home

AZ Loses Out On 2012 GOP Convention

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed May 12, 2010 at 05:57:51 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I guess hating on Latinos will not be the centerpiece of the GOP platform in 2012:

Officials said the Phoenix bid was complicated by the high temperatures in August and the recent debate over the state’s new immigration law.

Florida, of course, is nice and cool in August. Maybe Florida was chosen to highlight how Charlie Crist is the new face of the GOP . . . oh wait . . .

AZ SB 1070, a resounding success already!

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Morning Open Thread | Wednesday Night Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    AZ Loses Out On 2012 GOP Convention | 98 comments (98 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Well it would have been downright (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed May 12, 2010 at 06:01:24 PM EST
    embarrassing when Sheriff Joe asked Rubio or Jindal for there papers during a keynote speech.

    Cracked me up (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Cream City on Wed May 12, 2010 at 06:06:43 PM EST
    with climatological (meteorological?) commentary, as well as the political commentary.  Wouldn't the governor usually be invited to greet the group? :-)

    I'm fine with the GOP getting all hot and sweaty about immigrants, Crist, women's reproductive rights, and who knows what by then -- Hatch going the way of Bennett? -- wherever they are, as long as they are not in Arizona or Oklahoma.  Or wherever I am.

    If the GOP has its way (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Wed May 12, 2010 at 08:08:26 PM EST
    It will be Gov. Bill McCollum in 2012. Yes, that Bill McCollum. So it will be a walk down the GOP memory lane of the Clinton impeachment, plus immigrant bashing and drill baby drill.

    Good times! and right in my back yard. Can't wait!

    Parent

    And there are no Latinos in Florida, true? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by MKS on Wed May 12, 2010 at 06:41:58 PM EST
    This will go on for awhile....and it will be fun to watch the chickens come home to roost.

    Dontcha sorta hope, in a weird way (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Cream City on Wed May 12, 2010 at 07:02:57 PM EST
    that these GOPers spew the nativist stuff they say again there -- in front of all of the Latinos and Latinas who will be working their butts off to give the GOPers a good time in hotels, restaurants, everywhere, etc.?  And that the teevee cameras catch that and point it out?

    I would prefer that the GOPers behave better than that.  But I wouldn't bet on it.  I can hope that there will be lots of information fed to the media about Florida's history -- the state that first was under the Spanish flag, settled by Hispanics long before some GOPers' latecomer immigrant ancestors.  

    Ah Tampa... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed May 12, 2010 at 07:20:58 PM EST
    ...the strip club capital.  At least they won't have to import "dancers" this time around. I guess that's a plus.

    But you wouldn't think that they would want a backdrop of oil stained beaches.  Makes it hard to push the drill baby drill mantra.  

    CNN finally got on this today (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Cream City on Wed May 12, 2010 at 07:42:11 PM EST
    and did a pretty good job on Arizona idiots against ethnic studies.

    'Cause only the Hispanics in Arizona are have an ethnic heritage, of course.  The rest apparently came from . . . what? alien space ships?

    Doesn't "ethnic" mean brown? (none / 0) (#14)
    by observed on Wed May 12, 2010 at 08:02:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Apparently, (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Zorba on Wed May 12, 2010 at 08:25:39 PM EST
    in Arizona it does.  Most of the history and literature (and other subjects) taught in schools feature Caucasians quite prominently, but that's okay because Caucasians apparently have no "ethnicity."  I guess Arizona must figure they're the "default" setting.

    Parent
    The silent majority (none / 0) (#3)
    by diogenes on Wed May 12, 2010 at 06:27:22 PM EST
    Today's Pew Research foundation poll shows overwhelming majorities (over 60 percent) in favor of various provisions of the the Arizona law and 71% in favor of showing papers.
    The protests/boycotts are designed to demonize republicans and pander to media pressure rather than having any popular base.  This all reminds me of how there were going to be years of "antiwar protests" about the Iraq in about 2005.  
    Let the Democrats pass a bill for open borders and no effective ID papers/enforcement/deportation/measures against employers of the undocumented.  After all, they have congressional majorities.  See how far it gets them in November.  

    Non sequitur (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 12, 2010 at 06:54:01 PM EST
    What do you suppose, oh, say, a poll of Germans in 1930 would have said about requiring Jews to wear yellow stars of David on their clothing, hmmm?

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed May 12, 2010 at 07:30:01 PM EST
    It was predictable from the beginning that there would be popular support for these measures. That was always irrelevant.

    Parent
    Godwin's law (none / 0) (#83)
    by diogenes on Thu May 13, 2010 at 03:47:10 PM EST
    Congratulations--you made it on only comment five of the discussion.

    Parent
    Congratulations To You (none / 0) (#84)
    by squeaky on Thu May 13, 2010 at 04:17:02 PM EST
    As you have  a new record of proving Quirk's Law.

    Parent
    They had eight years (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by mmc9431 on Wed May 12, 2010 at 08:04:04 PM EST
    Republicans ran DC for eight years and did nothing on immigration. If this issue was so important to them, why didn't they act when they had control?  

    This is nothing more than an attempt to fire up their base for November.

    Parent

    Actually the Democrats took complete (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 12, 2010 at 08:42:08 PM EST
    Control of Congress for the last two years and the Repubs had only a slim majority in the Senate for the first 6....

    In 2006 there was an attempt to pass what many people considered to be an amnesty bill that was backed by Bush and other Repubs. The revolt in the ranks is what gave the Demos the 2006 elections as many of the Repub base stayed home.

    Like it or not control of the country's borders is considered important by a large majority in this country. The Repubs have to do nothing but let lame stream media broadcast the kids sent home from school for wearing the American flag and watch the Democrats claim that anyone can come here at anytime.

    Parent

    I have made the same serious argument (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 12, 2010 at 09:34:37 PM EST
    time and again but I guess you are too busy looking down your nose to see or listen.

    1. Close the border.

    2. Issue green cards to all that are here and that can pass a simple background check re crime.

    This will introduce competition for the reduced available labor and increase wages and improve working conditions.

    You should love that because it will mean that all those fat white guys will be forced to do their own yard work or pony up more dollars.

    Then we can have a national debate on how many and who we want as immigrants.

    See, it really isn't all that hard if you aren't busy attacking someone.

    Parent

    get on the employers too (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jen M on Thu May 13, 2010 at 06:55:25 AM EST
    especially big corporations.

    Parent
    Totally agree and (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 13, 2010 at 08:35:25 AM EST
    thanks for reminding me.

    Parent
    Then, get the serious people to speak out (none / 0) (#46)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu May 13, 2010 at 08:33:34 AM EST
    'cause the bullies who just want to starve out the citizens of AZ through boycotts, insult the voters and legislators, call everyone involved idiots or demeaning names aren't solving anything.

    Racial profiling is going on in every single state in this country. This law hasn't even gone into practice, but boycotts are being called for what it might create. I read a few days ago that many of the undocumented in AZ have left. Many returned to Mexico (where they say they are treated better), and many went to neighboring states.

    If the Feds would get their act together, would AZ have needed to do this?


    Parent

    yes those evil bullies (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by CST on Thu May 13, 2010 at 10:01:23 AM EST
    who choose to spend their time and money in other states.

    It's OUR lives and money, we can spend it as we choose, it doesn't belong to Arizona.

    They made their own bed, and now they have to lie in it.  Not sure how that makes the rest of us bullies.

    And actually I think the real problem is, the boycott IS being effective.  That's why everyone is freaking out about it.  I think it's much less likely now that any other state passes this kind of law, due to the response against Arizona.  Therefore, for the rest of us, perhaps it is "solving" something.  The one place it's not "solving" anything for is Arizona.  But they made that choice themselves.  Don't blame the rest of us for not playing nice.

    Parent

    No win deal (none / 0) (#53)
    by mmc9431 on Thu May 13, 2010 at 10:22:19 AM EST
    When things are bad, people want to find a scape goat. Rather than going after corporate America for outsourcing America, it's much easier to go after illegal immigrants. Companies like Walmart subcontract out so that they can wash their hands of it.

    I just don't think this will help the economy. Companies will just continue to cut back service rather than increasing payroll or absorb employee benefits.

    The workers that will be affected by this aren't at the top of the food chain. There won't be a run of opening for quality jobs. In fact most people couldn't begin to live on the wages from a McDonald's, Walmart or busboy at the Ritz.

    Costs will rise considerably, which will fuel the inflation scare. So we'll take one step forward and two steps back.

    Parent

    I guess my questuon is this. (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 13, 2010 at 10:49:08 AM EST
    If the documented workers are taking jobs that pay so little that most people can't live off them... then why aren't you for shutting down the influx of cheap labor?

    Labor is a commodity. When there is a shortage wages and benefits rise. BTW - Did you know that employer provided health insurance started during the worker shortages during WWII?

    So it seems clear that by closing the borders and issuing green cards to those here, wages and working conditions will go up.

    What is bad about that?

    BTW - If you want to complain about outsourcing I'll join you. I would think Obama has the majority he needs to fix that problem, or at least stop the tax breaks.

    Parent

    not just about outsourcing (none / 0) (#56)
    by CST on Thu May 13, 2010 at 10:58:38 AM EST
    but also recognizing the fact that we live in a world with a global economy and there is only so much you can do about it.

    Population control is a problem, but whether people live in Mexico or China or the U.S. those people are still there, they still need jobs, and they are still also gonna be consumers to one degree or another.

    Of course tax breaks should end, to level the playing field at least, but it's not going to stop the flow of jobs/commodities.

    Dealing with immigration requires us to look at the world as it is, not as we want it to be, and not as it was.

    Frankly, I think high levels of immigration help us stay competitive in a global market.  It's usefull to have people who understand different cultures so that we can market to them, and do business with them.

    Not to mention, immigration is about as American as apple pie.

    Parent

    As American as apple pie? (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 13, 2010 at 12:44:40 PM EST
    So was slavery at one point.

    And yes, we the country was younger with a huge demand for unskilled workers and farmers, we did.
    That is no longer true.

    We have no need for a flood of uneducated workers.

    Parent

    yea (none / 0) (#64)
    by CST on Thu May 13, 2010 at 12:55:04 PM EST
    immigration is just like slavery... which I would never consider "as American as apple pie" - since I consider states north of the mason-dixon line to be part of America.

    Let's face it, even back in the day there was anti-immigrant sentiment, when we "needed" those workers more.  I don't see much of a difference these days.  It's the whole "I got mine, screw you and yours" mentality.

    Parent

    Bottom line to me... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Thu May 13, 2010 at 11:06:36 AM EST
    if a corporation is free to ship their factory anywhere in the world to get the best deal...how the hell can you tell a worker he/she can't be afforded the same freedom to move where the best deal is?

    The only way limiting the movement of workers (aka flesh and blood people) makes any sense is if you also limit the movement of the jobs. Now I'm a freedom extremist so my preference is let everybody and everything move free...but it is preposterous, and unrighteous, to limit one and not the other.

    Parent

    To be fair (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Thu May 13, 2010 at 12:31:47 PM EST
    (and before the hater jump on, I am not defending AZ's law - just responding to kdog)

    Corporations are free toove their factory anywhere after they fill out the requisite paperwork and get approval of the host country.  Workers are also free to move across borders and  pky their wares if they too, fill out the requisite paperwork and get permission from the host country.

    It's not like Wal-Mart can justopen a store one day in Mecico without anyone knowing about it beforehand.

    Parent

    True... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Thu May 13, 2010 at 01:08:17 PM EST
    but then we run into "different rules for different fools" territory...we all know who the deck is stacked against.

    Parent
    Now, someone explain how (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Thu May 13, 2010 at 01:46:45 PM EST
    it is that Wal-Morte (French spelling) moving to Mexico and Nike moving to India serves the U.S in the long run more than the phenomenon of illegal immigration does.

    Parent
    Who Are YOu Defending? (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Thu May 13, 2010 at 05:27:38 PM EST
    Corporations? Republicans?

    Hate to inform you but there is a distinct power imbalance between Exxon and an undocumented worker.

    Arguing that they are the same, and what is good for the goose is good for the gander, seems mighty close to arguing for AZ's fascist bill.

    Parent

    And I hate to inform (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 13, 2010 at 09:49:45 PM EST
    you that the way to combat the corps is by limiting the labor source.

    Your support for unlimited immigration feeds the corps...

    But you know that.

    What you want is new Democrats.

    England and Europe has done the same but with Muslims.

    Parent

    "New Democrats" (none / 0) (#108)
    by jondee on Thu May 13, 2010 at 11:08:58 PM EST
    what you're REALLY worried about -- as opposed to those Bush-licker crocodile tears about the fate of the standard of living of the American worker.

    You'd be completely transparent if it weren't for that fecal material you're stuffed with.

    Parent

    Apples and Oranges (none / 0) (#59)
    by mmc9431 on Thu May 13, 2010 at 12:29:09 PM EST
    You can't compare the 40's to now. We were a manufacturing giant. Unions also played a key role in wages and benefit. Both those aspects are gone. Closing the borders isn't going to put the genie back in the bottle.

    If companies can't find the cheap labor here, they just move out of country where they can find it.

    The industry that will be hit the hardest is the service industry. The jobs that will open will not appeal to the youth of today.

    Parent

    No, closing the borders (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 13, 2010 at 12:46:49 PM EST
    won't put the genie back in the bottle.

    But it will stop the bleeding.

    Simple triage.

    Parent

    Simple is right.. (none / 0) (#67)
    by jondee on Thu May 13, 2010 at 01:25:23 PM EST
    Simple to the point of having little relation to what actually goes on in the real world..

    Simply stopping illegal immigration is somehow going to miraculously stop U.S business interests need to compete with those in countries like China and India for cheap labor and and a deregulated work environment?

         

    Parent

    Triage (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Thu May 13, 2010 at 02:23:53 PM EST
    like the world's smallest bandaid on a running sore the size of the Grand Canyon.

    I remember this old right wing tack: play one exploited group, in this case poor Mexicans, against another, the underpaid and outsourced Americans..Meanwhile the champion of "the haves and have mores" is still Jim's he-ro ("make the Bush tax cuts permanent!")

    Too bad we still cant get poor whites stirred up about blacks getting the vote: that one was nice while it lasted..

    Parent

    Now let me see (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 13, 2010 at 02:31:17 PM EST
    My position is that we close the borders, pass out green cards and force wages up...

    Yours is that we import more cheap labor.

    Now, who's the Repub?

    lol

    Parent

    Yours is being a stooge (none / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Thu May 13, 2010 at 02:47:03 PM EST
    for ten years for the people who dont believe in the concept of a minimum wage..

    Parent
    Well now (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 13, 2010 at 04:48:16 PM EST
    I would ask you to prove that but we both know that you can't.

    On the other hand we have you stone cold supporting importing cheap labor.

    Parent

    We both know (none / 0) (#106)
    by jondee on Thu May 13, 2010 at 10:49:33 PM EST
    you're peeing on everyone's shoes and telling them it's raining social liberals.

    Parent
    Another Jondee strawman (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 13, 2010 at 02:29:01 PM EST
    or is it?

    Are you really arguing we need to import cheap labor so that we can compete with China?

    Wow.

    Repub all these years but it finally comes out!

    lol

    Parent

    The secret woid (none / 0) (#77)
    by jondee on Thu May 13, 2010 at 02:44:27 PM EST
    of the day is: "strawman"

    Or, is that two woids?

    Im arguing that the logic which underlies the economic philosophy of the man whose every word and deed you've defended here for the last 10 years, leads to the deregulation involved in the "Open Borders" (of one degree or another) coming in and going out.

    Parent

    Two Worlds (none / 0) (#79)
    by squeaky on Thu May 13, 2010 at 02:59:20 PM EST
    True ppj, defended every act BushCo perpetrated, with a vengeance.

    But things change, maybe ppj has become a social liberal... lol

    Parent

    Oh really? (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 13, 2010 at 04:52:41 PM EST
    I have defended Bush's defense policies... I have not defended his position on abortion and gay marriage......

    And you know that, of course you did say that you didn't have to be burdened with the truth when you smear someone.

    Parent

    Other than that (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by jondee on Thu May 13, 2010 at 05:05:15 PM EST
    wrongheaded personal jihad against Michael Schiavo, and nominating yourself defense counsel for everyone from Miss Piggy Rove to Tom Delay to Larry Craig..

    Parent
    Could you prove some of that (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 13, 2010 at 05:10:03 PM EST
    or have you turned into Squeaky?

    BTW - What does Schiavio have to do with my politics??

    Nothing.

    lol.....

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#95)
    by jondee on Thu May 13, 2010 at 05:21:04 PM EST
    you just came up with that idea of championing the "rights" of the brain dead women and evangelical idiots all on your own; with no talking points prompting from the Fox noise machine..

    The same way you come up with all your other positions on issues.

    Parent

    Well ... (none / 0) (#102)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 13, 2010 at 09:51:57 PM EST
    Brain dead women??

    Glad to see you not only supporting the Repub position on immigration but the radical Muslim position on women's rights.

    What a revealing day.

    Parent

    Yes, she was brain dead (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by jondee on Thu May 13, 2010 at 10:42:41 PM EST
    which you'd know if you relied on a source other than Bob Jones U. for your scientific information.

    And, detaching a brain dead woman from artificial life support has exactly what to do those radical Muslims you're so scared of? Please feel free to explain.

     

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Thu May 13, 2010 at 05:10:54 PM EST
    The job of a social liberal is tough, thankless and sometimes controversial, particularly when ppj is involved.

    Larry Craig, Michael Schiavo, Herr Rove, Tom Delay and the rest of the crowd that would take your freedoms away, are people too.

    Someone has to standup for the little (minded) guy.

    Parent

    Well, you had your chance (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 13, 2010 at 10:05:03 PM EST
    but instead you decided to import workers for the corps!

    Parent
    It could be a thoid (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 13, 2010 at 04:50:00 PM EST
    You really gonna defend importing cheap labor and destroying the working man and woman?

    How elitist of you.

    Parent

    Im just going to (none / 0) (#107)
    by jondee on Thu May 13, 2010 at 10:59:19 PM EST
    put you down as a being in support of the living wage movement for American workers now..

    Whence this sudden change of heart after shilling for years for Bush, Rove, Delay and the rest of the deregulation-or-death folk?

    Did you have a sudden wedge-issue-on-the-road-to-Damascus experience?  

    Parent

    Where does it end? (4.00 / 1) (#48)
    by mmc9431 on Thu May 13, 2010 at 09:21:00 AM EST
    I'm really surprised that a group of people that are adamant about their disgust with "big government" are so willing to surrender their civil liberties. Republicans are fine with:

    Blanket wire-tapping
    Having their bank and medical records and even their library cards scrutinized
    Indefinite detention
    Yanking citizenship
    Limiting what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home

    And now they're willing to allow Barney Fife to confront you and demand that you prove you are who you are and that you have the right to exist.  Amazing.

    What makes anyone believe that these laws aren't going to be abused? They already are. Do you really trust Congress or your elected state official to monitor them?

    I'm an idealistic liberal, and even I don't trust government that much. If there's a way that it can be corrupted to fit any particular political agenda, trust me it will be. (And it's delusional to stick your head in the sand and say that these things only happen to others).

    Is there a line other than guns that Republicans are willing to draw in the sand when it comes to civil liberties?


    Parent

    They sure as hell.. (none / 0) (#49)
    by kdog on Thu May 13, 2010 at 09:33:31 AM EST
    have no sand line when it comes to illegal drugs and the sovereignty of ones body...another instance where they seem to love them some big brother...state agents are literally busting down doors and invading homes, to a round of applause.

    Parent
    Not thinking it through (none / 0) (#50)
    by mmc9431 on Thu May 13, 2010 at 09:51:51 AM EST
    I know they believe none of this could happen to them but it can and does.

    I don't think they realize that these liberties that they're willing to throw away are going to be almost impossible to reclaim.

    The day of the bio chip being implanted at birth isn't too far off.

    Parent

    It's getting spooky... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Thu May 13, 2010 at 09:59:27 AM EST
    to be sure...and its an area where neither right or left seems to object nearly enough...liberty doesn't have many friends left at all.  We'll be sorry.

    Parent
    Actually the law in question does not do this. (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 13, 2010 at 10:41:15 AM EST
    If it did I would be against it.

    Of course I'm just your average social liberal concerned over the security of the country and the rights of the working man having to compete against this flood of people.

    Parent

    Security? (none / 0) (#58)
    by mmc9431 on Thu May 13, 2010 at 12:05:10 PM EST
    If the security of the country was the central issue then Republicans wouldn't be opposed to checking the terror list with gun sales. To me this would have been a given. Even a bleeding liberal like me could go along with that.

    Parent
    Not being a Repub (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 13, 2010 at 12:39:55 PM EST
    I can't tell you what they would do... As for lists, last time I bought a weapon I was fingerprinted, had to provide my "papers" and answer questions.

    Parent
    They didn't check the terroist list! (none / 0) (#65)
    by mmc9431 on Thu May 13, 2010 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    Graham just recently stated that checking gun buyers against the terrorist list was going too far. If frisking an 80 yr old grandma's is ok, I see no objection to cross checking the terror list and gun buyers.

    Parent
    I rented a car Tuesday and they (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 13, 2010 at 02:23:06 PM EST
    demanded my papers.......

    Oh, the embarrassment, the pain.. Let's boycott Avis!

    BTW - No problem on the terrorist list...

    Parent

    I'm down.... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Thu May 13, 2010 at 02:26:32 PM EST
    it's ridiculous what it takes to rent a car these days...did they ask for your first born?

    Parent
    no kidding (none / 0) (#76)
    by CST on Thu May 13, 2010 at 02:39:17 PM EST
    you might appreciate this, they wouldn't rent me a car because I don't have a major credit card.  Despite the fact that I have a debit card with a VISA logo.  That's the only time I've ever had that rejected.

    However, if I had owned my own car and had insurance, they would have rented me the car.  Because if I had my own car, I would need to rent one...

    And I am insured on a car, I just don't own it, but apparently that doesn't "count".

    Parent

    I do appreciate that... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Thu May 13, 2010 at 03:16:11 PM EST
    I don't appreciate the rental car outfit giving my pal CST a hard time...at least you had the satisfaction of not giving those punks any money, even if you got arsed-out on the whip.

    Parent
    I see that my sarcasm slipped by (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 13, 2010 at 05:01:37 PM EST
    Try again...

    I was in LA about 6 weeks ago and when I checked in to my hotel they demanded my credit card and my papers...

    (Okay, driver's license or passport per the pretty young lady behind the counter....

    But I was still embarrassed.. I mean realllllllllyyyy.

    We should boycott all hotels!

    When I purchased some gas for the rental card using a credit card they made me punch in my zip code. How nasty can they be?

    Parent

    you do realize (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by CST on Thu May 13, 2010 at 05:04:49 PM EST
    that under this law many state's driver's licenses don't work.  You need further proof.  And the percentage of people in this country with a passport is shockingly low.

    Parent
    I realize that I don't believe you are right. (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 13, 2010 at 05:18:54 PM EST
    I also realize that if you are correct that problem will be rapidly corrected.

    Parent
    Zieg Heil! (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Thu May 13, 2010 at 05:23:23 PM EST


    Parent
    It requires (none / 0) (#99)
    by CST on Thu May 13, 2010 at 05:47:14 PM EST
    proof of citizenship / legal residency in this country.  Some states do not require that for a driver's license.  Therefore, those are not valid forms of ID for this law.  Link.  
    "Ten states (Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin) do not require license applicants to demonstrate that they are lawfully present in the United States. "

    Article written in 2004, some of these states may have changed their laws since then.

    Parent

    Almost (none / 0) (#100)
    by squeaky on Thu May 13, 2010 at 06:10:11 PM EST
    We almost got that going in NY, Spitzer was a big proponent of introducing driver license with out proof of being lawfully present in the US. Senators Schumer and Clinton put the kabosh on that.

    Parent
    The question is not what the other states accept (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 13, 2010 at 10:00:15 PM EST
    but what AZ will accept.

    So we have another false premise.

    I mean, can we just focus on what is real??

    Parent

    here's how it works (none / 0) (#110)
    by CST on Fri May 14, 2010 at 09:41:47 AM EST
    the Arizona law states that it requires proof of legal residence in the U.S.  These drivers licenses do not establish proof of legal residence.  That's not a false premise, that's 1+1=2.  Nowhere in the law does it create an exception for out of state licenses.

    Here is an article that discusses the ramifications for people from these states, particularly New Mexico which is right next door.  I'm not just pulling this out of my @ss.

    Specifically this part of the article:

    "The law states that a person can demonstrate legal status by providing an Arizona-issued license, a tribal identification card or a federal, state, or local government identification card - if the entity requires proof that the person is in the United States legally before using the ID card."

    emphasis mine.

    Parent

    With ya the first time... (none / 0) (#96)
    by kdog on Thu May 13, 2010 at 05:22:31 PM EST
    we should boycott them, are ya with me?

    I can understand a cash deposit for damages and what not, that's reasonable...but why do we gotta do business with a shady bank to do business with a respectable innkeeper?  

    I know there is always the no-tell motel, but I for one have grown accustomed to finer accomodations:)

    Parent

    I hope you checked (none / 0) (#80)
    by jondee on Thu May 13, 2010 at 02:59:43 PM EST
    under the seats to make sure there were no radical muslims or Mexicans hiding there!

    Parent
    Your Papers? (none / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Thu May 13, 2010 at 03:21:58 PM EST
    Most people call it a drivers license, unless you are referring to the papers given to you when you were a German before WWII.

    In case you were too busy hooting it up back then to notice, the rest of the world considered Germany a fascist country.

    Parent

    Here's looking at you, kid! (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 13, 2010 at 04:54:59 PM EST
    Now let's go arrest the usual suspects.

    lol

    Parent

    How about just (none / 0) (#109)
    by jondee on Thu May 13, 2010 at 11:23:57 PM EST
    changing your name to "akaSocialliberal"? That way you wouldnt have to feel compelled to keep reminding people.

    Parent
    And this makes it okay? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Zorba on Wed May 12, 2010 at 08:36:29 PM EST
    If overwhelming majorities favored a return to segregation, removing voting rights from African-Americans/Latinos/Asians/pick-your-minority, outlawing inter-racial marriage, re-criminalizing homosexual acts, allowing discrimination in the workplace based on race, gender, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, and on and on, would this be acceptable to you?  We are not a direct democracy.  We have a Constitution, with its Bill of Rights, in order to guard against the tyranny of the majority.

    Parent
    Not quite (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by mmc9431 on Wed May 12, 2010 at 08:51:58 PM EST
    Nice try but GWB and the Republicans had no problem in passing the bills that they felt were important (even if it meant reconciliation).

    They hid the cost of the wars from the budget by using suppliments.

    Or if all else failed, they just ignored the laws and did whatever they felt was necessary.

    So if this was a priority for them, it would have been addressed one way or the other.

    Parent

    Your straw man is wilting in the wind (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 12, 2010 at 08:43:03 PM EST
    none of that is the issue in this bill.

    Parent
    I was responding (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Zorba on Wed May 12, 2010 at 08:48:31 PM EST
    to Diogenes' citing of the Pew Research poll indicating a (large) majority support for the Arizona law.  Deciding laws based on what the majority wants is not always desirable.  Read the Constitution, jim.  Our founding fathers were fully aware of this.

    Parent
    The poll referred to is about a specific (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 12, 2010 at 09:38:15 PM EST
    bill and not about what you refer tp.

    That makes your argument a straw man or "reframe" the discussion.

    Parent

    About these early polls (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by christinep on Wed May 12, 2010 at 08:50:02 PM EST
    (1) Attitudes are known to change in situations such as these--especially as the effects of boycotts and notoriety grow. (2) NBC news indicated today that roughly 70% of Hispanic respondents had diametrically opposed positions in this matter. (3) Civil Rights issues--once they begin in earnest--tend to build and expand.

    Parent
    This is not about civil rights (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 12, 2010 at 09:42:07 PM EST
    unless you want to argue that we don't have the right to say who can/can't come across our borders.

    If so, call it what it is. You want Open Borders.

    Parent

    From a guy who goes out of his way (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 12, 2010 at 10:04:26 PM EST
    to insult people you sure complain a lot.

    I'll be happy to have any one review the debate.

    Especially the part you said,  "Now shoo."

    I mean if you really want to talk about respect and all that stuff.

    Parent

    Im still laughing about (none / 0) (#68)
    by jondee on Thu May 13, 2010 at 01:31:26 PM EST
    that "since Im not a Republican.." line. lol

    Parent
    Yeah thoughtful (none / 0) (#41)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu May 13, 2010 at 05:39:20 AM EST
    discussion intellectual honesty like this:
    What a bunch of Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters!

    ... don't learn yourself to speak real good English like proper Arizona citizen people.



    Parent
    And (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu May 13, 2010 at 08:26:27 AM EST
    Arizona's resident bubble-headed bleached blonde, Gov. Jan Brewer

    - and -

    white-winged hoohahs

    I guess it's just fine to be sexist in Donald's world. Then, that's a tune he often sings.

    Parent

    Talk about picking at gnats (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jondee on Thu May 13, 2010 at 01:53:44 PM EST
    while swallowing camels.

    Yes, and lets not be mean to Sarah either..

    Imo, anyone who identifies THAT much with Brewer or Palin would be much more comfortable frequenting another site on a regular basis. Either that, or be prepared for a bumpy ride.

    Parent

    Non-issue, for already stated reasons (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Wed May 12, 2010 at 08:03:11 PM EST
    Plus there won't be an immigration bill passed before November. Any need the dems had to come through with something to court the Latino vote is negated by the republican self destruction on this issue.

    Immigration reform loses out to talk this year.

    Parent

    Not a non issue (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Thu May 13, 2010 at 07:46:37 AM EST
    There won't be an immigration bill before November because it's now an ELECTION issue.  The Arizona bill was a gift from a Republican governor to Democrats, if they cam frame it the right way.

    Parent
    Tyranny can be very popular... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Thu May 13, 2010 at 08:30:15 AM EST
    when it is viewed to be a benevolent tyranny...or iow, "don't tread on me, tread on them" thinking is a very common human failing.

    Parent
    Is the phrase "hating on " (none / 0) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 12, 2010 at 06:59:29 PM EST
    grammatically acceptable?
    I guess hating on Latinos will not be the centerpiece of the GOP platform in 2012:

    And if not, can you be removed from a teaching position in AZ if you use it?

    If you say it with an Arizona accent (none / 0) (#8)
    by Cream City on Wed May 12, 2010 at 07:04:00 PM EST
    it's probably okay.  'Cause, y'know, it's everybody else who has an accent.

    Parent
    Oops .Just accidentally sent TL a blank email (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Wed May 12, 2010 at 08:12:54 PM EST
    If Jeralyn gets an iPad the first thing she will do is have that Home button moved away from the email button!

    I'm moving to Tampa in a (none / 0) (#30)
    by kenosharick on Wed May 12, 2010 at 09:32:33 PM EST
    few months. Goody- maybe I can attend. not.

    AZ Loses Out On 2012 GOP Convention | 98 comments (98 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment