• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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

Le Marteau

Banned
Joined
Aug 21, 2010
Messages
598
Reaction score
113
Location
London, England and Dijon, France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Such little understanding of what you're talking about.

Meanwhile, remember when England wasn't eastern Pakistan?

I was going to reply to this with a demographic chart proving how miniscule the Pakistani population is in England, but... Jetboogieman beat me to it.

Still, for redundancy's sake -- stop listening to every bit of anti-foreign propaganda FOX News puts out.
 

Grant

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
31,645
Reaction score
7,598
Location
Canada, Costa Rica
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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?"

Objective Voice, there were two real reasons why George Bush and the Republican went down in the polls and that was by increasing the debt and the mishandling of the southern border. While he might have been a Republican, he was certainly not a conservative, and his lack of conservatism, especially in these two areas, led to his poor poll numbers and the eventual formation of the Tea Party.

I think it can be agreed that Conservatives and liberals alike disagreed with much of what George Bush did in the latter part of his second term but perhaps for different reasons.

But now the Americans have BHO not only continuing the Bush policies but exaggerating them to the point where recovery is ever less likely.

The Republicans went astray during the last year of the Bush presidency, and most everyone can agree on that.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,160
Reaction score
17,559
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
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



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)"



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?



Before you accuse someone of blind partisanship you might want to do a little research first.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/immigration/74274-pro-illegal-scum-mock-civil-right-activist-past.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-elections/62939-mitt-romney-7.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/immig...izona-not-supporting-illegal-immigration.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/immigration/45308-we-need-immigration-reform-says-condi-rice.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/immig...egals-mexico-and-businesses.html?daysprune=-1

http://www.debatepolitics.com/immig...gals-getting-state-services.html?daysprune=-1
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,003
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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!"

Well, we don't. :lol:
 

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

It's my understanding that the UN report is an annual thing and all countries divulge information for its tabulation. It doesn't mean the U.S. is engaged in human rights violations. Hilary is Secretary of State so it would be her job to do this.

I know Fox turns everything into a scandal but this is small potatoes. The UN has also been documenting the U.S. treatment of domestic Muslims since 9/11, and other minorities since long before then. You don't hear a stink about that.
 

Objective Voice

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
12,199
Reaction score
4,723
Location
Huntsville, AL (USA)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Objective Voice, there were two real reasons why George Bush and the Republican went down in the polls and that was by increasing the debt and the mishandling of the southern border. While he might have been a Republican, he was certainly not a conservative, and his lack of conservatism, especially in these two areas, led to his poor poll numbers and the eventual formation of the Tea Party.

I think it can be agreed that Conservatives and liberals alike disagreed with much of what George Bush did in the latter part of his second term but perhaps for different reasons.

But now the Americans have BHO not only continuing the Bush policies but exaggerating them to the point where recovery is ever less likely.

The Republicans went astray during the last year of the Bush presidency, and most everyone can agree on that.

But this topic isn't about the economic recovery. So, please, let's not try to derail the topic. It's about illegal immigration and how it hasn't been properly addressed now, nine years ago or 30 years ago particularly by 3 past Republican Presidents but especially by the last one who knew very well the dangers of not security our nation's boarders.

So, let's not place the blame on the current president when clearly this was something that could have been taken care of years ago long BEFORE President Obama or our nation fell into economic decline. I will say this:

If a immigration reform bill doesn't go before President Obama by the time his term is up, he'd be no different on this matter in my eyes than those who came before him. But for now, I'm willing to give him a chance and see if he'll bring the issue back up after the mid-term elections in Nov.
 
Last edited:

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
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.

If Europeans were as allied as you claim, every country would have the Euro. You've pretty much made the mistatement of the year to quote a phrase
 

Grant

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
31,645
Reaction score
7,598
Location
Canada, Costa Rica
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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%


What you're portraying here is a snapshot, Jetboogie, a moment in time.

But demographics are always changing and can quite accurately predict the future, given the accurate input.

Here is a column by Mark Steyn, written a couple of years ago, that is well worth a read for anyone interested in the subject. I know for certain that it was read by several political leaders.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1550345/posts
 

Grant

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
31,645
Reaction score
7,598
Location
Canada, Costa Rica
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's my understanding that the UN report is an annual thing and all countries divulge information for its tabulation. It doesn't mean the U.S. is engaged in human rights violations. Hilary is Secretary of State so it would be her job to do this.

I know Fox turns everything into a scandal but this is small potatoes. The UN has also been documenting the U.S. treatment of domestic Muslims since 9/11, and other minorities since long before then. You don't hear a stink about that.

I don't think this is small potatoes at all, Orion, and believe that the American people will agree. This is similar to BHO bowing and scraping to lesser international leaders in order to prove himself, and thus America, worthy.

To kowtow to countries like Libya, Syria, Angola and Egypt is ludicrous and suggests that the United States and these backwaters are both on a similar playing field. Again, this will be used as propaganda tool against the United States and it's certain that our former Allies in Europe will be just as quick as anyone to pick up on this and broadcast it to the world.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I don't think this is small potatoes at all, Orion, and believe that the American people will agree. This is similar to BHO bowing and scraping to lesser international leaders in order to prove himself, and thus America, worthy.

To kowtow to countries like Libya, Syria, Angola and Egypt is ludicrous and suggests that the United States and these backwaters are both on a similar playing field. Again, this will be used as propaganda tool against the United States and it's certain that our former Allies in Europe will be just as quick as anyone to pick up on this and broadcast it to the world.

By, that is a dumb example. Misrepresented in partisan silliness. Almost as bad as those showing Bush holding hands with a leader and saying it means something silly. When will we grow up and show some substance of such silliness.
 

Grant

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
31,645
Reaction score
7,598
Location
Canada, Costa Rica
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
But this topic isn't about the economic recovery. So, please, let's not try to derail the topic. It's about illegal immigration and how it hasn't been properly addressed now, nine years ago or 30 years ago particularly by 3 past Republican Presidents but especially by the last one who knew very well the dangers of not security our nation's boarders.

So, let's not place the blame on the current president when clearly this was something that could have been taken care of years ago long BEFORE President Obama or our nation fell into economic decline. I will say this:

If a immigration reform bill doesn't go before President Obama by the time his term is up, he'd be no different on this matter in my eyes than those who came before him. But for now, I'm willing to give him a chance and see if he'll bring the issue back up after the mid-term elections in Nov.

Objective Voice I explicitly said "there were two real reasons why George Bush and the Republican went down in the polls and that was by increasing the debt and the mishandling of the southern border".

They botched it, screwed it up. What more can i add?

Well I can add that BHO is not only continuing the inept policy but adding to it by suing the State most suffering from the lack of law enforcement and is now taking the case to the corrupt United Nations! How goofy is that?

Do you really want the UN to become involved in American jurisprudence, or having countries like Libya and Syria commenting on the lack of human rights in the US?

These people are completely out of touch with reality and, it seems, international politics.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
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.

That's not what the law states AT ALL. You would do well toe educate yourself about the law rather than listening to tabloid sensationalist propaganda.
 

jallman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,913
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
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...

You have got to be kidding me...do you watch your own news at all or follow your own politics?
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
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?

Not one of those -- not even the arguable ones (as most of them aren't -- "freedom of speech"? :lamo :lamo) -- shows that the AZ law doesn't mirror federal law, and if you understood what you posted, you'd get that the first three actually support the idea that it does.

So yeah, keep bringing it on and showing you have no idea what you're yapping about.
 

Grant

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
31,645
Reaction score
7,598
Location
Canada, Costa Rica
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And why on earth not?

XD


Are you serious, Le Marteau?

Do you really expect the United States, or any sovereign democracy, to adhere to the corrupt crime syndicate we call the "United Nations"?

This is an example of why Europeans cannot always be taken seriously, They feel if they have a big bureaucracy overseeing everything , as in Brussels, a system will somehow emerge that will guarantee fairness and equality for everyone. European history is riddled with this sort of folly. Perhaps it comes from the effect royalty had on the European psyche.

Americans, at least in the past, have seen through the foolishness of this big government theory but those days may be at an end and the Europeanization of America will have begun. We can already see indications of that in their ever escalating rhetoric, where they will side with wacko foreigners rather than with each other. Many Europeans have been seeing the folly of their ways, but it seems its too late for them. Let's hope it is not too late for America.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You know, there are problems in Arizona, but that is our business, and not any damn business of the UN. Part of the solution to the Arizona problem is twofold:

1) Get out of the UN.

2) Get the UN out of New York.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Are you serious, Le Marteau?

Do you really expect the United States, or any sovereign democracy, to adhere to the corrupt crime syndicate we call the "United Nations"?

This is an example of why Europeans cannot always be taken seriously, They feel if they have a big bureaucracy overseeing everything , as in Brussels, a system will somehow emerge that will guarantee fairness and equality for everyone. European history is riddled with this sort of folly. Perhaps it comes from the effect royalty had on the European psyche.

Americans, at least in the past, have seen through the foolishness of this big government theory but those days may be at an end and the Europeanization of America will have begun. We can already see indications of that in their ever escalating rhetoric, where they will side with wacko foreigners rather than with each other. Many Europeans have been seeing the folly of their ways, but it seems its too late for them. Let's hope it is not too late for America.

Well, we'd have to accept that it is corrupt and a criminal syndicate, more so than any other body. It boils down to agreements signed and behavior. If there is a treaty, a law, agreed upon, and that law is broken, isn't that the issue?
 

Grant

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
31,645
Reaction score
7,598
Location
Canada, Costa Rica
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
By, that is a dumb example. Misrepresented in partisan silliness. Almost as bad as those showing Bush holding hands with a leader and saying it means something silly. When will we grow up and show some substance of such silliness.

Agreed, Boo Radley, but where is the substance in taking this case to the United Nations? Can you think of any good it might do?

What's the upside?
 

Grant

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
31,645
Reaction score
7,598
Location
Canada, Costa Rica
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You know, there are problems in Arizona, but that is our business, and not any damn business of the UN. Part of the solution to the Arizona problem is twofold:

1) Get out of the UN.

2) Get the UN out of New York.

Absobloodylutely!
 

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, we'd have to accept that it is corrupt and a criminal syndicate, more so than any other body. It boils down to agreements signed and behavior. If there is a treaty, a law, agreed upon, and that law is broken, isn't that the issue?

If an American law has been broken, and that has not even been proved, then it is up to the Americans to settle the issue, not a "World Court" or the United Nations.

Were I ever charged with a crime I'd want to be charged in my home country or, failing that, the United States. But certainly not in the United Nations.

That would be lunacy.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Agreed, Boo Radley, but where is the substance in taking this case to the United Nations? Can you think of any good it might do?

What's the upside?

A move toward law that isn't dependent on being acceptable to indpendent nations. That when Iran violates the law, they're held accountable. When a Saddam kills thousands, he is dealt with when he does it, but by a civiliazed world. But law is meaningless if it only applies to a few. If we enforce the law on the Iraqs of the world, who can't defend themselves, but say the law doesn't apply to the US, because no one can enforce it, and break our treadies because we feel like, then there is no law.

Now, maybe it is something we shouldn't strive for. It will be difficult, and difficult things will be open to criticism. But, if we decide, as we have in the past, that this is worth while, we have to be willing to put up, to honor our agreeements, like we expect of anyone here in any contract.
 
Last edited:

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If an American law has been broken, and that has not even been proved, then it is up to the Americans to settle the issue, not a "World Court" or the United Nations.

Were I ever charged with a crime I'd want to be charged in my home country or, failing that, the United States. But certainly not in the United Nations.

That would be lunacy.

When we sign a tready, it's law. If we break a tready, it's law that we've broken.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If an American law has been broken, and that has not even been proved, then it is up to the Americans to settle the issue, not a "World Court" or the United Nations.

Were I ever charged with a crime I'd want to be charged in my home country or, failing that, the United States. But certainly not in the United Nations.

That would be lunacy.

There is precedent for a World Court or tribunal. It is for people like Hitler and Milosevic, and it is appropriate for mass murder and crimes against humanity that are committed by a nation's government. Other than that, they need to butt out. The Arizona situation is about a soverign nation debating it's own internal problems, and how to solve them, so the UN can just bugger off.

We are a soverign people, and I don't intend to give up the least iota of that soverignty. We can go back and forth, arguing about Arizona, but in the end, it is our business, and nobody else's. If Arizona should ever start throwing Hispanics in ovens, and the Federal government stands behind it, then I might change my mind. But I do not see that happening, in either the near or distant future. Our damn problem - Our damn business, and nobody else's.
 
Last edited:

Grant

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
31,645
Reaction score
7,598
Location
Canada, Costa Rica
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A move toward law that isn't dependent on being acceptable to indpendent nations.

And who would enforce this law, Boo Radley? The United Nations? Interpol? Would we have to rely on the Honor System?
That when Iran violates the law, they're held accountable.

They've already broken the law, apparently, and nothing is done. Instead we will rationalize the spread of nuclear weapons and argue that everyone should have a bomb in their backyard, no matter if their IQ resemblles their sandal size.

When a Saddam kills thousands, he is dealt with when he does it, but by a civiliazed world.

Right. By the United States and the hangers on. If it wasn;t for the US Saddam, and those like him, would still be running rape rooms, gassing its people and, for you Greenies, trashing the environment.

But law is meaningless if it only applies to a few. If we enforce the law on the Iraqs of the world, who can't defend themselves, but say the law doesn't apply to the US, because no one can enforce it, and break our treadies because we feel like, then there is no law.

Now, maybe it is something we shouldn't strive for. It will be difficult, and difficult things will be open to criticism. But, if we decide, as we have in the past, that this is worth while, we have to be willing to put up, to honor our agreeements, like we expect of anyone here in any contract.[/QUOTE]
 
Top Bottom