Securing the Border

Overheal · 07-07-2010 7:23pm

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 7:45pm

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 7:52pm

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 7:58pm

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 8:00pm

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 8:06pm

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 8:11pm

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 8:15pm

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 8:19pm

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 9:25pm

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.

Amerika · 07-07-2010 9:57pm

Overheal wrote: »

To the contrary, I just have.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.

First, that’s not what I asked. I asked about a police officer asking for identification while you were involved in a crime... hence the crux of the law and all the commotion. Not for pulling over someone just because they look different, although I think the Left would love it if that were in the actual law.

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.
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.

A law cannot be enforced until it becomes law, which comes about later this month. Be honest in your answers, and answer based on what the law is as of today (There might even be more changes before it is enacted). Otherwise you do yourself and others a disservice by leading them astray. You usually have good responses and are sometimes reasonable, except when that high horse leads the way.

Overheal · 07-07-2010 10:03pm

Amerika wrote: »

First, that’s not what I asked. I asked about a police officer asking for identification while you were involved in a crime... hence the crux of the law and all the commotion. Not for pulling over someone just because they look different, although I think the Left would love it if that were in the actual law.

Why would he need to know who I was if he saw me committing a crime? Seems a simple case of cuff now book later. A Crime is a Crime whether you are a citizen, visiting, or a Space Invader as you put it.

A law cannot be enforced until it becomes law, which comes about later this month. <Ironic high horse drivel about a horse up high>

But it would have been so enforced if not amended after mass public and national (even international) disapproval and outrage.

PopeUrbanII · 07-07-2010 10:12pm

amacachi wrote: »

ROFLOL.

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

If they had done that, Texas could've grabbed Oklahoma's unoccupied land. After all, it would've taken all of them (Okies) to invade New York City alone.:p

Overheal · 07-07-2010 10:16pm

PopeUrbanII wrote: »

If they had done that, Texas could've grabbed Oklahoma's unoccupied land. After all, it would've taken all of them (Okies) to invade New York City alone.:p

Lol this isn't RISK :pac:

PopeUrbanII · 07-07-2010 10:18pm

Hispanics tend to be Christian and conservative. Most work hard and contribute to American society. The ultimate question for me is this: if Hispanics become the majority population in the U.S. through illegal immigration and amnesty, will the U.S. become like Latin America, from which wave upon wave of immigrants escaped? That, I don't want. I've lived in Latin America. My wife is from there. No thanks.

southsiderosie · 07-07-2010 10:22pm

Amerika wrote: »

How about the reach out from the Obama administration to Undocumented Democrats. I told you the push would be happening soon... And So It Begins. Enjoy the commercial! Next up will be the lawsuit against Arizona. Wonder how long until Spanish is made our official language?
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=Xd2GkUpr6U

The video is absolutely correct. Once an employer hires a worker, they have to comply with all federal and state labor laws governing wages, safety, etc. - regardless of that worker's immigration status.

If the government would actually enforce existing law and crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants (and the subcontractors, who are really the problem), that would go a long way towards controlling traffic over the border. But the amount of funding that went into labor inspections has declined significantly over the last 10 years (and also took a huge hit during the Reagan administration), and every time a major employer has their knuckles rapped, they complain. The same politicians spouting anti-immigrant sentiments out of one side of their mouth are in the meantime raking in contributions from food processors, contractors, etc.

Amerika · 07-07-2010 10:35pm

Now, would it be okay for all employers in the US to fire all illegal aliens in their "employment," stating that unless they can show proof that they can work in the US legitmately, they no longer have a job?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Let me state this, before any more individuals mischaracterize what I actually say and mean in my posts.

It would be just fine with me to: 1) Secure the border first, 2) Stop Employers who hire illegals, with both jail time and fines, and 3) Send illegals back to their own country and allow them to return back only after being accepted into a Guest Worker Program – and only then allow them to get in line for legal immigration into the US. (it will be interesting to see how that gets turned around :rolleyes:).

PopeUrbanII · 07-07-2010 10:42pm

Amerika wrote: »

Now, would it be okay for all employers in the US to fire all illegal aliens in their "employment," stating that unless they can show proof that they can work in the US legitmately, they no longer have a job?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Let me state this, before any more individuals mischaracterize what I actually say and mean in my posts.

It would be just fine with me to: 1) Secure the border first, 2) Stop Employers who hire illegals, with both jail time and fines, and 3) Send illegals back to their own country and allow them to return back only after being accepted into a Guest Worker Program – and only then allow them to get in line for legal immigration into the US. (it will be interesting to see how that gets turned around :rolleyes:).

Unfortunately, it'll never happen. We have to find alternative ways of dealing with Latin American immigration. It can't be stopped, really, at all, ever.

Overheal · 07-07-2010 11:00pm

PopeUrbanII wrote: »

Hispanics tend to be Christian and conservative. Most work hard and contribute to American society. The ultimate question for me is this: if Hispanics become the majority population in the U.S. through illegal immigration and amnesty, will the U.S. become like Latin America, from which wave upon wave of immigrants escaped? That, I don't want. I've lived in Latin America. My wife is from there. No thanks.

America was founded by the blood of expatriated Europeans.

We didn't become Europe 2.0

amacachi · 08-07-2010 12:00am

PopeUrbanII wrote: »

Hispanics tend to be Christian and conservative. Most work hard and contribute to American society. The ultimate question for me is this: if Hispanics become the majority population in the U.S. through illegal immigration and amnesty, will the U.S. become like Latin America, from which wave upon wave of immigrants escaped? That, I don't want. I've lived in Latin America. My wife is from there. No thanks.

Did the US become like Italy when all the Italians arrived? Or like Germany? Or like Ireland? Or like England?

I have to laugh when I hear the anti-immigant (not a mistake) people talking about preserving the "White European heritage" of the US, what genetic make-up are most Latin Americans? Especially the Mexicans. Oh yeah, Spanish and Portuguese. Just not quite white enough I suppose.

southsiderosie · 08-07-2010 12:03am

amacachi wrote: »

Did the US become like Italy when all the Italians arrived? Or like Germany? Or like Ireland? Or like England?

I have to laugh when I hear the anti-immigant (not a mistake) people talking about preserving the "White European heritage" of the US, what genetic make-up are most Latin Americans? Especially the Mexicans. Oh yeah, Spanish and Portuguese. Just not quite white enough I suppose.

I've noticed that the Daleys of Chicago have some Fianna Fail-like tendencies...maybe we should be worried about the cultural and political norms that immigrants bring with them.

Amerika · 08-07-2010 12:28am

Has anyone here questioned why Obama is hell bent on stopping the Arizona law before it even happens?

Some recent polls show that the majority of folks from all political parties, even a majority of Democrats, would like the law to take etfect and see if it works. That’s the real fear Obama has... the fear that Arizona law enforcement might actually prove that the law is enforceable.

And how come we hear nothing about Rhode Island? They are already doing most of what Arizona is proposing. The RI police are reporting all illegal aliens they come accross to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, even those encountered on routine speeding stops.

It’s all about politics with this president. Not what is best for America. I kinda wish he would just vote “present” (as he was so good at doing in the past) for the remainder of his term.

Overheal · 08-07-2010 12:38am

Amerika wrote: »

Has anyone here questioned why Obama is hell bent on stopping the Arizona law before it even happens?

No, its quite clear from his 25-page complaint PDF:

"The Constitution and federal law do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country,"

The entire document is available online for perusal.

Some recent polls show that the majority of folks from all political parties, even a majority of Democrats, would like the law to take etfect and see if it works. That’s the real fear Obama has... the fear that Arizona law enforcement might actually prove that the law is enforceable.

It's not the way to go about it. Perhaps you know how many times the State of Arizona introduced any similar bills to The House of Congress and Senate?

If the measures were ever to be passed, they will need to be Federal, not Arizonian measures.

And how come we hear nothing about Rhode Island? They are already doing most of what Arizona is proposing. The RI police are reporting all illegal aliens they come accross to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, even those encountered on routine speeding stops.

Are they doing so under Rhode Island Immigration Law, or Federal Immigration Law?

It’s all about politics with this president. Not what is best for America. I kinda wish he would just vote “present” (as he was so good at doing in the past) for the remainder of his term.

Afraid of progress, are we?

Manic Moran · 08-07-2010 1:42am

Overheal wrote: »

No, its quite clear from his 25-page complaint PDF:

"The Constitution and federal law do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country,"

I'm not convinced that Arizona is doing anything to this. Arizona is not declaring a State-specific policy on who is authorised to enter the State, the Nation or to work. They are simply enabling the Federal policies.

Are they doing so under Rhode Island Immigration Law, or Federal Immigration Law?

Are the Arizona cops looking for AZ immigration papers, or Federal immigration papers?

It is instructive, for example, to look at California law. s834b of the CA Penal Code:

(a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully
cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization
Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is
suspected of being present in the United States in violation of
federal immigration laws.
(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected
of being present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the
following:
(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen
of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent
resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time
or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of
immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not
be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and
place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding
documentation to indicate his or her legal status.

To my knowledge, the Feds are not stating objection to the California law, despite the fact that the CA law mandates that the local agencies conduct pretty much the same checks. The only practical difference between the AZ and CA laws is that the CA laws apply only to personnel who the officers have arrested, whilst the AZ laws apply to personnel who the officers have cause to be conversing with. That is not an issue of federal/state authority, that is an issue of freedom of movement, an entirely separate issue.

I think AZ has a very good chance of winning that suit.

NTM

Amerika · 08-07-2010 3:45pm

Overheal wrote: »

Afraid of progress, are we?

So that's what we're calling it these days.

PopeUrbanII · 08-07-2010 7:45pm

Overheal wrote: »

America was founded by the blood of expatriated Europeans.

We didn't become Europe 2.0

English-speaking America was founded on European Christian (Protestant) culture. Spanish-speaking America was founded on European Christian (Catholic) culture. Political disagreements with the colonial powers were minor distinctions. CULTURE is the key. Its first building-block is language. Any native-speaker of a European language is culturally European.

PopeUrbanII · 08-07-2010 7:48pm

Amerika wrote: »

Has anyone here questioned why Obama is hell bent on stopping the Arizona law before it even happens?

Some recent polls show that the majority of folks from all political parties, even a majority of Democrats, would like the law to take etfect and see if it works. That’s the real fear Obama has... the fear that Arizona law enforcement might actually prove that the law is enforceable.

And how come we hear nothing about Rhode Island? They are already doing most of what Arizona is proposing. The RI police are reporting all illegal aliens they come accross to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, even those encountered on routine speeding stops.

It’s all about politics with this president. Not what is best for America. I kinda wish he would just vote “present” (as he was so good at doing in the past) for the remainder of his term.

He's trying to rally the Hispanic vote for upcoming elections. That's obvious. It's symbolic political maneuvering.

Denerick · 08-07-2010 7:50pm

PopeUrbanII wrote: »

English-speaking America was founded on European Christian (Protestant) culture. Spanish-speaking America was founded on European Christian (Catholic) culture. Political disagreements with the colonial powers were minor distinctions. CULTURE is the key. Its first building-block is language. Any native-speaker of a European language is culturally European.

Codswallop. Huge swathes of the American midwest spoke either German or Swedish for at 50/60 years in the 19th century. You could ride your horse for almost a thousand miles from Minnesota to Missouri and hear nothing but 'GUTEN TAG!'

I fear your interpretation of your own history is horribly selective...

Overheal · 08-07-2010 7:55pm

PopeUrbanII wrote: »

English-speaking America was founded on European Christian (Protestant) culture. Spanish-speaking America was founded on European Christian (Catholic) culture. Political disagreements with the colonial powers were minor distinctions. CULTURE is the key. Its first building-block is language. Any native-speaker of a European language is culturally European.

So the quote, "Mother Whoring Irish N*ggers" from Gangs of New York... where do they fit in? You know, English speaking within a generation or two (or right off the boat, due to the English plantations), Catholic, etc.

I think I found a flaw in your idealism.

He's trying to rally the Hispanic vote for upcoming elections. That's obvious. It's symbolic political maneuvering.

Politicians being political! GHASP!

Uhm, Him and thousands of others that preceded him.

Amerika · 08-07-2010 8:05pm

Denerick wrote: »

Codswallop. Huge swathes of the American midwest spoke either German or Swedish for at 50/60 years in the 19th century. You could ride your horse for almost a thousand miles from Minnesota to Missouri and hear nothing but 'GUTEN TAG!'

For 50/60 years in the 1800's... Minnesota to Missouri and nothing but "Guten Tag?" I think you might be exaggerating a tad. Maybe even more than a tad. I’m pretty confident you would have at least heard “ga do de tsa do a” along the way.

Securing the Border

Comments