RE: Az immigration law case begins

RE: Az immigration law case begins (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

truckinslave -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/27/2010 5:26:25 AM)
quote: Frankly I think English should be MADE the official language of the US; Airborne!! (For the uninitiated, that is respectful form of enthusiastic agreement). Short answer to the BC: hell no. BC supposedly under lock and key in Hawaii. A different form- a "Certificate of Live Birth"not accepted in Hawaii as proof of birth has been published on the internet. Search this board for "de Vattel" for the 4 requirements to be a "natural born citizen" as intended by the Founders. If 0bama0 was born in Hawaii he meets two of them.

truckinslave -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/27/2010 5:28:32 AM)
quote: You are making an argument from emotion, Liberalism denies human nature and logic. Strip emotion from their argument and the cupboard is bare indeed.

truckinslave -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/27/2010 5:35:43 AM)
quote: So you look on the racism lynching and murders against blacks as nothing more than jaywalking Are you stupid or calling me names again? I suppose the latter, but if you're unsure reread the post to which you are referring. P.S. Spell check will not teach you the difference between "boarder" and "border".

truckinslave -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/27/2010 5:40:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: The same is true with the state of arizona it has continually refused to enforce the law. And that's a crying shame. Hopefully they will enforce 1070. Which do you think would be more effective at stopping illegal immigration? I don't care which particular part of which particular plan would be "more effective", or by what criterion (stopping future illegals, sending current illegals back, separating felonious illegals from their fellows, most bang for the buck, etc). Here's what I want to do regarding stopping future illegals, and sending back most of the ones we have: All of the above. Happy now? Good, feel free to call me some more names. Says way more about you than me.

truckinslave -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/27/2010 5:45:06 AM)
quote: the White House may get laughed out of court more quickly than first thought. If that happens, it will be neither more quickly than I thought, nor quickly enought to suit me.

LadyCharly -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/28/2010 7:05:18 AM)
True I haven't read all posts in this topic, but what I have read seems to be void of many facts and too much politics/name calling. Do any of you know: Mexico's immigration laws? Mexican Immigration Laws So let's get it straight, most are saying it's ok for Mexico to mark illegal immigration as a felony but not the USA. Double standards are never a good idea and there's not much difference in AZ law and the federal laws. Yes I have read both, so this isn't a case of speaking without knowing the facts. AZ passed their law due to the fact that the Federal Gov't. refuses to do anything about this problem. Except consider amnesty for all of them! That Mexico, Bolivia, Columbia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru have filed or going to file legal briefs in the case against AZ law? I couldn't find a copy of this brief as of yet. Although I cannot speak to it, the fact remains that Mexico owes us billions and wants their citizens to be allowed to remain here illegally rather then to have them sent home. FYI, Mexico deports more illegal aliens then the US each year per their very strict laws on immigration and they don't have the tens of millions of them like we do. How much money does the US give those 8 countries and now they want to interfere with our laws which we will allow w/o repercussion? In 2006: Mexico 184M, Bolivia 224M, Columbia 1,348M, El Salvador 68M, Guatemala 102M, Nicaragua 248M, and Peru 338M That's over 2B of our hard earned tax dollars and most of these countries are where illegal drugs come from. No doubt the aid amount is higher today. The difference between legal and illegal immigration? The difference between compassion and stupidity? It's a very fine line indeed. Illegal Immigration Quotes from above article: The US Justice Department reported that in 2003, alone, 270,000 illegal immigrants had served prison time. (average cost per YEAR, per prisoner approx. $25,000 x 270,000 illegals = do the math, it's through the roof! Let's not forget, for the crime they committed against a US citizen, they get free medical, food, attorneys, schooling, etc. ta boot!) Illegal immigrants to the US cost the country at least $10 billion more than they contribute to the economy. The CIS (Center for Immigration Studies) advises that if amnesty is put into place, these costs to the American economy (and the American taxpayer) will triple. (Again how hard is it for Americans to understand that it is our hard earned money that is paying for them? And that most of the money they earn here they send back to Mexico to take care of their family....) Civil rights pertain ONLY to citizens. The Merriam-Webster online Dictionary defines civil-rights as: “The nonpolitical rights of a citizen; especially: the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and by acts of Congress.” If one is not a citizen of the country, civil rights do not apply. (Why is it so hard for US citizens to understand this?) Perhaps instead of thinking with our hearts, we should be thinking with the brains we were given and leave politics/name calling out of it. Just food for thought, not emotions.

LadyCharly -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/28/2010 8:43:08 AM)
And now just part of the impact: for all who are for amnesty and against any real immigration laws being enacted like the one in AZ, perhaps look over this site. Only a small drop in the bucket compared to the real statistics no doubt.... Then again, they do say ignorance is bliss right? I prefer not being ignorant or believing everything I hear and read. VOIAC I fully understand that those who have never been impacted by a vicious crime to a loved one will never be able to imagine how it destroys the family members. It's hard, very hard to deal with another American committing such acts, but now think about people who do NOT belong here legally committing them....

tazzygirl -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/28/2010 11:29:15 AM)
Parts of the law have been blocked. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton in Phoenix held today that the state can’t enforce the requirement that police make a “reasonable attempt” to determine whether a person is legally in the U.S. and then detain him if there is “suspicion” that he is not. The government and American Civil Liberties Union had asked Bolton to bar the state from enforcing the law, which the ACLU claims would allow unconstitutional racial profiling by police. Bolton declined to grant a blanket injunction against the law. “The United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the court does not preliminarily enjoin enforcement,” the judge wrote. “Even though Arizona’s interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws.” The judge also barred enforcement of provisions making it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit or perform work. In addition, the ruling blocked police officers from warrantless arrests of people they think might be illegal immigrants. Portions Upheld Bolton upheld parts of the law making it illegal for a person to stop a vehicle to pick up day laborers if it impedes traffic and prohibiting Arizona officials from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws. The Arizona statute makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally. It would have required police officers who come in contact with someone for a law enforcement-related reason to check the individual’s immigration status should they suspect the person lacks proper documentation. The U.S. argued that under the Constitution, immigration policy and enforcement is exclusively a federal power. Arizona has portrayed the law as a response to failure by the federal government to help the state deal with an influx of illegal immigrants. The policies reflected in the law will assist the U.S. to meet its goal of curbing illegal immigration, Arizona’s lawyers contended in court papers. Bolton questioned the parties through almost four hours of hearings on July 22, saying she wanted to be sure to deal with the specifics “provision by provision.” “Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remain in the United States illegally?” the judge asked at one point. ‘Under Attack’ Arizona is “under attack” from Mexican drug and immigrant-smuggling cartels as a result of federal policies, Governor Jan Brewer said this month. The law, which at a signing ceremony Brewer said doesn’t allow racial profiling or discrimination, is a “reasonable and constitutional” response. Barring its implementation would “inflict significant and tangible, irreparable harm” to Arizona, the state’s lawyers wrote. In addition, the ACLU’s lawsuit was unlikely to succeed on its merits, the state claimed in arguing against the injunction. The NAACP, a U.S. civil rights organization, claimed the statute infringes the free-speech rights of day laborers in the state. The plaintiffs also said the law will hinder law- enforcement because residents, concerned their accents or appearance could trigger a police inquiry into their immigration status, would be less likely to attend community meetings or report crimes. “What happens if essentially we have 50 different immigration policies?” David Cook-Martin, a professor of sociology at Grinnell College and researcher for the National Science Foundation’s Race, Immigration, and Citizenship in the Americas project, asked prior to the ruling. “This is a huge issue here. It’s hard to foster trade when unsure what our overall policy is.” The cases are United States of America v. State of Arizona, 2:10cv1413, and Friendly House v. Whiting, 10cv1061, U.S. District Court for Arizona (Phoenix). http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-28/arizona-is-barred-from-enforcing-part-of-immigration-law-by-federal-judge.html

thishereboi -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/28/2010 12:03:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: You are making an argument from emotion, Liberalism denies human nature and logic. Strip emotion from their argument and the cupboard is bare indeed. Where the hell is ThompsonX, if he thought my crack that the pot in Canada sucks, he is going to love this one. So truckin, what do you think would be a good name for the new party of bigots? Maybe you could get together with cucky and come up with something creative.

thompsonx -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/29/2010 4:56:12 PM)
quote: And now just part of the impact: for all who are for amnesty and against any real immigration laws being enacted like the one in AZ, Do you only open your mouth to change feet? The existing federal law has much more draconian sanctions against those who hire people who cross the border illegally. The arizona law is nothing more than a slap on the wrist to the employer. Why are you in favor of employing those who cross the border illegally?

thompsonx -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/29/2010 5:00:45 PM)
quote: Where the hell is ThompsonX, if he thought my crack that the pot in Canada sucks, No you said that mexican pot was superior. Anyone who has sampled high quality domestic pot from either canada or the u.s. knows that to be a less than accurate apprasial of mexican weed.

Page: << < prev 7 8 9 10 [11]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125