Ponce
30th April 2010, 07:56 AM
The Zionists command and the illegals obey..........simple, the Nazi part was the give away.
================================================== ==
PRO AND CON OF NEW ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW
By Scott McKay April 28, 2010
This week we've seen a flurry of supercharged rhetoric after Arizona
Governor Jan Brewer signed into law a bill which merely seeks to
strengthen state law on immigration.
Boiled down, what the new Arizona law does is to duplicate federal
immigration law, making the commission of what are now federal crimes to
be state crimes. It's illegal under federal law to walk the streets
without documents of immigration status anywhere in the country,
including Arizona; this law just makes that illegal under state law as
well.
Meanwhile, angry Mexicans stormed the Arizona state capitol last
Friday and started a riot in which water bottles and other projectiles
were hurled at police. On Monday, protestors smeared refried beans in
swastika patterns on windows at the state capitol. Brewer, the bill, and
Arizonans as a whole have been described as racists, Nazis,
totalitarians, idiots and worse (if that's possible).
Most of the screaming about the law has come as a result of its call
for police officers to request immigration documents when they suspect
they're talking to illegals, which is being called racial profiling
despite the fact that the law specifically states racial profiling is to
be avoided. There is also a hue and cry over the concept that police
officers will be descending willy-nilly on "brown people" and asking for
"papers" Nazi-style, though the law says such encounters are restricted
to "lawful contact" -- as in traffic stops and other regular police
interactions.
Overall, public reaction to the bill has not at all been indicative
that it's radical or unreasonable. In fact, 60 percent of the American
people favor local law enforcement verifying immigration status during
routine traffic stops. And in Arizona, the new law has 70 percent
support.
Some 68 percent of Americans think controlling the border is more
important than legalizing the status of illegal aliens (otherwise known
as amnesty); this would seem to point to a clear mandate for locking down
the border with an actual fence and actual patrols first, and then doing
something about tweaking current immigration law.
But that approach is, for whatever reason, sheer anathema to
Washington, and even four years ago when this issue first became a major
one on the scene that disconnect between the clear wishes of the American
people and the predilections of our political class on both sides of the
aisle was pronounced.
There has been a great deal of push-polling within the Hispanic
community to indicate that vast majorities of American Latinos want a
comprehensive amnesty-based immigration policy, but few surveyors have
undertaken to ask Hispanic Americans whether they favor tougher
enforcement of the border. A 2008 Pew survey indicated that Hispanics
oppose by lopsided margins four immigration enforcement measures:
workplace raids (76-20), criminal prosecution of illegals (73-21),
criminal prosecution of employers (70-25) and employee database checks
prior to hiring (53-41), but amazingly that survey didn't ask whether
stronger border enforcement was acceptable. Another Pew survey, this one
taken in January of 2009, placed immigration only in sixth place among
issues of importance to Hispanics.
But the Center For Immigration Studies released a Zogby survey in
February which calls the Pew figures into dispute. The CIS/Zogby survey
found that 56 percent of Hispanics said immigration levels were too high.
Some 61 percent of Hispanics Zogby surveyed said inadequate enforcement
was the cause of current illegal immigration levels, while only 20
percent blamed too few legal immigration opportunities.
Some 65 percent of Hispanics also said there were enough Americans
available to do unskilled jobs. And by a 52-34 margin, Zogby found that
Latinos favor immigration policies which encourage illegals to go home
rather than promote amnesty.
The same Zogby survey which had somewhat surprising numbers among
Hispanics showed a hard line on immigration with black voters -- 68
percent characterized immigration levels as too high, 70 percent blamed
inadequate border enforcement for the numbers of illegals in the country
and 81 percent said there are enough Americans to do the unskilled jobs
people assume illegals will do.
The only question on which blacks don't take a harder line than
Hispanics is on the question of the future direction; by a 50-30 count
blacks support a policy encouraging illegals to go home over an amnesty
policy.
What these polls seem to say is that playing interest groups off
against each other is no substitute for effective governance. That's bad
news for politicians, who must show themselves capable of offering
policies that broad majorities can support.
--FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Scott McKay, a sales,
marketing and business consultant.
================================================== ==
PRO AND CON OF NEW ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW
By Scott McKay April 28, 2010
This week we've seen a flurry of supercharged rhetoric after Arizona
Governor Jan Brewer signed into law a bill which merely seeks to
strengthen state law on immigration.
Boiled down, what the new Arizona law does is to duplicate federal
immigration law, making the commission of what are now federal crimes to
be state crimes. It's illegal under federal law to walk the streets
without documents of immigration status anywhere in the country,
including Arizona; this law just makes that illegal under state law as
well.
Meanwhile, angry Mexicans stormed the Arizona state capitol last
Friday and started a riot in which water bottles and other projectiles
were hurled at police. On Monday, protestors smeared refried beans in
swastika patterns on windows at the state capitol. Brewer, the bill, and
Arizonans as a whole have been described as racists, Nazis,
totalitarians, idiots and worse (if that's possible).
Most of the screaming about the law has come as a result of its call
for police officers to request immigration documents when they suspect
they're talking to illegals, which is being called racial profiling
despite the fact that the law specifically states racial profiling is to
be avoided. There is also a hue and cry over the concept that police
officers will be descending willy-nilly on "brown people" and asking for
"papers" Nazi-style, though the law says such encounters are restricted
to "lawful contact" -- as in traffic stops and other regular police
interactions.
Overall, public reaction to the bill has not at all been indicative
that it's radical or unreasonable. In fact, 60 percent of the American
people favor local law enforcement verifying immigration status during
routine traffic stops. And in Arizona, the new law has 70 percent
support.
Some 68 percent of Americans think controlling the border is more
important than legalizing the status of illegal aliens (otherwise known
as amnesty); this would seem to point to a clear mandate for locking down
the border with an actual fence and actual patrols first, and then doing
something about tweaking current immigration law.
But that approach is, for whatever reason, sheer anathema to
Washington, and even four years ago when this issue first became a major
one on the scene that disconnect between the clear wishes of the American
people and the predilections of our political class on both sides of the
aisle was pronounced.
There has been a great deal of push-polling within the Hispanic
community to indicate that vast majorities of American Latinos want a
comprehensive amnesty-based immigration policy, but few surveyors have
undertaken to ask Hispanic Americans whether they favor tougher
enforcement of the border. A 2008 Pew survey indicated that Hispanics
oppose by lopsided margins four immigration enforcement measures:
workplace raids (76-20), criminal prosecution of illegals (73-21),
criminal prosecution of employers (70-25) and employee database checks
prior to hiring (53-41), but amazingly that survey didn't ask whether
stronger border enforcement was acceptable. Another Pew survey, this one
taken in January of 2009, placed immigration only in sixth place among
issues of importance to Hispanics.
But the Center For Immigration Studies released a Zogby survey in
February which calls the Pew figures into dispute. The CIS/Zogby survey
found that 56 percent of Hispanics said immigration levels were too high.
Some 61 percent of Hispanics Zogby surveyed said inadequate enforcement
was the cause of current illegal immigration levels, while only 20
percent blamed too few legal immigration opportunities.
Some 65 percent of Hispanics also said there were enough Americans
available to do unskilled jobs. And by a 52-34 margin, Zogby found that
Latinos favor immigration policies which encourage illegals to go home
rather than promote amnesty.
The same Zogby survey which had somewhat surprising numbers among
Hispanics showed a hard line on immigration with black voters -- 68
percent characterized immigration levels as too high, 70 percent blamed
inadequate border enforcement for the numbers of illegals in the country
and 81 percent said there are enough Americans to do the unskilled jobs
people assume illegals will do.
The only question on which blacks don't take a harder line than
Hispanics is on the question of the future direction; by a 50-30 count
blacks support a policy encouraging illegals to go home over an amnesty
policy.
What these polls seem to say is that playing interest groups off
against each other is no substitute for effective governance. That's bad
news for politicians, who must show themselves capable of offering
policies that broad majorities can support.
--FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Scott McKay, a sales,
marketing and business consultant.