Calls to boycott Arizona are spreading like a virus

[azhketh]

That happened because yesterday Mr. Obama had a close-doors meeting with Republicans.
And yes, although 1,200 is just a drop in the bucket, remember that the border got a lot of money during the Bush administration that expanded the fence, increased the number of agents, and improved technology. According to Janet Napolitano, the border is more secure than ever, which I find to be a little too optimistic on her part, although I haven't researched factual numbers about that claim.
Mr. Obama is trying to get Republicans to do something about the problem. So far, the party is the blockage for an Immigration Reform, even when 3/4 of the entire population wants something to be done about it. Go figure their mentality...

Because 'immigration reform' is code for amnesty.

 

[jpccusa]

Because 'immigration reform' is code for amnesty.

Please read this FactCheck article. Republicans stopped using that scare tactic a while ago, by the way. oke:

 

[jpccusa]

Not sure if you heard the whole report JP. McCain and other republicans requested 5000 troops and more money. 1200 is like throwing a band-aide on a gun shot wound. Though it does prove some progress, I wish all the of the politicians would get off their butts and do something about this issue.

Yes, I heard the whole report. All I have to say is that it is never enough to make them (Republicans) do something about the problem. They always want more without being flexible and without intention to compromise a little here and there to reach bipartisanship. It is quite frustrating actually (as polls across the country show). :headbang:

 

[wade]

Maybe we need more people like those in Arizona to say we're tired of waiting for you. You had your chance now we will handle it.

 

[tsst]

Yes, I heard the whole report. All I have to say is that it is never enough to make them (Republicans) do something about the problem. They always want more without being flexible and without intention to compromise a little here and there to reach bipartisanship. It is quite frustrating actually (as polls across the country show). :headbang:

JP you seem like a smart person. You can't honestly think lack of bipartisanship is a one-way street?!?! They, the Demicans or Republicrats which ever you support, are EQUALLY adept at being intentionally uncompromising.

 

[starsevol]

Doesn't JP remember Tip O'Neil?

 

[Buzzard]

Yes, I heard the whole report. All I have to say is that it is never enough to make them (Republicans) do something about the problem. They always want more without being flexible and without intention to compromise a little here and there to reach bipartisanship. It is quite frustrating actually (as polls across the country show). :headbang:

Compromise.... hmmmmm Okay hypothetical (and I hate to go this but) The states get invaded by another country, would you, roll over and be under there rule, or would you fight (physically or politically) to get your country back. I think you know what I would do. I would fight till I couldnt fight anymore, for myself, my children and my countrymen. Would you want California invaded and the Feds to only send a few fighting men or unleash the full potiential of the arm forces.

This is all AZ is doing. They have been invaded by illegal immigrants. All the Repubs wanted to do by asking for and not compromising is to kill the invasion in one swift blow. Not let them keep trickling in the country by only sending some, which will only cost more in the long run.

 

[TandJ]

This was well stated and said..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqd9WFOZH3g&feature=related

What the heck, someone understands..

 

[The_Thunderer]

Thanks for the link, Tim... What a great speech!

 

[DuneDiva]

McClintock's speech pretty much sums it up. Since I can't give out any more rep points today, I just want to say to Wade, Fred, Buzzard, ArpeggioAngel (sorry to both of you, I don't know your names) - I agree with about 97% of everything you all had to say throughout this thread. BTW - as a native Californian/San Diegan, I'd be thrilled if CA stood up the way AZ has. You truly have no idea what its like, unless you live in a border state! And now with that, I am exhausted from this thread!

 

[Dreamsnake]

I didn't read everything stated here. But if the problem lies within Mexico, the solution should also be there.

 

[tsst]

Very good speech in that video. I guess I stand corrected on my inference that something resembling sanity on immigration was unlikely to come from politicians in California. They must be calling for Mr McClintock's head in places like Berkeley, San Fran and SoCal. :shrugs:

 

[KJUN]

Yes, I heard the whole report. All I have to say is that it is never enough to make them (Republicans) do something about the problem. They always want more without being flexible and without intention to compromise a little here and there to reach bipartisanship. It is quite frustrating actually (as polls across the country show). :headbang:

That's pucky, and I hope you are smart enough to realize it. If your idea of "bipartisanship" is what the Democrats do (you know, propose a law, argue that the republicans don't compromise until they do, settle on the middle ground, then propose practically the same law again to get the REST of what they wanted, and then argue that the republicans refuse to compromise until they do one more time....and repeat, repeat, repeat until the Democrats force enough of a compromises until they get what they wanted in the first place) - then, well, I DON'T want any part of that! I don't want the republicans to keep being dumb enough to fall for it or stupid enough to be strong-armed into that tactic over and over again.

For the record, I'm NOT thinking of immigration laws in the above group of words. Neither of the main parties want to really do anything about it.

 

[jpccusa]

About the video, thanks Tim for posting it. I don't agree with Mr. McClintock's opinion that we don't need an immigration reform and enforcement is the solution, for the reasons previously discussed, but that can be summarized as being an unrealistic solution. His comparison of our immigration laws to Mexico's was dumb, since Mexico doesn't have such a problem with illegal immigration as we do (although Central Americans cross Mexico illegally to get to the US, and for some reason, are not detained or deported). Mexico have exodus while we, well, you know...
I do agree with him that Mexico's president can't criticize American policies in American territory while being supported by the US President.

As for bipartisanship, I am aware Dems do the same. I am aware Dems nowadays force they will upon Reps since they are the majority, although no longer the absolute majority. Perhaps we need more political parties to split this bipolarity that is very harmful to the country. :shrugs:

So here is my question: When Mr. Obama offered to send 1,200 troops to the border, even though that number could be perceived by many as being a fraction of what is actually needed, and keeping in mind all the money, technology, and personnel added in previous years to secure the border, wasn't he trying to reach bipartisanship? Wasn't he compromising and extending a hand across party lines expecting to receive a hand back?

 

[The_Thunderer]

So here is my question: When Mr. Obama offered to send 1,200 troops to the border, even though that number could be perceived by many as being a fraction of what is actually needed, and keeping in mind all the money, technology, and personnel added in previous years to secure the border, wasn't he trying to reach bipartisanship? Wasn't he compromising and extending a hand across party lines expecting to receive a hand back?

JP, I can see how you could see it that way... and probably should. I guess many of us (though I shouldn't speak for anyone but myself) see it as a "political gesture/calculated move" where he can SAY he's helping out and doing something about the problem when in reality, the number is so small, that he's not really doing anything at all...

IF he's really interested in helping out, tell Janet to restart the fence building... Send a more realistic number of troops; hmmmm... I think 10,000 would be great, but 5,000 would show me he's at least "extending a hand" to cross party lines. Then, he should say what I mentioned instead of AGREEING with the "great moral leader" President Calderone - that states - not only AZ now - are looking to protect their citizens where it is perceived that the Federal Government has been lax.

I think then, I could take him seriously. He wouldn't be committing to the Conservative/Republican side as he can still "Look into" AZ law, but would also show signs that he is serious about securing the border. Really, there's no room for maneuvering here. Either he wants to or doesn't. Either he will or he won't -- leaving states, like AZ, to fill the gaps where he isn't willing to.

I know... GW didn't do much of anything either... ONE of his big mistakes... He did at least start the fence... which Napolitano stopped.

 

[jpccusa]

Correct if I am wrong, but border security would be part of an immigration reform. The problem is that Reps want border security done first, then helping those here. I don't understand their reasoning, since only people who can prove they have been here for quite some time illegally (I'm unsure how many years the bill say) would be able to apply to become legal residents.

Also, this is an interesting Washington Post article from a Republican (Connie Mack) about why conservatives should oppose Arizona's immigration law:

By Connie Mack
Friday, May 28, 2010

America is at a crossroads on a number of issues. And as we tackle national concerns such as immigration, conservatives have a responsibility to commit ourselves to our philosophy of less taxing, less spending, less government and more freedom.

That means opposing any administration, Republican or Democratic, when it taxes too much, spends too much or takes over nearly one-sixth of the economy.

When the Obama administration undermines the basic concepts of capitalism and the free market through endless bailouts, "stimulus" plans and a government takeover of health care, it is picking and choosing winners and losers in the economy -- and threatening our liberties.

The latest issue freedom-loving conservatives should be concerned about is the Arizona immigration law.

This law clearly challenges citizens' freedoms, and it does so by putting some Americans at risk of losing their freedoms while others stand little or no chance of being affected.

During World War II, while a German American hero and future president -- Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower -- led the allied forces in Europe, this country put Japanese Americans in detention camps. That outrage was wrong. We destroyed lives and undermined the very fabric of our Constitution.

We did so under the guise that we were at war and in crisis. But it is precisely at such times that we must take extra measures to safeguard our rights, our freedoms and our nation.

Instead, America took away the constitutional rights of citizens -- a shameful overreach of the government.

The Arizona immigration law reminds us of how fear and distrust can lead to bad laws and even more government overreach into the private sector and our private lives.

Illegal immigration poses clear security risks to our nation and is a cancer on our economic well-being.

The Obama administration and previous administrations have failed to secure our border. While the announcement of additional National Guard troops at the border is a good first step, the federal government must do more to secure our borders -- both north and south -- now.

But trampling on the rights of some Americans to protect the majority conflicts with the values our nation was founded upon.

Our Constitution protects individual freedoms and liberties. Nowhere does this document speak of protecting the majority over the minority. Anger about the economy, increased crime and security concerns are fueling this law, not constitutional principles.

Conservatives' most important responsibility is to remember to protect freedom, liberty and the rights of every citizen. The Arizona immigration law doesn't do that, and that's why I oppose it.

I am proud that the GOP has been the party in which freedom has always mattered. We are a party whose members are willing to stand up for liberty because we believe that freedom matters and that it works.

As the wise saying goes, he who sacrifices freedom for security ends up with neither.

I do not want to live in a nation where American citizens are asked "Where are your papers?" We are better than that.

The writer, a Republican, represents Florida's 14th District in the U.S. House.

 

[wstphal]

Correct if I am wrong, but border security would be part of an immigration reform.

The problem is, the last round of "immigration reform" resulted in the legalization of a whole bunch of previously undocumented immigrants and NO BORDER SECURITY. So many people are suspicious that this time around would be the same thing.

The article you posted, by the way, is really good. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[The_Thunderer]

Also, this is an interesting Washington Post article from a Republican (Connie Mack) about why conservatives should oppose Arizona's immigration law:

I do not want to live in a nation where American citizens are asked "Where are your papers?" We are better than that.

LOL... the ONLY problem with that is that whenever we are stopped for speeding, for robbing a bank, for anything ILLEGAL, we are asked for our "papers" anyway! DUH!!!??? We are required to prove who we say we are. Traveled recently??? How many times are you required to show you're ID before you board a plane??? Been stopped at by the side of the road and asked if you were drinking? Again, you still have to show a driver's license. Cash a check at a bank??? ID REQUIRED!!! Used a credit card? Most places, in order to hinder ID theft, require you to have a picture ID (I THANK those that ask for my ID when I use my CC). To get through a normal day where we do business, we normally have to have our "papers"... I never leave home without it and it takes seconds to whip out.

What could be the ONE segment of the populace that doesn't carry their "papers"??? Could it be illegal immigrants??? Never mind the fact that they have to be doing some primary crime before they're even asked about their "papers".

I appreciate Connie Mack's "enthusiasm" for our freedoms... but the premise of her tirade is already all wrong.

EDIT: Think of a theater... After you buy your ticket, you are allowed into the theater. At any time, the staff can ask to see your ticket stub. However, for the most part, unless you're doing something suspicious - like hanging around an exit, switching between individual movies, etc - they're unlikely to ask you to show your ticket stub... BUT you should have it on you!

AZ law is the same... except in order to be asked for your "ticket", you have to be already breaking a law! Geez... how can something so simple be so misinterpreted???

 

[tsst]

... So here is my question: When Mr. Obama offered to send 1,200 troops to the border, even though that number could be perceived by many as being a fraction of what is actually needed, and keeping in mind all the money, technology, and personnel added in previous years to secure the border, wasn't he trying to reach bipartisanship? Wasn't he compromising and extending a hand across party lines expecting to receive a hand back?

JP, I can see how you could see it that way... and probably should. I guess many of us (though I shouldn't speak for anyone but myself) see it as a "political gesture/calculated move" where he can SAY he's helping out and doing something about the problem when in reality, the number is so small, that he's not really doing anything at all...

JP, Fred hit the nail on the head. I see this as a token move by Obama. The proverbial sacrificing of the pawn in a chess match if you will. :shrugs:

As far as the Connie Mack article I can agree with it in the literal sense. I want no Americans rights infringed. When I say American I refer directly to legal American citizens. If you are illegally in this country you have not earned the right to be treated as a citizen and should fully expect to be arrested, detained, jailed, deported, etc, etc, etc.

 

[TandJ]

His comparison of our immigration laws to Mexico's was dumb, since Mexico doesn't have such a problem with illegal immigration as we do (although Central Americans cross Mexico illegally to get to the US, and for some reason, are not detained or deported).

Its known that the Mexican Gov tends to do what ever with the illegals that cross their southern borders, even just shooting them when they are found... I think you need to look at the ironic and hypocritic view point Coldiron has made.. Believe me, we treat the illegals from the south with a hell of a lot more respect than their Government does.. If one wants to point a finger, they need to realize they have three pointing back.. Mexico is not the US and has a lot more harsh laws concering immigration..

Instead of Micheal Moore, why does'nt someone go and do a documentry on the illgeal southern border crossings in Mexico, wait, they might not actually reappear after shootong such footage.. I am not suggestioning that its nothing but all violence in Mexico, but they certainly don't follow our sense of humantarian ideas.. *shrugs* The Mexican Gov is certainly not victim here, but what they expect makes there citizens the victims..