Obama On Immigration Reform: 'Let's Go Get It Done'

Good for Arizona. I wish them luck and hope they succeed in that, and it should be the law throughout all of America. It's quite incredible that it's not.

As for the Southern Poverty Laughingstock Center link you provided, I long ago exposed their money-grabbing scamming (disguised as civil rights activism) by illustrating how even liberal media (the Nation, Harpers, et al) have written about how they scare the wits out of already, fearful liberals by inundatng them with scare talk about mostly impotent hate groups (KKK, American Nazis, etc), thereby sucking millions$$ out of them. And if anyone would like a very easy refutation of the so-called "10 Myths About Immigration" of this link, just let me know. I'll be happy to oblige.

 

Neither can their school systems, their law enforcements, their prison system, their welfare budgets, their environmental control, their trade imbalance, their roads & highways, their govt agencies, their resource supply, and of course last but certainly not least, their language/cultural identity, already a train wreck with 2 languages trying to squeeze themselves into one country. Like they really need a third, right ? Imagine how long the telephone recordings will be with 3 languages muddying them up ? Sheeesh.

 

Many can also be shown to have entered the US illegally > A CRIME punishable by imprisonment + fines. Border cameras record them entering (EWI), and computer facial recognition can nail them like fingerprints.

 

Unquestionably. That money they earn and SEND from the US, is Mexico's second largest source of income. Oh, you did mean Mexico's economy, right ?

 

All obliterated by legions of 10 year old, American 5th graders, who know that just because some big businesses (often wrongly referred to as "the economy") profit from cheap labor, that isn't necessarily good for the American people, millions of whom remain unemployed because of that cheap, foreign labor. So while the greed freaks, happy in their mansions$$, may wish to call all this "a net benefit to the economy", even schoolkids know that "net benefit" is primarily talking about the greed freaks, and not everyone else who make up the overwhelming majority of America.

Net benefit to an economy could well be a net disaster to a country. Some countries have enormous net benefits to "the economy", and have 1% of the population living in mansions on wealthy estates, while 99% of the country lives in poverty.

Also, while we're obliterating the "net benefit to the economy" one wonders if the illustrious economists ever even bothered to note the $40 Billion/year being lost from it by remittances$$. And what other criteria they left out when formulating their conclusions ? I've seen too many hot-shot studies bandied about, only to find out in the end, that the study is horsefeathers, due to a failure to include ALL relevant cause factors. Ho hum. What else is new ?

 

If you actually believe that assinine analysis, then you deserve each other.

 

Your little dog & pony show is exposed. You're BUSTED!

(plus how could they even PROVIDE any medical care, when they're all speaking different languages ? )

 

I know [MENTION=54036]protectionist[/MENTION], we've had our differences...............we still haven't decided which finger to pick our noses with, but I take that as a downright kindly compliment. Thanks

- - - Updated - - -

heck, that makes me wanna add him to my friends list.............hey, protectionist, what sayeth thou?

 

I say I just accepted you to my friends list (with honors)

 

Sure, do it. If you don't like it prove me wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Aw, it's almost like you didn't even talk about what I said and instead attempted an insult.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, but that's apples and oranges.

 

Apples and Oranges.

 

Let’s look at this from the perspective of the court system. If I am the one going against you in court, it is a civil matter, if the government is taking you to court, whether it is State or Federal, it is criminal matter.

In civil law, a private party (a corporation or individual person) files the lawsuit and becomes the plaintiff. In criminal law, the litigation is always filed by the government, who is called the prosecution.

Criminal law is much better known to laymen than civil law. They often misapply principles from criminal law to situations in civil (e.g., tort) law, which results in their misunderstanding.

Illegally entering the US is a crime (entry without inspection, i.e. “Violators of Conditions of Entry&#8221. Unlawful presence is an infraction (legally entered visa overstay, i.e. "Nonimmigrant Status Violators"). Both violations are removable offenses under the Immigration Act. As deportable aliens are not citizens of the U.S., they do not have the same rights as a U.S. citizen or Legal Permanent Residents. Their deportation hearing takes place before an immigration judge. Since the penalty is deportation and/or a fine and/or jail time (both civil and criminal penalties), many people think of the Immigration Court as a civil court. In fact, the Immigration Court is a criminal court, as it is the government prosecuting the offense.

But immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (As a result, the consequence of violating your immigration status is deportation.) Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens. Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts.

When deportable aliens are prosecuted under criminal law, instead of being expelled through an administrative proceeding, those accused have the right to a jury trial and all the rules of evidence apply as mandated by the Due Process Clause. The government is burdened with "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and the following punishment may actually be considered a Misdemeanor as Section 1325 suggests below; “for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.”

Imagine the cost and the caseload, that's why “Deportable Aliens” are encouraged to sign a document admitting their status and quickly be removed under immigration proceedings vs. waiting here for a criminal hearing which could take up to 2 years, all the time they remain on an immigration hold in jail, awaiting their court date. Most sign so they don't have to sit in jail and can be deported expediently.

Deportable aliens in detention centers are not being held on criminal law charges, they are being held on Administrative Law charges, for which the Government can hold them for a period of time.

The Government has the choice to prosecute for a criminal charge, i.e. document fraud/forgery, for which the Government must now provide burden of proof. Or to plea deal it down to, sign this paper and be barred for 3 - 10 years and if caught you will be charged with a 'felony' as an 'Administrative Violation'.


The Administrative Violation relieves the Government of having to provide any 'rights' to the 'Illegal Alien', thus detention center or immediate deportation, depending on country of origin.

The Criminal Charge would require the "Deportable Alien" to remain in the custody of our criminal system until his/her court date, which could be as long as 2 years in jail. Most "Aliens" opt for the sign and leave.

 

no, just trying to see if you mean what you say. You're pro illegal immigration. I'm calling you out. put 'em up in your house ...set a fine upstanding example of your preaching. Move 'em in. Pay for it yourself, then tell us that your cup runneth over with kindness
In other words, don't write checks with your mouth your ass can't cash

 

1. "Most immigrants are here illegally." I haven't heard anyone say that.

2. "It's just as easy to enter the country legally today as it was when my ancestors arrived." Haven't heard anyone say that, either.

3. "There’s a way to enter the country legally for anyone who wants to get in line." Not a myth at all. See Post # 11, in this thread.

4. "My ancestors learned English, but today’s immigrants refuse." Not a myth. The site speaks about "immigrants" but with ILLEGAL immigrants (who number in the millions) there is a much higher % who refuse to learn English. In contacts with them, I have had to speak Spanish 90% of the time.

5. "Today’s immigrants don’t want to blend in and become “Americanized.” Again, the statement (speaking of "immigrants") diverges from the title (which speaks of "immigration", which includes illegal immigration). Generally, illegals DON'T want to be Americanized, and political liberals foster this with Spanish phone recordings, voting ballots, etc.

6. "Immigrants take good jobs from Americans." Not a myth. They certainly DO take good jobs from Americans. The statement says > "Between 2000 and 2005, the supply of low-skilled American-born workers slipped..." But that wasn't when unemployment was really high. Since the recession (2007), unemployment has skyrocketed, and a "decrease in the number of Americans willing or available to take low-paying jobs" (if it ever was true) is sure not the case now. Americans are taking any job they can get, and many are working 2 part-time jobs, and some in occupations very dirty, tough, and dangerous, without an immigrant in sight (ex, coal miners, firefighters, troops in Afghanistan)

7. "Undocumented immigrants bring crime." Good lord! This is being called a myth ? Pheeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle). How absurd. Any time you bring millions of people into a country some % of them are going add on to the crime count. The statement only talks about crime "rate" which is in %s. That's not the point. No matter what the crime RATE is among immigrants, they ADD more crime to what was there before. And again, the statement about crime rates decreasing while immigration increased is misleading. It mentions crime rates NATIONALLY, which have decreased primarily due to concealed weapon law profligation. But in areas where illegal aliens are dense in population, crime rates there have been astronomical, and just illegals entering the country EWI, are crimes. http://www.fncic-voiacm.org/

8. "Undocumented immigrants don’t pay taxes but still get benefits." HA HA. Oh, I'm gonna have a field day with this one. 1) Millions of them work off the books and thus pay no taxes. How in hell does Social Security know how many of them there are ? You think the illegals go to the SS office and fill out a survey form ? Pheeeeww! We all know they work OTB. And pay sales taxes ? Mexico alone receives $25 Billion/year in remittances$$$ (their second largest source of income). Sales ? They are happening in Mexico, where immigrants (legal and illegal) wire their paycheck $$. Property taxes from renting houses ? Are you kidding ? The last bunch of them I talked to had 16 people living in a 3 bedroom house. If the jobs they're in were held by Americans, those 16 jobs would be getting 10 houses filled, instead of one. Property tax LOSS is what's happening here. Last but not least, "not welfare or food stamps" ? They get both in huge numbers. 1) they use the anchor baby racket to get as much as they want. 2) they get false documentation to slip through the citizen barrier, and get all the $$ they want 3) the Center for Immigration Studies found that "57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 1 used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children."

http://www.cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011

9. "The United States is being overrun by immigrants like never before." the idea that anchor baby parents are being deported in large numbers, is preposterous. The anchor baby anchors the alien parents to US soil, where they then help themselves to a lifetime of benefits. The anchor baby racket is alive and well, and is not a myth.

10. "Anyone who enters the country illegally is a criminal." Thjis is being referred to as a "myth" ? EARTH TO SOUTHERN POVERTY LAUGHINGSTOCK CENTER: Entering Without Inspection (illegally) is a CRIME. No ifs, ands, or buts. That makes the people who do it a criminal.

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part VIII > § 1325

§ 1325. Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who
(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
(3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

 

I note he hasn't been back..............................yet

 

I may be cynical but you see people claiming that deportations are up under Obama and I have no doubt it is done as a political calculation to get illegal immigrants to start protesting like they have been doing lately so democrats can claim those against amnesty are just racists.

 

agreed...with so much smoke and mirrors, hide Willy, chase the check, and checking their backstabbing record, hell, who has time to pay real attention to the illegal immigration problem?

 

you're welcome.

Recent studies have irrefutably shown that appreciation of another >>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<< can be a strong bond.

 

"Studies" don't irrefutably show anything except how biased and invalid they can be. Only real valid studies ? >> the statistics of your eyes and ears (which don't lie).

 

the impact of participating far outweighs statistical impacts. Trying to explain to someone how pizza tastes to someone that has never tasted it, is near to impossible. But someone who has tasted pizza knows exactly how it tastes.
If they want them here, let them open their doors and let them in, pay for raising their babies, education, medical, food and shelter, then buy them phones and cars. The, if they are correct, let them submit a bill to the government for their services instead of requiring everyone else to sponsor their wet dreams.

 

Arizona County Settles 2 Lawsuits Vs. Sheriff


http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/arizona-county-settle-lawsuits-sheriff-21294070


Arizona's most populous county agreed Friday to pay more than $7 million to settle lawsuits by a former Maricopa County official and two newspaper executives accusing Sheriff Joe Arpaio of abuse of power.

In the first suit, former Supervisor Don Stapley agreed to accept $3.5 million to drop his case accusing Arpaio, former County Attorney Andrew Thomas and others of pursuing trumped-up criminal cases against him.

A separate $3.75 million settlement was reached with executives of the Phoenix New Times, who sued Arpaio's office after they were arrested in 2007 for publishing information about a secret grand jury subpoena demanding information on its stories and online readers.

Stapley's settlement brings closure to a string of lawsuits filed by numerous other high-ranking county officials and judges who claimed Arpaio and Thomas wrongfully targeted them in corruption investigations between 2008 and 2010.

In the newspaper executives' lawsuit, Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin accused Arpaio's office of violating their constitutional rights.

"Who thinks you can arrest American journalists for what they write?" Lacey said Friday after the settlement's announcement. "It's just remarkable."

Lacey said that while the settlement was good news, he would like to see Arpaio held accountable for his actions.

"This guy has just run wild and the county has continued to write checks for his abuses without curtailing the abuses," he said.

Arpaio wasn't immediately available Friday for comment. But one of his aides, Deputy Chief Jack MacIntyre, said, "It was an economic decision by the county Board of Supervisors" and it made "better economic sense" than going to court.

MacIntyre said the New Times executives originally demanded about $90 million to settle their lawsuit and Stapley sought more than $20 million.

"It's really good to close those two pages and move forward," MacIntyre added.

Michael Manning, who represents both Stapley and the New Times executives, did not immediately return calls seeking comment. Thomas also didn't return calls.

A joint statement by the four county supervisors said, "We are convinced that settlement of Mr. Stapley's suit protects the taxpayers from even larger cost down the road, and hopefully closes the final chapter in what has been a very sad and damaging period in our county's history."

The Stapley lawsuit cost county taxpayers about $1.8 million, officials said, while the New Times case cost nearly $438,000 in legal fees and expenses.

The Stapley deal brings the county's costs for settlements of officials' lawsuits to at least $7.7 million.

The county has appealed a $975,000 settlement with Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox. The county also has forked over $5.5 million in legal fees and other costs in the lawsuits.

Officials and judges who filed the lawsuits say they were targeted because they were in legal and political disputes with the sheriff and Thomas over cuts to agency budgets, a plan to build a new court complex and other issues. Arpaio and Thomas contended they were trying to root out corruption in county government.

Between 2008 and 2009, criminal charges were filed against Stapley, Wilcox and a judge, but those prosecutions quickly collapsed in court. Thomas and another prosecutor were eventually disbarred. Arpaio's office was accused of shoddy police work that targeted political adversaries, including officials and judges who were investigated but weren't charged with crimes.



... more ...





Taxpayers are paying a fortune because of Republican Arpaio's stupidity. Well, in fact, it shows how stupid they are to vote him into office.