• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State Department Stands By Decision to Include Arizona in U.N. Human Rights Report

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,654
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hillary began her campaign for Pres. on Wed. I think with a new ad that ran in New Orleans. This is about gaining support from the illegal alien voters registered by ACORN and others.

She has said she would most likely be in her current position for 1 term. Her new ad can be seen here: Hot Air » Oh yes: First ?Hillary 2012? ad hits the airwaves
 

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,654
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hillary began her campaign for Pres. on Wed. I think with a new ad that ran in New Orleans. This is about gaining support from the illegal alien voters registered by ACORN and others.

She has said she would most likely be in her current position for 1 term. Her new ad can be seen here: Hot Air » Oh yes: First ?Hillary 2012? ad hits the airwaves

The whole AD thing is questionable. But the attacks on AZ and Sheriff Joe are real and a little frightening since they mirror the Federal laws Obama and many previously in the White House refused to address.
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,743
Reaction score
27,893
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hillary is a tattletale.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,402
Reaction score
16,255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative

Sadie

Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2010
Messages
145
Reaction score
48
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What a shame that this great nation is being reduced to being sent to sit in the corner like an errant child.
 

Le Marteau

Banned
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
598
Reaction score
113
Location
London, England and Dijon, France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
This is one of the funniest political stories about a major political player that I've seen for quite some time. At least one that doesn't do irreparable damage.

FOXNews.com - State Department Stands By Decision to Include Arizona in U.N. Human Rights Report
I say, good for her. It shows a modicum of maturity that Americans are stepping up and finally telling other Americans that something they're doing is wrong -- I say bravo to Clinton, and I'm rather impressed.

Brewer's response, however, was much less mature. He essentially said, "Hey, you can't turn me in for human rights violations, I'm an American! I don't have to listen to that "international law" nonsense!"
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This is why the only people who trust the Obama administration to handle illegal immigration are pro-illegals. Because they know that the only way Obama will handle it is with amnesty.
Like Reagan did.


Just saying . . . . ;)
 

Johnny

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
571
Reaction score
205
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I say, good for her. It shows a modicum of maturity that Americans are stepping up and finally telling other Americans that something they're doing is wrong -- I say bravo to Clinton, and I'm rather impressed.

Brewer's response, however, was much less mature. He essentially said, "Hey, you can't turn me in for human rights violations, I'm an American! I don't have to listen to that "international law" nonsense!"

But there's nothing wrong with the AZ law. All the AZ law does more or less is mirror the Federal immigration law. Because the Feds are incompetent AZ had to do something about the problem.
 

Le Marteau

Banned
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
598
Reaction score
113
Location
London, England and Dijon, France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
But there's nothing wrong with the AZ law. All the AZ law does more or less is mirror the Federal immigration law. Because the Feds are incompetent AZ had to do something about the problem.
The problem with Arizona's new immigration law is not that it's anti-immigration -- that's a perfectly reasonable thing to be in a border-province where legal and illegal immigration is a problem. The problem with it is the arbitrary nature of the law -- a random stop by a bigoted patrolman with your last name being "Lopez", and you could be in a bureaucratic nightmare proving you're a legal resident -- if you're not deported outright.
 

Grant

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
31,645
Reaction score
7,598
Location
Canada, Costa Rica
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I say, good for her. It shows a modicum of maturity that Americans are stepping up and finally telling other Americans that something they're doing is wrong -- I say bravo to Clinton, and I'm rather impressed.
Actually, Le Marteau, the Arizona law mirrors the Federal law so it would have been more consistent had Hillary Clinton turned herself in as well, with perhaps making a citizen's arrest of President Obama.

As a European you of course know little about America, its people, customs or laws, and that is evident in your post. I've come to expect that.
Brewer's response, however, was much less mature. He essentially said, "Hey, you can't turn me in for human rights violations, I'm an American! I don't have to listen to that "international law" nonsense!"
Again, you don't understand the issues involved nor what Governor Brewer, a woman in fact, "essentially" said.

Americans have nothing positive to learn from Europeans.
 

Grant

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
31,645
Reaction score
7,598
Location
Canada, Costa Rica
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The problem with Arizona's new immigration law is not that it's anti-immigration -- that's a perfectly reasonable thing to be in a border-province where legal and illegal immigration is a problem. The problem with it is the arbitrary nature of the law -- a random stop by a bigoted patrolman with your last name being "Lopez", and you could be in a bureaucratic nightmare proving you're a legal resident -- if you're not deported outright.
There have been no such cases submitted. None.

And because the border aligns with Mexico it would be strange indeed if the guards went looking for Chinese or Nigerians, though apparently that's what they're expected to do. No profiling allowed.
 

Le Marteau

Banned
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
598
Reaction score
113
Location
London, England and Dijon, France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Actually, Le Marteau, the Arizona law mirrors the Federal law so it would have been more consistent had Hillary Clinton turned herself in as well, with perhaps making a citizen's arrest of President Obama.

As a European you of course know little about America, its people, customs or laws, and that is evident in your post. I've come to expect that.


Again, you don't understand the issues involved nor what Governor Brewer, a woman in fact, "essentially" said.

Americans have nothing positive to learn from Europeans.
I've just looked up your federal law, and... You're flat-out wrong. I don't know why you spout bull**** when it can be corrected with a search as easy as "American Federal Immigration Laws", but, here it is:

Immigration to the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, as a European, I know plenty about America -- firstly because I lived there for a while, and visit relations regularly, and secondly because, contrariwise to what you may think, we've actually got a decent education system over here, and we know how to learn about a place externally -- something most Americans refuse to do. I can't tell you how many Americans I've met visiting France for the first time saying "Wait a second, this isn't right -- France is supposed to be a country filled with gay cowards! That's what FOX News tells me, and I'm too bloody lazy to use multiple collegiate sources!"


I'll admit that you were right about Governor Brewer being a woman (I mistook "Jan" for a shortened "Jansen" as opposed to "Janice"), but your accuracy ends there.


Your final sentence only proves your bigotry -- as I recall, Americans have learned just about everything from Europeans, being a part of Western society.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right

Le Marteau

Banned
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
598
Reaction score
113
Location
London, England and Dijon, France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
You're going to have to do much better than that to show he's "flat-out wrong," 'coz, well, he isn't.
Some excerpts that prove how wrong he is:

"criticized the statute as a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, which gives the federal government authority over the states in immigration matters and provides that only the federal government can enact and enforce immigration laws"

"the Act violated federal law because the police and the city have no authority to perform immigration-related duties"

"violates the federal Supremacy Clause by attempting to bypass federal immigration law;

violates the Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause rights of racial and national origin minorities by subjecting them to stops, detentions, and arrests based on their race or origin;

violates the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech by exposing speakers to scrutiny based on their language or accent;

violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures because it allows for warrantless searches in absence of probable cause;

violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause by being impermissibly vague;

and infringes on constitutional provisions that protect the right to travel without being stopped, questioned, or detained."

Care for some more?
 

Grant

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
31,645
Reaction score
7,598
Location
Canada, Costa Rica
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Some excerpts that prove how wrong he is:

"criticized the statute as a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, which gives the federal government authority over the states in immigration matters and provides that only the federal government can enact and enforce immigration laws"

"the Act violated federal law because the police and the city have no authority to perform immigration-related duties"

"violates the federal Supremacy Clause by attempting to bypass federal immigration law;

violates the Fourteenth Amendment and Equal Protection Clause rights of racial and national origin minorities by subjecting them to stops, detentions, and arrests based on their race or origin;

violates the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech by exposing speakers to scrutiny based on their language or accent;

violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures because it allows for warrantless searches in absence of probable cause;

violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause by being impermissibly vague;

and infringes on constitutional provisions that protect the right to travel without being stopped, questioned, or detained."

Care for some more?
The Arizona law mirrors the federal law. What you are doing here is parroting what the Feds are saying over who has jurisdiction, which is quite another argument.

Yes, I realize that Europeans had a great deal of input in the creation of the United States, and that generation is still revered in the US, but following WWII Europeans changed dramatically and are no longer allies to anyone, even to each other. And as a result of their long term anti Americanism you are quite right, I don't care for most of them very much at all.

There are some brave souls there who will argue to defend what was once European values, the values that helped created the United States, but they are sadly disappearing. Your media has made fools out of too many of you. Sorry.
 

rivrrat

Goddess of Bacon
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
13,988
Reaction score
6,593
Location
Charlottesville, VA
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, if I didn't already have plenty of reasons to despise Hillary, I certainly do now. Another nail in her coffin - what a ****wad.
 

Le Marteau

Banned
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
598
Reaction score
113
Location
London, England and Dijon, France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The Arizona law mirrors the federal law. What you are doing here is parroting what the Feds are saying over who has jurisdiction, which is quite another argument.

Yes, I realize that Europeans had a great deal of input in the creation of the United States, and that generation is still revered in the US, but following WWII Europeans changed dramatically and are no longer allies to anyone, even to each other. And as a result of their long term anti Americanism you are quite right, I don't care for most of them very much at all.

There are some brave souls there who will argue to defend what was once European values, the values that helped created the United States, but they are sadly disappearing. Your media has made fools out of too many of you. Sorry.
I don't understand your logic -- the present era in European politics is the single most unified era since Charles V and the Holy Roman Empire five hundred years ago... Europe, under the European Union, is the largest and most powerful political and economic entity in the world, which consistently votes as a bloc on everything from currency reform to UN resolutions. You've pretty much made the mistatement of the year in claiming that Europeans are "no longer allies to anyone, even to eachother", because, as of the last fifty years, we've just entered the first real era of interdependence, peace and prosperity for about five hundred years.

As for your final statement -- how do you mean? Would it not be a function of being European to espouse European ideals? What "European ideals" have we strayed from? The ones where we felt alright about conquering and enslaving the rest of the world? The Age of Empires is over -- we saw to that, too. Progress marches one. In fact, if there's one thing markedly European in nature, it's progress -- and we're still at the forefront of that.

I don't understand what you're saying. You'd prefer for Europe to stop being a bastion of liberalism and progress and enlightenment, and instead turn into a backwater? Don't worry, America's already heading that way -- I think if you stay put where you are, you'll see all the reactionary regressionism you could ever want over the coming years.
 

Grant

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
31,645
Reaction score
7,598
Location
Canada, Costa Rica
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, if I didn't already have plenty of reasons to despise Hillary, I certainly do now. Another nail in her coffin - what a ****wad.
I don't know how she can possibly recover from this politically.

There was speculation that she might run against Obama in 2012 if his numbers continue to drop but this will probably dash any political ambitions she might have. I really cannot understand the reasoning behind this. I thought Bill would be too smart to let her do this but I suppose not. Maybe she was set up by Obama.

Who really knows?
 

Grant

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
31,645
Reaction score
7,598
Location
Canada, Costa Rica
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't understand your logic -- the present era in European politics is the single most unified era since Charles V and the Holy Roman Empire five hundred years ago... Europe, under the European Union, is the largest and most powerful political and economic entity in the world, which consistently votes as a bloc on everything from currency reform to UN resolutions. You've pretty much made the mistatement of the year in claiming that Europeans are "no longer allies to anyone, even to eachother", because, as of the last fifty years, we've just entered the first real era of interdependence, peace and prosperity for about five hundred years.

As for your final statement -- how do you mean? Would it not be a function of being European to espouse European ideals? What "European ideals" have we strayed from? The ones where we felt alright about conquering and enslaving the rest of the world? The Age of Empires is over -- we saw to that, too. Progress marches one. In fact, if there's one thing markedly European in nature, it's progress -- and we're still at the forefront of that.

I don't understand what you're saying. You'd prefer for Europe to stop being a bastion of liberalism and progress and enlightenment, and instead turn into a backwater? Don't worry, America's already heading that way -- I think if you stay put where you are, you'll see all the reactionary regressionism you could ever want over the coming years.
I certainly wish Europe and its people the best of luck, Le Marteau, I wish you no harm, but I'll stick with my earlier assessment.

Anyone who who uses a hammer and sickle as a symbol of who they are could only be a European, despite the devastation the people behind this symbol created. This symbol, despite what you might believe, is no a symbol for a "bastion of Liberalism". Fascism, Communism, Nazism, all originated there and the anti Americanism continues.

I'll continue with my attitude toward Europeans and expect its deterioration to continue. You've said nothing to change any minds.

I'm Canadian, by the way.
 

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,356
Reaction score
8,095
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
The problem with Arizona's new immigration law is not that it's anti-immigration -- that's a perfectly reasonable thing to be in a border-province where legal and illegal immigration is a problem. The problem with it is the arbitrary nature of the law -- a random stop by a bigoted patrolman with your last name being "Lopez", and you could be in a bureaucratic nightmare proving you're a legal resident -- if you're not deported outright.
Such little understanding of what you're talking about.

Meanwhile, remember when England wasn't eastern Pakistan?
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,402
Reaction score
16,255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Like Reagan did.


Just saying . . . . ;)
I do not idolize or worship Reagan. He did some bad things like the1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act and the so called Firearm Owners Protection Act. Its because of that Reagan amnesty why we have the 12-20 million plus illegals in this country.
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
30,802
Reaction score
34,011
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Such little understanding of what you're talking about.

Meanwhile, remember when England wasn't eastern Pakistan?
Such little understanding of what you're talking about.

Demography of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

White British 50,366,497 85.67%
White 3,096,169 5.27%
Indian 1,053,411 1.8%
Pakistani 977,285 1.6%
White Irish 691,232 1.2%
Mixed race 677,117 1.2%
Black Caribbean 565,876 1.0%
Black African 485,277 0.8%
Bangladeshi 283,063 0.5%
Other Asian (non-Chinese) 247,644 0.4%
Chinese 247,403 0.4%
Other 230,615 0.4%
Black (others) 97,585 0.2%
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
11,251
Reaction score
3,979
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
This is why the only people who trust the Obama administration to handle illegal immigration are pro-illegals. Because they know that the only way Obama will handle it is with amnesty.
Are you sure it was just Pres. Obama who has ever advocated amnesty for illegal aliens from Mexico?

From the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) website:

"Americans Spurn Illegal Alien Amnesty, Polls Say," dated 10/2001

Just before Presidents Bush and (Mexico's President) Fox met in Washington to plot an amnesty for illegal aliens, FAIR released a national Harris poll it commissioned, confirming that the majority of Americans oppose an amnesty for illegal aliens in the United States. Based on a survey of over 1,000 voters, the poll found that Americans oppose an amnesty for illegal aliens by a 60 percent to 29 percent margin and are specifically against the proposed amnesty for Mexican illegal immigrants by 59 to 31 percent. Dan Stein, executive director of FAIR, announced the poll results at a press conference on August 30th that was covered by Telemundo, the Los Angeles Times, The Arizona Republic, La Opinion, Gannett News Service, and McClatchy Newspapers, among others.
Or this from a little know website called Vdare.com:

(Hate the title of the article, but...) "That Amnesty Proposal – Ruling Class Returns To Its Vomit (Again)"

Amnesty—no one wants to call it that but that's what it is—was a major morsel on the Bush administration's plate before 19 perfectly legal immigrants carried out the biggest act of mass murder in human history. After that, amnesty went on the backburner, while various politicians scurried about pretending to do something about the mass immigration that made the Sept. 11 massacre possible.

Now, four months later, with the Justice Department still unable to locate or deport aliens suspected of involvement in Sept. 11, the public attention span has proved short enough for the administration to get back to real business. As the Los Angeles Times reported last week,

"the most significant development in the national immigration debate is what hasn't happened: No lawmaker of influence has moved to reverse the country's generous immigration policy, which for more than three decades has facilitated the largest sustained wave of immigration in U.S. history. Proposals to restrict a system that welcomed more than 9 million legal immigrants during the 1990s were not even accorded a formal hearing on Capitol Hill."

[Los Angeles Times, "Wave of U.S. Immigration Likely to Survive Sept. 11," January 10, 2002]

But if no lawmakers are moving to cut immigration, the administration, in addition to resurrecting amnesty from its political grave, is moving to provide more welfare to legal immigrants. As the Washington Post reported last week,

"The Bush administration proposed yesterday that poor immigrants who have lived legally in the United States for at least five years be allowed to collect food stamps, restoring part of the safety net that was removed in a 1996 overhaul of the welfare system."
Try not to allow yourself to become so blinded by partisanship that you fail to recognize that this immigration problem has been going on for at least the past 30 years and that both sides believe they have something to gain by not adequately sealing the boards. My question still remains, however, as the Vdare article dares to ask:

"If boarder security and illegal immigration are so important to Republican politicians, why didn't they do something about it right after 9/11 when the nation was made to realized the dangers of not adhering to or improving our immigration policies?"

Why now all of a sudden have they jumped on this immigration issue but are still unwilling to tackling it head-on but instead are willing to skirt around the issue by coming up with such lame solutions as amending the 14th Amendment? The answer is three-fold:

1) Amnesty for illegal Mexicans means votes! That much is clear. By pandering to the Hispanic population, both sides wish to capture this largely elusive voting block.

2) Cheap labor! When the economy was good, most politicians didn't mind having a few Mexicans toiling the fields or doing some of the odd jobs most Americans really don't want to do. But now that jobs are the hot button item in this deep recession, now suddenly people and politicians are pissed off about it (particularly those on the Right...now that they don't control Congress. Listen to their voices should they regain control and see what, if anything, they really do about immigration reform then.)

3) To discredit the sitting President as being soft on immigration, yet which President since Reagon has publicly stated as part of his White House agenda he plans to tackle immigration reform after the mid-term elections? (I'm listening...chirp, chirp, chirp....the sound of crickets...that's what I thought.)

Get it right, people. Neither side really wants to mess with this, and both sides have advocating amnesty for a good reason - YOU CAN'T DEPORT 38 MILLION PEOPLE (most of whom are Hispanic/Mexicans) WITHOUT HAVING AN ADVERSE AFFECT ON THE LABOR FORCE!!!

It may not be the right way to go about solving our immigration problem particularly with our souther neighbor, but it is a solution worth exploring.
 
Last edited:

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,402
Reaction score
16,255
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The problem with it is the arbitrary nature of the law -- a random stop by a bigoted patrolman with your last name being "Lopez", and you could be in a bureaucratic nightmare proving you're a legal resident -- if you're not deported outright.
The law does not allow for racial profiling and a lot of those officers are of hispanic decent going to have hispanic sounding names like Lopez.I do not know about in your country but the US is ethnically and racially diverse country.
 
Top Bottom