U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-05-2010, 12:51 AM
 
Location: Eastern Missouri
3,054 posts, read 5,034,492 times
Reputation: 1377

Advertisements

Just read the Constitution, you know that thing obama and his idiot AG don't believe in that is the law of the land;

Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution:
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."


This alone defends Az's law to check citizenship status of anyone stopped by police. Why? Because Az is being invaded and they do not have the time to wait on the do nothing federal clowns,aka Washington DC to get off it's rear and do something about these invaders.
Now for everyone who thinks obama and holder are smart lawyers, then answer why they filed against Az in a lower court? This alone proves the Judge should be disbarred that made the ruling against Az last week;


"Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-05-2010, 12:53 AM
 
Location: Eastern Missouri
3,054 posts, read 5,034,492 times
Reputation: 1377
I can't wait to see obama, holder and illegals defenders argue this one!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2010, 02:28 AM
 
Location: Southern Willamette Valley, Oregon
6,484 posts, read 7,565,075 times
Reputation: 12168
They will find a loophole. Snakes always do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2010, 03:06 AM
 
Location: Columbus
4,879 posts, read 3,777,500 times
Reputation: 1442
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12GO View Post
Just read the Constitution, you know that thing obama and his idiot AG don't believe in that is the law of the land;

Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution:
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."


This alone defends Az's law to check citizenship status of anyone stopped by police. Why? Because Az is being invaded and they do not have the time to wait on the do nothing federal clowns,aka Washington DC to get off it's rear and do something about these invaders.
Now for everyone who thinks obama and holder are smart lawyers, then answer why they filed against Az in a lower court? This alone proves the Judge should be disbarred that made the ruling against Az last week;


"Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction."
I agree that Arizona has the right to enforce this law. I don't think it qulaifies as war though.

What amazes me in this whole thing is that Obama has taken the side of illegal non-citizens over the side of citizens. And apparently, nobody really cares. Unbeliveable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2010, 03:54 AM
 
Location: Zürich, Schweiz
339 posts, read 264,530 times
Reputation: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12GO View Post
Because Az is being invaded and they do not have the time to wait on the do nothing federal clowns,aka Washington DC to get off it's rear and do something about these invaders

"An invasion is a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. Due to the large scale of the operations associated with invasions, they are usually strategic in planning and execution."

from Invasion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So, no. This does not qualify as an invasion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioIstheBest View Post
What amazes me in this whole thing is that Obama has taken the side of illegal non-citizens over the side of citizens
If you stop your Obama-bashing for one moment and look at the law in question, it should be clear that the president and the AG don't take the side of illegal non-citizens, but the side of the individual against random questioning/arrests by the government-representing authorities.

I get that most of the rightwingers here love to bash Obama anyway they can, but seriously?

This is an example where government fights for a fundamental tenet of conservatism, the rights of the individual against government intrusion, and you still find ways to be against this?

Partisanhip voided of content at its best!

I've said this many times here: there are enough valid points on which to criticize Obama, and by all means, criticize him on those, please! But this simply isn't one of those, and yould see that if you took of your ideological blinders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2010, 04:21 AM
 
Location: Don't be a cry baby!
1,310 posts, read 1,145,900 times
Reputation: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuendel View Post

If you stop your Obama-bashing for one moment and look at the law in question, it should be clear that the president and the AG don't take the side of illegal non-citizens, but the side of the individual against random questioning/arrests by the government-representing authorities.

I get that most of the rightwingers here love to bash Obama anyway they can, but seriously?

This is an example where government fights for a fundamental tenet of conservatism, the rights of the individual against government intrusion, and you still find ways to be against this?

Partisanhip voided of content at its best!

I've said this many times here: there are enough valid points on which to criticize Obama, and by all means, criticize him on those, please! But this simply isn't one of those, and yould see that if you took of your ideological blinders.
Obama bashing is the new fad!
But if what you say is true then why didn't the state of Arizona see this before Obama, are they, Arizona, not a form of government?
The difference is Obama is looking to extend the protection of the USA to non citizens (ILLEGALS) the whole while ignoring the FACT that American citizens rights are being trampled by illegal aliens and getting the support from the federal government to do so.
Obama's concerns should ALWAYS be the citizens of the USA FIRST not some band of loud mouthed asses sneaking into the country only to rape the USA of its generosity.
A larger portion of citizens are in favor of the Arizona law, so why go against the people?

Please, show me where Obama's doing something for American citizens and not some other foriegn country or land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2010, 05:56 AM
 
Location: Zürich, Schweiz
339 posts, read 264,530 times
Reputation: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCincorrect View Post
Please, show me where Obama's doing something for American citizens and not some other foriegn country or land.
As I said, right here, right now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PCincorrect View Post
Obama bashing is the new fad!
But if what you say is true then why didn't the state of Arizona see this before Obama, are they, Arizona, not a form of government?
Not every government has the best for its people in its heart. Governments always try to implement legislature to control the population. It is possible that the original intent with this law was legitimate, but the way it has been formulated opens the door for law enforcement to randomly stop and question every citizen. This surely isn't what you or the original petitioners wanted, is it? One should never give any government the legal means to stop/question/arrest people without solid cause.

Acceptance of this law furthers the establishment of a possible police-state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PCincorrect View Post
The difference is Obama is looking to extend the protection of the USA to non citizens (ILLEGALS)
Again, no. This law would set precedent for government representatives (police of other forces) to randomly stop/question/arrest ANY person they want to with flimsy cause of suspicion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PCincorrect View Post
the whole while ignoring the FACT that American citizens rights are being trampled by illegal aliens and getting the support from the federal government to do so
How does illegal immigration trample the rights of american citizens? And I ask this from a legal/constitutional standpoint, as the citizen's rights pertain to this area.

Don't like illegal immigration? Welcome to the club, but it certainly doesn't infringe citizen's rights.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PCincorrect View Post
Obama's concerns should ALWAYS be the citizens of the USA FIRST not some band of loud mouthed asses sneaking into the country only to rape the USA of its generosity
Looking at the actions undertaken in this matter, the presidents concern actually IS the rights of the citizens of the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PCincorrect View Post
A larger portion of citizens are in favor of the Arizona law, so why go against the people?
If the law is unconstitutional, the judiciary HAS to go against the people.

Otherwise, a billionaire could stage a referendum in, say Oregon, for the secession from the US and the implementation of a monarchy with him as sole ruler. If he won the votes (the will of the people) by any means necessary, would this make it legal? Didn't think so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2010, 07:14 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
60,423 posts, read 30,688,107 times
Reputation: 12872
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuendel View Post
Governments always try to implement legislature to control the population.


So you do understand, why Conservatives are the party of "NO"!

The Progressives always say the conservatives have no ideas and no solutions.
There is a reason. Legislation is control.
This AZ deal with the two assclowns in Washington, is about control, not We the People. We the People have spoken. They the Government are above us, they no longer work for us and that is the point it gets out of hand and revolutions begin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2010, 07:31 AM
 
Location: Zürich, Schweiz
339 posts, read 264,530 times
Reputation: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
So you do understand, why Conservatives are the party of "NO"!

The Progressives always say the conservatives have no ideas and no solutions.
There is a reason. Legislation is control.
This AZ deal with the two assclowns in Washington, is about control, not We the People. We the People have spoken. They the Government are above us, they no longer work for us and that is the point it gets out of hand and revolutions begin.

"We the People" might have spoken, but if what "we the People" say is unconstitutional, the judiciary is forced to investigate and possibly overrule it.

The "two assclowns in Washington" do exactly what the Founding Fathers intended them to do in such situations, they keep a rogue state in check that is trying to curtail its peoples rights.

You seriously need to reconsider your stance on this topic, you seem to ignore the facts in favor of partisan attacks on the president.

There are enough other instances where you are right to criticize this federal government, but this is clearly not the point to do so. For once, the federal government has the back of ordinary people vs. an intrusive state, and the only thing you can think about is "I'm in the habit of attacking the president, so I'll continue that right on through."

Forget about content, it's all about partisan attacks for you. No wonder this country's going to the dogs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2010, 08:15 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
60,423 posts, read 30,688,107 times
Reputation: 12872
Quote:
Originally Posted by zuendel View Post
"We the People" might have spoken, but if what "we the People" say is unconstitutional, the judiciary is forced to investigate and possibly overrule it.

The "two assclowns in Washington" do exactly what the Founding Fathers intended them to do in such situations, they keep a rogue state in check that is trying to curtail its peoples rights.

You seriously need to reconsider your stance on this topic, you seem to ignore the facts in favor of partisan attacks on the president.

There are enough other instances where you are right to criticize this federal government, but this is clearly not the point to do so. For once, the federal government has the back of ordinary people vs. an intrusive state, and the only thing you can think about is "I'm in the habit of attacking the president, so I'll continue that right on through."

Forget about content, it's all about partisan attacks for you. No wonder this country's going to the dogs.


Local law enforcement has always had the authority to enforce federal laws. Nothing partisan about it.

Who enforced Federal laws and our Constitution before the first federal law agency? It was not Mickey Mouse or any assclown in Washington.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top