Lets just make all the supporters of illegal immigration carry the financial tax burdens, bet they'd change their minds real quick. I just read that in CA, they cause the average household to pay almost $1,200 extra per year, in just public education, medical care, and incarceration costs for illegals.

I am a legal immigrant, and I pay my taxes, and have never looked for any government aid. Do it the right way, or gtfo and stop making my taxes go up or be spent on illegals.

 

Im sorry i thought you were been, my bad for what i said.

 

____________ +2

 

C'mon, you seriously can't compare the 2.

Back on topic, if you want legitimate change, you need to change the laws, not make people who broke the law exempt from the law they broke. Essentially you would be rewarding people who broke the law. You can't grandfather in law breakers.

If we were to be so stupid as to allow all the illegals to become legal, I would expect at the bare minimum for them to pay back taxes, with penalties, on all their unclaimed income from years past. And, to pay back any benefits they received if their "correct" income dictates they would not normally qualify for those benefits. Otherwise, you are further ******* the "legals" who have complied by the law all these years.

 

I know big Bry but it pisses me off when people try to do "THE RIGHT THING" when ether way its wrong both ways. lets just leave it at this ....


I FUCKEN LOVE SEX!!!

PS WELL SAID Bry...

 

When I've broken the law in the past or am breaking the law currently, I am willing to pay the fines or face the penalties for my actions, not go out and change the law to suit my actions though.

Plus all the illegal things I do/have done, have aided the government with my money, not cost them more .

 

I knew this thread would go this direction, Black02LS1 seems to like bashing on illegals.

 

So does the rest of the board and the country. Become ****** legitamit or GTFO!

The guy who said his family is here illegally is lucky I dont know who he is or I'de call immigration right now. I dont want pople to leave I want people to pay their fair share. I'm ****** sick of giving people free rides.

BTW just so we're clear I dont give a **** if your a black,brown, yellow, white, blue green whatever illegal. At least mexicans work hard, this is all about people gettin free rides and thus ******* everyone else over.

 

Proud MEXICAN

 

My thoughts exactly

 

^^^^^^You Want my address? It starts with this#

 

nah, just send it to INS

 

wrong wrong wrong, the law stipulates that you CAN NOT be pulled over for your ethnicity but rather you have to commit a previous crime then it allows the police to check your status.

if you or anyone does not believe me go ahead and read the law, dont buy all the bs hype from the lefties.

 

You really think the rest of the country has your point of view. You need to wake up from your world and stop sounding ******* ignorant. You talk about free rides but most illegals working and paying into fake social security numbers don't get their tax return back. Not to mention that alot of employers (Legal Citizens) know they are hiring illegals with fake papers but rather hire them to pay a lower labor rate and make more profit.

 

jsteele90 does not have the huevos to come to the hood and start asking for id!!!!!

 

just drop it bro, u dont even know how stupid you sound man,

 

Didn't read all the responses..but read this and hopefully it will clear some **** up. From a lawyer with his license in Cali, and almost has it for AZ as well.



To preface, the legislature just passed an amended version of the bill which will refine some of the points below...

I have been watching the media report on this law, and it is stunning to me how ignorant people get such a pedestal. I'd like to clarify the legally operative terms in the bill. First let me go through what the law says/means, and then we can look at the peanut gallery.... See More

The portion of the bill that's in controversy:

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

The first legally operative term is "lawful contact." Lawful contact refers to police stopping to question or detaining someone for a lawful purpose. Therefore, the police must be in contact with this person for ANOTHER reason before inquiring about immigration status.

Most in the media, and Obama, roll right over this language. Instead, Obama spreads lies about how a family "could be out for ice cream and then harassed for paperwork." That cannot happen. In the amended version, this is replaced with a stop, detention, or arrest.

The other main operative phrase is "reasonable suspicion." Contrary to the morons on TV, reasonable suspicion wasn't invented by the Arizona legislature. It's a stable of modern America criminal law. The Supreme Court first articulated this standard in 1968 in Terry v. Ohio. The court said that "law enforcement officials may stop and frisk someone for weapons if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has taken or is about to take place and the subject is armed and dangerous."

Since the Terry case, we have had 50 years of judicial decisions defining the scope of reasonable suspicion. Today it means that the police have specific and articulable facts and inferences that lead to a reasonable suspicion that the person has been or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. It cannot be based on a mere hunch. A court evaluates reasonable suspicion by looking at it through the eyes of a "reasonable officer." That is, an officer in the same circumstances could reasonably believe that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity -- the detaining officer's actual belief is irrelevant.

Here are some examples to help clarify:
reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime like a wire hanger and is looking into car windows at 2am, when a person matches a description of a suspect given by another police officer over department radio, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers who are at common law right of inquiry (founded suspicion). However, reasonable suspicion may not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a suspected race or ethnicity. It's viewed with the totality of the circumstances.

At reasonable suspicion, you may be detained by a police officer for a short period of time and police can use force to detain you. For an arrest or longer detainment, probable cause is required.

I say all of this to inform you so you're not one of the sheep. Just today I saw at least 8 TV interviews stating "reasonable suspicion -- what is the world is that?" They act as though Jan Brewer invented it. The fact is there are, literally, hundreds of thousands of cases defining what it is. Yet, these idiots are allowed on TV and print to spread lies and misinformation.

Hopefully this helps you not to fall into that trap.

 

so you are trying to defend these people but yet you portray the threat of violence upon him if he or someone were to enforce the laws of this country? your not making a good caase bud.

 

Hey buddy! go learn some grammar. Or at least spell check

 

im not gonna ****, i aint going down to your level. stop been ignorant bro..