Faeelin posted this in another forum and I thought it was interesting. If a significant # of left leaning Latinos stay this will definitely have major effects on the outcome of the coming election.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/93183-dem-to-obama-push-immigration-or-ill-tell-latino-voters-to-stay-home
Quote
Dem to Obama: Push immigration or I'll tell Latino voters to stay home
By Russell Berman and Bob Cusack - 04/20/10 06:00 AM ET
A congressman from the president's home state is threatening that he will urge Latino voters to stay home this November if the Democratic Party does not make a concerted effort to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (Ill.) is arguably President Barack Obama's biggest Democratic critic in Congress. And he's not fond of Obama's top advisers at the White House, either.
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) member has strongly criticized the administration's policy on deportation and questioned its commitment to far-reaching reform.
Some Democrats have felt little urgency in pursuing the controversial issue, partly because they see no risk that Hispanic voters will bolt the party for the GOP. But Gutierrez says they are missing the real political consequence of inaction.
"We can stay home," Gutierrez said in an interview with The Hill. "We can say, 'You know what? There is a third option: We can refuse to participate.' "
For Gutierrez, a former cab driver first elected to represent Chicago in 1992, the shift from close Obama ally to ornery critic has been stark. The lawmaker was one of the former Illinois senator's earliest campaign supporters, and — as Gutierrez is quick to note — he stuck by Obama even as many Hispanic leaders rallied around Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary.
When Gutierrez talks about his old Chicago neighbor, he speaks of "anger, disillusionment, dissatisfaction" and "betrayal." He says Obama has failed to keep his campaign commitment to immigration reform, and he decries what he calls an "enforcement-only" policy in which the administration has deported more undocumented immigrants than in the final year of the George W. Bush administration.
Gutierrez says Latinos have lost patience with Obama, and he predicts an "escalation" of activism aimed at forcing immigration reform to the fore of the party agenda.
"We're going to make it uncomfortable for the Democratic Party," Gutierrez said, adding that immigration advocates would step up the pressure by drawing lessons from the movements for civil rights and women's suffrage. "There'll probably be civil disobedience. There will probably be a number of different actions. What we have to do is we have to break through this wall of silence, because we're invisible."
Gutierrez is not alone. Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), a CHC member who serves in the Democratic leadership, said earlier this month that Latinos view the president with "suspicion" for failing to meet expectations.
Firing salvos is nothing new for Gutierrez, a lawmaker known for his singular and strident advocacy of the immigration cause. In 2008, he compared Border Patrol agents to the "Gestapo." More recently, he made a high-profile threat to vote against the healthcare overhaul at its most critical stage.
Few in Washington believed he would vote no, but Gutierrez managed to wrangle a White House meeting and a public nudge from Obama in support of the comprehensive immigration blueprint being developed by Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
"Would we have liked him to have done more? Yes," Gutierrez said, acknowledging that Obama's statement reiterating his support for comprehensive immigration reform "wasn't the most enthusiastic press release."
"It's incremental," he said. "Before you run, you walk."
Among his grievances with Obama is the president's shift in rhetoric. When Obama campaigned, Gutierrez said, he used the phrase "undocumented workers." When he addressed Congress on healthcare last September, the president referred to "illegal immigrants" in insisting that they would not be covered under the administration's plan.
"You went from a humanizing definition of the community to a criminalizing definition of the community," Gutierrez said.
The final straw for immigration advocates came in January, the outspoken legislator said, when Obama barely mentioned the issue in his State of the Union address.
"He said it with so little enthusiasm, and so little commitment, that they didn't believe him," Gutierrez said, drawing a direct line between that speech and a large rally of immigration advocates in Washington last month that happened to coincide with the final House vote on healthcare.
"If you only understood how devastating it was to our sense of hope and our sense of commitment of this president," he said.
Gutierrez, who has not faced a serious electoral challenge since his first term, said he doesn't lambaste the administration because he likes to.
"It's very hard. I don't want you to think that it's easy," he said. "I don't want to pile on. It's just he's got to get this done."
Gutierrez noted that Obama initially promised on the campaign trail that he would pursue immigration reform in 2009, then backtracked. And he vows he will hold the president accountable.
He said, "I meet women who are being raped by their employers. I meet children who the government has come early in the morning and taken their dads. I meet someone dying from cancer, an American citizen, who says ... 'Luis, can I die knowing that the mother of my children is going to raise [them]?' I can't give him that, because there's nothing in the law."
Despite his criticism of Obama, Gutierrez said he is more optimistic about the chances for progress on immigration.
The president transformed from "Professor Barack Obama" to "Lyndon Johnson Barack Obama" during the healthcare debate, he said.
Gutierrez noted a number of positive gestures from the White House, including an invitation for him to attend a bill-signing for a jobs measure that, he said, "I had nothing to do with."
"I don't think I even co-sponsored it. Why did they invite me?" Gutierrez wondered, before answering his own question. "After he signed the bill, [Obama] came up to me, he said, 'Hey Luis, I appreciate your support. We're going to work on comprehensive immigration reform.' "
Gutierrez also pointed to recent comments by Michelle Obama extolling the contributions of immigrants in the U.S. The first lady on Sunday said immigration reform was "still on the top" of the Obama agenda.
When it comes to a legislative and political path to enacting immigration reform in an election year, Gutierrez is less specific. He grudgingly accepts the consensus opinion that the legislation must start in the Senate, but he makes sure to point out that even there, immigration gets short shrift.
"Every other basic fundamental issue we start in the House," he said.
The broader journey for a bill that will create a path to citizenship for the nation's 12 million undocumented immigrants has been years in the making.
Gutierrez was a lead co-sponsor, along with Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), of the sweeping bill that passed the Senate in 2006 before stalling amid a conservative revolt in 2007. He nearly quit the House after the effort failed in 2007, but he changed his mind and decided to stay and pursue what has become the cause of his career.
"This has kept me in Congress," the 56-year-old lawmaker said.
The House Democrat is not shy in blasting Obama's closest advisers. Asserting that he is not culpable for what the administration does or does not do, Gutierrez said, "I'm not at the White House. Rahm [Emanuel] is there. [David] Axelrod's there. And I don't know that they're giving him the best advice."
Gutierrez scoffs when it is pointed out that Obama nominated the first Latina to the Supreme Court and pushed for immigration reform-friendly provisions in the 2009 children's healthcare insurance law.
"We're supposed to applaud because they did the right thing? Because they finally acted as Democrats? So big deal. What did they do that was so extraordinary? Oh, a Latina's on the Supreme Court? About time!"
The White House did not comment for this article.
Gutierrez's allies in Congress say the congressman's outbursts have a purpose.
"There's a difference between being an enemy and a forceful advocate," Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said, referring to Gutierrez's criticism of Obama.
Part of his role as a leader on immigration, Clarke said, was to make sure there's a spotlight on the issue.
"He's a pretty smart pol," said Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-N.Y.), a leader on immigration in the Irish-American community. Crowley said Gutierrez's credibility stems from his ability to build unlikely coalitions on immigration and because he is well-liked in the Democratic Caucus.
As for Obama, lawmakers are quick to note a relationship between the two men that goes back years. "Luis is very strategic and he's very smart, and so is the president," Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) said.
Gutierrez, Honda said, "holds no animosity. The heat is about the issue. It's not about personalities."
A video of The Hill's interview with Gutierrez can be viewed here.
Eh, I'll repeat what I said there. Good for them.
I don't recall giving either one of you permission to post on another forum. :mad:
I hope they stay home. Idiots. Let's give Republicans majorities in the House and Senate so we can have an Arizona police state on the federal level!
Quote from: Caliga on April 20, 2010, 08:57:23 PM
I don't recall giving either one of you permission to post on another forum. :mad:
I don't recall giving you the permission to have the power to give others permission to post on another forum. :ultra:
I was gonna ask if he'd urge voters in his district to stay home as well, but after taking a look at, I don't think it would matter :lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fa%2Fa0%2FIL04_109.gif&hash=7a6cc349780e4bfb2cd46e5583608359e8707afb)
:huh:
people who don't vote are by default in agreement with whatever course taken.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 21, 2010, 12:05:30 AM
people who don't vote are by default in agreement with whatever course taken.
not really
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on April 20, 2010, 11:59:49 PM
I was gonna ask if he'd urge voters in his district to stay home as well, but after taking a look at, I don't think it would matter :lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fa%2Fa0%2FIL04_109.gif&hash=7a6cc349780e4bfb2cd46e5583608359e8707afb)
That is some impressive gerrymandering.
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2010, 12:03:35 AM
Quote from: katmai on April 21, 2010, 12:01:39 AM
:huh:
Asia does strange things to the mind.
I figured his brain and just been steamed/boiled from being there too long, kinda like Mono in HK
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2010, 12:12:56 AM
That is some impressive gerrymandering.
It's one of the best I've seen. Using an unpopulated freeway is a nice touch
I figured it was from the years of snorting coke off the bodies of young bronze lady-boys.
That stupid son of a BITCH. :angry:
How dare he try to pretend to hold such power over voters that he would call them off like lap dogs.
I don't recall giving garbon permission to use scrolling text. :huh:
p.s. Paradox is lame. I'm assuming it's that, unless Faeelin is a secret anime fan.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 21, 2010, 04:55:00 AM
I don't recall giving garbon permission to use scrolling text. :huh:
p.s. Paradox is lame. I'm assuming it's that, unless Faeelin is a secret anime fan.
No and no, though I'm sure many here would have a low opinion of it, though supposedly Neil is also a member there and his opinion is of course all that matters. :pope:
"
"You went from a humanizing definition of the community to a criminalizing definition of the community," Gutierrez said."
But they are criminals.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2010, 05:00:31 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 21, 2010, 04:55:00 AM
I don't recall giving garbon permission to use scrolling text. :huh:
p.s. Paradox is lame. I'm assuming it's that, unless Faeelin is a secret anime fan.
No and no, though I'm sure many here would have a low opinion of it, though supposedly Neil is also a member there and his opinion is of course all that matters. :pope:
What is said forum?
Immigration debate and policy. Finally, a more peaceful and quiet issue for Congress and the nation to debate, to take on, after the furor over health care. ;)
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 21, 2010, 06:08:59 AM
"
"You went from a humanizing definition of the community to a criminalizing definition of the community," Gutierrez said."
But they are criminals.
If you believe a law is unjust, do you call those who break it criminals or victims?
Send them them all home....back to Mexico. :mad:
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 21, 2010, 08:11:59 AM
Send them them all home....back to Mexico. :mad:
Mexicans have more of a historical right to live in the Southwest than crackers like you. :rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2010, 12:08:20 AM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 21, 2010, 12:05:30 AM
people who don't vote are by default in agreement with whatever course taken.
not really
yes really. Staying silent is agreeing with what happens.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2010, 08:05:54 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 21, 2010, 06:08:59 AM
"
"You went from a humanizing definition of the community to a criminalizing definition of the community," Gutierrez said."
But they are criminals.
If you believe a law is unjust, do you call those who break it criminals or victims?
:shifty:
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 21, 2010, 01:07:11 PM
yes really. Staying silent is agreeing with what happens.
Nope.
Wow, what a whiny bitch. I hope Gutierrez gets more press coverage, as it will set the "comprehensive immigration reform" movement back quite a bit. And while I'm sure Obama would love to grant blanket amnesty to all the illegals, he obviously needs to try to conserve whatever political capital he has left at the moment. I'd love to see him turn his back on shitheads like Gutierrez, La Raza, etc. even if only out of necessity.
Quote from: derspiess on April 21, 2010, 02:22:22 PM
Wow, what a whiny bitch. I hope Gutierrez gets more press coverage, as it will set the "comprehensive immigration reform" movement back quite a bit. And while I'm sure Obama would love to grant blanket amnesty to all the illegals, he obviously needs to try to conserve whatever political capital he has left at the moment. I'd love to see him turn his back on shitheads like Gutierrez, La Raza, etc. even if only out of necessity.
I don't see Obama as having deeply held views on immigration reform. I expect he'll try to split the difference between unions and immigrant bashers on the one hand and Latinos and immigrant loving progressives on the other.
Quote from: Barrister on April 21, 2010, 01:14:26 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2010, 08:05:54 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 21, 2010, 06:08:59 AM
"
"You went from a humanizing definition of the community to a criminalizing definition of the community," Gutierrez said."
But they are criminals.
If you believe a law is unjust, do you call those who break it criminals or victims?
:shifty:
As one of the people here I most respect what do you actually have to say about the issue (I know it's shocking, but I actually respect the opinions of lots of people here).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2010, 05:56:35 PM
I don't see Obama as having deeply held views on immigration reform.
The hell he doesn't. He & other Dems see future Democrat voters when they look at illegal immigrants. That's not to say he isn't pragmatic enough to try to placate the unions.
Quote from: derspiess on April 21, 2010, 06:27:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2010, 05:56:35 PM
I don't see Obama as having deeply held views on immigration reform.
The hell he doesn't. He & other Dems see future Democrat voters when they look at illegal immigrants. That's not to say he isn't pragmatic enough to try to placate the unions.
Rush tell you that?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2010, 08:05:54 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 21, 2010, 06:08:59 AM
"
"You went from a humanizing definition of the community to a criminalizing definition of the community," Gutierrez said."
But they are criminals.
If you believe a law is unjust, do you call those who break it criminals or victims?
I'd say that that is a ridiculous argument to make and the people who make comparisons to 'illegal immigrant' and 'nigger' are the scum of the earth.
Go tell someone who's spent years trying to become a legal resident or citizen that some asshole who is breaking the law to provide some other asshole with easily exploited cheap labor is a victim.
Quote from: derspiess on April 21, 2010, 06:27:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2010, 05:56:35 PM
I don't see Obama as having deeply held views on immigration reform.
The hell he doesn't. He & other Dems see future Democrat voters when they look at illegal immigrants. That's not to say he isn't pragmatic enough to try to placate the unions.
I'm curious. Since the Republicans have yet to propose a plan to ship them across the border, how do they plan on dealing with millions of people who are here illegally yet playing a role in our economy? Ignore it until it goes away?
Quote from: Faeelin on April 21, 2010, 08:55:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 21, 2010, 06:27:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2010, 05:56:35 PM
I don't see Obama as having deeply held views on immigration reform.
The hell he doesn't. He & other Dems see future Democrat voters when they look at illegal immigrants. That's not to say he isn't pragmatic enough to try to placate the unions.
I'm curious. Since the Republicans have yet to propose a plan to ship them across the border, how do they plan on dealing with millions of people who are here illegally yet playing a role in our economy? Ignore it until it goes away?
They'll employ them themselves as cut rate labor. The current situation is fine with a lot of people. They get cheap workers who have no alternatives if they get fucked over.
Reagan also saw future democratic voters when he gave illegals amnesty back in the 1980's.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 21, 2010, 08:55:17 PM
I'm curious. Since the Republicans have yet to propose a plan to ship them across the border, how do they plan on dealing with millions of people who are here illegally yet playing a role in our economy? Ignore it until it goes away?
Don't expect me to defend "the Republicans" on this. They are hardly unified in their opinion or approach, and I'm sure there are plenty who are quietly satisfied with the status quo.
Personally, I favor some sort of documented guest worker program and heavily increased border enforcement. It's not practical to try to deport all illegals en masse, but some of them need to leave.
I actually used to be more sympathetic towards illegal immigrants, but the rallies in 2006 with all the Mexican flags and demands for full citizenship helped push me the opposite way.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2010, 09:11:55 PM
Reagan also saw future democratic voters when he gave illegals amnesty back in the 1980's.
Not that that's relevant, but everyone makes mistakes.
Quote from: derspiess on April 21, 2010, 09:34:37 PM
I actually used to be more sympathetic towards illegal immigrants, but the rallies in 2006 with all the Mexican flags and demands for full citizenship helped push me the opposite way.
Why are Mexican flags offensive?
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2010, 01:46:24 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on April 21, 2010, 01:07:11 PM
yes really. Staying silent is agreeing with what happens.
Nope.
I understand that the concept is a bit hard to grasp for you but: yes.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 22, 2010, 12:00:25 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 21, 2010, 09:34:37 PM
I actually used to be more sympathetic towards illegal immigrants, but the rallies in 2006 with all the Mexican flags and demands for full citizenship helped push me the opposite way.
Why are Mexican flags offensive?
If they're demanding full citizenship they should be waving American Flags.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 22, 2010, 03:00:58 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 22, 2010, 12:00:25 AM
Why are Mexican flags offensive?
If they're demanding full citizenship they should be waving American Flags.
Because Americans never, ever, wave flags of other countries.
When associated with a demand for citizenship, it's definitely sending the wrong message.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 22, 2010, 07:48:35 AM
When associated with a demand for citizenship, it's definitely sending the wrong message.
Face it, the people whose deeply held beliefs sway like trees in every wind will be swayed by the display of flags, but they will be swayed by pretty near anything, so who cares?
Quote from: Faeelin on April 22, 2010, 12:00:25 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 21, 2010, 09:34:37 PM
I actually used to be more sympathetic towards illegal immigrants, but the rallies in 2006 with all the Mexican flags and demands for full citizenship helped push me the opposite way.
Why are Mexican flags offensive?
If they were true Americans they'd be waving Confederate Flags.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 22, 2010, 12:00:25 AM
Why are Mexican flags offensive?
They're not. But they were a clear sign that those demanding citizenship had little if any intention of assimilating and considering themselves Americans. And it made me realize that the illegals weren't just up here to find work & make some money to send home-- they (at least the ones protesting) apparently feel entitled to stay and become citizens.
And I know within a couple days the Mexican flags were suddenly replaced with U.S. flags, but the cat was already out of the bag. Screw 'em-- if they are so proud of Mexico, let them go back.
Africans back to Africa! If you want to celebrate Kwanza and African heritage do it in your own damn continent. Dis is AMERICUH.
Quote from: Fate on April 22, 2010, 09:55:24 AM
Africans back to Africa! If you want to celebrate Kwanza and African heritage do it in your own damn continent. Dis is AMERICUH.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.istockphoto.com%2Ffile_thumbview_approve%2F4783663%2F2%2Fistockphoto_4783663-analogue-tv-static-television-white-noise.jpg&hash=a6a6e81368aee7095687c7e60f75b2f11c7783b5)
Quote from: Caliga on April 22, 2010, 10:14:01 AM
Quote from: Fate on April 22, 2010, 09:55:24 AM
Africans back to Africa! If you want to celebrate Kwanza and African heritage do it in your own damn continent. Dis is AMERICUH.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.istockphoto.com%2Ffile_thumbview_approve%2F4783663%2F2%2Fistockphoto_4783663-analogue-tv-static-television-white-noise.jpg&hash=a6a6e81368aee7095687c7e60f75b2f11c7783b5)
Y aint my tv wurkin? Americuh idol is on soon. *burp*
Quote from: Fate on April 21, 2010, 08:21:54 AM
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 21, 2010, 08:11:59 AM
Send them them all home....back to Mexico. :mad:
Mexicans have more of a historical right to live in the Southwest than crackers like you. :rolleyes:
I wish someone had taught you how to read, moron. :(
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 22, 2010, 11:52:55 AM
Quote from: Fate on April 21, 2010, 08:21:54 AM
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 21, 2010, 08:11:59 AM
Send them them all home....back to Mexico. :mad:
Mexicans have more of a historical right to live in the Southwest than crackers like you. :rolleyes:
I wish someone had taught you how to read, moron. :(
Go back to Europe, whitey.
Alci, stop breaking the damn rules.
Quote from: Alcibiades on April 22, 2010, 11:52:55 AM
I wish someone had taught you how to read, moron. :(
DON"T
FEED
THE
TROLL!
:ultra:
We all suffer when you offer him this nourishment. If we ignore him, he goes away and finds another bridge to hide under.
I concur with Methuselah.
Quote from: Caliga on April 22, 2010, 10:14:01 AM
Quote from: Fate on April 22, 2010, 09:55:24 AM
Africans back to Africa! If you want to celebrate Kwanza and African heritage do it in your own damn continent. Dis is AMERICUH.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.istockphoto.com%2Ffile_thumbview_approve%2F4783663%2F2%2Fistockphoto_4783663-analogue-tv-static-television-white-noise.jpg&hash=a6a6e81368aee7095687c7e60f75b2f11c7783b5)
This is a good response Cal. I salute you.
:bowler:
What does the writing in the static say?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 22, 2010, 01:24:01 PM
What does the writing in the static say?
It's a picture of a camera and then "istockphoto", which is where the image was taken from.
LOL, love the headline: http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/immigration/beans_swastikas_az_capitol_vandalism_042610
Quote from: derspiess on April 26, 2010, 10:48:38 AM
LOL, love the headline: http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/immigration/beans_swastikas_az_capitol_vandalism_042610
This kind of "demand" does the immigration reformers no good at all. Making a federal crime also a state crime also isn't something you will get a lot of objective people to protest as an injustice (though the wisdom of making a lot of potential witnesses to crimes avoid the police is debatable).
Quote from: grumbler on April 26, 2010, 12:51:14 PM
Making a federal crime also a state crime also isn't something you will get a lot of objective people to protest as an injustice (though the wisdom of making a lot of potential witnesses to crimes avoid the police is debatable).
Although, as I was thinking about this last night, most of the time people walking about aren't expected to show proof of citizenship. It does seem like an easy thing for police to abuse now that they would be required to ask if they have any doubts.
Oh noes! Save us from all these violent Mexicans!
http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/22/how-immigration-crackdowns-bac
QuoteThe state has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants. But contrary to myth, they have not brought an epidemic of murder and mayhem with them. Surprise of surprises, the state has gotten safer.
Over the last decade, the violent crime rate has dropped by 19 percent, while property crime is down by 20 percent. Crime has also declined in the rest of the country, but not as fast as in Arizona.
Babeu's claim about police killings came as news to me. When I called his office to get a list of victims, I learned there has been only one since the beginning of 2008—deeply regrettable, but not exactly a trend.
Truth is, illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native Americans. Most come here to work, and in their desire to stay, they are generally afraid to do anything that might draw the attention of armed people wearing badges.
El Paso, Texas, is next door to the exceptionally violent Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, and easily accessible to illegal entry. Yet it is one of the safest cities in the United States.
In 2007, scholars Ruben Rumbaut and Walter Ewing investigated the issue for the Immigration Policy Center and concluded that "if immigrants suddenly disappeared and the country became immigrant-free (and illegal-immigrant free), crime rates would likely increase."
The cartels keep their fighting on the south side of the border. Mexican police are cheaper to bribe.
By definition an illegal immigrant that is Mexican is a criminal.
I think people are overreacting to this law somewhat. :hmm:
Woohoo! :swiss:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/26/BARD1D55P7.DTL
QuoteSan Francisco's supervisors are calling for a sweeping boycott of Arizona in the wake of that state's harsh new rules aimed at illegal immigrants.
A resolution that will go before the board Tuesday will call for San Francisco to end any and all contracts with Arizona-based companies and to stop doing business with the state.
Someone should make a variant of that smiley waving a mexican flag to piss off derspiess :P
Quote from: garbon on April 27, 2010, 12:27:07 AM
Woohoo! :swiss:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/26/BARD1D55P7.DTL
QuoteSan Francisco's supervisors are calling for a sweeping boycott of Arizona in the wake of that state's harsh new rules aimed at illegal immigrants.
A resolution that will go before the board Tuesday will call for San Francisco to end any and all contracts with Arizona-based companies and to stop doing business with the state.
:rolleyes: Why doesn't the city refuse to end all contracts with US companies, since Arizona is simply applying existing US law on the state level?
My guess, though, is that this silly act by SF will please the people of Arizona immensely and harm them not at all.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 26, 2010, 08:04:22 PM
Oh noes! Save us from all these violent Mexicans!
http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/22/how-immigration-crackdowns-bac
QuoteThe state has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants. But contrary to myth, they have not brought an epidemic of murder and mayhem with them. Surprise of surprises, the state has gotten safer.
Over the last decade, the violent crime rate has dropped by 19 percent, while property crime is down by 20 percent. Crime has also declined in the rest of the country, but not as fast as in Arizona.
Babeu's claim about police killings came as news to me. When I called his office to get a list of victims, I learned there has been only one since the beginning of 2008—deeply regrettable, but not exactly a trend.
Truth is, illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native Americans. Most come here to work, and in their desire to stay, they are generally afraid to do anything that might draw the attention of armed people wearing badges.
El Paso, Texas, is next door to the exceptionally violent Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, and easily accessible to illegal entry. Yet it is one of the safest cities in the United States.
In 2007, scholars Ruben Rumbaut and Walter Ewing investigated the issue for the Immigration Policy Center and concluded that "if immigrants suddenly disappeared and the country became immigrant-free (and illegal-immigrant free), crime rates would likely increase."
Reason magazine favors completely open borders (as do most libertarians, sadly). No shock that they'd make this claim.
Quote from: derspiess on April 27, 2010, 09:56:59 AM
Reason magazine favors completely open borders (as do most libertarians, sadly). No shock that they'd make this claim.
So do you think the statistics are wrong?
Quote from: garbon on April 27, 2010, 12:27:07 AM
Woohoo! :swiss:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/26/BARD1D55P7.DTL
QuoteSan Francisco's supervisors are calling for a sweeping boycott of Arizona in the wake of that state's harsh new rules aimed at illegal immigrants.
A resolution that will go before the board Tuesday will call for San Francisco to end any and all contracts with Arizona-based companies and to stop doing business with the state.
Wasn't SF in some trouble, or still is, with the Feds for its open door policy on illegals, problem being mainly for sheltering those who committed crimes? Something like that anyway.
Quote from: KRonn on April 27, 2010, 11:47:23 AM
Wasn't SF in some trouble, or still is, with the Feds for its open door policy on illegals, problem being mainly for sheltering those who committed crimes? Something like that anyway.
I don't know if the Feds got mad, but the rest of California did when we started busing illegals who had committed crimes to other cities...where they committed new crimes.
Quote from: grumbler on April 27, 2010, 08:00:36 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 27, 2010, 12:27:07 AM
Woohoo! :swiss:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/26/BARD1D55P7.DTL
QuoteSan Francisco's supervisors are calling for a sweeping boycott of Arizona in the wake of that state's harsh new rules aimed at illegal immigrants.
A resolution that will go before the board Tuesday will call for San Francisco to end any and all contracts with Arizona-based companies and to stop doing business with the state.
:rolleyes: Why doesn't the city refuse to end all contracts with US companies, since Arizona is simply applying existing US law on the state level?
My guess, though, is that this silly act by SF will please the people of Arizona immensely and harm them not at all.
Under existing US law you question beaners and subsequently arrest them if they can't prove their legal status under "reasonable suspicion?"
Do you really think such a law, if enforced, will survive 4th or 14th Amendment challenges?
So what is the point of Fate? It seems a lot of effort to keep up a not clever, see-through charade.
Fate is an AI designed to replace me after I gave up on trolling.
Quote from: garbon on April 27, 2010, 02:01:36 PM
So what is the point of Fate? It seems a lot of effort to keep up a not clever, see-through charade.
There are plenty of GOPtards who oppose the AZ law on constitutional grounds. :hmm:
Quote from: Jaron on April 27, 2010, 12:54:25 AM
Someone should make a variant of that smiley waving a mexican flag to piss off derspiess :P
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileys.on-my-web.com%2Frepository%2FFlags%2Fmexico-flag-66.gif&hash=b01ed4022fda79daa44f9d7e6c446b0c77ef00e9)
Doesn't look like it is waving though and I think the waving is what sets him off.
Quote from: sbr on April 27, 2010, 02:31:58 PM
Quote from: Jaron on April 27, 2010, 12:54:25 AM
Someone should make a variant of that smiley waving a mexican flag to piss off derspiess :P
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileys.on-my-web.com%2Frepository%2FFlags%2Fmexico-flag-66.gif&hash=b01ed4022fda79daa44f9d7e6c446b0c77ef00e9)
:lol:
Quote from: garbon on April 27, 2010, 02:40:19 PM
Doesn't look like it is waving though and I think the waving is what sets him off.
Here is a rather half-assed attempt
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi195.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz133%2Fsbr32%2Fsmilies%2Fwavingmexican.gif&hash=30b268939d7f4b760ae1b3085d241023bdeb4df1)
Quote from: sbr on April 27, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 27, 2010, 02:40:19 PM
Doesn't look like it is waving though and I think the waving is what sets him off.
Here is a rather half-assed attempt
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi195.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz133%2Fsbr32%2Fsmilies%2Fwavingmexican.gif&hash=30b268939d7f4b760ae1b3085d241023bdeb4df1)
Could you give him a sombrero?
Quote from: Savonarola on April 27, 2010, 03:04:40 PM
Quote from: sbr on April 27, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 27, 2010, 02:40:19 PM
Doesn't look like it is waving though and I think the waving is what sets him off.
Here is a rather half-assed attempt
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi195.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz133%2Fsbr32%2Fsmilies%2Fwavingmexican.gif&hash=30b268939d7f4b760ae1b3085d241023bdeb4df1)
Could you give him a sombrero?
I don't know that would require some creativity instead of pasting a crappy looking logo onto an Italian flag.
Oh well, might as well doesn't look like I am going to do anything productive today either way.
Quote from: Savonarola on April 27, 2010, 03:04:40 PM
Quote from: sbr on April 27, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 27, 2010, 02:40:19 PM
Doesn't look like it is waving though and I think the waving is what sets him off.
Here is a rather half-assed attempt
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi195.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz133%2Fsbr32%2Fsmilies%2Fwavingmexican.gif&hash=30b268939d7f4b760ae1b3085d241023bdeb4df1)
Don't forget the mustache.
Could you give him a sombrero?
Quote from: Fate on April 27, 2010, 03:09:50 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on April 27, 2010, 03:04:40 PM
Quote from: sbr on April 27, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 27, 2010, 02:40:19 PM
Doesn't look like it is waving though and I think the waving is what sets him off.
Here is a rather half-assed attempt
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi195.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz133%2Fsbr32%2Fsmilies%2Fwavingmexican.gif&hash=30b268939d7f4b760ae1b3085d241023bdeb4df1)
Don't forget the mustache.
Could you give him a sombrero?
Quote from: Jaron on April 27, 2010, 03:12:20 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 27, 2010, 03:09:50 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on April 27, 2010, 03:04:40 PM
Quote from: sbr on April 27, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 27, 2010, 02:40:19 PM
Doesn't look like it is waving though and I think the waving is what sets him off.
Here is a rather half-assed attempt
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi195.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz133%2Fsbr32%2Fsmilies%2Fwavingmexican.gif&hash=30b268939d7f4b760ae1b3085d241023bdeb4df1)
Don't forget the mustache.
Could you give him a sombrero?
Quote from: Habbaku on April 27, 2010, 03:18:55 PM
Quote from: Jaron on April 27, 2010, 03:12:20 PM
Quote from: Fate on April 27, 2010, 03:09:50 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on April 27, 2010, 03:04:40 PM
Quote from: sbr on April 27, 2010, 03:02:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 27, 2010, 02:40:19 PM
Doesn't look like it is waving though and I think the waving is what sets him off.
Here is a rather half-assed attempt
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi195.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz133%2Fsbr32%2Fsmilies%2Fwavingmexican.gif&hash=30b268939d7f4b760ae1b3085d241023bdeb4df1)
Don't forget the mustache.
Could you give him a sombrero?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi195.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz133%2Fsbr32%2Fsmilies%2Fsombrero.gif&hash=d21ecb389a4919f27c14c4a65fd9f32cfcb4a7f5)
Also, can you fix the colors? That green looks like aqua.
Quote from: garbon on April 27, 2010, 03:20:35 PM
Also, can you fix the colors? That green looks like aqua.
Nope sorry. The waving flag and shadows goes way beyond any skill I have that is why I pasted the crappy logo onto an Italian flag smilie. Anyone else can feel to use and alter my work as much as they want. A mention on the credits page would be nice.
Joke's on you jerkfaces. Whatever site the (apparently) animated flag thingie is hosted on is blocked by my company. So I see no pics in this page other than the static flag smiley which, as has been mentioned, I'm totally okay with.
:moon:
Quote from: garbon on April 27, 2010, 02:01:36 PM
So what is the point of Fate? It seems a lot of effort to keep up a not clever, see-through charade.
The post this was directly under sounded sincere to me.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 27, 2010, 10:18:30 AM
So do you think the statistics are wrong?
Nope, not wrong, just flimsy evidence that illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes, given that 100% of them *are* committing crimes :lol:
Quote from: Jaron on April 27, 2010, 02:08:41 PM
Fate is an AI designed to replace me after I gave up on trolling.
When was that? :huh:
I could use a taco platter about now.
Quote from: derspiess on April 27, 2010, 03:50:22 PM
So I see no pics in this page other than the static flag smiley which, as has been mentioned, I'm totally okay with.
I know all.
Quote from: derspiess on April 27, 2010, 04:11:42 PM
Quote from: Jaron on April 27, 2010, 02:08:41 PM
Fate is an AI designed to replace me after I gave up on trolling.
When was that? :huh:
I don't really troll anymore.
Do you see grumbler making up any Jaron rules? I didn't think so.
Compare me to Fate and Alexandro and you'll see a world of difference. a WORLD.
Quote from: Jaron on April 27, 2010, 04:53:23 PM
Compare me to Fate and Alexandro and you'll see a world of difference. a WORLD.
Meh, you're dead to me until you actually follow through & play some BFBC2 with me online :contract:
Oh yeah I tried to do that once but it made me quit xbox live to apply some update <_<
Do you still play often?
Quote from: Jaron on April 27, 2010, 04:53:23 PM
Do you see grumbler making up any Jaron rules?
I don't think those two words have ever been used in conjunction before.
Jaron was at least amusing at times. These individuals of late are just like static. :(
I enjoy some of Fate's posts.
Quote from: Jaron on April 27, 2010, 04:53:23 PM
Do you see grumbler making up any Jaron rules? I didn't think so.
I did make a Jaron rule, remember? The rule was that you got the only Grumbler Point ever awarded.
That must be why your point is often so hard to grasp. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 27, 2010, 06:14:58 PM
That must be why your point is often so hard to grasp. :hmm:
I on the hand, have a large throbbing point that's easy to grab even in the dark.
Razgovory?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.art.com%2Fimages%2F-%2FDan-Aykroyd---Coneheads-Photograph-C10040337.jpeg&hash=85ddb966b8daaa51de4ae95ad2d590d6f52b33b5)
Quote from: derspiess on April 27, 2010, 04:10:21 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 27, 2010, 10:18:30 AM
So do you think the statistics are wrong?
Nope, not wrong, just flimsy evidence that illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes, given that 100% of them *are* committing crimes :lol:
They specify that they are less likely to commit violent crimes or property crimes. They obviously acknowledge that being here illegally is a crime.
What does "immigration reform" mean exactly?
Quote from: Berkut on April 27, 2010, 11:55:30 PM
What does "immigration reform" mean exactly?
Some combination of border security, a more sensible visa process, a guest worker program, a national ID card, and amnesty depending on your political affiliation.
Quote from: Fate on April 27, 2010, 11:59:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 27, 2010, 11:55:30 PM
What does "immigration reform" mean exactly?
Some combination of border security, a more sensible visa process, a guest worker program, a national ID card, and amnesty depending on your political affiliation.
:D
Quote from: derspiess on April 27, 2010, 04:10:21 PM
Nope, not wrong, just flimsy evidence that illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes, given that 100% of them *are* committing crimes :lol:
Well we all commit some crime at some point in our life, no? I've jaywalked, for instance.
Obviously walking across the street isn't the same thing as crossing the border illegally, but I don't see how breaking a law to get into the US means you are more prone to being a violent criminal. And I suspect that if the statistics had shown that violent crimes had gone up in Arizona you would blame illegal immigrants.
Most illegal immigrants are very poor. Very poor people need money and are desperate to get it. I can safely conclude then that poor people are more likely to commit crimes. Its not a color thing or an immigrant thing so much as economic. If we exported half of our ghetto blacks from Detroit and Chicago to Everyville, Canada I'm sure crime would increase too.
Bill Clinton sez the answer to our federal budget problems is MOAR IMIGRUNTS :lol:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20100428/cm_huffpost/555415
Quote from: Faeelin on April 28, 2010, 09:11:25 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 27, 2010, 04:10:21 PM
Nope, not wrong, just flimsy evidence that illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes, given that 100% of them *are* committing crimes :lol:
Well we all commit some crime at some point in our life, no? I've jaywalked, for instance.
Obviously walking across the street isn't the same thing as crossing the border illegally, but I don't see how breaking a law to get into the US means you are more prone to being a violent criminal. And I suspect that if the statistics had shown that violent crimes had gone up in Arizona you would blame illegal immigrants.
Regulatory offences aren't criminal offences. You are not committing a crime by jaywalking.
Quote from: Barrister on April 29, 2010, 04:59:14 PM
Regulatory offences aren't criminal offences. You are not committing a crime by jaywalking.
Beeb, you're talking Canadian again. In Georgia, all traffic offenses not specifically otherwise defined - including jaywalking - are misdemeanors.
Quote from: derspiess on April 29, 2010, 03:01:09 PM
Bill Clinton sez the answer to our federal budget problems is MOAR IMIGRUNTS :lol:
More people, working, consuming goods, paying taxes and contributing to the economy, would tend to help the federal budget. You don't agree with that?
Quote from: Jacob on April 29, 2010, 05:47:33 PM
Quote from: derspiess on April 29, 2010, 03:01:09 PM
Bill Clinton sez the answer to our federal budget problems is MOAR IMIGRUNTS :lol:
More people, working, consuming goods, paying taxes and contributing to the economy, would tend to help the federal budget. You don't agree with that?
You have to balance it against government services consumed by more people. More immigrants may help the economy, but it is not patently obvious that it would.