I don't agree with Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law because I think its racist....?

plastic

LMAO, M! I guess you qualify to be Attorney General or even President! whooo hooooo!

Spearhead Jungle

Really it's racist? Compared to Mexican Immigration Laws for Legal Immigrants it's very Hardly. The U.S. is ten times more accommodating to "Illegal Immigrants" than they are with "Legal immigrants", and yet Mexico is 100 times less accommodating to "Legal Immigrants". Here's a list of Mexican Immigration laws, "due process not required".

1. If you migrate Mexico, you must speak the native language
2. You have to be a professional or an investor. No unskilled workers allowed.
3. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, all government business will be conducted in Spanish (European) language.
4. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are in Mexico.
5 Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office in Mexico.
6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs.
7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
8. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT options will be restricted. You are not allowed waterfront property. That is reserved for citizens naturally born the country.
9. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no "waving a foreign flag", no political organizing, no badmouthing their president or his policies, if you do you will be sent home.
10. If you do come to Mexico illegally, you will spend 2 - 10 years in jail.

People will always look for places to get a better life, but it should not be at the expense of others or the Host country's Citizens. Since ancient times all society or tribes were always reluctant to let non citizens to merge into their society without converting to their way of life or through marriage, which hardly happens as non citizens or tribesmen are usually slaves, except for merchants from other kingdoms or tribes trading with the host country.

Mexico will deport "legal immigrants" who could not feed themselves and prevent them from obtaining jobs away from it's own citizens because free loaders are a burden, and they will not let anyone stay at their citizens cost, they consider it an insult to have foreigners displaying their flags in Mexico, ironically, Mexican Illegals in the U.S. consider it an insult to have American flags flying In the U.S. during Sinco de Mayo, Mexico will however welcome job makers.

Spanish a colonial Imperialist language is understandable to be required in Mexico as It was the Spaniards that established the territory and government before they let go of it.

In terms of English only for the U.S., For all breed or nationalities to communicate the language of the constitution must be learned. Spain or it's former territories did not write the constitution. There are many bilinguals in the U.S., and they should not be required to learn two languages so that they can communicate with one language not of the Constitutions. Since 1800's many Germans, Italians, Romanians, French, Spaniards, Portuguese, Russians, etc. All learned English and their Native language disappeared with the 2nd or third Generation.
Countless other countries will not allow illegal immigration at their own expense.

How many other countries do you know that is far more accommodating, in the far east, africa, middle east, Europe, South America. There's a reason why you need a passport when traveling in other countries.

If millions of boat people coming from india, indonesia, burma, or china are looming around the coastline of washington down to california in the same percentage or greater than what's coming through the southern border, the pro illegal immigrants and the illegals themselves will be singing a different tune.

Dr. Insanity

How is it racist?
A cop pulls over a guy doing 35 in a 15 rpm school zone.
Cop: License and registration please?
Man: I don't have a license.
Cop: Do you have any ID sir?
Man: No?
(cop looks at the registration, Liou Woo Chang is the owner of the vehicle)
Cop: Are you Liou Woo Chang?
Man: No he is my cousin, I am visiting him.
(Cop thinks for a moment. This man is from out of town with no ID from work, green card or passport)
Cop: Sir are you here illegally?

You know I don't even go to the store without ID, how can I if I'm going to buy things or prove I'm over 21 to get a drink or buy cigarettes (if I smoked)
But you know "YOU KNOW" that places like AZ have a problem with ONE TYPE of illegal immigrant that happen to be of Mexican descent and they want a solution to their problem.
And NOWHERE in this law does it specify or single out race.

bobby

the word racist does not resonate anymore its been so over used people find this type of name calling ridiculous. people who are uneducated which pretty sums up the hispanic community have Absolutely no idea of reality. it is realized that a majority of hispanics at best have a 9th grade education and they should be able to read sb1070 with very little use of the dictionary.

Max Hoopla

I don't know because I haven't read the bill. I will hold off all pronouncements until I do.

Ian McKinney

Don't read the bill, just believe whatever John Stewart and Keith Oberman tell you.

J$mooTH

You sound like a typical democrat or hispanic

â€ â™¥Goddess JRâ€ â™¥Native â€ â™¥Prideâ€ â™¥

I read the law and support it.

if you didn't read the bill how do you know its racist....the troll force in you is weak

Trouble

OH PLEASE..............this is getting OLD very fast!!
Arizona's law is NOT Racist or Unconstitutional......
Annnd YOU HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING YET!!
Just WAIT till it's New law ...that is STILL in Congress comes to LIGHT....I'm ALL FOR THIS ONE TOO!
"END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP"!

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100521/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2192

You may have to copy & Paste into your Browser!!

La espada cantarina

Yes, it is

Akabln

Press Accuracy Rating Hits Two Decade Low
Public Evaluations of the News Media: 1985-2009

From: To:
Overview
The publicâ€™s assessment of the accuracy of news stories is now at its lowest level in more than two decades of Pew Research surveys, and Americansâ€™ views of media bias and independence now match previous lows.

Just 29% of Americans say that news organizations generally get the facts straight, while 63% say that news stories are often inaccurate. In the initial survey in this series about the news mediaâ€™s performance in 1985, 55% said news stories were accurate while 34% said they were inaccurate. That percentage had fallen sharply by the late 1990s and has remained low over the last decade.

Similarly, only about a quarter (26%) now say that news organizations are careful that their reporting is not politically biased, compared with 60% who say news organizations are politically biased. And the percentages saying that news organizations are independent of powerful people and organizations (20%) or are willing to admit their mistakes (21%) now also match all-time lows.

Republicans continue to be highly critical of the news media in nearly all respects. However, much of the growth in negative attitudes toward the news media over the last two years is driven by increasingly unfavorable evaluations by Democrats. On several measures, Democratic criticism of the news media has grown by double-digits since 2007. Today, most Democrats (59%) say that the reports of news organizations are often inaccurate; just 43% said this two years ago. Democrats are also now more likely than they were in 2007 to identify favoritism in the media: Two-thirds (67%) say the press tends to favor one side rather than to treat all sides fairly, up from 54%. And while just a third of Democrats (33%) say news organizations are â€œtoo critical of America,â€ that reflects a 10-point increase since 2007.

The partisan gaps in several of these opinions, which had widened considerably over the past decade, have narrowed. There are some notable exceptions to these trends, however, as Republicans increasingly see news organizations as influenced by powerful people and organizations and not professional, while Democratsâ€™ views have changed little.

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Pressâ€™ biennial media attitudes survey, conducted July 22-26 among 1,506 adults reached on landlines and cell phones, finds that even as the party gaps in several criticisms of the press have lessened over the past few years, views of many individual media sources are deeply divided along party lines.

Democrats hold considerably more positive views than Republicans of CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and the news operations of the broadcast networks, and their views of National Public Radio are somewhat more favorable than those of Republicans. By contrast, views of Fox News -- and to a lesser extent The Wall Street Journal -- are more positive among Republicans than Democrats.

Partisan differences in views of Fox News have increased substantially since 2007. Today, a large majority of Republicans view Fox News positively (72%), compared with just 43% of Democrats. In 2007, 73% of Republicans and 61% of Democrats viewed Fox News favorably. Three-quarters (75%) of Democrats assess CNN favorably, while just 44% of Republicans do so, which is little changed from two years ago. MSNBC also rates substantially higher among Democrats (60%) than among Republicans (34%).

But the starkest partisan division is seen in assessments of The New York Times. Although most Americans are not familiar enough with the Times to express an opinion, Republicans view The New York Times negatively by a margin of nearly two-to-one (31% to 16%), while Democrats view it positively by an almost five-to-one margin (39% to 8%). More independents rate the Times favorably (29%) than unfavorably (18%).

More favorable Republican ratings are reserved for The Wall Street Journal. Within the GOP, the balance of favorable to unfavorable assessments of the Journal is second only to that for Fox News. Democratic and independent assessments of The Wall Street Journal are also, on balance, positive. And the balance of opinion regarding National Public Radio is favorable across the board; however, Democratic opinions of NPR are somewhat more positive than those of Republicans (50% favorable vs. 39%).

The poll finds that television remains the dominant news source for the public, with 71% saying they get most of their national and international news from television. More than four-in-ten (42%) say they get most of their news on these subjects from the internet, compared with 33% who cite newspapers. Last December, for the first time in a Pew Research Center survey, more people said they got most of their national and international news from the internet than said newspapers were their main source.

However, online news lags behind newspapers as a source f

a1goodknight

I 110% support the AZ SB 1070 because it finally does something about illegal immigration which the Federal government has so miserably at. The Congress couldn't have done worse. The current president and past presidents have done a terrible job at immigration enforcement. In fact, Smokey The Bear could not have done any worse. In fact, I think he could have done better. Heck, I could have done better than Bush and Obombo on immigration.

YES, I support AZ SB 1070 wholeheartedly!!!!

Those that say it is racist need to get a life. They apparently don't have enough to do.

Evelyn j

wow most of the people on here did not even get the sarcasm...but i guess that happens over the internet haha.

anyways i see the point u are trying to make and it is not even close to accurate.

i disagree with the bill, think it is a violation of EVERYONES rights and when looking at the authors of this bill considering their past history the bill seems to have racial motivations.

and i have read the bill more than once.

BigD

I haven't read the Oklahoma Bomber's manifesto, but I can still tell you it's wrong.

As an aside, I have read the bill and the "reasonable suspicion" language is most likely unconstitutional. Such a low standard allows police to simply ask what you are doing (Terry stop), not perform any sort of investigation or interrogation.

scott b

I haven't read Mein Kampf yet either. Yet, I still know that it's bad.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: