Securing the Border

Overheal · 28-06-2010 9:38pm

Denerick wrote: »

Emm... Its not too hard to draw attention to somebody in imminent danger of having a heart attack. Just scream hysterically at a nearby nurse and point at your ailing relative shouting 'HEART ATTACK, HEART ATTACK' I'm sure they'll get the message.

"Chest Pains" is far more ambiguous while still requiring the same priority and none of the repurcussion thusly of falsy claiming you're having a heart attack. Try plugging your symptoms into WebMD for example: as soon as you click "Chest Pains" you're pretty much Stopped and told to immediately seek medical attention.

Amerika · 29-06-2010 3:13pm

When Barack Obama's goons show up Monday in Arizona to meet with Governor Brewer, she should simply have them arrested. Arrested for failure of payment from the US government, which owes Arizona $750 million since 2003 alone, to house illegal aliens within the state. And only after the federal government ponies up their obligations, then they can talk about SR 1070.

Manic Moran · 29-06-2010 3:26pm

Where are these monuments? I wish to deface them...

Saw one on the State Capitol grounds in Austin. Not sure you'd get away with it, though.

You can find others in courthouses, state capitols and town halls around the country.

NTM

Overheal · 29-06-2010 3:27pm

Amerika wrote: »

When Barack Obama's goons show up Monday in Arizona to meet with Governor Brewer, she should simply have them arrested. Arrested for failure of payment from the US government, which owes Arizona $750 million since 2003 alone, to house illegal aliens within the state. And only after the federal government ponies up their obligations, then they can talk about SR 1070.

lol

PopeUrbanII · 03-07-2010 9:31pm

The U.S. has never had a secure border with Mexico, and never will. It's a political issue, more than anything else, due to the rapid growth of the American Hispanic population. As a voting block, its support is indispensable for any serious contender for the U.S. Presidency. Therefore, cracking down on security on the southern border is equivalent to political suicide for any President. It'll never happen. It's almost pointless to argue about it.

Denerick · 03-07-2010 10:17pm

Why don't Americans just accept the present system, put the present illegals on a path to citizenship and do more to integrate Mexican communities in the border States? Whatever party takes immigration by the horns will be the dominant political party for the forseeable future. Within 20 years the Hispanic vote will be THE decisive vote in Presidential and congressional elections. Its pretty important as it is.

But then again, thats what it boils down to. White fear over brown power. I think that its justice at long last - a few thousand white settlers basically annexed Texas and California in the 19th century, usurping land that is rightfully Mexican by historic right. Chickens coming home to roost and all that.

PopeUrbanII · 04-07-2010 2:21am

Denerick wrote: »

Why don't Americans just accept the present system, put the present illegals on a path to citizenship and do more to integrate Mexican communities in the border States? Whatever party takes immigration by the horns will be the dominant political party for the forseeable future. Within 20 years the Hispanic vote will be THE decisive vote in Presidential and congressional elections. Its pretty important as it is.

But then again, thats what it boils down to. White fear over brown power. I think that its justice at long last - a few thousand white settlers basically annexed Texas and California in the 19th century, usurping land that is rightfully Mexican by historic right. Chickens coming home to roost and all that.

'Path to citizenship'..............? What message do you think that would send to Mexico's poor, who are the vast majority of Mexico's population, BTW? Have you thought this through?

PopeUrbanII · 04-07-2010 2:23am

"But then again, thats what it boils down to. White fear over brown power. I think that its justice at long last - a few thousand white settlers basically annexed Texas and California in the 19th century, usurping land that is rightfully Mexican by historic right. Chickens coming home to roost and all that."

Where do you live, Denerick? Let's see how innocent your national history is, okay?

Denerick · 04-07-2010 9:22am

PopeUrbanII wrote: »

"But then again, thats what it boils down to. White fear over brown power. I think that its justice at long last - a few thousand white settlers basically annexed Texas and California in the 19th century, usurping land that is rightfully Mexican by historic right. Chickens coming home to roost and all that."

Where do you live, Denerick? Let's see how innocent your national history is, okay?

Ireland? As far as I'm aware we never annexed other peoples territory...

PopeUrbanII · 05-07-2010 6:30pm

Denerick wrote: »

Ireland? As far as I'm aware we never annexed other peoples territory...

You're lucky to be from Ireland. Ireland is one of the only 'almost innocent' nations on Earth. Note that almost all other nations on Earth have committed misdeeds at some point in their history. The U.S. grabbed northern Mexico through war, and minimal reparations. We've committed other wrongs, as well, as most other countries have. Nevertheless, IMHO, that doesn't give Mexico the right to re-invade and conquer the American Southwest.

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

Denerick · 05-07-2010 6:34pm

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 6:43pm

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 6:46pm

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 6:51pm

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 12:02am

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 2:40pm

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 2:50pm

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 3:01pm

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 3:04pm

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 3:13pm

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 3:28pm

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 3:35pm

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 3:59pm

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 4:02pm

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 4:09pm

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 4:13pm

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 4:23pm

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 4:30pm

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 4:32pm

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 4:36pm

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 4:38pm

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 5:05pm

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 5:11pm

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 5:26pm

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 5:32pm

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 5:34pm

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 5:37pm

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 5:41pm

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 5:42pm

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 5:51pm

Denerick wrote: »

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

I did!

Overheal · 07-07-2010 6:23pm

Amerika wrote: »

I did!

No, you didnt.

You said RAWR black president federal government rawr constitution vs. policy rabble.

We said rawr dumbass president constitution policy war iraq rawr.

Then you went on about something completely irrelevant, that GWB was never tried for crimes.

Uhm............... He still set about a Federal Policy and engaged in a war with Iraq, which was never outlined in the Constitution, being the precise counter of your Rawr Federal Policy non-Constitutional rawr argument. Notice nobody ever said anything about Illegal War or Illegal Wiretapping. Though I imagine by Freud's grave thats what you thought you read.

The point being that Federal Policy can be set by an administration and does not need to be spelled out in the US Constitution, per your quite absurd demand to the contrary. The Federal Government can quite legitimately engage in whatever policy it likes regarding a Federal Border and Federal Immigration (ie. Illegal Aliens).

Amerika · 07-07-2010 6:45pm

Overheal wrote: »

No, you didnt.

You said RAWR black president federal government rawr constitution vs. policy rabble.

We said rawr dumbass president constitution policy war iraq rawr.

Then you went on about something completely irrelevant, that GWB was never tried for crimes.

Uhm............... He still set about a Federal Policy and engaged in a war with Iraq, which was never outlined in the Constitution, being the precise counter of your Rawr Federal Policy non-Constitutional rawr argument. Notice nobody ever said anything about Illegal War or Illegal Wiretapping. Though I imagine by Freud's grave thats what you thought you read.

The point being that Federal Policy can be set by an administration and does not need to be spelled out in the US Constitution, per your quite absurd demand to the contrary. The Federal Government can quite legitimately engage in whatever policy it likes regarding a Federal Border and Federal Immigration (ie. Illegal Aliens).

Very incoherent passages... Can’t follow. Please try again. And this time try stating what I actually state, rather than what you want to accuse me of stating, and with a little more coherency please. You know what they sometimes say, “second times a charm.” Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

And if I think I understand what you wrote, do you really believe "The Federal Government can quite legitimately engage in whatever policy it likes regarding a Federal Border and Federal Immigration?" I’d like to see the source of your contention for that pile of excrement.

Overheal · 07-07-2010 6:52pm

Amerika wrote: »

Very incoherent passages... Can’t follow. Please try again. And this time try stating what I actually state, rather than what you want to accuse me of stating, and with a little more coherency please. You know what they sometimes say, “second times a charm.” Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

I would but your little wink tells me all.

You know well what you said. Now, if you actually need what you've said read back to you like an infant, I will in fact oblige.

But you will have to ask me nicely.

And if I think I understand what you wrote, do you really believe "The Federal Government can quite legitimately engage in whatever policy it likes regarding a Federal Border and Federal Immigration?" I’d like to see the source of your contention for that pile of excrement.

Contention: Invasion of Iraq

Contention: USA PATRIOT Act

Contention: Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp

With particular attention to the Invasion of Iraq, note that Federal Military was used, consisting of United States Residents, at the Command of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Also note that individual States in the Union do not as far as I am certain have the Authority to withhold their respective contingencies; Oregon has no Authority to say that no Oregonian will participate in the Iraq War. Similarly, Oregon can not independently wage war against another nation.

Amerika · 07-07-2010 6:58pm

Overheal wrote: »

IYou know well what you said. Now, if you actually need what you've said read back to you like an infant, I will in fact oblige.

Please do. And put what I stated, and then what you claim I stated after that.

But you will have to ask me nicely.

Okay... Please.

Contention: Invasion of Iraq

Contention: USA PATRIOT Act

Contention: Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp

With particular attention to the Invasion of Iraq, note that Federal Military was used, consisting of United States Residents, at the Command of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Also note that individual States in the Union do not as far as I am certain have the Authority to withhold their respective contingencies; Oregon has no Authority to say that no Oregonian will participate in the Iraq War. Similarly, Oregon can not independently wage war against another nation.

What does any of that got to do with "The Federal Government can quite legitimately engage in whatever policy it likes regarding a Federal Border and Federal Immigration?" Or do I have to ask you nicely?

Overheal · 07-07-2010 7:00pm

What does any of that got to do with "The Federal Government can quite legitimately engage in whatever policy it likes regarding a Federal Border and Federal Immigration?" Or do I have to ask you nicely?

I'm not sure I need to make it any clearer. A federal border is controlled by the federal government. Illegal Immigration is a Federal Matter.

Amerika · 07-07-2010 7:06pm

Overheal wrote: »

I'm not sure I need to make it any clearer. A federal border is controlled by the federal government. Illegal Immigration is a Federal Matter.

And when they cross "no man's land" at the border, and enter a US state, the US states should be powerless - unless a federal agent is on hand? That's kinda nuts, wouldn't you agree?

The Federal Government owes Arizona $750 million just from over the last few years from Arizona "housing" these "Federal Matters." Maybe Arizona should arrest all federal goverment members for theft and refusal to pay.

Overheal · 07-07-2010 7:11pm

Amerika wrote: »

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?

I missed this post earlier yet I've already addressed the substance in past threads.

If I choose to drive: Driving is Not a Right, either by Geneva Convention nor United States Constitution. It is a Privilege. That privilege requires as a pre-requisite that I Maintain a valid License, Registration, and Liability Insurance.

The Right to Citizenship does not require me to carry my passport when I walk down the street to buy milk. My Passport does not leave my home; I have not put it in my pocket in over a year now. A passport, I should add, that I only have as a requisite for International Customs and Travel across Federal Borders. It is not a pre-requisite for Citizenship.

In fact, I don't need anything but money in my pocket to go and buy milk. If I truly wanted, I would be well within my rights not to own copies of my Birth Certificate, Social Security Card, Drivers License, or my Passport. The only difficulty with that is it makes it hard to take advantages of certain privileges and opportunities, such as opening a bank account or securing gainful employment.

To be pulled over by a police officer for looking like a latino (I don't, but in this example) and asking for my Birth Certificate, or my Passport, or my ID card, or my Social Security card, is not in keeping with my rights as a US Citizen.

Overheal · 07-07-2010 7:15pm

Amerika wrote: »

And when they cross "no man's land" at the border, and enter a US state, the US states should be powerless - unless a federal agent is on hand? That's kinda nuts, wouldn't you agree?

For instance, see The Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is not confined to the borders of Washington DC. They can - this may surprise you - operate inside of Federal Jurisdiction which includes (wait for it...) Arizona. Among other Federal Institutions and Organizations, of course. Including the Federal Prison system, and the Federally Operated Military.

The Federal Government owes Arizona $750 million just from over the last few years from Arizona "housing" these "Federal Matters." Maybe Arizona should arrest all federal goverment members for theft and refusal to pay.

That would be unprecedented, to be sure. Unless you are aware of a precedent?

I am also not ignoring your request to be treated like an infant, that will be forthcoming.

Amerika · 07-07-2010 7:19pm

Overheal wrote: »

I missed this post earlier yet I've already addressed the substance in past threads.

Actually no you didn't... go back and check.

If I choose to drive: Driving is Not a Right, either by Geneva Convention nor United States Constitution. It is a Privilege. That privileged requires as a pre-requisite that I Maintain a valid License, Registration, and Liability Insurance.

The Right to Citizenship does not require me to carry my passport when I walk down the street to buy milk. My Passport does not leave my home; I have not put it in my pocket in over a year now. A passport, I should add, that I only have as a requisite for International Customs and Travel across Federal Borders. It is not a pre-requisite for Citizenship.

In fact, I don't need anything but money in my pocket to go and buy milk. If I truly wanted, I would be well within my rights not to own copies of my Birth Certificate, Social Security Card, Drivers License, or my Passport. The only difficulty with that is it makes it hard to take advantages of certain privileges and opportunities, such as opening a bank account or securing gainful employment.

To be pulled over by a police officer for looking like a latino (I don't, but in this example) and asking for my Birth Certificate, or my Passport, or my ID card, or my Social Security card, is not in keeping with my rights as a US Citizen.

So if I read what you wrote correctly... you think it to be illegal according to Federal immigration law for police officers, who catch you in the process of committing a crime, to ask you for valid identification that shows you to be who you claim to be? Have you actually read S.B. 1070?

Overheal · 07-07-2010 8:25pm

Amerika wrote: »

No you didn't

To the contrary, I just have.

So if I read what you wrote correctly... you think it to be illegal according to Federal immigration law for police officers, who catch you in the process of committing a crime, to ask you for valid identification that shows you to be who you claim to be?

If I understand correctly, an officer can ask me who I am. Always has been able to. Talk is cheap. He cannot detain me for not carrying Identification. I am unsure of what law requires me to carry Identification on my person on threat of incarceration or detainment.

I've also never heard of police officers being tasked with doing the job of Border Patrol or the FBI. I have never been asked about my Citizenship status during any interaction with a Police Officer.

But sure lets ignore the fact Arizona law makers originally adopted the bill without such a measure; The Municipal Police would have been given the ability to stop and demand papers from any Jew person.

Have you actually read S.B. 1070?

I have not read the full legal text of the document no. I have read its summation. But the short and short as I am understanding it is Arizona doesn't have the authority to legislate that area of law.

Securing the Border

Comments