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 (7/26/2010 9:23:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: One of our laws is based upon how you are allowed to be here to begin with. Cant follow that law? why should we assume you will follow any other law? That is pretty much what "they" said to martin luther king concernig his approach to civil disobediance. Two of the tenets of civil disobedience are: 1. Breaking the law openly 2. Nonviolence, specifically including not resisting or fleeing arrest. The illegal alien invasion doesn't even come close to MLK.

truckinslave -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/26/2010 9:25:04 AM)
quote: Whatever.....physician heal thyself comes to mind. No doubt along with a million other off-topic and non-responsive brain farts.

AsmodaisSin -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/26/2010 9:31:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: I have to applaud Arizona for taking on the government. If the federal government isn't going after these people and is ignoring the sanctuary cities, then someone needs to take a stand. If the US government won't stand up and look out for its people, then the people will do it. All arizona has to do is enforce the existing federal law( yes, arizona cops can enforce federal law...you know like the one against robbing banks). Sure. That's all they have to do. But is it enough? If the federal government isn't doing its job, then what do we do? We force its hand, and that's what AZ did. Bush didn't do squat, Clinton didn't do squat, Bush Sr. didn't do squat, and Obama's administration is suing the one state that's making a stand. Interesting...

thompsonx -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/26/2010 9:48:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: One of our laws is based upon how you are allowed to be here to begin with. Cant follow that law? why should we assume you will follow any other law? That is pretty much what "they" said to martin luther king concernig his approach to civil disobediance. Two of the tenets of civil disobedience are: 1. Breaking the law openly 2. Nonviolence, specifically including not resisting or fleeing arrest. The illegal alien invasion doesn't even come close to MLK. Perhaps you might want to go back and actually read what I posted and what I was responding to. That may not fit too well with your agenda but my point was that mlk broke the existing law and was in response to tazz saying that all the illegals have to do is follow the law. It is pretty clear that you do not want to address that point.

realwhiteknight -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/26/2010 9:48:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: I think so! I can't imagine open immigration policies are a good thing. Some people seem to be under the impression that anything else is somehow discriminatory and wrong and that because of it, people should be able to disregard the law. It would seem to me that if your problem is with the law, then you should fight against those laws to change them, instead of making allowances for those who aren't legally allowed to be here. There are plenty of laws we don't 'like' in any society yet we abide by them so that there is order and not chaos. Also, the concept of perfectly open and easy immigration as some sort of intrinsic right seems to convey a sense of entitlement to me. Sort of like, you get to do whatever you want, without having to do the requisite work... So when the u.s. illegally crossed the border into mexico and disregarded that countrie's immigration laws and took half of that country that is somehow different? Your inconsistant interpretation of your own concepts seems a little skewed. What the hell does what happened centuries ago have to do with this discussion? 160 years do not centuries make. A parallel might be russia's relationship with poland circa 1750-2010. Where for a significant period of time (more than a century)poland ceased to exist as a nation. Ok fine 160 years whatever. Non sequitur. Now, a new non sequitur. Italy, btw, was never formally unified until 1861. Who the frick cares?

thompsonx -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/26/2010 9:51:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AsmodaisSin quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: I have to applaud Arizona for taking on the government. If the federal government isn't going after these people and is ignoring the sanctuary cities, then someone needs to take a stand. If the US government won't stand up and look out for its people, then the people will do it. All arizona has to do is enforce the existing federal law( yes, arizona cops can enforce federal law...you know like the one against robbing banks). Sure. That's all they have to do. But is it enough? If the federal government isn't doing its job, then what do we do? We force its hand, and that's what AZ did. Bush didn't do squat, Clinton didn't do squat, Bush Sr. didn't do squat, and Obama's administration is suing the one state that's making a stand. Interesting... Had you taken the time to actually acquaint yourself with the two laws in question you would see that the federal law is far more draconian than the state law concerning the employer. You bemoan the fact that a succession of administrations have not enforced the law. The same is true with the state of arizona it has continually refused to enforce the law. Why are you against the state of arizona enforcing the existing law? Is it because you know that the federal law has very stiff penalities on employers and the new state law does not?

truckinslave -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/26/2010 10:07:08 AM)
quote: mlk broke the existing law and was in response to tazz saying that all the illegals have to do is follow the law. I got that. What I'm saying is that comparing the civil disobedience of King (which I even partially defined fo you) to the clandestine, dishonest, identy-stealing, job-killing, wage-lowering, and occasional violence of the illegal alien invasion is sorta like comparing jaywalking to the Holocaust. Which you didn't get at all, dude.

thompsonx -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/26/2010 10:07:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: I think so! I can't imagine open immigration policies are a good thing. Some people seem to be under the impression that anything else is somehow discriminatory and wrong and that because of it, people should be able to disregard the law. It would seem to me that if your problem is with the law, then you should fight against those laws to change them, instead of making allowances for those who aren't legally allowed to be here. There are plenty of laws we don't 'like' in any society yet we abide by them so that there is order and not chaos. Also, the concept of perfectly open and easy immigration as some sort of intrinsic right seems to convey a sense of entitlement to me. Sort of like, you get to do whatever you want, without having to do the requisite work... So when the u.s. illegally crossed the border into mexico and disregarded that countrie's immigration laws and took half of that country that is somehow different? Your inconsistant interpretation of your own concepts seems a little skewed. What the hell does what happened centuries ago have to do with this discussion? 160 years do not centuries make. A parallel might be russia's relationship with poland circa 1750-2010. Where for a significant period of time (more than a century)poland ceased to exist as a nation. Ok fine 160 years whatever. Non sequitur. Now, a new non sequitur. Italy, btw, was never formally unified until 1861. Who the frick cares? Not a non sequitur. Russia attacks poland and takes part of their country. Russia eventually splits up poland and poland ceases to exist. Poland eventually reuinfies and becomes a nation again. This process takes hundreds of years. The u.s. attacks mexico and takes part of their country. more than a hundred years later mexico still resents that just as the poles resented russia taking parts of poland. My point was that just because a hundred or more years pass the people of the two respective countries did not and have not forgotten and continue to seek redress the percieved problem. This was in response to your statement that that happend a long time ago and your implication that they should "get over it" Your concept that all should obey the "law" seems to apply to the mexicans obeying our laws but not to our having disobeyed their laws by taking half of their country. I agree that your point about italy was a non sequitur.

truckinslave -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/26/2010 10:09:02 AM)
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.

truckinslave -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/26/2010 10:10:06 AM)
quote: Your concept that all should obey the "law" seems to apply to the mexicans obeying our laws but not to our having disobeyed their laws by taking half of their country Ever heard of stare decisis?

mnottertail -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/26/2010 10:16:17 AM)
you argue against yourself, stare would say that the federal law is custom, with precedents and so...........

truckinslave -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/26/2010 10:22:25 AM)
Not so much. Stare says we won the fucking war with Mexico, get over it. The game counted, and the results stand. You want a rematch, buy some tanks.

thompsonx -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/26/2010 10:29:31 AM)
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. Your position is quite clear. Enforcing the existing law would target employers and solve the problem. Enforcing 1070 essentially ignores the employers and targets people who "look or sound" illegal thus fulfilling your biggoted desire to fuck with brown people. Ain't you a real sweetie

realwhiteknight -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/26/2010 10:30:30 AM)
quote: Not a non sequitur. Russia attacks poland and takes part of their country. Russia eventually splits up poland and poland ceases to exist. Poland eventually reuinfies and becomes a nation again. This process takes hundreds of years. The u.s. attacks mexico and takes part of their country. more than a hundred years later mexico still resents that just as the poles resented russia taking parts of poland. My point was that just because a hundred or more years pass the people of the two respective countries did not and have not forgotten and continue to seek redress the percieved problem. This was in response to your statement that that happend a long time ago and your implication that they should "get over it" Your concept that all should obey the "law" seems to apply to the mexicans obeying our laws but not to our having disobeyed their laws by taking half of their country. I agree that your point about italy was a non sequitur. You edited that post to make it more clear. quote: just as the poles resented russia taking parts of poland. My point was that just because a hundred or more years pass the people of the two respective countries did not and have not forgotten and continue to seek redress the percieved problem. That is why it's a non sequitur. I highly doubt Mexicans are coming over here to redress the wrongs of the past. Your point is laughable. They are coming because of economic problems in their own country, whereas our country offers economic opportunity to them. quote: This was in response to your statement that that happend a long time ago and your implication that they should "get over it" Can you show where I said that? You must be hallucinating. I said it was a non sequitur, so how could I have possibly told anyone to get over their history? That would be impossible. quote: Your concept that all should obey the "law" seems to apply to the mexicans obeying our laws but not to our having disobeyed their laws by taking half of their country. A HUNDRED AND 60 YEARS AGO. Therefore- again wtf does this have to do with policy making/enforcing by the U.S government over what may or may not be (but seems to be) a drain our our countrys economic resources TODAY? I.e., this debate?

thompsonx -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/26/2010 10:34:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Not so much. Stare says we won the fucking war with Mexico, get over it. The game counted, and the results stand. You want a rematch, buy some tanks. So it would appear that your position is that "might makes right" and that law has no place in any decision

thompsonx -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/26/2010 10:56:03 AM)
That is why it's a non sequitur. I highly doubt Mexicans are coming over here to redress the wrongs of the past. Your point is laughable. They are coming because of economic problems in their own country, whereas our country offers economic opportunity to them. Here is a website of one of our local bigots who would disagree with your position. http://www.illegalaliens.us/aztlan.htm

realwhiteknight -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/26/2010 11:02:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Not so much. Stare says we won the fucking war with Mexico, get over it. The game counted, and the results stand. You want a rematch, buy some tanks. So it would appear that your position is that "might makes right" and that law has no place in any decision Jesus why can't people separate these issues? Typical ultra-liberal nonsensical bullcrap. History can not be 'fixed'. Geographical boundaries and past political conflicts can not be redressed in new laws or reform, we can only take into account the here and now, and potential future problems based on the past. Learn about history, and move on. We can't give Texas back, people, so freakin deal with it. [8\|]

ElizabethAnne -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/26/2010 11:23:31 AM)
~fast reply~ If a business is employing illegal immigrants they need to be held accountable and states should have a right to protect their borders against law breakers. And how many states now back Arizona? Illegal immigrants need to be, and should be deported back to the country in which they hold citizenship. I don't see why this is so inflammatory. What is wrong with asking for identification? Is there any country in the world that does not require a passport before you enter? Frankly I think English should be MADE the official language of the US; and if a person obtains legal visas to be here, they need to learn English. I dunno, maybe Obama is so against Arizona's law because he actually wasn't born in the US. :) Has he ever provided a copy of his original birth certificate? I steadfastly will continue to support Arizona, and hope the Governor doesn't back down, and this law goes into effect Thursday, and maybe Texas next. Nice to see someone with some guts to do what needs to be done. If a person is not here legally - go home, the majority of Amercian's do not want you here. If you are here legally, learn English, like OUR ancestors had to do. edited to add: This is a fast reply, not to anyone specifically.

thompsonx -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/26/2010 11:54:22 AM)
quote: Jesus why can't people separate these issues? Typical ultra-liberal nonsensical bullcrap. History can not be 'fixed'. Geographical boundaries and past political conflicts can not be redressed in new laws or reform, we can only take into account the here and now, and potential future problems based on the past. Learn about history, and move on. We can't give Texas back, people, so freakin deal with it. So by your reasoning poland still does not exist.

realwhiteknight -> RE: Az immigration law case begins (7/26/2010 12:32:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx That is why it's a non sequitur. I highly doubt Mexicans are coming over here to redress the wrongs of the past. Your point is laughable. They are coming because of economic problems in their own country, whereas our country offers economic opportunity to them. Here is a website of one of our local bigots who would disagree with your position. http://www.illegalaliens.us/aztlan.htm Honestly, why would I bother listening to a 'bigot'?

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875