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