AZ Immigration Law Goes Too Far For Tom Tancredo

Wait, I'm hallucinating right?

Oh please, in 3 2 1 Tom will walk this back as soon as the teabaggers get to him.

Your papers, please.

Next thing you know, wingers will start demanding that all US citizens should have a computer chip implanted in order to confirm that they are US citizens. Then another group of wingers will demand that a law be passed preventing computer chips from being implanted. Then all of their heads will explode.

Too racist-y for the racists? Remember, this is the guy whose assistant slapped a black woman and called her n*gger and defended the guy. We need to do a little racial profiling on Wall Street, when you see more than 3 white guys in suits sitting around talking....that's a crime scene.

Tacredo's comments reveal a lot about the craven, xenophobic politicians that support this law.

Of course the governor said she is against racial profiling. In exactly the same way the US/Israeli military always says "we do not intentionally target civilians" every time they obliterate a significant number of civilians in one of their "surgical" strikes. They say this because intentionally targeting civilians is a war crime under international law and nobody confesses to war crimes in a press release. Of course the governor said she is against racial profiling. Similarly, Tancredo has to say that he is against racial profiling ("I do not want people here, there in Arizona, pulled over because you look like should be pulled over" [does he really speak broken English or is that a faulty transcription?) because he obviously knows what the people he thinks should be pulled over look like, but saying what he really thinks is advocating criminal activity (racial profiling).

Unbelievable...racist Illinois state reps ask governor to send National Guard in against the blacks in Chicago

http://abcnews.go.com/US/illinois-lawmakers-request-national-guard-stop-crime/story?id=10478710

The average monthly income for a garment cutter in Mexico is 255 dollars US. In the States it is 1600 dollars US.

For a car mechanic, in Mexico 200 dollars, in the US 2500 dollars monthly.

For a chemical engineer, in Mexico, 1000 dollars, in the US, 4,700 dollars average monthly income.

I’ve rounded figures up. The data comes from Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informatica (available http://www2.inegi.gob.mx/estestint/Standards/default.asp) and the US Department of Labor (http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/home.htm).

Furthermore income is highly concentrated in Mexico:

% share of household income, lowest 40% – 13 percent. Highest 20 percent – 53 percent.

(Available from Unicef).

There are many other reasons for immigration from Mexico to the United States, but income disparity is one, and will continue to be one

Tommy may have been planning a little leisure time in AZ. Considering that he's some form of darker skin, he realizes he may have to prove his own ethnicity & citizenship. Seems senor Tancredo has some 'splaining to do.

The United States has lost control of who enters our country.
Do you think this is a problem?

If you think it is, what is the solution?

How can the US prevent terrorism, or dreaded diseases from coming across the Open Border?

It's simple. La Raza is a racist organization whose name literally means, "The Race". Their goal is to dispossess Whites in something they call "Re-conquista." They think they are re-conquering territory for Mexico in a racist effort to make the land part of hispanic territory again. It's so obvious.

They don't believe in "We shall overcome" they believe in "We shall overwhelm". Right now, Whites are still a majority, but look out White people. When they have you out numbered, they're coming ethnically cleanse you from the American southwest. The writing's on the wall and only a fool will ignore it. We need White racial leaders, not the traitors we have in Washington.

Sanssouci0: Given your sensational slanders regarding the alleged aspirations of the good people of the Tea Party movement it seems clear rational debate disinterests you. However that no-one should be confused by the obfuscation you've rendered I will respond briefly to these "concerns" of yours: This is not settled case-law and your examples are abstract in relation to this issue. Like Federal Drug laws, immigration laws are laws instituted for the protection of domestic interests over and above those traditionally dealt with by individual states. Indisputably both of these local and state-level laws and enforcement measures contain implications for foreign nations and their citizens. One need only observe the border drug wars spilling over from Mexico with hundreds dead in relatively small towns on the Mexican side of the border to see how closely the phenomenon are related -- enforcement here, death there. However in both cases these implications are not over-broad but quite simple: Both are governing what is simply criminal conduct and enforcement is limited to the domestic effort to reign in that conduct within what will often be state land falling in one state or another. It is neither America's fault that the Mexican drug lords are busily murdering one and other's gangs, nor that the embassy is indignant over the fact we aren't pampering the asses of the invaders coming here. The Mexican embassy always is indignant about something and catering to their pitched wailing every time someone lays an arresting hand on a Mexican national who has illegally crossed into our country is impractical to say the least. The roundly-admitted, long-acknowledged deficiencies in enforcement on the part of the Federal government have utterly necessitated this move on the part of border states. The Federal government's impotence on this issue has forced the state to act. Arizona is doing its duty to aid in the enforcement of Federal law. Ultimately should this law be struck down, you'll get some Federalism the likes of which prohibits state-level enforcement of Federal drug laws, among other unforeseen consequences. The fact this issue has political and foreign-policy implications is precisely why the Federal government should have handled it in the first place. The fact it has not, is not, and will not is why it is now up to the states to enforce the law the Federal government passed and has unfulfilled the commitment to enforce itself. Complain as they might the FEDs are SOL on this one until they are willing to deploy adequate forces to secure our borders.