RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Pierce writes: "One of the staunch allies of both Arpaio and Pearce in their fight against the brown people was an out-and-out Nazi named J.T. Ready - although, eventually, even Pearce distanced himself from Ready and the armband crowd."

Police believe J.T. Ready shot four people Wednesday and then took his own life in Arizona. (photo: Matt York/AP)
Police believe J.T. Ready shot four people Wednesday and then took his own life in Arizona. (photo: Matt York/AP)

What the Hell Is Wrong With Arizona?

By Charles P. Pierce, Esquire Magazine

04 May 12


he other night in a debate, Nebraska attorney general Jon Bruning, who may very well be the next U.S. senator, talking about the subject of immigration, told the state how proud he was to have been endorsed by "Sheriff" Joe Arpaio, the authoritarian loon from Arizona. The other day, a defrocked white-supremacist state senator from Arizona named Russell Pearce testified before Congress in support of the authoritarian anti-immigration law he'd helped draft that may very well be upheld by the United States Supreme Court. One of the staunch allies of both Arpaio and Pearce in their fight against the brown people was an out-and-out Nazi named J.T. Ready - although, eventually, even Pearce distanced himself from Ready and the armband crowd.

Yesterday, J. T. Ready went into a home in Gilbert, Arizona and blew-away four people and then himself, which was definitely doing things in the wrong order. Guilt-by-association, hell. Local politicians in Arizona have been playing footsie with murderous hoodlums for going on a decade now; the Phoenix New Times has done some very brave reporting on this, and my buddy Dave Niewert has been tracking the nexus of what he calls "the eliminationists" and mainstream politicians out west for over 20 years. Quite simply, responsible authorities in Arizona should have put a stop to this years ago. Russell Pearce testified before Congress. There are levels of madness out there in the land that we can't possibly fathom. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+87 # bugbuster 2012-05-04 14:23
They have always had a wacky streak in Arizona. I think it's the desert heat. I became aware of crazy Arizona in the Barry Goldwater days. Their brains are all fried.
+53 # KittatinyHawk 2012-05-04 19:30
Goldwater is a Saint compared to what has inbred
+6 # Bodiotoo 2012-05-05 08:23
Agreed. Barry might even be more left than Obama.
+11 # Progressive Patriot 2012-05-06 15:53
I'd be glad to have a few Goldwater Republicans around today, compared to the pile of loonies in Congress.
-206 # judgeroybean 2012-05-04 14:32
Great - guilt by association. Find a nutcase, then claim that mainstream figures are closely allied to him. Joe McCarthy would be proud of you. And of course, you neglect the underlying issue, which is not "immigration" but "illegal immigration" and the destruction it is wreaking on not only Arizona but the rest of this country. Polls show that a sizable majority of US citizens support the provisions of the Arizona law and want the immigration laws (yes, they are the current laws, I know that disturbs the impotent left who thinks anyone with a sob story should be handed a green card at the US border, but that is not the way things are done) enforced. And by definition when a large majority supports something, it is NOT extremist.

One might well ask, What the hell is wrong with the left? Why is it that enforcement of immigration laws is synonymous with racism? This is just one more sign of how marginal the left has made itself to mainstream debate.

But rather than ask itself that question, the left would rather scream "Nazi" and "racist" at anyone who expects and desires the immigration laws to be enforced - in other words, the vast majority of US citizens, who pay taxes in part so that these laws are enforced. Well, just wait, the SCOTUS is going to uphold the Arizona law by the end of June, and dozens of states will follow suit. Believe it or not, the Arizona laws are popular, and citizens are going to demand the same in their own states.
+155 # bugbuster 2012-05-04 14:52
Most of the people you will hassle are legal citizens, maybe more law abiding than you are and maybe more successful. But their brown skin makes them all the same, right?

I don't know why any immigrants would want to live in Arizona. There's nothing there. Neither Mexico nor the US wanted it, but the US took it. Lots of them, legal and illegal, are passing through to the fields to pick the crops you eat. Do you think the crops pick themselves? Ask any farmer how long gringos last in the fields. I have.
+35 # humactdoc 2012-05-05 09:42
Don't forget the for-profit private prisons and other "security" measures that are a behind the scenes driving force for such legislation.

Also, how many non-immigrants do not speak up against this Orwellian creation of enemies for fear they will be labeled and targeted as the evil enemy by the preachers and believers of this authoritarian/t otalitarian ideology?
+6 # Progressive Patriot 2012-05-06 15:58
In Georgia they tried to get people on probation to work in the fields. (They have a hard time finding work.) Most of them left for lunch and never came back.
+116 # allie 2012-05-04 15:16
Re: judgeroybean

The racists and those who follow Nazism ARE the republican right. Got your facts mixed up there, bud.
+41 # Granny Weatherwax 2012-05-04 15:39
What an apt pseudonym!
The law on the west of the Pecos...
God help us all!
+62 # my2cents 2012-05-04 16:44
What about the havoc being wreaked on the tens of thousands of legal immigrants, and brown American citizens, some of whose descendants may have been in Arizona before the white man ever stepped a foot in, in the form of profiling and harassment? Reason is coming to Arizona, albeit slowly but it is coming. The rest of America will never be swayed by their hateful ways.
+47 # lcarrier 2012-05-04 17:02
Get educated. You're so misinformed you don't even know you're a racist!
+39 # Texas Aggie 2012-05-04 22:13
That is probably the major part of his problem.

The private prison industry is the sole moving force behind the hate and the movement to criminalize what at the moment is merely a misdemeanor. Their lobbyist wrote the law in AZ for their benefit, not because illegal immigration was causing any problems. They have managed to rope these dopes into pushing laws that will fill their prisons and charge tax payers for it. A person stands in amazement as to how easy it is to manipulate people like JRB.

Osama bin Laden did the same thing to W, and sent the US into a disastrous war in Iraq that fulfilled his purpose of bleeding the US dry. Now the racist haters are being manipulated the same way and it's working like a charm.
+56 # Sir Real 2012-05-04 17:35
McCarthy would be proud, not of Charles Pierce but of Arizona. You carry his banner.Says you:
"And by definition when a large majority supports something, it is NOT extremist."
Germans overwhelmingly supported Adolph Hitler.By your logic he was not a killer.Bullshit . Perhaps you aren't aware that Russell Pierce sponsored Ready's acceptance into the Mormon Church and actively sought his support, until it turned inconvenient politically. Maybe you haven't seen Ready in his Nazi attire complete with Swastika armband or listened to him speak. Or his license plate, USBG, and like most wannabees,he wasn't. Screened out by psychological testing maybe?
Scotus may well uphold parts of AZ's anti-immigrant law only because they too are enthralled by the hatred of "the other" or anything moderate,and Heaven forbid,liberal. They are further to the right and more radical than the overwhelming majority of the country. States supporting such laws are all below the Mason-Dixon line or West and they all have Republican Tea Party governors. Coincidence? Not.
J.T. Ready was a self appointed vigilante,there is no other word for him. His hatred of brown people is strewn about the blood soaked house where he slaughtered four innocents, including an 18 month old. What guts. Then,like the coward he was he he took his own life and like the deranged killer who tried to assassinate a sitting U.S. Congresswoman, killing six others in his murderous spree,Arizona sick.
-33 # judgeroybean 2012-05-04 20:07
You are wrong about German support for Hitler. Have a look at the data for the 1933 election. The Nazi Party never obtained a majority of the German vote. And once Hitler was made Chancellor there were no more elections. But there was significant opposition to Hitler within Germany throughout the Nazi era, as a lot of scholarship in the last 25 years has shown; why else were concentration camps used throughout Germany from 1933 on to jail Communists and Social Democrats? And there was always significant opposition to Hitler within the Germany military. You are simply WRONG to say that Hitler had overwhelming support of the Germans.

You can heap abuse on SCOTUS all you like, but even Justice Kennedy (someone whose past rulings indicate serious concern about racial issues) was unswayed by the administration' s arguments. It has nothing to do with hatred of "the other", it has to do with the refusal of the federal government to do its job, which is enforcing the law as it stands. It is very clear from the back and forth in oral arguments that day that the SCOTUS does not accept the Obama administration' s argument that it should be able to selectively enforce the laws, which is the real issue at hand. Even Justice Sotomayor said the Obama administration' s arguments were feeble.

Have fun with blowing this one tragic case out of proportion, and trying to slander the anti-illegal immigration majority of this country with it. Oh, the pathetic, impotent left.
+17 # Lolanne 2012-05-05 16:36
Quoting judgeroybean:
... Oh, the pathetic, impotent left.

Oh, the pathetic, ignorant, warped, far-right fans!
+32 # pbbrodie 2012-05-04 19:03
Those in the wrong always shout about how they are "the vast majority," especially when they aren't even close to a majority. You need to check your facts before claiming that a majority of ALL Americans favor the lunacy in Arizona. It simply isn't even close to a majority. Besides, even if it were a majority, if a majority of people believe it's a good thing to stuff your head into a toilet bowl, does this mean we should stuff our heads in too???
-11 # judgeroybean 2012-05-05 05:13
Have you heard of Gallup? An early poll taken by Gallup showed that 75% of Americans had heard of the Arizona law, and favored it by 51% to 39%:

Other polls showed even higher levels of national support; here is one that shows it at 64%:

More recent polls have asked about individual provisions of the Arizona law and the support ranges from 65% to over 80%. Recall as well that the Arizona statute closely mirrors existing federal law, and the provision that non-citizens carry documents showing that they are in this country legally and must present these on demand to a police officer has been the law of this country for 65 years now. So what Arizona has done is not lunacy either, unless you claim that federal immigration law is lunacy (knowing the left, that is probably what you would claim).

During the oral arguments about this, it was widely admitted by discussants on NPR shows like the Diane Rehm show that a majority of US citizens want enforcement of the immigration laws, and those people were mostly liberal.

Every country enforces its immigration laws, in part because that is what its citizens want. There is nothing racist, improper or immoral about it. And non-enforcement leads to chaos.
+3 # Progressive Patriot 2012-05-06 17:39
Take polls with a grain of salt ... or maybe the whole shaker full.

It's very easy for polls to shape the question in such a way that the person writing it gets the results they are looking for. Very often I read the question, and look at the choices, and they often don't have my answer ... most questions don't have a simple yes or no answer.
+41 # genierae 2012-05-04 19:13
Mr. Bean, are you aware that we stole this country from those immigrants that you are so intent on bashing? The white man invaded this country, which at the time was a paradise, you could drink out of every source of water, and proceeded to exterminate its lawful inhabitants. The ones who were not butchered were forced to flee or submit to the white man's dominance. We invaded Mexico, stole what is now Texas, and lied about it in our precious history books. We took a paradise that was inhabited by people who lived in harmony with the environment and were much wiser than us, and we turned it into a garbage dump. The white man is the worst thing that has ever happened to this country, and if the brown man wants to come back, I say he has every right. After all, we're the interlopers here.
+24 # cadan 2012-05-04 22:51
genierae ---

There were many good responses to the (rhetorical) question "Why is it that enforcement of immigration laws is synonymous with racism?"

What you said though really really resonates with me.

Our ancestors stole every square inch of this country and, much worse, murdered nearly all of the original inhabitants.

Maybe they had to come here, or felt like they had to in order to avoid religious or political persecution.

But to murder the millions who lived here (including at least thousands who embraced the dominant religion of Christianity--- the trail of tears) was a colossal crime.

As you say, we're the interlopers.

Interlopers with amnesia about their history.
-22 # judgeroybean 2012-05-05 08:49
This is what passes for thought on the left. A sweeping assertion of genocide against all the Native Americans. Which is then invoked to justify illegal immigration today, of course.

The polite response would be to ask, why don't you go to the library and read something about this topic? You can start with Crosby's books on the Columbian Exchange, or his study "Ecological Imperialism". Also good is Noble's study "Born to Die". The vast majority of Native Americans died from Old World diseases like smallpox. There are first hand accounts of it by both natives and Europeans throughout the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. And it was NOT part of any conscious plot by the Europeans, since they did not even know that they had brought such diseases with them on their ships (the germ theory of disease was invented by Pasteur, in the 19th century). BTW, the same thing happened in the Hawaiian Islands, and also in Siberia, and elsewhere, for the same reasons. The natives in those areas died like flies after first contact with the Europeans. The term for it is "virgin field epidemic".

As for interlopers, read David Hume's response to John Locke about "civil society". Every single piece of territory on planet Earth was at one time occupied by a different tribe or group. India, China, Europe itself - all were subject to invasion and conquest. That includes Mexico, of course. But the impotent left would have you believe that the US is uniquely evil.
+14 # genierae 2012-05-05 11:14
The fact remains that the white man is the worst thing that has ever happened to this country. Deflecting blame does nothing to clarify the issue, you are simply muddying up the waters. I have studied the Native-American tragedy for years, and what was done to them in the name of white exceptionalism is an abomination to all that is sacred in this world. The white man is exceptional alright, he's exceptionally arrogant and exceptionally ignorant. And that's a very bad combination. I suggest that you do some studying of Native-American history, (and I'm talking about real history here, not the crap we learned in school). Here's one book in particular: "The Gospel of the RedMan", by Ernest Thompson Seton and Julia M. Seton. It is an illuminating book, and it's pretty obvious that you are in bad need of illumination.
+1 # Progressive Patriot 2012-05-06 17:51
I just saw something yesterday tht the United Nations is telling the US to return lands to the Native Americans that was stolen in violation of treaties.
+3 # Progressive Patriot 2012-05-06 18:04
Another very good book is Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World, by Jack Weatherford

Also, The United States of Appalachia, by Jeff Biggers.
0 # Billy Bob 2012-05-06 21:42
"Custer Died for Your Sins" is another good one, even if it's become a cliché.
+1 # Bodiotoo 2012-05-06 23:09
Not sure the white man alone needs to be blamed. How about living in the NOW and trying to figure out what would really be the best for humanity in a modern world. I like to camp but not really sure I would want to live in a Stone Age Culture...we can bemoan past injustices, but like I told a young Native American in my store.

"No sir, I did not steal this land from you...I work, I pay rent, your claim is about as valid as if I returned to England because my forebear came from there and claimed a right to the island by virtue of my blood line. Cultures Clash, Wars happen and hopefully we are evolving...Nati ve Americans, White Americans, Black Americans fought in two major wars in the 20th century to defend our nation...thier nation...I heard yesterday that one of the real problems facing the leadership is that "We the People..." and the "...rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." are still taught and wouldn't you know it...

The kids believe it...well I do too and I am so tired of left -right & yada yada yada, if we are all not going to be Americans and get our act together what will be?
+8 # cadan 2012-05-05 11:57
Judge --- re your response including "why don't you go to the library and read something about this topic?" ---

It is true that our ancestors' diseases killed a large percentage of the original inhabitants. I think Jared Diamond's wonderful book Guns, Germs, and Steel gives a good exposition in terms of evolutionary dynamics (and why on earth is it that the right wing cannot abide any mention of evolution?).

But that does not justify the extermination of the remnant who did not die from our diseases.

And i also agree that all territory has changed hands by force at one time or another.

But "everybody's doing it", even if true, doesn't justify our agression.

Our sin is far worse because we knew, or should have known, that what we are doing is wrong. We should know that those we were murdering were made in the image of God as much as we are.

If we're constantly trumpeting our Jude-Christian heritage, then we should have the humility to accept the descendents of the close relatives of those whom our ancestors murdered (and who after all are our cousins as well ---- we're all the same species).
+2 # Progressive Patriot 2012-05-06 18:36
Some of the founders of the United States had studied the Indian culture, although even by 1775 it was being destroyed, and they saw a new way of thinking in the way the system of government worked. Our own Constitution has more in common with the Iroquois Nation than with any form of government that existed in Europe at the time. Thomas Paine was one of them, and after our revolution was over, he went to France, and promoted many of the same ideas there.
+1 # genierae 2012-05-05 11:28
cadan: I want to add that there were many white people who were horrified by their government's treatment of the native people. I am not condemning all of them. But we had no right to take their lands and slaughter them like cattle. They were far wiser than the white man, but because the white man had superior weapons, he was able to commit unspeakable atrocities upon a people who only wanted to preserve their way of life. But I do trust in a better future for this country, and I am convinced that we are in transition toward a more enlightened way of life. The United States of America is uniquely positioned to take a leadership role in global renewal, and if we will support and reelect Barack Obama, he will lead us into that new world.
0 # Progressive Patriot 2012-05-06 18:39
There are two forms of the Native American promoted as "savage". One was that of a brutal, murderous people, who were violent, just for the fun of it. The other was that of the Noble Savage.
0 # Progressive Patriot 2012-05-06 17:48
If you really study the formation of this country, you will find that our government is much more closely based upon the freedom of the Indian nations, than upon the aristocratic governments of Europe, which were mostly controlled by a king, whose word was law. Many of the millions who died were a result of diseases for which they no antibodies, because there was no prior contact. It went both ways; I recently read that Syphilis was unknown in Europe before Columbus made contact with indigenous Americans.
-15 # judgeroybean 2012-05-05 05:22
Are you aware that Mexico is also a conquest state? "We" did not steal "this country" from the people illegally immigrating here. Europeans colonized the Americas. Mostly it was the Spanish, who planted a few flags in places like California and Texas and claimed it for all time for the King of Spain. They turned the entire area into a big hacienda for a small elite of Ladino creoles, who lorded it over the Indians and mestizos for 300+ years, first as part of the Spanish empire and then the Mexican republic. The United States, by contrast, created a republic based on popular sovereignty and rule of law. And part of the rule of law is the enforcement of borders and immigration laws.

As for the "invasion" of Mexico and the "theft" of Texas, congrats, you have mastered the comic book version put out by the Mexican government. Did it ever occur to you that if the southwest had remained in Mexican hands, it would look like the rest of Mexico? Namely backward, undeveloped, oligarchic, with a few families owning 95% of the land and resources and 50%+ of the population in utter poverty. Victor Davis Hansen points out in his book "Mexifornia" that what really rankles the Mexicans is not that the US took the southwest, but that it PROSPERED under the US, unlike what one sees south of the border.
The solution to Mexican poverty is not for the US to import more of it. It is for Mexico to treat its own people better. And stop whining about the US all the time as well.
+18 # Bodiotoo 2012-05-05 08:30
Re: JudgeroyBean... do you mean like ownership here is steadily going the less than 1% who control 40% of all income in the USA may have your history re:the SW in order but if you can not see pararells between the masses here and the elite...and now the "too big to fail banks" and are using taxpayer money to buy up properties to "RENT" rather than have as private ownership...and the money disappears off the middle class table and into a rabbit hole of the 1%. Like being at a casino...stay in th egame long enough and you go home broke...only in the USA now, they are taking your home.
-12 # judgeroybean 2012-05-05 09:47
Actually, that is something that concerns me greatly. I think that globalization has meant the US is becoming more and more like the corrupt oligarchies, not only to our south but those in countries like China and India.

But I do not see how that is an argument in favor of an amnesty. For one obvious thing, fully 1/4 of the illegal immigrants who are not dependents (meaning those who are working, and are not elderly or children) are working in domestic service, as maids, gardeners, drivers, etc. for wealthy individuals. As a general practice, this means illegal immigrants are paid a very small amount of money and occasionally though not always provided with a small living space to do all the unpleasant housework for a wealthy person. But when those illegal immigrants get sick, they go to a public hospital for "free" care. Only it is not free, it is paid for by the general taxpayer, who is thereby effectively subsidizing a wealthy person's maid. And this is true of other social services as well.

I have seen this with my own eyes, in Chevy Chase, MD, in Scarsdale, NY, and here in the tonier suburbs of Boston. I personally find this outrageous. It means that the wealthy get submissive house slaves, part of whose keep is subsidized by the taxpayer. I do not understand how anyone on the left can possibly think this is fair or decent, either for US citizens or the illegal immigrants.
+4 # Maverick 2012-05-05 11:20
Quoting judgeroybean:
For one obvious thing, fully 1/4 of the illegal immigrants who are not dependents (meaning those who are working, and are not elderly or children) are working in domestic service, as maids, gardeners, drivers, etc. for wealthy individuals. As a general practice, this means illegal immigrants are paid a very small amount of money and occasionally though not always provided with a small living space to do all the unpleasant housework for a wealthy person. But when those illegal immigrants get sick, they go to a public hospital for "free" care. Only it is not free, it is paid for by the general taxpayer, who is thereby effectively subsidizing a wealthy person's maid. And this is true of other social services as well. It means that the wealthy get submissive house slaves, part of whose keep is subsidized by the taxpayer. I do not understand how anyone on the left can possibly think this is fair or decent, either for US citizens or the illegal immigrants.

Do you mean to say that wealthy people are treating their domestic help exactly as WalMart treats their employess? Except maybe withOUT the corporate guidance as to how to perfectly game the system and GET every penny of government assistance they are entitled to? We are ALL subsidizing WalMart's employees. What's the difference? And *IF* this is what you mean to say, how unbearably left of you to think that way!
-3 # judgeroybean 2012-05-05 12:16
There is no difference. WalMart is an outrage too. This should be stopped by forcing WlaMart and the rest to provide a living wage and full benefits to its employees, and capping executive salaries. BTW, I heartily recommend Nelson Lichtenstein's excellent book on WalMart, which I read with great interest last year.

The cumulative effects of illegal immigration, the offshoring of well paid US jobs and the casualization of the retail labor force typified by WalMart are that you can kiss the US middle class goodbye. And it is only a matter of time before these trends undermine federal programs like Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare, which are already facing bad long-term prospects. Anyone who wants the facts should have a look at Edward Luce's new book "Time to Start Thinking". We are headed for a two-class society, and illegal immigration is one part of the problem, not the solution.
+3 # Progressive Patriot 2012-05-06 23:57
I don't see illegal immigration to be as much of a problem as the fact that much of it is caused by American corporations exploiting the Mexicans, through NAFTA, and undermining the ability of Mexicans to make a living. in their own country. For example, big agricultural corporations are underselling American produced goods and preventing subsistence farmers from getting a fair price for their products. They can't live on the prices they're being paid. The choice is to find a factory ob in the city, or come to the United States and work in the fields ... maybe even for those same Big Ag corporations who put them out of business.

Many Mexican workers _are_ having taxes taken out of their pay, but they can't file a tax return because they are using a fake Social Security card. So many of them actually end up paying MORE taxes than they would if they could file a return, and get some of it back. The US and state governments are making money off of these people. They might be paying more taxes than you and I are paying.
+5 # lcarrier 2012-05-05 12:07
Can't you see from the ratings you're getting that you are out of touch with the majority? You don't fool anyone with your phonied up statistics. Why don't you get a life?
+2 # Merschrod 2012-05-06 00:13
Excellent point. I'd like to crack down on the illegal employers and that would turn off the flow. I'd support a law that would fine the factory/housewi fe heavily the first time, brutally the second and then expropriate the factory/home on the third round - out onto the street with you!
+6 # James38 2012-05-05 09:56
Excellent comment, Boditoo.
+4 # sameasiteverwas 2012-05-06 00:42
Gee, by hook and crook we took the land with the most gold, the best grazing, and the most fertile soil in the world, and left the Mexicans with an arid desert state and twenty million dollars -- about what a vineyard would cost today. And then blame them for not "prospering."

And don't start mouthing off about the percentage of people in poverty vs. the wealthy who control the resources, until you look at our own country.
+1 # Progressive Patriot 2012-05-06 22:55
Oh, you mean something like what is gradually happening in the United States, where over the past 30 years the top 1% have taken ownership of about half of all assets in this country, and are working on stealing the rest of it?
+1 # Progressive Patriot 2012-05-06 23:32
I think you completely missed the point that someone was making; the entire western hemisphere was stolen from the indigenous peoples by Europeans, including the part that became the original United States. Many people in the Southwest, on both sides of the border, have ancestry that goes back long before there were any Europeans in the region, or in the hemisphere. Interestingly, the first region in the original US that became independent of the British, was what was the original District of Washington, in the NE corner of the state of Tennessee. The British had made it against the law for any Whites to settle west of the Appalachian ridge, but this group actually _leased_ the land from the Cherokees. It's all in Jeff Bigger's book, The United States of Appalachia.
+8 # Interested Observer 2012-05-05 08:36
Thousands of years ago, there were no humans outside of a small part of Africa. There was no "real estate" only land unoccupied by humans and whatever lived on it elsewhere. There are no "promised lands", it has always been a question of who stole it "last-est and best-est".
+11 # KittatinyHawk 2012-05-04 19:32
Indians wanted them also...Too bad they didn't get them then.
+12 # ktrav 2012-05-05 07:57
Amazing how hate is used to justify ugly and unlawful.
+3 # James38 2012-05-05 09:43
Bean, bean, the musical fruit,

Makes an appearance,

Toot, toot; toot, toot....
+4 # sameasiteverwas 2012-05-06 00:29
The man was a SELF-PROCLAIMED Nazi and had many connections with racist organizations -- he was proud of the associations. What is wrong with the right? Why are facts so alien to any debate they attempt? And how far do you go to defend a man who slaughtered a 16-month old child?
-5 # judgeroybean 2012-05-06 11:05
Who is defending him? I only said that using a case like this to discredit the entire state of Arizona is idiotic. Would you condemn all North Africans because of the acts of one nutcase in Toulouse a few weeks back? Or all Korean Americans because of the acts of a couple of nuts who killed people in Virginia and California? But because this happened in Arizona and because it was a white guy, you immediately jump on this tragedy to make some cheap political points about immigration policy. Who is stretching logic and the facts here?
+2 # Bodiotoo 2012-05-06 21:53
I for one, will definitely NOT JUDGE all the nice people of Massachusetts based on JugdeBeans comments. Promise!
+1 # Progressive Patriot 2012-05-06 15:55
Guilt by association ... like the Republican'ts did with Obama in 2008.
+1 # Progressive Patriot 2012-05-06 16:13
According to interviews I've seen with several county sheriffs from Arizona, the law was unnecessary, and the immigration laws of the United States ARE being enforced. One argument that I read a few days ago said that it is against the law for Federal laws to coopt state resources, and that the reverse should be true. Basically, Arizona's law coopts Federal resources when they turn an "illegal" person that they have detained over to ICE ... especially when that person is an American citizen, the Federal resources have to be used to determine that.

The RACIST Arizona law _specifically targets ALL people who _appear_ to be of Hispanic descent ... many of whom were in Arizona before the Whites discovered it as a warm climate in which to retire.

Specifically, this law is a result of White men fearing the day when they will no longer be in the majority .., and that IS racism.
+91 # HerbR 2012-05-04 14:54
Please check out - and support - Southern Poverty Law Center. They know everything about folks like that !
-43 # judgeroybean 2012-05-04 17:20
Have a look at what Alexander Cockburn has revealed about the SPLC in "Counterpunch". Total scam. Morris Dees, et al send out fund-raising letters to little old ladies telling them that the KKK is on the march again. The money goes into an endowment run by Dees, and now his successor. Not my story - Alexander Cockburn, as left as you can get, revealed it. If you want to contribute to Morris Dees' retirement fund, go ahead, be a sucker.
-36 # judgeroybean 2012-05-04 19:51
You don't believe it? Here it is, right from the Wikibio of Morris Dees. And Ken Sliverstein is on the left as well. (I guess the truth hurts)

Dees has faced criticism that he uses too much of the Southern Poverty Law Center's fundraising intake as personal income - and even accusations that the SPLC exists mostly as a fundraising vehicle. A 2000 article by Ken Silverstein in Harper's Magazine, titled "The Church of Morris Dees", alleged that Dees kept the SPLC focused on fighting anti-minority groups like the KKK, instead of on issues like homelessness, mostly because of the greater fundraising potential of the former. The article also claimed that the SPLC "spends twice as much on fund-raising--$ 5.76 million last year--as it does on legal services for victims of civil rights abuses."[18] In 2005, Washington Times editor Wesley Pruden called Dees "nothing more than a scam artist."[19] Stephen Bright, an Atlanta-based civil rights attorney, wrote in 2007 that Dees was "a con man and fraud", who "has taken advantage of naive, well-meaning people–some of moderate or low incomes–who believe his pitches and give to his $175-million operation."[20]
[end quote]

So much for the Southern Poverty Law Center. Complete fraud, but like they say, a sucker is born every minute.
-18 # judgeroybean 2012-05-05 05:27
All you people giving thumbs down to this - you are doing yourselves a disservice. If you cannot see through an obvious fraud like Morris Dees, who has repeatedly had his scam exposed by left-wingers like Alexander Cockburn and Ken Silverstein, why should anyone believe a word of your overwrought venting and ranting about Arizona? It just underscores what I have said about your inability to judge facts objectively when it comes to the immigration laws and popular sentiment, and how you have marginalized yourselves from the mainstream.

But don't let me stop you. Go ahead. Vent away. Send Morris Boy a big fat check. Put an "I Hate Arizona" bumper sticker on your car. Chant some dumb La Raza slogan. The rest of the country is moving in a different direction, though.
+11 # Maverick 2012-05-05 11:26
Quoting judgeroybean:
The rest of the country is moving in a different direction, though.

Really? So NOW you're the self-appointed spokesman for "the rest of the country" TOO? With your ego soaring that high, some random eagle is going to smack you in the face.
-10 # lcarrier 2012-05-05 12:10
Why don't you move in a different direction. You're down on America? Love it or leave it.
0 # Progressive Patriot 2012-05-07 00:11
Unfortunately true. There are many supposedly well meaning organizations with which most of their funding either goes for more fundraising, or into someone's pocket.

My father would not give to the Red Cross, because too much of their money never trickles down to their programs.
+7 # Texas Aggie 2012-05-04 22:15
Quoting Alexander Cockburn is the moral equivalent of quoting Jerome Corsi. Neither of them has a clue as to what they're talking about and make up most of their stuff. Patrick was the only Cockburn that stuck around when the brains were handed out and he got more than his share.
+65 # deejaycee 2012-05-04 15:09
judgroybean, you start your comment out with a good premise; "guilt by association" is never right and then you do the same thing when lambasting the liberal left. It is interesting that the only time I have ever read, or heard, someone use the vile term 'Nazi' came from the right wing. Logical people do not need to call names to make their point.

The left has practical solutions to the illegal immigration problem (yes, it's a problem, but one that is far less now that our economy is so bad), but solutions have to be enforceable and humane.

I live in Arizona and my brain is not fried. I am smart enough to know that the illegal immigration problem will never be solved by the unconscionable tactics used by that power hungry sheriff, Joe Arpaio.

Instead we get the kind of wackos that embrace his tactics and go off the rails. Hate has never solved problems but it has created so many terrible acts. Prejudice is behind all of the stupid laws you see passed by the right wing legislature in my state.
-44 # judgeroybean 2012-05-04 17:24
The left's practical solution for illegal immigration is "comprehensive immigration reform", a euphemism for another amnesty. Look at a public opinion poll. This is opposed by a 2-1 margin. The Congress cannot even get a relatively watered down version passed in the form of the Dream Act. I know, the left thinks that this is a sign of racism and the rest. But the fact is the majority of US citizens want US immigration laws enforced, just as they are enforced in other countries. US citizens do not believe in importing poverty from Mexico, Central America and the rest of the world. You can always pick a nutcase or two to try to discredit a viewpoint, but public opinion polls do not lie. The majority in this country want the current immigration laws enforced, as we were promised that they would be enforced when the 1987 amnesty was passed.
+8 # cadan 2012-05-04 23:37
Judge --- you've talked about public opinion being 2-1 against "illegal" immigrants at least twice (here and below: here, that amnesty is opposed 2-1; below, that enforcement of anti-immigrant laws is desired 2-1).

But i imagine that cannot be the reason why you're concerned about undocumented immigrants.

Otherwise, you'd also be concerned about our multi-trillion dollar fruitless wars, which large majorities also oppose.

So, i'm wondering why you are opposed.

Especially since you must surely be keenly aware of the fact that the brown skinned people were here first, and were murdered by our ancestors (so i suppose i'm assuming your ancestors were European).

This is not a rhetorical question, as i'm genuinely interested in why you would be so opposed to "illegal" immigration.
-12 # judgeroybean 2012-05-05 09:02
You are wrong. The Native Americans were not murdered by our ancestors. They died overwhelmingly from Old World diseases like smallpox and the like. It is simple historical fact, and all you need to do is read a few accounts like the work of Albert Crosby and David Noble to find the evidence. BTW, how do think that Cortes and his two dozen buddies conquered the Aztecs? By murdering them all? 25 people against an empire? No, there was a massive smallpox epidemic that decimated the Aztecs. In addition, the Aztecs were not exactly the most popular rulers, so it was easy for Cortes to enroll other Indian tribes to fight against them.

I did march against the Iraq War several times in early 2003, and opposed it from before it started, so my conscience is clear on that score.

Illegal immigration (please do not use scare quotes, just a feeble exercise to make it seem like the word is inapplicable) is a disaster for the US in innumerable ways. It overloads our social service (schools, hospitals, food stamp programs, etc.) and prison systems (local, state, federal). It pits low wage US workers against illegal labor in an unwinnable fight. And the remittance regime, whereby illegals who are usually not paying taxes are allowed to send money to relatives abroad, drains the US economy of purchasing power (tens of billions each year). Seems like a high price to pay for some imagined "genocide" that never happened, and to make the whining Mexican gvmt. happy.
+15 # James38 2012-05-05 10:19
Bean, you say "They died overwhelmingly from Old World diseases like smallpox..."

Go to

for another look at the Smallpox issue.

Whether or not the germ theory was known to these people, they knew that "inoculating" a person with infected blankets etc would transmit the disease.

While there is considerable controversy as to how widespread the practice was, this research solidly shows that it did happen, that the American Indians were deliberately killed using smallpox as a weapon, and that part of the reason was thinking that they were "subhuman".
-11 # judgeroybean 2012-05-05 12:02
Ah, I knew it. The old Lord Amherst story. Well, I do not have the reference handy, but the Boston Globe did a long article on this tall tale back in the 1990s. It appears that the original article making this claim was by some obscure historian and was published in a relatively obscure American historical journal back in 1944 or so. From there it took on a life of its own, and is now presented as the SOP for bacteriological warfare against native Americans for all of the Americas. There is a little problem, though. The "correspondence " cited in that article does not exist. No other historian has ever been able to find the letters cited in the original article. In other words, it is a fraud. Or so the Boston Globe concluded in its article in the 1990s.

And of course it is fraud. People did not know about germs and microorganisms and viruses in the 18th century, and believed that smallpox and the like were caused by humors in the aether and other mysterious things that were beyond human control.
+9 # James38 2012-05-05 13:22
Bean, I gave you the reference. and you ignore the fact that it didn't matter how much was known about germs, the fact of transmission was known.

You suggest as if it were proof an article in the Boston Globe?

And then you say "..Of course it is fraud."? Evidence? You give none.

More demonstration of your use of propaganda and innuendo. You demean your own arguments. The facts you present are only there to make your propaganda seem more likely, not as part of serious reasoning.
-5 # judgeroybean 2012-05-05 15:05
You gave a reference that cites correspondence that does not exist. Do you understand? I have read accounts citing that same exchange with Lord Amherst and his subordinate many times. But other historians have tried to find those letters, and have not been able to. I do not have the Boston Globe piece in question, but in it several US historians were interviewed specifically about those letters that were cited as evidence in your "reference", which takes from the original obscure article back in 1944. They all said the story about Lord Amherst is not true. The letters do NOT exist. It is all made up. And you are wrong, there was no notion of transmission of disease by invisible germs before it was proved by Pasteur. The whole story is an obvious fraud. It is an anachronistic claim made up by some leftist historian back in the 1940s, and has been completely discredited.

But if you want to persist in your flat earth view, go ahead. I have learned that the truth does not matter for ideologues.
+7 # James38 2012-05-05 21:18
Bean, go to:

You will find an extensive discussion including images of the letters that exist.

Calling it a "fraud" is apparently quite fraudulent.

I am getting tired of your obstructions and twisted rhetoric.
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-05-06 08:09
I think it's interesting that after all that has happened in the past 150 years, you're still defending the people and ideology that attempted genocide against the Native Americans. It's pretty hard to defend morally, ethically or logically. But why should that stop you?
-3 # judgeroybean 2012-05-06 11:17
Oh, so now it is "attempted genocide", not "genocide" pure and simple. Tell me, who drew up the plans? Who "attempted" to carry them out?

There was no genocide, not in North America anyway (Argentina is different; there the army actually did systematically exterminate the Native Americans, and there were murderous campaigns in places like Peru that were far bloodier than anything in North America). There was a virgin field epidemic, and it killed 80% of the Native Americans in the Western Hemisphere, long before Lord Amherst was ever born. And the same thing happened elsewhere when local peoples did not have immunities to Old World diseases. Tell me, do you think that the Spanish flu that swept the world at the end of WWI and killed tens if not hundreds of millions of people worldwide - was that "attempted genocide" by the Chinese? Was SARS a failed effort at "attempted genocide" too?

Sorry if the historical facts do not fit your comic book vision of how history took place. FWIW, I do think what happened to the Native Americans was tragic, but that does not make it intentional.
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-05-06 15:02
Philip Henry Sheridan would be one good place to start "The only good Indian is a dead Indian". Another would be Andrew Myrick's quote, "let them eat grass".

You only have to acknowledge well-establishe d, well-documented , uncontroversial truths about BASIC American history to realize everything you're on a mission to disprove is like disproving the Holocaust.

What is "genocide" anyway? I never made the accusation that it was successful genocide. Afterall, there are a few Native Americans left! The Holocaust wans't genocide either. It was only attempted genocide. Actual genocide has maybe never actually occured. Attempted genocide is another matter.

You're not just arguing against me and several other posters (I only came into the argument a few hours ago), but you're arguing against established facts.

Facts DO have an agenda and it happens to disagree with yours.
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-05-06 15:06
Otherwise, I think it's ABSOLUTELY GREAT that a self-avowed conservative is coming on these threads to LOUDLY proclaim all the crimes against humanity commited against the Native Americans were a hoax.

Keep doing it.

As the demographic tide keeps turning against your philosophical outlook over the next decade or so, just remember how much of that was a direct result of the opinions spouted off by your side on the internet.

Ten years from now, repugs will be arguing that none of them ever claimed the attempted genocide against the Native Americans was a hoax. This is a HUGE political loser for your side of the argument. The only thing the left has to do about it is to keep you continuing that argument.
0 # Billy Bob 2012-05-06 15:14
By the way, it seems to me that the modern argument you're making started when rush limpo claimed no harm was done to the Native Americans. Afterall, "there were 3 million of them when the whites first arrived and there are 3 million of them now". The only trouble is that there were over 100 million of them then, AND are whites also to stick with their pre-columbian New World population?

By the way, I looked over the entire thread and didn't see ONE link supporting your claim that the Native American attempted genocide never occured. Since your ideas are EXTREMELY FAR from the mainstream, the onus is on YOU to prove your point.

Do you have any links to support this outlandish claim that don't come from obvious right-wing sources with a strange axe to grind like michael medved? I'm willing to accept some facts if you're willing to provide any.
+1 # Bodiotoo 2012-05-06 21:50
So apparently the massacre and buring of the two Pequot encampment villages in south east Connecticut was not genocide...circ ling the stockade and torching the two sites while women, children and men slept and then shooting any escaping from the flames and then herding the remaing ones off to the Carribean as slaves was not an act of genocide...just good old fashion house cleaning! Mr. Bean you stand CORRECTED! (p.e in all the months I have read RSN I think you get the most thumbs down...good job!)
0 # James38 2012-05-08 11:04
Bean, you are wrong. The correspondence does exist. See the reference below, and learn something about the difference between opinions and facts and propaganda.
+5 # lcarrier 2012-05-05 12:12
Who brought the smallpox? Those blankets were given to them by U.S. soldiers.
-13 # judgeroybean 2012-05-05 14:30
Wake up. It is a fraud. Do you understand? It didn't happen that way. Do you really think that Dr. Conquistador Cortes or Dr. General Custer were some diabolical scientists who sent their minions forth with poisoned blankets? When the Russian explorers went through Siberia in the 18th and 19th centuries, and the same kind of virgin field epidemic occurred - Was that all some evil plot hatched by the White Man too? I would bet you believe the Nation of Islam nonsense about the evil Yacoub, and the ravings of the New Black Panther Party about how AIDS was created by evil white scientists to carry out genocide against African Americans. Well, even Spike Lee gave up trying to claim that the flooding of New Orleans was an nefarious plot by Mister Charlie. You should drop this nonsense too. It just did not happen that way.
+3 # James38 2012-05-05 21:20
Icarrier, see the reference in my recent post just above, answering Bean's fraud charge, which he repeats over and over again, in the face of evidence to the contrary.

0 # cadan 2012-05-05 12:21
First --- i'm glad you marched against the war against Iraq. That was the right thing to do, and you did the right thing, no matter what you think about immigration. (I did too, and lots of other people did, but the govt was determined not to listen to us.)

Second, see citation above to Jared Diamond's book: The Aztecs, Mayas, and Incas hardly had model governments (whether popular or unpopular), but that certainly did not give Spain the right to cause the death of millions more who had not died from disease.

(And the Spanish imposed their own oppressive religion on the people.)

More to the point, the natives in the (future) US were not organized into the sort of super states that those to the south were.

So the human sacrifices done south of what the (future) US would not justify the takeover that happened here no matter what.

Finally, i'm still puzzled about why "illegal" immigration is such a hot button issue for you. (I think it's ok for me to use quotes in '"illegal" immigration' because i'm not ready to concede---does any law even use the term "immigration"?)

I understand why some people are anti-immigrant: they just don't know better (roughly speaking). But you do, if you read half the books you cite.

Surely you must realize that immigration will be at most a third order effect in the economy (after war and industrial policy).

-6 # judgeroybean 2012-05-05 14:40
Well, the way I look at this is the way I look at Western Hemisphere slavery. Lots of Americans believe that the US was uniquely evil in enslaving Africans, but It wasn't. Research shows that about 4-5% of the Africans enslaved ended up in what is current US territory. Far more ended up in the Caribbean, and also Brazil, which took 25%. I think slavery was a terrible thing, and the US should do something to atone for it. And in fact it is doing so, belatedly. But it is another matter entirely to say that the US, and by extension the US taxpayer, should pick up the tab for the entire Western Hemisphere. Similarly, I do not see why we should let the governments of places like Mexico dump their native peoples and mestizos, whose basic needs have been neglected for centuries, on the US.

One well-establishe d fact is that poor people generally consume far more in government services than they will ever pay for in taxes and other contributions generated through the work that they do. The less educated such people are, the less they will contribute, and the higher the cost will be to the US taxpayer in expenditures for services. The same goes for healthcare; the less preventive healthcare that is received when these people are in their home countries (and there is negligible healthcare for the poor in Mexico), the higher the cost to the US taxpayer. To repeat myself: The solution to Mexican poverty is that the Mexican gvmt. takes better care of its own citizens.
+3 # Maverick 2012-05-05 18:59
Quoting judgeroybean:
To repeat myself: The solution to Mexican poverty is that the Mexican gvmt. takes better care of its own citizens.

Then, by extension, the US government should take better care of ITS own citizens -- including the 500,000 U.S.-born children currently living in Mexico.
+4 # Maverick 2012-05-05 12:28
Quoting judgeroybean:
You are wrong. The Native Americans were not murdered by our ancestors.

Really? Perhaps you'll not mind explaining your version of reality to the descendants of those who watched these men die?
"An uprising of Santee Sioux in Minnesota ends with the hanging of 38 Sioux men -- the largest mass execution in U.S. history. The execution was ordered by President Lincoln only two days after he signed the Emancipation Proclamation."
-7 # judgeroybean 2012-05-05 14:49
I was responding to the claim that "all of the native Americans were massacred by our ancestors". That is a charge of genocide, frequently made on the left. But research shows that upwards of 80% of Native Americans died of Old World diseases, in what scholars call a demographic collapse. And it didn't just happen here. It happened in Siberia, and in the Hawaiian Islands, and a few other places where the natives had no immunity to Old World diseases.

And yes, I have heard of the Trail of Tears, etc. But while I favor government measures to improve the lot of descendants of native American tribes who lived in the US, I do not think that US taxpayers should pick up the check for the neglect and mistreatment of Native Americans in the rest of the Western Hemisphere. That is the duty and responsibility of the respective governments, first among them Mexico, which has a terrible record of treatment of its native peoples and mestizos. I also do not think that just because a Mexican or Guatemalan has some gripe about Columbus he should get a green card. I do not see the logic of that one either, any more than I see the logic of a Haitian getting a green card when the colonial power that raped his country is France. The US should not get stuck with cleaning up the entire hemisphere; we have enough poor people and enough problems as it is.
+56 # Abigail 2012-05-04 15:18
Unless you are a Native American, we are all immigrants or children of immigration. The first immigration laws were passed in the mid-nineteenth century, after the railroads were built, and some people were concerned that the Chinese workers who had been "Shanghaied" here (ie. kidnapped) to provide cheap labor to build the railroads. There was fear that some might remain, so immigration laws were suddenly passed. Quotas were set to favor Western Europeans,since most of the white people living here were from those areas. Of all the racial, unequal laws that have been passed in this country, the immigration laws are the worst. Now we find another example of fltagrant racism, in unjust application of immigration laws, which are another blight on our reputation of spreading freedom. What irony!
-42 # judgeroybean 2012-05-04 17:28
The past laws and their enforcement are not relevant to this discussion. We were promised by Reagan in 1987 when the last amnesty was passed that there would be no further amnesties for illegal aliens. Period. The enforcement provisions of Simpson-Mazzoll i were defunded by Ted Kennedy and his buddies on Capitol Hill, which is why we have this current problem. Once again, look at any public opinion poll. People are not interested in debating what happened to the Chinese and the rest 100 years ago. They want CURRENT immigration law to be enforced NOW, by a 2-1 margin. And though the left appears not to like this fact, we live in a democracy, and the majority's will should prevail. And it will, in the SCOTUS next month, and then state by state thereafter.
+10 # tingletlc 2012-05-05 00:27
Quoting judgeroybean:
We were promised by Reagan in 1987 when the last amnesty was passed that there would be no further amnesties for illegal aliens. Period.

Hm. Note that, as the term-limited, Constitutionall y checked, and mortal President of the United States, Reagan had no standing to make such a promise.
-7 # judgeroybean 2012-05-05 09:10
Interesting how you people who love illegal immigration invoke the law when it suits your purpose, namely to prevent the immigration laws from being enforced.

Look at it this way: Reagan was able to get Simpson-Mazzoll i passed by promising that there would be no further amnesties and the immigration laws would be strictly enforced going forward. The subsequent lack of enforcement has left a bad taste in the mouths of most Americans, who feel that they have been sold a bill of goods. It does not help that NAFTA, about which US citizens were given promises that it would reduce illegal immigration by raising living standards in Mexico, in fact caused a massive new wave of illegal immigration from rural Mexico (if NAFTA were up for consideration now, it would never pass).

The end result is that most people want current law, which has never been enforced, to be enforced at last. They want the borders and ports of entry secured. And they do not want another amnesty, in part because it also penalizes those who are trying to navigate the legal system, and allowing illegal aliens to stay ultimately penalizes those abiding the law. If Obama is re-elected, he may well bring up the Dream Act, but it will never pass the House. In the meantime, the states are going to do what they should have done 20+ years ago, namely start enforcing the immigration laws that the Feds won't enforce. Sorry, butMECHA, NCLR, MALDEF, the ACLU and the rest have lost. Game over.
+8 # tingletlc 2012-05-05 11:18
Quoting judgeroybean:
Interesting how you people who love illegal immigration invoke the law when it suits your purpose, namely to prevent the immigration laws from being enforced.

You have no way of knowing my position on immigration, legal or illegal. I'm simply pointing out the inanity of the remark about Reagan.
-4 # judgeroybean 2012-05-05 12:05
You make reference to the constitution, in an attempt to deny the importance of a promise by the President to enforce the immigration laws going forward as the price of getting an amnesty passed. The constitution also talks about securing US borders, by the way. And this also makes MY point, which is that the federal government has lost all credibility on this issue by not doing what it repeatedly promised that it would do in the past, namely enforce the immigration laws. Small wonder that states have given up, and are passing their own laws at this point.
+6 # Charles3000 2012-05-05 16:14
We have large numbers of undocumented aliens in this country BECAUSE OF the crazy immigration laws. The existing laws need to be changed and made reasonable not enforced. The present laws take away the freedoms of American citizens as well as the rights of others. They need fixing, not enforcing.
-4 # judgeroybean 2012-05-05 17:12
No, that is incorrect. We have lots of illegal aliens because (1) The existing laws were not enforced, despite promises that they would be when Reagan got Simpson-Mazzoll i through Congress in 1987 (chiefly because Teddie Kennedy defunded the enforcement); and (2) Despite another set of federal gvmt. promises about how NAFTA would raise Mexican living standards, it in fact ruined the livelihood of millions of Mexican peasants, and these people streamed north. And when they did, millions more started following from Central America and elsewhere.

The laws are actually quite reasonable. They state that if you want to become a US citizen, you have to do it through the existing legal process, as tens of millions of foreign nationals have in fact done, despite all the ranting about racist laws that I read here. But the do not award US citizenship on demand. Sorry.

Despite what you seem to think, the present laws simply have not been enforced; we would not have 11-15 million illegal aliens in the US had they been. As for "fixing" them, if you mean an amnesty, good luck. It failed abysmally in 2007, and now that the US is stuck with low growth and high unemployment the chance of an amnesty is zero. If Obama is re-elected and tries to push "comprehensive immigration reform", he will never get it through the House of Representatives . Even many centrist Democrats oppose things like the Dream Act, at least in its current form. It will never pass Congress.
+2 # sameasiteverwas 2012-05-06 00:59
The existing legal process you believe is so fair includes a waiting period of 9 to 11 years to legally enter the US. You think this is workable? Over 11 million Latinos live -- and most of them work, and consume retail goods, and pay taxes -- in the US. How much do you really want to spend to round them all up & send them home? And in your mind what would be a reasonable duration in the privately-run for-profit prisons that detain such immigrants, when the owners of said prisons who rake in more taxpayer money the longer they hold someone even suspected of being an illegal immigrant. And have an enormously powerful lobby. Don't you see anything wrong with how we are handling this process?
-2 # judgeroybean 2012-05-06 11:29
There are 7 billion people on planet Earth. Most of them are poor, and living in countries with no prospects. If the US does not enforce its immigration laws, a large number will try to move to the US. It is already happening. The costs of that are staggering, particularly given the fact that most potential migrants have no skills and are uneducated, and consume more social services than the taxes they will pay.

The claim that illegal immigrants pay taxes was examined in a long article in the Boston Globe in 2007, during the amnesty bill that went down to defeat in the Congress. The Globe, a very pro-amnesty paper, concluded that roughly 1/3 of the illegal aliens pay some though not necessarily all taxes, 1/3 do not pay any taxes, and 1/3 are dependents (children, non-working spouses, elderly). But all of them are consuming services, as a trip to the emergency room at a public hospital will quickly prove. That does not even address the issue of the costs of crime committed by illegal aliens. At present we have 300 Mexicans on death row, and that barely scratches the surface of that problem.

Sorry, but US citizens have looked at the cost side of the ledger, and decided that the costs are greater than the benefits. (Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has crunched the numbers and shown conclusively that this is the case.) And another amnesty is a green light for another wave of illegals, so non-enforcement will only perpetuate the problem.
+5 # Bodiotoo 2012-05-05 08:34
All immigration laws need to be understood to understand where and why the law exist. I personally never see any borders when flying, man made to creat jurisdictions.. .and make claims...rather than illegal, I prefer undocumanted... but in this world I think we all should be allowed to move freely.
+6 # Bodiotoo 2012-05-05 08:46
We live in a Democratic Republic...and that is not pure democracy ...and Mr. Madison and the founders recognized it, feared the general public and created a check and balance system so that the mob could be slowed...i.e. pure democracy can be knee jerk...the Constituion is designed to delay and take time to fully review encatments of the governing laws.
+30 # cadan 2012-05-04 15:20
I guess everybody must know about Arpaio (who is working for birthers, as i guess everybody also knows).

But Arpaio has been elected again and again in Maricopa county. And an amazing number of people like him apparently.

I think he has a gift for appealing to the very worst in people, and that's the secret of his success. (He's also promoted on right wing sites like WMD.)

Anyhow, the author is right to put "Sheriff" in quotes, because although Arpaio is a sheriff, he is a politician first.
+39 # mjc 2012-05-04 15:20
We CAN begin to fathom the madness out there but we need to acknowledge that it is happening. We have governors advocating wiping out all the wolves...of any particular protect...wait for it...THE HUNTERS! Not our environment, not protecting corporate ranchers but hunters. And we have people in Arizona who don't want ANY immigration, legal or illegal. Many I think are afraid of being overcome by people of a different culture, people of brown skin, Hispanics. These nutcases aren't afraid that there will be no jobs for the whites in America because there aren't whites lining up to do the grovelly work that Mexicans do. Racism is a huge factor; HUGE! But the whole concept that you can stop someone who "doesn't look right", i.e., brown skin and faltering English, is madness, the kind that will bring this country down.
+44 # davegowdey 2012-05-04 15:22
First off - what's wrong with Arizona is that over the last 20 years it has been overrun with these carpetbagging nutcases and racist retirees. Arpaio is from Massachusetts and had only lived in Arizona a few years before running for sheriff. Jan Brewer is from California. Less than 25% of the state has lived there 20 years -and those who have come have been largely ignorant, bigoted, and right wing. They've moved the political landscape far to the right. Many natives such as myself have given up and left. Poor Arizona -we should have put the border fence along the Colorado River.
+22 # mrbadexample 2012-05-04 15:53
Just curious--exactl y HOW CRAZY do you have to be in order to be too crazy to be elected to public office in Arizona? Is the talent pool really shallow? or is 50% +1 of the electorate really nuts? And if these guys get away from this without being called on it, what does it take to move us back to 49 States? I'll help put up the fence.
+41 # KOLOHE1 2012-05-04 16:06
Arizona has the same problems that every other state with illegal immigrants has, only the illegal immigrants not the illegal employers get prosecuted. In Texas one of the biggest supporters of Rick Perry is a large developer and builder, and they have for years fought against tougher immigration policies, you wonder why? It would cut into their profit margins. It is easier to prosecute and deport illegal immigrants and make them out to be bad people than those who profit from their desperation. You don't have to be a bleedin heart leftie to see where the real injustice lies. Furthermore, who picks the majority of the agricultural products that are grown in this country, it is certainly not law-abiding citizens, because they like to sit in ari-conditioned offices, not be outside with the sun and the insects. The immigration policies have to changed because they are not serving the law-abiding citizens of this country, but continue to aid and abet those who wish to have the highest profit margin. It is time people woke up and realized that immigrants only come because there is work here and that no American will do this work or at least not for long. Talk to some farmers i Georgia who's crops are rotting because the "illegals" have left and they can't find any "legals" to pick them. Who picked that strawberry you had with your sundae or your breakfast or even in your jam? I assure you there are no strawbwerry-pic king machines and no Americans doing the work...
+27 # Pondering and Pandering 2012-05-04 16:41
judgeroybean is quite right concerning the actual violent incident itself concerning J.T. Ready. But critics like me are connecting the ideas of these people and their anger toward people who are different than they are as promoting an unhealthy envronment in Arizona and much of the nation. Russel Pearce has had a long-time relationship with J.T. Ready and Sheriff Arpaio. The human rights records of these people are apalling. The great question before us is not the illegality of undocumented and unauthorized "illegal" immigration into the United States. The undocumented people here who obey all other laws and pay taxes and work with us can easily ackowledge their violation of the rule of law and pay the civil fine required. The huge elephant in the room (and this is a big reason Latinos are not thrilled with the GOP these days) is that white, older, male, conservative Americans who are almost enitrely Repbublican and their Stepford wives frankly continue to struggle with prejudice based on race. The big hue and cry they make over "illegality" of immmigration is a big cover for their discomfort with brown skin and the differing cultural and linquistic context it exists in. Latinos are and do make superb Americans!
+17 # photonracer 2012-05-04 16:43
What the hell is wrong with AZ? We are a sunshine state (with a nice dry heat) that welcomes all the Repubnican whack jobs because they have more than adequate disposable income (the 1%). Most are double dipper ex-military or some government retirement as well as collecting SS. Some are even triple dippers. Most are Repubnican who occupy cookie cutter communities of identical condos and raise hell with the neighbor who dares have their own flag pole or slight shade of paint different. (Socialism anyone?)These imports to AZ concentrate in white, over 50 age group ghettos,in Maricopa, Pinal, Yuma and La Paz counties. The rich Repnican ranchers in north AZ own the jobs and influence the minority laborers, miners, native peoples, etc. They artificially tilt the electorate toward Repubnican. The Dems of SE AZ want to secede from the rest of the state (no that is not a joke) in order to have less Repubnican influence at the border. So what the hell is wrong with AZ? We got your crappy expatriates like a bad case of flu that won't go away!
+17 # Maverick 2012-05-04 16:51
Net immigration from Mexico began to fall in 2005 and is currently near zero -- nearly as many folks are moving back to Mexico as there are sneaking across the border into the infamous El Norte. No doubt McCain and the KKK Brewer crowd will claim full credit for this "sea change" but they don't deserve it. In my perfect world, ALL the undocumented workers would go home for the same month (call it a vacation) and let the US economy implode. If one month doesn't do it, two or three months in the middle of harvest surely will. The increasing danger of a border crossing is only a small PART of what has changed. The US economy is in decline while things are getting better in Mexico. Stay home you guys and be patient. Before long the gringo tourists will be standing in line to bring their money down to you.
-19 # judgeroybean 2012-05-04 19:57
Wayne Cornelius at USCD did a different study and came up with different conclusions. If you look at the methodology of the Pew Hispanic Research Center's study, you will see that it relies on a considerable amount of induction and extrapolation from one age cohort. There is also evidence that illegal aliens are not moving back to Mexico, but rather from US states that are enforcing the immigration laws to those that are not. The Pew Center also claims that the high point of illegal immigration was 2000; this flies in the face of a huge amount of evidence, which holds that it did not peak until 2005. Moreover, it does not address the issue of OTM (other than Mexican) illegal immigrants, a major problem in its own right. It simply is not a reliable study.
+3 # James38 2012-05-05 10:37
Do whatever you can to encourage Mexico to rid itself of the Drug War madness. Mexico has become a dangerous war-zone because of this crazed policy of the US.

Mexico needs to get real and protect its own citizens (and its tourist industry) by getting out of the Drug War mess.
+17 # jwb110 2012-05-04 16:57
Not only are they adle pated from the sun, they have bought into the smoke and mirrors of immigration and have become paranoid like the rest of their kind. Once they realize that they have been snookered by the GOP they will not be happy. I am also interested in who will pick their citrus crop this year.
+1 # photonracer 2012-05-05 22:31
Quoting jwb110:
I am also interested in who will pick their citrus crop this year.

Dude haven't you heard? We don't do citrus, cotton or cattle any more.
We grow travel trailer "resorts" where food once grew. Citrus is imported. Where we once grew cattle we now grow broccoli and lettuce. The copper industry is raping the land so that will be gone soon with whatever potable water we once had. Stay away, vacation in New Mexico.
+15 # lcarrier 2012-05-04 17:01
Both Arpaio and Brewer are racists. May their kind be relegated to a pit of Dante's hell.
+8 # rhgreen 2012-05-04 19:14
I feel I sort of have a right to criticize Arizona. I never lived there but my parents were married there, or so they told me. I have no reason to doubt it. I have a suggestion. New Mexico seems to be a more sensible state, unlike Arizona and Texas. Why not encourage New Mexico to invade and take over Arizona, put all its racist politicians in jail (or dump them across the Rio Grande and let the Mexican border gangs take care of them. Or maybe just run Arizona from Santa Fe, as a colony. Give Arizonans their rights back when they can demonstrate that they're civilized adults. That will be a while.
+14 # sphereless 2012-05-04 21:02
Seems what the non-Judge-judge and everybody else hasn't noticed, is what tools everyone is for even focusing on the issue of immigration without mentioning that corporations in Arizona and elsewhere desperately want illegal immigrants working for them. Corporations pay big $$$ for lobbiests to insure lawmakers make laws that hurt immigrants. Corporations can easily control mass amounts of people, if those people are afraid of being locked up just because their skin is brown. Corporations can pay lower wages to people who don't want to complain, be noticed or make waves. Even legal immigrants have learned to fear corporate power and the law just because of their skin color, so even legal immigrants don't protest too much. Having a large population of illegal immigrants, which is what corporate America wants, keeps wages and working conditions down for everyone because no one at the bottom of the economic barrel dares to speak up.
+6 # James38 2012-05-05 10:43
Ouch. I hadn't quite realized that twisted level of Corporate "logic". Unfortunately it makes too much sense, and fits too well with the other devious crap corporations (now "persons") come up with.

For example, the plethora of lies in infomercials touting the splendors of "fracking" (safe, safe, clean, clean), "clean coal", (a bigger oxymoron than "military intelligence") etc.
+11 # sphereless 2012-05-04 21:03
Judge-whoeveryo uare , you are mistaken, a majority of Americans do not agree with Arizona's racist tack against immigrants. In fact some of us have stopped visiting your state entirely, as much for your position on immigrantion and people of color, as for your state's position on guns. Unfortunately, my pop lives in Arizona, Love him, but if he wants to see me he'll have to venture across the border. Nor would I consider visiting Florida, or any other state who so whole-heartedly legislates against women and people of color. I am not even a person of color, and I would not feel safe in Arizona or states like Florida, just because I'm a woman. I cannot imagine how any person of color, man or woman, can stomach living there.

So, go ahead and tout fix-news talking points that all informed people know are lies. The polls the non-Judge-judge referenced are surely bunk
-14 # judgeroybean 2012-05-05 05:39
I do not live in Arizona. I live in Massachusetts. Here we have not only Mexican and Central American illegals, but also 200,000 Brazilian illegals and a smaller but sizable number of Haitian illegals, as well as lots of Chinese illegals, as well as at least two Kenyan illegals. It has become a large issue of late because of a spate of crimes, including vehicular homicide and murder, committed by illegals. Google up Nicolas Guaman, Blanca Contreras, Isaias Naranjo, Obyango Obama, Victor Guaman, Marcelo Almeida, et al, for details. Massachusetts will probably be one of the last states to adopt an Arizona-like law, but it will happen eventually. Public opinion polls here indicate growing unhappiness with non-enforcement , and anger about crime by and heavy consumption of social services by illegal aliens in the state. And as other states start enforcing the law, more illegals will pour into Massachusetts, further driving up the anger about non-enforcement . On top of all that, the US is headed for a deep recession within the next year - no way it can be avoided given the budgetary realities, which will mean tax increases and spending cuts by the end of this year. That will drive unemployment way up again, and ratchet up unhappiness about illegal immigration. It is just a matter of a few years before full enforcement, with no amnesty, becomes the norm nationwide.
+4 # James38 2012-05-05 11:10
Er, Judgie-boy, better give us a list of all the non-minority criminals in Mass as well, since cherry-picking this way doesn't prove anything but your penchant for propaganda.

Sorry to hear you live in Mass, but then I would be sorry for any place that you live.
-12 # judgeroybean 2012-05-05 17:18
It is not minority criminals. It is illegal immigrant criminals. And it is not propaganda, it is fact. Google the names and see for yourself. It is getting front page coverage in the papers and top of the show coverage on local TV news. And citizens are unhappy about it, especially the case of Matt Denice, who was run over and killed by the drunk-out-of-hi s-mind Nicolas Guaman (who had had an earlier felony arrest, and should have been deported).

If you lived here, you would know that Scott Brown is using this against quite effectively against Elizabeth Warren in their Senate contest. Warren has opposed Secure Communities, as does Governor Deval Patrick. This may sink Warren's campaign, among other things (like her claim that she is part Cherokee, which has hurt her badly in the last week).
+5 # sameasiteverwas 2012-05-06 01:11
People aren't "illegals," -- using the word doesn't make it a word. And, according to the non-partisan Morrison Institute for Public Policy, crime rates go DOWN when an immigrant population moves into an urban setting, anecdotal "evidence" to the contrary. And, claiming you're not racist, you truly believe the bunkum talking point that the part-Cherokee-n ess of Elizabeth Warren has "hurt her badly in the last week"? Wow.
-2 # judgeroybean 2012-05-06 11:39
It wasn't me who said that about Warren, it was the very liberal Emily Rooney (daughter of the late Andy Rooney) who said it over and over again on her local radio show on WGBH (NPR) two days ago. The Boston Globe also said it was a stumble, and the problem is that it allows Scott Brown to portray Warren as an affirmative action receiving elitist. It does not matter that it isn't true; it is definitely going to hurt Warren, and will be used repeatedly against her by Karl Rove et al.

If you believe that crime rates go down when an immigrant population moves into an urban setting, you must be thinking of a different country. Visit Lawrence, MA, recently crowned by Boston Magazine as the state's worst hellhole. Or Chelsea, MA. I could list many other such places, but one basic thing to note is that Latino gangs have spread all over the US, as is readily acknowledged by the DOJ and FBI, and the spread is directly related to illegal immigration. Does MS-13 ring a bell?

As for "illegals", it is short-hand for "illegal alien". Despite the fatuous campaign by Monica Novoa and Nativo Lopez to ban the word as racist, it is a legal term with a long history, and I see no reason to let the thought police on the left dictate that we all have to use Orwellian euphemisms like "undocumented" instead. Maybe your citizenship does not matter to you, but mine does matter to me, and I am not going to let it be degraded into a question of just having a piece of paper.
+2 # Bodiotoo 2012-05-06 21:40
Mr. Bean, the thought police are the FOX news that you are ingrained with falsehoods and mis-representat ion...they lie all day, daily and guys like you eat it up...
+5 # lcarrier 2012-05-05 12:14
You're a fear monger. There will be no recession unless Romney gets elected. If he does, then God help us all.
+9 # Salus Populi 2012-05-04 21:46
As an adopted New Mexican, I strongly object to the idea of taking over Arizona. It would result in the degradation of life for us here, as the greater Arizona population would vote for fascist wannabees, and our lege, bad as it is, would be replaced with Zombie robots of the Reicht, who worship Cthulhu. Instead, I suggest that Arizona be given to Mexico; I don't think they're strong enough to defeat the U.S. when they inevitably declare the "gift" to be an Act of War.
+7 # James38 2012-05-05 11:14
Talk about a "Trojan Horse". Good grief. Here, Mexico, a nice giftie for you....

A State infested with right-wing-nuts . Ik.

"Quick, Henry, the Flit..."
+12 # 2012-05-04 22:11
A previous commenter was complaining about the Southern Poverty Law Center. A quick glance at the Charity Navigator website shows that they get a three star rating, with a 76% rating for their financial affairs. More than 50% of their funding goes into programming. They get a high rating for financial transparency. It doesn't sound like they are a rip-off charity. I don't think the state of Arizona would get as good of rating (although the state is not a non-profit). It looks like their legislators are causing some financial problems, what with the state have to defend all the ill-thought out laws that have been passed. I know that many groups have also decided not to have their conventions in Arizona because of the laws passed by the legislature.
+7 # isafakir 2012-05-04 22:45
# judgeroybean 2012-05-04 15:24
the usa has by far one of the world's most draconian severe heartless immigration policies, and if we were like other countries we would have far more immigrants staying. even so, "illegal" here does not mean criminal. immigration laws are not criminal laws. illegal immigrants provide the economy more than they cost. that can be proven. and many of them were here in the southeast long before european and certainly long before english speakers even knew about the southwest.

After Hitler was elected chancellor Germany became an overwhelmingly Nazis nation, and opposition was minimal, almost nonexistent. e arizona laws are racist because they are part and parcel of laws and regs against hispanics, against spanish, against latino culture. Arizonans were reading writing and going to school in spanish centuries before the first english speaker set foot on its soil. Yes it is racist hate. hatred of the people who were there first.
-5 # judgeroybean 2012-05-05 12:25
That is simply an outrageous comment. You should learn a bit about immigration policy before saying such stuff, it really does little for your credibility to say such things. One of the most draconian countries for immigration is Japan, where it so happens I lived for 3 years. It is very difficult to obtain Japanese citizenship, Japan accepts almost no refugees for any reason, and there is no birthright citizenship. Another country that has incredibly strict immigration laws is Switzerland.

Compared to these countries, the US is an immigration paradise. Each year the US accepts over 1 million legal (emphasis here; you have to go through the legal application process) immigrants, which is more than the rest of the entire world combined. How is that "draconian", "severe" or "heartless"? In addition, US policy has important provisions for family reunification; that is, US immigration policy is not solely about playing the brain drain game and attracting skilled workers, but also allows people to bring over elderly relatives who will not be a benefit to the US economy.

Stop hyperventilatin g and drop the hyperbole. You are completely discrediting yourself by your inability to see things in any perspective. Something like 40 million US citizens were born in other countries. That is hardly the sign of a draconian, racist, exclusionary policy, except I guess to someone who thinks green cards should be handed out at the Mexican border to all takers.
+10 # Cappucino 2012-05-04 23:04
My brother was running for public office in our state (no, I'm not going to say which office, or what state!! You never know where the nutjobs will start next.) A number of candidates were actually invited to speak at a Tea Party meeting here-- most didn't show up, but he did. Did y'all know that those meetings are open to the public? Everyone needs to go so that they can hear the way these people talk when they're surrounded by a big roomful of others who agree with them. It's NOTHING like the public image they try to portray. The insanity, the violent hatred for other human beings, the sheer rage that could be channeled into murder... nobody will ever believe it unless they hear and see it for themselves. And they DARED to hold it in a church-- that reminds me of Hitler constantly quoting Jesus.

As for the "everyone else agrees with hate-filled attempts at passing laws" thing... "For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." (Matthew 7:13)
+9 # nancyw 2012-05-05 00:36
It is very important that Americans remember all the ways that people of color were discriminated against both legally and illegally. How else are we to learn the truth about ourselves as a nation, about the callousness, hatred and disregard we have had for the lives of those seen as 'other'? The Chinese, the indigenous peoples, the African slaves, the Mexicans... This is not the first time Mexicans have been run out of this country much of which was theirs, by the way. America declared war on Mexico and took California... Texas ... and more. Same with the Indians. It almost seems like those of certain European ancestry have so much fear, so much envy and jealousy, that they perceive people of color as a threat. And believe me, it's a threat only in their own heads. People of color don't want to take over... just want a piece of the pie, just like the European immigrants wanted a piece of the pie... only most took it by force, murder and destruction. When will these people just get it? A diverse environment is healthier than a mono culture. A diverse environment is good for everyone, even the white people. Look at our arts, music, design, food, architecture, fabric.. and so on. When will they get it? Get your head set straight! Get therapy. White Anglo European history is not the only history of this nation. Why do the need to suppress the truth? Are they afraid that others will do what they did? Projection. Pure paranoia and deep seated guilt! Get help.
+8 # Piestewa peak 2012-05-05 02:23
Remember that Russell Pearce was recalled. How did it happen? A large number of volunteers went door to door in his district giving his constituents true information about him. If people knew the truth about immigrants, if the campaign of fear was stopped, we wouldn't have crazy legislators and crazy laws. Who is financially responsible for propagating lies and hatred?
+11 # ABen 2012-05-05 02:40
I have lived in AZ for more than three decades and I would suggest that the "imports" that are ruining this state are mostly from the rest of the lower 48. There has always been people who crossed the border (both ways) without going through the proper channels. Those who stayed, bought homes and raised families became citizens through their children. Those who were intent upon crime quickly ran afoul of the law and were incarcerated or deported. However, two trends have changed the nature of this historical ebb and flow: the availability of guns purchased through virtually unregulated gun show venders, and an influx of white supremacist/mil itia/xenophobe types from the rest of the country. My wife and I have hiked the spectacular wilderness areas of AZ for decades and love the stark but breathtaking beauty of this state. We nearly always carry a sidearm for protection from the occasional encounter with some dangerous or rabid creature, but recently those creatures are more likely to be self-styled patriot/freedom fighters; or nut-jobs who came here to carry their AK, blow the crap out of the desert and live out some childish "Red Dawn" style fantasy.
+7 # cordleycoit 2012-05-05 07:10
The Sticker Patch attracts loose nuts from all over America they come there to gather with like minded racists to bad moth people of differing skin color and dumpster dive their days of retirement,unti l Valley Fever advances their expiration date...
+7 # Charles3000 2012-05-05 09:08
I believe in freedom for all people and that includes freedom of movement. I believe all people should be free to go where they wish and be allowed to live their in peace and safety as long as they obey the laws of the community and remain good citizens. America should be a country of and for free people.
-9 # judgeroybean 2012-05-05 09:59
I am sure that is sincere but it is hopelessly naive. Look at it this way. There are 7 billion people on planet Earth. Most of them are poor. If given a chance, many of them would move to the OECD countries (it is already happening, obviously). But those countries would collapse under the strain of providing employment, housing, education and the rest for billions of impoverished, uneducated and unskilled newcomers. Look at the current unhappiness about immigration in Europe, the US and Japan, and multiply that by several thousand times. It simply is not a practicable solution to developing world poverty to allow unhindered movement of peoples across borders like this.

This is not an abstraction. Gallup just released a poll about potential immigration that shows that hundreds of millions of adults in poor countries around the world want to immigrate to the OECD countries.
Imagine what would happen if even 10% of the 165 million people who want to immigrate to the US came here in the next decade. A disaster, that is what. There is no way the US can absorb those numbers, and no way that a majority of US citizens would accept that as a burden. It just is not feasible or realistic to say that nations should abolish citizenship and treat non-citizens the same as citizens. And US citizens would vote against it, as is their democratic right.
+7 # stormborn 2012-05-05 13:01
wow! Chris Mooney would have a heyday with your comments.
"Recall as well that the Arizona statute closely mirrors existing federal law, and the provision that non-citizens carry documents showing that they are in this country legally and must present these on demand to a police officer has been the law of this country for 65 years now."

Existing federal law does not allow for police officers to pull over or stop individuals simply on their appearance, rather for suspicion of illegal activity. that's quite a stretch for you to equate the two, but as Chris Mooney points out, the repub brain seeks information to confirm it's viewpoint rather than to increase knowledge or come to a decision.

Above, You repeatedly write off studies, comments, ideas, statistics and points of view that counter your world view. They simply are irrelevant, flawed, biased,naive- I forget all your other excuses for not even considering the statements above etc.

A prime example of this brain functioning is Texas and Arizona school boards trying to rewrite history by demanding textbook content only contain their version of history. Classes discussing history/world events from different perspectives are "dangerous". To the liberal brain- it's an opportunity to see the world through someone else's eyes. To the repub brain, it's a threat.
-6 # judgeroybean 2012-05-05 14:22
I am an independent. It is just a fact that the Arizona statute does indeed mirror the federal law that states that non-citizens have to carry ID showing that they are in the US legally, and have to present this when asked by an officer of the law; law professor Jonathan Turley noted that on the Diane Rehm show during the discussion 2 weeks back, and I believe that Jeffrey Toobin previously said the same on Wolf Blitzer's show.

Since you do not mention anything else, there is nothing more to respond to. I will say one thing, though. I am not interested in learning more about the "viewpoint" of the Mexican government. It is obvious what the Mexican government is doing. It is dumping huge numbers of its poorest, most vulnerable citizens in the US and on the backs of the US taxpayers. This gets rid of its obligation to provide for these Mexican citizens, and has the further benefit that remittances flow back from the US and also that Mexico gains a large pro-Mexican lobby for it in the US.

What the Mexican government has forgotten is the damage that this is doing to its relationship with US citizens. It is fair to say that Mexico is now utterly despised by a large segment of the US population. I am saying that is good, but it is a fact. It just proves the old adage "Good fences make good neighbors". The more Mexico tries to dump its poverty and crime here, the worse this relationship will be. And it is now in a crisis, folks.
+1 # Progressive Patriot 2012-05-06 16:36
How does your argument get past the fact that people who are NOT here illegally, and NOT required to carry ID proving it, are getting picked up as suspected "illegals"? If you look Hispanic and your family was here before Arizona became a US territory, and you don't have ID that proves you're a US citizen, you'll get hauled in if you get pulled over in a traffic stop.

THAT is racial profiling.
0 # Progressive Patriot 2012-05-06 17:23
Texas has apparently even _removed_ Thomas Jefferson from textbooks.
+1 # Charles3000 2012-05-05 14:42
Please, be realistic. If such were to begin to happen the flow would slow, then stop and then reverse itself. Free people are not stupid people.
+6 # Maverick 2012-05-05 11:13
Another revealing piece of info is that in '05, there were about 250,000 children who were born in the U.S. (legal U.S. citizens) who were living in Mexico. Now there are 500,000 children (legal U.S. citizens) whose parents have decided they can have a better life -- definitely a better family life -- in Mexico. Mexico has the 13th or 14th highest GDP (and population) in the world. Mexico is NOT the rag-tag banana republic that the race baiters choose to portray it as. If current trends continue, Mexico could well end up -- overall -- a better place to live. Millions think that is the case already. 1 in 5 Americans have said they would move to another country but don't know how to go about it. The old charm of 'Home o' the Brave' and 'Land o' the Free' is fading quickly.
-8 # jimattrell 2012-05-05 11:21
There wouldn't be a problem here if Obama would simply enforce the current laws. But that wouldn't bode well for a re-election campaign....
+5 # Maverick 2012-05-05 12:58
Aside from Native Americans, we are a nation of immigrants at BEST. How
incredibly arrogant for any of us to deny others the SAME opportunity our ancestors stole from the people who already lived here. We are no less occupiers of this land than we are of Iraq and Afghanistan -- it's just that more time has gone by -- the old, rich, white men have had more time to rewrite history to white-wash themselves in more favorable light.
If we become shipwrecked and are swimming towards an island, should the
fastest 20 swimmers be allowed to take up arms and shoot the rest? If we then
kill all the other humans already on that island and claim it solely for
ourselves -- and defend our claim against the rest of the world -- will that make our genocide any less despicable than the genocidal waves which precede it? America will NEVER outlive the carnage of her racist and genocidal foundation . . . the broken dreams and shattered lives of immigrants who have built -- and who continue to build -- this empire of dirt.
+2 # James38 2012-05-06 02:10
Bean has been calling the deliberate infecting of the Indians with smallpox a fraud. If he or anyone else interested in this issue drops by, go to:

You will find an extensive discussion including images of the letters from Lord Amherst and associates that exist.

Calling it a "fraud" is apparently quite fraudulent.
+4 # Maverick 2012-05-06 13:18
JUDGEROYBEAN: "The costs of that are staggering, particularly given the fact that most potential migrants have no skills and are uneducated, and consume more social services than the taxes they will pay."
By tightening our border, we've actually doubled their demand for social services. It is NOT easy for anyone in their culture to leave behind family and not know when they will see them again. Migrant workers used to follow the harvest north to Canada and then return to Mexico during our winter and early spring. NOW they can no longer risk a border crossing and are forced to remain in the U.S. -- away from their extended family, as hard as that is. It's a situation where enforcement has made the problem worse.
I still maintain any nation which can afford two billion dollars a day(!) for death and destruction can easily afford to provide social services for those who need them -- regardless of which country they're from. If our government ever gets serious about universal health care, this cost will be minimized as we will become one of the largest buying groups on the planet -- well able to negotiate the lowest price available.
0 # Progressive Patriot 2012-05-06 16:20
One of the things that this kind of law completely ignores is that the "flood" across the border has pretty much stopped. Mexico's economy has been improving, and the economic downturn in the US has reduced the number of jobs available. In fact, an article I saw just a couple days ago said that the number of undocumented people in the US has dropped considerably, and I remember seeing something about people going back across the border because they couldn't find work.

This whole thing about people moving from place to place in search of work is nothing new, and when the US forced NAFTA upon the Mexicans, it demolished their economy. If your children are starving, you will do anything to get food for them ... especially going to where there is work. It's been happening for centuries.
+1 # noitall 2012-05-08 15:57
They'll just have to free up the border soon, so that we can flee over to Mexico to get a job to feed our families.
I attribute Arizona's problem (and Florida's, and most of the 'hot zone' red states) to the HEAT. I think it causes dehydration of the brain and tension and greed and hatred. Don't forget to wear a hat.
+2 # cherylpetro 2012-05-07 22:52
0 # noitall 2012-05-08 15:59
Don't stop there, I think that what's left will morph into something more hideous. I think the whole 'ism' has to be re-thunk. We are living in an era of Greed is God.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.