C.S.

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/perma...

I like #4 and #2. I suspect that Republicans will like #1 and #3. I suspect that everyone will freak over #5.

But what do you think?

http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/tina-griego/arc...

Seriously, the real libertarians get it. Why don't faux-libertarians that claim they understand economics, the free market, and the Constitution fail on all accounts?

Is the Tea Party's immigration policy just a show of how this movement is not ideological, but actually just a populist, xenophobic political manifestation?

Seriously, I believe in neoclassical economics and free trade. Labor should go where it can, that is how efficient economics works. (Yes, I'm also against closed shop unions!). Best worker to do the job. Aside from racism what justification is there for taking down suppy and demand economics?

Maybe this is why the Libertarian party, which has far longer libertarian chops than all you newcoming tea-partiers, is against the increase of federal power in the name of "border security"

http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/tina-griego/arc...

Why is this sooooo crazy to let the free market work in terms of employees?

The Arizona law neither mirrors federal law, nor is it the same as California.

Here's why: It mandates that police that develop a reasonable suspicion that someone may be here illegally when they come in contact with during their regular duties must have their citizenship verified. That's the law (that's what it says).

It mirrors federal law only to the extent that it relies upon their definition of what an illegal immigrant is. It uses local police to enforce the federal definition, federal law doesn't do that. It also add provisions, including lawsuits of cities that aren't prioritizing some random federal law as much as racists would like and makes it a crime to hire someone in a driving lane (in all fairness, this is how I've got every job I've ever got!).

California law (which by the way is shared by many other states) checks immigrant status of felons who are in the criminal justice system, not just people that police contact.

There, Arizona's law is different and obviously so to anyone but the most partisan hacks. Why do people keep lying and saying that it is the same as these other laws?

Best answer goes to someone whose answer starts with: "I pity the fool that..."

Rule 1: Cannot use any current or past President, be creative.

Rule 2: Don't talk about fight club.

If you think this question is stupid, then wait for the Karate Kid question I'm working on.

It sometimes seems people are trying out for something on here. Is this like the farmleague, blogging is like single-A, Inside Edition is AA, writing for one of Murdoch's papers is AAA, and FoxNews is the big time?

That's cool if it is, I'm just let me know so I can start the liberal equivalent...MSNBC is a lot like the Dominican league...

I've read the current law, I know it prohibits racial profiling (which it didn't need to do since that is already unconstitutional, but understand public affairs was needed).

But, if Arizonans could pass a law implementing wide racial profiling for all crimes (with no public or legal backlash) do you think they would?

Marriage is between a white man and a white woman, or a black man and a black woman.

That was the sacred definition of marriage back then...

Seriously all, I live on the border. I can see it from my house (cause apparently that is legit). It is secure. There is no safety problem. I do not have an alarm on my house. I can leave my (decent) car unlocked (in fact the only time my car was stolen it was an American teenager who took it). Illegal immigrants cross on my land, and don't cause any problems at all (even make for good conversation most mornings).

OK, that's my experience. It isn't everyone's experience. I know that.

But FBI Uniform Crime Reports shows crime is plummeting on the border. Not just dropping, but plummeting since 2006. So, I think this is reasonable. But that's not my issue:

Why do I get thumbs down and hatred when I say my experience of living on the border?

They keep saying they want less government, smaller government, less restrictions on individual freedom.

But are fine with border enforcement happening in the private workplace (so government interference is bad if it is for ending discrimination, but good if it prevents them from hiring illegals), roadblocks are fine inside the borders of the U.S. to catch illegal, militarizing a part of the United States is ok (we just need to really do it), and detaining people until they prove they aren't breaking the law (Arizona law...yes, I read it) is also legit.

Why are libertarians for border enforcement anywhere but the borders?

of declining crime rates and rising economic statistics.

Seriously, the 15 years after 1986 were the wealthiest and safest America has had since the 1940s (when immigrants were being brought in as part of government policy...another coincidence).

I've read the bill. Here's what it says: if police run into you during their work and have a reasonable suspicion you might be here illegally, they can detain you until it is proven that you are not breaking the law. (That is not a copy of the federal law nor is it similar to the California statute, FYI). The result is that an entire population will not help us prevent crime anymore. It seems obvious to most.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100526/ap_on_go_ca_st...

Now police chiefs across the country are saying the same thing. So why is there still support for it.

One last aside: Arizona is not in a crime wave, they are in a crime draught and crime has been falling with the more illegal immigrants that enter the state. So says the FBI Uniform Crime Report.

I'm not talking about legal gray areas. I mean straight up bribes, pay for play, backdoor dealings, etc. How much of this do you think is caught?

Everytime I ask a question about the Arizona law. People tell me to read the law where it prohibits racial profiling. So, that's some great logic.

The same thing happened when we passed laws against murder, against racial profiling in Jersey (hint, it still happens), and against illegal immigration. The things just stopped in their tracks.

It really is amazing how much power putting a little line in a the State Statutes does.

(P.S. I haven't read the law, so all the links you can provide would be greatly appreciated....Really, really appreciated from the bottom of my heart. I just couldn't find it through google.)

Either the Arizona law is going to require American citizens to carry proof of citizenship at all times (which I don't like) or it is racial profiling (which I'm more comfortable with, but let's be honest). I don't see how it can't be one or the other. Either American citizens are going to have to carry proof of citizenship (in addition to driver's license and Smith's ValueMember Card) because they can be detained if they don't have it OR the law is racial profiling against a specific population.

So, which is it?

They have to win 9 seats in an election with 36 races. These 36 are evenly split 18 GOP 18 Dem.

That means to win control of the Senate in 2010, the GOP will have to win half of the current Dem seats. No polls shows them achieving this and it looks like it will be 52-48 or 53-47 this December for the Dems.

How are they going to act when they are still minority party, but less so?

I think they will moderate quickly and the tea party element will become less important. But, interested in all other opinions.

Alright Conservatives, I think that your focus on Patriotism is something that the left desperately needs to take lessons from. It really is ok to be proud of your country.

That's my positive thing to Conservatives.

Everyone have a great Sunday.

I'm not saying that Rand Paul said anything racist.

However, the last prominent politician to question the Equal Rights Amendment was David Duke. (Strom questioned it last in 1980, but not since). David Duke is of course closely affiliated with the KKK, Presidential candidate in the Dem primary in 1994 (see this cuts both parties), and generally supports what the vast majority would consider racist ideas and discourse. I also believe both Duke and Paul have the right to make any claims they want and question any and all laws: but also think people should be aware of their connections.

Should this make Rand Paul reconsider the idea?

NOTE: I have listened to the statements made by Paul and believe I am being fair here and not casting him or his ideas as racist.

Affair?

Racist relative?

Not paying taxes?

Lying about military service?

Changing parties?

etc.