Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

...and 60% of Americans across the country agree:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ion_status" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

60% think it's okay for cops to enforce immigration laws Actually I bet it's higher than that..!!!
I like in the article it says something about the biggest point of disconnect between voters and the conventional wisdom in Washington, D.C. has to do with priorities...

No sh!t...
So you mean to tell me there's a disconnect between Washington DC and the average American..?

What's congress approval rating right now - something like 20% - I'd call that a disconnect all right

Chizzang wrote:60% think it's okay for cops to enforce immigration laws Actually I bet it's higher than that..!!!
I like in the article it says something about the biggest point of disconnect between voters and the conventional wisdom in Washington, D.C. has to do with priorities...

No sh!t...
So you mean to tell me there's a disconnect between Washington DC and the average American..?

What's congress approval rating right now - something like 20% - I'd call that a disconnect all right

The approval of Congress is 20% but the sheeple love their guy/gal and they will go vote for him/her again in November because their guy/gal is great it's the other people that are the problem.

it's too bad the indigenous people ("native americans", "american indians", whatever you want to call them) didn't have a stricter immigration policy.

This is not a joke:

Undocumented Students: An Overview of Policies, Myths and Best Practices

"...Over 65,000 college-ready undocumented students graduate from our nation's high schools each year and this number is likely to increase. As such, higher education professionals are compelled to address the needs of this growing population...."

http://www.innovativeeducators.org/retention_p/773.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

JayJ79 wrote:it's too bad the indigenous people ("native americans", "american indians", whatever you want to call them) didn't have a stricter immigration policy.

Wow. To even try to bring this up as a comparison shows how ridiculously weak the argument to allow all illegals to be allowed in and be paid for really is. Holy balls. And for anyone who says that this is what America was built on, don't be an idiot. We have developed as a nation past the point of needing to allow massive immagration into this country to build oursevles. We are to the point that we are fully developed and can restrict our growth so we don't become bloated and weighted down by the poor immegrants who come here. Let Canada take care of them, or how bout this for a revelation, have thier OWN FUCKING COUNTRY DO IT. Try moving to Mexico illegally and having an American flag in front of your house, crying about how you don't get the same privilages, don't get money from the gov't, and try getting english taught in their schools because you speak it. Fucking stupid to argue that illegals should be allowed here.

JayJ79 wrote:it's too bad the indigenous people ("native americans", "american indians", whatever you want to call them) didn't have a stricter immigration policy.

Some of the tribes did have strict immigration policies. The punishments for breaking those policies were a lot more severe than the new Arizona law. In the short run, these policies were frequently successful, but in the long run, quite ineffective.

Other tribes tried accommodation, as in the case of Massasoit's Wampanoag alliance with the Pilgrims, or assimilation of white culture, as in the cases of the Five "Civilized" Tribes, or alliance with the U.S. government, as in the case of the Pawnee. In the short term, these polices were often successful, but in the long term, only partially effective.

The state of Oklahoma provides a wide variety of examples of partially successful genetic and cultural survival due to accomodation and/or assimilation. Some examples are, perhaps, inspirting, others less so. The Pawnee -allies of the U.S. and enemies of the Lakota - never fought the government of the United States and upheld every treaty they signed. They maintain to this day a functioning tribal government and numbers similar to a century ago.

The Cherokees intermarried frequently and adopted many "white" ways. Their assimilation policies were legally successful all the way to and including the Supreme Court. But the court was ignored and tribal success destroyed for generations by Andrew Jackson, who confiscated the Cherokees' property and moved them at gunpoint from North Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee to Oklahoma in the infamous "Trail of Tears." Over the long course of generations, the Cherokee have built themselves back into a functioning tribe despite Jackson, the Civil War and the Great Depression. Tribal rolls number a quarter of a million, a tenfold increase over the tribe's nadir.

native wrote:

JayJ79 wrote:it's too bad the indigenous people ("native americans", "american indians", whatever you want to call them) didn't have a stricter immigration policy.

Some of the tribes did have strict immigration policies. The punishments for breaking those policies were a lot more severe than the new Arizona law. In the short run, these policies were frequently successful, but in the long run, quite ineffective.

Other tribes tried accommodation, as in the case of Massasoit's Wampanoag alliance with the Pilgrims, or assimilation of white culture, as in the cases of the Five "Civilized" Tribes, or alliance with the U.S. government, as in the case of the Pawnee. In the short term, these polices were often successful, but in the long term, only partially effective.

The state of Oklahoma provides a wide variety of examples of partially successful genetic and cultural survival due to accomodation and/or assimilation. Some examples are, perhaps, inspirting, others less so. The Pawnee -allies of the U.S. and enemies of the Lakota - never fought the government of the United States and upheld every treaty they signed. They maintain to this day a functioning tribal government and numbers similar to a century ago.

The Cherokees intermarried frequently and adopted many "white" ways. Their assimilation policies were legally successful all the way to and including the Supreme Court. But the court was ignored and tribal success destroyed for generations by Andrew Jackson, who confiscated the Cherokees' property and moved them at gunpoint from North Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee to Oklahoma in the infamous "Trail of Tears." Over the long course of generations, the Cherokee have built themselves back into a functioning tribe despite Jackson, the Civil War and the Great Depression. Tribal rolls number a quarter of a million, a tenfold increase over the tribe's nadir.

So these new immigrants really just need to get better military power and just force their way in at the cost of the native people (or the descendents of previous immigrants, as the case really is). Just like the Europeans did.

Survival of the fittest

native wrote:This is not a joke:

Undocumented Students: An Overview of Policies, Myths and Best Practices

"...Over 65,000 college-ready undocumented students graduate from our nation's high schools each year and this number is likely to increase. As such, higher education professionals are compelled to address the needs of this growing population...."

http://www.innovativeeducators.org/retention_p/773.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

North Carolina is ahead (or actually, BEHIND) of the curve on this issue in the respect that NC feels every child within our state borders has a right to free education (K-12) regardless of legal citizen status. And left up to the whims of our former Democratic Governor (who is about a cunt-hair away from being indicted on fraud charges), every illegal immigrant in this state would have been given in-state tuition post-secondary education at a community college of their choosing....a benefit not given to the tax-paying citizens of this state who have resided outside of the state in the previous year........

JayJ79 wrote:

native wrote:
Some of the tribes did have strict immigration policies. The punishments for breaking those policies were a lot more severe than the new Arizona law. In the short run, these policies were frequently successful, but in the long run, quite ineffective.

Other tribes tried accommodation, as in the case of Massasoit's Wampanoag alliance with the Pilgrims, or assimilation of white culture, as in the cases of the Five "Civilized" Tribes, or alliance with the U.S. government, as in the case of the Pawnee. In the short term, these polices were often successful, but in the long term, only partially effective.

The state of Oklahoma provides a wide variety of examples of partially successful genetic and cultural survival due to accomodation and/or assimilation. Some examples are, perhaps, inspirting, others less so. The Pawnee -allies of the U.S. and enemies of the Lakota - never fought the government of the United States and upheld every treaty they signed. They maintain to this day a functioning tribal government and numbers similar to a century ago.

The Cherokees intermarried frequently and adopted many "white" ways. Their assimilation policies were legally successful all the way to and including the Supreme Court. But the court was ignored and tribal success destroyed for generations by Andrew Jackson, who confiscated the Cherokees' property and moved them at gunpoint from North Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee to Oklahoma in the infamous "Trail of Tears." Over the long course of generations, the Cherokee have built themselves back into a functioning tribe despite Jackson, the Civil War and the Great Depression. Tribal rolls number a quarter of a million, a tenfold increase over the tribe's nadir.

So these new immigrants really just need to get better military power and just force their way in at the cost of the native people (or the descendents of previous immigrants, as the case really is). Just like the Europeans did.

Nope.

The Pawnee did not take white scalps and slaves. So a good path is to accomodate American law and culture.

The Cherokee did not take white scalps or slaves, either, and they arguably enjoy the most success of any tribe. The best avenue to success for all parties is is assimilation of American law and culture.

native wrote:The Cherokee did not take white scalps or slaves, either. The best avenue to success for all parties is is assimilation of American law and culture.

Fail...

"The Cherokees were among the Indian Nations of the American Southeast that were dubbed "The Five Civilized Tribes" by their white contemporaries. Indeed, by the early19th-century these Indians had a legislature and constitution modeled after the United States, many were successful planters and owned slaves and they had their own schools and churches as well as their own alphabet."

"A chapter is also devoted to the battles both in and out of the territory in which the Cherokees took part. Whites' observations of Cherokee soldiers and charges of atrocities such as scalpings are covered, as well as the life of the common soldier in the Cherokee ranks."

http://www.civilwarnews.com/reviews/200 ... erokee.htm

native wrote:

JayJ79 wrote:
So these new immigrants really just need to get better military power and just force their way in at the cost of the native people (or the descendents of previous immigrants, as the case really is). Just like the Europeans did.

Nope.

The Pawnee did not take white scalps and slaves. So a good path is to accomodate American law and culture.

The Cherokee did not take white scalps or slaves, either, and they arguably enjoy the most success of any tribe. The best avenue to success for all parties is is assimilation of American law and culture.

What is this American culture you speak of?

JayJ79 wrote:it's too bad the indigenous people ("native americans", "american indians", whatever you want to call them) didn't have a stricter immigration policy.

Wow, did you think that was clever?

Let's try this one...you only exist because someone in your history decided to murder someone else in a conflict.

Is this poll a surprise?

Besides the fact that the law is clearly unconstitutional and I'm not a fan of passing laws that are clearly unconstitutional, this is the issue Native...

At the same time, however, 58% of all voters are at least somewhat concerned that “efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants will also end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens.” That figure includes 29% who are Very Concerned about possible civil rights violations.

Do we just forget about this issue?

danefan wrote:Is this poll a surprise?

Besides the fact that the law is clearly unconstitutional and I'm not a fan of passing laws that are clearly unconstitutional, this is the issue Native...

At the same time, however, 58% of all voters are at least somewhat concerned that “efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants will also end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens.” That figure includes 29% who are Very Concerned about possible civil rights violations.

Do we just forget about this issue?

Agree. I don't have a problem with a state enforcing immigration laws when the feds have passed on the responsiblity. I don't know the exact verbage in the bill but if it is close to what the talking heads are saying about the ability for the police to request papers from anyone suspected of being illegal and requiring immigrants to carry their papers at all times, then this is a can of worms that should remain closed. Maybe immigrants are suppose to carry there papers now but I know I don't carry my birth certificate with me.

I realize that the police can use discretion but it certainly sounds like any hispanic immediately becomes suspect.

Cluck U wrote:

JayJ79 wrote:it's too bad the indigenous people ("native americans", "american indians", whatever you want to call them) didn't have a stricter immigration policy.

Wow, did you think that was clever?

Let's try this one...you only exist because someone in your history decided to murder someone else in a conflict.

Perhaps, perhaps not. If whatever particular murder had not taken place, I still might have ended up existing, but in a different place or under a different culture. And perhaps the world would have been a better place under that scenario. who knows?

OL FU wrote:

danefan wrote:Is this poll a surprise?

Besides the fact that the law is clearly unconstitutional and I'm not a fan of passing laws that are clearly unconstitutional, this is the issue Native...



Do we just forget about this issue?

Agree. I don't have a problem with a state enforcing immigration laws when the feds have passed on the responsiblity. I don't know the exact verbage in the bill but if it is close to what the talking heads are saying about the ability for the police to request papers from anyone suspected of being illegal and requiring immigrants to carry their papers at all times, then this is a can of worms that should remain closed. Maybe immigrants are suppose to carry there papers now but I know I don't carry my birth certificate with me.

I realize that the police can use discretion but it certainly sounds like any hispanic immediately becomes suspect.

Here's the full text of the bill.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp ... or.doc.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HI54UNI wrote:The approval of Congress is 20% but the sheeple love their guy/gal and they will go vote for him/her again in November because their guy/gal is great it's the other people that are the problem.

It's NEVER the fault of the local Congressman/woman!!!

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Survival of the fittest

If that's the case then I'll put my money on the Mexicans over the fat, lazy Americans.

And again........are ANY of y'all worried about LEGAL Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and Africa who might happen to be Islamic extremists???????

danefan wrote:

OL FU wrote:
Agree. I don't have a problem with a state enforcing immigration laws when the feds have passed on the responsiblity. I don't know the exact verbage in the bill but if it is close to what the talking heads are saying about the ability for the police to request papers from anyone suspected of being illegal and requiring immigrants to carry their papers at all times, then this is a can of worms that should remain closed. Maybe immigrants are suppose to carry there papers now but I know I don't carry my birth certificate with me.

I realize that the police can use discretion but it certainly sounds like any hispanic immediately becomes suspect.

Here's the full text of the bill.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp ... or.doc.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks, see ya next week

OL FU wrote:

danefan wrote:
Here's the full text of the bill.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp ... or.doc.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks, see ya next week

Its an interesting read for sure. Its not so troublesome on the surface, except for the preemption issues, but a quick scan points me to this section which can be a very troubling policy.

Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

What kind of criteria will lead to someone suspecting the immigration status of a person?

danefan wrote:What kind of criteria will lead to someone suspecting the immigration status of a person?

I've never received any law enforcement training, but this might qualify.....

mainejeff wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Survival of the fittest

If that's the case then I'll put my money on the Mexicans over the fat, lazy Americans.

Hispanic culture varies depending on the region. Out in CA (I believe you live in SD, so you should know this) the hispanic culture views their social role with a sense of entitlement: They belong here and it's the non-hispanics who are "alien". I've noted this has become more pronounced as the economy has collapsed and jobs have become scarce.

In the past week, I've had two hispanic subcontractors (who had bid on jobs for a parcel I'm developing), show up to my property to "discuss" why they weren't awarded the work they bid on. In both cases, they didn't get the work because their numbers were plain bullshit...prices they grabbed out of their asses with no relation to the work to be done. In effect, they threw a price at the work without doing an estimate. That's a huge waste of my time, and as a rule, I NEVER give work to a contractor who wastes my time.
In both instances, however, these subs threw "tantrums" at not receiving the work, the first stomped off, jumped in his truck and "peeled out" as he left. The second, just yesterday, races onto the property with his pregnant girlfriend in the passengers seat, jumps out, comes up to me and starts mouthing off about ME being responsible for him not getting the job (no shit, Sherlock...it's my money). When I attempted to explain WHY he didn't get the job, he tried to turn it around and place his failure back on me. By then, his PG GF had gotten out of the truck, come over and was trying to calm him down. When I pointed out his behavior wasn't helping his argument, he stormed back to his truck as his GF stayed behind to apologize for his behavior, saying he "...had a bad morning...". While she stood there, he "peeled out", racing over to the driveway entrance where he locked up his tires, then sat and waited for his PG GF to walk across the property to get into the truck, then "peeled out" once more as he left.

Two cases of young hispanic "businessmen" acting like spoiled infants in response to their failures. And they failed due to their own incompetence and laziness.

Having worked with literally thousands of contractors from all over the country in my life, I have found this behavior to be commonplace amongst young hispanic male contractors throughout the southwest and CA. Age does have it's influence, but I don't seem to run across it with young asian, white, eastern european (Ukrainian, Russian...) and black contractors (who embody a good work ethic...approach their work seriously, work hard, respond conscientously, and strive to listen, learn and improve their business skills and work quality).

Having said this, I'll also add that I've run across the same behavior with abnormally high frequency in other sub-regions (ahem, LONG ISLAND), though immaturity and incompetence in those areas is not ethnically centralized.