The New Arizona Immigration Law (SB1070) in Arizona

Quoting articles from "WorldNetDaily"? I should quote rebuttal statistics from the Huffington Post, they would stand to be more credible.

May as well just quote talking points directly from Fox News, since by comparison, they may be less extreme in terms of their conservative agenda, that's still debatable. In the words of Jon Stewart, when Worldnetdaily and Fox News become the go to source for unbiased information, then all bets are off, since it's kind of like being the thinnest kid at fat camp.

The race card can also apply to conservatives, who have now found an issue to rally around..."the reverse racism argument", case in point, the Shirley Sherod and black panther issue(s), when let's face it, there are probably two black panthers in the world and one of them was Gary Coleman, in other words a non issue, but conservatives are making it an issue, and doing it *only* under this administration. Why didn't they do it before? Wonder why that is? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
 
David Dunn said:
The right thing to do is easy when it is free. If it were easy everyone would do it. The right thing is the right thing to do at ALL cost!

Remember!!! A great portion of legal Latino detest illegal Latinos and strongly support SB1070.
Click to expand...
You have statistics that support that contention(not from a conservative blog)?
 
It's NOT about race! Secure my Arizona border and secure our National Border.

You can intellectualize this issue all you want but your Federal Government and your President is doing nothing.
 
southpaw23 said:
I'm sure the majority of the group pushing for this law also have their share of biases, since 100% of them are conservatives, and more over share the same ethnic make up, just an observation.
Click to expand...


By conservatives, you mean your: fall-back-can't-think-of-anyone-else-to-blame-this-on scapegoat group? Quite clearly, I think so. 100% is a pretty strong number there chief. If your saying that the other 70% of people in Arizona are white conservatives that are out to get all the "darn mesicans" then your wrong. They are Americans with the welfare of their nation in mind. Laws are set in place for a reason and enforced because of that reason. They are not just "cool" ideas that might be good for everyone.

Your from NEW YORK. You haven't grown up with this controversy right in front of your face. I have. I'm from South Texas and see what problems illegal immigration causes everyday. These people use the kindness of gov't programs such as welfare, social security, and health care programs everyday to get away with the benefits without paying their dues. Have you ever stayed in a place like South Texas, Arizona, or northern New Mexico for long enough to witness this? Have you ever worked alongside these immigrants and gotten to know them and who they are and what they do? If you haven't, then quit blabbering on about why these laws are so wrong and how the CONSERVATIVES are soooo unfair. This is not about conservatives, liberals, republicans or democrats. It's about the laws of the land being broken and better ways to enforce them to solve a problem.
 
I think a little intellectualism is refreshing, considering it was missing the past 8 years. You have women like Sharron Angle, calling her own press conference, then bolting before anyone can ask her a question. And why? Because everyone will see that she's an empty suit, like much of what is being offered on that side of the aisle.

If the law in Arizona was constitutional, then a court would have upheld the law and not strip out most of the provisions. Obama didn't do that, a court did.
 
southpaw23 said:
I think a little intellectualism is refreshing, considering it was missing the past 8 years. You have women like Sharron Angle, calling her own press conference, then bolting before anyone can ask her a question. And why? Because everyone will see that she's an empty suit, like much of what is being offered on that side of the aisle.

If the law in Arizona was constitutional, then a court would upheld the law and not strip out most of the provisions. Obama didn't do that, a court did.
Click to expand...

:box:
 
rankbull said:
By conservatives, you mean your: fall-back-can't-think-of-anyone-else-to-blame-this-on scapegoat group? Quite clearly, I think so. 100% is a pretty strong number there chief. If your saying that the other 70% of people in Arizona are white conservatives that are out to get all the "darn mesicans" then your wrong. They are Americans with the welfare of their nation in mind. Laws are set in place for a reason and enforced because of that reason. They are not just "cool" ideas that might be good for everyone.

Your from NEW YORK. You haven't grown up with this controversy right in front of your face. I have. I'm from South Texas and see what problems illegal immigration causes everyday. These people use the kindness of gov't programs such as welfare, social security, and health care programs everyday to get away with the benefits without paying their dues. Have you ever stayed in a place like South Texas, Arizona, or northern New Mexico for long enough to witness this? Have you ever worked alongside these immigrants and gotten to know them and who they are and what they do? If you haven't, then quit blabbering on about why these laws are so wrong and how the CONSERVATIVES are soooo unfair. This is not about conservatives, liberals, republicans or democrats. It's about the laws of the land being broken and better ways to enforce them to solve a problem.
Click to expand...
Much of what you wrote is predicated on nothing more than broad interpretative assumptions.

To answer your some of your finer points, consider that New York is home to a multitude of immigrant populations. Documented and undocumented workers having been working side by side for decades. This problem isn't new. It simply became a new issue, from which to rally around. You say it has nothing to do with race, when in fact Arizona is the same state that opted not to honor Martin Luther King, in addition to banning ethnic studies in the school system. Listen you can have your point of view. I'm sticking to mine and I stand behind it. For the record, I'm neither African American or Latino(not that it should matter, but since the word bias tends to creep in as a defense mechanism, thought I'd state it for the record).
 
David Dunn said:
HOMELAND INSECURITY
Foreign 'terrorists' breach U.S. border
Illegals coming from Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Sudan, Syria, Yemen
Posted: May 20, 2010
10:55 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Almost nine years after terrorists murdered 2,751 people on Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. is still facing a major threat as hundreds of illegal aliens from countries known to support and sponsor terrorism sneak across the U.S.-Mexico border.


U.S. Mexico border in New Mexico. Only a small strand of barbed wire separates the two countries. (photo: 2006 congressional report)

'Special-interest countries' and 'sponsors of terror'

Thousands of illegal aliens apprehended along the 2,000 mile border stretching through California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas aren't even from Mexico. The U.S. Border Patrol calls them "Other Than Mexicans," or OTMs, and many are citizens of countries that are sponsors of terrorism.

"We have left the back door to the United States open," former Rep. J.D. Hayworth told the station. "We have to understand that there are definitely people who mean to do us harm who have crossed thatborder."

WSB-TV 2 published a population breakdown from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement staging facility in Florence, Ariz., dated April 15, 2010, which includes detainees from as far away as Afghanistan, Armenia, Bosnia, Egypt, Ghana, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Kenya, Morocco, Pakistan, Sudan, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Botswana, Turkey and many othercountries.

Based on U.S. Border Patrol statistics, there were 30,147 OTMs apprehended in fiscal year 2003; 44, 614 in fiscal year 2004; 165,178 in fiscal year 2005; and 108,025 in fiscal year 2006. Most were caught along the U.S. Southwestborder.

According to the Department of Homeland Security's 2008 Yearbook of Immigration Studies, from the Office of Immigration Statistics, federal law enforcement agencies detained 791,568 deportable aliens in fiscal year 2008 – and 5,506 of them were from 14 "special-interest countries."

The State Department lists the following as "special-interest countries": Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen.

The following "special-interest countries" are listed as sponsors of terror: Cuba, Sudan, Syria and Iran.

The aliens were apprehended "at the borders of the United States, in the interior of the country and at designated sites outside of the United States." The 2008 yearbook lists 791,568 deportable aliens by country (Page 97). Some include:

Afghanistan: 29
Algeria: 41
Cuba: 3,896
Iran: 98
Iraq: 118
Lebanon: 188
Libya: 11
Nigeria: 299
Pakistan: 494
Saudi Arabia: 71
Somalia: 66
Sudan: 46
Syria: 71
Yemen: 78

According to the Government Accountability Office, "The Border Patrol reported that in fiscal year 2008, checkpoints encountered 530 aliens from special-interest countries."

"Islamic radical groups that support Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamiya Al Gamat are all active in Latin America," the 2006 congressional report states. "These groups generate funds through money laundering, drug trafficking and arms deals, making millions of dollars every year via their multiple illicit activities. These cells reach back to the Middle East and extend to this hemisphere the sophisticates globalsupport structure of international terrorism."

Just wanted to comment on this...THIS is a PERFECT reason for the Arizona law! The Feds should follow.
Click to expand...
 
southpaw23 said:
You say it has nothing to do with race, when in fact Arizona is the same state that opted not to honor Martin Luther King, in addition to banning ethnic studies in the school system.
Click to expand...

Get your facts straight first.
"Sen. John McCain (Republican of Arizona) voted against the creation of the holiday to honor King, and later defended Arizona Republican Governor Evan Mecham's rescission of the state holiday in honor of King created by his Democratic predecessor. After his opposition grew increasingly untenable, McCain reversed his position, and encouraged his home state of Arizona to recognize the holiday despite opposition from Mecham.[8]

In 1990, Arizonans were given the opportunity to vote to observe an MLK holiday. McCain successfully appealed to former President Ronald Reagan to support the holiday.[9] Prior to that date, New Hampshire and Arizona had not observed the day. Throughout the 1990s, this was heavily criticized. "

A couple people decided they didn't want us observing this holiday. When we voted AS A STATE, we voted to observe the holiday. You can't just throw wild claims at an entire population.
 
Quoting wikipedia doesn't change the facts, contextual or otherwise. The fact remains that the lawmakers in Arizona, voted in by their constituents, opted not to observe Martin Luther King Day, in addition to stripping out ethnic studies from the public school curriculum. Those are facts, not wild claims. Whether or not you choose to put those occurrences in context, does not in change the facts. Arizona was a step behind the times then, and even more so with this new law.
 
southpaw23 said:
If the law in Arizona was constitutional, then a court would have upheld the law and not strip out most of the provisions. Obama didn't do that, a court did.
Click to expand...
Yes. They overruled it because of the the United States Constitution's Article 6: Supremacy Clause: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."


Actually it is Constitutional. It is Federally Constitutional but your Federal Government refuses to do it's job by enforcing Federal Constitutional law.

So the the judge neutered it based on the Supremacy Clause which is inherently more impotent because our own Federal Government does not uphold it's own immigration laws.

Form I-551 (Green Card)

Form I-551 is the official name of the Green Card or Alien Registration Card. A valid Form I-551 verifies that a person is lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. Form I-551 is issued with conditions to foreign citizens who marry a U.S. citizen. A conditional Form I-551 is also referred to as a Conditional Green Card. The foreign spouse must apply to have the conditions removed after 2 years of marriage. A conditional Green Card is also issued to foreign investors for the first two years. A permanent Form I-551 is issued to certain investors and immediate relatives and must be renewed every 10 year.

A person holding a valid Form I-551 will always have to keep his or her original passport. A valid Green Card gives the bearer the right to live and work permanently in the United States. Once a person with Form I-551 applies for U.S. citizenship, he or she has to give up their Form I-551. It is not possible to have both U.S. citizenship and a Green Card. At this point the U.S. citizen is considered a dual citizen by holding two passports.

Individuals with Form I-551 may be deported for several reasons. Only U.S. citizens cannot be deported. Green Card holders committing serious crimes or residing outside the United States for too long will loose their Form I551 privileges. Green Card holders should file taxes as residents (not “non-residents”) and make sure they continue their residence in the United States. A person may hold Form I-551 their whole life and not become U.S. citizens.
Click to expand...

General Path to Citizenship

There are various naturalization provisions that allow permanent residents (green card holders) to become U.S. citizens. The most common of these provisions is section 316(a) of the INA which allows a person who has been a permanent resident for at least 5 years to apply for naturalization
Eligibility Requirements

To be eligible for naturalization under section 316(a) of the INA, an applicant must:

* Be 18 or older
* Be a permanent resident (green card holder) for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the Form N-400, Application for Naturalization
* Have lived within the state, or USCIS district with jurisdiction over the applicant’s place of residence, for at least 3 months prior to the date of filing the application
* Have continuous residence in the United States as a permanent resident for at least 5 years immediately preceding the date of the filing the application
* Be physically present in the United States for at least 30 months out of the 5 years immediately preceding the date of filing the application
* Reside continuously within the United States from the date of application for naturalization up to the time of naturalization
* Be able to read, write, and speak English and have knowledge and an understanding of U.S. history and government (civics).
* Be a person of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States during all relevant periods under the law.
Click to expand...
 
They were voted in by Arizonans, and then they chose to vote one way on something (indirect correlation).
But when we Arizonans had a chance to directly vote for the same issue, we voted the other way (direct correlation).
Isn't democracy the foundation of our government?
Treating a fact as a malleable material to support your claim causes it to lose it's shape.
 
David Dunn said:
Yes. They overruled it because of the the United States Constitution's Article 6: Supremacy Clause: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."


Actually it is Constitutional. It is Federally Constitutional but your Federal Government refuses to do it's job by enforcing Federal Constitutional law.

So the the judge neutered it based on the Supremacy Clause which is inherently more impotent because our own Federal Government does not uphold it's own immigration laws.
Click to expand...
States cannot write nor blindly enact their own version of federal law, hence the constitution. Since you support the constitution so broadly, then let me ask you this; Do you support the group wanting to build a Mosque near Ground Zero, since they are within their constitutional rights to do so? I'm asking this for a very important reason, once you respond, I will explain why.
 
Ok let's rephrase the question, without looking on google, how long did it take Arizonans to cast a vote on this issue, from the time it was decided upon?

When you come back with an answer, we will both share our ah ha moment. By the way McCain reversed his position regarding observance of MLK holiday, after he was attacked nationally and only then did he change course, because he had political aspirations on a national level.

There is no indirect correlation to anything, as elected officials are there to represent the general interests of their constituents, with the exception of Brewer who wasn't even elected and highest level of education achieved was community college, which probably consisted of an art appreciation course and finger painting.
 
Enantato said:
They were voted in by Arizonans, and then they chose to vote one way on something (indirect correlation).
But when we Arizonans had a chance to directly vote for the same issue, we voted the other way (direct correlation).
Isn't democracy the foundation of our government?
Treating a fact as a malleable material to support your claim causes it to lose it's shape.
Click to expand...
They and we?
 
southpaw23 said:
States cannot write nor blindly enact their own version of federal law, hence the constitution.
Click to expand...

Another conditional argument, we don't hear as many people bitching about the numerous state legalization laws that are in direct opposition of the federal laws.
 
southpaw23 said:
States cannot write nor blindly enact their own version of federal law, hence the constitution. Since you support the constitution so broadly, then let me ask you this; Do you support the group wanting to build a Mosque near Ground Zero, since they are within their constitutional rights to do so? I'm asking this for a very important reason, once you respond, I will explain why.
Click to expand...
I did not state that I broadly support the constitution.

You stated that it was overturned because it was unconstitutional from a state perspective, yet in reality it is federally constitutional, but unenforced by federal law enforcement.

Stick to the topic at hand.
 
David Dunn said:
I did not state that I broadly support the constitution.

You stated that it was overturned because it was unconstitutional from a state perspective, yet in reality it is federally constitutional, but unenforced by federal law enforcement.

Stick to the topic at hand.
Click to expand...
I'm sticking to the topic, you brought up federal enforcement of the law (constitutional law), using that as a means to justify your point of view. I simply took the same example and applied it to something else. You said the federal government isn't doing anything, with respect to enforcing a key part of the constitution(protection of our borders).

However, if they stepped in and supported Arizona you would be elated. Now if Obama stepped in and supported the rights of the group wanting to build the Mosque, you would be against it, but both situations share one common denominator, both are either federally mandated and/or protected under the federal constitution. We can't pick and choose which laws we want to enforce.
 
Enantato said:
"They" meaning John McCain and Evan Mecham.
"We" meaning Arizonans.
Click to expand...
Who voted for John McCain, and what was the margin of victory? Obviously you can only vote for state reps, if you reside in that state, therefore we and they become synonymous.
 
David Dunn said:
I did not state that I broadly support the constitution.

You stated that it was overturned because it was unconstitutional from a state perspective, yet in reality it is federally constitutional, but unenforced by federal law enforcement.

Stick to the topic at hand.
Click to expand...
A court system deemed it unconstitutional.
 
southpaw23 said:
Ok let's rephrase the question, without looking on google, how long did it take Arizonans to cast a vote on this issue, from the time it was decided upon?

When you come back with an answer, we will both share our ah ha moment. By the way McCain reversed his position regarding observance of MLK holiday, after he was attacked nationally and only then did he change course, because he had political aspirations on a national level.

There is no indirect correlation to anything, as elected officials are there to represent the general interests of their constituents, with the exception of Brewer who wasn't even elected and highest level of education achieved was community college, which probably consisted of an art appreciation course and finger painting.
Click to expand...

First of all, LOL the remedial arts classes she took. Seriously Jan Brewer is the laughing stock of Arizona politicians. We have one all-talk political FM station here and they keep cuts of her mindless comments on hand as comedic relief.
Secondly, elected officials ARE there to represent the general interests of their constituents, you're right. And George Bush was re-elected for a second term. It's not a perfect system, sometimes voters make mistakes and don't realize it until they see the results. Seeing as how politics has become the Science of Deception, it is hard to see what's inside the package. It's like the Christmas presents I used to get in enormous boxes with bows and **** and I open them up and find a rock and a gift card... (My old man thought he was funny). Point is, especially in politics, it's nearly impossible to be certain of what you're getting. Each face has thousands of financial backers and influences to appease.
And with regard to the "Ok let's rephrase the question, without looking on google, how long did it take Arizonans to cast a vote on this issue, from the time it was decided upon?", I was more focused on how to piss into a bowl in the eighties. I need to research and read about events that were before my time... So no, I can't answer that and I'll let you have your moment....
 
Enantato said:
First of all, LOL the remedial arts classes she took. Seriously Jan Brewer is the laughing stock of Arizona politicians. We have one all-talk political FM station here and they keep cuts of her mindless comments on hand as comedic relief.
Secondly, elected officials ARE there to represent the general interests of their constituents, you're right. And George Bush was re-elected for a second term. It's not a perfect system, sometimes voters make mistakes and don't realize it until they see the results. Seeing as how politics has become the Science of Deception, it is hard to see what's inside the package. It's like the Christmas presents I used to get in enormous boxes with bows and **** and I open them up and find a rock and a gift card... (My old man thought he was funny). Point is, especially in politics, it's nearly impossible to be certain of what you're getting. Each face has thousands of financial backers and influences to appease.
And with regard to the "Ok let's rephrase the question, without looking on google, how long did it take Arizonans to cast a vote on this issue, from the time it was decided upon?", I was more focused on how to piss into a bowl in the eighties. I need to research and read about events that were before my time... So no, I can't answer that and I'll let you have your moment....
Click to expand...
Appreciated :) And I was also figuring out how to piss into a bowl in the 80's, well I was born in a third world country, so substitute the bowl for the ground lol.
 
southpaw23 said:
Who voted for John McCain, and what was the margin of victory? Obviously you can only vote for state reps, if you reside in that state, therefore we and they become synonymous.
Click to expand...

You are missing it.
We voters voted for these officials. After that, these officials wanted not to observe MLK day. Then we voters got a chance to vote on observance of MLK day.
I was saying "they" as in the elected officials who opposed the observance of MLK day.
I was saying "we" as in the voters of the state who voted to observe the holiday.
Surely you aren't implying that because "They" were elected by "we" these words become synonymous....????
 
Enantato said:
You are missing it.
We voters voted for these officials. After that, these officials wanted not to observe MLK day. Then we voters got a chance to vote on observance of MLK day.
I was saying "they" as in the elected officials who opposed the observance of MLK day.
I was saying "we" as in the voters of the state who voted to observe the holiday.
Surely you aren't implying that because "They" were elected by "we" these words become synonymous....????
Click to expand...
I'm saying "we" voted for "they" and "they" enacted laws based on the interests of the "we". Which goes back to my previous question of; "Ok let's rephrase the question, without looking on google, how long did it take Arizonans to cast a vote on this issue, from the time it was decided upon?"

Either way good discussion, I'm off to bed. My goal in the morning is either to get up and go running, or eat some Ben and Jerry's half baked ice cream, in any event no harm intended with respect to these discussions.
 
southpaw23 said:
Appreciated :) And I was also figuring out how to piss into a bowl in the 80's, well I was born in a third world country, so substitute the bowl for the ground lol.
Click to expand...

Americans and their exorbitant standards... I still miss the bowl. :biglaugh::biglaugh:
 
southpaw23 said:
I'm sticking to the topic, you brought up federal enforcement of the law (constitutional law), using that as a means to justify your point of view. I simply took the same example and applied it to something else. You said the federal government isn't doing anything, with respect to enforcing a key part of the constitution(protection of our borders).

However, if they stepped in and supported Arizona you would be elated. Now if Obama stepped in and supported the rights of the group wanting to build the Mosque, you would be against it, but both situations share one common denominator, both are either federally mandated and/or protected under the federal constitution. We can't pick and choose which laws we want to enforce.
Click to expand...
Separation of Church and State?

Not to mention social respect, sensitivity and conscientiousness.

I was thinking maybe we aught to build a Baptist Church at the sight of Ground Zero at the Hiroshima and Nagasaki WWII U.S. Atomic Bombing.
 
David Dunn said:
Separation of Church and State?

Not to mention social respect, sensitivity and conscientiousness.

I was thinking maybe we aught to build a Baptist Church at the sight of Ground Zero at the Hiroshima and Nagasaki WWII U.S. Atomic Bombing.
Click to expand...
Separation of Church and State does not apply to this project, since it is not being funded by public (tax)dollars, consider the YMCA (Young Men's Christian Association) or the JCC (Jewish Community Centers).

As for the mention of social respect and public consciousness, although I agree with you, again neither of those notions apply as one could refer to Oklahoma City, site of the Oklahoma City bombing, that finds itself surrounded by Christian places of worship. What religion did Timothy Mcveigh follow again? When you answer that, explain to me how that differs from this current situation?

On a personal level, I agree with you and feel that the Mosque should be moved elsewhere, as it appears to be a slap in the face, then again I don't want to cast dispersions upon an entire religious group, simply because it contains an extreme element. In other words not all people are bad, if that was the case I could cite 1000 examples using Christianity as a substitute.
 
raulob72 said:
Well you and the haters will start with illegals ,and then who is next?, you are and ignorant ,those latinos that support that are the ones with very low education,the ones with college degree never forget where we came from ,you are and IDIOT:sombrero:
Click to expand...

ITs funny, I know plenty of college educated latinos that despise illegals. If you never forget where you came from, you certainly have the option to go back.
 
David Dunn said:
I did not state that I broadly support the constitution.

You stated that it was overturned because it was unconstitutional from a state perspective, yet in reality it is federally constitutional, but unenforced by federal law enforcement.

Stick to the topic at hand.
Click to expand...

That again is the crux of the matter. Our federal government is tasked with 2 things, defending our border, and regulating interstate commerce. The constitution very strongly states they don't have the right to do anything not specifically mentioned in the constitution. So this entire issue is about their total failure to do half their job, while taking on "preservation of endangered fieldmice" and studies as to the enviromental impact of cow farts.
 
So holding onto a piece of one's culture, now translates to "you're not welcome here, go back to your country"? That's a novel approach, never heard a conservative express that sentiment before (sarcasm).

In many cases, people immigrating here tend to be more educated than the people telling them to leave, how about in that case, if I possess more education and my salary is higher than yours, in other words I contribute more in the way of taxes, then you are free to secede.
 
southpaw23 said:
So holding onto a piece of one's culture, now translates to "you're not welcome here, go back to your country"? That's a novel approach, never heard a conservative express that sentiment before (sarcasm).

In many cases, people immigrating here tend to be more educated than the people telling them to leave, how about in that case, if I possess more education and my salary is higher than yours, in other words I contribute more in the way of taxes, then you are free to secede.
Click to expand...

Holding onto your culture is great, placing your prior culture above being an american is not. If holding on to your prior culture of Mexico is so great, how about looking at the laws mexico has in place for illegal aliens? Should we duplicate theirs if its so wonderful?

And I don't care if you have a PHD and are working to cure cancer, if you entered the country illegally, then you don't belong here. If someone breaks into your house and starts living in your basement, then I suppose its fine with you if they continue living there?
 
K
southpaw23 said:
I'm sticking to the topic, you brought up federal enforcement of the law (constitutional law), using that as a means to justify your point of view. I simply took the same example and applied it to something else. You said the federal government isn't doing anything, with respect to enforcing a key part of the constitution(protection of our borders).

However, if they stepped in and supported Arizona you would be elated. Now if Obama stepped in and supported the rights of the group wanting to build the Mosque, you would be against it, but both situations share one common denominator, both are either federally mandated and/or protected under the federal constitution. We can't pick and choose which laws we want to enforce.
Click to expand...

The part about Obama supporting the Mosque is a done deal. Do you think its right for the State Dept to pay for rebuilding a Mosque in Cairo, Egypt? Do you think the Federal Govt should pay to send this RADICAL Imam with ties to Hamas to the Middle East to raise funds for the mosque? Well they have done both so your argument of separation of church and state and the govt not sponsoring a religion is shot. When hs the govt ever payed to rebuild a church? I guess they can pay for mosques in other countries and it doesn't count.
 
EasyEJL said:
Holding onto your culture is great, placing your prior culture above being an american is not. If holding on to your prior culture of Mexico is so great, how about looking at the laws mexico has in place for illegal aliens? Should we duplicate theirs if its so wonderful?

And I don't care if you have a PHD and are working to cure cancer, if you entered the country illegally, then you don't belong here. If someone breaks into your house and starts living in your basement, then I suppose its fine with you if they continue living there?
Click to expand...

How does a law pertaining to illegal aliens in Mexico, relate to the celebration of one's culture. Those are conflicting statements, neither of which share any similarities.
 
southpaw23 said:
How does a law pertaining to illegal aliens in Mexico, relate to the celebration of one's culture. Those are conflicting points of view, since neither share any type of similarities with the other.
Click to expand...

Mexico's laws are a part of its culture, just as america's laws are a part of its culture. You cry racism towards americans who are upholding the part of american culture that says "if someone wants to come live here they are welcome if they follow immigration proceedures". So lets uphold the part of mexican culture that has citizens get deported as well if they are found harboring illegal aliens, if you celebrating your culture is so important to you. Remember you raised celebrating your culture as how it relates to immigration with

So holding onto a piece of one's culture, now translates to "you're not welcome here, go back to your country"? That's a novel approach, never heard a conservative express that sentiment before (sarcasm).
Click to expand...

not me.
 
youngandfree said:
K

The part about Obama supporting the Mosque is a done deal. Do you think its right for the State Dept to pay for rebuilding a Mosque in Cairo, Egypt? Do you think the Federal Govt should pay to send this RADICAL Imam with ties to Hamas to the Middle East to raise funds for the mosque? Well they have done both so your argument of separation of church and state and the govt not sponsoring a religion is shot. When hs the govt ever payed to rebuild a church? I guess they can pay for mosques in other countries and it doesn't count.
Click to expand...

Supporting the right to build the Mosque, is quite different than taking a "personal" stance on the issue. He is defending federal law, as an attorney who practiced and taught constitutional law.

With respect to the rest of your statement, one question; SOURCES? And by sources, I'm not referring to a conservative blog or youtube video.
 
EasyEJL said:
Mexico's laws are a part of its culture, just as america's laws are a part of its culture. You cry racism towards americans who are upholding the part of american culture that says "if someone wants to come live here they are welcome if they follow immigration proceedures". So lets uphold the part of mexican culture that has citizens get deported as well if they are found harboring illegal aliens, if you celebrating your culture is so important to you. Remember you raised celebrating your culture as how it relates to immigration with



not me.
Click to expand...
What's the correlation between governmental law and (ethnic) celebration of culture? FYI-- I didn't cry racism towards American people, as I myself am American.
 
EasyEJL said:
If you are that dense, i'm just going to discontinue talking to you.
Click to expand...

Dense equates to the following-- "incapable of intelligently explaining one's own position, therefore choosing the easy path to bow out of the conversation", sound familiar? I'm still here.

Cultural celebration encompasses one or more of these common denominators; music, foods and religious expression.
 
youngandfree said:
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

I can highly sympathize with Deborah Burlingame, however, that is an online petition which she put together, not an independent news source. It's akin to a conservative creating a video on youtube about birth certificates, not exactly grounded in fact or credibility.

Again, on a personal level, having grown up in NY, I think the Mosque should be relocated to another part of the city. I'm just arguing the point, that they are within their constitutional rights to erect that building, provided they are compliant with state law and local ordinances, even Bloomberg supports that position. You can't paint an entire group with broad strokes.

Not to be a stickler for accurate information, but when I ask for sources, I'm certainly not referring to "online blogs" authored by conservatives, if that's the case, I'll just start reporting the news from a page on twitter.
 
Well news from NBC CNN or the others aren't independent news sources either. Which is why you won't hear about this on anyone of the typical mainstream news sources. So nothing really would be credible enough.
 
youngandfree said:
Well news from NBC CNN or the others aren't independent news sources either. Which is why you won't hear about this on anyone of the typical mainstream news sources. So nothing really would be credible enough.
Click to expand...

Let's play the predictability game.I'll take a wild guess that you think Fox news is an independent news source?

When a doctor who performs abortions, is murdered in the name of Christianity, would you be offended if a church was built directly across the street from that medical practice?
 
youngandfree said:
Here's one about the Imam from a liberal mouthpiece the Washington Compost.

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

That article simply states that a relationship exists, and it's one that is strategic in nature. You do know what an "Imam" is correct? Additionally, the author of that column Matthew Lee, is a key contributor/writer for conservativeblogwatch.com. It's safe to say a lot of people emote over these issues, for which they have a limited understanding.
 
southpaw23 said:
Why because they all take moderate approaches to tackling social issues, rather than the "extreme" positions reflective of the rest of their party?
Click to expand...

No because when their beliefs are opposed to their constituents that elected them and they face defeat in the next election, they flip flop and change their beliefs in the hopes of getting RE-ELECTED. Not serving the voters and their wishes. Remember you spoke about that earlier. Plenty of politicians were elected by people and then go off the tracks and go against the wishes of the people that elected them.

I read a book that said something about being hot or cold, just not luke warm. Take a stand, be a freakin man and stand for something. Wishy washy politicians are scum of the earth in my book because their values change each election. Don't ride the fence. You believe something or you don't. Don't go back and forth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top