News Beat 4-29-10-Arizona Immigration Law

....I'm really asking because I weant to know so I can tell my friends....I think I posted that in another thread....I pretended to be HR for my company to see what could be done to sponsor someone,I called the INS 10000 times,the INS will tell you unless you have a relative that can sponsor you you need to get a taxpayer ID and have a nice day.You will never ,ever become a resident ,never....
Those people that worked hard and became residents came here before 1972 and that is true they get to sponsor their relatives.
For a company to sponsor someone is extremely difficult and expensive.The company has to prove that noone in the states could do that job and pay expensive fines....

I will try and find out the other ways because if people want to come here work and become CITIZENS man I'm all for that.

I know what you mean - I tried to sponsor a girl from Canada to work in my office when I ran a LASIK center in Nashville but it was not possible because she did not fall within the category of job we are willing to import (like tech work etc.). In a way that is a good thing because we should be saving these jobs for our citizens anyway. That's what I'm saying Claudi - these laws would get changed if no one could come here to do the typed of jobs the illegals are doing...
BUT FIRST...

Don't you think instead of assuming that Americans won't do these jobs in a rough economy that we should actually find out first??? Americans need jobs.

who are americans? what is the difference between someone that lives here and someone that wants to live here? americans are immigrants....
why did your anscestors have a right to come here but someone today does not?

I have nothing against immigrants but it only serves everyone to have some control over who comes here and who doesn't (criminals, those inflicted with TB etc.) and to have a process to follow. Don't insult my ancestors. They came here legally and they worked hard to learn English and they became citizens - they wanted to become Americans not just work here and send money back to their home country - so that's who is an American ~ an immigrant who shows their good character by following the law and understanding the need for such laws for the good of everyone and not just their own narrow needs.

And please don't spin my words - I am not saying people from other countries don't have a right to come here. I'm saying they don't have a right to just trample through illegally, plant it down and then think they have a right to our government aid and everything else.

...so then why can't the people that want to live here do the same thing your ancestors did?

you seem to think that there's a process where someone can apply to be a resident,work hard and prove themselves and be able to obtain documents....such a process does not exist...check it out....no one can come here legally ( unless getting married,other relatives are rarely sponsored anymore)
I don't know anyone that's illegal who wouldn't do anything to become legal...that's a desperate wish of anyone I know here that can't get papers...and it's not like they're hiding they go to the INS all the time and again and again they're being told just pay taxes and shut up.

WHY ARIZONA DREW A LINE --

ON Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a law — SB 1070 — that prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens and makes it a
state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration crimes. It also requires police officers who, in the course of a traffic stop or
other law-enforcement action, come to a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal alien verify the person’s immigration status with
the federal government.



Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws, including the American Civil Liberties
Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, insist the law is unconstitutional. Less predictably, President Obama declared it “misguided”
and said the Justice Department would take a look.Presumably, the government lawyers who do so will actually read the law, something its
critics don’t seem to have done. The arguments we’ve heard against it either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. As someone who
helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms individually: It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the
Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers ... you’re
going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such
registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone
who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.

“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions
defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable
suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been
committed.For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over
for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The
driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally. The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually
reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable
when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.

It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license. Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a
driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only
lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country. State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter. While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court
since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as
Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced
all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties. And it’s very necessary: Arizona is the
ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240
incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans. President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken care of with “comprehensive immigration reform” — meaning amnesty and a
few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking
many of them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the laws that we already have. Unfortunately, the Obama
administration has scaled back work-site enforcement and otherwise shown it does not consider immigration laws to be a high priority. Is it any
wonder the Arizona Legislature, at the front line of the immigration issue, sees things differently?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opinion/29kobach.html?th&emc=th

claudicici wrote:...so then why can't the people that want to live here do the same thing your ancestors did?

you seem to think that there's a process where someone can apply to be a resident,work hard and prove themselves and be able to obtain documents....such a process does not exist...check it out....no one can come here legally ( unless getting married,other relatives are rarely sponsored anymore)
I don't know anyone that's illegal who wouldn't do anything to become legal...that's a desperate wish of anyone I know here that can't get papers...and it's not like they're hiding they go to the INS all the time and again and again they're being told just pay taxes and shut up.

Illegals cannot become legal because they are in the country ILLEGALLY!!!!! Why would INS grant legal status to someone that is only here because they broke the law???

Immigration has changed over the years. It is not impossible to immigrate to the USA. However, they aren't letting in the same amount of numbers that they used to. I guess we're getting full -- to maximum capacity. Our resources are unable to keep up with the needs of our current population. Why add more to a broken system?

Do you think anyone who wants to become a citizen of this country should be able to based on what happened centuries ago when this country was started? Do you think that 100% of those wanting to live in the USA should be allowed to do so?

Green Card (Permanent Residence)

A permanent
resident is someone who has been granted authorization to live and work
in the United States on a permanent basis. As proof of that status, a
person is granted a permanent resident card, commonly called a "green
card." You can become a permanent resident several different ways. Most
individuals are sponsored by a family member or employer in the United
States. Other individuals may become permanent residents through refugee
or asylee status or other humanitarian programs. In some cases, you may
be eligible to file for yourself.The steps to become a permanent
resident are different for each category and will depend on if you are
currently living inside or outside the United States. The main
categories are listed below. More information is available in the links
to the left.

• Green Card Through Family
  
  How to apply for permanent residence when a family member petitions for
  you
  
• Green Card Through a Job
  How to apply
  for permanent residence based on a job offer or employment
  
• Green
  Card Through Refugee or Asylum Status
  How to apply for
  permanent residence when you have been granted refugee or asylum status
  
• Other
  Ways to Get a Green Card
  Learn about the many other ways
  that you may qualify for permanent residence (if you go to this website, there are links on the left of this page which will give you more information)
  

If you are
unsure which immigration path best fits your particular situation, see
the "Green Card Processes & Procedures" link to the left which
includes:

• Green Card Eligibility
  Learn
  who can apply for permanent residence
  
• Adjustment of
  Status
  Learn about the multi-step process for individuals
  inside the United States that want to get a green card
  
• Consular
  Processing
  Learn about the multi-step process for
  individuals outside the United States that want to get a green card
  

If
you are already a permanent resident, see the "After the Green Card Is
Granted" link to the left for more information about renewing or
replacing your green card, travel outside the United States, your rights
and responsibilities as a permanent resident, conditional residency,
and more.














Last updated: 09/01/2009

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=ae853ad15c673210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=ae853ad15c673210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

claudicici wrote:who are americans? what is the difference between someone that lives here and someone that wants to live here? americans are immigrants....
why did your anscestors have a right to come here but someone today does not?

Americans are people born in America, or who otherwise have obtained legal status as a citizen. The first Americans were immigrants. Subsequent generations were/are not.

Our ancestors also owned slaves. Should we still be doing that too?

I need a thanks button for your last three posts sister.

...I don't know who wrote the first post but if you can't see how rascist that article is I don't know what to say,that whole article makes me want to cry...
...how to obtain a green card sounds good the way it's written there ,try for yourself...it's impossible...
if it was true why would we have illegal immigrants?
there needs to be a reform,people need to be given a fair chance to be legal.
The Arizona law is so fascist it seriously makes my blood boil.
I guess I don't have anything to worry about since my skin is snow white.
The law stereotypes illegal immigrants.So does the article above.
The law is racsist,that's not even an opinion,that's a fact.

I have some experience with zoning disputes in NJ. I won't bore you with all the details but in a nutshell this is what happened.
A contractor obtained a large piece of undeveloped property and wanted to build a residential neighborhood. Plans were made, permits were obtained, lots were sold, people put deposits on homes, the land was cleared, all was progressing then... a citizens group from the adjoining neighborhood started filing protests. There were court decision and disputes in city council meetings. The residents who had been in the community for a long time were fighting the development. They did not want the extra traffic flow. They did not want to change the character of their community by adding another 100 or whatever it was new homes. They liked things the way that they were.
The soon to be residents that had already paid deposits and made arrangments to move and wanted to be a part of the community did not undertsand the resistance. Eventualy the neighborhood was built. It is not actually called this but for the sake of making the story easier to follow lets call it Eagle Creek.
The residents of Eagle Creek moved in and became part of the comunity. There were more cars and more people but overall life there did not change all that much with the addition of a few more people who all wanted the same thing. They wanted a place to live. They went to work. They paid taxes. They ate at restaurants. Their kids went to school. They became friends with people there. etc etc etc.
Life continued for many years.
There was a farm next to Eagle Creek that had been in the same family since perhaps the late 1800's. A family member died. The farm was willed to children who neither lived there nor wanted to own an old non functional farm in NJ. They sold to a developer and.... the cycle started again. This time the LOUDEST opponents of the new development were the residents of the newly constructed Eagle Creek. It was no big deal when they wanted a nice place to live. They could find no common ground with anyone else that wanted the same thing.
I don't expect that any of us are going to change the others mind on this forum. Reasonable people can disagree. The Arizona law certainly has a lot of support.... and a lot of people opposed. It is already being challenged in court. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

This is a must read : An immigration law expert debunks myths about Arizona’s law in the New York Times

snipped:

Presumably, the government lawyers who do so will actually read the law, something its critics don’t seem to have done. The arguments we’ve heard against it either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. As someone who helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms individually:
It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers ... you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.
“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.
For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.
The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.
It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license. Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.
State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter. While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.
And it’s very necessary: Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.

more at link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opinion/29kobach.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Scott - it will be very interesting since this only pertains to people here illegally and it is being criticized as unconstitutional.

If Arizona is a facist racist state - tell me, what does that make Mexico????

And more from that article that really is the basis for this legislation - murders and kidnappings and the drain on the police in Phoenix and other cities...come on - something has to be done because this is why people wanted to leave Mexico for heaven's sake and now we are turning AZ etc. in to little corrupt dangerous Mexicos...

snipped:

And it’s very necessary: Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.

ziggy wrote:Scott - it will be very interesting since this only pertains to people here illegally and it is being criticized as unconstitutional.

If Arizona is a facist racist state - tell me, what does that make Mexico????

1] Pretty sure I did not call Arizona a facist racist state.
2] I am not the only individual that has concerns about the law.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003631-503544.html
Karl Rove expressed concerns.
I found this especially interesting that he is NOW concerend about a possible civil rights issue given his stance on waterboarding That could be another thread if you want to go there.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/12/rove-im-proud-of-waterboa_n_496510.html
I could provide an ACLU link though I suspect you would not be interested
3] I did not comment on it before but I will now. I think you had a very valid point about Mexico many posts ago. Anything that can be done to address the issues in Mexico that cause people to want to leave that country in mass would be beneficial to people on both sides of the boarder. Like most complex problems there is no one single easy solution.
4] I still fail to see how THIS specific law helps law enforcement stop violent drug cartels. Engaging in illegal violent activity and the trafficing of narcotics is already illegal. Law enforcement already has the tools to enfore these laws. They can enforce them. No one is arguing that we should allow that kind of conduct. I revert to my earlier point. The problem of immigration is being artifically inflated to keep you afraid. The idea that some immigrants are members of criminal orginizations is being overstated to apply to a majortiy of immigrants and I do not believe this is the case. You are being sold on the false notion that the guy that picks lettuce or hangs drywall all day for minimal compensation is somehow a threat to you.

Sorry, never meant to imply that you said they were racist; but those who oppose this legislation seem to be throwing that race card around handily.

I know that MOST people coming across the border just want to be hard workers; but the problem is that we have no way of controlling this and the hard facts are that because of the open border and the Bush and previous admins. not doing anything about it - Arizona has been in a bad state.

I do not think what is happening in AZ is being over-stated with regards to the kidnappings per day etc. In regards to THIS specific law: If we had a way to check who people are that are here illegally - we should be able to find out if their intent in this country is honest hard work or criminally intended work...those people gotta go. Sign the rest up on a list for a worker program, pat them on the back for their hard work and GIVE them a program that they can appreciate and we can control.

We had a horrible incident in our "sanctuary city" which has outraged people and these incidents are not overblown when an entire family - husband, and his two sons - are blown away; wiped out by an illegal immigrant who was a KNOWN criminal here but was untouchable. He shot and killed a family - left a widow and a childless mother. He should never have been allowed to stay in this country. When people care more about the rights of illegal criminals than they do about murder victims in their own country - I gotta problem with that. Where are the human rights of the victims and potential victims? The ACLU can suck it.

We can't trust Mexico to do anything because they love being the parasitical neighbor to the South and they really don't care. Their human rights record is pretty bad.

claudicici wrote:...unless you are a native american ,you are an immigrant in this country,maybe second,third,tenth generation or whatever....you're still an immigrant.Noone is here illegally by choice,there is NO fair way to become legal,you either have to win the green card lottery or marry someone,other then that you can only get a temporary work or student permit......they want you to be here illegally so you can be used for cheap labor,with no rights...many illegal immigrants pay taxes,they get a taxpayer identification numbers and are still illegal...I'm in texas I know many people that do this....it's completely unfair......

This is what they commonly forget, this is a nation of immigrants, they wont admit it, and by they I dont mean Ziggy and Key necessarily, but generally wont admit this because the problem they have is not with immigrants, its with immigrants whose skin is brown. If we had millions of Irish people coming here illegally I doubt you would hear a peep from these same people.

And I live in Arizona, I see what is going on more than anyone and I personally have expeirenced no problems other than the pleasure of getting to take part in a more diverse culture.

The alternative, which would be locking down the borders, is unacceptable.

Ziggy - Maybe Mexico has a bad human rights records because they have no ACLU?????

Scott wrote:

ziggy wrote:Scott - it will be very interesting since this only pertains to people here illegally and it is being criticized as unconstitutional.

If Arizona is a facist racist state - tell me, what does that make Mexico????

1] Pretty sure I did not call Arizona a facist racist state.
2] I am not the only individual that has concerns about the law.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003631-503544.html
Karl Rove expressed concerns.
I found this especially interesting that he is NOW concerend about a possible civil rights issue given his stance on waterboarding That could be another thread if you want to go there.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/12/rove-im-proud-of-waterboa_n_496510.html
I could provide an ACLU link though I suspect you would not be interested
3] I did not comment on it before but I will now. I think you had a very valid point about Mexico many posts ago. Anything that can be done to address the issues in Mexico that cause people to want to leave that country in mass would be beneficial to people on both sides of the boarder. Like most complex problems there is no one single easy solution.
4] I still fail to see how THIS specific law helps law enforcement stop violent drug cartels. Engaging in illegal violent activity and the trafficing of narcotics is already illegal. Law enforcement already has the tools to enfore these laws. They can enforce them. No one is arguing that we should allow that kind of conduct. I revert to my earlier point. The problem of immigration is being artifically inflated to keep you afraid. The idea that some immigrants are members of criminal orginizations is being overstated to apply to a majortiy of immigrants and I do not believe this is the case. You are being sold on the false notion that the guy that picks lettuce or hangs drywall all day for minimal compensation is somehow a threat to you.

Its funny to see Cheney and Rove now making the rounds concerned about civil rights issues and what the Obama adminstration is doing when their adminstration was one of the worst in history when it came to breaking the law and most specifically snubbing their noses at civil liberties.

Ha ha that's for sure. They can suck it too. I'm so over all policticans playing politics blah blah blah. I'm frankly sick of both parties playing that game.

ziggy wrote:Ha ha that's for sure. They can suck it too. I'm so over all policticans playing politics blah blah blah. I'm frankly sick of both parties playing that game.

Well thats something we agree on as you know, I think both parties have sold out and neither one of them represent you and I or have our best interest in mind.

That said I think if you really look closely at US-Mexico relations over the years I think you will see that the US has had many opportunities and still has those opportunities, to help rebuild Mexico and help turn it in to a nation its people can be proud of, but we have done the exact opposite and have done everything we can to keep Mexico in a state of chaos and a third world country because its a lot closer than China and its nice to have a neighbor you can exploit for cheap labor and free drug flow (yes our politicans are in on the drug trade, I know this to be true). We could do a lot of things to help Mexico but we do nothing, we are wasting our money rebuilding Iran and Afghanistan because they have oil and Mexico doesnt (at least not that much of it) and they can used, instead for cheap labor etc.

I just dont like the idea of locking down our borders, I am more of a libertarian than anything else and therefore I believe that a person should have the right to go where he or she wants to go and no border should stop him or her from doing so.

Now if you want to make it harder for illegal immigrants to get foodstamps and free healthcare, I would support thatr, I do agree they do often taken advantage of those things but we offer it to them, thats on us not them. I also can tell you that MOST of the Mexicans I know work VERY HARD and mind their own business, the few bad apples is what gives them all a bad name and again, if this were a problem of Irish or Germans coming here, nobody would say a word, so like it or not the root of this is racism.

Understand that it is no so much that I am in favor of all these people coming here illegaly, it is more that I just cannot accept the alternative solutions offered by our leaders, locking down the borders, using the US military at the borders, these are not acceptable solutions so until we find some acceptable solutions we just need to sleep in the bed we made for ourselves.

I guess this whole thing is sort of a sore spot for me because of my own peoples history, as a Jew this sort of stuff really hits home, I have spent a lot of time reading about Jewish history and how they were treated in other nations they immigrated to and I just dont ever want to see a repeat of that. SADLY Israel itself is now repeating it with their treatment of the Palestinian people and that really pisses me off but I have never been one to agree much with the Sharons, Netanyahus and other Likudities of the world.

I agree with you mostly but you did you forget what the Irish went through? They had their time of discrimination too; albiet not as bad as the Jews have suffered. I can't stand ANY kind of racism but I refuse to jump on the band wagon that claims any kind of statistical data of a group is racial profiling.

I agree most Mexican illegals are hard workers and one bad apple spoils the bunch, but that it the way it is. I am equally concerned about an open border and who from other countries uses Mexico to get here under the radar. It's a far too dangerous and different world now.

I loathe that we have used Mexico for cheap labor - I have been for this kind of reform for years and I keep being told a head of lettuce will go up in price? What? Are you fucking kidding me? Who cares? We need to do the right thing and put a workable and legal system in place for the good of those hard working people and for our country's best interest in safety and sustainability of the economy. No more CEOs making money off the backs of illegal immigrant workers. Hey, here's an idea - put some of those welfare crack hos to work. In truth I'd rather help an illegal hard-working Mexican, but we have to reform every part of the fucked up system.

And about the chit chat and patience on getting things done ala U.N. - that just does not work for me. I am a get it done now person. There is no need to wait and be all nicey, nicey - I have zero patience for that crap when there are people in need of real change that doesn't have to come with some "ease".

Oh and PS - if we are only in the Middle East for the oil, where the french is it? I want our oil we fought for and I want it now!

ziggy wrote:Oh and PS - if we are only in the Middle East for the oil, where the french is it? I want our oil we fought for and I want it now!

Well thats why we are in Afghanistan (well that and the POPPIES), to help protect the contractors who are building all the oil piplines that will pipe all that oil in to Israel and then eventually the states. Go look at a map of all the pipelines being built, they all run throughg Afghanistan and into Israel and in fact it was the Taliban who refused to allow those pipelines to be built and thats likely the main reason we sent the military over there.