Obama has an interesting view of who the "enemy" is.

[Whovian]

I disagree.




Why are conservatives trying force people to speak pidgeon engwish and put people in prison who come here to work? That doesn't sound like freedom.

still waiting on those sources of yours...any luck faking, er, finding them yet?

 

[Moot]

of course you do. :shrug:

I could easily say the same about you. :shrug:

source??? 353453

Amendment one to U.S Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peacefully to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So what part of "Congress shall make no law, abridging the freedom of speech" don't Conservatives understand when they try to force immigrants to speak only english?

because those people broke the law in coming here. unlike liberals...conservatives believe criminals belong in prison.

Well, unlike conservatives I don't like supporting the entire existence of millions of people, including their entertainment, education and healthcare. The idea that our country is warehousing more people in prison than all the others countries combined speaks more of Fascism and oppression than it does of a freedom loving society. Conservatives are hypocrites when they say they want less government, less taxes and more freedom and then insist on raising taxes to pay for more prisons, pass more laws and harsher sentences to make more criminals, just so they can feel superior to a Mexican housekeeper.

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population. But it has almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners.Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.

Criminologists and legal scholars in other industrialized nations say they are mystified and appalled by the number and length of American prison sentences.

The United States has, for instance, 2.3 million criminals behind bars, more than any other nation, according to data maintained by the International Center for Prison Studies at King’s College London....read

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/23prison.html

Where does it end with you people? After you've imprisoned half the country, can genocide be far behind?

 

[Whovian]

still waiting on those sources of yours...any luck faking, er, finding them yet?

I shall continue to bump this, until Moot either admits having nothing factual to base gher assertions on, or she posts proof that there is a law on the books or in the works that would 'force immigrants to speak ONLY English at all times'.

 

[Moot]

I shall continue to bump this, until Moot either admits having nothing factual to base gher assertions on, or she posts proof that there is a law on the books or in the works that would 'force immigrants to speak ONLY English at all times'.

Well then I'll just keep posting my response until you finally admit you aren't interested in having a discussion and are only interested in trolling me. So here you go...AGAIN....

Originally Posted by OscarB63:
of course you do.:shrug:

I could easily say the same about you. :shrug:

source??? 353453

Amendment one to U.S Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peacefully to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So what part of "Congress shall make no law, abridging the freedom of speech" don't Conservatives understand when they try to force immigrants to speak only english?

because those people broke the law in coming here. unlike liberals...conservatives believe criminals belong in prison.

Well, unlike conservatives I don't like supporting the entire existence of millions of people, including their entertainment, education and healthcare. The idea that our country is warehousing more people in prison than all the others countries combined speaks more of Fascism and oppression than it does of a freedom loving society. Conservatives are hypocrites when they say they want less government, less taxes and more freedom and then insist on raising taxes to pay for more prisons, pass more laws and harsher sentences to make more criminals, just so they can feel superior to a Mexican housekeeper.

"...The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population. But it has almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners.Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.

Criminologists and legal scholars in other industrialized nations say they are mystified and appalled by the number and length of American prison sentences.

The United States has, for instance, 2.3 million criminals behind bars, more than any other nation, according to data maintained by the International Center for Prison Studies at King’s College London....read
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/23prison.html

Where does it end with you people? After you've imprisoned half the country, can genocide be far behind?

 

[cpwill]

wow. reading that post is a real vacation from reality.

 

[OscarB63]

I could easily say the same about you. :shrug:

Amendment one to U.S Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peacefully to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So what part of "Congress shall make no law, abridging the freedom of speech" don't Conservatives understand when they try to force immigrants to speak only english?

sorry, I thought we were talking about illegals who don't have any rights under OUR constitution. if we are going to switch back and forth between illegals and legal immigrants you have to let me know when you change gears. when you combine making immigrants speak english with putting illegals in jail, I naturally assume the immigrants being forced to speak english are also illegal

 

[cpwill]

i'm still waiting for some kind of evidence that any conservatives are calling for the outlawing of Spanish; which would be an abridgement of the First Amendment.

as opposed to establishing that the US Government conducts business in English; which would not be.

as for jailing people who break the law; yeah, rule of law. it is sort of a conservative thing; and we don't apologize for it. however, translating that into some kind of welfare system is sort of ridiculous.

 

[Moot]

sorry, I thought we were talking about illegals who don't have any rights under OUR constitution. if we are going to switch back and forth between illegals and legal immigrants you have to let me know when you change gears. when you combine making immigrants speak english with putting illegals in jail, I naturally assume the immigrants being forced to speak english are also illegal

Ooooh, and you've been trying so hard to twist my arguement into something I didn't say or mean, too. Nice try, but...

i'm still waiting for some kind of evidence that any conservatives are calling for the outlawing of Spanish; which would be an abridgement of the First Amendment.

as opposed to establishing that the US Government conducts business in English; which would not be.

See above, it applies to you, too.

as for jailing people who break the law; yeah, rule of law. it is sort of a conservative thing; and we don't apologize for it. however, translating that into some kind of welfare system is sort of ridiculous.

Call it whatever you want, it still translates into taxpayers supporting the entire existence of millions of people in gulags just to profit a few conservatives with a racial superiority complex....

Tougher immigration laws mean more detentions and bigger contracts for prison companies.
"...A private group of conservative state lawmakers and private-prison-industry representatives discussed and revised Arizona’s controversial immigration bill—both hailed and decried as the toughest in the nation—before it became law. Not only was a Utah lawmaker the chair of that private committee that discussed the bill, but new research also shows that a Utah company—the nation’s third-largest private-corrections company— made campaign donations to the sponsor of Arizona’s law four times in recent years. Immigrants are detained in prisons prior to deportation, so private jailers have a financial interest in tougher immigration laws....read"
Salt Lake City News - News Articles: Utah's Management & Training Corporation's role in Ariz. immigration law

Private prisons donating money to lawmakers to pass harsher sentencing and immigration laws so they can fill their prisons and make lots of profits off of US taxpayers. Isn't that the opposite of the typical tea party whine of "liberty", "less government intrusion" and "less taxes"?

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Shh... our universal and fundamental beliefs in the natural freedoms of people doesnt apply until we invade and kill a few hundred thousand. When we invade mexico, then we wont have to put them in prison.

 

[Boo Radley]

Shh... our universal and fundamental beliefs in the natural freedoms of people doesnt apply until we invade and kill a few hundred thousand. When we invade mexico, then we wont have to put them in prison.

No doubt. No doubt.

 

[Whovian]

still waiting on those sources of yours...any luck faking, er, finding them yet?

I shall continue to bump this, until Moot either admits having nothing factual to base gher assertions on, or she posts proof that there is a law on the books or in the works that would 'force immigrants to speak ONLY English at all times'.

BUMP...


Any luck with those sources Moot? You know, the law about requiring immigrants to speak ONLY English? Nothing?


I thought not.

I dub thee, Lady Full of It.

 

[OscarB63]

I still don't see how forcing illegal immigrants to speak english is unconstitutional. they have no rights under the constitution therefore forcing them to do anything cannot be called "unconstitutional".

moot...moot, moot...moot, moot, moot....moot...


that being said. one would think that if an immigrant really wanted to integrate themselves into the society they chose to move to (and not just be a sponge)...they would WANT to learn to speak the same language as the rest of the country.

you can bet your ass that if I moved to mexico, I'd damn well learn to speak spanish. :shrug:

 

[OscarB63]

Ooooh, and you've been trying so hard to twist my arguement into something I didn't say or mean, too. Nice try, but...

sorry moot...no twisting is required. you can't blame me because you are unable to put your thoughts down in a coherent manner.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Yes, you were attacking the messenger which is very typical of conservatives.


Prisons for profit, english only, amend the constitution, etc.....so why don't you save us both the trouble and just admit that conservatives don't really believe in the constitution, free speech or freedom?

Really? :roll:

 

[Whovian]

If you can't speak, read or spell english, then why do you expect immigrants to?

Here's a novel approach... LEARN.

 

[FederalRepublic]

I could easily say the same about you. :shrug:

Amendment one to U.S Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peacefully to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So what part of "Congress shall make no law, abridging the freedom of speech" don't Conservatives understand when they try to force immigrants to speak only english?

Well, unlike conservatives I don't like supporting the entire existence of millions of people, including their entertainment, education and healthcare. The idea that our country is warehousing more people in prison than all the others countries combined speaks more of Fascism and oppression than it does of a freedom loving society. Conservatives are hypocrites when they say they want less government, less taxes and more freedom and then insist on raising taxes to pay for more prisons, pass more laws and harsher sentences to make more criminals, just so they can feel superior to a Mexican housekeeper.



Where does it end with you people? After you've imprisoned half the country, can genocide be far behind?

I'm going to make this my standard "moot response":
:roll:

 

[Moot]

I still don't see how forcing illegal immigrants to speak english is unconstitutional. they have no rights under the constitution therefore forcing them to do anything cannot be called "unconstitutional".

Where in the constitution does it say illegal immigrants don't have any rights? Aside from having basic human rights, everyone on US soil has protected rights, including illegal immigrants. Yes, you heard that right, illegal immigrants have protected Constitutional rights......read article below

"It is true that the Constitution does not give foreigners the right to enter the U.S. But once here, it protects them from discrimination based on race and national origin and from arbitrary treatment by the government. Immigrants work and pay taxes; legal immigrants are subject to the military draft. Many immigrants have lived in this country for decades, married U.S. citizens, and raised their U.S.-citizen children. Laws that punish them violate their fundamental right to fair and equal treatment. The Immigrants' Rights Project of the ACLU was established in 1985 to challenge unconstitutional laws and practices, and to counter the myths upon which many of these laws are based. The Project has become one of the nation's leading advocates for the rights of immigrants, refugees and non-citizens....snip

Since immigrants don't have the right to enter the U.S., those who are not here legally are subject to deportation. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has the authority to question "any person believed to be an alien as to his right to be in the United States." But in a 1903 case called Yamataya v. Fisher, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the INS could not deport someone without a hearing that meets constitutional due process standards. Since then, procedural rights for undocumented immigrants have evolved so that today, in spite of Congress' attempts to curtail these rights, most people facing deportation are entitled to:

* a hearing before an immigration judge and review, in most cases, by a federal court;
representation by a lawyer (but not at government expense);

*reasonable notice of charges, and of a hearing's time and place;

*a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence and the government's witnesses;

*competent interpretation for non-English speaking immigrants, and
clear and convincing proof that the government's grounds for deportation are valid.

that being said. one would think that if an immigrant really wanted to integrate themselves into the society they chose to move to (and not just be a sponge)...they would WANT to learn to speak the same language as the rest of the country.

you can bet your ass that if I moved to mexico, I'd damn well learn to speak spanish. :shrug:

You are absolutely right, people who come here to live should learn the language and try to assimulate....BUT...there is no law that says they have to learn english or assimulate to conservative's standards. Because once immigrants are legally here, their right to speak whatever language they want and their right to pursue happiness and liberty are the same protected constitutional rights you and I enjoy......

...English Only" laws, which declare English to be the country's official language and bar government employees from providing non-English language assistance and services, are inconsistent with both the First Amendment right to communicate with or petition the government, and the right to equality. They are also unnecessary and sometimes even dangerous to both individuals and the public. Currently enforced in eighteen states, some "English Only" laws are written so broadly that they forbid non-English government services such as assistance to recipients of benefits, applications for drivers' licenses, and bilingual education.

Current "English Only" laws are based on the false premise that today's immigrants who come from Asian and Spanish-speaking countries will not learn English without government coercion. In fact, the vast majority of Asian and Latino immigrants are acquiring proficiency in English just as quickly, if not faster, than earlier generations of Italian, Russian and German immigrants. Moreover, only 4% of the U.S. population over the age of five does not speak English.

The problem is not that immigrants are unwilling to learn English, but that there are not enough available educational resources for them. Today, many thousands of immigrants throughout the country are on the waiting lists for adult English classes. English-only laws do nothing constructive to increase English proficiency, they simply discriminate against and punish those who have not yet learned English....readThe Rights of Immigrants -ACLU Position Paper | American Civil Liberties Union

 

[cpwill]

Ooooh, and you've been trying so hard to twist my arguement into something I didn't say or mean, too.

oh. so your counterargument isn't that you are wrong, it is that you have reading comprehension issues?

See above, it applies to you, too.

quite the contrary; restrictions on speech can possibly violate the first amendment (not all do). putting US government business in english is in no way a restriction of speech, and therefore doesn't apply.

Call it whatever you want, it still translates into taxpayers supporting the entire existence of millions of people in gulags just to profit a few conservatives with a racial superiority complex

no, it doesn't. first off, that you would call American prisons gulags indicates that you have no idea whatsoever as to the comparative conditions in a US jail and a Soviet Gulag. At best it's an abuse of an emotive term in an attempt to make an argument that implicitly admits it isn't based in reality; at its' worst its' deliberate incitement combined with character assasination. i might as well accuse you of supporting amnesty because you hate white people and want to enslave them for the benefit of hispanics :roll:

Tougher immigration laws mean more detentions and bigger contracts for prison companies.

actually tougher immigration laws tend to reduce people who are in jail, as it drives Illegals from the area in which they are passed. see: Oklahoma. and most conservatives are going to be just fine with putting employers who knowingly hire illegals right there in jail with them.

A private group of conservative state lawmakers and private-prison-industry representatives discussed and revised Arizona’s controversial immigration bill—both hailed and decried as the toughest in the nation—before it became law. Not only was a Utah lawmaker the chair of that private committee that discussed the bill, but new research also shows that a Utah company—the nation’s third-largest private-corrections company— made campaign donations to the sponsor of Arizona’s law four times in recent years.

interesting but hardly unsurprising. who else has that company made donations to, what were the size of the donations, and how much other business does that company do in the state?

Immigrants are detained in prisons prior to deportation, so private jailers have a financial interest in tougher immigration laws

similar to how public employee unions have a financial interest in taking their members money and using them to prop up democrats, who in turn support destructive compensation plans and the like.

i think i'll worry about the collusion between money and government that's currently involved in threatning local and state governments with insolvency before i worry about companies' whose net result is to encourage actual enforcement of laws that are already on our books. this is simply a case of turning private motivations towards public good.

 

[Moot]

oh. so your counterargument isn't that you are wrong, it is that you have reading comprehension issues?

Thats right, I have comprehension issues when it comes to reading your garbage, so I'm not even going to try to read the rest of it. See ya. :2wave:

 

[cpwill]

cute. well, at least you admit your failures . that does put you ahead of the rest of many.