- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 31,645
- Reaction score
- 7,598
- Location
- Canada, Costa Rica
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.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
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
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.
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.
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!"
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.
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
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
Like Reagan did.
Just saying . . . .
Such little understanding of what you're talking about.
Meanwhile, remember when England wasn't eastern Pakistan?
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.
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.
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."
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?