Hispanics fear profiling under new Arizona law

Apr 24, 2010 Full story: www.sunnewspapers.net 193,333

Arodi Berrelleza isn't one of the targets of Arizona's new law cracking down on illegal immigration a ' he's a U.S. citizen, a high school student from Phoenix.

[A.P.] Phoenix April 24th 2010 sun news paper.net A legal 18 year old is in fear when he's with his friends.. Reported in the article His fear is racial profiling. Advocates plan on fighting the alleged anti civil rights abuse... Full Story
Quirky Uno

Anaheim, CA

#204520 Jun 16, 2012
Nordic Princess wrote:
<quoted text>
You're better than me Mickey! lol lol
Tell us something we don't know, Sordid Princess.

“Extremely me”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#204522 Jun 16, 2012
EAGLE EYE1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Rubio was putting together a bill for the Senate to take up similar to what obama did.. The difference is it would have went through the proper channels.. No Jack obama just wanted the credit for something to pander for votes..
I just don't care for POTUS using a executive order on hot button issues.. In fact I don't care for when Romney talks of using it to repeal HCR either.. Especially when he knows the SCOTUS will likely strike down parts of the law.. There are proper channels to go through is all I am saying..
Eagle
I've been talking for a very long time about my concern that the "no compromise/my way or the highway" approach to illegal immigration had already failed and the administration would simply start enacting their own policies if we didn't get some serious leadership willing to sit down and work out a reasonable deal.

Well Eagle, this is it and to be honest "I told ya so" doesn't make me feel one bit better about the whole situation.

The fact that Rubio was already making some news for trying to put together something similar to what Obama has done makes it damn near impossible for any significant opposition to come from the republican side.

I haven't said whether or not I support the policy and I haven't said whether or not I thought it was done the right way.

I said that I wasn't surprised considering the recent policy changes the administration had announced and I said that I think we are going to have to live with Obama's new policies on immigration for a very long time whether we like it or not.
freebird

Long Beach, CA

#204523 Jun 16, 2012
Angels Flight wrote:
Who knew?
source: Immigration lessons for the U.S. from around the world
Australia, which only 15 years ago had strong strains of nativism and xenophobia dominating its political culture, now has more than a quarter of its population as foreign born – double America’s share – and is thriving because of the economic growth and cultural diversity.
More fuzzy math, and they are talking about immigrants and not illegal aliens. We take in more immigrants than any country in the world.

How many immigrants went to China, Vietnam, Mexico, etc? Are you saying that China would be booming more than it is now if they weren't native and xenophobic? Maybe that's the problem with Mexico. ROTFLMAO!!!

“dystopian proles”

Since: Feb 09

ludovico

#204524 Jun 16, 2012
Nordic Princess wrote:
<quoted text>
Twink is NTRs designated trollop. Lately, she cannot agree fast enough with NTR.
If NTR is walking and stops abruptly for no reason, Twink will have a broke nose
Suffering jealousy in silence is sweet if everyone knows about it.

“From The Desert To The Sea”

Since: Sep 09

To All Across The Lands

#204525 Jun 16, 2012
freebird wrote:
<quoted text>
More fuzzy math, and they are talking about immigrants and not illegal aliens. We take in more immigrants than any country in the world.
How many immigrants went to China, Vietnam, Mexico, etc? Are you saying that China would be booming more than it is now if they weren't native and xenophobic? Maybe that's the problem with Mexico. ROTFLMAO!!!
How many? Are you saying that is what I am saying? Maybe "what" is the problem with Mexico?

“Extremely me”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#204526 Jun 16, 2012
freebird wrote:
This is what happens when you are so educated that you don't have any common sense. You are so shielded from reality, that you can question if the guy went too far.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/061...
Is Texas dad who killed man to protect his 5-year-old daughter a criminal?
A Texas grand jury must decide whether to charge a father who killed a man after finding the man molesting his 5-year-old daughter. Does deadly force extend to a father protecting his daughter?
In Shiner, Texas, there’s little doubt among residents that a 23-year-old man who reportedly killed a man he found molesting his 5-year-old daughter in a horse barn should be hailed as a hero, not denounced as a criminal.
Yet some legal experts question why the father hasn’t yet been arrested and charged with murder, saying vigilante justice, no matter how the circumstances come about, can’t be tolerated in a civil society.
A Texas grand jury will have to deal with those questions next week as it takes a deeper look at the circumstances of the killing, and whether the father was justified in hitting the man so hard with his fists that he died.
Yet some legal experts question why the father hasn’t yet been arrested and charged with murder, saying vigilante justice, no matter how the circumstances come about, can’t be tolerated in a civil society.
A Texas grand jury will have to deal with those questions next week as it takes a deeper look at the circumstances of the killing, and whether the father was justified in hitting the man so hard with his fists that he died.
"...A Texas grand jury will have to deal with those questions next week as it takes a deeper look at the circumstances of the killing..."

We were talking about this here at home earlier today and if the accounts of the story are true then the dad didn't do anything wrong.

I'm assuming that's what the grand jury is all about.

Right now we have the dad and the child as witnesses. The other man is dead.

With the loss of a life they should probably look over the details just to make sure it happened the way we've been told and then (hopefully) they will tell the dad he is free to go on with his life.

Since: Dec 11

Fort Worth, TX

#204527 Jun 16, 2012
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>You have opinions. You resent when somebody backs up their opinions with facts (the articles that annoy you). That's just too bad. Back up your own opinions. Every numbnut in the world has an opinion, but that doesn't mean they have a clue WTH they're even talking about - like this post of yours. Stop lying. Everybody here knows I wanted no such thing as an executive order creating a de facto Dream Act. I wanted the act in context with CIR. Blah, blah, blah. Lie, lie, lie.
BTW. I don't have a plight. You have an agenda, and I can't help you with it. Trot along and annoy somebody else.
GREAT!!!
Send him OUR way...!

Thanks NTR!

Since: Jan 11

Milton, MA

#204528 Jun 16, 2012
JackMcIntosh wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been talking for a very long time about my concern that the "no compromise/my way or the highway" approach to illegal immigration had already failed and the administration would simply start enacting their own policies if we didn't get some serious leadership willing to sit down and work out a reasonable deal.
Well Eagle, this is it and to be honest "I told ya so" doesn't make me feel one bit better about the whole situation.
The fact that Rubio was already making some news for trying to put together something similar to what Obama has done makes it damn near impossible for any significant opposition to come from the republican side.
I haven't said whether or not I support the policy and I haven't said whether or not I thought it was done the right way.
I said that I wasn't surprised considering the recent policy changes the administration had announced and I said that I think we are going to have to live with Obama's new policies on immigration for a very long time whether we like it or not.
Hey Jack. I'm trying catch up on exactly what transpired with Obama's executive order but the articles I've seen so far don't seem to contain a lot of substance. Do you happen to have any of the specifics? I'm curious about the provisions. Is there a mechanism to prevent chain migration? Are there any standards concerning academic achievements (i.e. if somebody scrapes by with low grades but still manages to graduate will they qualify?). Has there been any indication that this could open the doors to in-state tuition rates?
freebird

Long Beach, CA

#204530 Jun 16, 2012
Angels Flight wrote:
<quoted text>How many? Are you saying that is what I am saying? Maybe "what" is the problem with Mexico?
Maybe I should have ask what you were saying, instead of assuming that you agreed with the article. So what were you saying/asking?
:)

"Maybe "what" is the problem with Mexico?"

That they are nativist and xenophobic and should have more immigration.
freebird

Long Beach, CA

#204531 Jun 16, 2012
JackMcIntosh wrote:
<quoted text>
"...A Texas grand jury will have to deal with those questions next week as it takes a deeper look at the circumstances of the killing..."
We were talking about this here at home earlier today and if the accounts of the story are true then the dad didn't do anything wrong.
I'm assuming that's what the grand jury is all about.
Right now we have the dad and the child as witnesses. The other man is dead.
With the loss of a life they should probably look over the details just to make sure it happened the way we've been told and then (hopefully) they will tell the dad he is free to go on with his life.
I was mostly responding to the idiots that said this.

"Yet some legal experts question why the father hasn’t yet been arrested and charged with murder, saying vigilante justice, no matter how the circumstances come about, can’t be tolerated in a civil society."

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#204533 Jun 16, 2012
Hispanic wrote:
<quoted text>Still boring....zzzz
Well, if you don't like it..........do something about it, jose!
No, because YOU, are boring, and afraid. I've hit you right in the face with something that you don't like, and it's stuck in your craw!
Live with it, boy, that's life and you can't change it. I know there are people like you, and in the end..........they lose, just like you will..........and just like you are........A loser.
LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, Sorry about that, chuckles!!
freebird

Long Beach, CA

#204534 Jun 16, 2012
Richard Guerra wrote:
<quoted text>
No compromise is not your strategy? Ok Sparky!!! Now you're flip flopping or you came under an extreme case of amnesia.
Let's take a review of two excerpts from your previous comments on how you've asserted yourself as a "no compromise" kind of fellow:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Now back to your blather...
You act as if immigration law is written in stone, which the history of immigration in this country has proven it's not. Not only that, but this nation alone was founded on settler colonialism AKA illegal immigration so don't give me your bigotry masked as patriotism eg. you hate illegals. The United States obtained the majority of its territory mostly through dishonest & violent removal of the indigenous population. Ironically, people like you maintain the idea that America is ours inclusively and that it is not only detrimental but immoral, un-American, traitorous or an attack on US sovereignty for foreigners to enter it.
Of course we hate illegals. Look at what you said about the history of our country, which happens to be most countries of the world history, including Mexico's. We pass laws so that doesn't happen again, or are you saying that we should be invaded because of what happened in the past? Maybe the new invaders will take over and don't like any Americans, including you.
freebird

Long Beach, CA

#204536 Jun 16, 2012
Richard Guerra wrote:
<quoted text>
The 1986 amnesty was actually a success. It granted millions of then illegal aliens paths to citizenship. Today many of those people are hard working Americans who pay taxes and contribute to society.
Now the enforcement of the new immigration laws were an utter fail. Had the 112th Congress & President all the way back to 1986 actually took the time to enforce those laws, we'd not be here scratching our heads and wondering how this all happened.
So let me reiterate this for you, amnesty did exactly what it said it would do, the lack of enforcing those new laws was the fail. Amnesty and enforcement of the law are two separate issues.
We can have amnesty without enforcement or we can have enforcement without amnesty but you cannot say that amnesty was a fail. It did what it was supposed to do.
It was a success if you mean that the American citizen was deceived by our government and was the only reason that it was passed to begin with. That's why us anti's don't trust them now. Been there done that.
freebird

Long Beach, CA

#204538 Jun 16, 2012
Richard Guerra wrote:
<quoted text>
You should no longer hate the illegals who recently received immunity. They're not actually illegal anymore. That's from a direct executive order. Now go on and tell me how horrid this rule of law is in spite of you previously advocating a rule of law for this Nation.
You see, you only throw that cliche "rule of law" rhetoric when it works in favor of your agenda but now that Obama has made illegals into legals yet you seem intent on disregarding that rule of law.
Actually it is you with an agenda. I just want our immigration laws enforced and not our immigration laws made by one man (Obama).

“Extremely me”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#204539 Jun 16, 2012
Deece_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Jack. I'm trying catch up on exactly what transpired with Obama's executive order but the articles I've seen so far don't seem to contain a lot of substance. Do you happen to have any of the specifics? I'm curious about the provisions. Is there a mechanism to prevent chain migration? Are there any standards concerning academic achievements (i.e. if somebody scrapes by with low grades but still manages to graduate will they qualify?). Has there been any indication that this could open the doors to in-state tuition rates?
Hey Deece. I stepped out.

I found this...

"Under his executive order, young people who would be eligible under the DREAM Act to remain in the U.S. can now receive work permits and protection from deportation for two years, with the possibility of renewal."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06...

I haven't found the actual text of the executive order yet.

Has anybody else seen it?

From what I understand people under the age of thirty who qualifiy for this "immunity" could legally attend school and apply for student loans.

Undocumented workers that qualify would be allowed to work legally.

“Spark The Fire Within”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#204541 Jun 16, 2012
Terry Buckeye wrote:
<quoted text>
Condensed for space
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/immigration/T...
"1. I never said an illegal had “a right over any American citizen”."

No, you did not say it. You agreed with it.

"2. I have never said that our country should bow down and I don’t recall the President having said that either."

"Compromise with illegal foreigners and criminals is bowing down. One does not have to speak it. It is seen by their actions.

"3. I NEVER took an oath “to defend and compromise with illegal foreigners”. Nor would I expect any citizen of the U.S. to join me if I had."

No, you did not. If you took an oath, you are being derelict in that oath.

"4. Please, PLEASE show me a post where I called anyone a name other than the one by which they posted. If I condescend to a post, it is usually because I find the information, or the lack thereof, contemptible."

First off, stop your whining and begging. I find it to be "contemptible" for a man in uniform to whine and beg.
You have just admitted it with your statement of "other than the one by which they posted". Because you find information to be lacking is contemptible? Ever think of asking one to provide more information. Or perhaps the information is there and YOU lack the understanding. Condescending others for their opinion is what is contemptible. Ain't a single one of us who is better than the other. You come across as a pandering candyass. Example, "oh I like that, I copied it and sent it out to my reps too." "Thank you, you said it much better than I could ever have". Are you gay? Its okay if you are. I am just giving you a better understanding in how I perceive you and your posts.

"5. We do agree that there are too many unemployed in the U.S. and too many undocumented illegals."

No, we do not agree. I do not see the illegal foreigner as an "undocumented illegal's". What can I say? That is not a semantic I can get on board with. You are trying to cater to both sides and pandering is part of the problem in my opinion.

"6. I also don’t think we have the duty of educating someone who is in the country illegally."

That is good to hear. No dereliction of duty there. Hoorah!

"7. You presume to know much about upon what I put validity. For the record, I don’t know what illegals want because I haven’t talked to them."

I presume nothing. I went strictly by your post and what you wrote. You think it is necessary to talk to the illegal foreigners to see what they want? Work, money, free medical, low rent comes to mind. aka your life.

"8. Actually, my reaction to the President’s compromise was to immediately send off an email to the white house. I figure it’s a little more effective than your suggestion."

What was my suggestion?

"9. Again, you presume to know what I accept without once asking me. Had you asked, I’d have told you. Try it sometime."

I go by what I read. You are the author of what you write.

"10. My heritage isn’t black or white. Nor is it democrat or republican. My heritage is the values with which I was raised. Thankfully I overcame that incredibly destructive hatred and finally became a fully aware, free-thinking American. Kind of nice, huh?"

Whoosh. American is the Heritage in this country. Your color is irrelevant unless you make an issue of it. You are quick to pass judgment onto others and the jury is still out in regards to you being a free-thinking American. I see you more as a sniveling politically correct pandering candy ass.

“Life is short. Enjoy the ride”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#204542 Jun 16, 2012
- Sparky - wrote:
<quoted text>
"1. I never said an illegal had “a right over any American citizen”."
No, you did not say it. You agreed with it.
"2. I have never said that our country should bow down and I don’t recall the President having said that either."
"Compromise with illegal foreigners and criminals is bowing down. One does not have to speak it. It is seen by their actions.
"3. I NEVER took an oath “to defend and compromise with illegal foreigners”. Nor would I expect any citizen of the U.S. to join me if I had."
No, you did not. If you took an oath, you are being derelict in that oath.
"4. Please, PLEASE show me a post where I called anyone a name other than the one by which they posted. If I condescend to a post, it is usually because I find the information, or the lack thereof, contemptible."
First off, stop your whining and begging. I find it to be "contemptible" for a man in uniform to whine and beg.
You have just admitted it with your statement of "other than the one by which they posted". Because you find information to be lacking is contemptible? Ever think of asking one to provide more information. Or perhaps the information is there and YOU lack the understanding. Condescending others for their opinion is what is contemptible. Ain't a single one of us who is better than the other. You come across as a pandering candyass. Example, "oh I like that, I copied it and sent it out to my reps too." "Thank you, you said it much better than I could ever have". Are you gay? Its okay if you are. I am just giving you a better understanding in how I perceive you and your posts.
"5. We do agree that there are too many unemployed in the U.S. and too many undocumented illegals."
No, we do not agree. I do not see the illegal foreigner as an "undocumented illegal's". What can I say? That is not a semantic I can get on board with. You are trying to cater to both sides and pandering is part of the problem in my opinion.
"6. I also don’t think we have the duty of educating someone who is in the country illegally."
That is good to hear. No dereliction of duty there. Hoorah!
"7. You presume to know much about upon what I put validity. For the record, I don’t know what illegals want because I haven’t talked to them."
I presume nothing. I went strictly by your post and what you wrote. You think it is necessary to talk to the illegal foreigners to see what they want? Work, money, free medical, low rent comes to mind. aka your life.
"8. Actually, my reaction to the President’s compromise was to immediately send off an email to the white house. I figure it’s a little more effective than your suggestion."
What was my suggestion?
"9. Again, you presume to know what I accept without once asking me. Had you asked, I’d have told you. Try it sometime."
I go by what I read. You are the author of what you write.
......(snip)..
What a pouting sack you are. Terry isn't the only poster on these threads who passed that proposal along. But, you already know that. What none of us knows is if somebody else took any parts of that proposal and incorporated them with their own ideas and sent it along. I certainly invited folks to do exactly that if there was any part with which they agreed.

Here's where you go far afield. You think demanding enforcement is the answer. That approach not only hasn't worked since before the last big amnesty in 1986 (one of the reasons we had an amnesty), but in light of FACTS, it hasn't worked at all. Govt. won't cooperate. So, it's long been time to try something new besides intransigence. Try to keep up with reality.- facts.

Leave Terry's sexual preference out of your feeble attempt to smear him. It's Nunya'. I'm a woman, but I don't think that has one single thing to do with his reaction to the proposal. He has a mind of his own. You should try to borrow one from somebody. It couldn't hurt.

“Spark The Fire Within”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#204543 Jun 16, 2012
NTRPRNR1 wrote:
<quoted text>You have opinions. You resent when somebody backs up their opinions with facts (the articles that annoy you). That's just too bad. Back up your own opinions. Every numbnut in the world has an opinion, but that doesn't mean they have a clue WTH they're even talking about - like this post of yours. Stop lying. Everybody here knows I wanted no such thing as an executive order creating a de facto Dream Act. I wanted the act in context with CIR. Blah, blah, blah. Lie, lie, lie.
BTW. I don't have a plight. You have an agenda, and I can't help you with it. Trot along and annoy somebody else.
Don't get pissed with me, that I do not need an article to support my beliefs. My beliefs pretty much mirror our Constitution and Bill of Rights and Rule of Law. I have read many of your articles as well as the articles others have posted. All are very informative. I just do not agree with each and everyone of them.

I also am not going to let others tell me what they think is in my best interest. I'm all grown up and am very capable of making those decisions. What I do know, expecting the laws to be enforced is a better shot at reform than compromise is. Compromise is a weakness. I will never support compromising our sovereignty. Any executive order handed down lies solely on that POTUS, not me. The derelict of duties lie solely on our Congress, not me. We can't get them voted out. Then impeach their asses for their derelict of duties. It happens to many people in the private sector, our Congress is no different. We just need to have the ballz to see it through. We are becoming a weak country. A very weak country. You keep cheer leading for your messiah and I will continue to criticise him for his dereliction of duty.

“ON THE PROWL”

Since: May 08

Big Birds Nest..

#204544 Jun 16, 2012
NON COMPLACENT TWINK wrote:
GOP DELEGATES SUE TO BE FREE FROM ROMNEY
123 Republicans and counting want to be 'unbound' at national convention
Over 120 delegates to the Republican National Convention have joined a lawsuit against the GOP arguing they have been illegally coerced into choosing Mitt Romney for the party’s presidential nominee and demanding they be “unbound” to vote for another candidate instead.
The federal lawsuit, filed this week in U.S. District Court in California by mostly supporters of Ron Paul, demands the delegates be freed to “vote their conscience” for presidential nominee at the party’s August national convention in Tampa, Fla., rather than being “bound” to vote for a certain candidate, as many state party bylaws require, based on the primary elections and other delegate selection procedures.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/gop-delegates-sue-...
It doesn't matter Romney will be our next president..

Eagle

“ON THE PROWL”

Since: May 08

Big Birds Nest..

#204545 Jun 16, 2012
- Sparky - wrote:
<quoted text>
They treat him as if he is someone special because of his color. He is not. He was not qualified to compete for the ticket in the first place, he is not qualified to do the job now or the next four years. He has given nothing but false promises and hope which has ended in race and class wars amongst Americans.
But yet you voted for him little one.. Go figure..

Eagle

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US House of Representatives Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min MikeF 117,266
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 11 min Le Jimbo 11,088
Congressman Under Fire For 'Outlaw Divorce' Rem... (Jul '06) 13 min Swedenforever 25
Obama vows "relentless" fight against ISIS 16 min Le Jimbo 385
Rand Paul Blasts Obama on Civil Liberties (Mar '14) 21 min Le Jimbo 230
Secret Service director faces grilling over sec... 24 min Le Jimbo 3
Rand Paul: President Obama 'acts like he's a king' 26 min Le Jimbo 92

US House of Representatives People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE