Jorgenson To Push Arizona Reform

38 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  Sisyphus on May 18 at 1:20 p.m.

  Really? Its a Republican primary in Idaho. North Idaho no less. Jorgenson wants to own the wingnut side of the immigration issue and would certainly support Arizona’s method of ethnic cleansing.

• 

  Sam_Crawford on May 18 at 1:41 p.m.

  Maybe if we reelect Jorgenson and then elect Steve Tanner in Bonners Ferry, Jorgenson can have them arrested and Tanner can deal with the capital punishment.

  I’m embarrassed of all the nutbag ideas coming out of North Idaho.

• 

  Marc_Stewart on May 18 at 2:36 p.m.

  Every tribe in Idaho would strongly oppose any such legislation.

• 

  bpoole on May 18 at 2:49 p.m.

  Please help us!

• 

  Cindy_H on May 18 at 2:50 p.m.

  Gosh. Who knew the Hayden area has such trouble with illegals.
  Guess it’s all us Washingtonians sneaking across the border to work on books in remote Idahoan villages.

• 

  joebu on May 18 at 2:52 p.m.

  don’t forget the dishwasher detergent bootleggers…

• 

  Cindy_H on May 18 at 2:57 p.m.

  Gosh darn it, Joe!
  I gotta get me some papers.

• 

  Cabbage Boy on May 18 at 3:04 p.m.

  Cindy, I got some extra ‘papers’ you can purchase. See me behind Walmart.

• 

  hmoffsuite on May 18 at 3:04 p.m.

  Sis >> “Jorgenson wants to own the wingnut side of the immigration issue and would certainly support Arizona’s method of ethnic cleansing.”

  If you have a problem with the Arizona law, why don’t you discuss it with Obama. If not for his being a liar with his promise to deal with immigration reform in his first year, Arizona would not be forced to have taken the position that it has. Wingnuts for wanting our Federal laws enforced? Perhaps. Your ethnic cleansing comment is a rather typical democrat response to a real problem in our Country. If only we had a President that would do what he promises. He has failed in that regard so many times it is shameful.

• 

  Cindy_H on May 18 at 3:16 p.m.

  Didn’t Ronald Reagan promise to reform immigration. Whatever happened with that?

• 

  DFO on May 18 at 3:24 p.m.

  Cindy Lou … I’m honored that my humble blog can pull you away from Facebook for a few moments. ;-)

• 

  hmoffsuite on May 18 at 3:27 p.m.

  Cindy. Good memory. Reagan did act on immigration reform.

  http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=36699

• 

  Cindy_H on May 18 at 3:39 p.m.

  @DFO: Lotsa firefighters on Facebook. Here you’ve got cheerleaders.
  Just saying.

• 

  bpoole on May 18 at 3:46 p.m.

  He didn’t reform anything, well that was tangible, even the those from fox news acknowledged this in 2004:

  “While Reagan’s 1986 immigration reforms (search) can at least be called rational, they were a failure.”

  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122297,00.html

• 

  TheContrarian on May 18 at 3:46 p.m.

  Here’s a good article on the effects of having local law enforcement in charge of immigration policy (i.e. the AZ law):

  http://www.theatlantic.com/special-report/the-future-of-the-city/archive/2010/05/the-best-case-against-arizonas-immigration-law-the-experience-of-greater-phoenix/56859/

• 

  bpoole on May 18 at 3:53 p.m.

  Ya gotta love the Atlantic.

• 

  samasterson on May 18 at 4:04 p.m.

  Jorgenson’s previous legislation, soundly rejected by both parties, would have punished even those employers who unknowingly hired illegals. Every business in Idaho would have had the expense and burden of verifying with the federal government the status of each and every employee. This is election grandstanding that will not win him additional votes. Time for him to go.

• 

  keithincda on May 18 at 4:05 p.m.

  It’s not like they aren’t doing what the DOJ says they have the power to do:

  “The Obama administration has not withdrawn the memo, and some backers of the Arizona law said Monday that because it remains in place, a Justice Department lawsuit against Arizona would be awkward at best.

  “The Justice Department’s official position as of now is that local law enforcement has the inherent authority to enforce federal immigration law”

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/17/AR2010051702175.html

• 

  hmoffsuite on May 18 at 4:07 p.m.

  Contrarian. That was a good article. As taken from it …

  “Even so, ample evidence suggests that the Maricopa County policy is costly, imprudent, incapable of stopping illegal immigration or human smuggling rings, and prone to serious official abuses by law enforcement personnel. Despite some successes, its overall costs far outweigh its benefits, a conclusion you’ll likely share after taking a closer look at the record over the last half-decade.”

  And, that is a point that many are missiing. It is not the State’s job to control immigration. It is a Federal responsibility. That, is one of the reasons that Arizona has done what it has. A lack of immigration reform drains the States (several) of resources and does cost a lot of money. Consider the jail expense, medical expense and resource expense. Imo, Arizona made their move mostly to get the Feds and Obama do actually do what they had promised. Immigration reform.

• 

  Phaedrus on May 18 at 4:47 p.m.

  Didn’t Ronald Reagan promise to reform immigration. Whatever happened with that?—CindyH

  If not for his being a liar with his promise to deal with immigration reform—hmoffsuite

  Exactly.

• 

  Phaedrus on May 18 at 4:48 p.m.

  Reagan did act on immigration reform.—suite

  So that solved the problem, right?

• 

  Phaedrus on May 18 at 4:50 p.m.

  A lack of immigration reform drains the States (several) of resources and does cost a lot of money—suite

  so they passed a law that will drain its budget of even more money. smart.

• 

  keithincda on May 18 at 5:01 p.m.

  @Phaedrus: “so they passed a law that will drain its budget of even more money. smart.”

  Actually I think they have a pretty good idea for a new revenue stream. ;)

  http://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/letter-azcc-villaraigosa.pdf.pdf

• 

  hmoffsuite on May 18 at 5:04 p.m.

  >> “so they passed a law that will drain its budget of even more money. smart.”

  Money spent now will save more in the future. A lot more. Doing nothing now would be like Obamanomics.

• 

  Phaedrus on May 18 at 5:10 p.m.

  Money spent now will save more in the future.—suite

  President Obama said the same thing about the GM bailout and the stimulus package, it appears you have been listening. ( And like Vaughn Ward, just copying what you hear)

• 

  Phaedrus on May 18 at 5:10 p.m.

  Money spent now will save more in the future—suite

  False. Money is being spent arresting and detaining people, it is doing NOTHING to stem the flow.

• 

  hmoffsuite on May 18 at 5:16 p.m.

  >>> ” it is doing NOTHING to stem the flow”

  Silly comment, not surprising. When the illegals figure they won’t just be able to hide in the population, they will stop coming. And, as a matter of fact, they are already leaving in droves to avoid a deportation. Which also reduces the illegal immigrant count. My cleaning lady already told us she will be leaving as her husband is not fully documented. The lawyers charge too much, is what she told us. Figures. About 6 grand to get the paper work done. It will do lots to stem the flow. Got any other silly notions?

• 

  Phaedrus on May 18 at 5:24 p.m.

  My cleaning lady already told us—suite

  LOL! told you, but she’s still there! ;-) let’s see how this pans out, I think it is too soon to believe it is a panacea for all the immigration ills. And let’s see the net effect on the AZ budget after the impact of the economic boycott is felt.

• 

  hmoffsuite on May 18 at 5:31 p.m.

  >>> “LOL! told you, but she’s still there!”

  Don’t laugh too hard. She is leaving in June after the kids get out of school that the citizens pay for.

• 

  bpoole on May 18 at 5:37 p.m.

  “She is leaving in June after the kids get out of school that the citizens pay for.”>>>Suite

  Will you explain this, are you referring to her children, and are you referring to citizens who pay taxes? Is she not included in the “citizens pay for?”

  I would hope that if you employ her, you would be reducing her income by the way of taxes, if this is not true this AZ immigration law is for people like “YOU.” If not, I apologize.

• 

  hmoffsuite on May 18 at 5:52 p.m.

  bpoole. The cleaning lady, whom I pay, has her work papers. She is an independent contractor, not an employee. Her husband, who I do not employ does not have work papers. As a family they are leaving. The Arizona law is not for ME, since I am an American Citizen. The taxes I pay are in the form of real estate, a lot of which goes to school funding, as you know.

• 

  bpoole on May 18 at 5:55 p.m.

  Hmm, according to AZ capital times,

  “Arizona’s new immigration law may have been aimed at deporting as many illegal immigrants as possible, but an ironic side effect will allow more undocumented residents to apply for temporary work visas and permanent U.S. citizenship, according to research by the Arizona Capitol Times.”

  Is this the way it was supposed to work?

• 

  bpoole on May 18 at 5:57 p.m.

  “The Arizona law is not for ME.”

  I apologize, I just didn’t want to assume that employers were taking advantage of individuals who are illegal, since this law is suppose to curb that problem as well.

• 

  hmoffsuite on May 18 at 6:05 p.m.

  bpoole. A couple of years ago, they passed another law with some teeth that would penalize a company if they hired undocumented workers. They could lose their business license and some did, as a matter of fact. That is when it started taking twice as long to get through the car wash. Seriously.

• 

  sue on May 18 at 6:11 p.m.

  From the IRS website:

  Can Your Employee Legally Work in the United States?

  It is unlawful for you knowingly to hire or continue to employ an alien who cannot legally work in the United States.

  When you hire a household employee to work for you on a regular basis, you and the employee must complete the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. No later than the first day of work, the employee must complete the employee section of the form by providing certain required information and attesting to his or her current work eligibility status in the United States. You must complete the employer section by examining documents presented by the employee as evidence of his or her identity and employment eligibility. Acceptable documents to establish identity and employment eligibility are listed on Form I-9. You should keep the completed Form I-9 in your own records. Do not submit it to the IRS, the USCIS, or any other government or other entity. The form must be kept available for review upon notice by an authorized U.S. Government official.

  Two copies of Form I-9 are contained in the Handbook for Employers (Form M-274) published by the USCIS.

• 

  tinybobidaho on May 18 at 7:07 p.m.

  samasterson on May 18 at 4:04 p.m.

  Jorgenson’s previous legislation, soundly rejected by both parties, would have punished even those employers who unknowingly hired illegals. Every business in Idaho would have had the expense and burden of verifying with the federal government the status of each and every employee. This is election grandstanding that will not win him additional votes. Time for him to go.
  –––––––––––––––––

  Apparently, you, Obama, Napolitano, and Holder all have something in common. They didn’t read the bill they mouthed off about, either. If you had read Senator Jorgenson’s bill, you would have learned that it called for businesses to use a FREE federal program called E-Verify which tells an employer within minutes if the worker he’s hired is legal or not. By using this system, the employer is then off the hook if it’s found out later that the employee was in fact illegal.

  The reason those losers on the Senate Affairs Committee voted Jorgenson’s bill down, is because they get campaign funding from the farmers and dairymen who hire illegal aliens. If Jorgenson doesn’t get re-elected, nothing will ever get done about the illegal alien problem in this state. Someone on here said we don’t have an illegal problem in Idaho. Now that’s a joke! It’s true that we don’t have as big a problem up here as the southern part of the state, but we have a $200 million dollar problem with illegal aliens throughout this state. And that money is coming right out of the taxpayers pockets. We just had a citizen get murdered by an illegal alien here in Coeur d’Alene. But maybe we should wait until the number of crimes grow, huh? Some of you people get on here and complain that our politicians never do anything for this state. Then you complain when we have a chance to keep somebody in there who IS doing things for this state.

• 

  hmoffsuite on May 18 at 7:34 p.m.

  So, the City of Los Angeles wants to boycott Arizona over the immigration law. Looks like Arizona just might play hardball with the LA folks. Since LA gets 25% of its electricity from Arizona, things might take a different turn. Those arrangements can certainly be renegotiated.

  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/18/arizona-dares-los-angeles-to-carry-out-boycott/

• 

  IdahoDad on May 18 at 8:52 p.m.

  hmoffsuite, does this mean you’ll have to vacuum your own carpets?!

  The horror!

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic