Calls to boycott Arizona are spreading like a virus

[jpccusa]

I think that is due in large part to confusion as to what the problem actually is. I think the problem is illegal aliens. Solving that problem is simple. Secure the boarder. Identify the illegals that are all ready hear and kick them out.

I know you've tried to stay out of this thread as much as possible, but there was a lot of discussion about why deporting 11 - 13 million people can't be done due to practical and economical reasons, so I agree with securing the borderS and identifying all illegal immigrants, but then, depending on their criminal record, willingness to assimilate the American culture, and depending on them paying back taxes and a fine, illegal immigrants should be offered a path to legalize their situation here.

So, in practice, what is the difference between the way police will operate after the law goes into effect, compared to the way it is right now? I really can't see how it will be different, unless the law is different than what I am reading about it (I have not read the actual law, and won't - until I actually move to Az).

I think people are not worried they'd have to carry documents at all times. I think Wade is right and a person is required to carry some type of ID all the time.

What people probably have a problem with is that the police MAY fabricate infractions based on profiling. In other words, they would knit-pick a reason to stop you simply because they suspect you may be an illegal immigrant.

 

[kathylove]

Ok. What if you are walking or riding your bike, and you happen to fit the description of somebody who just robbed a store? If you don't have your ID on you (maybe even if you do), they certainly aren't going to just take your word for it.

As I understand it, the police are not going to be allowed to stop somebody just because they look guilty, and demand ID. But if they saw them do something wrong, or they fit the description of somebody they are looking for, then they can stop them. But what I am getting at, is in that case, they will demand ID whether they think you are here legally or not. So, since they will always want ID, what will the difference be if they suspect that their suspect is illegal?

After writing all that, I just checked the thread before posting to see a couple of new posts. So, back to writing more, lol!

Considering what I just wrote, it sounds like the ONLY real difference, and real concern, is that weak fabrications for stopping and checking ID might occur? Everything else would be pretty much the same as now?

 

[Dinah]

http://flexyourrights.org/faq/120

Here is what this site says when I get time later I will look up the FL statutes.

I would bet a shot of nice tequila that you are wrong. I do not drive and so I do not usually need to have ID unless I want to write a check or occasionally a store will ask for one if I am making a credit purchase. I am not even legally required to own an ID.

 

[The_Thunderer]

I think you're spot on, Kathy. The ONLY ones who have anything to fear are those here illegally.

 

[jpccusa]

About the need to show proof of identification, this is what I found

This is a tricky issue. As a general principle, citizens who are minding their own business are not obligated to "show their papers" to police. In fact, there is no law requiring citizens to carry identification of any kind.

Nonetheless, carrying an ID is generally required if you’re driving a vehicle or a passenger on a commercial airline. These requirements have been upheld on the premise that individuals who prefer not to carry ID can choose not to drive or fly.



From here, ID laws only get more complicated. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring citizens to disclose their identity to police when officers have reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity may be taking place. Commonly known as "stop-and-identify" statutes, these laws permit police to arrest criminal suspects who refuse to identify themselves.

As of 2008, 24 states had stop-and-identify laws. Regardless of your state's law, keep in mind that police can never compel you to identify yourself without reasonable suspicion to believe you're involved in criminal activity.

But how can you tell if an officer asking you to identify yourself has reasonable suspicion? Remember, police need reasonable suspicion to detain you. One way to tell if they have reasonable suspicion is to determine if you're free to go. You could do this by saying "Excuse me officer. Are you detaining me, or am I free to go?" If the officer says you’re free to go, leave immediately and refrain from answering any additional questions.

If you're detained, you'll have to decide whether withholding your identity is worth the possibility of arrest or a prolonged detention. In cases of mistaken identity, revealing who you are might help to resolve the situation quickly. On the other hand, if you're on parole in California, for example, revealing your identity could lead to a legal search. Knowing your state's laws can help you make the best choice.

Keep in mind that the officer's decision to detain you will not always hold up in court. Reasonable suspicion is a vague evidentiary standard, which lends itself to mistakes on the officer's part. If you're searched or arrested following an officer's ID request, always contact an attorney to discuss the incident and explore your legal options.

Source: http://flexyourrights.org/faq/When_do_I_have_to_show_ID

 

[wade]

I know you've tried to stay out of this thread as much as possible, but there was a lot of discussion about why deporting 11 - 13 million people can't be done due to practical and economical reasons, so I agree with securing the borderS and identifying all illegal immigrants, but then, depending on their criminal record, willingness to assimilate the American culture, and depending on them paying back taxes and a fine, illegal immigrants should be offered a path to legalize their situation here.

When I said I was staying away from this thread I did not mean to imply that I had not been reading it. I don't agree with the economic or political reasons why we can't deport 11 million people. It may take some adjustment but I have a lot of faith in the power of the free market to survive if politicians will leave it alone.

I think people are not worried they'd have to carry documents at all times. I think Wade is right and a person is required to carry some type of ID all the time.

What people probably have a problem with is that the police MAY fabricate infractions based on profiling. In other words, they would knit-pick a reason to stop you simply because they suspect you may be an illegal immigrant.

It is illegal for a policeman to stop anyone right now without just cause. LEOs can't pull you over because they don't like they way you look or because they think you might be a drugie. That is what we call America. If you don't break the laws you don't need to fear the police. Ain't that great. But I also know that my daughter, who looks like and is an addict, gets pulled over fairly often because she looks like an addict. But the police will never say that, they say she made an illegal lane change or here license plate light was burned out. (Did you know that it is against the law to drive a care with a burned out license plate light, true stuff) Yes they can and will find ways to get around the law but they are not going to be hassling law abiding citizens going about their business.

 

[Dinah]

Here is the FL stop and identify yourself law, and while it does state that you are required to identify yourself to an officer it does not require that you must present them with a govt issued ID. And according to the 1 officer I have ever asked about this (many years ago when I was asked to identify myself but I had ID on me at the time). So long as you give your honest identity you are in compliance with the law.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...TM&Title=->2006->Ch0856->Section 021#0856.021

Also here is the general stop and identify yourself wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_a..._.E2.80.9Cstop-and-identify.E2.80.9D_statutes

You are in a different state though so your mileage could vary.

 

[jpccusa]

And this one related to CA, although I would take this one with a grain of salt since the source is just a poster on a blog.

California does not require you to have ID except under very few circumstances (like when you're driving a car). Just walking around town, shopping in the grocery store, sitting on your porch or playing in the park does not require you to have ID.

Just because we're police officers does not allow us to require identification from people.

Hiibel v. Nevada does not apply in California, even though it was decided by the US Supreme Court, because California has no statute requiring you to identify yourself when detained on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Nevada does, and Hiibel was convicted of violating it. If California had such a law, then Hiibel would apply. California does have a law having to do with resisting, delaying or obstructing an officer performing his duties, and it's possible someone can make a case for this if you refuse to ID yourself - I haven't seen it done yet, though.

Passengers in a vehicle are not required to show ID upon request merely because they are passengers.

The answer just above mine is probably the closest to the truth. It's not accurate to say, "whether or not you have or have not done anything illegal, you must upon a peace officer's request, provide a state's drivers license or ID card" because in California, there is no requirement that have either of those things except in certain cases (again - if you are driving a car, etc). You might be denied certain benefits if you can't prove your identity, but there is no law in this state that says you must have a license or an ID card.

I can't disagree with the rest of the answer, though. If I ask you for ID and you tell me you don't have it or outright refuse to provide it (under circumstances where you don't have to), you're going to send my "bad guy" radar into overdrive. I will very likely do everything possible to determine who you are, because I don't want to be the guy who let the murderer from Kentucky or the rapist from Illinois escape justice. And yes, depending on the circumstances, it's entirely possible I could make things very difficult for you if you refuse to identify yourself.

So the answer to your question, given the very limited amount of detail you provided, is no...you do not have to show ID when requested for a "random" reason.

HOWEVER:

You are not going to be in any position to decide if the request is just a random one. The police might have a very valid reason to request your identification, and they are not required to tell you what it is before you hand over the ID.

One sure way to find out if they have the legal right to demand your identification is to refuse to hand it over. If they have the legal right to demand it, and you refuse to hand it over, the next sound you hear will be handcuffs. If that's a chance you're prepared to take, then refuse all requests for identification from law enforcement. You'll only get arrested on those occasions when the request was legally justified.

If you're one of those people who just object to the idea of telling the police who you are, get over it. We can and do make it our business to know who someone is if we have an interest in them. If you want to be the guy that refuses to identify yourself on principle, go for it. Be prepared to have unpleasant run-ins with law enforcement.

You asked about showing your ID. That implies that you will have it with you. If you don't have your ID with you, then you can't show it, can you? However, that's no magic bullet, either. If you are in a situation where the police have legal justification for knowing who you are, and you cannot prove who you are, you run a HUGE risk of being booked into the local jail until such time as you do prove who you are. And we are not required to take your word for it, or to accept anything less than official government-issued identification with a photo on it.

So the second answer to your question, given the very limited amount of detail you provided, is yes...you should ID yourself unless you want to run the risk of getting arrested.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060711011931AAbmgHG

 

[jpccusa]

It is illegal for a policeman to stop anyone right now without just cause. LEOs can't pull you over because they don't like they way you look or because they think you might be a drugie. That is what we call America. If you don't break the laws you don't need to fear the police. Ain't that great. But I also know that my daughter, who looks like and is an addict, gets pulled over fairly often because she looks like an addict. But the police will never say that, they say she made an illegal lane change or here license plate light was burned out. (Did you know that it is against the law to drive a care with a burned out license plate light, true stuff) Yes they can and will find ways to get around the law but they are not going to be hassling law abiding citizens going about their business.

Thanks for supporting my point Wade... Your daughter looks like an addict (and unfortunately is one) so she gets pulled over all the time because of her looks while being given another reason to be stopped (what I called knit-picking).
Now imagine all Latinos being stopped because they all look like illegal immigrants from Mexico while being given any dumb reason to be stopped.
I see that as a huge inconvenience for Mexican people and people who look like Mexicans. Besides, we all know racism still exists. Given the opportunity and the tools, racist LEO (humans) will abuse their powers. They do ALL THE TIME (abuse powers I mean)! I believe that's mainly why ACLU is all up against the AZ law.

 

[kathylove]

Thanks for the info...

Sounds pretty much like what I have heard over the years, but never checked to see if it was true.

Even though the police might fabricate a weak excuse to stop somebody who "profiles" as a possible illegal, they are, as Wade said, already occasionally stopping suspicious looking people who aren't doing anything terribly wrong. With the increased scrutiny that will come with the implementation of the new law, I think they will be instructed to be careful about flimsy excuses for stopping possible illegals.

I have examined the basics of the situation to the best of my understanding so far. That is - the fact that it is a mirror of an existing Federal law, it probably won't change the way the police operate, for the most part, and should have little inconvenience for anyone EXCEPT illegal immigrants either already doing something else illegal, or unlucky enough to look suspicious enough to give cops an excuse to stop and ID them. It SOUNDS like legal residents, even if they look suspicious, will at most have to show their ID, just like they do now if they look or do something suspicious.

I am a little perplexed. It SEEMS to boil down to the only REAL concern is that a few biased cops MIGHT POSSIBLY use a flimsy excuse to stop and ID, not only those suspected of being addicts or criminals, but also suspected of being illegal. Because of lots of eyes on the state, this could be more risky behavior for the cops than the illegals, lol! If it happens, then the cops who do it will be subject to discipline, I would guess. But if that is really the only problem with this whole thing, why is it worth such hoopla? Protests, boycotts, foreign excitement? All because a few biased cops MIGHT overstep their bounds? Surely I am missing something! These has to be more to it then I am seeing!!!

 

[kathylove]

"...Now imagine all Latinos being stopped because they all look like illegal immigrants from Mexico while being given any dumb reason to be stopped..."

If that actually does happen, I think there will be a lot more than Latinos upset with Az! I am actually somewhat concerned that some Latinos who are stopped WITH cause will be encouraged by those with the opposite agenda to sue the police and to get their name in the news. If I was a LEO in Az, I would probably be so concerned about that possibility that I would be extra careful to document such stops carefully. Of course there will be some abuse of power. There always is, and always will be, with anyone with authority. But I am guessing that it might be less in this case than with other, non Latinos, simply because of the press watching so carefully.

I used to work in a Headstart preschool center. I spent about 2 hours in the morning as the sole teacher in one of the classes, as did the teachers in the other morning classes. Because of all of the publicity about child abuse, I insisted that the center directer make random observations through the one way glass windows. Then if anyone ever questioned anything we did when alone with the kids, she could say that she carefully observed us without our knowledge, and could vouch for what she saw. If I was a LEO in Az, I would be thinking in the same way about EVERYONE in the world watching everything I do, once that new law goes into effect. I would be very, very careful about backing everything up, preferably on video.

 

[wade]

Thanks for supporting my point Wade... Your daughter looks like an addict (and unfortunately is one) so she gets pulled over all the time because of her looks while being given another reason to be stopped (what I called knit-picking).
.

I admit that LEO are human and they are capable of error. I have never argued otherwise. The thing that you are missing is it is not just some dreamed up reason to pull people over. They have to witness the person actually breaking the law or they don't have probable cause. If a cop pulls me over for no reason and finds 10 pounds of heroin on my front seat I can't be prosecuted for that crime because the cop pulled me over without probable cause. So understand, the cops are not going to be pulling over Mexicans unless they can prove in court that he had reason to.

 

[Michael823]

I know that this is a very touchy subject, so I'll try to be sensitive. I really feel like the illegal immigration problem is scarily out of control. I try to be fair minded, but I usually tend to side with those who are more susceptible to oppression, like minorities, only because I hate to see any people treated worse than another based on reasons out of their control. However, I feel like there is a lot of backlash over what Arizona is doing that is unjust. People ARE coming here illegally, and a lot of those people are severely damaging the country we live in. My hearts go out to the people just struggling to make a better life, but the crime and drugs that come with illegal immigration has to be stopped somehow. There has to be a foot that comes down at some point, and I feel like Arizona is just the first that's had enough. Eventually the problem will be out of control, and by that point having enough won't be enough. Something has to be done now, and it's hard to blame Arizona or it's laws for finally reaching the breaking point. On the flip side, I don't have the utmost faith and respect for law enforcement as a whole. I know that the abuse of power may not be a majority, but it's there, and I do fear that profiling could be an issue. But profiling can be monitored a lot easier than illegal immigration, I would imagine, and the consequence of not making a stand now is too big to get all bent out of shape over who may or may not be profiled. And easy for me to say, I know, but I just feel like profiling is a much smaller issue than the one at hand. I would personally be okay with being "profiled", if it meant that the illegal immigration problem might be met with a solution. I would be disgusted by anyone who would use the new law to harass those who are legal, but I don't think we have much choice as a country but to come down hard on the issue.

I've personally done a lot of thinking on this matter, and my opinions have changed drastically just in the past year or so. I used to really have an open heart for taking the good in people at face value, and the story book notion that every illegal immigrant was just searching for a better way for their families. It may be true of some, but not of all, and the fact is that it's hurting more "story book" American families by having illegal immigrants, than it is helping their families. I feel lucky to live in a place where it's not an issue, and I feel like that's where a lot of my ignorance came from. But everyone should be able to feel like that in America, not just those who aren't in border states.

 

[wade]

JP this is what I was talking about last night when I was angry. This is fear mongering. This is taking the possibility that someone might do something wrong and then projecting it to become everyone will be doing something wrong all the time.

What you fear will in fact happen, I will guarantee it because we will have humans involved as both the criminals and the law enforcement. People will stretch the law and bend the rules. But I don't believe it will be rampant. I don't think the will be Gestapo check points with trench coats.

I think what Kathy has said is much more likely the case. The eyes of the world will be on Arizona next month. The police will be well trained in what they should and should not do. I think they will be very careful to not abuse their power.

 

[jpccusa]

I hope you are right Kathy, and I think you are.
And Wade, don't shoot the messenger. I am pretty much posting articles and reports I've found, in some cases even from conservative sources (Fox). My views are much more central than you think.
So I am off to a busy weekend. Hands Across the Sand tomorrow in San Diego followed by the Super Reptile Show. I will try to take a bunch of pictures of both events and post on here next week.
Talk to you guys later.

 

[kathylove]

Have fun at the show!

I've heard it is a really good one - wish I was going!

 

[wilomn]

Coupla things here.

Wade said his daughter not only looks like a druggie but is one. Sorry to hear that Wade, truly. He also said she is pulled over BECAUSE she has broken some law, no license plate light, no turn signal whatever. But, she was NOT pulled over for looking like she was an addict, she was pulled over for breaking a law. This is key.

Don't break the law and THEN if you get pulled over, it wasn't justified and you may be able to fight it.

Dashboard cameras are also going in more and more patrol cars, there are private security cameras everywhere (did you know the average American is photographed more than 80 times a day in big cities?) and with the prevalence of cameras on phones nothing is private anymore. The ability of Big Brother to watch us is increasing all the time. Soon cops will have button sized cameras on their uniforms so that nothing they do can be challenged.

This is making news and noise now because it's great publicity, not because it's a bad thing. Heck, if the Feds would do their jobs Az. would not have had to go this route. But, one must court ones voters and if they've got illegal family here and you're trying to make them leave or tougher to get here, you'll get fewer votes.

Term limits would end all of this crap. It would make those in office more honest and enforcing laws easier on those who choose to do so.

 

[wade]

In reference to the idea that we cannot live without the 11 million illegals if we were to send them all home, VP Biden has an idea.

Vice President Joe Biden gave a stark assessment of the economy today, telling an audience of supporters, "there's no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20008924-503544.html

 

[jpccusa]

Interesting partnership pro immigration

MAYOR BLOOMBERG JOINS MAYORS AND BUSINESS LEADERS TO FORM PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW AMERICAN ECONOMY

National Partnership Will Push for Immigration Reform to Fix Broken Borders and Keep America Open to the Best, Brightest and Hardest-Working People From Around the World

Mayor Bloomberg Announces Co-Chairs Mark Hurd, Chairman, CEO and President of Hewlett-Packard; Robert Iger, President and CEO, Walt Disney Co.; J.W. Marriott, Jr., Chairman and CEO of Marriott International, Inc.; Jim McNerney, Chairman, President and CEO of Boeing; Rupert Murdoch, Chairman, CEO and Founder of News Corporation; Mayor Julián Castro of San Antonio; Mayor Phil Gordon of Phoenix; Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia; and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg was joined by News Corporation Chairman, CEO and Founder Rupert Murdoch to launch the “Partnership for a New American Economy,” a coalition of mayors and business leaders from across the country that will make an economic case for sensible immigration reform. The partnership will recruit members that support comprehensive immigration reform that secures our borders and helps America remain economically competitive by keeping and attracting the world’s best, brightest and hardest-working. America has the most dynamic entrepreneurs and workers in the world, but currently it is too difficult to draw global talent that helps fuel economic growth. The partnership will enable Mayors and CEOs to demonstrate to policymakers the vital role that immigration plays in our economy by publishing studies, conducting polls, convening forums, and sponsoring public education campaigns.

“Immigrants have always been an essential part of America’s economic strength,” said Mayor Bloomberg. “This coalition was formed to change our current immigration policy, which is undermining our economy and threatening our status as the world’s leading power. Too many innovative new companies, and the jobs they create, are being formed overseas because entrepreneurs can’t get a green card to start them here. We need to break the legislative stalemate that has taken over Congress if we want the U.S. to remain competitive in the 21st century.”

“American ingenuity is a product of the openness and diversity of this society,” said Rupert Murdoch. “Immigrants have made America great as the world leader in business, science, higher education and innovation. As an immigrant myself, I believe that this country can and must enact new immigration policies that fulfill our employment needs, provide a careful pathway to legal status for undocumented residents, and end illegal immigration.”

According to studies, twenty-five percent of US high-tech startups created in the last ten years have at least one immigrant as a founder1; immigrants generate over 5 percent of America’s gross domestic product2; and immigrant-owned companies have created over 400,000 jobs since 19903.

The co-chairs from the business community direct companies that are leaders in their industries and combined employ nearly 800,000 people and make over $260 billion in annual sales; the mayors represent some of the country’s largest cities, with a combined population of over 16 million residents. The coalition’s membership will recruit other business leaders and mayors who see the economic value to immigration reform.

“Promoting continued US leadership in the global technology industry requires balanced immigration reform,” said Hewlett-Packard Chairman, CEO and President Mark Hurd. “Mayor Bloomberg’s Partnership provides the right roadmap for improving U.S. immigration policy.”

“This country is built on the contributions of immigrants, whose different perspectives and ideas create new possibilities,” said Walt Disney Company President and CEO Robert Iger. “It’s our great strength as a nation, and it’s also critical for continued economic growth. To remain competitive in the 21st century, we need effective immigration reform that invites people to contribute to our shared success by building their own American dream.”

“We couldn’t operate our hotels in the U.S. without workers from other countries,” said Marriott International Chairman and CEO J.W. Marriott, Jr. “In some of our hotels, we have upwards of 50 languages spoken—and that diversity represents our customers who travel from around the world to visit our great country. Our business isn’t easy; it is 24/7 and great service to guests can’t be automated or outsourced. We rely on the best, service-oriented talent from the U.S. and around the world to sustain and grow our business.”

“I commend Mayor Bloomberg for his leadership in establishing the Partnership for a New American Economy to open the dialogue and inspire action on a critically important issue – one that will play a big part in our nation’s competitiveness and ability to create and sustain jobs for years to come,” said Boeing Chairman, President and CEO Jim McNerney.

“We need to hit the reset button to bring the immigration debate out of the realm of political theater and into the arena of public policy,” said San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro. “To succeed in the 21st century economy, America must balance the need for border security against the realities of our aging workforce and the spirit of entrepreneurial innovation that has made this country great.”

“Every day in the City of Phoenix and across Arizona we experience firsthand the cost of Congress’ failure to sensibly reform our nation’s immigration laws,” said Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon. “Delays at the federal level have created tension in our streets and economic hardship for our already budget-challenged cities and communities. Immigration reform that secures our borders and encourages legal migration is absolutely essential to our country's economic recovery and to safeguarding the freedoms every citizen holds dear.”

“Since Philadelphia’s founding more than 300 years ago, we have welcomed immigrants from all over the world,” said Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter. “Today, Philadelphia and cities across the country remain beacons of hope and freedom for new Americans. Immigrants have started new businesses here, re-energized many urban neighborhoods and have made important contributions in professions like health care, technology, law and finance. There is no denying the pivotal role immigrants play in America’s economic future, and I am proud to stand with other national leaders who support comprehensive federal immigration reform.”

“We are a nation of immigrants who have come to this country to enrich their lives, and in turn, enrich our country,” said Mayor Villaraigosa. “We are long overdue in changing our outdated and ineffective federal immigration policies that do not address the security concerns facing us in a post-9/11 world and do not support the needs of our global economy.”

About the Partnership for New American Economy:

The coalition will work with Congress and the White House to pass legislation that embodies the following principles:

* Secure our borders and prevent illegal immigration through tougher enforcement and better use of technology;
* Develop a simple and secure system for employers to verify employment eligibility and hold businesses that are not compliant, or abuse visa programs, accountable for their actions;
* Increase opportunities for immigrants to enter the United States workforce – and for foreign students to stay in the United States to work – so that we can attract and keep the best, the brightest and the hardest-working, who will strengthen our economy;
* Create a streamlined process by which employers can get the seasonal and permanent employees they need, when Americans aren’t filling vacant jobs;
* Establish a path to legal status for the undocumented currently living in the United States with requirements such as registering with the federal government, learning English, paying taxes and following all laws; and
* Strengthen federal, state, local, and employer-sponsored programs that offer English language, civics, and educational classes to immigrants.

The co-chairs joining Mayor Bloomberg to build the Partnership for a New American Economy are:

* Mark Hurd, Chairman, CEO and President of Hewlett-Packard; the world’s largest information technology company.
* Robert Iger, President and CEO, Walt Disney Co.; one of the world’s premier family entertainment and media companies.
* J.W. Marriott, Jr., Chairman and CEO of Marriott International, Inc.; one of the world’s leading lodging companies.
* Jim McNerney, Chairman, CEO and President of Boeing; the world’s largest aerospace company.
* Rupert Murdoch, News Corporation Founder, Chairman & CEO; one of the world’s largest media companies.
* Mayor Julian Castro, elected in 2009, is the Mayor of San Antonio, Texas, the 7th largest city in the U.S.
* Mayor Phil Gordon, elected in 2003, is the Mayor of Phoenix, Arizona, the 5th largest city in the U.S.
* Mayor Michael Nutter, elected in 2007, is the Mayor of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the 6th largest city in the U.S.
* Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, elected in 2005, is the Mayor of Los Angeles, California, the 2nd largest city in the U.S.

Other founding members include:

* Ken Chenault, Chairman and CEO, American Express; a leading global payments, network and travel company.
* James P. Gorman, President and CEO, Morgan Stanley; one of the world's foremost financial institutions.
* Rob Speyer, President and Co-CEO, Tishman Speyer; one of the leading owners, developers, operators, and managers of first-class real estate in the world.
* Fred Wilpon, Owner, Chairman and CEO, New York Mets; Chairman and Co-founder, Sterling Equities, a commercial rental firm.
* Deborah Wright, President and CEO, Carver BanCorp; the holding company for Carver Federal Savings Bank, the largest African-American operated bank in the U.S.
* Mort Zuckerman is Editor-in-Chief of US News & World Report; Publisher and owner of the NY Daily News and Chairman, Director, CEO and Co-Founder of Boston Properties, a commercial real estate firm.

 

[wade]

We need to show more sympathy for these people.
* They travel miles in the heat.
* They risk their lives crossing a border.
* They don't get paid enough wages.
* They do jobs that others won't do or are afraid to do.
* They live in crowded conditions among a people who speak
a different language.
* They rarely see their families, and they face adversity all day
every day.
I'm not talking about illegal Mexicans. I'm talking about our military

troops! Doesn't it seem strange that many Democrats and Republicans

are willing to lavish all kinds of social benefits on illegals, but don't

support our troops, and are even threatening to defund them?