Do only women have the onions to call out Obama

[Lonestar_logic]

But your point is wrong. Please show us exactly where this law is unconstitutional. Oh, you can't, because you haven't even read the law which you claim to know so much about. News Flash!!!!!! The Arizona law is not unconstitutional. Obama doesn't know what he's talking about and neither does the Attorney General. They, like you, hadn't read the law before making their stupid statements. And the Attorney General was made to look like a fool for his ignorance.

Rick

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment specifically states:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This is also the basis of the Civil Rights Act.

Racial profiling by law enforcement officials specifically "abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" and "denies to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Would you like me to explain how the Arizona law specifically calls for racial profiling, or do you think you can grasp that concept, without resorting to derogatory terms leveled at me to cover your own ignorance?

Illegal aliens are not citizens of the United States. Article 1 Section 8 states that Congress shall have the power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, in Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]).

 

[hboats]

But your point is wrong. Please show us exactly where this law is unconstitutional. Oh, you can't, because you haven't even read the law which you claim to know so much about. News Flash!!!!!! The Arizona law is not unconstitutional. Obama doesn't know what he's talking about and neither does the Attorney General. They, like you, hadn't read the law before making their stupid statements. And the Attorney General was made to look like a fool for his ignorance.

Rick

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment specifically states:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This is also the basis of the Civil Rights Act.

Racial profiling by law enforcement officials specifically "abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" and "denies to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Would you like me to explain how the Arizona law specifically calls for racial profiling, or do you think you can grasp that concept, without resorting to derogatory terms leveled at me to cover your own ignorance?

Have you read the Arizona law?

You can not possibly "explain how the Arizona law specifically calls for racial profiling," because you haven't read the law and you don't know what the law says. I have read it, and I've also posted it in a thread that you were involved in and you refused to read it. I know that the Arizona law strictly prohibits law enforcement from racial profiling. How do I know that? Because, unlike you and most of the people who are saying the same thing you're saying in the White House and the media, I've actually taken the time to read the law.

Please, explain to me how you think that you can explain ANYTHING about this law to me (someone who's read the law) when you haven't even taken the time to read it.

Thanks for your input, no matter how uninformed it is.

Rick

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I would Wicked, but I'm fairly sure this idiot is ate up with the dumbass and it would be like talking to a brick wall.

Yes, when you are stating opinion, and it comes into conflict with the facts, I imagine it does metaphorically feel like you are hitting a "brick wall".

I have yet to see you state any facts. What specifically is unconstitutional with federal imigration laws or SB 1070 which mirrors the federal law?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Firstly, the AZ law is NOT unconstitutional. It reflects the Federal laws on immigration.

Yes, it is. See my 14th Amendment post above.

Secondly, Hilter came to power on the back of the 1930s Depression when Germans were desperate for change. He said what people wanted to hear.... he made promises of good days ahead... He offered them hope. Ringing any bells with you?

Your point is lost because your comparison is pathetic and your stance that the AZ law is unconstitutional is just plain wrong.

I did not in fact make a comparison between AZ and Nazi Germany, which is why I said, specifically:

And no, I am not comparing Arizona to Nazi Germany, I am making a point.

Did you miss that part?

Instead of referring to the 14th amendment answer the question. What specifically is unconstitutional with SB1070?

 

[Nosmo King]

Hey. It's a bad law. Support for it does not make it a good law. I would not be surprised to learn that there was massive support for internment camps for Japanese Americans right after Pearl Harbor. Calling something popular does not make it a good idea. Just take Glenn Beck for example.

This governor is today's George Wallace. I'm old enough to remember his brand of 'populism' and to whom that 'populism' appealed. Looks like the same folks who wrapped their hopes up with someone like Wallace are willing to do the same with this 21st century racist in the governor's office in Arizona.

And the lessons of bad laws are never learned by these people.

What makes it a bad law?

This law opens up racial profiling. If your name is Pete Martin and you're on the streets of Tuscon, you probably won't get rousted for ID. If your name is Pedro Martinez, look out! And it doesn't really matter if you, Pedro, are an American citizen or not. You look like an immigrant, so the door is open for this little harassment.

the illegal immigrant problem isn't one that I want to ignore. But this law makes you available for police inquiry for looking Mexican. The problem is lack of enforcement at the border. But there is also a lack of enforcement at the employer. The Mexicans are here for jobs. Why not crack down on their 'enablers'? The employers hiring illegal immigrants? Dry up their source of money to send out of the country to their families in Mexico.

But that would criminalize the activities of a lot of rich White folks, wouldn't it? It is so easy to roust the Brown skinned folks rather than their employer, huh?

And that's why this is a bad law.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Hey. It's a bad law. Support for it does not make it a good law. I would not be surprised to learn that there was massive support for internment camps for Japanese Americans right after Pearl Harbor. Calling something popular does not make it a good idea. Just take Glenn Beck for example.

This governor is today's George Wallace. I'm old enough to remember his brand of 'populism' and to whom that 'populism' appealed. Looks like the same folks who wrapped their hopes up with someone like Wallace are willing to do the same with this 21st century racist in the governor's office in Arizona.

And the lessons of bad laws are never learned by these people.

What makes it a bad law?

This law opens up racial profiling. If your name is Pete Martin and you're on the streets of Tuscon, you probably won't get rousted for ID. If your name is Pedro Martinez, look out! And it doesn't really matter if you, Pedro, are an American citizen or not. You look like an immigrant, so the door is open for this little harassment.

the illegal immigrant problem isn't one that I want to ignore. But this law makes you available for police inquiry for looking Mexican. The problem is lack of enforcement at the border. But there is also a lack of enforcement at the employer. The Mexicans are here for jobs. Why not crack down on their 'enablers'? The employers hiring illegal immigrants? Dry up their source of money to send out of the country to their families in Mexico.

But that would criminalize the activities of a lot of rich White folks, wouldn't it? It is so easy to roust the Brown skinned folks rather than their employer, huh?

And that's why this is a bad law.

You're stating an opinion not a fact. Nice try but you fail!

Do yourself a favor and read the bill before you make a complete and utter ass out of yourself.

WHy don't you cite some examples of racial profiling that SB1070 has caused. Even though it hasn't been implemented yet.

 

[American Horse]

Hey. It's a bad law. Support for it does not make it a good law. I would not be surprised to learn that there was massive support for internment camps for Japanese Americans right after Pearl Harbor. Calling something popular does not make it a good idea. Just take Glenn Beck for example.

This governor is today's George Wallace. I'm old enough to remember his brand of 'populism' and to whom that 'populism' appealed. Looks like the same folks who wrapped their hopes up with someone like Wallace are willing to do the same with this 21st century racist in the governor's office in Arizona.

And the lessons of bad laws are never learned by these people.

Nosmo, I can understand the trepidation some would have over the possibilities in enforcing such a law, especially by those who are seperated from the actual scene by geographic distance and culture. Remember that of the population of Arizona, 30% are of Hispanic origins, and are legal residents. Arizonans every day deal with people of that ethnicity and know them as friends and fellow citizens. They, inluding the police officers asked to enforce the law, are sensitive to their fellow Arizonans, and it is hubristic and presumptous to believe otherwise. There is no uprising of Arizonans of Hispanic descent, they too are being hurt by the incapacity of the federal government to sensibly enforce existing federal law. Any officers, many of whom are also ethnically Hispanic, who break the implied standards of enforcement will end up being disciplined for it.

Having voted and been politically aware since 1964, I too remember George Wallace, and this is a specious comparison to say the least.

One desired effect of the law will be to cause a reduction in crime statistics along the border and a re-grouping of those activities to areas with less enforcement. It is quite expensive and dangerous for these immigrants to make the trip. They often have to borrow their "stake money," and it's a sizeable amount by Mexican standards, needing to be paid back once they arrive and find work. They can take out insurance on their borrowed investment by re-routing their entry to a safer point of entry.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The more I hear from this lady the more i'm impressed.

Fact is, more Arizonan's than not support the law. More americans than not support the law. Obama's ignorant ass had better start listening to those he serves.

Brewer has thrust this issue out front and center. That is a very good thing. It's time to start changing the way things are done, and start looking out for our own.

Enough is enough!

It doesn't matter what the majority of Americans support or not. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional.

The majority of Germans supported most of what the Nazis did too, that didn't make any of it right.

And no, I am not comparing Arizona to Nazi Germany, I am making a point.

It is unconstitutional? Did SCOTUS rule on it and I didn't notice?

 

[California Girl]

Firstly, the AZ law is NOT unconstitutional. It reflects the Federal laws on immigration.

Yes, it is. See my 14th Amendment post above.

Secondly, Hilter came to power on the back of the 1930s Depression when Germans were desperate for change. He said what people wanted to hear.... he made promises of good days ahead... He offered them hope. Ringing any bells with you?

Your point is lost because your comparison is pathetic and your stance that the AZ law is unconstitutional is just plain wrong.

I did not in fact make a comparison between AZ and Nazi Germany, which is why I said, specifically:

And no, I am not comparing Arizona to Nazi Germany, I am making a point.

Did you miss that part?

Oh, you were serious about not comparing the two? Because, to me, as an intelligent person, you talked about Az and Nazi Germany and clearly tied the two together. I can't believe you are being dishonest.... I am sure you just don't see the total idiocy of using both and then claiming that you weren't comparing them.

How to be taken seriously in any debate 101: Never, ever use the word 'Nazi'. It is never appropriate.

 

[Vast LWC]

Illegal aliens are not citizens of the United States.

Yes, but LEGAL CITIZENS who are being profiled and harassed by police officers because they suspect them of being illegal, based on the color of their skin and their accent, ARE in fact citizens of the United States.

Article 1 Section 8 states that Congress shall have the power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, in Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]).

Which makes the AZ law even MORE unconstitutional, as immigration law is not even in the Jurisdiction of the states.

And it also points out that Sarah Palin is wrong when she blames President Obama for lack of proper immigration laws.

Thanks Lonestar.

 

[hboats]

Hey. It's a bad law. Support for it does not make it a good law. I would not be surprised to learn that there was massive support for internment camps for Japanese Americans right after Pearl Harbor. Calling something popular does not make it a good idea. Just take Glenn Beck for example.

This governor is today's George Wallace. I'm old enough to remember his brand of 'populism' and to whom that 'populism' appealed. Looks like the same folks who wrapped their hopes up with someone like Wallace are willing to do the same with this 21st century racist in the governor's office in Arizona.

And the lessons of bad laws are never learned by these people.

What makes it a bad law?

This law opens up racial profiling. If your name is Pete Martin and you're on the streets of Tuscon, you probably won't get rousted for ID. If your name is Pedro Martinez, look out! And it doesn't really matter if you, Pedro, are an American citizen or not. You look like an immigrant, so the door is open for this little harassment.

the illegal immigrant problem isn't one that I want to ignore. But this law makes you available for police inquiry for looking Mexican. The problem is lack of enforcement at the border. But there is also a lack of enforcement at the employer. The Mexicans are here for jobs. Why not crack down on their 'enablers'? The employers hiring illegal immigrants? Dry up their source of money to send out of the country to their families in Mexico.

But that would criminalize the activities of a lot of rich White folks, wouldn't it? It is so easy to roust the Brown skinned folks rather than their employer, huh?

And that's why this is a bad law.

I have to disagree with you. The law specifically prohibits racial profiling. It also makes it clear that there has to be "lawful contact" by a police officer with ANY individual before a request for identification can be made.

Arizona took every precaution to make sure the there would not be racial profiling because of this law. That doesn't seem to matter to the media or the White House, but it's FACT.

That's why this law is NOT a bad law.

Rick

 

[Wicked Jester]

what makes it a bad law?

this law opens up racial profiling. If your name is pete martin and you're on the streets of tuscon, you probably won't get rousted for id. If your name is pedro martinez, look out! And it doesn't really matter if you, pedro, are an american citizen or not. You look like an immigrant, so the door is open for this little harassment.

The illegal immigrant problem isn't one that i want to ignore. But this law makes you available for police inquiry for looking mexican. The problem is lack of enforcement at the border. But there is also a lack of enforcement at the employer. The mexicans are here for jobs. Why not crack down on their 'enablers'? The employers hiring illegal immigrants? Dry up their source of money to send out of the country to their families in mexico.

But that would criminalize the activities of a lot of rich white folks, wouldn't it? It is so easy to roust the brown skinned folks rather than their employer, huh?

And that's why this is a bad law.

you're stating an opinion not a fact. Nice try but you fail!

Do yourself a favor and read the bill before you make a complete and utter ass out of yourself.

Why don't you cite some examples of racial profiling that sb1070 has caused. Even though it hasn't been implemented yet.

seriously!

 

[Vast LWC]

Oh, you were serious about not comparing the two? Because, to me, as an intelligent person, you talked about Az and Nazi Germany and clearly tied the two together. I can't believe you are being dishonest.... I am sure you just don't see the total idiocy of using both and then claiming that you weren't comparing them.

How to be taken seriously in any debate 101: Never, ever use the word 'Nazi'. It is never appropriate.

Mentioning two things in different sentences, and then following it with a disclaimer stating that you are not making a comparison would specifically NOT be an attempt to "tie the two together".

The comparison with Nazi Germany was specifically directed at the majority opinion comment from the post I responded to.

Of course, you know this, and are just trying to change the subject to make it appear that I am over-reacting to the subject at hand.

Which is a good debate tactic, but in the end, simply a diversion.

 

[hboats]

Illegal aliens are not citizens of the United States.

Yes, but LEGAL CITIZENS who are being profiled and harassed by police officers because they suspect them of being illegal, based on the color of their skin and their accent, ARE in fact citizens of the United States.

Which once again is a flat out lie, since the law specifically prohibits racial profiling. But, since you haven't read the law I don't expect you to understand that, because you've been lied to by the media and the White House.

Article 1 Section 8 states that Congress shall have the power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, in Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]).

Which makes the AZ law even MORE unconstitutional, as immigration law is not even in the Jurisdiction of the states.

And it also points out that Sarah Palin is wrong when she blames President Obama for lack of proper immigration laws.

Thanks Lonestar.

Sarah Palin never "blames President Obama for lack of proper immigration laws." She blames this administration for not ENFORCING the existing immigration laws.

Rick

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Oh, you were serious about not comparing the two? Because, to me, as an intelligent person, you talked about Az and Nazi Germany and clearly tied the two together. I can't believe you are being dishonest.... I am sure you just don't see the total idiocy of using both and then claiming that you weren't comparing them.

How to be taken seriously in any debate 101: Never, ever use the word 'Nazi'. It is never appropriate.

Mentioning two things in different sentences, and then following it with a disclaimer stating that you are not making a comparison would specifically NOT be an attempt to "tie the two together".

The comparison with Nazi Germany was specifically directed at the majority opinion comment from the post I responded to.

Of course, you know this, and are just trying to change the subject to make it appear that I am over-reacting to the subject at hand.

Which is a good debate tactic, but in the end, simply a diversion.

Speaking of diversions, why haven't you answered the question posed to you by at least three of us?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Illegal aliens are not citizens of the United States.

Yes, but LEGAL CITIZENS who are being profiled and harassed by police officers because they suspect them of being illegal, based on the color of their skin and their accent, ARE in fact citizens of the United States.

Article 1 Section 8 states that Congress shall have the power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization....The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, in Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]).

Which makes the AZ law even MORE unconstitutional, as immigration law is not even in the Jurisdiction of the states.

And it also points out that Sarah Palin is wrong when she blames President Obama for lack of proper immigration laws.

Thanks Lonestar.

Cite one incident where legal citizens were profiled and harassed by police officers because they suspect them of being illegal, based on the color of their skin and their accent?

oh and there's no need to thank me for educating your dumbass.

 

[Vast LWC]

I have to disagree with you. The law specifically prohibits racial profiling. It also makes it clear that there has to be "lawful contact" by a police officer with ANY individual before a request for identification can be made.

Arizona took every precaution to make sure the there would not be racial profiling because of this law. That doesn't seem to matter to the media or the White House, but it's FACT.

That's why this law is NOT a bad law.

Rick

But of course, what all the right-wingers fail to mention is that a policeman talking to a suspect because they suspect them of being an illegal alien would be "lawful contact".

At which point they would demand an ID, according to the law.

If the person does not have ID on them, they go to jail.

And who would a policeman approach on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant to make such "Lawful Contact"?

I'm betting the color of their skin would resemble light-coffee, and they would speak with an accent.

Thus your "Racial Profiling", which is forbidden by the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th amendment, as I stated earlier.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Hey. It's a bad law. Support for it does not make it a good law. I would not be surprised to learn that there was massive support for internment camps for Japanese Americans right after Pearl Harbor. Calling something popular does not make it a good idea. Just take Glenn Beck for example.

This governor is today's George Wallace. I'm old enough to remember his brand of 'populism' and to whom that 'populism' appealed. Looks like the same folks who wrapped their hopes up with someone like Wallace are willing to do the same with this 21st century racist in the governor's office in Arizona.

And the lessons of bad laws are never learned by these people.

What makes it a bad law?

Her ignorance.
Federal law requires immigrants over the age of 18 to carry ID ,
If they cant produce it ,there may be a problem to be resolved and it is not a catch and release problem any more.

 

[hboats]

I have to disagree with you. The law specifically prohibits racial profiling. It also makes it clear that there has to be "lawful contact" by a police officer with ANY individual before a request for identification can be made.

Arizona took every precaution to make sure the there would not be racial profiling because of this law. That doesn't seem to matter to the media or the White House, but it's FACT.

That's why this law is NOT a bad law.

Rick

But of course, what all the right-wingers fail to mention is that a policeman talking to a suspect because they suspect them of being an illegal alien would be "lawful contact".

At which point they would demand an ID, according to the law.

If the person does not have ID on them, they go to jail.

And who would a policeman approach on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant to make such "Lawful Contact"?

I'm betting the color of their skin would resemble light-coffee, and they would speak with an accent.

Thus your "Racial Profiling", which is forbidden by the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th amendment, as I stated earlier.

Once again, you show your ignorance of the Arizona law. It is very specific that color of skin and race can not be a determining factor in "lawful contact." Want to try again to show your ignorance?

Or maybe you should just read the law and stop looking like a complete fool of the media.

Rick

 

[Ravi]

Text of Speech made by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, May 10 (or watch the video HERE)

Ah, jeesh, she's got Palin's pic on her website. Good place for Palin to hide with the oil gusher in the Gulf.

If Brewer is taking things into her own hands then she is free to pay for a fence along the border herself.

Good luck, dingbat.