PDA

View Full Version : AZ Immigration Law Blocked by Federal Judge



KhrushchevsShoe
07-28-2010, 06:35 PM
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/07/29/us/29arizonaspan2-cnd/29arizonaspan2-cnd-articleLarge.jpg

In a ruling on a law that has rocked politics coast to coast and thrown a spotlight on a border state’s fierce debate over immigration, Judge Susan Bolton of Federal District Court here said that some aspects of the law can go into effect as scheduled on Thursday.

But Judge Bolton took aim at the parts of the law that have generated the most controversy, issuing a preliminary injunction against sections that called for police officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws and that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/us/29arizona.html?_r=1&hp

Huge victory for those against living in a police state.

Lager
07-28-2010, 06:37 PM
Huge victory for those against living in a police state.

Not even remotely close to anything resembling the truth. Try again.

KhrushchevsShoe
07-28-2010, 06:38 PM
Not even remotely close to anything resembling the truth. Try again.

http://zikipediq.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/hcb_gestapo_informer_19451.jpg

Papers please.

Lager
07-28-2010, 06:41 PM
Your analogy again is way off. Not even close. Can any libs discuss an issue without such hyperbole and misrepresentation of the facts?

KhrushchevsShoe
07-28-2010, 06:47 PM
Your analogy again is way off. Not even close. Can any libs discuss an issue without such hyperbole and misrepresentation of the facts?


5 . . . The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make
6 attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local
7 government agencies in Arizona


37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.


20 E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP
21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE
22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND
23 THIS SECTION.

Read the last part of that one. Uh oh.

It's a playbook for fascism, "attrition through enforcement", "without a warrant", "lawfully stop any person...if the officer has reasonable suspicion" (aka, being brown).

I guess we've found out the only thing you guys hate more than government is mexicans.

malloc
07-28-2010, 06:51 PM
Nowhere in the law is anyone required to carry papers at all times. The law just states that if someone offers a valid state or federal ID as proof of citizenship, then that proof alone must be accepted by law enforcement



A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN
37 ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON
38 PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
39 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
40 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
41 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
42 IDENTIFICATION.


The NYT needs a better fact checker.

Furthermore, does this injunction affect Federal Law that requires police officers to determine the immigration of a suspected illegal alien? Particularly 8 USC 1373 and 8 USC 1644?

Do you know the reason she blocked the part about checking the immigration status of suspected illegal aliens and all those currently in custody?



“The number of requests that will emanate from Arizona as a result of determining the status of every arrestee is likely to impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established,”

Basically if these parts of the law go into effect, the Federal government may actually have to do it's job, and we just can't have that.

KhrushchevsShoe
07-28-2010, 06:52 PM
Nowhere in the law is anyone required to carry papers at all times. The law just states that if someone offers a valid state or federal ID as proof of citizenship, then that proof alone must be accepted by law enforcement

And if they dont have those two forms of identification? What happens then?

Lager
07-28-2010, 06:52 PM
You ignorant stupid, tepid airhead. Did you ever talk to someone in the state who supports this law? You really think it's about racism? They've lived with hispanics for decades. You exhibit lazy thinking and weak mindedness. You need to grow up a bit before you can enter adult conversations.

KhrushchevsShoe
07-28-2010, 06:53 PM
.adult conversations.


You ignorant stupid, tepid airhead

Heh.

malloc
07-28-2010, 06:56 PM
37 E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON
38 IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED
39 ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.


So a police officer should have to get a warrant to arrest a criminal if they are here on a visa? If a police officer witnesses someone breaking into a house, he doesn't need a warrant to arrest them.




20 E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP
21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE
22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND
23 THIS SECTION.

Read the last part of that one. Uh oh.

It's a playbook for fascism, "attrition through enforcement", "without a warrant", "lawfully stop any person...if the officer has reasonable suspicion" (aka, being brown).

I guess we've found out the only thing you guys hate more than government is mexicans.



Not so good with the English these days are you. A police officer may lawfully stop anyone who is operating a motor vehicle in violation of civil traffic law already. So, it's not just being brown that allows them to stop the vehicle, the AND portion of that line requires that the operator of the vehicle must violate the law (i.e. run a stop sign, speed, etc.)

You better hope that S.B. 1070, now ARS 11-7 or something succeeds. Democrats already have little hope of retaining power. If they torpedo this law against the wishes of at least 70% of the voters, they are going to dig themselves a hole they won't be able to climb out of.

malloc
07-28-2010, 07:02 PM
And if they dont have those two forms of identification? What happens then?

If the officer suspects that the person is an illegal alien, he investigates. Just like if the officer were to suspect the vehicle was stolen, or there were drugs in the vehicle or the driver was drunk. In the case of the drunk, the driver uses a breathalyzer. In the case of drugs, the officer calls a drug dog if he isn't given permission to search the car. In the case of the stolen vehicle the officer checks the MVD database. In the case of suspected illegal alien the officer follows federal procedure and verifies citizenship and/or legal status with Federal Border enforcement. The judge seems to think this part will put too much strain on a system that isn't really doing anything to protect the border.

Zafod
07-28-2010, 07:04 PM
Heh.

I live in AZ, I support this bill. You calling me a racist?

malloc
07-28-2010, 07:05 PM
I live in AZ, I support this bill. You calling me a racist?

That makes two of us. I live in Queen Creek, well San Tan Valley now. Do I get to be a racist too?

JB
07-28-2010, 07:05 PM
Papers please.Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Are you legally an adult?

Lager
07-28-2010, 07:06 PM
Heh.

How about answering the question. I know it's out of fashion for rabid libs to actually listen to both sides of an issue before coming to conclusions -- I mean in today's instant communication and gratification society, it's only natural that your generation develope instant condemnation -- but did you ever hear the side of someone living in a border state describe some of the problems they are facing? I know your time is so precious and well spent, but it might be of use to you when making future decisions to actually know both sides of an issue.

Zafod
07-28-2010, 07:11 PM
well? am I a racist?

lacarnut
07-28-2010, 07:31 PM
well? am I a racist?

The Shoe is too busy sucking up to the Barney Fag thread.

Lager
07-28-2010, 07:31 PM
This should be entertaining. We can sit back and witness you explain to him in a clear, precise and perfectly developed argument, just why he is a racist. I'm sure your logic will be astounding. Your reasoning airtight. Your grasp of the facts flawless. By golly, your assertion will be uncontestable, and a model for the greatest legal minds of our century to study and exhort in colleges and universities, for all time. :rolleyes:

Constitutionally Speaking
07-28-2010, 09:33 PM
.......


Every single time I get stopped for a traffic violation, they ask me for my drivers license and proof of insurance. When they go back to their car, they run a background check on me to see if I am wanted for anything.


How is this law any different??

patriot45
07-28-2010, 09:35 PM
Every single time I get stopped for a traffic violation, they ask me for my drivers license and proof of insurance. When they go back to their car, they run a background check on me to see if I am wanted for anything.


How is this law any different??

I think thats what the lib (asshole) alarmists are calling "papers"!

Just as an aside, I have carried my papers since I was 15!!!

nightflight
07-28-2010, 10:04 PM
http://zikipediq.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/hcb_gestapo_informer_19451.jpg

Papers please.

You fucking moron. All the law did was to alert the Federal agencies about the **illegal** status of people already in custody or suspected of a crime. In other words, DOING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS JOB.

nightflight
07-28-2010, 10:05 PM
And if they dont have those two forms of identification? What happens then?

If they are in the commision of a crime, then they would be arrested for said crime. My god, don't you even have a rudimentary understanding of this law??

nightflight
07-28-2010, 10:06 PM
well? am I a racist?

Yes. That is by today's definition which encompasses about....well, everything.

3rd-try
07-28-2010, 10:17 PM
KhrushchevsShoe, how the hell can you start a thread like this? You just run away when you can no longer defend your position. You're being intellectually dishonest with yourself. Don't champion for something until you understandand and consider both sides of the conflict. If you can't logically and honestly defend your side, you're not thinking with your brain. Because it makes you "feel good" is not a reasonable argument.

swirling_vortex
07-28-2010, 11:02 PM
And if they dont have those two forms of identification? What happens then?
Well, you should always have ID on you regardless if you're a recent immigrant. To simply say that the entire Arizona law should be voided because some people aren't responsible is not a good argument on your part.

jediab
07-29-2010, 09:49 AM
So using liberal logic (which really is an oxymoron) since carrying "papers" is a police state thing, the rest of us shouldn't need to carry our ID now?

lacarnut
07-29-2010, 10:01 AM
[I guess we've found out the only thing you guys hate more than government is mexicans.

Wrong whitebread. Dumb ass Liberals like you are much higher on the totem pole.

namvet
07-29-2010, 10:15 AM
Bolton is a liberal. apporved on the Klinton watch. is it any wonder she can't make up her mind???

NJCardFan
07-29-2010, 12:08 PM
If they are in the commision of a crime, then they would be arrested for said crime. My god, don't you even have a rudimentary understanding of this law??

Well, when the president and his merry band if idiots didn't read the law, why should he? Hell, they've passed bills without reading them so why should this be different?


20 E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A PEACE OFFICER MAY LAWFULLY STOP
21 ANY PERSON WHO IS OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE IF THE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE
22 SUSPICION TO BELIEVE THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY CIVIL TRAFFIC LAW AND
23 THIS SECTION.
Wow. I take it you didn't really read this paragraph. You can go to North Dakota and a "peace officer may lawfully stop any person who is operating a motor vehicle if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of any civil traffic law". This is true in Idaho and California and NJ and New Hampshire and Kansas and Florida and Washington, DC and any of the other 58 states in this country. Want me to help you out here? K. I'm Joe Patrolman patrolling my area. I get behind a car and said car is swerving. I now have reasonable suspicion that the driver is driving carelessly and may be under the influence. I hit my rollers and pull them over. After I'm done there, I'm at a stop street and a car in the intersecting street goes whizzing past and my radar gun goes off showing a speed of 70 MPH. The speed limit in this area is 45. I now have reasonable suspicion that this driver is speeding. I hit the rollers and sound the siren and pull them over. Hunky dory so far? Then I'm approaching an intersection where the light is green for me, a car goes through the intersecting street without stopping, running the red light. I hit the rollers and siren again and pull them over. This time, the driver is unable to produce any identification, insurance, or a registration. Also, the driver doesn't speak any English. I affect an arrest based on the lack of paperwork for said traffic stop. I now have reasonable suspicion that this person is in the country illegally. And I ask the appropriate questions asking about his immigration status. He says he is here on a work visa and he forgot his identification when I stopped him. He makes a phone call to his family who show up with his ID and other documents for his car and it shows he's in the country legally. I cite him for driving without documents(DL, reg., ins.) and bid him good day. However, if he's unable to show proof of citizenship, I now have to contact ICE to come get him. This is the same as the federal law already on the books.

Reading is fundamental, you know?

Odysseus
07-29-2010, 01:03 PM
Huge victory for those against living in a police state.

You do understand that by calling America a police state, and comparing it to Hitler's Germany, you are implying that those of us who serve in the armed forces are no different from the Wehrmacht or SS? Just something for you to contemplate when you wonder exactly why I'm so pissed off at you.

Zafod
07-29-2010, 01:15 PM
You do understand that by calling America a police state, and comparing it to Hitler's Germany, you are implying that those of us who serve in the armed forces are no different from the Wehrmacht or SS? Just something for you to contemplate when you wonder exactly why I'm so pissed off at you.

word

Zafod
07-29-2010, 01:15 PM
so, am I a racist?

PoliCon
07-29-2010, 02:31 PM
I'd like to see Arizona thumb their nose at the judges ruling and enforce the law.

PoliCon
07-29-2010, 02:57 PM
Statement by Governor Jan Brewer on SB 1070
July 28, 2010


“This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens. I am deeply grateful for the overwhelmingly support we have received from across our nation in our efforts to defend against the failures of the federal government.

“I have consulted with my legal counsel about our next steps. We will take a close look at every single element Judge Bolton removed from the law, and we will soon file an expedited appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

“For anyone willing to see it -- the crisis is as clear as is the federal government’s failure to address it.

“The judge herself noted that the stash houses where smugglers hide immigrants from Mexico before bringing them into the country's interior have become a fixture on the news in Arizona and that, ‘You can barely go a day without a location being found in Phoenix where there are numerous people being harbored.’”

“When I signed the bill on April 23rd, I said, SB 1070 – represents another tool for our state to use as we work to address a crisis we did not create and the federal government has actively refused to fix. The law protects all of us, every Arizona citizen and everyone here in our state lawfully. And, it does so while ensuring that the constitutional rights of ALL in Arizona are undiminished – holding fast to the diversity that has made Arizona so great.

“I will battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, for the right to protect the citizens of Arizona. Meanwhile, I also know we still have work to do in confronting the fear-mongers, those dealing in hate and lies and economic boycotts that seek to do Arizona harm.

“We have already made some progress in waking up Washington. But the question still remains: will Washington do its job, and put an end to the daily operations of smugglers in our nation, or will the delays and sidesteps continue? I believe that the defenders of the rule of law will ultimately succeed with us in our demand for action.”

http://www.janbrewer.com/article/statement-by-governor-jan-brewer-on-sb-1070

Odysseus
07-29-2010, 03:54 PM
so, am I a racist?

Apparently, we all are. :rolleyes::mad:

Zafod
07-29-2010, 04:02 PM
pussy cant answer

KhrushchevsShoe
07-29-2010, 06:44 PM
You do understand that by calling America a police state, and comparing it to Hitler's Germany, you are implying that those of us who serve in the armed forces are no different from the Wehrmacht or SS? Just something for you to contemplate when you wonder exactly why I'm so pissed off at you.

The Wehrmacht and SS were two very different entities in Nazi Germany. Look back at the Nuremberg trials for the distinction. You may not really know what you're talking about, but that makes my job here easier.

I dont blame the guy driving a Panzer IV around in southern Russia for the Holocaust or pre-war rights abuses. He was a soldier and his job was to fight for his country. He had no control over the politics and what was going on. He had a job to do and he did it. Look at somebody like Erwin Rommel.

Either way you slice it, maybe you should be more concerned with the status of civil liberties in this country than your own image.

Zafod
07-29-2010, 06:48 PM
The Wehrmacht and SS were two very different entities in Nazi Germany. Look back at the Nuremberg trials for the distinction. You may not really know what you're talking about, but that makes my job here easier.

I dont blame the guy driving a Panzer IV around in southern Russia for the Holocaust or pre-war rights abuses. He was a soldier and his job was to fight for his country. He had no control over the politics and what was going on. He had a job to do and he did it. Look at somebody like Erwin Rommel.

Either way you slice it, maybe you should be more concerned with the status of civil liberties in this country than your own image.

so, am I a racist?

KhrushchevsShoe
07-29-2010, 07:01 PM
pussy cant answer

Wow, that hurts.

Countering the talking point that this law does differ from federal law is a lost cause. I could prove that beyond a reasonable doubt but frankly, reason holds little water on this forum. I'm not wasting my time, facts have become relative to ones' political affiliation. There's two answers to every question nowadays.

So, facing that reality I'll shift my strategy a bit: If this law made in Arizona really is redundant with federal law, why the uproar from you guys about it?

If this law is already on the books it doesn't make sense getting so rabid over it. Unless of course some people are looking to rile you up just in time for the midterms this fall, then it would make some sense to pull a stunt like this. Rally the base, sound the horn, gather the drones and tell them what they feel. It works for both sides and they love it when they get an opportunity to widen the partisan divide while doing nothing of substance. If you guys are right and this is the same law already enforced by the federal gov't, isn't that an admission that you're all being played? Taken along for a ride so politicians can scream and shout about that law in AZ that everyone in the country has an opinion on.

I think I called you all pawns a couple days ago, do you understand how hard you are working to reinforce that label?

KhrushchevsShoe
07-29-2010, 07:02 PM
so, am I a racist?

Probably, I dont know. I dont really care about you, you come off as being a wildly emotional idiot who enjoys getting mad at people on the internet.

But for fun prove to me you aren't a racist. Guilty until proven innocent, just like that law they tried to pass in Arizona.

djones520
07-29-2010, 07:07 PM
Probably, I dont know. I dont really care about you, you come off as being a wildly emotional idiot who enjoys getting mad at people on the internet.

But for fun prove to me you aren't a racist. Guilty until proven innocent, just like that law they tried to pass in Arizona.

You do realize that current Federal Law requires immigrants (the legal type) to carry their "papers" with them at all times, right?

PoliCon
07-29-2010, 07:09 PM
You do realize that current Federal Law requires immigrants (the legal type) to carry their "papers" with them at all times, right?

:eek: How . . . how . . . . oppressive!!! :rolleyes: Of course - citizens are also expected to carry ID as well.

djones520
07-29-2010, 07:10 PM
If you are a permanent resident age 18 or older, you are required to have a valid green card in your possession at all times.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=f1903a4107083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCR D&vgnextchannel=f1903a4107083210VgnVCM100000082ca60a RCRD

djones520
07-29-2010, 07:20 PM
Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 2005
(S. 1362)


Declares that state and local law enforcement officers have and always have had the
“inherent authority” to enforce immigration laws, including the authority to investigate,
identify, apprehend, arrest, detain, and transfer (including transport across state lines to
detention centers) noncitizens to federal custody.


States that all state and local law enforcement agencies should provide to the U.S. Dept. of
Homeland Security (DHS) information on each noncitizen apprehended or arrested in the
jurisdiction of the state or locality who is believed to be in violation of an immigration law.


La Raza was kinda enough to provide this information.


http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/locallaw/HSEA_sec_by_sec_1005.pdf

Zafod
07-29-2010, 07:26 PM
Probably, I dont know. I dont really care about you, you come off as being a wildly emotional idiot who enjoys getting mad at people on the internet.

But for fun prove to me you aren't a racist. Guilty until proven innocent, just like that law they tried to pass in Arizona.

oh yes because i have posted so much for you to get that picture of me.

and just like your assesment of me your grasp of this law is uneducated and ignorant.

you called me a racist with no basis.

you sir are an idiot.

warpig
07-29-2010, 07:29 PM
The most distressing comment came for someone at the DOJ who said the the decision was the right one because the new law would "interfear with the immigration efforts being provided by the federal govenment."

Lager
07-29-2010, 08:42 PM
The Wehrmacht and SS were two very different entities in Nazi Germany. Look back at the Nuremberg trials for the distinction. You may not really know what you're talking about, but that makes my job here easier.

I dont blame the guy driving a Panzer IV around in southern Russia for the Holocaust or pre-war rights abuses. He was a soldier and his job was to fight for his country. He had no control over the politics and what was going on. He had a job to do and he did it. Look at somebody like Erwin Rommel.

Either way you slice it, maybe you should be more concerned with the status of civil liberties in this country than your own image.

Your comparison of this law to something out of Nazi Germany says all we need to know about you. That typical level of shallow and reactionary thinking is a dime a dozen from rabid libs such as yourself. You're just another boring example of regurgitated, lefty blog drivel.

It doesn't drive one mad simply because you have a counter point of view, it's just that it's absolutey bloody frustrating that you can't come up with anything original or remotely interesting in the way of an intelligent argument. Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah. It's like one of those recorded messages on the phone...."you're call can not be completed as dialed. Please hang up....."
DU. Please send someone who can keep our interest for a while ! :D

KhrushchevsShoe
07-29-2010, 10:07 PM
Your comparison of this law to something out of Nazi Germany says all we need to know about you. That typical level of shallow and reactionary thinking is a dime a dozen from rabid libs such as yourself. You're just another boring example of regurgitated, lefty blog drivel.

It doesn't drive one mad simply because you have a counter point of view, it's just that it's absolutey bloody frustrating that you can't come up with anything original or remotely interesting in the way of an intelligent argument. Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah. It's like one of those recorded messages on the phone...."you're call can not be completed as dialed. Please hang up....."
DU. Please send someone who can keep our interest for a while ! :D

Except the comparison to Nazi Germany is apt, despite its use in leftist circles.

You cant run around the country pulling people over because they might be illegals then asking them to show identification to prove they arent. That's just not what the USA is supposed to be about. We have ideas like 'innocent before proven guilty' and search and seizure, ideas revolutionary for their time, but now staples of a set of freedoms that we've grown far too accustomed to.

Sure, it isnt expressly written in the constitution that you cant pull somebody over and ask if they are from this country or not; but that's not because of lack of a intent, more like lack of ingredients. Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson, someone the right seems to hold very dearly, coming out and agreeing with these policies? No, of course not. Because its counter to all the reasons we grew up loving this country.

There's the old saying "sacrifice freedom for security and you lose both" that everyone loves. It adds credence to the oft-ridiculed cliche that freedom isn't free; a motto some like to poke fun at but do admire in principle. It's always been the moral to our story, that we make no sacrifices in our principles against our enemies because it lowers ourselves to their level. That was supposed to be our identity, but its not anymore.

We are terrified of these invisible enemies nowadays: terrorism, communism, socialism, illegal immigrants. We've grown xenophobic of outside influences like the United Nations, European Union and International Criminal Courts. We see ourselves as #1 and as a consequence, everyone else as a challenger. We complain tirelessly about the outsourcing of jobs, while at the same time ignoring the years of policy that enouraged it. We go to war in two countries across the globe for marginal reasons. But this is the crux of it, we've rarely let the threat of an international problem influence our domestic freedoms.

This is a step towards it. An incredible step towards watering down our only cultural identify (freedom) for the sake of security. A step we all thought we were too strong and principled to take. The law passed in Arizona, whether it is redundant with federal law or not, has done more to destroy what America is about than 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the Gulf spill, the wars, and the '08 crisis put together. We got scared into believing all the horror stories are true, that this is a battle where America is at stake. Of course we got the enemy confused. Like always, its never been the outside power as much as its been ourselves. Our own capacity to lower ourselves has always been our greatest enemy, and the greatest enemy of any democracy.

It is what doomed post-WW1 Germany, and eventually it is what will doom us. The only way it will work is if we are complicit and from the looks of it we are.

swirling_vortex
07-29-2010, 10:35 PM
You cant run around the country pulling people over because they might be illegals then asking them to show identification to prove they arent. That's just not what the USA is supposed to be about. We have ideas like 'innocent before proven guilty' and search and seizure, ideas revolutionary for their time, but now staples of a set of freedoms that we've grown far too accustomed to.
So what's your solution for stemming the immigration problem? Besides, as others keep trying to tell you, the law that Arizona has little difference than what the law the federal government provides. How come you're not protesting the federal law?

Sure, it isnt expressly written in the constitution that you cant pull somebody over and ask if they are from this country or not; but that's not because of lack of a intent, more like lack of ingredients. Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson, someone the right seems to hold very dearly, coming out and agreeing with these policies? No, of course not. Because its counter to all the reasons we grew up loving this country.

There's the old saying "sacrifice freedom for security and you lose both" that everyone loves. It adds credence to the oft-ridiculed cliche that freedom isn't free; a motto some like to poke fun at but do admire in principle. It's always been the moral to our story, that we make no sacrifices in our principles against our enemies because it lowers ourselves to their level. That was supposed to be our identity, but its not anymore.
Did you know that Jefferson took us to war because the pirates cut down the flag staff in front of the U.S. Consulate? Also, while Jefferson believed in immigration, he believed that excessive immigration could be a problem.

"[Is] rapid population [growth] by as great importations of foreigners as possible... founded in good policy?... They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their number, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass... If they come of themselves, they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship: but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.VIII, 1782. ME 2:118
The problem with your opposition to the law is that you do not have any plan to solve the problem. Granting amnesty or simply ignoring it is only going to make things worse.

We are terrified of these invisible enemies nowadays: terrorism, communism, socialism, illegal immigrants. We've grown xenophobic of outside influences like the United Nations, European Union and International Criminal Courts. We see ourselves as #1 and as a consequence, everyone else as a challenger. We complain tirelessly about the outsourcing of jobs, while at the same time ignoring the years of policy that enouraged it. We go to war in two countries across the globe for marginal reasons. But this is the crux of it, we've rarely let the threat of an international problem influence our domestic freedoms.
Ah, there it is! The race card! Before you call us xenophobic again, look at how difficult it is to get citizenship in a European country. How come you're not attacking them for their immigration quotas and other restrictions?

This is a step towards it. An incredible step towards watering down our only cultural identify (freedom) for the sake of security. A step we all thought we were too strong and principled to take. The law passed in Arizona, whether it is redundant with federal law or not, has done more to destroy what America is about than 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the Gulf spill, the wars, and the '08 crisis put together. We got scared into believing all the horror stories are true, that this is a battle where America is at stake. Of course we got the enemy confused. Like always, its never been the outside power as much as its been ourselves. Our own capacity to lower ourselves has always been our greatest enemy, and the greatest enemy of any democracy.

It is what doomed post-WW1 Germany, and eventually it is what will doom us. The only way it will work is if we are complicit and from the looks of it we are.
WTH is this crap? This law will doom us? It will take away our freedoms? I don't know whether you're just trying to score brownie points on DU or if you're simply paranoid.

Let's get one thing straight. Illegal immigration is a problem. The way you fix that is by enforcing your borders. Any sane politician will understand that you cannot operate efficiently when you have an open-border, amnesty policy. It depresses the area economically and places a burden on social services. If anything, it's your utopian ideals that will bring about the end of us.

I don't see how that relates to post-WWI Germany. That problem was due to the reparations that were placed on them and the expanding money supply that made their country worthless. So naturally the people were willing to turn to anyone, even if that person wanted to wipe out capitalism, the Jews, and everyone else.

Lager
07-29-2010, 10:37 PM
Very nice and flowery and you touched all the right cliches, but still you've done nothing to address the real issues. If Thomas Jefferson found his city suddenly became a gateway and gathering spot for illlegals entering the U.S., causing an increase in crime, violence, illegal drug trafficking as well as human trafficking, kidnapping and all the associated environmental destruction, he would obviouslly decide that something needed to be done to correct the problem. I also believe that he would understand that if the federal government was not fulfiilling its constitutional duties in protecting the border, that a state had no other choice but to protect its general interests.

There is nothing xenophobic about the fears and concerns of all Arizona citizens. It is not the hispanic grocer, or school teacher. It is not the hispanic gardner or councilman or shop owner they fear. It is not the hispanic neighbor they've said helllo to or lived next to for decades. It is the criminal that crosses so easily from the country south of them, in ever increasing numbers due to the lack of federal enforcement. That spray paints their buildings and brings drugs and trash and violence into their neighborhoods. Does it matter what color their skin is?

djones520
07-29-2010, 10:38 PM
Dude... you automatically fail for invoking Jefferson to defend the Federal Government stomping out State Rights.

Lager
07-29-2010, 10:39 PM
Nice touch SV. You hit him back with his own Jefferson! I'm sure he didn't expect that. :D

PoliCon
07-29-2010, 10:50 PM
Except the comparison to Nazi Germany is apt, despite its use in leftist circles. godwins law dumbass.


You cant run around the country pulling people over because they might be illegals then asking them to show identification to prove they arent. That's just not what the USA is supposed to be about. We have ideas like 'innocent before proven guilty' and search and seizure, ideas revolutionary for their time, but now staples of a set of freedoms that we've grown far too accustomed to. Trouble is - that your claim is utterly false. The law does not allow for people to be pulled over just because the cop thinks they might be illegals - what it allows is that if in the process of dealing with another criminal act - say SPEEDING - the cops are allowed to ask the perp to prove their citizenship status. Stop spreading misinformation and lies.


Sure, it isnt expressly written in the constitution that you cant pull somebody over and ask if they are from this country or not; but that's not because of lack of a intent, more like lack of ingredients. Can you imagine Thomas Jefferson, someone the right seems to hold very dearly, coming out and agreeing with these policies? No, of course not. Because its counter to all the reasons we grew up loving this country. Jefferson would stand firmly behind this law.


There's the old saying "sacrifice freedom for security and you lose both" that everyone loves. It adds credence to the oft-ridiculed cliche that freedom isn't free; a motto some like to poke fun at but do admire in principle. It's always been the moral to our story, that we make no sacrifices in our principles against our enemies because it lowers ourselves to their level. That was supposed to be our identity, but its not anymore. So you think for the sake of freedom we should allow anyone who wants - to cross our border at will? And you think that that is freedom??


We are terrified of these invisible enemies nowadays: terrorism, communism, socialism, illegal immigrants. Terrified? Invisible? Seems to me that they are quite visible.


We've grown xenophobic of outside influences like the United Nations, European Union and International Criminal Courts. How can you be xenophobic about organizations? You really should look up what terms mean before you use them. :rolleyes:


We see ourselves as #1 and as a consequence, everyone else as a challenger. That would be because that is the case.

We complain tirelessly about the outsourcing of jobs, while at the same time ignoring the years of policy that enouraged it. No dude- YOUR side complains about outsourcing of jobs. :rolleyes:



We go to war in two countries across the globe for marginal reasons. :rolleyes: are you fucking serious?


But this is the crux of it, we've rarely let the threat of an international problem influence our domestic freedoms. And well we shouldn't.


This is a step towards it. An incredible step towards watering down our only cultural identify (freedom) for the sake of security.Bullshit. :rolleyes: The only people who face any kind of issue from this law are those who speak with foreign accents. And the truth of the matter is - immigrants already have to carry proof of their immigration status. If there are citizens who are second generation and cannot speak the language without sounding like foreigners - then maybe they need to look at how they are living and we should question if they actually are - AMERICANS.



A step we all thought we were too strong and principled to take. The law passed in Arizona, whether it is redundant with federal law or not, has done more to destroy what America is about than 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the Gulf spill, the wars, and the '08 crisis put together. We got scared into believing all the horror stories are true, that this is a battle where America is at stake. Of course we got the enemy confused. Like always, its never been the outside power as much as its been ourselves. Our own capacity to lower ourselves has always been our greatest enemy, and the greatest enemy of any democracy. What ridiculous fucking drama.


It is what doomed post-WW1 Germany, and eventually it is what will doom us. The only way it will work is if we are complicit and from the looks of it we are. No you stupid fuck. What doomed post WWI Germany was SOCIALISM.

NJCardFan
07-30-2010, 12:29 AM
We are terrified of these invisible enemies nowadays: terrorism, communism, socialism, illegal immigrants.
Terrorism is an invisible enemy? So I guess those towers falling in Manhattan was just a horrible nightmare? Illegal immigration is an invisible enemy? So, I'm dreaming this as well:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/30/illegal-immigrant-suspected-murder-arizona-rancher/
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/02/24/i-will-never-return-to-mexico.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15984485/
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/18/local/la-me-immigrant-kidnap-20100718

Invisible indeed. Tell that to the families of those who are kidnapped.

swirling_vortex
07-30-2010, 02:51 PM
Nice touch SV. You hit him back with his own Jefferson! I'm sure he didn't expect that. :D
hehe thanks! :D Unfortunately, he's not the only one, I've seen other leftists trying to claim Jefferson's mantle for their own. More than likely it's over the wall of separation between the church and the government letter, which they try to use as a way to "prove" that the founding fathers detested organized religion. Yes, Jefferson was a Unitarian Christan, but he was in no way an anti-theist. In fact, if one reads the short letter...

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
...we see that was is enumerated in the Constitution is no different from what he said here, that the government shall not set an official religion. And his anti-federalist views puts him about the furthest away from Mr. Shoe and the rest of the liberal gang. I challenge someone to find similar quotes and ideas on DU:

"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. "

"Money, not morality, is the principle commerce of civilized nations."

If Jefferson had a DU account today, he'd be banned in all of 15 seconds. :)

Odysseus
07-31-2010, 12:28 PM
The Wehrmacht and SS were two very different entities in Nazi Germany. Look back at the Nuremberg trials for the distinction. You may not really know what you're talking about, but that makes my job here easier.

I dont blame the guy driving a Panzer IV around in southern Russia for the Holocaust or pre-war rights abuses. He was a soldier and his job was to fight for his country. He had no control over the politics and what was going on. He had a job to do and he did it. Look at somebody like Erwin Rommel.
Yes, by all means, let's look at Rommel, who was personally a superb and chivalrous officer who did not tolerate war crimes among his subordinates, but whose victories brought huge swaths of Europe under the control of his regime, and ultimately enabled the atrocities committed by it. He also swore the oath of allegiance to Adolph Hitler, which meant that even as the war became a lost cause, he continued to fight for Adolph, buying Germany the time to continue murdering civilians throughout their conquered territories. Even the most honorable foes fought for a monstrous regime, and your casual comparison between the United States and Nazi Germany is disgusting. Typical, but disgusting.

Either way you slice it, maybe you should be more concerned with the status of civil liberties in this country than your own image.
I'm not worried about my "image." I know who and what I serve and I have nothing to apologize for. My point is that you either can't tell the difference between real evil and policies that you disagree with, or you are so consumed by hatred for those who don't share your politics that you have no problem comparing us to mass-murderers. It's a despicable tactic, and you usually don't sink this low, but I suppose that with the election so close, and the left in such deep trouble with the electorate, anything goes, right?

Probably, I dont know. I dont really care about you, you come off as being a wildly emotional idiot who enjoys getting mad at people on the internet.

But for fun prove to me you aren't a racist. Guilty until proven innocent, just like that law they tried to pass in Arizona.
Guilty until proven innocent of racism has always been the left's standards, unless you happen to vote the right way. Then, a former KKK exalted cyclops can become a progressive icon. In fact, you don't care about racism, just power. You want illegals welcomed so that you can overcome the collapse in support for your agenda by creating millions of new voters who will be dependent on the largess of the state, i.e., Democratic voters. The law in Arizona doesn't impose a standard of guilt. It demands probable cause for all interactions and only requires asking about immigration status when a suspect in another crime cannot produce documentation. Since legal immigrants are required by federal law to carry their ID at all times (I know this because my wife is an immigrant), the lack of ID in such cases is already a crime on the federal books.