their job is to enforce the laws enacted by the legislators, who are elected by the people. Period.

Wednesday 19 May, Asst. Sec. Homeland Security John Morton publicly announces an intent to be derelict in the department's duty to enforce violations of out immigration laws.

This is from the top three law enforcement officials in the federal government. Amazing!

But wait! That's not all!

Wednesday, May 19, Barack Hussein Obama joins Felipe Calderon in criticizing a law that is supported by over 70% of Americans. Obama takes a stand against the citizens of the U.S., in support of a foreign leader, in the Rose Garden of the White House, for Christ's sake. Can things get any worse for our country?

Thursday, 20 May, the Democrats of the United States Congress, the House of Representatives and several members of Obama's cabinet give Calderon a standing ovation, while he lambastes the lawful actions of one of our United States, supported by over 70% of our citizens, on the floor of OUR House of Representatives. Absolutely shameful.

Honestly, I can't comprehend how any citizen of the United States of America can defend these actions. This past week has stirred a rage within me, that I have never felt before.

Then, I read this thread and find statements like "Why should the Feds enforce Arizona's law?" (paraphrased) Jesus Christ on a pony! What the hell is wrong with you people? Is this really your argument, on the matter? Okay, I'd better move on. I feel a WARN coming on.

To those here who think that the States should simply ignore the Fed's lack of enforcement... There is no logic in that, whatsoever. Does the phrase "Letting the fox guard the hen house" ring any bells. We can no longer sit idly by, while the federal government ignores the will of the people, much less blatantly mock us.

Consider that the Fed's have spent billions of our, our children's and our grandchildren's tax dollars on a massive expansion of immigration enforcement agents, thereby acknowledging more are needed to deal with a growing problem. Here are the numbers, in the increase of Border Patrol agents, alone:

1975 - Under 2000 agents
1995 - about 4000
2005 - about 11,000
2010 - about 20,000

That is a tenfold increase in 35 years. So, by passing SB 1070, Arizona has increased the enforcement capabilities of our country's immigration laws, by another 15,000. if all States followed suit, it would be increased by over 680,000. And, you know what, it would not cost the taxpayer another dime for salaries. They are already in place. How is that a bad idea?



[edit on 23-5-2010 by WTFover]

reply to post by Xtrozero


Why doesnt Arizona classify illegal aliens as potential terrorists, then the feds would have to do their job, right?

reply to post by WTFover


agree with everything you say!

it appears to me that the only explanation for refusal to enforce this law is to force amnesty of all illegals. fine for hard workers, but what about the ones who are vandalizing, raping, robbing, participating in drug trade? granting amnesty only eliminates that particular crime from their description. they can no longer be deported. they have all rights of citizens. from the terrorism perspective alone, that seems like a problem since the feds would have NO IDEA to whom they are granting citizenship.

also, does it eliminate the normal procedures for people who want to be naturalized? how can you grant mass amnesty for one batch of people because they insist on breaking law but expect others to jump through hoops?

the only explanation for refusal of ICE to enforce the law is to force universal amnesty, and the only way they can get away with this is if this administration backs their stand.

reply to post by rangersdad


(Raising my hand and waving it wildly) I know! I know!

Because that term is now reserved for the patriots of the United States, not those who are proven enemies of ours.

Disclaimer: The above statement is made with tongue in cheek. While some who enter our country certainly fall into the category of "terrorist", the vast majority do not. They are, however, criminals and should be so labeled.

Originally posted by earlywatcher
it appears to me that the only explanation for refusal to enforce this law is to force amnesty of all illegals.

I do not have a problem with "amnesty", but oppose the Bush and Obama administration's definition.

I would, wholeheartedly, support an amnesty law, if written like this:

Between now and July 4, 2010, no person found to be within the defined and internationally recognized borders of the United States of America, in violation of the lawfully enacted immigrations laws, shall be detained and/or deported, but for any subsequent violation of other laws, be they Local, State or Federal. Following this period of "amnesty", the full force of our justice system, including fines and/or imprisonment, will be brought to bear, without prejudice or leniency.

Edit to add:

Those who chose to respect our laws, returning to their home countries voluntarily, may obtain from the nearest Immigration or Border Station, a packet containing all necessary forms and requirements, to return to the U.S. lawfully, and become citizens. Those who chose to ignore our laws, and fail to take full advantage of this grace period, and are then found to be in the U.S. illegally, will thereafter and forever forfeit the privilege of attaining citizenship.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by WTFover]

reply to post by WTFover


Well, illegal aliens are proven enemies. They enter the USA illegally , take jobs, then with the money earned from that job they send it back to their mother country so that their relatives can have a better life. This costs the treasury more since they have to print more money which cost US more money. There was in a thread on here a while back where the Federal Reserve was asked how much money is unaccounted for and they didnt know. Because that money is in foreign countries....

Originally posted by Wolf321


The leadership in this country is psychotic or treasonous. Either way, they need to go.

The leadership in our country is treasonous.

And has been for the last 40-50? years. This drive to erode the borders is not a Democratic or a Republican issue. It is a corporate issue, they want national borders to fall. They are and have been pursuing this agenda here in the US and around the globe for probably 100 years or better.

We need to get corporate money OUT of the elections, and we need to ensure that the media covers alternative candidates, rather than only offering us the two corporate talking heads.

And we need to try our politicians for treason when they fail to uphold our Constitution or act in ways that threaten the sovereignty of the US as a nation.

reply to post by projectvxn


oh so you had refugee status, i guess that makes you better than the illegal aliens. so things were horrible in your country? how come you and your parents didnt stay there to make it better?

when another latino walks down the street do you judge him or her based on their possible immigration status?

i'm sorry but it really makes me sick when legal immigrants take the high road over the illegals, they came here for a better life and to work hard. just like your family did, and if they could get here for the price your family came, they would fill out the paperwork and gladly pay the hundreds of dollars to come here legally as well.

i believe illegal immigration needs to be stopped and the numbers are now a burden to our society. for the ones that are already here, i believe they should be allowed some sort of amnesty following a background check, proof that they are working, proof that they can pass an english course, and payment or a garnishment of future wages to pay a fine for coming here illegaly.

reply to post by WTFover


Your outrage is noted my friend. It is interesting how one single issue can serve as a microcosmic mirror reflecting the problem of a many issues. Like chronic illness, that is a slow and steady erosion of health, The U.S. has been chronically ill for more than 100 years now. The more recent problems with immigration can be traced, in a large part to the failures of NAFTA, and indeed, the failures of the Mexican government, a government that serves as a model and clear goal for our own U.S. government who have embraced corruption as if it were an achievement to be proud of.

The Mexican government has a long history of corruption, so long that many nationals from that country have simply just come to accept that corruption as being business as usual. It should be of no surprise that a federal, and even some state governments in the U.S. who aspire to the levels of corruption seen in Mexico, would want people here who accept that corruption as the norm. Further, as Congress continues to discover, the idea of disarming the people will continue to be met with fierce resistance, and when seeking to gain control over the people heavily armed, wedge issues become an important strategy.

As wedge issues go, illegal immigration has become an important and defining issue, and the recent Arizona Bill serves as yet another reflection of the political landscape nationally, and how increasingly a federal government willfully moves in directions contrary to the will of the people. Battle lines continue to be drawn, and the clear and present failures of the U.S. federal government become glaring contrasts to their ambitious programs that have dubious Constitutional authority, while they continue to fail at what Constitutional authority they do have, and this glaring difference need be disguised as best as possible, so anything that government can do to deflect the issue, and frame it in general terms such as racism and rogue states, is in their best interest...not the peoples best interest, which is supposedly why the federal government exists, but in the best interest of a growing population of tax feeders who vehemently believe it is their divine right to prosper by collecting more of our money.

While the economy, described by the sycophants of government as a modest recovery, continues to flounder, heated issues such as illegal immigration become ever more important in the seedy magicians bag of tricks, while the divine right advocates continue to plunder and encroach more and more upon the rights of all people. The U.S. has engaged in clear and undeniable empire building, and when tyrants seek to build empires, enforcing immigration becomes antithetical to their goals. Of course, empires were never built on the notion of protection of rights, and with the U.S. it is no different. What good is toppling a madman in a foreign country, if when done by the U.S., the new constitutional government in place rejects The Constitution for the United States, with its Bill of Rights, as an appropriate model, and instead adopts a constitution that continues to reflect the divisions of that people?

It may seem to be off topic, this effort to pull back from a concentration of trees and take a look at the whole forest, but when one does pull back and take a look at the forest from those trees, it is more than evident that the forest is ablaze and very little effort being made to quell this forest fire. What is to be done, when the solution to the problems of illegal immigration becomes criminalizing those who hire illegal immigrants, while those who legislate this criminalization roundly approve of the Executive branch's willful failure to keep this illegal immigration kept at a minimum? Does it not serve the master well to blame his subjects for his own failures? Do not the nobles and elites who so often praise their king benefit from criminalizing their subjects, while debating the value of granting amnesty to a new generation of subjects?

We live in nation today where notions of self government are radical ideas, and citizens arrest frowned upon, yet those who hire employees not only expected to enforce immigration law, but to enforce income taxation, and indeed, act as tax collectors themselves. The many contradictions of the tyrants are apparent to anyone paying attention, and it remains, as it will continue to be, that the tyrants will always act in ways to destroy all that of which they seek to control. It is not enough, my friend, to be outraged, it is imperative we rely upon our weapons of words, and demonstrate that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword, while doing what we can as individuals to fight the tyrants.

Those who cross here illegally may not be tyrants themselves, but if they come here worshiping tyrants then they have chosen their side, and have just as willingly agreed to the battle lines, and as it always was, this has never been about race, nor religion, nor even wealth, and has always been about ideology. In the war of ideas, it is imperative that those who can facilitate better understanding of ideas, stay the course. Where illegal immigration continually outpaces legal immigration, there should be, and for the most part, there is no argument that governments have failed. When faced with this failure, we can continue to make the same mistakes over and over again, each time expecting a different result, or we can adopt a saner method and not just demand the necessary changes that would reflect sanity, but use our own free will and right to make these changes ourselves.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
oh so you had refugee status, i guess that makes you better than the illegal aliens.

If I may... That is quite an assumption, on your part. The person to whom you have directed your post, and his family, have done far more than to just "pay" the costs of becoming naturalized citizens. I'll leave it to you to research his past posts and threads, to reach that, obvious conclusion.

Now, in relating your claim to others who have respected our laws and legally came to the U.S... Yes, it does make them better (if you consider obeying the laws of a sovereign land, being better, and I assume you do) If you were the owner of a retail store, would you not consider the person who respects your property and purchases your products through the appropriate channels, better than one who simply walks in to your store, removes an item from your shelf and flips you the bird as he walks past your register and out the door?

reply to post by WTFover


you only pasted that sentence and not the rest. you have not commented on anything else i wrote. i'll wait to see what he responds before i comment further. btw your analogy is one sided, what if they come to your store work there tail off and respect you and your store never once stealing? i want to meet people in the middle on this issue, sometimes i feel like there is no willingless to compromise on this issue. its also whats messing america up the division and red state blue state crap.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
reply to post by WTFover

 

you only pasted that sentence and not the rest. you have not commented on anything else i wrote. i'll wait to see what he responds before i comment further. btw your analogy is one sided, what if they come to your store work there tail off and respect you and your store never once stealing? i want to meet people in the middle on this issue, sometimes i feel like there is no willingless to compromise on this issue. its also whats messing america up the division and red state blue state crap.

You are mixing the metaphors and misrepresenting what WTFover presented. His argument was that the customer who enters a business and respectfully purchases a product will obviously be viewed as being better than the thief who is not a customer, just a thief. Employment has nothing to do with that analogy. There is a Marxist tinge to your mixing of metaphors that seeks to frame everything as being a distinction between bourgeois and labor. Such a flavor is precisely what defines much of the division between this red state and blue state crap.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


if compromise and negotiation is your idea of marxist values than i guess you can call me a full fledged commie!!! lol i do hold union job local 705 teamsters baby, so lets see i'm wearing a red shirt, umm no, i hold values from all different idealogies and i have come to the conclusion that there can never be a "fair" government unless g-d the almighty was here on earth holding court.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


Okay... I'll try this approach, then.

How would you feel about the person who, in the middle of the night while your family is sleeping soundly within the confines of your home, slides open a window, which you inadvertently left unlatched, and removes your television, your stereo, some food from the fridge, your kid's Ipod, etc.? But, before he leaves, he puts a couple hundred bucks on the dining table?

Does that seem more descriptive?

By the way, by compromise do you mean to completely accept your way of thinking? If I recall correctly, that is what has cost many a union member his/her job. Demanding but seldom compromising.

I have written before, I welcome all who come to the U.S., seeking a better life and being given the same opportunities for success as I have, so long as they follow protocol and properly complete the requirements for becoming a naturalized citizen, and then fully assimilate and hold dear the values of a United States citizen.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by WTFover]

[edit on 23-5-2010 by WTFover]

reply to post by JacKatMtn


This is called, simply, our American government is refusing to do what we elected them for, and, further, they are breaking the law, and further, they are breaking their oath the uphold the Constitution. What does an employer do with an employee refuses to do their job?

Let's recap, we have a attorney general that can't read, a president who cannot stand to hear the truth, and the head of ICE that refuses to do his job. That about it?

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

if compromise and negotiation is your idea of marxist values than i guess you can call me a full fledged commie!!! lol i do hold union job local 705 teamsters baby, so lets see i'm wearing a red shirt, umm no, i hold values from all different idealogies and i have come to the conclusion that there can never be a "fair" government unless g-d the almighty was here on earth holding court.

Compromise is useless and one only need look to The Constitution for the United States of America and the compromise of the three fifths clause to see all that is wrong with compromise. Negotiation is preferable, but if you can't negotiate your own contract and require a union to do it for you, then this speaks volumes to your ability to negotiate for yourself, and it makes sense then that you embrace the imprudent strategy of compromise, and then seek to hold up compromise as being a useful strategy. It makes even further sense that you would misrepresent WTFover's words and attempt to frame the issue as being between labor and the bourgeois.

reply to post by WTFover


oh your from texas, awesome i have a lot of family in texas! we are against illegal immigration, the thing is we are hispanic and we have a soft spot in our hearts for the illegals, we know that they are not all thieves, and criminals etc etc. we know that the majority come here to work hard and have better lives. go back and re-read my post and the criteria i think could be a reasonable amnesty for the illegals. the thing is you are painting all illegals as thieves right off the bat, so i'm not sure if i can ever change your mind on that.