Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Because he can win

What is Oregon's best chance of getting a governor who will do something about illegal aliens? Allen Alley.

This may sound strange coming on the heels of his horribly misguided comments on the new pro-enforcement law in Arizona. Alley is wrong about that.

But he has the right solution for effectively combating identity theft and job theft in Oregon by making the E-Verify program mandatory for all employers.

Once employers are required to verify the legal work eligibility of their employees our illegal alien population will be forced to look elsewhere, probably California, for a place to continue their culture of lawlessness.

John Lim is a candidate that I really like and if I thought that he had a chance to win the Republican primary and the November general then I would vote for him in a heartbeat. But I don't think that he does. It is Alley versus Dudley. And Dudley WILL NOT do anything about illegal aliens in Oregon. He WILL NOT do anything about employers continuing to hire unlawful workers while Oregonians collect unemployment.

If Alley wants to misinterpret the Arizona law but stands with me on the principle of stopping numerous problems that illegal aliens create for Oregon then that's fine with me. You say "tomato" and I say "tomato."

Arizona's solution doesn't have to be our solution. What matters is that we get the result of reducing identity theft. Reducing the job theft. Reducing the drunk driving, the drugs, the rapes and all the other crimes that come along with people who have no respect for the law.

If you truly want to have an effect on the next governor's race your choices are Alley and Dudley. If you truly want to have an effect on the illegal alien population in Oregon then your choice is Alley.

41 comments:

Hal Lillywhite said...

I agree Alley's comments were terrible, we have no business telling Arizona what to do. That poor state has been overrun with the worst criminal elements of the illegals. They need to do something and the federal government has shirked its duty.

My comments are at my blog,
http:www.hallillywhite.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Hey, I just want to salute the Arizona Miglavians, for two things: 1) Passing an Apartheid-style, anti-immigrant law that is obviously unconstitutional, ensuring that it will be thrown out, and 2: Passing it on the eve of May 1, which will ensure the biggest turnout of immigration activists probably in the history of May Day events in the U.S. Go Miglavians!

Scottiebill said...

Hey Anonymouse 8:11: Before you spout any more rhetoric about Arizona's new illegal immigration law being "obviously unconstitutional", show us your credentials that give you the knowledge to declare anything at all as being either constitutional or unconstitutional. I really doubt that you can. You are merely spouting the bulls**t rhetoric that your hero and illegal alien advocate, The Komrade Peter Principle President, has come out with.

DAVE01 said...

Anon 8:11, are you a constitutional lawyer? I would like to see your credentials.

Lets look at your statement
1.
This is not Apartheid. Apartheid is racial segregation. Which race is being segregated in the US? This law is not anti-immigrant. It's anti ILLEGAL immigrant. I'm assuming it's constitutional because it simply reinforces other federal laws and the US Constitution. Here's one part of the US Constitution:

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion

The US government has not protected Arizona (or any other state) from an invasion.

2. Passing it on the eve of May 1 would be a perfect time to start enforcing the law. They can start rounding up tens of thousands of criminal aliens on the spot. I can't wait to see the criminal aliens riot. It will simply show all of American why we don't want them here. That is exactly why we are a nation of laws. Our founding fathers said no to mob rule.

I just read that lawmakers in Texas and Ohio want a similar law. It is spreading like wildfire.

Keep the fantasy anon 8:11am. The criminal aliens have wore our their welcome.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, anyone who speaks out against a racist law should get props. But if they racists back that candidate, one has to question if he is the right choice for governor.

DAVE01 said...

ANON 12:15 PM
Which part is racist for the new AZ law?

Anonymous said...

Speaking of people that can will, how about this Candidate in Alabama.

http://www.timjames2010.com/blog/language/

Must see video "...In Alabama, we speak English, learn it...when I am governor the drivers test will be in English only..."

Anonymous said...

You want to see my credentials and know if I'm a constitutional lawyer? LOL! I don't recall you sharing your credentials and revealing to the world that you're a renowned climatologist every time you repeat some patently false bullshit about "climate-gate" you heard on FOX News or Lars Larson, and I sure don't recall you asking Miglavs to reveal his credentials every time he decrees this or that piece of Democratic-sponsored legislation he doesn't like as unconstitutional, so the hell with you. I'm entitled to my opinion. I've read the bill, and I've read about it, on both sides. Mark my words: It will be thrown out. And on the day it is, I'm going to paste my remark above all over Miglavia along with, just in case you miss the point, an all-caps "I told you so." Actually, I'll paste my remark and yours, just so we get the full context.

Anonymous said...

Definition of a bigot:

A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

Congratulations, anon 4:19, you qualify.

You can cling to your opinion all you want; it doesn't change the fact that Arizona is doing the job the feds won't do, the job the feds in fact should be doing, as outlined in the Constitution in Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

I find it amusing you're still clinging to your AGW religion. There are a lot of facts out there regarding the fallacies, cover-ups, and general incompetence of the man-made climate change crowd. The science is in: AGW is a fraud.

But, as you said, you're entitled to your opinion.

Facts be damned.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations, anon 4:19, you qualify....

Um, yeah ... and based on that criteria alone, so does everyone else here, dumbfuck. Or, humor me: Go ahead and make the case that Miglavs and Dave aren't also "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to" their opinions.

But I just gotta point out the new rules, for Miglavs' benefit: Daniel, could you please list your credentials? I mean, your "musings" are basically commentary on political science, and I'd appreciate it, and I know Dave would appreciate it, if you could please tell us when and where you received your degree in political science.

Anonymous said...

If the AZ law is unconstitutional then the federal law is as well. This law is well crafted and will with stand challenges in the courts.





It is illegal to come to this country without papers or a VISA/PASSPORT. Just as it is illegal for you or me to go to any other country without papers...even Mexico. On Mexico's southern border the police are armed and shoot to kill. Why, you say, because it is illegal for illegals to come into Mexico from the South.


Pinky French

Anonymous said...

If the AZ law is unconstitutional then the federal law is as well. This law is well crafted and will with stand challenges in the courts.





It is illegal to come to this country without papers or a VISA/PASSPORT. Just as it is illegal for you or me to go to any other country without papers...even Mexico. On Mexico's southern border the police are armed and shoot to kill. Why, you say, because it is illegal for illegals to come into Mexico from the South.

Bob said...

Arizona-just doing the jobs that the Federal Government refuses to do.
It kinda has a ring to it. I like it.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:13,

Glad to see you're unable to refute any of the points I've made. Judging by the tone in your post, I'd say you're losing the argument.

..based on that criteria alone, so does everyone else here...

Yup. Justify your bigotry by calling everyone else a bigot, too. If that's what you're going to do, just admit the term is meaningless and tell your compadres on the left to quit using it.

I'll make the case that Dave is not obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his opinion. From the comments section in Daniel's post on April 23rd, 2010, Dave's own words:

Years ago I used to have somewhat similar beliefs. Now, I know the folly of those beliefs. As I said, I have been educating myself on the whole immigration thing.

Regarding Daniel, he welcomes his detractors. How does it make Daniel intolerant or obstinate when all you have to offer is ad hominems, equivocation, relativism, fabrications, and outright venom? If Daniel were truly intolerant, he would have deleted any comments he doesn't agree with. Therefore, your accusations fall flat. The fact that your post is still here is proof.

If someone is going to be conceited enough to state as fact, without proof, that Arizona's law is unconstitutional, then the least they can do is prove their qualification to make that claim. Discussing politics in general requires no qualifications, just like running for president apparently requires no qualifications. Try to refrain from comparing apples to oranges next time.

You want to change minds? Try competing in the arena of ideas, and leave your petulance at the door.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry 10:02, but I'm afraid you're prohibited from further participating in this disussion unless you immediately provide papers proving that you are a U.S. citizen, and we'll also have to see some credentials.

Ric in OR said...

We should simply adopt Mexico's law.
Don't you think that if it is good enough for our helpful neighbor to the south, it would be good enough for US?

"At present, Article 67 of Mexico's Population Law says, "Authorities, whether federal, state or municipal ... are required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country, before attending to any issues."
Source

Anonymous said...

Is is also Illegal in Mexico for any Foreign National to be in or to organize a Rally or political Protest or to run for any Public Office and to OWN land or to...

Scottiebill said...

There is nothing wrong in what the gubernatorial candidate in Alabama said about speaking English. The United States is not a bi-lingual country like Canada is. The Komrade Incompetent would disagree, but he has put himself in a position that few people give a solitary damn about his positions on anything.

As for the discussion here about the Arizona law, because all you guys that agree with their new law have stated your positions for it so much more eloquently than I could, I will say only this: If every man, woman, and child in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana were to go into Mexico illegally by whatever means, start taking jobs away from their citizens, showing up at their hospitals for free medical care, sign on to their welfare rolls for free food stamps, housing, drivers' licenses, etc., rob, kill, and rape some of the Mexican people, how long would it take the Mexican government to gather up every one of the illegals and deport them out of the country, probably after a lengthy term in their "plush" prisons? They would be doing it in a heartbeat, just as they do with illegals who get into their country from their southern border.

This is something our Federal government has not done for many years under the leadership of Carter, Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, and now The Komrade. Since our so-called "leaders" have effectively ignored this problem for so many years, Arizona finally had the guts to do something about it. And now that the law is in place, the do-nothing Feds have their knickers in a huge twist, as do all the bleeding heart activists for the illegals, including those who are raving on this blog about "unconstitutionality" of Arizona's law. We who are for this law and its being enforced to the letter can only hope that some of the illegals here in the PNW will take the jobs of those who are advocating for them. Maybe, just maybe but highly unlikely, they will change their attitudes. But we shouldn't hold our breaths for that to happen.

Maximus Leftist said...

Hey Miglavians, let me ask you this: How many of you have actually sought out a dissenting view on the law's constitutionality and read it through in its entirety? Not some know-nothing on a left-wing blog you visit to get a "representative" view of the left (and not whatever pansy-assed loser FOX dredged up) but someone who actually does have credentials to intelligently discuss the legality of it? How many of you have done this? Give me a link or title, I'd like to read it.

Anonymous said...

Comment on Arizona by a REPUBLICAN:

Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) ripped into the new Arizona immigration law today, comparing it to Nazy Germany.

"This law of 'frontier justice' – where law enforcement officials are required to stop anyone based on 'reasonable suspicion' that they may be in the country illegally – is reminiscent of a time during World War II when the Gestapo in Germany stopped people on the street and asked for their papers without probable cause," Mack said in a statement.

"This is not the America I grew up in and believe in, and it’s not the America I want my children to grow up in," he added.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:02 here.

9:03, I have all my papers. I have nothing to worry about.

Maximus Leftist,

It is not up to us to seek out dissenting views. They just come. In my previous post, I cited a little document known as The Constitution in order to point out the dereliction of duty on the part of the feds. If the feds won't do the job, then it's up to the states to do it. Ergo, what the feds are not doing is unconstituional and, ideally, the situation would be corrected on that end. Until then, Arizona is left with no choice but to take the law into their own hands, so to speak.

So tell us, who on the left has Constitutional credentials? You leftists are some of the most anti-Constitutional people around. From the "Fairness Doctrine" to health care "reform", to gun control, to coddling terrorists, to draconian environmental controls, to just flat out saying it's necessary to "control the people", you people are just laughable when you even attempt to explain your positions Constitutionally.

And you want the opposition to do your research for you now? Are your beliefs so bankrupt you can't even scare up your own talking points?

Maximus Leftist said...

It is not up to us to seek out dissenting views...

I've read about half a dozen legal analyses of the Arizona law written by individuals who believe it is unconstitutional and/or just plain wrong. And actually, I've probably read quite a bit more pieces from the right, that I sought out myself, because I regard it as my responsibility in a democracy to be informed of a variety of views.

I don't need you do do my "opposition" research or score "talking points" for me, that's not what I'm asking. Hell, I don't even care if you don't post a link. I just want to know, from the Miglavians: What have you done to break out of sheeple mode and inform yourself of ALL points of view about his law?

The response from Anon 4:25: Absolutely nothing. Congratulations on your ignorance. You must be very happy, I'm sure.

Any other takers?

Bobkatt said...

ML-how about a link to a couple of the "half a dozen" legal analyzes that you have read?

As for Connie Mack-what a mixed methafor. "Frontier Justice and Nazi Germany". That's rich.
Please note the following:
# The law only allows police to ask about immigration status in the normal course of "lawful contact" with a person, such as a traffic stop or if they have committed a crime.
# Estimates from the federal government indicate that more than 80 percent of illegal immigrants come from Latin America.(12) Thus, there is concern that police may target only Hispanics for enforcement.
# Before asking a person about immigration status, law enforcement officials are required by the law to have "reasonable suspicion" that a person is an illegal immigrant. The concept of "reasonable suspicion" is well established by court rulings. Since Arizona does not issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, having a valid license creates a presumption of legal status. Examples of reasonable suspicion include:

* A driver stopped for a traffic violation has no license, or record of a driver's license or other form of federal or state identification.
* A police officer observes someone buying fraudulent identity documents or crossing the border illegally.
* A police officer recognizes a gang member back on the street who he knows has been previously deported by the federal government.

# The law specifically states that police, "may not solely consider race, color or national origin" when implementing SB 1070.
# When Arizona's governor signed the new law, she also issued an executive order requiring the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to provide local police with additional training on what does and what does not constitute "reasonable suspicion."(13)
Passes muster with me.

Maximus Leftist said...

Oh, so you don't want to answer my question, but you want me to do your "opposition research" for you?

Actually, I guess that does answer my question. So we're 0-2 on Miglavians who strayed beyond the confines of FOX News for some actual information about the new law.

Anyone else?

Anonymous said...

Scottie, bobkat and ML, I'm afraid that before you say anything else, I'll need to know what your credentials are. I see lots of words, lots of opinions, but no credentials. Because someone earlier was suggesting that before you can talk intelligently about this stuff, you need to have credentials. Who was that? Oh! LOL. Scottie, that was you, wasn't it? Well, well, well ...

ZZMike said...

Why is it that the most incredibly ignorant comments usually come from someone named "Anonymous"?

Arizona's law is carefully crafted to follow Federal law. So much for the "unconstitutional" part. He might consider reading the Constitution.

Speaking of "Primo de Mayo": when the U.S. public sees how many illegal immigrants there are - because that's exactly who will be marching, carrying flags of another country - we'll get down to business and pass some laws with teeth in them.

The "racist" card is so old it can barely stand. We don't care whether people come here illegally from Mexico or Canada, Sweden or the Ukraine. Illegal is illegal.

By the way, for the seriously uninformed among us, it's been Federal law that legal immigrants have to carry ID - ever sice the 1940s.

And I'm sure Mr Anonymous drives all over without a driver's license on him.

I'm all for the "English only" drivers test. After all, a whole lot of the traffic signs are in English.

The "Hypocrite of the Year" award goes easily to El Presidente Calderon Hinojosa. Just take a look at Mexico's immigration laws.

Back to reality: Wouldn't it be a lot simpler to use your driver's license (or state ID card)?

Citizenship would be determined when you get a driver's license. No citizen, no license - unless you're applying through legal channels.

Speaking of the driver's license: I have to show it when I open a bank account. When I rent a video (the first time, at least). Whenever I cash a check. You can probably think of a few other times.

The only place you don't have to show any ID is at the voting booth.

You can tell when a liberal is at the end of his (usually feeble) argument:

"... so does everyone else here, dumbfuck."

Bye-bye.

Anonymous said...

This "anti-illegal immigrant" rouse is bunk. Cowards within the anti-immigrant movement hide behind this language all the time. The truth is that groups Ofir see immigration "as an attack on american sovereignty" . Do a google search and you will find that is their words. Besides why was the group website once hosted by a overtly racist white supremecist website titled New Nation? That said their roots are anti-immigrant, anti-immigration and seemingly sympathetic to white supremecy so what am I missing?

Anonymous said...

I've read about half a dozen legal analyses of the Arizona law written by individuals who believe it is unconstitutional and/or just plain wrong.

Do tell. Did these individuals reach their conclusions before or after they did their research? Did they even bother to do any research? Is there any name-calling involved?

And actually, I've probably read quite a bit more pieces from the right, that I sought out myself, because I regard it as my responsibility in a democracy to be informed of a variety of views.

#1: This is a republic. #2 How magnanimous of you. And what did you do with those views?

I don't need you do do my "opposition" research or score "talking points" for me, that's not what I'm asking.

Then why don't you share what you've found with the rest of the class?

What have you done to break out of sheeple mode and inform yourself of ALL points of view about his law?

What makes you think we don't already know about the views for and against this law? Criminy, leftists are LOUDLY making their displeasure known everywhere. It's kinda hard to miss. And since when are ALL points of view equally valid?

You want both sides of this issue? Here it is in a nutshell:

CONSERVATIVE: It's already the law. 'Bout time this is getting enforced.
LEFTIST: Waaah! It's unfair, unjust, immoral, bigoted, xenophobic, stupid, shortsighted, quite possibly homophobic, oh and did we mention we don't like it and we'll riot in the streets even though we constantly preach that violence is not the answer?

The response from Anon 4:25: Absolutely nothing.

When you fail to read for comprehension, nothing is what you get.

Congratulations on your ignorance. You must be very happy, I'm sure.

You have to admit you're doing absolutely nothing to dispel my alleged ignorance. You've failed to offer a point of view, although we already know what it is. You're a leftist, and you subscribe to a failed ideology. Therefore, you don't think you should have to defend what you believe, and you certainly shouldn't have to answer for the miserable failures your ideology has wrought against humanity.

I find it rather amusing that you can sit here and blather all day about how we need to "educate" ourselves by reading other people's opinions about the matter, yet all people have to do is simply read the law for themselves. After synthesizing the information, a conclusion is then reached. Why don't you try it? You know, gathering facts before coming to a conclusion rather than trying to sell your preconceived notions as facts?

But then, you're not here to add to the conversation, are you? Bobkat offered some information pertaining to Arizona's new law, but it's just so much more convenient for you to sermonize from on high and ignore the particulars, isn't it Maximus?

Maximus Leftist said...

Then why don't you share what you've found with the rest of the class?

Because my point was to determine whether the class did their homework, and that question has been answered.

Class dismissed.

Anonymous said...

To what end, Maximus? Remember, you're not the instructor here.

Maximus Leftist said...

To what end? I was genuinely curious to see how Miglavians went about educating themselves about this new law in Arizona they/you so passionately defend. Turns out, they didn't. Not really. As usual, they ran with the FOX-friendly, Hannity-approved, Malkin-endorsed talking points, but none of them apparently have a clue about the very serious legal problems that will ultimately be the reason for this thing being thrown out.

MAX Redline said...

One little problem with your thesis, ML - you presuppose that everybody has the time to camp out on Daniel's blog in order to respond to your silly little challenges. Quite frankly (and apparently unlike you) I have a life. I have work, family, a yard to maintain, a house to maintain, and my own blog to update - among other interests.

But on to your challenge:

The statute also has an anti-solicitation of workers (often called day laborers) provision of the type that has been held unconstitutional under the First Amendment, see Town of Herndon v. Thomas, MI-2007-644 (Va. Cir. Ct. Aug. 29, 2007) Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach, 475 F. Supp. 2d 952, 962 (C.D. Cal. 2006).

So it is possible that some part of the law may be subject to successful constitutional challenge, although my understanding is that Arizona has tweaked the wording to reduce that likelihood.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2010/04/arizona-immigration-law.html

By the way, in another interesting development, Arizona's legislature has just forwarded a bill for the governor's signature that would ban "ethnic studies" in the state.

Guaranteed to get Leftists' panties in a wad.

Anonymous said...

Why is it an interesting development that old racist Arizona would ban ethnic studies? Becausa white supremecists are happy about it , or what?

Maximus Leftist said...

... that would ban "ethnic studies" in the state.

That's interesting, Max, I didn't know about that, I'll have to check it out.

So basically, you're saying that the same legislature that wants to ban ethnic studies isn't motivated by bigotry when it passes the other law targeting illegal immigrants?

Are you able to say that with a straight face?

Anonymous said...

Maximus,

You are not genuinely interested in how "Miglavians" get their information, as if you're some anthropologist studying a foreign culture, even though you undoubtedly view yourself that way. You chose to ignore what conservatives here had to say, and dismissed any opposing viewpoints as "FOX-friendly, Hannity-approved, Malkin-endorsed talking points". Your choice of verbiage disqualifies you as some dispassionate, objective observer. Apparently, in your view, information from these sources is automatically false. That, my friend, is what is known as a logical fallacy.

You also make the assumption that this law will be thrown out. This isn't fact, Maximus. Don't try to pass it off as such here.

And enough with the bigotry card. Along with the race card, it is old and worn out. It is a poor substitute for argumentation.

Of course, the real reason why you don't even bother to offer any arguments in support of your position is that it's rather hard to defend the indefensible, isn't it?

M.L. said...

You are not genuinely interested in how "Miglavians" get their information ...

Total bullshit, Anon. That is exactly what I was interested in, which is why that is exactly what I asked about, and I don't have to be an anthropologist to be curious about it. And how is it possible that I "chose to ignore what conservatives had to say" when I in fact actively sought out the views of conservatives (including Hannity, and including Malkin, among others) as I was reading about the law? The fact that I disagree with conservatives' argument doesn't mean I ignored it. I certainly didn't ignore the comments by Tom Tancredo, who said that the bill could unduly result in people getting "pulled over because you look like you should be pulled over." If that is not a warning (from Tancredo, no less!) about the perils of racial profiling, what is it? I'm certainly not dismissing that statement by a conservative. He's right.

It was never my intent to argue about the bill; I just wanted to know how you guys learned about it. Clearly, you didn't learn much.

Bobkatt said...

What the new Arizona law is really about.

MAX Redline said...

ML and anon - have you folks actually read these new laws? Had you done so, then you'd be aware of the fact that the "ethnic studies" is specifically designed to ensure that all students are treated - and regarded as - equals.

You got a problem with that?

Let's face it: the real racists are those on the Left who demand that we should all pick out differences and "celebrate diversity". The exact opposite, in other words, of the vision that Dr. Martin Luther King expressed.

Anonymous said...

Why is someone who is totally full of shit, like Max, for example, so hell-bent on letting the world know it?

Bobkatt said...

Max remember, some are more equal than others.

Bobkatt said...

One problem with "ethnic studies" is that I believe they cherry pick the diversity that they want to teach students. They only show the warm fuzzy aspects of a culture.
I remember reading a book by author Dinesh D'Souza where he relates how he is often taken aback when well meaning people come up to him and tell him how much they appreciate his Indian culture. His reply was something like-what do you admire most, the poverty, overcrowding, the barbaric honor rituals....