Calls for AZ Governor to Veto Immigration Legislation

The absurdly discriminatory immigration bill passed by the Arizona House passed the Senate yesterday. Absent a veto by the Republican Governor, Jan Brewer, it will become law.

The bill would require immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and require police to question people if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally. It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.

This bill is a racial profiling horror show in the making. What to do? Protest? That ship seems to have sailed. Better: Boycott Arizona. No hotels, no airlines based there, no merchandise manufactured there. Cross the Grand Canyon off your summer travel plans. Forget Sedona and Scottsdale. Colorado is lovely this time of year.

< Sarah Palin to Testify in TN E-Mail Hacking Trial | Tuesday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    One wonders how the sports leagues (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 08:09:53 PM EST
    will handle this.

    I think they all have one flavor or another of anti-discrimination rules written into their rules.

    Imagine the Diamondbacks having no home opponents.
    OTOH, imagine all the Hispanic players in baseball - both the Diamondbacks' and the opther teams' players - refusing to play in AZ.

    The Cardinals, no home opponents.  

    No Fiesta Bowl (or whatever bowl game they play in Phoenix every winter).

    No NBA.

    No NHL (another league full of furriners).

    That'd be a good place to start.

    The employment situation here (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 08:53:00 PM EST
    has me wondering when we'll be the ones trying to sneak into Mexico in the dark of night for work.

    I would love to see them arrest me! (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by mexboy on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 09:21:51 PM EST
    If this law passes I will travel to Arizona and will let them arrest me.

    I am a citizen. When they ask me for a green card I will tell them I don't have one and when they arrest me, based on the way I look, I will sue their asses off. (anyone want to represent me? ha!)

    How would you like to have a target on your back because of the way you look? I don't care for it!

    Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. MLK.

    I carry my SS card and driver's license (none / 0) (#7)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 09:45:10 PM EST
    with me all the time. It's not that hard to prove you are a citizen.

    Immigration is wonderful. It makes this country interesting and unique. Nothing wrong with expecting it to be done legally. AZ may be handling this incorrectly, but I'm not living there so I don't know what motivates them.


    We don't live in a police state... (none / 0) (#12)
    by mexboy on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 12:07:28 AM EST
    ...like China or the Soviet Union.

    Today ID those who belong to a certain group, tomorrow the National ID for everyone. The constitution is being undermined.


    I object to the idea.. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Raskolnikov on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 12:46:23 AM EST
    ..that a police officer can stop me without cause and ask for my "papers".  Ours is an open society, this is a move in the wrong direction certainly.

    Me, too, but they already do (none / 0) (#15)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 07:56:37 AM EST
    Ever had an officer stop you and not ask for your driver's license and registration and insurance card....all for reasons of making sure you are following a given set of laws.

    None of those items relate directly to the broken tail light they might be stopping you for.


    Stopping someone because of a (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 08:41:07 AM EST
    broken tail light is a wee bit different than stopping someone because he/she is brown.

    You completely miss the point (none / 0) (#40)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:29:14 PM EST

    I strongly agree we need to fix the (none / 0) (#18)
    by Buckeye on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:07:21 AM EST
    illegal immigration problem in this country.

    Just not like this.


    The SSA (none / 0) (#23)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:50:42 AM EST
    recommends that people NOT carry their SS cards with them. Good advice. You wouldn't want it stolen. Besides, do you know how many bogus SS cards are there. That means squat for proving citizenship or legality.

    My birth certificate is on record (none / 0) (#41)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:36:08 PM EST
    at the DMV from when I got my first driver's license. A run of the driver's license will quickly verify if bogus or real.

    I don't remember which state it was in, but I recall mass spot checks by the police .... everyone driving down a certain road was detained and tested for alcohol level. No profiling, everyone got checked.


    But a driver's license is NOT proof (none / 0) (#28)
    by DFLer on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 12:33:39 PM EST
    of citizenship, as you say. Nor is a SS card, necessarily.

    Do you always carry you birth certificate and or a passsport? Those docs would prove citizenship, not DLs or SS cards.


    Be careful what you ask for (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:20:58 AM EST
    Did you ever see "Born In East LA?"

    Define (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:53:57 AM EST
    "reason to suspect." That's a far cry from probable cause. This gives ANY cop, ANY reason to harass ANYONE. This is just another "disturbing the peace" for cops to arrest you at their whim. If you don't carry your birth certificate or passport on you at all times (I surely don't), there is no real way for ANY of you to prove you are a US citizen. Being white don't get it. Having a driver's license doesn't either. I have a good friend, Canadian, lily white, in the US illegally, has a, get this, AZ driver's license.

    well, what's wrong with this? (none / 0) (#2)
    by diogenes on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 08:24:25 PM EST
    "It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them."  Is it fair to assume that you at least support THIS part of the law?

    I would say thet immigration (none / 0) (#17)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 08:47:32 AM EST
    policy is the responsibility of the Federal Government. To answer a possible follow-up, no I don't support 287 g laws either. DEpultized local police aren't the main issue I have with it, but the profiling (note I said main issue, still some other issues with local police having immigration authority). I live in a city with 10-15 percent Latinos, and a bill or law such as this would be gasoline on the nativists' fires.

    Somehow I think that shutting down (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 08:26:07 PM EST
    sports games isn't going to bother a lot of people.

    Sure, it will (none / 0) (#27)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 12:15:11 PM EST
    LA doesn't care that it doesn't have an NFL team....But it does matter to other places.  I think it would matter a lot to Arizona if their Cardinals, D-Backs, and Suns are shunned....Not sure it will happen, but it would be big news if it did....

    Arizona had trouble with making MLK day a holiday and had to wait a long time to live that down.  That's why McCain apologized for opposing MLK day during his 2008 campaign....

    Arizona just doesn't learn...


    The games wouuld continue without (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 01:23:26 PM EST
    a hitch.

    Replacement players are available.

    Of course you seem to think that players who are here legally making tons of money would walk off the field....



    This time of year? (none / 0) (#5)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 08:58:35 PM EST
    Colorado is lovely anytime of year.

    Paging the justice department. . . (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:19:42 PM EST

    I hope not. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Peter G on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:39:48 PM EST
    I don't want the DOJ to handle blocking this law, although they surely could, in a heartbeat, given the blatant violation of the "preemption" principle under the Supremacy Clause.  I'm looking for a nice fat attorneys fee check to support the ACLU of Arizona and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, after they sue for and win that injunction.  In fact, I will go out on a limb and predict the ACLU will get the U.S. District Court to issue a TRO against this law before it ever goes into effect.

    1983 and the Justice Department (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 11:24:44 PM EST
    were invented for situations just like this. As between which corrects the problem, I'd personally like to see the Justice Department go back to enforcing the civil rights laws.

    that's because you are being (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Peter G on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 11:31:30 PM EST
    entirely serious, and speaking from principle, and I am being, I dunno, ironic?

    But at least they're including Obama (none / 0) (#14)
    by Farmboy on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 07:47:15 AM EST
    in their definition of immigrants who need to prove citizenship (I'm referring to the provision added Monday that Obama can't be on the AZ ballot in '12 if he doesn't provide a birth certificate to them).


    Up to ACLU and Federal Courts (none / 0) (#19)
    by Saul on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:12:40 AM EST
    If governor signs it into law it won't be long before some circuit court will declare it unconstitutional and issues and injunction toward it implementation then it might go all the way to SC

    In Texas a city tried to pass a ordinance  that you could not rent to someone who could not prove that they were here legally.  The law was immediately crushed by a Federal court and it never was allowed to be implemented.  

    Well, well (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:33:05 AM EST
    Does anyone here have a solution to the problems that illegal aliens pouring across the border create?

    How about this.

    1. Close the border and keep it closed.

    2. Put people caught hiring illegal aliens in jail.

    That would reduce the supply and the demand.

    Give those already here a green card IF they come in and ask for one and meet certain guidelines.

    Take whatever steps necessary to exclude children born of illegal aliens already here or here on a green card, citizenship UNLESS their parents become citizens first.

    Stop all legal immigration except for people with skills that can be shown to be needed by the economy. If the software moguls whine tell'em to pay software engineers as much as people at Goldman Sachs make. I promise you a plethora of software engineers in 4-8 years. (Somewhat tongue in cheek but you get the idea.)

    "Born in the USA" (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:32:47 AM EST
    confers automatic citizenship under the plain language of the first section of the 14th Amendment: "All persons born ... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...."  (The "subject to the jurisdiction" proviso exempts children of foreign diplomats, etc.) Those words were written to overrule "Dred Scott," the Supreme Court decision (one of the worst in its history) holding that a person of African descent could not be or become a US citizen.  So, to this suggestion, "Take whatever steps necessary to exclude children born of illegal aliens already here or here on a green card, citizenship UNLESS their parents become citizens first." The answer is, No.  Impossible.  Unthinkable.

    And in the Wong case (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 12:38:51 PM EST
     the United States Supreme Court held that a person born here to Chinese parents was a natural-born citizen.  See U.S. v. Wong, 169 U.S. 649, 705( 1898)*

    You'd have to turn the clock back to at least the ante-bellum South to prevent people who were born here from automatically being citizens.  And, as shown in Wong, this is a well-worn concept of "natural born subjects" under English Common Law going back four hundred years. Wong, supra, 169 U.S. at 655.  

    So, for Jim's proposed rule to be applied, you would have to go back to England under Elizabeth I and make your arguments that the Common Law should have taken a different turn.

    *Wong eliminates the birther argument that Obama is not eligible to be President even if he were born in Hawaii because he is not "natural born Citizen" under the U.S. Constitution because his father was not a citizen.  This weird birther argument shows that they will never be satisfied....Don't feed the trolls....


    At the risk of repeating (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 01:20:14 PM EST

    The Constitution can be amended.

    That you might not want this one is self-evident.


    We amended the Constitution (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 02:52:52 PM EST
    after the Civil War to provide that people born here are citizens.....That was the basic point behind the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Thirteenth did away with slavery....

    And, you want to undue the Fourteenth Amendment.....to contract basic human rights.....

    So, liberals and progressives are the ones that are supposedly for radical change?


    the constitution is not a rough draft (none / 0) (#62)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:42:57 PM EST
    nor should we treat it as one.

    Your points on "illegals" have been made. It's now chatter. Please refrain from repeating yourself on this point.


    I am not a lawyer (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 01:07:33 PM EST
    and didn't even sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night but I do seem to remember that the Constitution can be amended.

    People are angry. They want change.

    So change is not "unthinkable."


    And at the risk of stating the (none / 0) (#34)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 02:19:15 PM EST
    obvious ... you clearly don't understand what we mean by the term "unthinkable" -- in the context of one of the most important events in American history (and, as MKS points out, in relation to a 500-year tradition of Anglo-American legal tradition).  Think about what it would mean to amend the Constitution to repeal the language that overturned Dred Scott.  The some people may think they are "angry" about illegal immigration at the moment misses the point by more or less a country mile.

    And you clearly don't seem to (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 02:56:58 PM EST
    understand that the problem it was intended to solve has been solved.

    It seems to me that both you and MKS somehow think that we cannot retain whatever is necessary to assure civil rights and freedom for all and still deem that from "this day forward" being born here of illegal alien parents does not make you a citizen unless and until your parents become citizens.

    As for tradition I give you bondsmen, slavery, women's rights, etc. as some examples of bad traditions.


    People are becoming angry (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 02:46:21 PM EST
    and they do want change.  

    They include large numbers of Latinos and they want immigration reform.

    So, if you really want to pursue a constitutional amendment to deprive Latinos of a centuries old legal tradition that gives them citizenship because they were born here, go ahead....

    And you can blame the brown people for the bad economy....but it is not true....the problems were caused by lenders playing games with loans....


    Your ability to misundertand (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 03:17:48 PM EST
    is impressive. So is your ability to claim things I have not said.

    I seem to remember that Southern plantation owners were upset because the centuries old legal right to own slaves was over turned. Many today claim that the centuries old statements in the Bible give them the right to condemn gays and deny them the basic human right of marriage. Others claimed (some still do) that a woman does not have the right to control her own body....

    There is no reason to claim that being born in a place of non-citizens makes you an automatic citizen and that gives you the right to retain your parents in the country. It never made a lot of sense, especially to the Native Americans.

    The mistreatment of illegal aliens by those that hire them has been going on for years. It has nothing to do with today's economy, and I think you know that. And I think you know I haven't claimed that. (Straw man get thee behind me.)

    By shutting the borders and issuing green cards to those here that want them and meet some simple requirements, which I proposed, you get them out of the shadows and into unions. Plus, since the supply of labor is reduced, wages will rise and working conditions improve.

    That is just a simple fact of supply and demand.


    Illegal aliens? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by mexboy on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 08:15:30 PM EST
    That is a demeaning slur on human beings. I recall Jeralyn stating many times no human being is illegal. And what planet are these aliens coming from?

    You argue we should deny citizenship to children born here of "Illegal aliens." I AGREE with you and let's make it retroactive to be fair.

    I say the descendants of the original "illegal aliens," aka European Pilgrims who landed in this country without papers should all be declared illegals, as you call them. That would make you an illegal alien.

    This will leave as the only citizens with a right to be here, the indigenous peoples of the Americans...what do you know? The Mexicans are part of the native people to this land, especially California, Arizona, Texas, etc...you get the point.

    Your argument is baseless, irrational  and divisive.


    Actually (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 09:54:59 AM EST
    "Alien" is the proper legal term used for someone not a citizen of this country.  For example, you can look at Title 8 of the US Code titled "Aliens and Nationality".  I believe the code (as well as court decisions) use the term "illegal immigrants", so while some may not like the idea that people illegal, I think this term actually reflects their status.

    that is not correct (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:46:44 PM EST
    they are undocumented residents. At least on this site. Regardless of what some judge somewhere might say. And the statutes may use the word "alien" but not "illegal alien".

    The law of supply and demand (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 12:11:40 PM EST
    There is too much incentive to come here to work....

    More enforcement will create even more ramifications in other places....They will just get a bigger ladder....

    But knock yourself out with asking all brown people for their papers....Ask Pete Wilson how going after immigrants helped the Republican party in California.....The same could very well happen in Arizona.....


    gee, oddly enough, (none / 0) (#22)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:37:53 AM EST
    i wasn't aware that immigration law was under the purview of the individual states. i always thought it was one of those items specifically the responsibility of the federal government. when did the AZ state legislature get converted to the US Congress, and why weren't the rest of us informed?

    this legislation, if foolishly passed, will be tossed by the first federal court that sees it. just another waste of the AZ taxpayer's money, on the egos of their state politicians.

    A oiece of cheese (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 09:02:24 AM EST
    I don't call Americans who have cheated on their taxes Illegal Americans because they are not Illegal Americans. They are tax cheaters. That's the descriptive term. I also call baseball players baseball players, baseball players.

    And "alien" is not a pejorative. It merely means:
    "a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization (distinguished from citizen)."

    I presume nothing. Your comments led me to my suggestion. If you have a closed mind on the issue then don't bother to further educate yourself.

    BTW - When I was a child I lived through polio. That made me knowledgeable of the symptoms and part of the treatment. But it taught me nothing about the cause of the disease or how to prevent it.

    And if you want to argue religion then you need to understand that the Old Testament, which you quote, was satisfied with the birth of Christ and his death and resurrection. The Old Testament has some good history and parables but it is not the basis of Christianity.

    And yes, I think it is necessary to understand that the Spaniards, in particular, used religion to win over the general population and then govern them. And as bad as the Spaniards were when compared to today's culture they were vastly superior to what they replaced.

    Among the Plain's NA's Medicare consisted of the elderly, when they became old and unable to contribute, going off and starving to death.

    Slavery is bad. If you want to claim that there were more slaves in the South than held by the NA's be my guest but you have shown no proof. Or are you arguing that a little bit of slavery is ok??

    I find it amusing that your solution is almost identical to mine. The only major difference I see is that I would close all immigration until we assimilated the illegal and legal aliens except for people that have skills that are clearly needed by the country.

    And that is not uneducated workers. BTW - That was fine when we had millions of acres of open land and needed unskilled factory and farm workers by the millions. That is no longer true.

    A continual influx of them will, long term, result in huge problems when we cannot provide opportunities for them to have successful lives.

    Low paid workers do not help the economy. And while some will take advantage of illegal aliens, giving them green cards and better wages because there will be less of them will help the economy.

    You need look no further than the South which was a two tiered society until farm mechanization forced workers off the farms and into factories.

    It took a bit of time but a middle class developed. With outsourcing and allowing in cheap illegal alien labor that middle class is in jeopardy.

    You say you are an immigrant yet you seem to want to us to become the country you have left. If it was better, why are you here?

    As to how or why the US beat Mexico I really don't care. That was long ago and far away. The trick is for us to keep what we have because history shows that there are always others who want your piece of the cheese.

    What a disgusting, dishonest (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 02:17:32 PM EST
    gloss on the Spaniard's history of behavior in the New World.

    Of course that's easy to do once you decide that all NA tribes were basically the same and all vastly inferior to any of the recently arrived exemplars of European culture.

    Never mind that Columbus himself described the Arawaks as the most generous peace-loving, people he had ever come across..a few months before the Spanish proceeded to enslave, murder and rape the Arawaks out of existence. In the name of a loving God holding out the promise of eternal life, of course..


    You are all over the place (none / 0) (#61)
    by mexboy on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:37:30 PM EST
    You say you are an immigrant yet you seem to want to us to become the country you have left. If it was better, why are you here?

    You spin and turn posts around then attack, to put the other person on the defensive, so that you don't have to deal with the real issues. I'm not playing that game, thanks.

    Slavery is bad. If you want to claim that there were more slaves in the South than held by the NA's be my guest but you have shown no proof. Or are you arguing that a little bit of slavery is ok??

    Did you miss my point or are you intellectually dishonest?

    And if you want to argue religion then you need to understand that the Old Testament, which you quote, was satisfied with the birth of Christ and his death and resurrection.

    There you go with your petulant presumptions once again. And you're wrong. It was Jesus' death that fulfilled the law, not his birth, not his resurrection. And It didn't void it, just fulfilled it for those who believe. It was HUMAN SACRIFICE that satisfied that loving god. The blood paid for the "sins" of those souls. And you seriously argue about barbaric rituals?

    You chose and pick whatever is convenient to you, yet fail to understand that the Tora is indeed the foundation of the Christianity. The 10 commandments don't apply any more?

    You claim to follow this loving god yet you are guilty of the sin of Sodom:
    [Ezekiel 16:49]
    "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

    It is my observation that your issues are personal and no amount of logic or truth can change that because you feel justified in treating other children of that loving god, you claim, as inferior.

    I'll leave you with this jewel of yours:

    If you have a closed mind on the issue then don't bother to further educate yourself.

    What is it that that loving god of yours says about that? mmm, something about a beam in an eye and a mote and a hypocrite!


    Yankees at home (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 10:52:30 PM EST
    Well, try answering the question. If this country doesn't meet your needs, why are you here?

    No, I understood your point, which was to defend a culture and civilization that was corrupt and unable to stand up to the onslaught of the Spaniards.

    And it was a loving God that raised him from the dead and removed forever the requirements of the Old Testament.

    Since we are mostly in agreement on how to solve the problems of Illegal Aliens then I am curious as to why you want to disagree with me.

    I think it is because you don't care about the problems, you just want to condemn and attack the "Yankees." I mean your moniker says it all.
    Have a nice day. And I am lol.


    Wow! (none / 0) (#67)
    by mexboy on Fri Apr 23, 2010 at 03:16:59 AM EST
    Finally, your true colors.
    I'm done talking to you.

    "The NAs weren't nice people"..blah (none / 0) (#51)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 02:04:45 PM EST

    Once again Jim provides living proof that the blunt, ragged edge of the typical right wing mindset, when applied to history, is about as useful as sticks of dynamite to diamond cutters..

    Never mind that when we say "the NAs.." we're talking about literally thousands of tribes, all speaking different languages, with, in many cases, cultural traditions as different from each other as native Siberians are different from African tribes..when the brutish mentality has a desperate need to justify it's barbarism, the first thing it does is rend reality into a gross caricature: so blacks are sons of Ham who carry the mark of Cain..das Juden are the enemies of Christian civilisation.."the NAs" are cannibals who practice human sacrifice..(which only God is allowed to do in our tradition -- with "the promise of eternal life and a loving God".. cuz we say so)

    Of course, despite the obvious self-serving idiocy of that talk-radio-level narrative in regard to NAs, it's the necessary prerequisite to teabag brain's main point, which is proving the inherent deficiency of Mexicans and their obvious cultural inferiority, which, without any outside meddling at all - or none worth mentioning - has made their national experiment a failure to the point at which they threaten to come in droves and further despoil the gene pool..

    So we "close the borders" -- again, never mind how: the explanation of a right wing bumpersticker is always another bumpersticker..a thousand and one new openings in that Free Trade modified border be damned! Close the Borders!..and Support the Troops..and Make the Bush Tax Cuts Permanent! Never mind whether the thought fits any recognizable reality..it's all just a matter of political will!        

    Well, I really think it's naive (none / 0) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 03:19:15 PM EST
    to imagine that the "NA's" had a fundamentally  different human nature that the Europeans or their own Asian ancestors or any other race or tribe or whatever on the planet.

    Like every other carbon-based life form they did what was necessary to survive. And not all of it was pretty.


    Enough Jim (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:43:56 PM EST
    take that argument to a right wing site. We do not use the term "illegal" here. You've expressed your disagreement and position, now move on.

    this thread has deteriorated (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 07:57:10 PM EST
    I've cleaned it as best I could. The topic is not what you think of the undocumented, it's what you think about the law Arizona passed.

    Please disagree with each others' comments without personal attacks and dredging up past comments on other topics. It makes for poor and boring reading for those who are interested in a discussion of the topic in the thread. And I'm not interested in hosting these spats.