PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Governors Voice Grave Concerns on Immigration


petegz28
07-11-2010, 07:56 PM
BOSTON — In a private meeting with White House officials this weekend, Democratic governors voiced deep anxiety about the Obama administration’s suit against Arizona’s new immigration law, worrying that it could cost a vulnerable Democratic Party in the fall elections.

While the weak economy dominated the official agenda at the summer meeting here of the National Governors Association, concern over immigration policy pervaded the closed-door session between Democratic governors and White House officials and simmered throughout the three-day event.

At the Democrats’ meeting on Saturday, some governors bemoaned the timing of the Justice Department lawsuit, according to two governors who spoke anonymously because the discussion was private.

“Universally the governors are saying, ‘We’ve got to talk about jobs,’ ” Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, said in an interview. “And all of a sudden we have immigration going on.”

He added, “It is such a toxic subject, such an important time for Democrats.”

The administration seemed to be taking a carrot-and-stick approach on Sunday. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, in town to give the governors a classified national security briefing, met one-on-one with Jan Brewer, the Republican who succeeded her as governor of Arizona and ardently supports the immigration law.

Ms. Brewer said they did not discuss the lawsuit. Instead, in a conversation she described as cordial, they discussed Arizona’s request for more National Guard troops along the border with Mexico, as well as other resources.

But about the same time that the two were meeting, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said on a taped Sunday talk show that the Justice Department could bring yet another lawsuit against Arizona if there is evidence that the immigration law leads to racial profiling.

The Democrats’ meeting provided a window on tensions between the White House and states over the suit, which the Justice Department filed last week in federal court in Phoenix. Nineteen Democratic governors are either leaving office or seeking re-election this year, and Republicans see those seats as crucial to swaying the 2012 presidential race.

The Arizona law — which Ms. Brewer signed in April and which, barring an injunction, takes effect July 29 — makes it a crime to be an illegal immigrant there. It also requires police officers to determine the immigration status of people they stop for other offenses if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they might be illegal immigrants.

The lawsuit contends that controlling immigration is a federal responsibility, but polls suggest that a majority of Americans support the Arizona law, or at least the concept of a state having a strong role in immigration enforcement.

Republican governors at the Boston meeting were also critical of the lawsuit, saying it infringed on states’ rights and rallying around Ms. Brewer, whose presence spurred a raucous protest around the downtown hotel where the governors gathered.

“I’d be willing to bet a lot of money that almost every state in America next January is going to see a bill similar to Arizona’s,” said Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska, a Republican seeking re-election.

But the unease of Democratic governors, seven of whom are seeking re-election this year, was more striking.

“I might have chosen both a different tack and a different time,” said Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, a Democrat who was facing a tough fight for re-election and pulled out of the race earlier this year. “This is an issue that divides us politically, and I’m hopeful that their strategy doesn’t do that in a way that makes it more difficult for candidates to get elected, particularly in the West.”

The White House would not directly respond to reports of complaints from some Democratic governors.

But David Axelrod, the president’s senior adviser, said on Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the president remained committed to passing an immigration overhaul, and that addressing the issue did not mean he was ignoring the economy.

“That doesn’t mean we can’t have a good, healthy debate about the economy and other issues,” Mr. Axelrod said.

Mr. Obama addressed the economy last week during stops in Kansas City and Las Vegas, and has been calling on Congress to offer additional tax relief to small businesses.

And the heads of Mr. Obama’s national debt commission — Alan K. Simpson and Erskine B. Bowles — were on hand here on Sunday to press the economic issue.

The nation’s total federal debt next year is expected to exceed $14 trillion, and Mr. Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming, and Mr. Bowles, a Democrat and the White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton, offered a gloomy assessment if spending is not brought under control even more.

“This debt is like a cancer,” Mr. Bowles said. “It is truly going to destroy the country from within.”

Still, the issue of immigration commanded as much attention as anything here this weekend.

Ms. Brewer, who was trailed by television cameras all weekend, called the lawsuit “outrageous” and said the state was receiving donations from around the country to help fight it.

“I think Arizona will win,” she said, “and we will take a position for all of America.”

Immigration was not the only topic at the Saturday meeting between Democratic governors and two White House officials — Patrick Gaspard, Mr. Obama’s political director, and Cecilia Munoz, director of intergovernmental affairs. But several governors, including Christine Gregoire of Washington, said it was a particularly heated issue.

Ms. Gregoire, who does not face an election this year, said the White House was doing a poor job of showing the American public that it was working on the problem of illegal immigration.

“They described for me a list of things that they are doing to try and help on that border,” Ms. Gregoire said of the White House officials at the closed-door meeting. “And I said, ‘The public doesn’t know that.’ ”

She added, “We’ve got a message void, and the only thing we’re hearing is that they’re filing a lawsuit.”

Some Democrats also joined Republicans in calling for Congress to pass an immigration policy overhaul this year.

“There are 535 members of Congress,” said Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana, a Democrat. “Certainly somebody back there can chew gum and hold the basketball at the same time. This is not an either-or.”

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico praised the Justice Department’s lawsuit, saying his fellow Democrats’ concerns were “misguided.”

“Policy-wise it makes sense,” said Mr. Richardson, who is Hispanic and who leaves office this year on term limits, “and Obama is popular with Hispanic voters and this is going to be a popular move with them nationally.”

Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland — a Democrat who voiced apprehension about the lawsuit in the private meeting, according to the two governors who requested anonymity — said in an interview that he supported it.

“The president doesn’t have control over some of the timing of things that happen,” Mr. O’Malley said. “When those things arise, you can’t be too precious about what’s in it for your own personal political timing or even your party’s timing. When matters like this arise, I think the president has to take a principled stand.”

But Mr. Bredesen said that in Tennessee, where the governor’s race will be tight this year, Democratic candidates were already on the defensive about the federal health care overhaul, and the suit against Arizona further weakened them. In Tennessee, he said, Democratic candidates are already “disavowing” the immigration lawsuit.

“Maybe you do that when you’re strong,” he said of the suit, “and not when there’s an election looming out there.”

Mr. Ritter of Colorado said he wished the Justice Department had waited to sue Arizona until after the law went into effect, to give the public a chance to see how difficult it would be to enforce.

“It’s just an easier case to make,” he said. “I just think that law enforcement officers are going to have a terribly difficult time applying this law in a constitutional way.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/12/us/politics/12governors.html?pagewanted=2

Direckshun
07-11-2010, 08:14 PM
Just politically speaking, immigration would be a great mirror to the "gay marriage" issue of 2004, the ballot initiative that got Christians out to vote Republican. This issue might have the same resonance to get swaths of typically-low-turnout Latino voters to get out and vote Democrat. Hey, we're going to get stomped pretty hard in the midterms anyway.

But as far as the actual issue is concerned, we know what's happened. Republicans have moved to the right on the issue, much like they did on healthcare, and Wall Street reform, and everything else. So no actual movement's going to happen on this issue until 2011.

When 2011 rolls around, the Democrats (assuming they hold the House, which I'm putting at a 65-70% chance) will bring Republicans in en masse to craft a reform plan: we'll include a ton of your stuff on border security and even increased ability for states to "go Arizona" if they want to, if you'll include a ton of the stuff we want, such as a guest worker program (originally a GOP idea), immigration status reform, increased means of getting illegals on the grid for taxes and licenses, and etc.

Republicans will get most of what they want, Democrats will get plenty of what they want. The DNP base will be lukewarm and live with it. The GOP base will cry "amnesty" as they always, always do. Tons of Republicans, afraid of their base, will then back off a measure they privately supported during the bill-crafting process, and the bill in both the House, the Senate, and conference will have to be so jam-packed with pork in order to get the minimum amounts of votes possible, which it probably will.

It will be passed, possibly after the Republicans stall long enough to get to the August 2011 recess, just to make sure the Democrats have to suffer another "steel cage" beatdown from tea partiers, and then the bill will pass. The GOP base, and ChiefsPlanet's DC forum, will declare it the End of America, and all candidates in the Republican primaries will add it to their respective "Repeal & Replace" platforms, before losing to Sarah Palin.

Direckshun
07-11-2010, 08:14 PM
God damn that was therapeutic. :)

Saul Good
07-11-2010, 08:31 PM
God damn that was therapeutic. :)

I hope so. I especially liked the part about this being like gay marriage in reverse. Gay marriage (opposed by 2/3rds of the population) helped the Republicans. Immigration reform (supported by 2/3rds of the population) will do the same.

I break with the Republicans on the gay marriage stance (but I take consolation in knowing that it's a ballot stuffer), but I give my full support to immigration reform.

The Democrats were given carte blanche a year and a half ago (even longer if you count the landslide that was the mid-term Congressional election). They were going to bring home the troops, fix the economy, close Gitmo, and save the environment.

18 months later, we're still in Iraq, and Afghanistan has escalated. The economy is worse than any time in the last 80 years. Gitmo is still up and running, and we're watching the worst environmental disaster in the history of our country unfold before our very eyes.

It's become painfully obvious that the dems bit off more than they could chew. Now, they are trying to pick a fight with a state over a law that the majority of Americans want in their own state. It's preposterous. I think that the camel has long since died and rotted away, but we might as well throw another few bails of hay on it's back for good measure.

Direckshun
07-11-2010, 08:44 PM
I hope so. I especially liked the part about this being like gay marriage in reverse. Gay marriage (opposed by 2/3rds of the population) helped the Republicans. Immigration reform (supported by 2/3rds of the population) will do the same.

I break with the Republicans on the gay marriage stance (but I take consolation in knowing that it's a ballot stuffer), but I give my full support to immigration reform.

The Democrats were given carte blanche a year and a half ago (even longer if you count the landslide that was the mid-term Congressional election). They were going to bring home the troops, fix the economy, close Gitmo, and save the environment.

18 months later, we're still in Iraq, and Afghanistan has escalated. The economy is worse than any time in the last 80 years. Gitmo is still up and running, and we're watching the worst environmental disaster in the history of our country unfold before our very eyes.

It's become painfully obvious that the dems bit off more than they could chew. Now, they are trying to pick a fight with a state over a law that the majority of Americans want in their own state. It's preposterous. I think that the camel has long since died and rotted away, but we might as well throw another few bails of hay on it's back for good measure.

I don't know if you're trying to make the case that the Democrats have been unproductive, but if that's the case, it's not a very accurate thing to say. This has been one of the most productive Congresses in American history. Add that in with Obama's work and the Dems have chewed about all you can expect them to...

They aren't going to solve everything -- but from two SCOTUS nominees (Kagan's a shoo-in), an economic stimulus package that does more by itself than many Congresses altogether, a dramatic escalation in Afghanistan, a withdrawal from Iraq that is pretty well paced (we are currently around 70,000, on schedule to drawdown to Obama's preference of 50,000), a healthcare reform package, we're knocking on the door for financial regulation reform, the President dominated BP into a $20 billion liability fund, we're knocking on the door for homosexual equality in the military, and cap-and-trade has a pretty good pulse for the fall. I'm definitely missing a few things but those are all pretty monumental accomplishments.

You can disagree with any of the programs, but all in all that's a productive couple of years by anybody's standards. That's downright historic.

But as far as immigration's concerned, I'm almost certain it's just a drummed-up issue that Congress will probably not even act on until 2011. Allowing it to remain hypothetical allows everybody to grandstand however they want.

I think the issue is so toxic, you pretty much have to wait until the elections are over and you are the furthest possible amount of time away from the next elections, to get something done on it.

My prediction remains: :)

When 2011 rolls around, the Democrats (assuming they hold the House, which I'm putting at a 65-70% chance) will bring Republicans in en masse to craft a reform plan: we'll include a ton of your stuff on border security and even increased ability for states to "go Arizona" if they want to, if you'll include a ton of the stuff we want, such as a guest worker program (originally a GOP idea), immigration status reform, increased means of getting illegals on the grid for taxes and licenses, and etc.

Republicans will get most of what they want, Democrats will get plenty of what they want. The DNP base will be lukewarm and live with it. The GOP base will cry "amnesty" as they always, always do. Tons of Republicans, afraid of their base, will then back off a measure they privately supported during the bill-crafting process, and the bill in both the House, the Senate, and conference will have to be so jam-packed with pork in order to get the minimum amounts of votes possible, which it probably will.

It will be passed, possibly after the Republicans stall long enough to get to the August 2011 recess, just to make sure the Democrats have to suffer another "steel cage" beatdown from tea partiers, and then the bill will pass. The GOP base, and ChiefsPlanet's DC forum, will declare it the End of America, and all candidates in the Republican primaries will add it to their respective "Repeal & Replace" platforms, before losing to Sarah Palin.

petegz28
07-11-2010, 08:57 PM
I don't know if you're trying to make the case that the Democrats have been unproductive, but if that's the case, it's not a very accurate thing to say. This has been one of the most productive Congresses in American history. Add that in with Obama's work and the Dems have chewed about all you can expect them to...

They aren't going to solve everything -- but from two SCOTUS nominees (Kagan's a shoo-in), an economic stimulus package that does more by itself than many Congresses altogether, a dramatic escalation in Afghanistan, a withdrawal from Iraq that is pretty well paced (we are currently around 70,000, on schedule to drawdown to Obama's preference of 50,000), a healthcare reform package, we're knocking on the door for financial regulation reform, the President dominated BP into a $20 billion liability fund, we're knocking on the door for homosexual equality in the military, and cap-and-trade has a pretty good pulse for the fall. I'm definitely missing a few things but those are all pretty monumental accomplishments.

You can disagree with any of the programs, but all in all that's a productive couple of years by anybody's standards. That's downright historic.

But as far as immigration's concerned, I'm almost certain it's just a drummed-up issue that Congress will probably not even act on until 2011. Allowing it to remain hypothetical allows everybody to grandstand however they want.

I think the issue is so toxic, you pretty much have to wait until the elections are over and you are the furthest possible amount of time away from the next elections, to get something done on it.

My prediction remains: :)

This has not been one of the most productive Congresses? Yes, they have got a lot of shit done. But none of it so far has been "productive". Health care is going to break a lot of people beause the health care bill did nothing to lower costs and everything to restrict care and raise long term costs.

The Stimulus bill has had little effect because again, while it sounded good it was not executed properly and therefor failed.

Aghanistan is getting worse
We are still in Iraq
Gitmo is still open, as I said it would be
Cash for clunkers is gone and nothing is better for it except Union jobs
The Home Buyer's credit is gone and housing is tanking
Foreclosures are at an all time high
Credit card rates have increased
The Financial Regulation bill has some pieces in it that should do us good.
One hypocrite has been nominated to the SCOTUS and another is on the way
350 acres of AZ land have been handed over to illegal drug runners and smugglers
The deficit is at unsustainable levels and increasing
The Dems "deemed" a non-existent budget as passed
Unemployment is well above the promised 8% cap and only falling slightly (9.5% from 9.7%) because people are giving up on looking for work
Oil is spilling thousands of gallons a day for almost 4 months now
And now, instead of addressing the border like the majority of Americans want, Obama is suing the state of AZ.
One General has resigned because of his lack of faith in Obama as CiC and suddenly General Betrayus is now The General Who Will Save Us
Obama called out the SCOTUS at the SOTU, which is unprecedented

And to top it all off we have arguably the first President in history that speaks in the 1st person more than any other and blames everyone else for everything that has gone bad.


Yea, a lot of shit has been done. But hardly anything productive. And what little shreds of productivity that may have managed to squeak through are sorely outweighed by the negative.

petegz28
07-11-2010, 09:01 PM
Ohm and you're fooling yourself if you think this immigration debate is going to get out the vote for the Dems. The dirty, nasty little secret that the Dems wanted kept as such is a lot of LEGAL immigrats and supportive of AZ and tougher enforcement of illegal immigration.

HonestChieffan
07-11-2010, 09:54 PM
Poor Direk. I almost feel sorry for him at times.

Direckshun
07-11-2010, 10:01 PM
Aghanistan is getting worse

Worse? Than under the Bush administration?

In no way do I argue that Afghanistan is going swimmingly. But what's happening in Afghanistan right now is a different kind of bad compared to the negligence that happened under Bush.

We are still in Iraq

Drawdown is on schedule.

Gitmo is still open, as I said it would be

No argument here.

Cash for clunkers is gone and nothing is better for it except Union jobs

Cash for Clunkers, along with the auto bailouts, helped ignite the industry's revival.

The Home Buyer's credit is gone and housing is tanking
Foreclosures are at an all time high

Foreclosures continue to be an all time high. The housing market was plummetting when Obama took office. The tax credit was just a mild vacation from a really shitty situation.

Credit card rates have increased

Unless I'm mistaken, you don't want the government to do anything about this.

The Financial Regulation bill has some pieces in it that should do us good.

Right.

One hypocrite has been nominated to the SCOTUS and another is on the way

Sotomayor is as uncontroversial a candidate as there is.

I really don't like the Kagan nomination but """"hypocrisy"""" isn't the reason why.

350 acres of AZ land have been handed over to illegal drug runners and smugglers

Security on the Arizona border has actually improved under Napolitano (link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/09/AR2010070902342.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) and link (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/02/20100502arizona-border-violence-mexico.html)).

The deficit is at unsustainable levels and increasing

While I agree with you on this point, I still maintain that you stimulate out of an economy and slim down the deficits when the economy recovers.

The Dems "deemed" a non-existent budget as passed

Blame the dingus Blue Dogs for that one.

Unemployment is well above the promised 8% cap and only falling slightly (9.5% from 9.7%) because people are giving up on looking for work

How would the unemployment rate improve from people giving up on getting jobs?

Oil is spilling thousands of gallons a day for almost 4 months now

Absolutely zilch the government can do about the spill once it happened. The government has never had the technology to fix that.

Instead, blame for that can be sifted over oil policy in general, something you can blame on every President of the last fifty years.

And now, instead of addressing the border like the majority of Americans want, Obama is suing the state of AZ.

Even Fox News analysts (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/07/09/ellen-ratner-arizona-immigration-law-phoenix-tuscon-tony-snow-bush-department/) defend Holder's lawsuit against the Arizona law.

One General has resigned because of his lack of faith in Obama as CiC

Are you referring to General Birther (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=227971&highlight=birther)?

and suddenly General Betrayus is now The General Who Will Save Us

Only to idiots, of which there are more than a few.

Most liberals greeted the nomination of Patreus with disappointment.

Obama called out the SCOTUS at the SOTU, which is unprecedented

It's actually not unprecedented. And Obama's jab was far more mild than some other previous Presidents (PLURAL) that have done so.

And to top it all off we have arguably the first President in history that speaks in the 1st person more than any other

That's a weird thing to say...

and blames everyone else for everything that has gone bad.

That's what Presidents do, pretty much.

Yea, a lot of shit has been done. But hardly anything productive. And what little shreds of productivity that may have managed to squeak through are sorely outweighed by the negative.

Actually, all you've proved is that you pretty much take in talk radio intraveinously.

Kudos.

Direckshun
07-11-2010, 10:02 PM
Poor Direk. I almost feel sorry for him at times.

Thanks, bud.

go bowe
07-12-2010, 03:13 AM
* * *
I really don't like the Kagan nomination but """"hypocrisy"""" isn't the reason why.
why don't you like the kagan nomination?

petegz28
07-12-2010, 05:25 AM
Worse? Than under the Bush administration?

In no way do I argue that Afghanistan is going swimmingly. But what's happening in Afghanistan right now is a different kind of bad compared to the negligence that happened under Bush.





Drawdown is on schedule.



No argument here.



Cash for Clunkers, along with the auto bailouts, helped ignite the industry's revival.



Foreclosures continue to be an all time high. The housing market was plummetting when Obama took office. The tax credit was just a mild vacation from a really shitty situation.



Unless I'm mistaken, you don't want the government to do anything about this.



Right.



Sotomayor is as uncontroversial a candidate as there is.

I really don't like the Kagan nomination but """"hypocrisy"""" isn't the reason why.



Security on the Arizona border has actually improved under Napolitano (link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/09/AR2010070902342.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) and link (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/02/20100502arizona-border-violence-mexico.html)).



While I agree with you on this point, I still maintain that you stimulate out of an economy and slim down the deficits when the economy recovers.



Blame the dingus Blue Dogs for that one.



How would the unemployment rate improve from people giving up on getting jobs?



Absolutely zilch the government can do about the spill once it happened. The government has never had the technology to fix that.

Instead, blame for that can be sifted over oil policy in general, something you can blame on every President of the last fifty years.



Even Fox News analysts (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/07/09/ellen-ratner-arizona-immigration-law-phoenix-tuscon-tony-snow-bush-department/) defend Holder's lawsuit against the Arizona law.



Are you referring to General Birther (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=227971&highlight=birther)?



Only to idiots, of which there are more than a few.

Most liberals greeted the nomination of Patreus with disappointment.



It's actually not unprecedented. And Obama's jab was far more mild than some other previous Presidents (PLURAL) that have done so.



That's a weird thing to say...



That's what Presidents do, pretty much.



Actually, all you've proved is that you pretty much take in talk radio intraveinously.

Kudos.



I chose one of your answers to highlight your ignorance to matters. The unemployment rate drops when people quit looking for work because the Fed Gov deems those people as no longer part of the labor force.

See, perhaps you are the one who should educate yourself a little more and put down the talk radio???

And oddly enough you find yourself trying to use Fox News to defend your stance on the AZ lawsuit. Which, BTW, doesn't change the fact of the point I made about such.

Also, I was referring to McChrystal. He was not a birther, that I know of.

And I am glad to see you taking a page from your hero and blame others. Blame Bush, inherited, bla bla bla.

petegz28
07-12-2010, 05:52 AM
And Direkshun, I must apologize, I missed your response to the oil spill. You said

"Absolutely zilch the government can do about the spill once it happened. The government has never had the technology to fix that."

But the White House Said

"I think the containment strategy that the Coast Guard and the federal government pushed BP to accelerate will capture most of the oil that is leaking from the Gulf right now," Gibbs said during an appearance on "Good Morning America" on ABC this morning.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/103159-white-house-says-it-could-contain-90-percent-of-oil-spilling-per-day-by-months-en?page=2

Saul Good
07-12-2010, 07:26 AM
Direckshun's post should be a Republican campaign commercial. Things are a mess, and they're patting themselves on the back. I know where you can get a "mission accomplished" banner cheap.

If this is the best they can do, the dems need to step aside and let the grown-ups take over. When the Republicans shit the bed with prescription drugs, campaign finance reform, out of control spending, no child left behind, etc., the real conservatives looked at the situation and formed the tea party faction. The dems seem to be lacking any self-realization. You'd think that losing Kennedy's seat and Corzine's seat would do the trick. Evidently not.

Direckshun
07-12-2010, 08:49 AM
I chose one of your answers to highlight your ignorance to matters. The unemployment rate drops when people quit looking for work because the Fed Gov deems those people as no longer part of the labor force.

See, perhaps you are the one who should educate yourself a little more and put down the talk radio???

And oddly enough you find yourself trying to use Fox News to defend your stance on the AZ lawsuit. Which, BTW, doesn't change the fact of the point I made about such.

Also, I was referring to McChrystal. He was not a birther, that I know of.

And I am glad to see you taking a page from your hero and blame others. Blame Bush, inherited, bla bla bla.

A lazy response as usual. You're calling me ignorant while claiming things like border security hasn't improved under Obama, Obama was the first President to attack the Supreme Court in a SOTU, and that the government has failed to fix the spill -- when the government can't fix the spill, and hasn't tried.

I could go on. And I would. But you've decided to surrender virtually all the points to me.

Well, patteeu style, I accept your surrender. But I'm going to rape your women first.

'Tis the liberal way.

Direckshun
07-12-2010, 08:53 AM
And Direkshun, I must apologize, I missed your response to the oil spill. You said

But the White House Said

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/103159-white-house-says-it-could-contain-90-percent-of-oil-spilling-per-day-by-months-en?page=2

Containment of the spill is distinct from stopping the spill.

You initially complained in this thread about the oil spill itself:

Oil is spilling thousands of gallons a day for almost 4 months now

So that's what I'm responding to. You can move the goalposts all you want, but the truth is the truth.

With deep sea oil spills, the government can do jack shit to fix that. They can try to contain it. But they can't do jack shit to fix it.

Saul Good
07-12-2010, 08:55 AM
A lazy response as usual. You're calling me ignorant while claiming things like border security hasn't improved under Obama, Obama was the first President to attack the Supreme Court in a SOTU, and that the government has failed to fix the spill -- when the government can't fix the spill, and hasn't tried.

I could go on. And I would. But you've decided to surrender virtually all the points to me.

Well, patteeu style, I accept your surrender. But I'm going to rape your women first.

'Tis the liberal way.

You're venturing perilously close to going off the deep end. If the voters knew in 2008 what they know now, Obama wouldn't have even gotten the nomination let alone the Presidency.

Brock
07-12-2010, 08:56 AM
claiming things like border security hasn't improved under Obama

Yeah, how kooky of him. LMAO

Direckshun
07-12-2010, 08:56 AM
Direckshun's post should be a Republican campaign commercial. Things are a mess, and they're patting themselves on the back. I know where you can get a "mission accomplished" banner cheap.

For liberals, the mission is never accomplished. We play a long game. This is all just a series of steps.

Direckshun
07-12-2010, 08:57 AM
You're venturing perilously close to going off the deep end. If the voters knew in 2008 what they know now, Obama wouldn't have even gotten the nomination let alone the Presidency.

Saul, Christ. I've been off the deep end for my entire life.

Do you actually think there's a sliver of rationality in me?

Check your handbook. I am but a puppet of much greater, evil forces.

Bob Dole
07-12-2010, 08:59 AM
But as far as immigration's concerned, I'm almost certain it's just a drummed-up issue that Congress will probably not even act on until 2011. Allowing it to remain hypothetical allows everybody to grandstand however they want.

I think the issue is so toxic, you pretty much have to wait until the elections are over and you are the furthest possible amount of time away from the next elections, to get something done on it.


It's only "toxic" because it is yet another example of the people elected to REPRESENT the citizens of this country, doing everything BUT representing the will of the citizens of this country.

Saul Good
07-12-2010, 09:00 AM
Containment of the spill is distinct from stopping the spill.

You initially complained in this thread about the oil spill itself:



So that's what I'm responding to. You can move the goalposts all you want, but the truth is the truth.

With deep sea oil spills, the government can do jack shit to fix that. They can try to contain it. But they can't do jack shit to fix it.

What were they doing to enforce existing regulations in order to prevent it from happening in the first place? Obama's great at assigning blame and shaking down companies after the fact. It's the community organizer way. Where he's failed is in actually improving anything.

Saul Good
07-12-2010, 09:05 AM
Saul, Christ. I've been off the deep end for my entire life.

Do you actually think there's a sliver of rationality in me?

Check your handbook. I am but a puppet of much greater, evil forces.
You can't fool me. I know that you're a rational person. Don't go crazy just to stop the cognative dissonance that haunts you. There is a better way.

petegz28
07-12-2010, 09:11 AM
A lazy response as usual. You're calling me ignorant while claiming things like border security hasn't improved under Obama, Obama was the first President to attack the Supreme Court in a SOTU, and that the government has failed to fix the spill -- when the government can't fix the spill, and hasn't tried.

I could go on. And I would. But you've decided to surrender virtually all the points to me.

Well, patteeu style, I accept your surrender. But I'm going to rape your women first.

'Tis the liberal way.

Yeah, border security improved so much we handed over 350 acres of AZ to illegals.

You're right, I have surrendered in dealing with your being in your own little world.

SDChiefs
07-12-2010, 09:23 AM
I chose one of your answers to highlight your ignorance to matters. The unemployment rate drops when people quit looking for work because the Fed Gov deems those people as no longer part of the labor force.

See, perhaps you are the one who should educate yourself a little more and put down the talk radio???

And oddly enough you find yourself trying to use Fox News to defend your stance on the AZ lawsuit. Which, BTW, doesn't change the fact of the point I made about such.

Also, I was referring to McChrystal. He was not a birther, that I know of.

And I am glad to see you taking a page from your hero and blame others. Blame Bush, inherited, bla bla bla.

So, if the economy tanked before Obama took office, it is still his fault because Bush can do no wrong?

petegz28
07-12-2010, 09:29 AM
So, if the economy tanked before Obama took office, it is still his fault because Bush can do no wrong?

Where did I ever say Bush did no wrong? Where did I ever say the economy started to tank under Obama? What is your point? That Obama didn't say unemployment would be capped at 8% if we passed the stimulus??

BTW, I must ask, who was in charge of the spending for the last 2 years of Bush?

Saul Good
07-12-2010, 11:39 AM
A lazy response as usual. You're calling me ignorant while claiming things like border security hasn't improved under Obama, Obama was the first President to attack the Supreme Court in a SOTU, and that the government has failed to fix the spill -- when the government can't fix the spill, and hasn't tried.

I could go on. And I would. But you've decided to surrender virtually all the points to me.

Well, patteeu style, I accept your surrender. But I'm going to rape your women first.

'Tis the liberal way.
Out of curiosity, are you claiming Obama's sophomoric swipes at the SCOTUS as an accomplishment?

Direckshun
07-12-2010, 01:12 PM
why don't you like the kagan nomination?

Shit, totally missed this go bowe. My bad.

1. I dislike it because there was an incredibly qualified candidate that would be more reliable with an extensive history of working very well with conservatives (Diane Wood).

2. I dislike it because Kagan has absolutely zero track record. Even Jeffrey Toobin, my favorite author on the Supreme Court, who was friends with Kagan at law school, doesn't know where she stands on the issues of the day.

This was an insider nomination, made by elitists who promise us they know better. I abhor that approach to judicial appointees on the Supreme Court.

Direckshun
07-12-2010, 01:13 PM
It's only "toxic" because it is yet another example of the people elected to REPRESENT the citizens of this country, doing everything BUT representing the will of the citizens of this country.

Agreed.

Direckshun
07-12-2010, 01:14 PM
What were they doing to enforce existing regulations in order to prevent it from happening in the first place?

Hey, I agree. But this is a problem, like I said in this thread, that you can spread out amongst the Presidents of the past fifty years.

Direckshun
07-12-2010, 01:15 PM
You can't fool me. I know that you're a rational person. Don't go crazy just to stop the cognative dissonance that haunts you. There is a better way.

Show me the light, Saul. :D

Direckshun
07-12-2010, 01:16 PM
Yeah, border security improved so much we handed over 350 acres of AZ to illegals.

Better than bad does not equal good.

But it's better nonetheless. The goal is to continue making it better.

Direckshun
07-12-2010, 01:18 PM
BTW, I must ask, who was in charge of the spending for the last 2 years of Bush?

Did we start posting trillion dollar deficits in the last two years of Bush?

Because I was under the impression that we started doing that, after inheriting a surplus, with a Republican President and a Republican Congress.

Direckshun
07-12-2010, 01:21 PM
Out of curiosity, are you claiming Obama's sophomoric swipes at the SCOTUS as an accomplishment?

Pete made the claim that it was unprecedented. It's not. Pete is wrong.

It's also uncontroversial, the Supreme Court is not above criticism. No laws were broken, or party decorum breached. We're just pretending it's controversial because a Democrat did it.

Obama's "sophomoric swipes" as you term it were pretty much a standard discussion of checks and balances.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 08:33 AM
Did we start posting trillion dollar deficits in the last two years of Bush?

Because I was under the impression that we started doing that, after inheriting a surplus, with a Republican President and a Republican Congress.

Just curious, Pete.

Donger
07-13-2010, 08:40 AM
Did we start posting trillion dollar deficits in the last two years of Bush?

Because I was under the impression that we started doing that, after inheriting a surplus, with a Republican President and a Republican Congress.

I don't believe that we had a trillion dollar deficit until 2009.

petegz28
07-13-2010, 08:41 AM
Better than bad does not equal good.

But it's better nonetheless. The goal is to continue making it better.

Handing over our land to illegals is better??? WTF are you smoking?

petegz28
07-13-2010, 08:42 AM
Just curious, Pete.

Swing and a miss. And to be honest, the deficit really started to rise after the Dems took over the spending in 2007.

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg


So, as you can see, Obama's smallest projected deficit is still larger thant Bush's largest.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 10:02 AM
Swing and a miss. And to be honest, the deficit really started to rise after the Dems took over the spending in 2007.

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

So, as you can see, Obama's smallest projected deficit is still larger thant Bush's largest.

Read the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/97xx/doc9706/09-08-Update.pdf), Pete. Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush.

A deficit that was created by: tax cuts (GOP President, GOP Congress), the Iraq war (GOP President, GOP Congress), Medicare expansion (GOP President, GOP Congress), and stimulative economic efforts (both GOP and DNP Presidents, DNP Congress).

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 10:04 AM
Handing over our land to illegals is better??? WTF are you smoking?

Yes, border security is better under Napolitano.

But better does not equal good.

mikey23545
07-13-2010, 10:06 AM
Read the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/97xx/doc9706/09-08-Update.pdf), Pete. Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush.

A deficit that was created by: tax cuts (GOP President, GOP Congress), the Iraq war (GOP President, GOP Congress), Medicare expansion (GOP President, GOP Congress), and stimulative economic efforts (both GOP and DNP Presidents, DNP Congress).


Look at the chart, Sucker...

petegz28
07-13-2010, 10:07 AM
Read the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/97xx/doc9706/09-08-Update.pdf), Pete. Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit from Bush.

A deficit that was created by: tax cuts (GOP President, GOP Congress), the Iraq war (GOP President, GOP Congress), Medicare expansion (GOP President, GOP Congress), and stimulative economic efforts (both GOP and DNP Presidents, DNP Congress).

Right, it was created by tax cuts....LMAO

And who was in control of the spending from 07-09?

Also worthy of note, Bush was not President in 2009.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 10:07 AM
Look at the chart, Sucker...

Oh, jesus. Well if a chart says it.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/newsgraphics/2009/0610-leonhardt/0610-web-leonhardt.gif

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 10:08 AM
Right, it was created by tax cuts....LMAO

It was created by tax cuts.

petegz28
07-13-2010, 10:08 AM
Yes, border security is better under Napolitano.

But better does not equal good.

So you admit that giving away land to illegals is better than where we were??? ROFLROFLROFL

Just stop.

petegz28
07-13-2010, 10:09 AM
It was created by tax cuts.

You're a fucking idiot if you believe that.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 10:15 AM
So you admit that giving away land to illegals is better than where we were??? ROFLROFLROFL

Just stop.

You're a ****ing idiot if you believe that.

There's so much evidence and logic to respond to here, I'm just going to have to cede the entire argument to you.

Here I was, thinking I got the better of you. But you have trumped me with your mighty emoticons and censored swear words.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 10:17 AM
Since you refuse to read it.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/02/20100502arizona-border-violence-mexico.html

Violence is not up on Arizona border despite Mexican drug war
Mexico crime flares, but here, only flickers


NOGALES, Ariz. - Assistant Police Chief Roy Bermudez shakes his head and smiles when he hears politicians and pundits declaring that Mexican cartel violence is overrunning his Arizona border town.

"We have not, thank God, witnessed any spillover violence from Mexico," Bermudez says emphatically. "You can look at the crime stats. I think Nogales, Arizona, is one of the safest places to live in all of America."


FBI Uniform Crime Reports and statistics provided by police agencies, in fact, show that the crime rates in Nogales, Douglas, Yuma and other Arizona border towns have remained essentially flat for the past decade, even as drug-related violence has spiraled out of control on the other side of the international line. Statewide, rates of violent crime also are down.

While smugglers have become more aggressive in their encounters with authorities, as evidenced by the shooting of a Pinal County deputy on Friday, allegedly by illegal-immigrant drug runners, they do not routinely target residents of border towns.

In 2000, there were 23 rapes, robberies and murders in Nogales, Ariz. Last year, despite nearly a decade of population growth, there were 19 such crimes. Aggravated assaults dropped by one-third. No one has been murdered in two years.

Bermudez said people unfamiliar with the border may be confused because Nogales, Sonora, has become notorious for kidnappings, shootouts and beheadings. With 500 Border Patrol agents and countless other law officers swarming the Arizona side, he said, smugglers pass through as quickly and furtively as possible.

"Everywhere you turn, there's some kind of law enforcement looking at you," Bermudez said. "Per capita, we probably have the highest amount of any city in the United States."

In Yuma, police spokesman Sgt. Clint Norred said he cannot recall any significant cartel violence in the past several years. Departmental crime records show the amount of bloodshed has remained stable despite a substantial population increase.

"It almost seems like Yuma is more of an entryway" for smugglers rather than a combat zone, he said.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 10:18 AM
Perceptions vs. reality

Since the murder of Cochise County rancher Robert Krentz by a suspected illegal immigrant in March, politicians and the national press have fanned a perception that the border is inundated with bloodshed and that it's escalating.

In a speech on the Senate floor last week, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., declared that the failure to secure that border between Arizona and Mexico "has led to violence - the worst I have ever seen."

He reiterated that Saturday after speaking at the West Valley Military Family Day event in Glendale, saying the concern that drug violence could spill across the border remains intense because Mexico's political situation is volatile.

"The violence is on the increase," McCain told The Arizona Republic. "The president of Mexico has said that it's a struggle for the existence of the government of Mexico."

Congressional members, including Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and John Shadegg, R-Ariz., sent President Barack Obama a letter asking that National Guard soldiers be sent to the border because "violence in the vicinity of the U.S. Mexico border continues to increase at an alarming rate."

And last month, as she signed Arizona's tough new law cracking down on illegal immigrants, Gov. Jan Brewer also called for National Guard troops. The law makes it a state crime to be in Arizona illegally and requires authorities to check documents of people they reasonably suspect to be illegal. Brewer said she signed it to solve what she said is an Arizona "crisis" caused by "border-related violence and crime due to illegal immigration."

Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff of Pima County, said there always has been crime associated with smuggling in southern Arizona, but today's rhetoric does not seem to jibe with reality.

"This is a media-created event," Dupnik said. "I hear politicians on TV saying the border has gotten worse. Well, the fact of the matter is that the border has never been more secure."

Even Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever, among the most strident critics of federal enforcement, concedes that notions of cartel mayhem are exaggerated. "We're not seeing the multiple killings, beheadings and shootouts that are going on on the other side," he said.

In fact, according to the Border Patrol, Krentz is the only American murdered by a suspected illegal immigrant in at least a decade within the agency's Tucson sector, the busiest smuggling route among the Border Patrol's nine coverage regions along the U.S.-Mexican border.

Still, Dever said, the slaying proved useful to southern Arizonans who are sick of smugglers and immigrants tramping through their lands.

"The interest just elevated. And we keep the pressure on because next week something else is going to happen, and the window of opportunity will close," Dever said.

Cochise County's crime rate has been "flat" for at least 10 years, the sheriff added. Even in 2000, when record numbers of undocumented immigrants were detained in the area, just 4 percent of the area's violent crimes were committed by illegal aliens.

Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villasenor said his town suffers from home invasions and kidnappings involving marijuana smugglers who are undoubtedly tied to Mexican organizations. However, he added, most of those committing the rip-offs are American citizens.

"I think the border-influenced violence is getting worse," Villasenor said. "But is it a spillover of Mexican cartel members? No, I don't buy that."

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/02/20100502arizona-border-violence-mexico.html#ixzz0ta1ARzy7

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 10:19 AM
More help on the border

While the nation's illegal-immigrant population doubled from 1994 to 2004, according to federal records, the violent-crime rate declined 35 percent.

More recently, Arizona's violent-crime rate dropped from 512 incidents per 100,000 residents in 2005 to 447 incidents in 2008, the most recent year for which data is available.

In testimony to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security last month, Dennis Burke, U.S. attorney for Arizona, noted that Arizona now has more than 6,000 federal law-enforcement agents, with the majority of them employed by the Border Patrol. That represents nearly 10 agents for every mile of international line between Arizona and Sonora.

Border Patrol presence has been backed by increases in counter-smuggling technology and intelligence, the establishment of permanent highway checkpoints and a dramatic increase in customs inspectors at U.S. ports.

"The border is as secure now as it has ever been," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a Senate panel last week.

Given that level of security, Bermudez and others say, it is no wonder that cartel operatives pass through border communities as quickly as possible, avoiding conflicts and attention.

In fact, violent-crime data suggest that violence from Mexico leapfrogs the border to smuggling hubs and destinations, where cartel members do take part in murders, home invasions and kidnappings.

In Phoenix and Tucson, cartel-related violence is hardly new.

In 1996, for example, Valley law-enforcement agents estimated that 40 percent of all homicides in Maricopa County were a result of conflicts involving Mexican narcotics organizations, mostly from Sinaloa state. A decade later, the Attorney General's Office exposed a $2 billion human-smuggling business based in metro Phoenix, where criminals often assaulted illegal aliens while holding them for payment of smuggling fees. More recently, cartel-related home invasions and abductions put Phoenix among the world leaders in kidnappings.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/02/20100502arizona-border-violence-mexico.html#ixzz0ta1IcIXd

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 10:19 AM
'A third country'

During a national border security expo in Phoenix last week, David Aguilar, acting deputy commissioner for Customs and Border Protection, said policy makers and the public need to understand that the border is not a fence or a line in the dirt but a broad and complex corridor.

"It is," Aguilar explained, "a third country that joins Mexico and the United States."

He emphasized that the cartels operate throughout Mexico and the United States, and he noted that those who think of border security in terms of a "juridical line" really don't understand the dynamics.

Aguilar said that Juarez, Mexico, is widely regarded as the "deadliest city in the world" because of an estimated 5,000 murders in recent years. Yet right across the border, El Paso, Texas, is listed among the safest towns in America.

A review of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports suggests that Arizona's border towns share El Paso's good fortune. Douglas and Nogales are about the same size as Florence but have significantly lower violent-crime rates. Likewise, Yuma has a population greater than Avondale's but a lower rate of violent offenses.

In Nogales, Ariz., residents seem bemused and annoyed by their town's perilous reputation. Yes, they sometimes hear the gunfire across the border. No, they don't feel safe visiting the sister city across the line. But with cops and federal agents everywhere, they see no danger on their streets.

"There's no violence here," said Francisco Hernandez, 31, who works in a sign shop and lives on a ranch along the border. "It doesn't drain over, like people are saying."

Leo Federico, 61, a retired teacher, said he has been amazed to hear members of Congress call for National Guard troops in the area.

"That's politics," he said, shrugging. "It's all about votes. . . . We have plenty of law enforcement."

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/02/20100502arizona-border-violence-mexico.html#ixzz0ta1U7Fw5

mikey23545
07-13-2010, 10:28 AM
Read the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/97xx/doc9706/09-08-Update.pdf)
A deficit that was created by: tax cuts (GOP President, GOP Congress),

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year historical averages.[1] The inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest two-year revenue surge since 1965-1967.[2] Claims that Americans are undertaxed by historical standards are patently false.

Some critics of President George W. Bush's tax policies concede that tax revenues exceed the historical average yet assert that revenues are historically low for economies in the fourth year of an expansion. Setting aside that some of these tax policies are partly responsible for that economic expansion, the numbers simply do not support this claim. Comparing tax revenues in the fourth fiscal year after the end of each of the past three recessions shows nearly equal tax revenues of:

* 18.4 percent of GDP in 1987,
* 18.5 percent of GDP in 1995, and
* 18.4 percent of GDP in 2006.[3]

While revenues as a percentage of GDP have not fully returned to pre-recession levels (20.9 percent in 2000), it is now clear that the pre-recession level was a major historical anomaly caused by a temporary stock market bubble.

mikey23545
07-13-2010, 10:32 AM
Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998-2001 to a $247 billion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from the "irresponsible" Bush tax cuts. This argument ignores the historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006.[4]

The best way to measure the swing from surplus to deficit is by comparing the pre-tax cut budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with what actually happened. While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit-a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 billion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues.[5] (See Chart 1.)

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/5558/chart1lgashx.gif (http://img215.imageshack.us/i/chart1lgashx.gif/)

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 10:32 AM
Link it, mikey.

mikey23545
07-13-2010, 10:33 AM
Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

As previously stated, whether a tax cut pays for itself depends on how much people alter their behavior in response to the policy. Investors have been shown to be the most sensitive to tax policy, because capital gains tax cuts encourage enough new investment to more than offset the lower tax rate.

In 2003, capital gains tax rates were reduced from 20 percent and 10 percent (depending on income) to 15 percent and 5 percent. Rather than expand by 36 percent from the current $50 billion level to $68 billion in 2006 as the CBO projected before the tax cut, capital gains revenues more than doubled to $103 billion.[10] (See Chart 2.) Past capital gains tax cuts have shown similar results.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 10:34 AM
Link, please.

mikey23545
07-13-2010, 10:34 AM
Link it, mikey.

Eat it, dickwad.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/01/Ten-Myths-About-the-Bush-Tax-Cuts

petegz28
07-13-2010, 10:43 AM
Since you refuse to read it.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/02/20100502arizona-border-violence-mexico.html

Violence is not up on Arizona border despite Mexican drug war
Mexico crime flares, but here, only flickers


NOGALES, Ariz. - Assistant Police Chief Roy Bermudez shakes his head and smiles when he hears politicians and pundits declaring that Mexican cartel violence is overrunning his Arizona border town.

"We have not, thank God, witnessed any spillover violence from Mexico," Bermudez says emphatically. "You can look at the crime stats. I think Nogales, Arizona, is one of the safest places to live in all of America."


FBI Uniform Crime Reports and statistics provided by police agencies, in fact, show that the crime rates in Nogales, Douglas, Yuma and other Arizona border towns have remained essentially flat for the past decade, even as drug-related violence has spiraled out of control on the other side of the international line. Statewide, rates of violent crime also are down.

While smugglers have become more aggressive in their encounters with authorities, as evidenced by the shooting of a Pinal County deputy on Friday, allegedly by illegal-immigrant drug runners, they do not routinely target residents of border towns.

In 2000, there were 23 rapes, robberies and murders in Nogales, Ariz. Last year, despite nearly a decade of population growth, there were 19 such crimes. Aggravated assaults dropped by one-third. No one has been murdered in two years.

Bermudez said people unfamiliar with the border may be confused because Nogales, Sonora, has become notorious for kidnappings, shootouts and beheadings. With 500 Border Patrol agents and countless other law officers swarming the Arizona side, he said, smugglers pass through as quickly and furtively as possible.

"Everywhere you turn, there's some kind of law enforcement looking at you," Bermudez said. "Per capita, we probably have the highest amount of any city in the United States."

In Yuma, police spokesman Sgt. Clint Norred said he cannot recall any significant cartel violence in the past several years. Departmental crime records show the amount of bloodshed has remained stable despite a substantial population increase.

"It almost seems like Yuma is more of an entryway" for smugglers rather than a combat zone, he said.

So this is your justification for handing over 350 acres to illegals??? :eek:

petegz28
07-13-2010, 10:44 AM
I think Drieckshun is 1 of 10 people left in the country that buys the Obama schtick.

thecoffeeguy
07-13-2010, 10:48 AM
Its like arguing with a brick wall. :shake:

vailpass
07-13-2010, 10:58 AM
Poor direkshun. November is coming soon.

Bill Parcells
07-13-2010, 11:05 AM
I think Drieckshun is 1 of 10 people left in the country that buys the Obama schtick.

anybody that masturbates to White House Photos needs to start taking medication.

It's ok Direckshun, Obama care will help you with your illness soon! hahahaha

vailpass
07-13-2010, 11:21 AM
anybody that masturbates to White House Photos needs to start taking medication.

It's ok Direckshun, Obama care will help you with your illness soon! hahahaha

I admire Direckshun for his consistency and the way he supports his arguments. I would want the dude on my side in a political firefight.

ROYC75
07-13-2010, 11:22 AM
The wheels are starting to fall off of the DNC.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 11:23 AM
Eat it, dickwad.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/01/Ten-Myths-About-the-Bush-Tax-Cuts

Do you have any independent sources?

Or just sources that are directly funded by the GOP.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 11:24 AM
So this is your justification for handing over 350 acres to illegals??? :eek:

No, it's my justification for arguing that border security is better under Napolitano.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 11:25 AM
I think Drieckshun is 1 of 10 people left in the country that buys the Obama schtick.

Its like arguing with a brick wall. :shake:

Poor direkshun. November is coming soon.

anybody that masturbates to White House Photos needs to start taking medication.

It's ok Direckshun, Obama care will help you with your illness soon! hahahaha

I admire Direckshun for his consistency and the way he supports his arguments. I would want the dude on my side in a political firefight.

The wheels are starting to fall off of the DNC.

Guys, I'm dead serious. This is pathological behavior.

When libs around this place make jokes about conservative circle jerks, this is exactly the kind of stuff we're referencing.

Bill Parcells
07-13-2010, 11:33 AM
Guys, I'm dead serious. This is pathological behavior.

When libs around this place make jokes about conservative circle jerks, this is exactly the kind of stuff we're referencing.

Dude, you made a thread about how fascinating pictures of the White house are (only after a democrat got elected of course)


Please, you are a nauseating liberal.

vailpass
07-13-2010, 11:33 AM
Guys, I'm dead serious. This is pathological behavior.

When libs around this place make jokes about conservative circle jerks, this is exactly the kind of stuff we're referencing.

Did you read my 2nd post which you quote in this reply? If so you should probably look at it again.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 11:43 AM
Please, you are a nauseating liberal.

Redundant. There is no such thing as a liberal that is not nauseating.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 11:43 AM
Did you read my 2nd post which you quote in this reply? If so you should probably look at it again.

Thanks?

mlyonsd
07-13-2010, 11:52 AM
No, it's my justification for arguing that border security is better under Napolitano.

That may be true or not true but the fact is Arizonans think it isn't enough. And that's all that counts in their eyes.

vailpass
07-13-2010, 12:00 PM
Thanks?

Don't need thanks. Out of every 50 posts I make only 1 is lucid/non-agitating and I certainly don't need that 1 mischaracterized.

petegz28
07-13-2010, 12:00 PM
That may be true or not true but the fact is Arizonans think it isn't enough. And that's all that counts in their eyes.

Direckshun wishes to take the mypoic view that the level of violence dictates the condition of border security.

In othe words as long as the people who sneak in the country illegally are non-violent then it doesn't count.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 12:07 PM
That may be true or not true but the fact is Arizonans think it isn't enough. And that's all that counts in their eyes.

I've no doubt, but what actually counts is what is actually happening.

This thread, or at least this emerging discussion, is about what's actually happening. Now you're attempting to shift it to poll numbers, or what people think is happening. Whether Arizonans believe or disbelieve what's happening is irrelevent to the discussion.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 12:07 PM
Don't need thanks. Out of every 50 posts I make only 1 is lucid/non-agitating and I certainly don't need that 1 mischaracterized.

Noted.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 12:08 PM
Direckshun wishes to take the mypoic view that the level of violence dictates the condition of border security.

In othe words as long as the people who sneak in the country illegally are non-violent then it doesn't count.

The degree of border security dictates the condition of border security.

Under Napolitano, it has improved.

vailpass
07-13-2010, 12:17 PM
The degree of border security dictates the condition of border security.

Under Napolitano, it has improved.

By what standard of measurement can you possibly say that border security has improved under Manet?

petegz28
07-13-2010, 12:24 PM
By what standard of measurement can you possibly say that border security has improved under Manet?

Well, whatever he uses doesn't include the little fact that we gave away 350 acres of AZ.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 12:29 PM
By what standard of measurement can you possibly say that border security has improved under Manet?

I've linked three sources in this thread. I'm not going to hold your hand.

petegz28
07-13-2010, 12:30 PM
I've linked three sources in this thread. I'm not going to hold your hand.

Your links only talk about violence.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 12:33 PM
Dude, you made a thread about how fascinating pictures of the White house are (only after a democrat got elected of course)

Please, you are a nauseating liberal.

By the way:

Here are the sources I've used to start my threads over the past 100 days.

12 were started with original thoughts
Reason magazine
538
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
KTLA.com (local outlet)
Washington Post
Time
Siena Research Institute
Wall Street Journal
Free Republic
Some random YouTube.
Economist/YouGov
CBS5
Associated Press
CNN
Some random YouTube.
Fox News
Tom Gross Media
Time
Moxnews.com's YouTube page
Foreign Policy
Politico
Politico
Boston Globe
CNN
Salon.com

Here are the sources you've used to start threads over the past 100 days:

4 were started with original thoughts -- though 3 were about SHTSPRAYER
Townhall
HowObamaGotElected.com

So you tell me. Who's making the making the more nauseating contribution to this forum?

The Mad Crapper
07-13-2010, 12:36 PM
Here are the sources you've used to start threads over the past 100 days:

4 were started with original thoughts -- though 3 were about SHTSPRAYER
Townhall
HowObamaGotElected.com

So you tell me. Who's making the making the more nauseating contribution to this forum?

ROFL

petegz28
07-13-2010, 12:40 PM
By the way:

Here are the sources I've used to start my threads over the past 100 days.

12 were started with original thoughts
Reason magazine
538
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
KTLA.com (local outlet)
Washington Post
Time
Siena Research Institute
Wall Street Journal
Free Republic
Some random YouTube.
Economist/YouGov
CBS5
Associated Press
CNN
Some random YouTube.
Fox News
Tom Gross Media
Time
Moxnews.com's YouTube page
Foreign Policy
Politico
Politico
Boston Globe
CNN
Salon.com

Here are the sources you've used to start threads over the past 100 days:

4 were started with original thoughts -- though 3 were about SHTSPRAYER
Townhall
HowObamaGotElected.com

So you tell me. Who's making the making the more nauseating contribution to this forum?

All from links on Drudge, no doubt.

vailpass
07-13-2010, 12:41 PM
I've linked three sources in this thread. I'm not going to hold your hand.

You think an article from a biased rag indicates anythign aobut border security? Typical liberal tactic: you are 1000 miles away telling those of us in the middle of a situation how things are.

Border security entails a LOT more than just the spill over of violence.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 12:42 PM
Your links only talk about violence.

That's why this is even a topic in Arizona at all.

Brewer and the Republican GOP have had a nonstop drumbeat on border violence. This bill was passed and signed by Brewer, they argue, because of border violence.

I again refer you to the links I posted all over this thread. Here's a direct quote from the Post:

Arizona officials say they've had to step in because federal officials aren't doing enough to stem increasing border violence.

Now a direct quote from the FBI:

FBI Uniform Crime Reports and statistics provided by police agencies, in fact, show that the crime rates in Nogales, Douglas, Yuma and other Arizona border towns have remained essentially flat for the past decade, even as drug-related violence has spiraled out of control on the other side of the international line. Statewide, rates of violent crime also are down.

Brewer:

Arizona officials say they've had to step in because federal officials aren't doing enough to stem increasing border violence.

The FBI:

FBI Uniform Crime Reports and statistics provided by police agencies, in fact, show that the crime rates in Nogales, Douglas, Yuma and other Arizona border towns have remained essentially flat for the past decade, even as drug-related violence has spiraled out of control on the other side of the international line. Statewide, rates of violent crime also are down.

Brewer:

Arizona officials say they've had to step in because federal officials aren't doing enough to stem increasing border violence.

And the FBI:

FBI Uniform Crime Reports and statistics provided by police agencies, in fact, show that the crime rates in Nogales, Douglas, Yuma and other Arizona border towns have remained essentially flat for the past decade, even as drug-related violence has spiraled out of control on the other side of the international line. Statewide, rates of violent crime also are down.

The only meaningful differences between Napolitano policy and any policy before hers, is that hers is more secure. Hers is better. And the border is safer.

That doesn't mean good. That doesn't mean safe. It means better, and safer.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 12:44 PM
You think an article from a biased rag indicates anythign aobut border security? Typical liberal tactic: you are 1000 miles away telling those of us in the middle of a situation how things are.

Border security entails a LOT more than just the spill over of violence.

Easy there, Captain Floaties.

All the Napolitano administration is make things safer. They haven't fixed any plugs, but they certainly haven't made any plugs bigger.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 12:44 PM
All from links on Drudge, no doubt.

I actually graze, Pete.

vailpass
07-13-2010, 12:46 PM
Easy there, Captain Floaties.

All the Napolitano administration is make things safer. They haven't fixed any plugs, but they certainly haven't made any plugs bigger.

Hey little man, "not fixing any plugs" does not equal "making the border more secure". Have you spread the good news of Manet's border securing to the people of El Paso?


http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/el-paso-city-hall-hit-with-
Cross-Border Gunshots Hit El Paso City Hall, Prompt Letter to
President Obama
After seven bullets believed to have been
fired from the Mexican town of Juarez hit
El Paso’s City Hall on Tuesday, Texas Attorney
General Greg Abbott wrote a letter
to President Barack Obama demanding
“action.”
No one in El Paso was hurt in the shootings,
which Abbott blamed on Mexico’s
warring drug cartels. His letter was reprinted
in the El Paso Times, and included the
following passage:
The time for talk has passed.
The time for action is now. The
need is urgent. Each day that
passes increases the likelihood
that an American life will be lost
because of the federal
government’s failure to secure
the border.
This thread demands immediate
and effective action by your
Administration to secure our
border. As the Attorney General
of Texas, I urge you to make border
security your top priority so
that no more innocent lives are
most to border violence.
While Texas police do not believe that the
El Paso City Hall was intentionally targeted,
the shooting is seen as a sign of widening
drug cartel violence across the border.
Some 1,300 people have been slain in
Juarez this year, the El Paso Times reported

blaise
07-13-2010, 12:49 PM
Wow, good news that border security has improved under Obama. Since we're crediting him for that why don't we give him credit for other things happening under him, like oil spills and unemployment.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 12:52 PM
I don't know where you're suggesting I even said border security is good. I'm saying it's better.

This is common English terminology that you guys keep screwing up, basically on purpose.

Good =! Better. Get it straight.

Of course -- it doesn't matter anyway. The shitty article you just posted essentially just reprints a Republican AG's letter to Obama, so I have no idea what point you're trying to make other than you're happy to take partisan sources as gospel, whereas I'm not.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 12:52 PM
Wow, good news that border security has improved under Obama. Since we're crediting him for that why don't we give him credit for other things happening under him, like oil spills and unemployment.

I'm crediting Napolitano.

mlyonsd
07-13-2010, 12:57 PM
I've no doubt, but what actually counts is what is actually happening.

This thread, or at least this emerging discussion, is about what's actually happening. Now you're attempting to shift it to poll numbers, or what people think is happening. Whether Arizonans believe or disbelieve what's happening is irrelevent to the discussion.

The articles you linked are based on 'what people think is happening'.

This wouldn't even be on our radar if Arizonans themselves didn't think this was an issue and weren't fed up.

You're right, what actually counts is what is actually happening. Arizonans don't share in your rosey view of their border protection. Cutting border violence by 95% might not be enough for Arizonans. So what, it's their business. I'm not sure how it could get any clearer than that.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 01:01 PM
The articles you linked are based on 'what people think is happening'.

No, it's based on what the FBI says is happening.

Unless you're prepared to throw the FBI into the subjective fire. In which case, be my guest, but you're not going to have much company.

You're right, what actually counts is what is actually happening. Arizonans don't share in your rosey view of their border protection. Cutting border violence by 95% might not be enough for Arizonans. So what, it's their business. I'm not sure how it could get any clearer than that.

It is their business (so long as it's not unconstitutional -- then it's our business), but it's a nonsequitor. What populations subjectively believe does not mean that's what's objectively happening.

mlyonsd
07-13-2010, 01:15 PM
No, it's based on what the FBI says is happening.

Unless you're prepared to throw the FBI into the subjective fire. In which case, be my guest, but you're not going to have much company.

Not all your links were of FBI officials but I have no problem discussing their numbers. Have they concluded illegals are resposnible for some crime? Cool, then we can include them. To make it simple:

FBI Illegal Crime statistics > What the people of Arizona will accept

It's as simple as that.


It is their business (so long as it's not unconstitutional -- then it's our business), but it's a nonsequitor. What populations subjectively believe does not mean that's what's objectively happening.

I really hope this makes it to court. This is something that should be hashed out. I'm of the feeling if the federal government shirks their duty a state should be able to write their own laws to overcome the government's failings.

petegz28
07-13-2010, 01:15 PM
I don't know where you're suggesting I even said border security is good. I'm saying it's better.

This is common English terminology that you guys keep screwing up, basically on purpose.

Good =! Better. Get it straight.

Of course -- it doesn't matter anyway. The shitty article you just posted essentially just reprints a Republican AG's letter to Obama, so I have no idea what point you're trying to make other than you're happy to take partisan sources as gospel, whereas I'm not.

Handing over land to illegals then calling things better is something only you seem to understand.

Otter
07-13-2010, 01:26 PM
Handing over land to illegals then calling things better is something only you seem to understand.

Where was land handed over to illegals? How did I miss this one.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 01:26 PM
Not all your links were of FBI officials but I have no problem discussing their numbers. Have they concluded illegals are resposnible for some crime? Cool, then we can include them. To make it simple:

FBI Illegal Crime statistics > What the people of Arizona will accept

It's as simple as that.

But the Arizona legislature -- plus the Arizona governor -- passed the law in Arizona to respond to border violence. That's what they've said. Verbatim. Border. Violence.

So that's what I'm rebutting.

To which you move the goalposts. Again. As usual.

The Mad Crapper
07-13-2010, 01:26 PM
I don't know where you're suggesting I even said border security is good. I'm saying it's better.

What was that old saying...

A fool who leans on his own understanding...?

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 01:27 PM
Handing over land to illegals then calling things better is something only you seem to understand.

Equating "better" with "good" is something you deliberately do to prove a point.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 01:29 PM
What was that old saying...

A fool who leans on his own understanding...?

Proverbs.

A fool trusts to his own strength, merit, and righteousness. And trust to his own heart, which is not only deceitful above all things, but which has often deceived him.

mlyonsd
07-13-2010, 01:47 PM
But the Arizona legislature -- plus the Arizona governor -- passed the law in Arizona to respond to border violence. That's what they've said. Verbatim. Border. Violence.

So that's what I'm rebutting.

To which you move the goalposts. Again. As usual.

LOL, I'm not moving the goal posts. You're saying there isn't any border violence? I missed that part. I thought you were making the claim the Keystone cops were doing a good job at protecting the people of Arizona.

Which, once again, isn't the view of most Arizonans.

go bowe
07-13-2010, 02:37 PM
Not all your links were of FBI officials but I have no problem discussing their numbers. Have they concluded illegals are resposnible for some crime? Cool, then we can include them. To make it simple:

FBI Illegal Crime statistics > What the people of Arizona will accept

It's as simple as that.



I really hope this makes it to court. This is something that should be hashed out. I'm of the feeling if the federal government shirks their duty a state should be able to write their own laws to overcome the government's failings.it has already made its way to the court in phoenix and it's a good bet that it will go to the supremes fairly soon...

while i tend to agree that the federal government has shirked its duty, part of that is due to limited resources which only congress can provide...

and while my personal opinion would be that within certain limits states should be free to enact their own laws regarding illegal immigration, it seems clear to me that the courts will agree with doj that preemption precludes states from acting in the field of immigration...

petegz28
07-13-2010, 02:38 PM
Where was land handed over to illegals? How did I miss this one.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fCMM01VX6rg&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fCMM01VX6rg&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

petegz28
07-13-2010, 02:40 PM
Equating "better" with "good" is something you deliberately do to prove a point.

How is restricting land from Americans for illegals to occupy even "better"????


You're on crack, my boy.

mlyonsd
07-13-2010, 02:47 PM
and while my personal opinion would be that within certain limits states should be free to enact their own laws regarding illegal immigration, it seems clear to me that the courts will agree with doj that preemption precludes states from acting in the field of immigration...

I don't think so.

Like I said, it's a good thing to hash out since our officials at the federal level won't do their duty.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 02:48 PM
LOL, I'm not moving the goal posts. You're saying there isn't any border violence? I missed that part. I thought you were making the claim the Keystone cops were doing a good job at protecting the people of Arizona.

Which, once again, isn't the view of most Arizonans.

1. I have not said at any point in my human existence that there isn't border violence.

2. I'm saying we are doing a better job, not a good job. A point you continually misunderstand on purpose.

3. Once again, I don't care what Arizonans think within the confines of this conversation. I'm talking facts on the ground, not perception of those facts. That is a distinct conversation.

petegz28
07-13-2010, 02:48 PM
it has already made its way to the court in phoenix and it's a good bet that it will go to the supremes fairly soon...

while i tend to agree that the federal government has shirked its duty, part of that is due to limited resources which only congress can provide...

and while my personal opinion would be that within certain limits states should be free to enact their own laws regarding illegal immigration, it seems clear to me that the courts will agree with doj that preemption precludes states from acting in the field of immigration...

Wouldn't this be a non-issue of the Fed Gov just did their job instead of wasting time and resources suing people?

petegz28
07-13-2010, 02:49 PM
1. I have not said at any point in my human existence that there isn't border violence.

2. I'm saying we are doing a better job, not a good job. A point you continually misunderstand on purpose.

3. Once again, I don't care what Arizonans think within the confines of this conversation. I'm talking facts on the ground, not perception of those facts. That is a distinct conversation.

WTF should you care? It isn't like you live there or have to deal with the crap. Instead you should feel pretty Holy as you sit there 1000 miles away telling other people who live elsewhere how they should handle their business.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 02:51 PM
How is restricting land from Americans for illegals to occupy even "better"????

You're on crack, my boy.

Have any citizens been detained and removed from the premises?

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 02:52 PM
I don't think so.

Like I said, it's a good thing to hash out since our officials at the federal level won't do their duty.

My guess that the most Constitutional thing to do would be to mandate the federal government to do more, not to place a mandate on the states, since that's what the Constitution does. But I'm not a scholar.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 02:53 PM
WTF should you care? It isn't like you live there or have to deal with the crap. Instead you should feel pretty Holy as you sit there 1000 miles away telling other people who live elsewhere how they should handle their business.

Where do you live, Pete?

petegz28
07-13-2010, 02:54 PM
Have any citizens been detained and removed from the premises?

Don't know. Does it matter? Does it not strike you as wrong that we have such signs in place to begin with?

petegz28
07-13-2010, 02:55 PM
Where do you live, Pete?

I'm not the one telling AZ how to handle their business. You are. I'm the one saying if AZ feels this is what needs to be done then more power to them. You, on the other hand, want to say otherwise for no good reason other than your sick obsession with Obama.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 02:57 PM
Don't know. Does it matter? Does it not strike you as wrong that we have such signs in place to begin with?

That says "warning, this place is dangerous"?

I don't find it morally wrong, since it isn't telling anybody they can't go there. I do find it discouraging that there's a place we've been warned not to go that it's too dangerous, same as I do any inner city or ghetto. I don't find it any more "wrong" than that.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 02:59 PM
I'm not the one telling AZ how to handle their business.

Actually, you are. You support this law, and you want Arizona to enact it.

Not because Arizonans want it -- although you have made that argument at one time -- but because you've made several arguments that this is what's best for the state.

Meanwhile, I can pretty much say what I want about whatever states I want at any time that I want. I don't need to justify speech. So, whatever.

go bowe
07-13-2010, 03:08 PM
Wouldn't this be a non-issue of the Fed Gov just did their job instead of wasting time and resources suing people?nope...

it isn't possible for the feds to do their job if that means deporting millions of mexicans given the limited resources at their disposal...

currently, most resources are directed to the removal of terrorists and criminals...

either congress dramatically increases funding for deportations or we stop giving priority to terrorists and criminals...

the first isn't likely and the second is not acceptable...

.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 03:15 PM
Not to mention not possible.

It's not possible to deport 12 million people. That's basically three out of every 100 people in our entire country.

petegz28
07-13-2010, 03:27 PM
nope...

it isn't possible for the feds to do their job if that means deporting millions of mexicans given the limited resources at their disposal...

currently, most resources are directed to the removal of terrorists and criminals...

either congress dramatically increases funding for deportations or we stop giving priority to terrorists and criminals...

the first isn't likely and the second is not acceptable...

.

Realize it or not, you just proved my point. Had the Fed Gov been doing their job in the first place we wouldn't be faced with the daunting task of deporting millions of illegals.

vailpass
07-13-2010, 05:09 PM
Not to mention not possible.

It's not possible to deport 12 million people. That's basically three out of every 100 people in our entire country.

We can land a man on the moon and bring him home safely, we can split an atom, we can unravel the gentic code we can sure as hell bus a bunch of illegals back to Mexico.

mlyonsd
07-13-2010, 05:11 PM
1. I have not said at any point in my human existence that there isn't border violence.

2. I'm saying we are doing a better job, not a good job. A point you continually misunderstand on purpose.

3. Once again, I don't care what Arizonans think within the confines of this conversation. I'm talking facts on the ground, not perception of those facts. That is a distinct conversation.

1. True, I was putting words in your mouth because you fail to recognize the reason AZ even passed the law. You pretend its because it was sold on there is more border violence where I contend Arizonians have decided any border violence with illegals is too much.

2. True. Trust me, I can be just as obtuse as you. ;)

3. I'm saying facts on the ground prove the feds aren't doing their job. AZ is helping them by enforcing their own rules.

mlyonsd
07-13-2010, 05:12 PM
My guess that the most Constitutional thing to do would be to mandate the federal government to do more, not to place a mandate on the states, since that's what the Constitution does. But I'm not a scholar.

If you can figure out how to do that I'm sure AZ will be all ears. Not to mention the rest of us.

Brock
07-13-2010, 05:14 PM
Not to mention not possible.

It's not possible to deport 12 million people. That's basically three out of every 100 people in our entire country.

It's definitely not possible if you don't even try.

petegz28
07-13-2010, 05:15 PM
If you can figure out how to do that I'm sure AZ will be all ears. Not to mention the rest of us.

This whole thing is a classic example of how people, such as Obama, want new laws created to enforce the laws that aren't being enforced.

It's typical government. Why enforce the current law when we can sit around and dream up no ones???

petegz28
07-13-2010, 05:16 PM
It's definitely not possible if you don't even try.

:hmmm:

rep

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 05:18 PM
We can land a man on the moon and bring him home safely, we can split an atom, we can unravel the gentic code we can sure as hell bus a bunch of illegals back to Mexico.

Not a bunch. 12 million.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population). Start at #70 and go down. That's the number of people you want to deport.

Which is not a bad thing to want per se. It's just practically impossible.

Brock
07-13-2010, 05:20 PM
Welp, good thing fixing climate change is impossible. Might as well not even try.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 05:20 PM
1. True, I was putting words in your mouth because you fail to recognize the reason AZ even passed the law. You pretend its because it was sold on there is more border violence where I contend Arizonians have decided any border violence with illegals is too much.

2. True. Trust me, I can be just as obtuse as you. ;)

3. I'm saying facts on the ground prove the feds aren't doing their job. AZ is helping them by enforcing their own rules.

1. I fail to see how your point is that much different than mine...?

2. I fail to see how I've been obtuse.

3. I fail to see how that point goes against anything I've said up to this point.

So your entire post was either a total failure on your end to make a point or a total failure on mine to comprehend one.

I'll let you decide.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 05:22 PM
If you can figure out how to do that I'm sure AZ will be all ears. Not to mention the rest of us.

I've thrown a few ideas out there, but I don't pretend they are be-all, end-all solutions.

I have mentioned, in the second post of this thread, what the immigration reform process would resemble.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 05:23 PM
It's definitely not possible if you don't even try.

I'm in favor of trying. Ramping up border security is one way.

But I don't think it's a practical use of our resources, especially when better solutions could have positive impacts on the country.

Brock
07-13-2010, 05:23 PM
Not a bunch. 12 million.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population). Start at #70 and go down. That's the number of people you want to deport.

Which is not a bad thing to want per se. It's just practically impossible.

Is that about the same number of people you're counting on the government providing guaranteed health insurance to?

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 05:24 PM
This whole thing is a classic example of how people, such as Obama, want new laws created to enforce the laws that aren't being enforced.

And that's a bad thing.................. how.

Brock
07-13-2010, 05:24 PM
I'm in favor of trying. Ramping up border security is one way.

But I don't think it's a practical use of our resources, especially when better solutions could have positive impacts on the country.

What better solutions?

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 05:25 PM
Welp, good thing fixing climate change is impossible. Might as well not even try.

Well, there are ways we can fix it and there are ways we can fix it.

We can try carbon pricing and investing in clean technologies, or we can try blasting cold air through Maine-sized tubes into the atmosphere.

The latter solution is a lot like trying to deport 12 million illegals.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 05:26 PM
Is that about the same number of people you're counting on the government providing guaranteed health insurance to?

What?

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 05:26 PM
What better solutions?

I've posted them several times in this forum. Ask Pete.

vailpass
07-13-2010, 05:27 PM
Not a bunch. 12 million.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population). Start at #70 and go down. That's the number of people you want to deport.

Which is not a bad thing to want per se. It's just practically impossible.

If the US wanted to move 12 million mexicans we could move 12 million mexicans, not a problem. We moved a whole lot more weight than that a whole lot farther than that with a whole lot less technology in WWII.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 05:28 PM
If the US wanted to move 12 million mexicans we could move 12 million mexicans, not a problem. We moved a whole lot more weight than that a whole lot farther than that with a whole lot less technology in WWII.

Since you have provided to logistics to support that conclusion, I'll just disagree.

Brock
07-13-2010, 05:29 PM
Well, there are ways we can fix it and there are ways we can fix it.

We can try carbon pricing and investing in clean technologies, or we can try blasting cold air through Maine-sized tubes into the atmosphere.

The latter solution is a lot like trying to deport 12 million illegals.

Or we can try replacing 100 million cars with transportation that doesn't require any natural resources. We can try to convince people not to run their air conditioner. We can get everybody to stop eating meat. In other words, it's impossible.

Brock
07-13-2010, 05:33 PM
What?

I said, Is that about the same number of people you're counting on the government providing guaranteed health insurance to?

Brock
07-13-2010, 05:34 PM
I've posted them several times in this forum. Ask Pete.

What?

Saul Good
07-13-2010, 05:34 PM
Here's betting that if you started with a couple hundred thousand, a significant portion of the rest would leave on their own.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 05:38 PM
Here's betting that if you started with a couple hundred thousand, a significant portion of the rest would leave on their own.

It's almost like you're inside the mind of illegal immigrants all across the country, Saul. Wow.

Although I'm pretty sure they actually come here to start new lives, Sparky. So you can't really chase that off by threatening jailtime or deportation. You're just going to push them underground.

But other than that... you're good, you. You're good.

Saul Good
07-13-2010, 05:41 PM
It's almost like you're inside the mind of illegal immigrants all across the country, Saul. Wow.

Although I'm pretty sure they actually come here to start new lives, Sparky. So you can't really chase that off by threatening jailtime or deportation. You're just going to push them underground.

But other than that... you're good, you. You're good.

Split up enough families, and they'll go home.

Let's put it this way. My wife and I are both from Missouri originally. We both live in Kansas now. If I got deported back to Missouri, I'm pretty sure that my wife and son would come with me. One deportation, three fewer people.

mlyonsd
07-13-2010, 05:42 PM
I'll let you decide.

No, we're cool. I think we can both see where this is heading.

Saul Good
07-13-2010, 05:49 PM
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fCMM01VX6rg&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fCMM01VX6rg&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

This video, bizarre subtitles notwithstanding, may be the best political video I have ever seen.

In fact, I think I'll start a new thread about it.

vailpass
07-13-2010, 05:50 PM
It's almost like you're inside the mind of illegal immigrants all across the country, Saul. Wow.

Although I'm pretty sure they actually come here to start new lives, Sparky. So you can't really chase that off by threatening jailtime or deportation. You're just going to push them underground.

But other than that... you're good, you. You're good.

Pipsqueak you don't know thing one about illegals. A large percentage come here not to start new lives but to get what they can, send it back and eventually go back themselves.
Since AZ instituted harsher anti-illegal laws the number of illegals here have been reduced and many have returned to their homeland.

petegz28
07-13-2010, 05:55 PM
And that's a bad thing.................. how.

Are you for real or just fucking with me? Here is an idea, enforce the fucking laws that already on the books before you go making new laws. You may figure out that the existing laws that aren't being enforced actually work when they are.

Saul Good
07-13-2010, 05:56 PM
Pipsqueak you don't know thing one about illegals. A large percentage come here not to start new lives but to get what they can, send it back and eventually go back themselves.
Since AZ instituted harsher anti-illegal laws the number of illegals here have been reduced and many have returned to their homeland.

If the economy keeps up the trend, Mexico's going to have to keep people in the US from coming to Mexico for work.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 08:25 PM
Split up enough families, and they'll go home.

Let's put it this way. My wife and I are both from Missouri originally. We both live in Kansas now. If I got deported back to Missouri, I'm pretty sure that my wife and son would come with me. One deportation, three fewer people.

That is an incredible comparison.

Your grasp on psychology is prodigious. I'm just lucky to be in the room.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 08:25 PM
No, we're cool. I think we can both see where this is heading.

Aw.

You ruin all my fun.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 08:26 PM
This video, bizarre subtitles notwithstanding, may be the best political video I have ever seen.

In fact, I think I'll start a new thread about it.

Mike Gravel.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 08:29 PM
Pipsqueak you don't know thing one about illegals. A large percentage come here not to start new lives but to get what they can, send it back and eventually go back themselves.

It sounds like you're describing the process of beginning a new life.

Buuuuuuuut what do I know.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 08:31 PM
Are you for real or just ****ing with me?

A little of column A, a little of column B. You're one of those people that need to be fucked with from time to time.

If I can understand your previous post correctly, you do not believe that immigration reform is necessary. Instead, all you believe we need is to properly enforce existing law, and Crisis-B-Gone. Correct?

petegz28
07-13-2010, 08:48 PM
A little of column A, a little of column B. You're one of those people that need to be ****ed with from time to time.

If I can understand your previous post correctly, you do not believe that immigration reform is necessary. Instead, all you believe we need is to properly enforce existing law, and Crisis-B-Gone. Correct?

No, once again you fail to read. I said how do we know if the current laws don't work if we don't ever enforce them?

The Mad Crapper
07-13-2010, 08:59 PM
It sounds like you're describing the process of beginning a new life.

Buuuuuuuut what do I know.

You're a homo.

LMAO

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 11:01 PM
Or we can try replacing 100 million cars with transportation that doesn't require any natural resources. We can try to convince people not to run their air conditioner. We can get everybody to stop eating meat. In other words, it's impossible.

Basically, yeah.

So you redirect your resources to something practical.

I said, Is that about the same number of people you're counting on the government providing guaranteed health insurance to?

Yeah, I can't understand the point you're trying to make.

Do you want to talk about healthcare?

What?

You're asking me for what solutions I could conjure. That's a super long post that I've already put up around this place and can't find.

And you're not remotely interested anyway. So let's just skip it.

Direckshun
07-13-2010, 11:03 PM
No, once again you fail to read. I said how do we know if the current laws don't work if we don't ever enforce them?

People pass reform laws constantly if enforcement of current law is a problem.

You pass new laws that try to get to a desired effect.

Saul Good
07-14-2010, 07:50 AM
People pass reform laws constantly if enforcement of current law is a problem.

You pass new laws that try to get to a desired effect.The problem isn't a lack of laws. It's a lack of enforcement. If we started enforcing existing laws, and there are still issues caused by gaps in the laws beibg exploited, then we could discuss new laws.

What you are suggesting is the Zimbabwean economic approach. "Our money isn't worth anything. Let's solve the problem by printing more of it." Without anything to back it, a law is as worthless as monopoly money.

dirk digler
07-14-2010, 09:49 AM
No, once again you fail to read. I said how do we know if the current laws don't work if we don't ever enforce them?

The only law off the top of my head we aren't enforcing is fining businesses but Neither political parties in power have done this. Or if they do fine them it is kept quiet.

The only other one I could think of is going after immigrants with expired visas but I think that is more of a lack of manpower issue than not enforcing the law. Same thing with broder crossings.

HonestChieffan
07-14-2010, 09:54 AM
So lack of manpower is to blame.

If they don't provide manpower to enforce the law how is that different than not enforcing the law?


I wanna see this...

Direckshun
07-14-2010, 11:23 AM
The problem isn't a lack of laws. It's a lack of enforcement. If we started enforcing existing laws, and there are still issues caused by gaps in the laws beibg exploited, then we could discuss new laws.

What you are suggesting is the Zimbabwean economic approach. "Our money isn't worth anything. Let's solve the problem by printing more of it." Without anything to back it, a law is as worthless as monopoly money.

Well, first of all, new laws doesn't necessarily mean more laws. It can mean replacing old laws.

Direckshun
07-14-2010, 11:25 AM
So lack of manpower is to blame.

If they don't provide manpower to enforce the law how is that different than not enforcing the law?

I agree.

But I don't think more manpower alone repairs the problem. We're going to need reform.

petegz28
07-14-2010, 01:22 PM
I agree.

But I don't think more manpower alone repairs the problem. We're going to need reform.

We need mayneed reform now because they didn't enforce the laws in the first place.

That is still no excuse to not secure the border NOW.

HonestChieffan
07-14-2010, 01:25 PM
We need marksmen.

dirk digler
07-14-2010, 02:09 PM
So lack of manpower is to blame.

If they don't provide manpower to enforce the law how is that different than not enforcing the law?


I wanna see this...

Well I suppose if you believe that all states not providing enough probabtion\parole officers or Child Protection officers for their huge caseload are not enforcing the law then I guess you will think the Feds aren't enforcing the law.

The problem is manpower is a finite resource and INS is competing from a small pool of people and more desirable agencies like FBI, DEA, ATF....
Also I won't deny that some of it is budget restraints or not funding enough. That applies though to alot of Fed agencies.

I do have personal knowledge of this since my best friends wife works for the Border Patrol in a certain MO city. She told me a couple of months ago her caseload is in the high hundreds and that it sometimes takes years to get to some of the cases and it hasn't really changed for the 10+ years she has been doing the job.

I will just add what I am referring to is catching people who have overstayed their visas or trying to get married etc etc.. Though I am sure the agents that actually work on the border are understaffed as well which is why I believe the military has the money and capability to do the job better.

Direckshun
07-14-2010, 02:28 PM
We need mayneed reform now because they didn't enforce the laws in the first place.

That is still no excuse to not secure the border NOW.

Hey there was no excuse not to secure the border during the period of time that this became an epidemic.

1994, through 2004. During those ten years, our illegal population doubled from 6 million to 12 million.

Who was in charge of lawmaking during that decade, HCF?

It always stuns me that Republicans want to assign blame when it comes to illegal immigration.

petegz28
07-14-2010, 02:45 PM
Hey there was no excuse not to secure the border during the period of time that this became an epidemic.

1994, through 2004. During those ten years, our illegal population doubled from 6 million to 12 million.

Who was in charge of lawmaking during that decade, HCF?

It always stuns me that Republicans want to assign blame when it comes to illegal immigration.

Um, I believe the Repubs took Bush to task over this as well. BTW, who was President for 6 of the 10 years you specified?

Direckshun
07-14-2010, 03:12 PM
Um, I believe the Repubs took Bush to task over this as well. BTW, who was President for 6 of the 10 years you specified?

Hoover, I think? Let me check Wikipedia.

It's not a partisan issue. Both parties (much like energy reform, healthcare reform, financial reform, entitlements reform) have kicked this issues down the road or failed to change anything. It's one of the reasons, by the way, why I prefer the Obama administration, who seems to want to finally take on all of these issues.

Clinton could have done more, Bush could have done more. But what can Presidents do, really? They can push Congress to act, but they can't make Congress act. They can send more troops to the border, but it doesn't matter how many troops you send, the problems not going to stop until you start chopping at the trunk of the tree: make legal immigration less cumbersome, Mexico safer and remotely prosperous, and aggressively punish employers who hire illegals.

And these are all things that Congress has to do.

petegz28
07-14-2010, 05:05 PM
Hoover, I think? Let me check Wikipedia.

It's not a partisan issue. Both parties (much like energy reform, healthcare reform, financial reform, entitlements reform) have kicked this issues down the road or failed to change anything. It's one of the reasons, by the way, why I prefer the Obama administration, who seems to want to finally take on all of these issues.

Clinton could have done more, Bush could have done more. But what can Presidents do, really? They can push Congress to act, but they can't make Congress act. They can send more troops to the border, but it doesn't matter how many troops you send, the problems not going to stop until you start chopping at the trunk of the tree: make legal immigration less cumbersome, Mexico safer and remotely prosperous, and aggressively punish employers who hire illegals.

And these are all things that Congress has to do.

I agree it's not partisan. Therefore I wonder why you brought up who was making the laws between 1994 and 2000???

Direckshun
07-14-2010, 05:27 PM
I agree it's not partisan. Therefore I wonder why you brought up who was making the laws between 1994 and 2000???

ITSSSSSSSS AAAAAAA MYYYYYYYYYSTERYYYYYYYY

Edit: It's not really a mystery. It's because this is an issue Republicans have been harping on ever since... well, ever since they had control of Congress. And Congress is the organization we need to really get at the root of the issue.

The Democratic Congress, of course, simply has not had the time with everything else they wanted to address. It will likely be an issue in 2011, as I said in the 2nd post in this thread.

But a Republican-controlled Congress has proven it simply is not up to the task. 10 years of the population of illegals spiked under Republican control.

They seriously tried to address the issue ONCE, and it was a guest worker program created by one part of the GOP, and was derided into extinction by the other part of the GOP that calls everything but ultimate deportation "amnesty."

From what I've observed, the Republican Party is definitely more emotionally passionate about illegal immigration than the Democratic Party is. They're also the least equipped, based on modern history, to deal with it -- probably because of that emotional passion.

Direckshun
07-14-2010, 05:27 PM
Yeah, I looked it up. It was Hoover.

Direckshun
07-15-2010, 08:25 AM
C'mon. Nothing?

I'm having a wonderful time.