Charlie Rose

temporal1  08/19/2010 08:38 PM Report

It's important for the word "illegal" to have powerful meaning. For law-abiding citizens, it's a word that guides our lives. Our politicians have done us no favor by avoiding to act. No favor to U.S. citizens, OR, Mexican, and other citizens! The question being, if THE FIRST act is to come onto U.S. soil ILLEGALLY, what respect will one have for any laws-of-the-land?! - Respecting laws, in order to remain "under the radar" of being identified, while enjoying rich benefits from that original ILLEGAL move! that much, of course.

The average U.S. citizen has NEVER approved of anyone entering the U.S. ILLEGALLY. Of course not! It's ILLEGAL! The problem has never been confusion or disinterest of the average citizen. The problem is the refusal of politicians to do their jobs.

temporal1  08/19/2010 08:18 PM Report

The Arizona law brings to the forefront the decades-long problem of politicians pandering for votes, rather-than doing the jobs they were elected to do, i.e., make decisions and protect our country. For those who have NOT lived in AZ to decide, en masse, their law is fundamentally wrong for existing, are living-talking-thinking, in ignorance. The problem is NOT new, it's simply been ignored by vote-seeking politicians. The problem with putting things off is, eventually, the day of reckoning comes along. I see the AZ law as a step toward that day.

NeilMacCallister  08/01/2010 08:36 PM Report

Screaming, swearing, ..people chaining themselves to police cars, and throwing trash cans through store windows.

Why don't we just let the courts declare what our Constitution says about the offered Arizona law?

Emily Dickinson wrote that our minds have more corridors to be haunted than do the places within which we live.

That makes me wonder what part of us is really being "invaded".

doodah  08/01/2010 08:23 AM Report

"Cheap labor is more important than costs (to taxpayers in social services) and security." - That pretty much sums it up right there. We got people bitching about the over abundance of foreigners running about and at the same time, those same people got juhboneys cutting their grass and cleaning their homes.

Or if they support illegal immigration, it's solely because of the benefit of cheap labor for them and theirs. But they'll try to disguise it with liberal bullshit; so they don't look so greedy, because 'greed' is a bad thing, even though that's what they are. . A lot of professions with the word, 'Manager' in the title are like that.

robdverity  07/31/2010 07:35 PM Report

makes sense not makes since - a phonetic maloprop.

robdverity  07/31/2010 07:34 PM Report

The only law that makes since is the one corporations' lobbyists fend off: arresting employers that hire illegals. Cheap labor is more important than costs (to taxpayers in social services) and security.

Bartholomew  07/31/2010 02:17 PM Report

Whew, a lot of vitriol on this subject. I am surprised that no-one is writing about the fact that the Law requires law enforcement to hold ANYONE who cannot prove they are a citizen. And if law enforcement chooses not to, ANY OTHER PERSON can sue the police to do so. It's not about cracking down on illegals, it's about requiring CITIZENS to prove it. All I have is my driver's license, is that enough? I am surprised that the tea-partiers are not upset about the Police checking their citizenship papers anytime they get stopped for gun laws.

So, the two things, 1) requiring everyone to prove their status before being released from jail; and 2) allowing any busybody to sue the police for a lack of zealotry. These are what worry me. Don't they worry you? Yes, there will probably be more Hispanics who get stopped, but what about the Europeans who bring their families over from the old country (those people still talk with a strong accent), and they go to the store without ID? There's a robbery at the store, police are questioning bystanders, they have no ID, they HAVE TO be detained. I don't mind building a better fence, the Republicans will have to hire U.S. Citizen nannies. I object to laws THAT REQUIRE the police to check the papers of citizens.

doodah  07/31/2010 06:50 AM Report

'we are but children', 'not anarchists' huh. .. I don't know what glorious neighborhood you're in, but my kids and their friends ARE ANARCHISTS (at least that is their natural inclinations; 8-12 year olds).

Anyway, 'immigration. Crippling costs. Trade schools, "social services"..' .uh let's see, it's just cheaper and easier to hire illegal immigrants to do 'those trades'; besides 'those are jobs Americans don't want' or how about this one, 'Americans won't do that kind of work'. Is that the mentality?. Am I taking the bait well?

NeilMacCallister  07/30/2010 11:15 PM Report

In the eyes of the Lord, we are but children. Not to be subdued, nor infused with fear, ..but in laughably obvious need of guidance. We believed we could satisfyingly write our own laws, and now we are trying.

Regarding immigration, ..what is the "crippling cost" it burdens us with?

If a criminal is a citizen of another country, send him back (..or to Guantanamo!)

If immigrants are eating too much of some social foods left out on the social table, ..don't put the food out!

In fact, we should do a cost/benefit analysis of all our social services, and retain only those which provide a positive return for the economy!

And we should hold everyone in the United States to that same formula. That way our offered social services can be confidently continued forever, for everyone, without fear or anger.

Trade school should be an offered "social service".

doodah  07/30/2010 07:55 PM Report

oh but Mr. Neil, we are ALL but anarchists in the eyes of the Lord. That's why God had to make 'laws' to subdue our underlying anarchist desires. The fear of God's laws is the foundation of civilization; and civilization is the rocket fuel that propels us to great heights, if you are lucky enough to be 'Neil Armstrong'.

NeilMacCallister  07/30/2010 06:18 PM Report

I am not an anarchist, doodah, ..I believe some laws are good, educational, and even edifying.

"We are all created equal", .."Deprivation requires due process", .."Thou shalt not steal", ..we wouldn't enjoy life so much without such laws.

Laws do not create conflict, ..it is the people who are writing them.

And it seems that legal nit-pics are sometimes used to clog-up the gear-drives of progress: In this televised segment, in all the media reporting this week, and even from the President of the United States, we have heard it once again claimed that "This Arizona law conflicts with Federal law."

But I have YET to hear anyone describe HOW!

The truth is like the North Star, it tells us where we are, so that we may informedly decide which way to proceed towards our goals.

But as we are kept in a state of confusion and unhappiness with an incomprehensible spaghetti-ball of legal hodge-podge, ..we will always be in need of a social "savior" who simply needs to promise us "a way out" to get a vote.

Young, inexperienced people especially fall for that one.

doodah  07/30/2010 12:56 PM Report

You're absolutely right, NeilMacCallister. 'The Law' is just so much bullshit. Laws tend to contradict each other, so the better bullshitting lawyer wins.

doodah  07/30/2010 12:45 PM Report

So this whole issue (for or against) is just a BIG political prop(aganda). . another tool for the politicians. . to suck more blood out of the squabbling masses. . and continue their lives of leisure in the comfy air-conditioning. . as the bickering saber-rattling masses are rebuked at the gates by the very well fed security guards. . . So THATS, 'what it is'...?. hmm

NeilMacCallister  07/29/2010 08:41 PM Report

Rob, ..I have a different description of the “Elephant in the room”: I feel the problem is an almost total refusal of our Legislative and Executive branches of government to accept their responsibilities to write and enforce a coherent law.

Why do we have immigration papers? ..if no one is allowed to ask for them?

Why have we hired thousands of Immigration and Naturalization Service workers, ..if we do not care whether or not someone here in the United States is a citizen of this country?

What is a “citizen” anyway? ..am I one? ..do you know if you are? ..by what law are you a citizen?

***

Do I need a Driver’s License to drive a car on the roadways?

Do I need a Contractor’s License to build a house?

Can I argue this case in Federal Court without an attorney’s license?

Can I be President of the United States without a Birth Certificate??? (..LOL!)

***

By these gentlemen’s statements here, ..I don’t see a whole lot of difference between this injunction, and the Arizona law as it is written; ..except that now the Arizona Police are given a bit of discretion in deciding when they want to make an “Are you a citizen?” inquiry (..that’s good!)

Also, a citizen will now not be immediately found guilty of a crime if they are caught out fishing on the lake without carrying a Proof of Citizenship on their person (..that’s good, too!)

Of course, they had better have a valid fishing license in their possession (and on display!) ..or they will quickly have their fishing poles confiscated, be fined several hundred dollars, and may still be thrown in jail!

***

Today, we already have so many laws that no one can remember them all.

We simply do not need more laws.

What we need, is for Congress to “share the wealth” and inform us what the current law is, ..and then we should just ask for it to be fairly enforced.

robdverity  07/29/2010 05:00 PM Report

Amnesty is the elephant in the room. It will encourage all of Central and South America to emulate a Malthusian type migration. A personal feeling, as if I were a citizen south of our border, I too would try for it. So I can't blame them. Life's not fair.

REMant  07/29/2010 01:58 PM Report

The ruling is in line with privacy concerns in other contexts, tho the question of Federal jurisdiction is not so clear. Art I, sec 8 gives Congress the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," and "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying [it] into Execution" but it does not say anything about looking to see if someone is in fact naturalized or not. I think the point of the legislation was as much to force the issue as anything else, but totally undocumented aliens do not pay income or Social Security taxes (some do using the provision for identification of foreigners tho they do not profit from it) or property taxes directly (they do as renters) and thus cost local and state govts and school districts and the citizens who do pay to support them a lot of money for medical care, education, and other services, tho since 1996 they no longer get welfare. Other commentators think the 9th Circuit will side with the state. The Federal govt suing a state is very rare, and besides the civil liberties question I think this was brought for whatever political juice it will bring in Nov. Most successful immigrants are pretty conservative, however, and I'm sure the illegals would like to be legal, for which I'm not sure they blame the Republicans for not being, so I am not sure I buy the long-term argument.