What About Calderon?

What about Calderon criticizing the Arizona law for enforcing federal law? Both the Arizona law and federal law are far less stringent than Mexico's immigration law. Where does he get off criticizing us for our violations of "human rights"?

At the end of the day are we a nation of laws? Or are we a nation of feelings?

We are a nation of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ . And the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ rule- the law, the feelings, and everything else be damned.

ziggy wrote:We are a nation of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ . And the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ rule- the law, the feelings, and everything else be damned.

What's that got to do with the Arizona Law?

OC,

That Calderon is the President of not only a restrictive country vis a vis immigration, but also of a kleptocracy in which a nation rich in natural resources yet has people risking their lives to leave it, and yet feels the right to come lecture the US Congress, and then is applauded by Democrats, only shows that our leadership is immoral, incompetent, and unacceptable.

Someone was saying that Calderon was forced to do that ...... out of desperation.

Calderon knows that if the US closes the Border and deports all the illegals .... then that will "dry up" over a BILLION DOLLARS per year of "imported" American Dollar$ into the Mexican economy and thus causing it to collapse around his ears.


.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:We are a nation of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ . And the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ rule- the law, the feelings, and everything else be damned.

What's that got to do with the Arizona Law?

Not much, other than the Arizona law is mostly irrelevant to the root of the immigration problem. Illegal immigration is driven by the $$$$$$$$$$$ American employers don't have to pay to Americans when they can hire illegal immigrants for a fraction of what they would have to pay Americans. When the $$$$ paid to illegal immigrants dry up, the "problem" will take care of itself. But until then, all the "law enforcement" in America will not stop illegal immigration.

If those $$$ were to dry up, but we as a nation continue allowing access to welfare, housing, healthcare, and schools and other social programs, no, the illegal immigration will not stop.

And a hundred "Arizona laws" with a zillion cops trying to enforce them will not stop it as long as the dollars and other benefits to illegal immigrants continue. Immigrant "law enforcement" is but a joke and the "Arizona law" is but political hype.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has pinpointed the reality of these false attacks. "Our border is being erased, and the president apparently considers it a wonderful opportunity to divide people along racial lines for his personal political convenience," she said. So much for Barack Obama's promise of post-racial politics in America.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...

Obamessiah sent his lackey and puppet, "We don't need no stinkin' badges"-Calderone, out to condemn the law most of O's regme hasn't even or cannot even read.

ziggy wrote:And a hundred "Arizona laws" with a zillion cops trying to enforce them will not stop it as long as the dollars and other benefits to illegal immigrants continue. Immigrant "law enforcement" is but a joke and the "Arizona law" is but political hype.

You got that right, Zig.

Obama's Czar Director of ICE said they are not going to aid or assist and/or will not deport any illegal immigrants that Arizona Law Enforcement apprehends and/or takes into custody ...... and besides, Obama's AG is filing Lawsuits to prevent any illegals being bother or harassed by anyone in Arizona.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:We are a nation of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ . And the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ rule- the law, the feelings, and everything else be damned.

What's that got to do with the Arizona Law?

Not much, other than the Arizona law is mostly irrelevant to the root of the immigration problem. Illegal immigration is driven by the $$$$$$$$$$$ American employers don't have to pay to Americans when they can hire illegal immigrants for a fraction of what they would have to pay Americans. When the $$$$ paid to illegal immigrants dry up, the "problem" will take care of itself. But until then, all the "law enforcement" in America will not stop illegal immigration.

As Aaron said the dollars can dry up but illegal immigrants will still come. Why? Because YOUR beloved politicians have enacted law such that illegal immigrants benefit at the expense of the true taxpayers of the United States. When you are backed into a corner you like to remind us about what the law says and that the law is all that matters. Seems to me that it isn't dollars that is the driver with illegal immigration, it is the vote buying fools in Washington, and the ignorant fools that elected them that is the problem.

ziggy wrote:When the $$$$ paid to illegal immigrants dry up, the "problem" will take care of itself.

And who is it that puts a stop to that Ziggy? Why are all these corporations hiring illegals at reduced rates over American workers?

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:When the $$$$ paid to illegal immigrants dry up, the "problem" will take care of itself.

And who is it that puts a stop to that Ziggy? Why are all these corporations hiring illegals at reduced rates over American workers?

The way to stop bees from coming into a yard to get the nectar from the clover blossoms is NOT to catch the bees and take them back to their hives. The way to stop them is to cut down the clover blossoms with a lawn mower or wead eater- whatever.

Make it illegal to hire illegal aliens and ENFORCE that law- making it more expensive via fines, imprisonmnet, etc. to hire illegals than to hire American citizens at honest wages and benefits and the attraction for illegals is removed. But that is not going to happen- with or without the "Arizona law". Money talks. And since SCOTUS says that corporations have the right to free speech using money as their voice, corporate $$$$$ will continue to speak loudly.

Candidate with sign at busy intersection: "Will whore for campaign $$$$$. Corporations welcome".

Make it illegal to hire illegal aliens...

It is already illegal to hire illegal aliens.

...................................... and ENFORCE that law- making it more expensive via fines, imprisonmnet, etc. to hire illegals than to hire American citizens at honest wages and benefits and the attraction for illegals is removed.

The we agree Government enforcement is the problem. You can blame corporations but its been my experience that people will only do what they can get by with.

Perhaps if our government actually enforced the books that are currently law we wouldn't have near the problems we do but that requires the government to actually work instead of blaming someone else for everything.

Perhaps if our government actually enforced the books that are currently law we wouldn't have near the problems we do but that requires the government to actually work instead of blaming someone else for everything.

Thanks. This is worth repeating, Aaron. And so I have.

ziggy wrote:

Perhaps if our government actually enforced the books that are currently law we wouldn't have near the problems we do but that requires the government to actually work instead of blaming someone else for everything.

Thanks. This is worth repeating, Aaron. And so I have.

And I agree, but ....

Well my question is, how do you make the politicians do what they are charged with doing? It seems to me from all I have observed in my life that the second most get in office they accept as their prime responsibility is retaining office. They play the games that con men play in fact they use the same tools. Tell me people, how do make the a@@holes do their job or live up to their responsibility?

They play the games that con men play in fact they use the same tools.

That is because they, too, ARE con men.

Tell me people, how do make the a@@holes do their job or live up to their responsibility?

In the American model of enterprise where everything- including politicians- has a monetary value, and money equals free speech, to whom are politicians "responsible"? If not to their campaign financiers- who seem to be doing quite well- then to whom?

ziggy wrote: In the American model of enterprise where everything- including politicians- has a monetary value, and money equals free speech, to whom are politicians "responsible"? If not to their campaign financiers- who seem to be doing quite well- then to whom?

The fact is Ziggy all tangible items and services have a value. Money is only the representation of that value in our system of enterprise as it is in all other systems of enterprise.

In reading your reply, one thought keeps coming to my mind, how hard you've defended your belief that the standard of behavior and ethics is relative. I submit that you are in error and your post proves the error of your beliefs. Your post suggests, quite accurately as a matter of fact, that politicians follow the money and where that money is, there is where the politican's convictions and loyality are to be found. Whether or not you believe it, you are saying that a standard of ethics does exist and that politicans don't adheare to that standard.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote: In the American model of enterprise where everything- including politicians- has a monetary value, and money equals free speech, to whom are politicians "responsible"? If not to their campaign financiers- who seem to be doing quite well- then to whom?

The fact is Ziggy all tangible items and services have a value. Money is only the representation of that value in our system of enterprise as it is in all other systems of enterprise.

I am glad we agree that politicians who deliver services on behalf of their campaign contributors have a monetary value to those contributors.

In reading your reply, one thought keeps coming to my mind, how hard you've defended your belief that the standard of behavior and ethics is relative. I submit that you are in error and your post proves the error of your beliefs. Your post suggests, quite accurately as a matter of fact, that politicians follow the money and where that money is, there is where the politican's convictions and loyality are to be found.

And that is where the politician's ethics will be found, too.

Whether or not you believe it, you are saying that a standard of ethics does exist and that politicans don't adheare to that standard.

No, I am saying that the standard of political ethics is releative to who is financing the politician. Politicians adhere to the standard that their political contributors expect. The people financing the re-election campaigns of hundreds of Congressmen and dozens of Senators obviously believe that an ethical politician is one who stays bought and does the bidding of his/her financiers. The standard of political ethics is relative to who is paying and how much for the politician's services.

And your solution is what Ziggy? For all campaign contributions to go into one kettle and big brother controling the money to ensure all is equal?

ziggy wrote:
No, I am saying that the standard of political ethics is releative to who is financing the politician. Politicians adhere to the standard that their political contributors expect. The people financing the re-election campaigns of hundreds of Congressmen and dozens of Senators obviously believe that an ethical politician is one who stays bought and does the bidding of his/her financiers. The standard of political ethics is relative to who is paying and how much for the politician's services.

You are skirting the issue Ziggy. You are correct in discribing how 99.9% of the political world behaves. That doesn't make their behavior right, it just means most do it. Now either ethical behavior is relative to the situation, which means you have no room to complain aboutt he behavior of the politicans, since they are just doing what is necessary in their minds to hold their position or a real standard of eithical behavior exists and politicans do not adheare to it.

Personally, I believe that an ethical standard of behavior exists and very few politicians adheare to it. I further believe that each and every individual has a responsibility to hold politicans to that standard.

Personally, I believe that an ethical standard of behavior exists and very few politicians adheare to it. I further believe that each and every individual has a responsibility to hold politicans to that standard.

But to what standard? To your standard, or to mine? Or to that of our friend down the street or around the block? Or to the standard demanded by some corporate Political Action Committee that pours a zillion dollars into Senator Snort's re-election campaign? How do we define the standard we expect? More and more that standard is being defined by $$$$$. As you noted, every product or service has a monetary value. And that includes political products and services. The value of political products and services is determined through the political auctions we call election campaigns.

And your solution is what Ziggy? For all campaign contributions to go into one kettle and big brother controling the money to ensure all is equal?

No. My solution is to do away with private campaign financing contributions as we know them.

We pay the other costs of holding elections- from the cost of printing ballots, to voting machines, to the salaries of County Clerks and the Secretary of State and their staffs who administer elections, and including poll workers, from the public treasury- not from politician's campaign coffer's. We try to not taint the election process by having these people paid via public funds rather than via campaign contributions from monied buyers seeking political favors. So why should the most important component of this- the people actually elected to public office- be allowed to conduct their election related costs with quid pro quo private monies?