Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Praising Arizona (In Border Battle)
Investors.com ^ | April 26, 2010 | INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY Staff

Posted on 04/26/2010 5:02:53 PM PDT by Kaslin

Immigration: Arizona moves to protect its citizens from a raging border war, and the administration and its activist supporters cry racism. Why is antelope protection more important than protecting American lives?

(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; Mexico; News/Current Events; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: 1millionlandmines; agenda; aliens; amnesty; arizona; arpaio; az; az2010; border; borderfence; bordersecurity; boycott; defence; dhs; djsob; donttreadonme; druglords; endangeredspecies; esa; fence; givemeliberty; homelandsecurity; ibd; illegalaliens; illegalimmigration; illegalinvasion; illegals; immigrantlist; immigration; janbrewer; jdhayworth; kissmyaz; krentz; krentzcasualty; landmines; livefreeordie; mexicanborder; mexico; nationalguard; norderfence; obama; obamasamerica; obamnesty; praisingarizona; profiling; racecard; racialprofiling; racism; rinomccain; robertkrentz; seiu; species; standwitharizona; statesrights; usborder; virtualfence; votejdhayworthaz

1 posted on 04/26/2010 5:02:53 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“Why is antelope protection more important than protecting American lives?”

Because antelope are, you know, like, you know, sorta Bambi.


2 posted on 04/26/2010 5:06:42 PM PDT by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

USA VS US search it and be free


3 posted on 04/26/2010 5:08:33 PM PDT by truthbetold11 (truthbetold11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Border security and illegal aliens have nothing to do with immigration. Two separate issues for the intellectually honest.


4 posted on 04/26/2010 5:15:15 PM PDT by TigersEye (0basma's father was a British subject. He can't be a "natural-born" citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Carlucci; grey_whiskers; meyer; WL-law; Para-Ord.45; 70th Division; 2ndDivisionVet; ...

ping


5 posted on 04/26/2010 5:15:56 PM PDT by raptor22 (The truth will set us free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Mine the border with explosives.

Blast anything that moves with a shotgun.

Then You’ll see them back off.


6 posted on 04/26/2010 5:27:55 PM PDT by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I dub AZ the “Conservative Sanctuary” state.


7 posted on 04/26/2010 5:35:15 PM PDT by netmilsmom (I am Ilk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Praising Arizona (in Border Battle)

Did someone say 'Raising Arizona'?


8 posted on 04/26/2010 5:35:29 PM PDT by Hoodat (For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthbetold11

“USA VS US search it and be free”

United States of America vs. United States?


9 posted on 04/26/2010 5:40:17 PM PDT by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
Short for 'Edwina' turn to the RIGHT! :)
10 posted on 04/26/2010 5:43:53 PM PDT by SparkyBass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

For what it worth , there is no “anchor baby” law . It is only a policy adopted by the goverment ,because INS( at that time now called ICE)in the 1980’s said it is to expensive to deport children of illegals. Boy did they screw up and now we are paying for it. Anchor babies have no Constitutional right to citizenship.


11 posted on 04/26/2010 6:45:28 PM PDT by omegadawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

BTT


12 posted on 04/26/2010 7:14:59 PM PDT by AuntB (Illegal immigration is simply more ‘share the wealth’ socialism and a CRIME not a race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER

“Mine the border with explosives.”

That ought to do the trick. But who’s gonna clean up after each explosion?


13 posted on 04/26/2010 7:16:27 PM PDT by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; All

Any police officer can tell you what “reasonable suspicion” is about.

If you see a vehicle and the left tail light is out - the officer is obligated to stop the vehicle and tell the person. At the time the officer stops the driver, he will - as is normal - ask for the driver’s license and registration.

If the driver cannot produce either of those pieces of documentation - THAT IS REASONABLE SUSPICION that the person could be in the country illegally .. or the person could have stolen the vehicle - so the officer will have the dispatcher run the plates to see if the car is stolen.

When no ID can be produced - the officer is obligated to arrest the person - and charge him with being in the country illegally - and the person will be deported.

NOTICE: I did not mention the driver’s race - BECAUSE IT HAS NO BEARING ON THE ISSUE.

However, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT - will not allow local police officers to arrest such people. This is not security - this is national suicide!!


14 posted on 04/26/2010 7:30:10 PM PDT by The Final Harvest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

” I’ll be taking these Huggies and whatever cash ya got. “


15 posted on 04/26/2010 7:44:58 PM PDT by Pelham (Obamacare, the new Final Solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SparkyBass

” Edwina’s insides were a rocky place where my seed could find no purchase “


16 posted on 04/26/2010 7:46:18 PM PDT by Pelham (Obamacare, the new Final Solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Gale: Alright you hayseeds it’s a stickup! Everybody freeze. Everybody down on the ground.
(Long pause)
Hayseed: Well, which is it Young Feller? You want I should freeze or get down on the ground? I mean to say, if’n I freeze I can’t rightly drop. And if’n I drop, I’m gonna be in motion. Y’see...
Gale: Shut up!
Hayseed: Ok then.


17 posted on 04/26/2010 7:48:30 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Gale: Everybody down on the ground!
Evelle: Y’all can just forget that part about freezin’ now.
Gale: Better still to get down there.
Evelle: Yeah, y’all hear that, don’t ya?
[Everybody lays down. Gale looks at the now-empty teller windows]
Gale: Shit! Where’d all the tellers go?
Teller’s voices: We’re down here, sir.
Evelle: They’re on the floor as you commanded, Gale.


18 posted on 04/26/2010 7:50:32 PM PDT by Pelham (Obamacare, the new Final Solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis
That ought to do the trick. But who’s gonna clean up after each explosion?

Coyotes (the four-legged kind) and vultures.

Cheers!

19 posted on 04/26/2010 7:52:02 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.http://www.free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

“Why do you say you feel ‘trapped’ in a man’s body?”

“Well, sometimes I get the menstrual cramps real hard.”


20 posted on 04/26/2010 7:52:21 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

“H.I.: Prison life is structured - more’n some people care for.”

We can move on to The Big Lebowski when we run out of Arizona gems.


21 posted on 04/26/2010 7:54:37 PM PDT by Pelham (Obamacare, the new Final Solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Ok, one last one:

Parole board chairman: They’ve got a name for people like you, Hi. That name is called “recidivism.” Repeat offender! Not a pretty name, is it, Hi?

Hi: No, sir. That’s one bonehead name, but that ain’t me anymore.

Parole board chairman: You’re not just telling us what we want to hear?

Hi: No, sir, no way.

Parole board member: ‘Cause we just want to hear the truth.

Hi: Well, then I guess I am telling you what you want to hear.

Parole board chairman: Boy, didn’t we just tell you not to do that?

Hi: Yes, sir.

Parole board chairman: Okay, then.


22 posted on 04/26/2010 7:59:08 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Policeman in Arizona house: What did the pyjamas look like?

Nathan Arizona Sr.: I don’t know - they were jammies! They had Yodas ‘n’ shit on ‘em!!


23 posted on 04/26/2010 8:10:48 PM PDT by Pelham (Obamacare, the new Final Solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER

That won’t have much effect on the 10-20 million that are already here.


24 posted on 04/26/2010 8:18:56 PM PDT by TigersEye (0basma's father was a British subject. He can't be a "natural-born" citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn
...there is no “anchor baby” law . It is only a policy adopted by the goverment ,because INS( at that time now called ICE)in the 1980’s said it is to expensive to deport children of illegals.

That didn't start in the 1980's. It started with the 14th Amendment.

25 posted on 04/26/2010 9:26:25 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis
...who’s gonna clean up after each explosion?

Buzzards...

26 posted on 04/26/2010 9:27:20 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

The 14th amendment is one of the most misquoted amendments in the Constitution . Liberals tend to use pick and choose the wording so it fits their view of how to read it. CHILDREN BORN IN THE UNITED STATES ARE CITIZENS is only half of the requirement to be born a citizen AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF is the second part of the requirement. Congressional records clearly shows that the meaning of “ subject” in the 1860’s 14th amendment refers to the citizenship of the parents. Citizenship was denied to children of foreigners and aliens. The Supreme Court case of Wong Kim Ark (late 1800’s) allowed citizenship for children of parents who legally immigrated( sworn alligiance to ) to America but were not yet citizens.These children were considered Native Born Naturalized citizens. There is NO law or Constitutional amendment that grants citizenship to children of illegals. Immigration is a process that new citizens must go though in order for their children to be considered citizens. Crossing the border in the middle of the night to have a child on American soil IS NOT a Immigration process.


27 posted on 04/26/2010 10:29:34 PM PDT by omegadawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn
The 14th amendment is one of the most misquoted amendments in the Constitution. Liberals tend to use pick and choose the wording so it fits their view of how to read it.

I need to go back and read some of the birther threads on the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark case to refresh myself on what part of that has been used to support "anchor baby" citizenship.

I've read the explanations many times, but it's been a while, and the details escape me at the moment. Are you familiar with the 14th Amendment justifier for this?

28 posted on 04/26/2010 10:42:52 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I wish everyone who supports border integrity would cease referring to the invasion as “Illegal Immigration”.

It IS an INVASION, the fact that foreign governments, Mexico in particular, are actively facilitating this invasion should be recognized as acts of war.

“Illegal Immigrant” makes no sense, it is like saying “Authentic Reproduction”, or “Genuine Simulation”.
Illegal entry is a crime, it is invasion.

AZ needs to ensure that they enforce this against invaders of all races, not all illegals are from So. America.

Everyone who supports the AZ law should obtain a Border Patrol hat and wear it.
I’ve been wearing mine for years.


29 posted on 04/27/2010 12:05:31 AM PDT by Loyal Sedition
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

You are missing an item, confiscation of ALL assets the illegal has acquired while in the U.S.

Stolen items should be returned to their owners, others should be sold at auction to help fund future enforcement actions.


30 posted on 04/27/2010 12:08:39 AM PDT by Loyal Sedition
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Loyal Sedition

That might be just but I wouldn’t support that.


31 posted on 04/27/2010 12:13:16 AM PDT by TigersEye (0basma's father was a British subject. He can't be a "natural-born" citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

Plates and registration are typically run BEFORE the stop, drivers license info may also come up.

Illegals like to buy a car with current tags on it, then never register or insure it in their names.

If the most recent registration shows a Germanic or Irish sounding name, and the driver cannot speak English (Or German, Irish) but only Spanish, it’s a pretty good clue what is happening.


32 posted on 04/27/2010 12:13:39 AM PDT by Loyal Sedition
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

thank you Arizona


33 posted on 04/27/2010 12:14:55 AM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

Not so fast!

“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

If the parents are illegals, they are not truly subject to the jurisdiction thereof, so the 14th would not confirm citizenship on their kids.

This is critical to stopping the invasion.
If we go with your argument, the parents should still be deported, and the kids put up for adoption.


34 posted on 04/27/2010 12:21:28 AM PDT by Loyal Sedition
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Why not?

Everything they have in the U.S. is the product of illegal activity.
All of it is basically stolen, it should have gone to a legal U.S. citizen.
The job they held was at the expense of a citizen, the welfare they collected was paid for by U.S. citizens.
Illegals get advantages that actual citizens do not, they get to skirt taxes, while collecting on social welfare programs they do not pay for.
Money remitted to other countries is money taken out of the U.S. economy.

Why should we not retrieve some of these stolen assets once their status has been confirmed?

Do you also object to seizing assets from drug dealers after they have been convicted?


35 posted on 04/27/2010 12:33:40 AM PDT by Loyal Sedition
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Loyal Sedition
The short answer is it is not politically feasible. It will be an all out battle to get even a little of what I listed. To demand what you are asking will never fly. To clarify my previous answer though I do agree that stolen property should be seized and returned to the owner. I don't think deportees usually get to take much with them anyway.

As for the drug question; it depends on what property and who actually owns it. But that's apples and oranges.

36 posted on 04/27/2010 12:38:54 AM PDT by TigersEye (0basma's father was a British subject. He can't be a "natural-born" citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Loyal Sedition
“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

If the parents are illegals, they are not truly subject to the jurisdiction thereof, so the 14th would not confirm citizenship on their kids.

I know that anchor baby citizenship is hanging on something. I've been thinking it's the 14th Amendment, but I could be wrong. I've got to go back and look over the threads where it was discussed in depth.

If it is indeed hanging on the 14th, then the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" would seem to rule out citizenship for children of illegals born on US soil.

We've got to look at this harder. There's no way that something so glaring would have been missed for so long.

Check here, if you've got time to help: Obama Birth Certificate Page

37 posted on 04/27/2010 12:41:49 AM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

It can’t be a conservative sanctuary until McCain is defeated. As long as he’s in a power position within that state, there is no sanctuary.


38 posted on 04/27/2010 12:56:55 AM PDT by chilltherats (First, kill all the lawyers (now that they ARE the tyrants).......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: chilltherats

I’m praying! Hard.


39 posted on 04/27/2010 2:29:06 AM PDT by netmilsmom (I am Ilk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Freep This Poll:

http://www.fox5sandiego.com/

Arizona’s Immigration Law

Would you support a similar immigration law if passed in San Diego?

*

Yes (858 responses)

81.6%
*

No (193 responses)

18.4%

1051 total responses


40 posted on 04/27/2010 8:02:45 AM PDT by rhinoslapper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

The wording in the 14th.amendment that is misquoted and used to justify citizenship for “anchor babies” is the word “subject. The word “subject “ can have two different meaning. One meaning is a “citizen” of a nation and the other “accountable” to the nation. Senator Howard clearly stated his meaning of the word “subject “ A child born in the United States AND to parents(SUBJECTS) who have alligiance TO THE U.S.(JURISDICTION THEREOF) is automatically a citizen. The new WORDING being used is that the word “subject” only refers to the child being accountable to the laws of the jurisdiction. The supporters of “anchor babies” are replacing a 19th century word with a 21th century meaning. This is like saying everyone born in the 1890’s were homosexual because it was refered to as the ‘Gay Ninethies’ ( Gay meant happy in 1890). IN the Wong kim Ark case the court granted citizenship to a child whom parents had LEGALLY IMMIGRATED( this is considered the start of alligiance) to the U.S. but were not yet citizens. Kim was declared a Native born Naturalized citizen. The “anchor babies’ supporters use this case but omit the fact that Ark’s parents had LEGALLY IMMIGRATED to the U.S. and thus set up allegiance to U.S. as required by the 14th. amendment. Anchor babies ae not born with any alligiance to the U.S. and thus not U.S. citizens.


41 posted on 04/27/2010 8:55:12 AM PDT by omegadawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: omegadawn

That mis-interpretation of the meaning of the 14th Amendment to justify making anchor babies US citizens looks like it’s ripe for a court challenge to me.

Best wait until we’ve got a better class of federal judges first, though.

Thanks for the clarification. Much appreciated.


42 posted on 04/27/2010 9:15:25 AM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Loyal Sedition

Yeah, after I wrote it I remembered that the officers would always give me the plate number just in case something happened to them.


43 posted on 04/27/2010 9:49:09 PM PDT by The Final Harvest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson