I think we are looking at seperate sides of the spectrum. I'm thinking more of the enforcement arm ( in the field) of CBP and I think you are looking at the support specialist (office job) arm. I suppose someone who works in IT or accounting wouldn't need an extensive background check as opposed to someone with a gun and arrest authority, possibility of being bribed.

I could go for a gin and juice this weekend... Make it an arnold Palmer with tanquary

No, I'm looking at the law enforcement arm (as that is what I have the most experience with). I think you're looking at the higher level (investigative) jobs while I'm looking at the patrolling groups - which have similar training to local law enforcement and therefore have similar background investigations.

They don't typically have Security Clearances (Confidential, Classified, Secret, Top Secret, etc.).

A thorough background investigation does not equal a Security Clearance.

People will office jobs are actually MORE likely to need a Security Clearance.

ICE agents (who are actively practicing law enforcement) are more likely to need a security clearance than Customs and Border PATROL (who are actively practicing law enforcment).

Not to be outdone in the loonacy department, Texas rep. Leo Berman calls Obama God's Punishment on us all.

Oh Lawd help us!

Don't know about Kevlar but to clear up any questions, my Father was Seminole and my Mother's side was Dutch/Irish/French. My point is that I could easily be mistaken for an illegal and if I was stopped, so what.

Other than the possible unconstitutionality of it?

Then you have a party.

No Lake Havasu this year!

Forget the Mexicans...I want to know when Washington is going to do something about those dirty, white Canadians! They buy our cheap gas and take up all the parking at the premium outlet mall on the indian reservation!

It's only a piece of paper.

MC, did you follow the 10th Circuit's handling of Oklahoma's anti-immigration efforts?

I'm going to get so many flames for this, but some of the comments really are annoying the heck out of me, so I figure it is only time to have a person post who is PRO this law.

I'm glad they did this! It is about time! Obviously the federal government doesn't give a darn about the huge amounts of illegal immigrants in Arizona. No offense, but these illegal immigrants are draining our Arizona economy, because as the "legal" citizen, my taxes are going to take care of their butts.

I'm going to get flames left and right but until you have lived in Arizona your whole life and you have physically been the victim of an illegal immigrant stealing your identity or an illegal immigrant getting services that you can't even get as the LEGAL CITIZEN, you can't possibly understand!

They are here ILLEGALLY. I don't understand why people don't get this. ILLEGAL. Broke the law. Hello a crime was committed! This shouldn't be a difficult concept to understand, but yet somehow it is.

As for Border Patrols. What good do they do when most illegal immigrants go through the desert? That is why Arizona has been fighting for so long to get the fence up and activated. That is why my brother, when he was in the National Guard, was stationed down in Yuma, to monitor the border.

Now Arizona may not be the brightest bulb in the shed (look how they have cut funding to education and social services) but they gotta do what they gotta do to protect the border and state from illegal immigration, because the government isn't doing it for them. Maybe the federal government will "pay attention" now that they (Arizona) has done soemthing so drastic.

Not really -- what I know is based on what you posted.

I was thinking more of Ghostwriter apparently thinking that if, because of his looks, he was stopped because he was "mistaken for an illegal, so what?" I take my contitutional rights a little more seriously than that.

And ASUADPi, I won't flame you and I understand your frustration. And I completely understand that illegal alien means illegal, as in criminal laws have been violated. But there are right ways to go about trying to address the problem and there are ways that aren't right. I fear Arizona has opted for the latter, and Arizona's efforts won't help at all if the law is found to be unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable.

These phrases are message board pet peeves of mine.

As long as you don't think you are the first to post in this thread.

You're the one who doesn't understand.

If my response is interpreted as a "flame" then consider how you prefaced your post and your tone.

I was up in Stevens, Ferry, and Pend Oreille counties, they also drive really poorly. Worse than Oregon drivers, and they make me have road rage for days. I regret ever going to the Walmart in Colville as those Red Green worshipers nearly killed me.

Lets not try to act like Arizona is the only place with an "illegal" problem. "They are using my tax dollars," "they use my services," "you don't know unless you live here" is uttered by everyone when they want to complain about illegal immigration. Arizona is not special, but you're right-- Arizona is definitely "not the brighest bulb in the shed" (your words, not mine) because other states with similar problems don't resort to this kind of stupidity.

Other states may realize if they succeed, a lot of shit won't be getting done either. I'm not saying the working conditions or the legality of it is right, but a lot of work is done by illegals, and if people like their way of life, it is something to consider.

It's actually startlingly clear that you're the one who has a tenuous grasp, at best, on the real issues involved with illegal immigration.

The real-world costs of illegal immigrants are, for practical purposes, sunk costs - they're basic human services that have been deemed a right for even non-citizens. Surely, you're not for holding back basic human rights from individuals, regardless of skin tone, right?

And won't the increased time and energy dealing with inconsequential immigration-related issues detract from local police's ability to do their jobs, resulting in EVEN MORE costs? Seriously - sunk costs are sunk, no matter how angry you want to be about it. Now, if it's not cheaper, and if it might actually make people less safe, is that worth stepping all over the frigging Constitution in the name of "enforcement" (which is not left to the states anyway)?

Put another way: what will this law actually DO, in your mind?

I guess we'll start there, and see if it's worth moving onto further lessons in Reality Versus The Minutemen 201.

(Preview: how are taxes dealt with when drawn from paychecks of illegals? Why should enforcement be left to business owners, who have a vested interest in NOT enforcing the laws? How much would strawberries cost on Planet NoIllegals? Do you understand the definition of "crime" and its dubious-at-best relation to undocumented immigration? How will this law actually affect social services, which make up the majority of costs? And, finally - how does a closed border and the current 'card'/naturalization pathway system encourage legal immigration when undocumented immigration is easier, cheaper, faster and insanely more convenient? Oh, wait though - closing the border is the solution. That'll work. Just like the war on drugs.)

I definitely have sympathy for states like Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas which bear a disproportionately high share of the burden when it comes to U.S. imigration. I'll admit it, I would go crazy living in one of those places, knowing that my taxes were paying for their healthcare and schools, and that they were contributing nothing to my state or country in the way of income or property taxes, which are desperately needed in places like California - a state literally going bankrupt.

I am not opposed to a wall, since the boundary has not been respected.

How sure are you that undocumented aliens AREN'T paying in?

Those that own property are almost assuredly paying property taxes (the state will collect - and a cursory glance shows AZ is pretty standard re: liens/foreclosure). Those that have a job are either a.) paying withholding (even if under false documentation) or b.) are being paid illegally under the table by their employer, who reaps the benefits of illegal labor (not applicable in Texas, which has no state income tax). Sales taxes, tolls, etc. all happen.

The US has massive immigration problems - nobody will disagree with that. But there is a lot of hyperbole by individuals with a specific agenda that doesn't really fit the reality of what immigration really does.

States are going bankrupt for a variety of stupid decisions, some of which are related to population growth and immigration, and some of which are easily blamed but really are only tangentially related.

Now, I totally agree with legal immigration and I think one thing that would help is if legal immigration was made easier, but (and I'm not 100% positive on this) hasn't legal immigration been made so stringent since 9-11 that it is really hard for anyone to immigrate here?
I do understand that Mexico, how should I put this nicely, kind of sucks. There really aren't options there. 6th grade is their highest cumpulsory grade, after that you have to pay for an education and it is costly and people don't make a lot. I get that they want the benefits of the United States but do it legally. It may take a long time, but why would you want to take the chance of all the risks associated with illegal immigration.

While I am glad that the state made a law, I never said I thought it was going to be easy to enforce. The state keeps cutting back on all funding. The police department, while they need more officers, can't afford to hire anymore.

I'm kind of guessing that unless the driver is behaving erratically, or there is another reason for them (the officers) to pull them over, they aren't just going to pull over a random Hispanic (for no reason) other than be like "prove your legal". They don't have the time. Now, I'm sure there will be some boneheaded, racist officer who will do crap like what I mentioned, but that isn't going to be all of them. Unfortunately, when that one bonehead does it, suddenly it is on the national news and everyone is screaming racism.

I really think the motive behind this law is to get people in Washington D.C. to WAKE THE HELL UP and do what they should be doing. The federal government should be protecting the borders, not the individual states, but yet that is what CA and AZ are trying to do and these two states are probably the two most "broke" (money wise) in the U.S.

i hope this mean they're going to crack down on the people routing around my trashcans

You do realize illegal immigration isn't a "skin tone" issue, right?

I've happened to encounter "illegal aliens" from several countries in Europe...visas run out and they stay. Different route, same outcome.

RC, I haven't been to Boston, MA, but do you guys really have an illegal problem up there? This is an issue for which many of the negative aspects do not receive media coverage except through the unreliable right-wing fringe media. Here in Oklahoma, the problem isn't so bad. I deal with illegals, they're good folks, mostly pay payroll taxes under a fake SSN and above all and most importantly, they pay their attorney's fees.... every damn dime. Never had a bad experience. I understand that back home, attorneys can have them thrown in prison for failure to pay their fees, so that might be a cultural thing (wouldn't that be nice?).

At any rate, as you move South, the violence, drugs and kidnapping problems grow much, much worse. Maricopa County is pretty much an immigration war zone. Phoenix leads the world in the number of kidnappings per capita. The hospitals and social service programs are stretched thin, and no, I really doubt there are enough payroll taxes coming in from illegals to cover those expenses.

To reduce this issue to a racial/racist issue is maybe partially accurate, but it ain't the whole enchilada.

I agree 100% with what Rev. Al Sharpton said on the TJMS this morning.

He said what many of us said: Having an issue with illegal immigration and crime does not mean that this law is a good idea and people are confusing the debate, as well as shortsightedly justifying (or ignoring) the potential outcomes of this law. That is what posters like Kevin and ASUADPi seem to be doing. This isn't a pro-illegal immigrants vs. con-illegal immigrants debate. This isn't a pro-crime vs. con-crime debate. This is a pro-THIS LAW vs. con-THIS LAW debate.

Ummmmm...HE realizes that and HE won't be the one doing the racial profiling based on black and brown skin tone and non-white racial and ethnic features.

This law was not intended to target illegal immigrants who are not black or brown and it won't be used to target illegal immigrants who are not black or brown.

You need a refresher course on racial profiling and what happened with DWB. It is not about what "some boneheaded, racist officer" does. It is an institutionally supported practice.

I don't think Kevin's doing that -- his first post in this thread was:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1921105) I guess these guys haven't heard of the supremacy clause.

I think Kevin was responding on a background issue -- whether New England states experience illiegal alien problems the same way states closer to or on the Mexican border do.

Hmmm...doesn't sound like all of law enforcement is backing this.

The Pima County, Arizona, sheriff told KGUN9 News in Tucson that state Senate Bill 1070 to deter illegal immigration is a "racist law." He said he has no intention of complying with it.

According to the TV station, Dupnik becomes the first major local law enforcement official to rebel against the bill since Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed it into law Friday.

Dupnik called the law "disgusting" and "unnecessary." He knows he could get sued for failing to comply with the law - a risk, he says he's willing to take.


http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/28...ople-8/?hpt=T2

Then ASUADPi's holding it down. Cool. :)

I think I remember hearing that law enforcement groups in Arizona opposed the bill. Did I imagine that?

Apparently the Maricopa sheriff is all for it. He's been all over the news.

Well, yeah. But that's his thing. I was meaning more the police organizations.

Ummmm it was directed towards that poster.

Down girl, down.

First, regarding Joe Arpaio: where to start? His behavior is legendary and well documented. It astounds me that the residents of Maricopa County have not yet voted him out of office.

I am proud of Sheriff Clarence Dupnik. As Andrew Jackson said, "one man with courage is a majority." Someone needed to speak up about how WRONG this law is. It is, simply, WRONG. What is so difficult to understand about that?

That said, the border issues are incredibly complex and troubling. No one in this thread has yet referred to the recent murder of the Cochise County rancher, Rob Krentz, by a suspected drug smuggler. His murder has added fuel to the fire.

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange...ncher-murdered

Latest news this morning is that the Federal Government is casting an eye at the AZ law, and I say "hurry up."

On NPR last night I heard the higher ups did NOT support it, but in general the actual officers did. I didn't catch the title/name of the person being interviewed, though, so I don't know if they know what they're talking about or not.

So sad. Don't think making the drug dealers carry their immigration papers will help stop them, though. Which I'm sure is your point, Maria.

Shut up, bitch.

Someone's being a lady today. Don't write your obnoxious responses if you can't handle getting them back.

I will not be shutting up any time soon. Have a good one!:D