Securing the Border

Denerick · 05-07-2010 7:34pm

PopeUrbanII wrote: »

Here's one for you, Denerick: Should Britain have invaded Ireland, in response to I.R.A. bombings?

How is that related to what I said? An equally relevant question is whether you say pot-ate-oe or pot-at-oe...

PopeUrbanII · 05-07-2010 7:43pm

Denerick wrote: »

How is that related to what I said? An equally relevant question is whether you say pot-ate-oe or pot-at-oe...

No..........
Earlier you indicated Mexico is justified in colonizing the American Southwest through illegal immigration, because we 'White Americans' stole it from the 'Brown people' of Mexico. You were indirectly referring to the way in which the U.S. took the Southwest from Mexico -- The Mexican War (1846-1848). In response, I asked, in a round-about way, if your country is totally innocent of imperialism. You're from Ireland, a country that's uniquely 'more innocent' than most countries. The bottom line is that no one is totally innocent, in the judgment of History. Still, Mexico has no right to re-invade my country, IMHO.

Denerick · 05-07-2010 7:46pm

PopeUrbanII wrote: »

No..........
Earlier you indicated Mexico is justified in colonizing the American Southwest through illegal immigration, because we 'White Americans' stole it from the 'Brown people' of Mexico. You were indirectly referring to the way in which the U.S. took the Southwest from Mexico -- The Mexican War (1846-1848). In response, I asked, in a round-about way, if your country is totally innocent of imperialism. You're from Ireland, a country that's uniquely 'more innocent' than most countries. The bottom line is that no one is totally innocent, in the judgment of History.

Thats a strange logic, but I see what you mean. I'm not suggesting that the Brown people are colonising the south western States, I'm saying that they are migrating there.

What is this all about? Are you worried that California and Arizona might secede from the Union? Or that the States will officially become Spanish language speaking?

If I were in your shoes, I'd stop the push to make English the official language. Even if immigration does stop completely and the illegals go home (Which is impossible without causing economic carnage by the way) the southwestern states are destined to be majority Latino in the next half century. If the official language is already on the ballot, it won't be difficult for the Latino's to overturn the official language clause. And make Spanish the official language...

Just a bit of advice

PopeUrbanII · 05-07-2010 7:51pm

Denerick wrote: »

Thats a strange logic, but I see what you mean. I'm not suggesting that the Brown people are colonising the south western States, I'm saying that they are migrating there.

What is this all about? Are you worried that California and Arizona might secede from the Union? Or that the States will officially become Spanish language speaking?

If I were in your shoes, I'd stop the push to make English the official language. Even if immigration does stop completely and the illegals go home (Which is impossible without causing economic carnage by the way) the southwestern states are destined to be majority Latino in the next half century. If the official language is already on the ballot, it won't be difficult for the Latino's to overturn the official language clause.

Just a bit of advice

Thanks for the advice. I know how easy it is to give others advice, concerning things they feel strongly about, when I don't. For example, it's good that you accept the British take-over of Northern Ireland. After all, there's nothing you can do about it, anyway. If I were you, I wouldn't get angry about it. I'd accept it.:P

P.S.: The U.S. has no 'official' language. Moreover, I've spent my entire adult life learning Spanish, and I'm close to fluent. My wife is a legal immigrant from the Spanish-speaking country of Panama.

amacachi · 06-07-2010 1:02am

PopeUrbanII wrote: »

Nevertheless, IMHO, that doesn't give Mexico the right to re-invade and conquer the American Southwest.

ROFLOL.

Here's one for you, Denerick: Should Britain have invaded Ireland, in response to I.R.A. bombings?

Should Oklahoma have invaded New York in response to the bombing by McVeigh?

Amerika · 07-07-2010 3:40pm

The lawsuit against Arizona by Obama’s injustice department should show everyone just how radical Barack Obama really is. I don’t think he cares much about securing our border, just getting amnesty for another 20 million or so undocumented democrats.

The lawsuit against S.B. 1070 bases on the argument by Obama’s Attorney deGenerate that "In our constitutional system, the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters." And it goes on to state "This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests."

From that language, it appears obvious that Obama cares more about foreign interest than protecting our citizens. And if he REALLY was worried about state and local laws usurping the federal government's pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters, he surely would have gone after “Sanctuary Cities” before going after Arizona. Right!

Someone needs to wake Obama up to the fact that he is a temporary president, not an emperor.

Overheal · 07-07-2010 3:50pm

Amerika wrote: »

The lawsuit against Arizona by Obama’s injustice department should show everyone just how radical Barack Obama really is. I don’t think he cares much about securing our border, just getting amnesty for another 20 million or so undocumented democrats.

The lawsuit against S.B. 1070 bases on the argument by Obama’s Attorney deGenerate that "In our constitutional system, the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters." And it goes on to state "This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests."

From that language, it appears obvious that Obama cares more about foreign interest than protecting our citizens. And if he REALLY was worried about state and local laws usurping the federal government's pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters, he surely would have gone after “Sanctuary Cities” before going after Arizona. Right!

Someone needs to wake Obama up to the fact that he is a temporary president, not an emperor.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried harder.

Amerika · 07-07-2010 4:01pm

Overheal wrote: »

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried harder.

And you base that misguided opinion on.................................?

How about we each pick some laws to ignore for the day. We'll call it Obama Day.

Carcharodon · 07-07-2010 4:04pm

Amerika wrote: »

The lawsuit against Arizona by Obama’s injustice department should show everyone just how radical Barack Obama really is. I don’t think he cares much about securing our border, just getting amnesty for another 20 million or so undocumented democrats.

The lawsuit against S.B. 1070 bases on the argument by Obama’s Attorney deGenerate that "In our constitutional system, the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters." And it goes on to state "This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests."

From that language, it appears obvious that Obama cares more about foreign interest than protecting our citizens. And if he REALLY was worried about state and local laws usurping the federal government's pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters, he surely would have gone after “Sanctuary Cities” before going after Arizona. Right!

Someone needs to wake Obama up to the fact that he is a temporary president, not an emperor.

How witty :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Has it ever once crossed your mind that this big bad black evil muslim man is not out to get you and maybe, just maybe is trying to steer America in the right direction after years of abuse.

The man obviously has his faults but this constant attack on him is just disgusting.

Amerika · 07-07-2010 4:13pm

Carcharodon wrote: »

... maybe, just maybe is trying to steer America in the right direction after years of abuse.

How is protecting our borders from the onslaught of illegal aliens... considered abuse? I haven't seen other countries step up to the plate and say they will take them.

And it wouldn’t matter to me if it were Hillary Clinton making the same decisions, it would be wrong. Oh wait, a female, I guess that would be sexual discrimination on my part. Okay, make it Joe Biden. Nah, that won’t work either as it would be discrimination against the mentally challenged. Wow, I guess I just can’t win... huh?

Overheal · 07-07-2010 4:28pm

Amerika wrote: »

And you base that misguided opinion on.................................?

How about we each pick some laws to ignore for the day. We'll call it Obama Day.

...

From that language, it appears obvious that Obama cares more about foreign interest than protecting our citizens.

and that language was...

The lawsuit against S.B. 1070 bases on the argument by Obama’s Attorney deGenerate that "In our constitutional system, the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters." And it goes on to state "This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests."

So for starters, the Federal Government doesn't want an individual border state mandating it's own immigration policies and laws, being the remit of the Federal Government. The Federal constitution says that authority is enshrined in the Constitution and Federal Law. Im sure Arizona will try to refute it.

What you're saying though is that the Obama Administration cares more for Foreign "Interest" than the American people.

You do realize that Foreign Policy is in the best interest of the American people? And if terrorist attacks are an indication, Foreign Relations are quite a matter of National Security.

Oh sure we could evict all the Mexicans from the state, then move on to the Muslims, the Marxists and the Communists, and then for that twist of sheer irony erect our Iron Curtain and tell the rest of the world to **** off.

But tell me when was that ever The American Way.

Carcharodon · 07-07-2010 4:35pm

Amerika wrote: »

How is protecting our borders from the onslaught of illegal aliens... considered abuse? I haven't seen other countries step up to the plate and say they will take them.

And it wouldn’t matter to me if it were Hillary Clinton making the same decisions, it would be wrong. Oh wait, a female, I guess that would be sexual discrimination on my part. Okay, make it Joe Biden. Nah, that won’t work either as it would be discrimination against the mentally challenged. Wow, I guess I just can’t win... huh?

Joe Biden, mentally challenged, hilarious. What does that make Bush and Palin then if you want to play that game :rolleyes:

Why would other countries take them when the vast amount of problems faced in these countries have been a result of American foreign policy. You helped create this problem, now why don't you try and help fix it.

Why is Obama all of a sudden the reason why the borders are not secure ? Surely all these millions didn't just come when he became president ?

Overheal · 07-07-2010 4:59pm

How is protecting our borders from the onslaught of illegal aliens... considered abuse? I haven't seen other countries step up to the plate and say they will take them.

With regards to Mexico its not really a broad case of Asylum now is it?

And with Regards to Refugees, Europe takes in its fair share.

As to why we attract so many 'ignagrants could it be...

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
' With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Amerika · 07-07-2010 5:02pm

Overheal wrote: »

What you're saying though is that the Obama Administration cares more for Foreign "Interest" than the American people.

You do realize that Foreign Policy is in the best interest of the American people? And if terrorist attacks are an indication, Foreign Relations are quite a matter of National Security.

Oh sure we could evict all the Mexicans from the state, then move on to the Muslims, the Marxists and the Communists, and then for that twist of sheer irony erect our Iron Curtain and tell the rest of the world to **** off.

But tell me when was that ever The American Way.

I guess you must hate George Washington, James Madison and Alexendar Hamilton then. Dang right wing extremists!

George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, stated that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that "by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people."

In a 1790 speech to Congress on the naturalization of immigrants, James Madison stated that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily "incorporate himself into our society.".

Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1802: "The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family."

Hamilton further warned that "The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader."

The survival of the American republic, Hamilton maintained, depends upon "the preservation of a national spirit and a national character." "To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty."

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/07/02/assimilation-and-the-founding-fathers/

Amerika · 07-07-2010 5:09pm

Overheal wrote: »

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
' With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

How is it that so many people don't seem to realize that it is the Statue of Liberty, not the Mother of Exiles.

Denerick · 07-07-2010 5:13pm

Amerika wrote: »

Joe Biden. Nah, that won’t work either as it would be discrimination against the mentally challenged. Wow, I guess I just can’t win... huh?

How about Sarah Palin, that way you could discriminate simultaneously against the mentally challenged and women?

Overheal · 07-07-2010 5:23pm

Amerika wrote: »

I guess you must hate George Washington, James Madison and Alexendar Hamilton then. Dang right wing extremists!

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/07/02/assimilation-and-the-founding-fathers/

Uhm, no. Did I say that?

In virtually every way Washington and Madison were successful, and America has a vibrant national identity. Hamilton merely argued that we curtail immigration in so far that the number of first generation immigrants doesn't outpace the number of 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants being naturalized. Thats my read of it.

And once again I fail to see what any of that has to do with Arizona illegally taking immigration into their own hands. Nowhere do any of them write that we shall expel the spanish, ban the weed, and force immigrants (and citizens) to carry around papers for the New Schutzstaffel.

Amerika · 07-07-2010 5:30pm

Overheal wrote: »

And once again I fail to see what any of that has to do with Arizona illegally taking immigration into their own hands. Nowhere do any of them write that we shall expel the spanish, ban the weed, and force immigrants (and citizens) to carry around papers for the New Schutzstaffel.

Why is it that just about everyone here can't seem to distinguish between legal immigration (which I, Arizona, and most of the nation agree with, and of whom all my family are either legal immigrants and first or second generation legal immigrants) and illegal alien invaders?

Amerika · 07-07-2010 5:32pm

Denerick wrote: »

How about Sarah Palin, that way you could discriminate simultaneously against the mentally challenged and women?

If she would advocate the federal government suing Arizona over S.B. 1070, then you might be on to something. Is that the case?

Overheal · 07-07-2010 5:36pm

Amerika wrote: »

Why is it that just about everyone here can't seem to distinguish between legal immigration (which I, Arizona, and most of the nation agree with, and of whom all my family are either legal immigrants and first or second generation legal immigrants) and illegal alien invaders?

We can.

But from my understanding Arizona's new draconian measures go beyond what the federal government intends. Overriding the federal government; which on the matter of immigration, it hasn't the authority to do.

Again, the AZ law doesnt do much to distinguish space invader and legal immigrant; all it does is hurts our foreign interests abroad, eroding our national security quite contrary to its intention.

Amerika · 07-07-2010 5:38pm

Overheal wrote: »

...measures go beyond what the federal government intends.

According to who, or is that whom?

Overheal wrote: »

Overriding the federal government; which on the matter of immigration, it hasn't the authority to do.

Hmmmmm, do you advocate for the federal government suing Sanctuary Cities then?

Amerika · 07-07-2010 6:05pm

Overheal wrote: »

Nowhere do any of them write that we shall expel the spanish, ban the weed, and force immigrants (and citizens) to carry around papers for the New Schutzstaffel.

I bet, as a matter of principle, you don't carry your driver's license, registration card, and liability insurance card when you drive. Correct? And if you do... why? Isn't it soooooo nazi like to have to do so?

Overheal · 07-07-2010 6:11pm

Amerika wrote: »

According to who, or is that whom?

The Federal Government.

Hmmmmm, do you advocate for the federal government suing Sanctuary Cities then?

Nope.

If they were refusing to use Federal Funds and Resources to enforce illegal immigration law? Absolutely. The fact that they are refusing only Municipal resources and funds seems to make it a matter of Work to Rule.

Amerika · 07-07-2010 6:26pm

Overheal wrote: »

The Federal Government.

Now that's funny! "Follow the law, not as it is written, but as it is unwritten." I'm not sure that thinking will even hold up in this regimes court system.

And, is that according to the US Constitution, whoever is in authority at the time, or whichever way the political wind blows. I think current events contradict that thinking. As for me, I go with the US Constitution. Wish the POTUS and others did as well.

Denerick · 07-07-2010 6:32pm

Amerika wrote: »

As for me, I go with the US Constitution. Wish the POTUS and others did as well.

Is that why the last President didn't even bother to to seek a declaration of war from the legislative branch for the invasion of Iraq? Is that why the last President employed the use of torture? Is that why the last President wire-tapped his own civilians? Is that why the Republican Party railroaded the unconstitutional Patriot Act through Congress?

I just love it when Republicans yap on about the Constitution.

Overheal · 07-07-2010 6:34pm

Amerika wrote: »

Now that's funny! "Follow the law, not as it is written, but as it is unwritten." I'm not sure that thinking will even hold up in this regimes court system.

And, is that according to the US Constitution, whoever is in authority at the time, or whichever way the political wind blows. I think current events contradict that thinking. As for me, I go with the US Constitution. Wish the POTUS and others did as well.

Yes... just like the Constitution decreed we would go to war with Iraq and Afghanistan. Though, that was also the intention of the Federal Government. Imagine.

edit: damnit den, thinking the same thing.

Amerika · 07-07-2010 6:37pm

Denerick wrote: »

Is that why the last President didn't even bother to to seek a declaration of war from the legislative branch for the invasion of Iraq? Is that why the last President employed the use of torture? Is that why the last President wire-tapped his own civilians? Is that why the Republican Party railroaded the unconstitutional Patriot Act through Congress?

I don't recall him being brought up on charges from a Democrat controlled Congress who absolutely hates GW Bush? So, that leads me to believe that those points you made are simply one's fantastic opinion. The US vs Arizona suit is actually going through the court system. I put my money on AZ.

Overheal · 07-07-2010 6:41pm

Amerika wrote: »

I don't recall him being brought up on charges from a Democrat controlled Congress who absolutely hates GW Bush?

Begging your pardon but what has that got to do with anything here?

Denerick · 07-07-2010 6:42pm

Amerika wrote: »

I don't recall him being brought up on charges from a Democrat controlled Congress who absolutely hates GW Bush? So, that leads me to believe that those points you made are simply one's fantastic opinion. The US vs Arizona suit is actually going through the court system. I put my money on AZ.

What?

I mean really, what?

Are you going to respond to the charges put to you?

Amerika · 07-07-2010 6:51pm

Denerick wrote: »

Are you going to respond to the charges put to you?

I did!

Securing the Border

Comments