O'Connor: Arizona must show it's not biased

yourwestvalley.com (AP) ^ | 05/27/2010

[devane617]

.
.
.
"The law will make entering the country illegally a state crime in Arizona..."

[FredZarguna]

Not in the least. Pew research is heavily leftward tilted, and the Pew studies do not even attempt to identify which Hispanics are Mexicans. The number 40% for Bush is not generally believed to be correct.

There is nearly a 40% gap between Hispanics who self-identify as Democrats and Hispanics who identify as Republicans. Many of the Hispanics who identify as Republicans are Cubans who fled communism in the 1960's, and upper-class Peurto Ricans who came to the United States in the early 1960's to escape the radicalization of the Caribbean basin. Most of the rest are Hispanics who were already in the United States in the 1950's.

This is why your picture from the perspective of Arizona is skewed. AZ is the state where Hispanics are most "friendly" to Republicans. Many of them have been here a long time. It is still abysmal. The gap in typical elections there is at least 10 points, usually more. Even when they vote for "Republicans" they prefer non-Republican Republicans, like Juan McCain.

Party identification of Mexicans is almost 100% Democratic among those in the US 30 years or less. That means that illegals nationalized under Simpson-Mazzoli are an absolute lock voting block, just like Blacks. We can expect those nationalized in the next wave of Amnesty to be similarly disposed.

Nationwide, Hispanics break over 2-1 against Republicans. 33 points is monolithic whether you care to acknowledge it or not. In means in any election, no matter where, no matter when, and no matter what the issues, that Democrats can count on the votes of Hispanics to be a net positive of it least 30 points. Yes, that is monolithic; and even the slanted stats from Pew acknowledge that.

It makes no sense for Americans who believe in individual freedom and personal responsibility to welcome newcomers who vote against those ideals in those numbers. Furthermore, one of our parties needs to be a party that furthers the interests of America. Not the interests of this or that group, but of the Country. Any party that caters to Blacks, or Latinos, or Chinese, or Whites, is a party I want no part of. Republican outreach to Hispanics as Hispanics is shortsighted and immoral. It will only further Balkanize the Country, only more firmly entrench the abominable racial spoils system we already have, and create a new, expanded and more virulent generation of race hustlers. We already see evidence of this in La Raza, and any number of nationalist Mexican groups.

Either Mexicans should be coming here to be Americans NOT Hispanic-Americans, or Mexican-Americans, or we should be sending them home.

[FredZarguna]

Okay, comparatively speaking, how would you feel about the problems associated with sending 1/3rd of the US black population “back” to Africa? That would be about an equivalent number of people.

Why would we send Blacks back to Africa? Or Italians? They're Americans. You're analogies are, in a word, idiotic.

Of course these are both ludicrous ideas, but this is the scale of the number of people we are talking about. About five times the size of the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia, and you saw what troubles that created.

They are ludicrous ideas, and they're a strawman you're creating that no one is going to debate you on, because it's nonsense. We don't need to round anybody up. Enforce the laws against employers, and the illegals will deport themselves.

Finally, you show your true class by invoking an odious comparison. Ethnic cleansing? Do you even know what this means? Who is advocating bombing or machine-gunning Mexican enclaves? Where do you come up with this stuff? This is the typical crap we get from you leftwing trolls: anybody who wants to enforce the laws of the United States is a racist who wants to murder Mexicans.

Bugger off to some other forum with your racism.

[Osage Orange]

Can't answer...or won't.

No problem....

Thus...we can call you a pro-illegal immigration proponent. Or at least a proponent of non-enforcement of laws.

Thanks for thinking EXACTLY like many liberals.

[kabar]

Immigration, Political Realignment, and the Demise of Republican Political Prospects

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I will respond to others, but in past you, personally, have demonstrated that you are nothing but an offensive troll. So you don’t deserve any thoughtful response.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

These are good ideas. However they are in conflict with those on this thread who are repeatedly screaming “throw them all out”.

Granted, some of these ideas are very hard to implement, like birthright citizenship, which is why the 14th Amendment needs adjustment. But this is only practicable in context of a constitutional convention, which I advocate.

I reject any amnesty that permits in violent criminals, convicts and gang members, as well as others who use the border for nefarious purposes and do not seek citizenship. These need to be clearly distinguished from those that *might* legitimately seek citizenship, under whatever circumstances.

Adjudication of immigration cases is also bizarre right now. It often comes under the non-rules of customs regulations instead of reasoned immigration law. Twilight zone law benefits nobody, there has to be clarity.

As far as the process to achieve citizenship, it is far too reflective of international law, and needs to be more focused on US law. That is, there should be a straightforward process that if performed, will expeditiously allow a quota of foreigners to become US citizens each year. If a person makes the cut, they are in. If they do not, then they apply the next year. No jerking people around for half a lifetime.

Importantly, this should rise to the “reasonableness” standards of US citizens. That is, the process to become a citizen should be able to be easily explained to US citizens, and they should be able to say whether it is reasonable or not. “Does this sound reasonable to you?” is a powerful way of finding out if a law is good or not.

[La Enchiladita]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor says Arizona must figure out how to show it appreciates, respects and admires the Hispanics who live there after passing a tough new immigration law.

Why can't people just shut up when they retire? Huh?

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The problem with enforcing immigration law nationwide, is that illegals will go to where the law isn’t being enforced as strenuously. Just today there was an article in the Arizona Republic about illegals fleeing Arizona—and heading to New Mexico.

Though the vast majority are in California, it is the State least likely to do anything about it. And most likely to have ways to evade the system, such as a currently estimated 1m under the table jobs, both for illegals and citizens who don’t want to be part of the system.

eVerify did a lot to flush out illegals, but they just moved to other States, and eventually it was figured out that all it could do was to find out if an ID was legal, not the person using it. So it is losing steam.

And because of the drug wars south of the border, a lot of illegals are terrified of going back to Mexico, where entire northern cities are being emptied out, because they have to travel all the way to Mexico City to be out of the chaos. And any south of there also stinks. So they are motivated to stay in the US.

I suspect that the DREAM Act, as flawed as it is, will be about the only reform we will see, even with a Republican congress. It is very selective, just applies to minors, and has some pretty stiff requirements.

[kabar]

Granted, some of these ideas are very hard to implement, like birthright citizenship, which is why the 14th Amendment needs adjustment. But this is only practicable in context of a constitutional convention, which I advocate.

There is a difference of opinion between constittutional scholars as to whether we need another amendment to the Constitution to get rid of birthright citizenship or not. Congress could pass a law and see if it is constitutional or not. IMO a constitutional amendment would probably be required but there is no harm in Congress passing a law prohibiting it. We don't need a constitutional convention to pass an amendment. FYI: The Irish passed a Constitutional amendment ending birthright citizenship, thne last country in Europe to still reconize jus solis citizenship.

I reject any amnesty that permits in violent criminals, convicts and gang members, as well as others who use the border for nefarious purposes and do not seek citizenship. These need to be clearly distinguished from those that *might* legitimately seek citizenship, under whatever circumstances.

There are an estimated 2 million criminal illegal aliens in the US. But it should also be noted that every illegal alien has violated a number of our laws including illegal entry, identity theft, failure to pay taxes, working illegally, falsification of employment documents, etc. I don't given them a pass just because they have not committed a violent crime. They should be deported or made to self-deport. The Rule of Law and the Constitution form the very foundation of this Republic.

Adjudication of immigration cases is also bizarre right now. It often comes under the non-rules of customs regulations instead of reasoned immigration law. Twilight zone law benefits nobody, there has to be clarity.

The adjudication has become a lucrative business. Once someone gets into the country, it is very difficult to deport them. Legal proceedings can take years. There are over 500,000 absconders running around this country, i.e., they have gone through all of the legal proceedings, including appeals, and ordered deported voluntarily. They are not leaving. Obama's aunt was one of them and living in taxpayer assisted housing in Boston. She has now won another appeal and is now staying. We need to streamline the process giving judges more authority and reducing the appeal process.

As far as the process to achieve citizenship, it is far too reflective of international law, and needs to be more focused on US law. That is, there should be a straightforward process that if performed, will expeditiously allow a quota of foreigners to become US citizens each year. If a person makes the cut, they are in. If they do not, then they apply the next year. No jerking people around for half a lifetime.

That's not the way it works. We grant 1.2 million people a year permanent residency. No one is being jerked around because they must wait in line for many years, which is mainly a function of the caps on various immigration categories. It may take years for someone's second cousin to get in. In the meantime, they don't have to put there lives on hold. Immigration to the US is a privilege, not a right. There is no way we can take in everyone who wants to come here. In fact, we should be taking in far less. We are importing poverty. 53% of immigrant headed households are on welfare.

Importantly, this should rise to the “reasonableness” standards of US citizens. That is, the process to become a citizen should be able to be easily explained to US citizens, and they should be able to say whether it is reasonable or not. “Does this sound reasonable to you?” is a powerful way of finding out if a law is good or not.

The American public does need to be educated about immigration. Immigration, legal and illegal, has had and will continue to have a major and far-reaching impact across a broad spectrum of existential challenges that confront this nation, e.g., national security, the economy/global competitiveness, jobs, health care, taxes, energy independence, education, entitlement reform, law enforcement, social welfare programs, physical infrastructure, the environment, civil liberties, and a continued sense of national identity/shared sense of endeavor. Immigration is the defining issue of our time with enormous implications for the future of this nation and the preservation of our patrimony. Yet, seldom will you hear immigration mentioned by our political and intellectual elites in connection with these challenges.

[kabar]

The problem with enforcing immigration law nationwide, is that illegals will go to where the law isn’t being enforced as strenuously. Just today there was an article in the Arizona Republic about illegals fleeing Arizona—and heading to New Mexico.

Illegals are everywhere. Almost every state has become a border state.

FYI: The number in VA is now estimated at 330,000 up from the 259,000 figure in the chart. And the numbers in the chart are very conservative based on US Census Bureau estimates. I believe the numbers are much higher.

Though the vast majority are in California, it is the State least likely to do anything about it. And most likely to have ways to evade the system, such as a currently estimated 1m under the table jobs, both for illegals and citizens who don’t want to be part of the system.

CA only has about 25% of the illegals if you believe the numbers.

eVerify did a lot to flush out illegals, but they just moved to other States, and eventually it was figured out that all it could do was to find out if an ID was legal, not the person using it. So it is losing steam.

Wrong. The use of E-Verify is growing exponentially. AZ requires it for all businesses. The federal government has made it mandatory for all federal contracts. We just passed a law in VA for E-verify for all government contracts. I had a hand in making that happen.1 in 4 New Hires Vetted by E-Verify: New Data show 274% Growth since 2007

I suspect that the DREAM Act, as flawed as it is, will be about the only reform we will see, even with a Republican congress. It is very selective, just applies to minors, and has some pretty stiff requirements.

I don't support the Dream Act. It is just a mini-amnesty.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Just one point, that while eVerify is growing, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is working well. The system still just tests identity papers, not identities, and not who is actually working. Just locally I’ve heard of several ways employees and employers can evade the system, and it is not hard.

That the system is growing, and with fewer complaints, is a good indicator that it is not working. A system that is working would get stiff resistance.

[Uri’el-2012]

Can this "useful idiot" read the Law ??

I guess not !!

[wardaddy]

there was a time that poster’s viewpoint was enforced

those days are gone

we have learned

just a few holdouts now....maybe it’s Stinkie?

[Travis McGee]

I don't want to give the invaders any type of pathway to citizenship.

I want to give them a pathway the hell out of my country, to quote Mark Levin.

Defending the states from invasion is a federal responsibility. It's right in the constitution, look it up: Art. 4 Section 4.

If the Quislings in DC won't do it, they have broken their end of the contract and the states must defend themselves.

[skeeter]

PRND21 woulda liked this

[wardaddy]

I love that Pete guy...great stones.

boy do I not miss living in Manhattan

you have to wonder how many of those old open borders types like PRND21, stinkie, dane, and bayourod etc were not really just agitator plants

[kabar]

Just one point, that while eVerify is growing, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is working well. The system still just tests identity papers, not identities, and not who is actually working. Just locally I’ve heard of several ways employees and employers can evade the system, and it is not hard.

The system is working very well in terms of accuracy and responsiveness. The current accuracy rate of E-Verify is better than 99.5 percent. More than 96.9 percent of employees queried through the system are verified as employment-authorized in mere seconds. Only 0.3 percent of employees who receive a tentative non-confirmation must contact the Social Security Administration or (for certain noncitizens) USCIS to correct mistakes on their records – an action also necessary to receive either retirement or immigration benefits.

The identity theft loophole—where one person steals or purchases the name and Social Security number of another person—is still a problem for E-Verify. Since the program matches name and Social Security number, an individual will be confirmed as work authorized as long as he is using the name that matches the Social Security number. This means that some number of illegal aliens has gone through E-Verify undetected because they presented a stolen identity to the employer.

DHS has taken a significant step toward closing this loophole by including photos from immigration documents in the system, so an employer verifying a noncitizen employee will be able to compare the photo on the immigration document presented by the employee with the photo that comes up on his computer screen during the verification process.

The Social Security Administration could close the loophole almost entirely if it would simply notify workers with more than one employer making contributions to their Social Security account numbers and ask them to report if they were not actually working for each of those employers. However, SSA has a policy of not informing the victims of identity theft.

A more costly solution would be for DHS to incorporate the photos of citizens from passport and motor vehicle files into E-Verify, in the same way it has incorporated photos from immigration documents. DHS has been exploring this option, but has yet to finalize agreements with the State Department and state DMVs.

That the system is growing, and with fewer complaints, is a good indicator that it is not working. A system that is working would get stiff resistance.

Au contraire. The system is getting tremendous resistance from the US Chamber of Commerce, La Raza, unions, etc. It took us nearly four years to get a watered down bill in VA passed. It has been an inch by inch fight. We had to convince the Obama administration to just continue the program. They refused to make it permanent.

Here is a rundown of where E-Verify stands around the nation in the states and local communities. The struggle continues because those who use cheap, exploitable labor want to block any employment verification system. The system is definitely working, including acting as a deterrent. Based on anecdotal informaion, illegals are staying away from employers who use the system, i.e., they see the DHS poster that says the firm is using the system.

There are over 8 million illegal aliens holding jobs in the US while 25 million Americans are looking for fulltime employment. And we are still bringing in 125,000 LEGAL FOREIGN WORKERS a month now. This includes new permanent residents (green cards) and long-term temporary visas and others who are authorized to take a job. This makes no sense.

[Travis McGee]

Just imagine a white high school teacher in the South defending “The Race” (meaning the white race) against “the brown invasion.”

I think the MSM would have played the video 8 million times by now.

[AuntB]

Interesting chart, kabar. Note how many illegal aliens DO NOT hold jobs, and I imagine the percentage is greater than in 2007.

[kabar]

More than likely. There has, according to the Census Bureau, been a decrease in the number of illegals in the country, attributed mainly to the recession, i.e., they are self-deporting. I don't know if that is really the case, but the overall immigrant, legal and illegal, unemployment rate is actually higher than the native-born numbers.

Trends in Immigrant and Native Employment