A new survey shows that 63% of LGBT Americans, a clear majority of those polled, oppose the strict new immigration law set to take effect in Arizona next month. In contrast, the poll found that about 60% of straight adults support the law
News Type: Opinion — Seeded on Sat Jun 26, 2010 10:51 AM EDT
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (13)
the results hold economic implications for Arizona, especially in the area of tourism.
- 3 votes
I see no economic implications for Arizona. I'm going there to show support for the law.
- 1 vote
PS, as the seeder, may I suggest you delete the crap posted by whitesmith in #2
- 2 votes
The tourism industry in Arizona is already suffering. Many large conventions scheduled to be hald there have pulled out and gone to other states.
- 2 votes
Well of course the LGBT's oppose it, they can clearly see themselves as the next target group. Also notice the ADL in Arizona oppose it also, after all they are familiar with pogroms and profiling.
As far as the ones in favor of the law, well I notice that white people don't stand a chance of being bothered, or stopped, or asked for ID, or have any chance of being detained. So I can see why they have no problems with the law, after all it only affects the "others".
- 3 votes
Isn't it interesting that people are usually willing to give up civil rights of "others"?
- 3 votes
Every empirical study of illegals' economic impact demonstrates that undocumenteds actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services.
SSRN-Taxing Undocumented Immigrants
Here Illegally, Working Hard and Paying Taxes - New York Times
Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security With Billions
Many illegal immigrants pay up at tax time – USATODAY.com
Benefits of Illegal Immigration Offset Costs on the U.S. Economy
Illegal Immigrant Costs, Benefits Disputed
* * *
Civil Rights of undocumented workers.
One of the arguments against the idea of rights for illegal aliens is the wording of the Constitution itself. People focus on use of the words “the people” in the Constitution, and say this means it applies only to citizens. The courts have disagreed with this approach, as cited in Johnson v. Eisentrager, (339 U.S. 763, 771(1950)) where the court said, "in extending constitutional protections beyond the citizenry, the Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien's presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act."
There are several Court opinions mentioning “resident aliens.” A surface reading
may tempt one to interpret this as applying to aliens who have the administrative
classification under immigration law as “Resident Alien.” In fact, deeper research
shows the court refers to resident aliens as those who have established a form of
practical residency in the US, regardless of their status as undocumented or
“illegal” aliens. Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have consistently
extended constitutional protections to these “resident aliens.”
- 3 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.