Texans Strike Back at Austin over Arizona Boycott [Politics]

a) No.

b) No.

c) The AZ state law is a criminal statute and illegal aliens will receive due process. What's your problem?

The issue really comes down to this:

You don't like the law but AZ is in the right you can't do a damn thing about it. The overwhelming majority of American citizens (people who can vote -- illegals don't count) support the law so it isn't going to change AND other states will probably adopt similar laws. No amount of sophistry on your part will change this fact. I can understand why the situation makes your blood boil. Have a nice day.

a) Wrong. See your May 24, 2010 7:53 AM comment.

b) Wrong. See your May 25, 2010 8:15 AM

c) That remains to be seen. Your other comments seem to ignore that States are bound by the 14th.

Regarding the constitutionality of the AZ law as it is or will be enforced, we'll see what the courts have to say on the matter.

BTW, just because a law is popular doesn't mean it's Constitutional. Your argumentum ad populum aside, if the people could be trusted to respect the rights of up to 49.999% of their neighbors, the Bill of Rights wouldn't be necessary (or has the BOR "outlived its usefulness"?).

Oh Scooby, here we go again...

I never argued that the AZ law is Constitutional because it is popular. It is Constitutional. You are upset because the law is popular.

Twist, turn, and take my comments out of context all you like. At the end of the day you are still wrong and you still lose. Get used to it. At least 10 other states are considering similar laws.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0510/After-Arizona-why-are-10-states-considering-immigration-bills

The states can pass those laws, and the courts can strike them down. The state pols get to crow about how they are "doing something", and hopefully, the courts can defend liberty (although they have a mixed record, there).

Arizona's Immigration Law Likely Doomed in Court

Oh, and since you said I was misrepresenting the law: A Legal Analysis of the New Arizona Immigration Law

hopefully, the courts can defend liberty

I'm sure that they will defend liberty but that has nothing to do with this law.

Americans are addicted to illegal labor like we're addicted to oil and illegal drugs. We managed fine until the bracero program in the 60s bused in thousands of Mexican laborers to undercut the farmworker movement.

Hardhat construction workers made a liveable, middle-class wage in the 60s-70s. Today, those jobs are nonunion, poverty level. Thank you, Mexico.

And like the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigrants is a waste of taxpayer money and a tool of statists to erode civil liberties of ALL, including citizens.

And like the war on illegal drugs, you are free to work within the system to change immigration law... BUT until those laws are changed we should, and will, continue to enforce them.

And like everything else, you can work within the bounds of the Constitution, or you can work to change it (the instructions can be found in Article 5). You don't just ignore the parts that you find inconvenient, like the 5th and 14th amendments.

You're really reaching, Scooby. When did I write anything about ignoring the 5th or 14th amendments?

Due process, as guaranteed by the 5th amendment, is relevant in criminal proceedings. Federal immigration proceedings are civil matters.

I fully support an anchor baby's citizenship rights under the 14th amendment and I wrote as much earlier.

You ignore the fact that the 5th & 14th guarantee due process for ALL persons, not just citizens.

You ignore that immigration proceeding which deprive a person of liberty (i.e. involving detention) are covered by the 5th and the 14th, even if they are "civil" proceedings.

You ignore that the basis of the subject of this thread- the Arizona law- is a state criminal law which is definitely subject to the due process guarantees of the 14th, as well as other amendments incorporated against state action (i.e., the 4th prohibiting unreasonable search & seizure- I would count a detention and records search for all having "lawful contact" with the po-po to be unreasonable).

I'll stop there, for now.

BTW, Scooby, where did you get that tinfoil hat?

Oh, and I got my tinfoil hat in the store next to the place where you got your jackboots.

Oh, and I got my tinfoil hat in the store next to the place where you got your jackboots.

Enforcing the law = jackboots? Oh my, you're even worse off than I thought.

And like the war on drugs, the war on illegal immigrants is a waste of taxpayer money and a tool of statists to erode civil liberties of ALL, including citizens.

Statists out to erode our civil liberties? Yes, that makes perfect sense. I suppose that this group of statists includes the Queen, the Vatican, the Gettys, the Rothschilds, and Colonel Sanders... before he went tits up?

Enforcing the law = jackboots? Oh my, you're even worse off than I thought.

Not all laws, just those that require the state to unreasonably interfere with the liberty of the people.

Prohibition laws (i.e. the war on drugs)? The state can't keep drugs out of prisons. In order to keep drugs away from people, the state has been eroding liberties in a futile attempt to "enforce the law." If you are for the drug war as it has been waged, or using it to justify harsh enforcement of other laws, you are scum or a sympathizer, IMHO.

Immigration laws? Supporters of this AZ law see no problem with requiring that a cop sniff around and check the ID papers of any given person and requiring detention of anyone caught not carrying their papers. I'd call the requirement to justify one's existence to a cop at their arbitrary whim an impingement on liberty, and contrary to the American way of life. If you are for it, see above (i.e., scum/sympathizer).

Supporters of this AZ law see no problem with requiring that a cop sniff around and check the ID papers of any given person and requiring detention of anyone caught not carrying their papers.

Poor Scooby. He can't oppose the law on merit so he has to resort to outright lies. How pathetic.

Incorrect. A better, although still imperfect, analogy would be this:

Two parents send their kids to Westlake High.

Parent #1 lives in a small, rented apartment in Eanes ISD. The taxes on the apartment don't cover the cost of sending her child to school.

Parent #2 owns and lives in a home in Austin ISD. She also rents, but doesn't live in, a small apartment in Eanes ISD. She uses the Eanes ISD address to send her child to Westlake High.

Both parents indirectly pay property taxes but neither parent pays enough cover the cost of sending their child to Westlake. HOWEVER parent #1 actually lives in Eanes ISD and has a right to send her child to Westlake while parent #2 is stealing the service.

While we're making up hypotheticals:

How about parent #3, who owns a $500,000 house in the Austin ISD? The school taxes on the house don't cover the cost of sending her first child to school, not to mention the other three. Is she just fine, or is she stealing from society by sending more kids to school than her taxes support?

How about parent #4, an illegal immigrant who is the parent of one child born in the United States (an "anchor baby", also known as a US citizen) and rents a million dollar house (her housekeeping business is very successful). Is her child (a citizen of the United States) stealing an education by attending public school?

I'm not going to get into your notion that any government service or entitlement is "OWED" to a person by virtue of their residency or citizenship. Those are the sort of things that are "generously extended" (to use your earlier phrasing), not rights.

#3: She is not stealing from our government since she and her child are citizens.

#4: The anchor baby is not stealing from our government since the anchor baby is a citizen. The mother's status is immaterial. Since we're on the subject, I think that granting birth-right citizenship has outlived its usefulness BUT anchor babies are citizens and should not be denied services that the education that they are owed.

Like it or not, Scooby, citizens have rights that non-citizens do not. You can whine and cry about it all you like but facts are facts.

Wes, is there anything else in the Constitution that you'd say has "outlived its usefulness"?

Absolutely, Scooby! The Constitution has ALWAYS had clauses that outlive their usefulness. The founders were smart enough to recognize this and that's why we have amendments. As a matter of fact birthright citizenship as guaranteed by the 14th amendment was added to ensure citizenship to former slaves and their children.

What's your point, Scooby? One has the legal right to be here and the other doesn't. End of story.

If that's the whole of the argument, then stop there. Don't try to say that one group pays taxes and the other doesn't, because there isn't a significant difference in that regard, except for income and payroll taxes. And for those taxes (income, SS & Medicare), many of those are withheld & paid by illegals under false SS numbers, so the money goes into the system, without being able to be refunded via a tax return to the IRS.

Before you say "what about those who are paid in cash?"- in those cases, the cash paid under the table by the employer cannot be deducted as a business expense by the employer. Unless the employer is operating at a loss, the IRS collects income tax for that money for all employer types (usually at a higher rate than if it was paid by a low income illegal immigrant), and collects medicare tax for those filing as individuals, plus SS tax if the employer isn't making more than the cutoff ($106,800 for this year).

One way or another, taxes get paid on the earnings of illegals, and sales taxes get paid on purchases by illegals, and property taxes get paid on the housing for illegals.

Again, taxes are a side issue, but there is a significant difference in citizens who pay less in taxes than they receive in services and non-citizens who pay less in taxes than they receive in services. Our society OWES those services to to former, the latter group is stealing them. It's a that so many people can't comprehend the difference.

So, by your false logic, if I were somehow legally barred from shopping at Walmart, but then I managed to get into a Walmart and buy a coke, I would be stealing that coke.

The amount of taxes illegals pay does not come close to covering the amount of local, state and federal services they receive.

The same can be said for many (if not most) individuals and households, citizen or immigrant, if you are restricting it to directly paid taxes.

Example: AISD spends upwards of $8k for each pupil. That's a lot more than the AISD property tax on the median house (1.202% x $187,400= $2,250 median AISD property tax). That's a $5,750 shortfall for the first kid, add in more kids and it's even worse.

Everyone- even illegals paid cash under the table- pay the taxes that finance local and state government. If you want to claim that some people don't pay their "fair" share, I would say that you probably don't, either, using your criteria.

I don't know why they call it common sense because it is not common at all and not possessed by all.

Property taxes are not factored into your rent payment. Property taxes are not factored into your mortgage payment. You are not paying property taxes when you pay your rent. You are not paying property taxes when you pay your mortgage. Property taxes are calculate using the following formula: tax rate X appraised value of the property which is determined by the appraisal district. Property taxes are paid completely separate from your mortgage payment. Property taxes are constantly paid long after your mortgage contract is completed.

President Obama has meet with President Calderón on four occasions and no engaging discussions of illegal immigration reform have been discussed. Calderon has proven to be ineffective and more authoritarian than democratic. If the US wants to find a solution to illegal immigrants conversations will need to be held with Mexican officials such as the Mexican judiciary, congress, academics and organized civil society to devise solutions that will work .

For the love of god, read what Wattage said. Landlords include their property tax in the rent they charge, otherwise they lose money every month and soon cease to be landlords.

It's not anywhere near that simple (I am a landlord).

You charge what the market will bear. You HOPE this is more than your mortgage + property taxes. If it's not, you take a loss against your ordinary income (and you get quite a bit of depreciation to help you turn a nominal profit into a loss for tax purposes).

You may also be holding on to the property for future use for yourself, to sell later on when the market recovers, for future use by your offspring, or because you think the rental market will skyrocket in five years.

In aggregate, rents will eventually settle on some reasonable margin on top of mortgage+property taxes, but as we learned the last few years, the housing market can take a long time to rationalize. Rents have been significantly BELOW that figure in many parts of the country for years now.

True, but with one caveat, Mike. The deductibility of passive income losses are phased out between $100k and $150k. So, if you're wealthy enough to own rental property you may also be wealthy enough that you can't use the loss to offset your earned income. Also, you'll pay mega bucks in capital gains when you sell that rental without proper tax planning.

BobbyV, I think your second paragraph proved your first.

Thanks for the heads up on how my mortgage works. You forgot about escrow though. My property tax IS included in my mortgage payment, as it is for at least a large segment of the population if not the majority, not that it matters for this discussion at all. It's merely the sum of the two (plus some kind of insurance also probably) that would factor into any landlord's monthly rent.

Wait. What.

If I were to rent my condo to someone and the mortgage is $400/month and my property taxes are $200/month, you don't think I'd charge my renter at least $600? My renter would be paying property taxes indirectly. Why the heck would I rent out my place for less than I owe monthly? Much less significantly less than I owe monthly?

Certainly real landlords at apartment complexes nationwide follow the same strategy. Otherwise they are idiots and losing money monthly.

I'm going to wager that the landlords aren't the idiots here; you are.

This situation has become a mess. The US should have found solutions to this problem long ago. Arizona grew very tired of waiting and began governing itself in this matter.

Mexican officials that are in a position to resolve this situation or work with the US to bring about a solution are so corrupt and consumed with greed that the alarming and ever growing poverty in Mexico is ignored.

To wish that someone receives unfair attention from a cop and/or prosecutor speaks volumes to your odious character and of the black and nefarious heart and soul that you once had.

He's the one that doesn't like due process for all persons- I thought I'd give him something to think about.

And what, exactly, could Mexican officials do to resolve the situation? Erect an iron curtain style fence to keep their subjects in?

Every citizen has the right to due process. We generously extend this right to non-citizens.

Please read the 5th amendment to the US Constitution. If you can, please demonstrate to me where its guarantee of due process is for citizens, as opposed to "any person".

Oh, while you're at it, don't forget the 14th amendment which binds the States to due process guarantees as well.

And how does the 5th amendment apply to a civil matter like an immigration proceeding? Deportation does not deprive an illegal immigrant of his or her liberty.

See Salgado-Diaz v. Gonzales, 395 F.3d 1158, 1162 (9th Cir. 2005- “Immigration proceedings, although not subject to the full range of constitutional protections, must conform to the Fifth Amendment’s requirement of due process.”

and Campos-Sanchez v. INS, 164 F.3d 448, 450 (9th Cir. 1999)- “The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process in deportation proceedings.”

You got any evidence that the 5th doesn't apply to Federal civil action? I mean, not the self-incrimination clause, but the due process clause?

You cited 2 cases that only apply in the 9th circuit -- a circuit whose decisions are routinely overturned, BTW. Keep grasping for those straws, Scooby.

AZ wins. You lose.

And what Court of Appeals covers the state of Arizona? Can you say "9th Circuit"? I thought you could.

Is there any easily-checked fact you can get right?

Of course the 9th circuit covers AZ but nothing in the AZ law would deprive an illegal of due process. Christ man, you're getting desperate.

Have you read the law? Before you start accusing me of lying, try arguing from a position of knowledge, not ignorance.

Yes, I've read the law. Nothing in it will deprive a person of his or her Constitutional rights -- the people who wrote it were not stupid. IF an individual law enforcement officer in AZ violates a person's rights then you may have a legit complaint but until then you are just blowing smoke.

From the Comptroller's website:

Estimated fiscal 2005 revenue to the state from undocumented immigrants in Texas is about $1.0 billion, or about 3.6 percent of the $28 billion in state revenue considered in this analysis. In addition, an estimated $582.1 million in school property tax revenue can be attributed to undocumented immigrants, or about 2.9 percent of the statewide total. Undocumented immigrants, thus, contributed nearly $1.6 billion in estimated revenue as taxpayers in fiscal 2005.

Newsweek 5/14/2010:

The irony is that for all the overexcited debate, the net effect of immigration is minimal (about a one tenth of 1 percent gain in gross domestic product, according to Hanson). Even for those most acutely affected—say, low-skilled workers, or California residents—the impact isn't all that dramatic. "The shrill voices have tended to dominate our perceptions," says Daniel Tichenor, a political science professor at the University of Oregon. "But when all those factors are put together and the economists crunch the numbers, it ends up being a net positive, but a small one." Too bad most people don't realize it.

I hate it when facts get in the way of some great racial scapegoating.

Let's face it, working class and minority Americans are the people who are hurt by illegal immigration. Illegals compete for jobs at wages that American citizens working on the books can not touch. They also compete for low end housing and the children of illegals flood the schools where working class and minority American children receive education.

OTOH upper middle class and wealthy Americans enjoy the benefits of cheap illegal labor in their homes, yards, and businesses.

So ask yourself this question, heyzeus: Why do you hate working class and minority American citizens?

Wes,

Do you support a minimum wage? Because Republicans and Libertarians do not generally support it as a party, which renders the jobs argument hypocritical and meaningless. You can't have it both ways.

Do you have proof of illegal immigrants preventing others from getting housing or education?

Do you support unions? If not, again, the official republican and libertarian stance, why do you hate the working class and minorities?

What about OSHA and labor laws?

Republicans and Libertarians again do not support these things, so why do they hate the working class and minorities?

What about outsourcing?

Free-market capitalism as championed by all on the right is responsible for outsourcing, which eliminates jobs for americans. Why does the right hate americans?

I do support a minimum wage.

Each illegal immigrant child who attends public school increases class size which has been shown to have a direct impact on the quality of education.

I think that labor unions have value in some circumstances. For example, where there is an extreme imbalance of power between employer and employee (i.e. a single large employer in a geographic area or career field)a labor union can serve as a counterweight to the employer's power. I don't support labor unions in situations where employers and employees have relatively equal power because they're not necessary.

I absolutely support workplace safety laws. As a matter of fact I think that OSHA needs more funding for inspections. OSHA doesn't perform the number of inspections necessary to reasonably ensure workplace safety so they rely on making an example of some employers through massive fines to ensure compliance. I think that's wrong.

Outsourcing (I assume that you meant to write offshoring since functions can be outsourced to other companies in the US)is kind of tricky. On the one hand I don't like American businesses claiming the protection of the US government while shipping jobs (and profits, and taxes) overseas. On the other hand I don't want to hurt the competitiveness of American products and services in the global market.

"So ask yourself this question, heyzeus: Why do you hate working class and minority American citizens? "

The same reason you hate brown skinned people. Your straw man is bullshit and you know it. You seem to think the problem is the immigrants themselves, not the broken immigration system that forces their marginalization. I suggest you enjoy Arizona.

Oh, and BTW I do not think that the problem is illegal immigrants themselves. The problem is employers who hire illegal immigrants. In addition to deporting illegal labor we need to put their employers in jail.

The point in my asking "Why do you hate working class and minority American citizens?" was to point out the fallacy your own argument. People who wish to see immigraiton laws enforced do not "hate brown skinned people" any more than you hate working class and minority Americans. The "racist" label has been so diluted that it is almost as lame as calling a person a Nazi, socialist or facist.

Does the immigration system need reform? Possibly. I definitely agree with the argument allowing for more legal immigraition. However, that does not mean that we should not enforce current laws in the meantime... unless, of course, you support de facto subsidies for big agribusiness, hospitality and construction companies.

I'd call for a boycott of Hood county and Odessa for their call for a boycott of Austin in response to Austin's boycott of Arizona but it's moot since Austinites tend to avoid those places already.

Not paying taxes is not a myth. Not paying taxes is a fact.

Many of these undocumented workers are being paid cash. These undocumented Mexican maids working in hotels or private residents are being paid cash. Many of these illegal Mexican workers at car washes are being paid cash. Many of these illegal Mexican landscapers (with the leaf blowers) are being paid cash. Many of these undocumented busboys and busgirls in restaurants are being paid in cash.

Many apartment complexes that house predominantly illegal immigrants do not run credit checks and only require that the rent is paid with a money order (virtually untraceable). Many unscrupulous landlords with a house to rent will rent to illegal immigrants with no tenant application on file and only requiring to be paid in cash or once again with a money order.

Because America is a capitalist society with many unethical business owners, landlords, and private citizens looking to benefit from cheap undocumented labor illigeal immigrants will continue to be paid in cash. Sure, they will pay the sales tax as they fill their baskets at Wal Mart. However, as for paying property taxes, medicare, social security the current 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country (these numbers may be even higher) are not paying taxes.

@ex21, when you are hit by an illegal immigrant you will have to file an auto claim with your insurance company. Insurance rates are impacted by illegal aliens driving without insurance.

The same people who want illegals out of our country are the same people who love being able to buy strawberries for $3 at HEB. Like the saying goes: you can't have your (strawberry) cake and eat it too.

I will gladly pay more for groceries if it means that farms will hire unemployed American citizens. I already pay my housekeeper a heckuva lot more than other folks do because she is an American citizen and she actually reports her income to the IRS. I do it because it is the right thing to do.

If you pay rent, then you're paying property tax. No landlord is going to pay the tax for you. It's factored into the rent and you're paying for it. This is simple common sense.

As for capitalist business owners, isn't this what all the republicans and libertarians constantly spout off about? That free-market capitalism is the cure-all for everything? Everything would run better if only private capitalist businesses ran it instead of the government? Free-market capitalism demands illegal immigrants and outsourcing and negligible labor laws and no unions, etc. This is what you want, right? Cheap stuff? The ability for a few people to get ultra-rich? No government interference? Then you turn around and have the nerve to bitch about a little competition for your jobs. I thought the american way was competition and cutthroat, ruthless capitalism. I guess only when it suits you or when it's what your church/TV told you to say.

Seems as though Yankee and Taxpayer are the ignorant ones here. Yankee should take his own advice and read up on some history. Both should take a class on the Constitution and overall should recognize that this isn't their country (If you're a Native American Indian than I apologize). I'd like to see Taxpayer or Yankee take any of the jobs that illegal immigrants are willing to do just to keep their families alive. Do yourselves a favor, watch "A Day Without a Mexican" and get a reality check on what it would probably be like if they weren't here. Besides, American drug users send much more money back to Mexico than any illegal working in a kitchen making $2 an hour.

It is sad but true, just like the rapists, murderers, drug dealers, and child molesters free and in prison these illegal immigrants are in entitled to due process.

In the meantime these people work here do not pay taxes, send all the money they make back to Mexico, receive government assistance, their children attend our public schools, they drive without a license or insurance, and in 2006 at Montebello High School the California and American flag were removed and the Mexican flag was raised first and flying second was the upside down American flag.

@ex21- if you think it's "sad but true" that all of those accused of the crimes you list are entitled to due process of law before being deprived of life, liberty or property, then I can only wish that one day you draw the attention of an overzealous, underethical cop and/or prosecutor.

@ex21, You make an excellent point!

The actions of the students responsible for the Montebello High School flag flipping incident represented the thoughts and actions of the entire freedom-hating, Mexican American and illegal immigrant population.

Just like how Ted Haggard and Larry Craig represent the thoughts and actions of every queer-hating, Jesus-loving conservative American.

Flame on, patriot.

If they live anywhere other than under the freeway, they're paying property taxes. (True of renters and owners). If they purchase anything at all, they're paying property tax. And unless they're being paid by cash by an unscrupulous employer who doesn't report it, there's a good chance that they're having social security and federal income tax withheld from their pay. They'll never see that social security, either.

"They're paying no taxes" is a myth.

Illegal aliens pay some taxes but the taxes that they pay are a pittance compared to the public services that they consume. Of course, any talk of taxes just distracts from the fact that illegals are here in violation of US law and should be deported. It's pretty simple really.

@Oh steph,

There is one very serious flaw in your defense that will not support your argument - these people are not citizens!

You cannot come into this country illegally ( or any country illegally) and expect to have or be entitled to the same rights and liberties that are bestowed on the people that are citizens.

These people are here illegally and are acting as if they have rights as US citizens when in fact they are criminals because they are breaking the law and they do not have the same rights and protection because they are not US citizens.

People being in the country illegally has nothing to do with my argument. My argument is based around the fact that law enforcement can question anyone at anytime based entirely on what they look like. Don't get too tan, ex21, or you may have to produce your papers, too.

People being in the country illegally has nothing to do with my argument. My argument is based around the fact that law enforcement can question anyone at anytime based entirely on what they look like. Don't get too tan, ex21, or you may have to produce your papers, too.

Dear lord, the assumptions and outright lies about how this law will be enforced are maddening. Look, law enforcement officers cannot stop and question people based on what they look like, that is illegal. They can, however, question a person's immigraiton status if they have probable cause to do so. For example: If an officer pulls a driver over for speeding and the driver presents identification that appears to be false then the officer may have cause to quesiton that person's immigration status.

I realize that you may not like the idea that the residents of AZ (and the overwhelming majority of Americans) want US immigration laws enforced but to claim that enforcement is or will be unconstitutional is just plain wrong. AZ law enforcement knows that they will be under the microscope and they will be crossing every t and dotting every i.

All the illegal aliens I personally know are pasty white folks. They look just like "real Americans", except they have silly little accents (Irish, South African, Kiwi, etc.). I have the feeling they wouldn't have too much trouble in AZ, but they might be wise to avoid it anyway.

And for ex21- most of the rights and protections that you think are reserved to US citizens are actually held by all persons under the jurisdiction of the US. Illegal aliens are entitled to due process protections just like every other person.

@Disgruntled Taxpayer & YankeeProArizona: PLEASE STAY OUT OF MY CITY. It is a better place without people like you. Boycott all you want. Austin is doing just fine without you.

While I totally understand that the federal government has the obligation to secure our border, I also cannot comprehend how anyone could see the situation in Arizona as anything but racial profiling and a degradation of human rights, hell, a veritable burning of the constitution you all hold so dear."No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I would say that harassing someone based entirely on what they look like would be an abridgment of privileges and a denial of liberty.

Enjoy your tea. I'll be drinking delicious Mexican Coke.

If Texans have to go outside of Austin for travel (???), then they should go to Houston. There's a lot of business opportunities there. Additionally, Houston has the best restaurants/dining experience in the state of Texas.

Yeah... Houston has lots of good food prepared by legal and illegal immigrants from all over the world, not just Mexico. Who's up for a road trip?

Good job Randy Shelton-

We should also boycott Mexico if Calderon continues his tour and speaks against Arizona and SB1070.

1) Eisenhower stopped illegal aliens invading

Described here: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html

2) Three years before the Great Recession we are in

today, we were told if we deport the economy will fall

apart. We did not deport, and the economy is the worst

it has been in decades. In fact, the economy was

better during the time after Eisenhower stopped

Illegal Aliens from invading.

Hmmmmmm...

3) In point of fact, the USA had a much smaller debt,

budget deficit, and trade balance after Eisenhower

stopped Illegal Aliens from invading.

TIME FOR EVERYONE TO BOYCOTT AUSTIN, Los Angeles, Boston, Highland Park IL, Seattle, anyone else that

boycotts Arizona.

Those of you who are in High School and College and do not know how this country was before you were born, you

need to do some research. If today's trend continues,

you will not be able to move out of your parent's homes

ever.

It's comical that you believe this, but criminal that you try to spread the lie to others. So here goes:

The recession occurred because of irrational lending/borrowing practices that led to idiotic loans issued to people that couldn't afford to repay them. Defaults were obvious and expected, so massive banks packaged bad mortgages together into financial packages to be sold to other banks that were too dumb or too lazy to figure out what they were. Banks lost a ton of money and stopped lending to anyone, which is necessary for economic health.

Our deficit did not explode because illegal immigrants came here to build our houses and new strip malls. In fact, their underpriced labor (construction, agriculture, service industry) has kept inflation at amazing lows for 20 years now. No, a potent combo of tax cuts (passed under Bush, continued under Obama) and wild spending (a few trillion on the foolhardy, intractable Iraq adventure and the necessary but mishandled Afghanistan war)have turned the Clinton surplus into an amazing deficit.

It would be nice to have a brown skinned minority to scapegoat all of our country's problems on. But that's something that only the idiot and the dangerous tyrant do. That's not very American.

Does this mean these people will stay out of Austin? If so, then by all means, boycott till you're blue in the face.

That was my though as well. Good effing riddance.

I will most certainly be taking my vacation in the great State of Arizona this summer in support of those that have the sheer guts to take a stand on this immigration issue.

Those of you that find it reprehensible to provide the police with the necessary tools to enforce the laws that the Federal Government should be enforcing, should move to Mexico. This is our nation, not theirs.

These Mexican people come here to work. There are those in the US that do not wish to work that we continue to support through various Gov't handouts. The Mexican Illegal Immigrant is a resource we should exploit in a pure business manner. Sell them work permits valid for a finite period of time, say one year. Establish financial institutions that cater to their needs, financing their work permit. Use the revenue generated by this revenue stream to support oversight and enforcement. Pay is by a debit card that is valid for one year, the duration of their work permit. Enact and enforce tough laws on employers to ensure they pay into a "pay fund" so when Pedro's permit expires, he doesn't get paid until it's renewed. There are ways, those with guts will lead the way.