"For example, the director of the Utah Minutemen has implied that privacy laws
should take a backseat to the prosecution of illegal immigration."Absolutely false. Rather -- and this is an important distinction -- the
director has implied that privacy laws should take a back seat to NECESSARY
RESISTANCE OF GOVERNMENT TYRANNY, which tyranny is indeed manifest today by the
government's FLAGRANT, WILLFUL AND PERSISTENT REFUSAL, ON ACCOUNT OF ITS OWN
CORRUPTION AND LAWLESSNESS, TO ENFORCE ITS OWN IMMIGRATION LAWS.A
altogether different matter and the far more serious root of the issue.
This letter writer is correct that there is no place for dishonesty in the
debate over illegal immigration. However, he is absolutely wrong when he claims
that there are two valid sides to this issue.The fact is that there
is only one valid side to this issue: the law must be absolutely honored,
sustained, and obeyed. There is no room for lawlessness, anarchy, and crime.The Founding Fathers established this Country on the principle that
those who live here must obey the law. The Fathers would be appalled to see how
many are willing to ignore their wishes and fight against everything they stood
How can we “Keep deceit out of immigration fight” when so many of
the players in this game seem to be wearing masks.From my point of
view, the basic truths are:1. Business interests want the cheap
labor that immigration provides. Legality is not important.2.
American workers have been displaced by the cheap labor of immigration. And
this has caused a major part of the economic recession.3. Liberals,
Conservatives, Republicans and Democrats all seem to have a position in the
debate but not necessarily identifiable by their affiliation to those groups.
Conservatives, usually on the side of business, sometimes are
shouting for obeying the law which would limit immigration.President
Obama, who we thought was a liberal, instead of representing American workers,
seems to favor illegal immigration.If someone, who could, would
create for us a program to tell us who the players are, it would help.
Anti-liar: Excuse us all for being wrong. Privacy laws should take a back seat
to armed rebellion against the lawfully and Constitutionally elected government.
I get it.The first two posts here demonstrate that both honesty and
civility are required for rational discussion. There is nothing civil, honest,
or rational in either post. The first attempts to justify/rationalize denial of
civil liberties and borders on sedition. The second takes the tactic of a five
year old that "If I scream loud enough I win." There is only one side to the
issue? Really? Then what would all the fuss be about. Until both sides quit
exaggerating, yelling, and lying, nothing will be accomplished. The editorial
writer is correct.
Radical Moderate: Not necessarily rebellion involving arms. But what happens
when the "lawfully and Constitutionally elected government" itself "goes rogue,"
as it certainly has with its absolute refusal to enforce immigration law (as
recently re-affirmed by Judge Bolton's uncivil, dishonest, irrational decision
that no law-enforcement officer, at ANY level of government, is allowed to check
immigration status, period)?The answer is that when the law or
government itself becomes corrupt and tyrannical, the people have a duty to
resist in the interest of saving the country. Benjamin Franklin said that.
When a governor of a State is allowed to Lie outright and not held
responsible."Headless corpses litter the desert, My daddy fought the
nazzies, Crime is outta control" ect... Meanwhile Slanderson is fighting to keep
Utah out of the National ID Card because he doesn't believe it's the Feds rights
to tag him, but he expects brown people to prove their citizenship with as many
National ID's as he deems necessary. Where's the honesty again?
"When a governor of a State is allowed to Lie outright and not held
responsible.'This is about shared values. Lying to achieve you goal
is a shared values among conservatives.
To anti-liar | 10:14 a.m. Aug. 2, 2010 I'm sorry that you believe a
decision protecting and defending the Constitution (which is exactly what Judge
Bolton's decision did) constitutes a government "going rogue." You're wrong;
I'm sorry you won't recognize that fact.
@VST (11:37a) I'll rephrase:"Requiring Arizona law
enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every
person who is arrested burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty
will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton wrote.If this is true of AZ law-enforcement officials and agencies, then logically
it must also be true of ANY law enforcement official or agency.Moreover, Bolton's logic must also extend to officers merely checking driver
license validity and vehicle registration and driver insurance status of any
person, since by Bolton's logic this too would "restrict" their liberty.
To Furry1993 | 12:38 p.m. Aug. 2, 2010 But it is going rogue,
since it stands solidly at odds with the Constitutional mandate that the Fed.
gov. guard the country. Again if, as Bolton asserts, AZ officers checking
immigration status would necessarily result in "restricting" the "liberties" of
lawful residents, then why wouldn't this be true of Fed. officers doing the same
thing? Apparently she believes it is. In other words, no one is allowed to
check immigration status. The judge has issued an injunction that would prevent
the execution of the Constitutional mandate named above. Bolton represents law
and government gone rogue.
VST | 11:37 a.m. Aug. 2, 2010 I see your point -- but wouldn't not
allowing a REQUIREMENT to make status checks essentially amount to the same
thing as not allowing the checks?
RE: Furry1993 | 12:38 p.m. Aug. 2, 2010 If what Judge Bolton's decision
did constitutes a government "going rogue." What would my Military special
forces husband say to that, that it's not a decision protecting and defending
the Constitution of the US ?.Reply: He
would say meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeow as your cats do.
Ikeep asking this question. Why isn't Mexico's president doing anything about
keeping his people in Mexico? Why are we so leinient when Mexico does not even
tolerate illegal immagration? Why do they need to come here to work when Mexico
is so rich? WHY?!!
'For example, the director of the Utah Minutemen has implied that privacy laws
should take a backseat to the prosecution of illegal immigration. Such a
standpoint is alarming.' - Article This would follow conservative
views. As the Patriot Act was created to review cell records, emails
and physical documents without warrent. All in the name of
preventing terrorism. The Gov. of Az, Jan Brewer, has also been
caught in a lie. Claiming that 'Headless corpses litter the desert...',
supported by Happy Valley Heretic | 12:06 p.m. However, when her
state coroner was contacted, they could not support Mrs. Brewer's claim. i.e. it was a lie. All this talk of a 'corrupt
goverment.' Keep in mind, our founding fathers either were 1)
Immigrants themselves or 2) Decended from immigrants. Just like 97%
of this country. Tell me, how would your granparents react to you
treating others worse then they were treated comming into this country?
To "Pagan | 2:00 p.m." but the murder of people along the border is true.Read "Mexican police find headless bodies in border city" in signon
SanDiego. 15 headless bodies found across the border from El Paso.At
AsiaOne we read "Headless body, two US citizens among Mexico weekend
killings".In CNN we read "Obama, Mullen discuss violence in
Mexico".If you read those, you will find that the bodies of US
citizens have been found in the Mexican border cities. The question you should
ask, is how is it that those people are being picked up and taken across the
border when they are killed?
'If you read those, you will find that the bodies of US citizens have been
found in the Mexican border cities.' - RedShirt | 3:18 p.m. That may
be true. But not Arizona. Or would you try the weak
attempt to say the Gov. of Arizona was not talking about the state of
Arizona. Let's say that Headless bodies are found.
Should we blame illegals? What evidence do you have?
Zero. More fear mongering. Is that the New Tea Party
pitch? 'Blame the illegals!' Blame illegals for crime,
with no evidence, what else can we blame them for? AIDS?
People do the same thing to the LGBT community.
@ REDSHIRT lately drugs cartels are getting soldiers from the salvatorian gangs
, who happen to be U.S. citizens .
I'm not sure if people are lying to be deceitful or if they are lying because
they are so passionate about their side of the issue that they figure it just
must be true. But the fact of the matter is that people are lying. Anti-liar
is so passionate about the issue that he is ready to take up armed rebellion
against the government. Red Shirt is seeing headless bodies littering the
landscape. The Arizona governor just can't help "exaggerating" to prove her
point. Nothing will ever get accomplished until we all take a deep breath, calm
down, look at ALL the facts calmly and logically, and then work on solutions.
Despite what your emotions tell you, it is NOT an easy fix.
'Arizona is the No. 2 kidnapping capital of the world.' - Lt. Gov. of Az. False - Politifact Texas Same claim by McCain. Republican
Senator of Az. That Az is the No. 2 kidnapping capital of the world. Meet the
Press - 06/27/10 False John Kyl - Also Republican
Senator of Az. - also made the same claim. False John
Kyl even went so far, on 'Face the Nation' (07/31/10) as to claim that Property
Crimes and Violent Crimes are 'up' in Phoenix Az. Property Crimes in
Az. 231,633 - 2009 262,130 - 2008 277,051 - 2007 281,686
- 2006 Violent Crime in Az. 26,094 - 2009 28,753 -
2008 29,612 - 2007 30,833 - 2006 So, to review, violent
crime and property crime in Az. has actually gone DOWN in the last 4 years. Now, to show this is not some political ploy that I made up, let me
reveal my source. Source? Arizona Department of Public Safety