Current users sign in here.
Simple, the same way George W and John Mac first proposed. The word "comprehensive" implies doing what is necessary to fix all of the problems without granting amnesty or pardon. By introducing a pathway to citizenship, one demonstrably harder than going through channels in the first place, we solve the problem of the current illegals. The have the choice to 1) stay, work and comply with harder measures, or 2) leave and try the easier methods on a second go round, or 3) leave and not try again, or 4) do nothing until they get caught and thrown out for good. And we beef up border security, too. And there are other aspects which need to be addressed, too.
Now let's do that dictionary work you avoid.
AM*NES*TY: the act of an authority by which pardon is granted to a large group of people.PAR*DON: the excusing of an offense "WITHOUT EXACTING A PENALTY."COM*PRE*HEN*SIVE: covering completely or broadly [as here, addressing all aspects of the illegal immigrant problem, not just one], having or exhibiting wide mental grasp [definately a challenge for simple minded neo-cons!]
In "Comprehensive Immigrantion Reform," the penalty exacted is compliance with a more difficult, expensive process to obtain legal status. As clearly explained above, that is neither amnesty nor pardon! For many who are already here, paying the higher price is still worth it. And by beefing up border security, those not already here must comply with the normal channels. Illegals must register immediately to become eligible for the harder pathway.
Now that Karl Rove has fooled you once, shame on him. But do not allow Rove to fool you again!
PS: Dale, if smells like a rat, looks like a rat, then it probably is a rat. comprehensive immigration reform as currently packaged is nothing more than amnesty. How do you propose to prevent the next wave of invaders if they manage to push amnesty through once again?
Dale: I am worth the $98 and much more. How about you? By the way, some feral cats make great pets. I am still trying to figure which side of the fence you sit on since you keep jumping around with your comments. :-)
The editor asks, “Did SB 1070 fill a gap long neglected by Washington,….”. The editor answers, “Yes”.The editor fails to tell us how SB1070 filled a long neglected gap. I ask the editor to please clarify.
Dale Whiting posted: ….”but Arizona charges ahead with blinders over its eyes, perhaps we ought to consider more closely what Utah is doing before we try to find answers?”
Sure, like the Utah's guest worker program for illegal immigrants; which was part of Utah’s immigration reform package, including an enforcement measure that was modeled on Arizona's SB 1070 law, and was signed into law March 15 by Utah's governor?
The federal government's lawsuit is against Arizona for the immigration law that merely complements and assists in the enforcement of federal immigration law. The federal government hasn't effectively enforced immigration law and the Obama Administration does not want states to pass state laws with the intention to assist federal authorities.
Because I am not in favor of Amnesty. When they supported comprehensive immigration reform, neither were John McCain or George W. Bush. Amnesty is the word Neo-cons choose to apply to giving illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship. But whether that path is easy or difficult, it is not Amnesty. Look the word up in the dictionary. Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich have fooled you once again.
Why don't you take a few hours to figure out, then report back to us, why Utah chose to go the path of its "Compact" and not our way of SB1070? What does Utah know and treasure that Russell Pearce does not know and distains?
You sound frustrated, even angry that the Federal Court system has stepped in to hault implementation of SB1070. Is it because a few Federal judges dared interfer with a state law? Or is it because they dared defend the US Constitution? Have you studied anything about Federal Pre-emption and Constitutional Law? Or is this just more of your shooting from the hip?
Because I am not. "Amnesty" is the Karl Rove word applied to make comprehensive immigration reform smell bad. Giving illegals a path towards citizenship, even a difficult one, is not Amnesty, rather it is common sense and good judgement, the sort of thinking which used to reside in the heads of John McCain, George W. Bush, and others including our beloved Barry M. Goldwater. What changed? Nothing but the political climage. We got infested with Neo-cons. Why don't you give us your take on the Utah Compact? What makes the political climate up North different from today's climate down here? What made McCain and Bush run so far away and so fast?
P.S. what is a samkat? Turning in a ferrel cat costs $98 at the county animal shelter. Are you worth that much?
Yes, here in Arizona the Federal Court system has ruled that five key provisions of SB1070 are unconstitutional. Does that anger you? If so, why? Is it because they are unconstitutional and it is Russell Pearces fault, OR because the Federal Court system dared defend the constitution?
Dale: Why don't you come out of the closet and acknowledge that you are pro amnesty?
There are political machines relentlessly pushes radical agendas for amnesty, open borders, and non-enforcement against illegal immigration.
But, the American public, nation-wide, has flatly rejected that our nation's border can't be secured, illegal immigration is just too big a problem to be solved or that we all must simply accept drug smugglers on America soil and drop houses in neighborhoods.
Here in Arizona, Federal courts have blocked some of the most critical portions of Arizona’s SB 1070 law. But Arizonans have shown a steadfast support for the enforcement of the law, both against illegal immigration and racial profiling. The laws prohibition on sanctuary city policies, meaning local authorities can no longer turn a blind eye to illegal immigration. As a result, no safe haven cities for “illegal alien criminal”.
Our editor asks
"Did SB 1070 fill a gap long neglected by Washington, or did it line Arizona up as a target for national scorn and ridicule?"
practically concluding that the answer to one would determine the answer to the other.
Was there a long neglected gap in border security, immigration policy or related problems which somehow needed to have been addressed and somehow could be addressed by a state bill fill it? And has Arizona's passing SB1070 make Arizona a target for national scorn and ridicule?
Clearly with comprehensive immigration reform a hot topic several years ago, one which cooled off more recently, and one from which its advocates had to run away, the question would be why? What changed? What political forces caused George W. Bush, John McCain and others to flee and not look back? If immigration was a problem 15 years ago and these conservative supporters of reform fled, clearly something was the matter and the solution was not likely to have been politically popular.
Where immigration policy and enforcement are exclusively federal matters and where federal enforcement authorities did for a while permit local law enforcement authorities to help with enforcement, then changed that policy, what was behind this change? Did the problem go away, or was local enforcment going overboard, causing more new problems than helping to solve old problems?
And where SB1070 sought to step in to the gap, 1) was that step constitutional? 2) did it promise to solve real and not just political problems? or 3) did it appear to overstep propriety, causing diplomatice problems?
These problems are highly complex. Answers like yes or no are much too simplistic. Pundits with simple solutions are naive at best. Where one of the most conservative Red States in the union, Utah, formulates a "compact" which seeks to address comprehensively a number of these problems, but Arizona charges ahead with blinders over its eyes, perhaps we ought to consider more closely what Utah is doing before we try to find answers?
"IT WAS THE BEST OF TIMES" = "SB 1070, A YEAR LATER = WAS ONLY ABOUT 60% BIASED TOWARDS THE..........LIBERAL (ANTI-SB 1070) VIEW......ON ARIZONA'S ILLEGAL ALIEN INVASION BATTLE.
"IT WAS THE WORST OF TIMES" = SB 1070, A YEAR LATER = ONLY GAVE 40% OF THE ............PRO-SB 1070.............SIDE OF THE PICTURE. IT STILL USED....."BAD" PHOTOS.....OF SENATE PRESIDENT RUSSELL PEARCE, MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO AND ARIZONA GOVERNOR JAN BREWER (DON'T TELL ME THAT OF THE 1000'S OF PHOTOS OF THESE THREE IN THE EAST VALLEY TRIBUNE ARCHIVES THAT THE EDITOR COULD NOT FIND ONE "ATTRACTIVE" PHOTO OF THESE THREE MAJOR PLAYERS (BELOW THE BELT JOURNALISM). THE SAME GOES FOR BRINGING THE "INNOCENTES = THE LITTLE GIRL WORRYING ABOUT MOMMY AND DADDY BEING SHIP BACK TO WHERE THEY CAME FROM = GIVE ME A BREAK= THIS ISN'T JOURNALISM....THIS IS PRO-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION "ADVOCACY". WHY DIDN'T THE EVT RUN A STORY ON THE DEVASTATING EFFECT OF A "LEGAL" AMERICAN EAST VALLEY CITIZEN'S "STOLEN IDENTITY" DISASTEROUS PROBLEM ???
WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS WHY EVERY SINGLE MEDIA SOURCE IN ARIZONA, BE IT THE LOCAL TV CHANNELS (PBS TOO), THE MAGAZINES, THE NEWSPAPERS ALL ACROSS THE STATE...ARE SO.............LIBERAL ???WHEN BY ALL ACCOUNTS (POLLS AND VOTING STATISTICS), ARIZONA CITIZENS ARE 2/3 CONSERVATIVE AND 1/3 LIBERAL AND YET OUR TV AND PRINT MEDIA IS..... 100% LIBERAL (IN THIS SITUATION = 100% ANTI-SB 1070).MOST IF NOT ALL OF THE TV HOSTS AND COMMENTATORS AND NEWSPAPER REPORTERS ARE NOT FROM ARIZONA.....BUT THEY SURE ......."KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR ARIZONA WHETHER THE CITIZENS OF ARIZONA WANT TO HEAR IT OR NOT".
WHAT THIS NEWSPAPER AND EVERY OTHER ARIZONA MEDIA SOURCE FAILED TO REPORT ON WAS THE HUGE AND IMMENSELY DISPROPORTIONATE EFFECT THAT ARIZONA'S POLITICS UNDER GOVERNOR BREWER, SPEAKER ADAMS, SENATE PRESIDENT PEARCE AND TO A GREAT EXTENT, MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO...........HAVE HAD ON NOT ONLY....AMERICAN POLITICS....BUT POLITICS ALL OVER THE WORLD.ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND CULTURAL DIVERSTIY PROBLEM....ARE BRINGING DOWN LEFT-WING EUROPEAN GOVERNMENTS AND CHANGING THE POLITICAL DISCOURSE (JUST LOOK AT THE ANTI-MUSLIM FACE VEIL LAW IN ULTRA-LIBERAL FRANCE) IN EUROPEAN NATIONS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNHEARD OF 5, 10, 20 YEARS AGO..................ALL BECAUSE OF .........LITTLE OLE.....ARIZONA....STANDING UP ON IT'S HIND LEGS AND SAYING........"ENOUGH IS ENOUGH"......WE WANT OUR STATE BACK.........WE ARE NOT MEXICANS, WE ARE NOT CANADIANS...WE ARE NOT EUROPEANS AND WE SURE AS HECK AIN'T CALIFORNIANS (LOL)........BUT.... WE ARE... 100% AMERICANS... AND WE WILL FIGHT ANYBODY INCLUDING A DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT AND HIS WHOLE ADMINISTRATION...........TO SECURE OUR BORDERS AND PROTECT OUR STATE FROM AN.............ILLEGAL ALIEN INVASION.
After the latest bill failed to pass through the Senate, do you feel there will be any more attempts at mandating more background checks for gun purchases?
Total Votes: 1006
St. Mitt and the Dragon
Republicans versus Democrats
East Valley Tribune
Phone number: 480-TRIBUNE
Address: 1620 W. Fountainhead Parkway, Ste. 219
Tempe, AZ 85282
More Contact Information...
Please be brief (no more than 250 words) and submit your contact information for verification purposes. Comments may be edited for clarity and length.
A Division of 10/13 Communications