woody60707
Deity
The law disagrees with you. You don't get to pick and chose what laws you like and follow. They are committing a criminal act just by being here, that makes them a criminal.
US Gov't Sues Arizona Over Immigration Law
- Thread starter Tani Coyote
- Start date
The law disagrees with you. You don't get to pick and chose what laws you like and follow. They are committing a criminal act just by being here, that makes them a criminal.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Arizona having racist laws and republicans defending them? Who would of thought!
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
A crime yes. Though my definition of a "criminal" is a little more rigid though.
BTW didn't you once make a thread several years ago where you were contemplating marriage fraud in exchange for money so that an foreign student could get her permanent residence or something? I could have sworn it was you.
So if there is anyone here among us who hasn't broken the law then come forth and allow us to gawk in awe at your purity and perfection.
Merkinball
Deity
Please bless us in your infinite wisdom and show us the part of the law that is racist.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
And in eyes of way too many "law and order" types that means they have no rights, so the authorities are free to persecute and discriminate against them, and anybody who even looks like them, in their quest to apprehend these dangerous "criminals". Of course, the same "law and order" types frequently hire undocumented immigrants as domestics and to cut their grass while benefitting from the reduced costs of produce in the supermarket. Are they also "criminals" as well, since they too are violating the law in many cases? Do they also have no rights?
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
Do the "law and order" types do this anymore often than the "Crime and Disorder" types?
Was your polish maid illegal?
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9233861&postcount=24
GhostWriter16
Deity
This is correct.
I am getting so sick of the Federal government really. "Oh my goodness! You just enforced the law!" Seriously?
Now, I don't really have any problem with making legal immigration easier, but if you are not allowed to be here, you should be punished. Like really, fine them or jail them before deporting them,
Skwink
FRIIIIIIIIIITZ
- Joined
- May 14, 2010
- Messages
- 5,683
This. Also, this whole thing (immigration reform) is going crazy. Arizona is gonna lose the case, but now the government will push nation wide reform, and it will go as crazy as Health Care reform.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Again, I'm not saying we don't need immigration reform (I'm not saying we do either) however, just letting anyone who wants to walk in walk in isn't the answer.
Really, its time for another secession. The Federal government can cry its eyes out, everything North Carolina and South, except California, should start its own Conservative Republic. The Federal Government can have its democracy, and die for all I care.
Skwink
FRIIIIIIIIIITZ
- Joined
- May 14, 2010
- Messages
- 5,683
Yeah, completely open boarders is NOT the answer.
Also, remember the Civil War?
GhostWriter16
Deity
I remember it, however.
1. Lincoln cared about the Union. Obama only cares about himself and his fame. he might fight, but if we held him off for a year, he'd let us go to avoid looking like a failure.
2. Even if we lost, it would be worthwhile. THEY would be the attackers, as we started a soverign nation, we would be justified.
PS: I would have recognized the Confederacy as a legal nation, however, due to slavery and such the invasion was justified. I'm not sure if "Preserving the Union" was valid cause however.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
Wait, so you are mad at the feds for going against a state law. So by that logic it was bad when the feds intervened to end Jim Crow laws? And this was even after the feds had said segregation was fine. (Plessy vs Ferguson I think. I'm blanking out on the name.) The feds have a right to take action against a law which violates their constitutional rights. Handling immegration is one of their rights.Domination said:
So you think we should try and get them out faster, yet before deporting them keep them in jail at taxpayer expense where they do nothing to stimulate the movement of money?Domination said:
And making up things that aren't in the federal immegration reform bill isn't the answer either. I think JollyRoger or Formaldehyde posted in a page or two back.Domination said:
Why exclude California? They have a larger problem with illegal immegration then say, Georgia.Domination said:
Why should only the south seceed? That the federal government isn't making you happy?
So wait...... You think a democratic system is bad? While I know we are not a Athenian Democracty, people here still have a voice in the government. A 'Conservative Republic' would be like the republic in Rome (Plebians had no vote, only the Patricians and the Equites had a vote. Was equites a class?); the Mapeau Parliaments prior to the French Rev, the various Assemblies during the French Revolution, and many others.Domination said:
A republic in no way nescesitates a system where the populance has a voice. It simply means that the major decisions are conducted by a group. The group could be made up solely of millionaires, but guess what? It still would be a republic.
Riiight. Obama only cares about himself. Everytime you do that you lose credibility here.Domination said:
Ever heard of the MAchiavelli quote "It is not titles that honor men, but men that honor titles."? By not honoring the holder of the presidency, you are in effect saying you do not respect that office. It doesn't mean you have to like the holder of the office, I didn't like Bush at all, but I respected him as the President of the United States of America.
Huh???? How did the seceeding states start as a soverign nation? You are saying that because the Union has not met your needs you are creating a new nation to meet your needs. How could a nation you created out of an old nation be considered the 'starting' nation? Plus I believe international law would consider you the attackers as you are revolting against a lawful authority that has not violated your basic human rights as laid out by the UN.Domination said:
Great, you would have recognized it. To bad no one else did recognize it as a legal nation.Dumination said:
So if preserving the union wasn't a valid case, what was? You might assert it is slavery, but as the constituion makes no refrence to slaves, is it not a state rights decision as per the tenth? How would you have ended slavery? All legal means had been tried and failed. The legal means that had been tried lead to Bleeding Kansas and the quite unconstitutional Fugitive Slave act.
GhostWriter16
Deity
1. Not quite so... "We believe that all men are created equal" as it is in the Declaration, is important. Illegal Immigration is illegal. The States can enforce it any way they darn please. If the states want to execute every illegal, they can. (Not saying they should, I don't think they should unless they are shot while crossing the border, but they can.)
2. Fine them as much as you like, then deport them. Not jail, that wastes money. Or force them to work for several years before deporting them.
3. But right now, the dems support letting them enter freely.
4. I don't want to become a liberal nation AGAIN. That's why we don't include California. Besides, California is liberal and wants to stay in the Fed Govt.
5. No, everyone can vote, but there would be rules that government couldn't change. For instance, people who believe in Communism or Abortion could still vote, but the constitution would guarantee the right to life and the right to property, thus neither communism nor abortion would exist in the country.
6. To be honest, I don't have any respect for most of the men who have held that office. They don't deserve it! That includes both Bush and Obama, as well as many others. Now, I OBEY THEM as my duty as a citizen and to avoid getting arrested. I will respect them when someone worthy of respect is president, something that has not happened in my lifetime.
7. In the CSA case, they didn't have just cause to start a new nation, but they did it, and so were a nation. They then shot at an occupying force at Ft. Sumter. The Union had just cause to then invade their former land. It wasn't a rebellion, as the state governments, something which by definition have rights, did it. Their reasons were wrong, I'm glad the Union won, but they were still a nation.
Also, forget the UN, I have the right to keep what I earn, the government doesn't respect that right. I have the right to go into a store, without restrictions, the government doesn't respect that. What "Rights" does the government have? None!
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
First off, please let me know which points you are responding to with your numbers. Its common curtousy.
Forcing them to work for several years, we still have to feed, cloth, and shelter them for those years.
If there is the right to life, no death penalties either. Unless of course you believe that they can be applied differently to individual cases, they property would no longer be an absolute. Right to life=No abortion or death penalty.
Further question: would the rules stay unchangeable even if there was a 99.9% majority asking for them to be changed? If you still belive they shouldn't be changed, then we no longer have a government by the people and for the people. Hence, Locke says we can revolt.
If you cannot respect the holder, then you do not respect the office. Simple as that.
You are aware that a libertarian society expects people to be rational. No offense, not understanding basic concepts about our government and spouting inaccurate and offensive crap doesn't sound very rational. Please try to emulate the poster Ayn Rand in your posts a bit more. I disagree vehemently with his opinions but at least he knows what he is talking about.
EDIT: Slightly random, but are you aware traditionaly the meaning of Conservative is wanting a large central government that exerts force over people to make them conform? Just letting you know. Look up Klemens von Metternich and the Karlsbad Decrees and learn the origins of your movement.
No "We believe" there. People are endowed with the inalienable right to life and pursuit of happiness. How is shooting someone who is trying to gain for themselves a happier life, believing in the self-evident truths? I agree with you illegal immegration in illegal, and why I don't advocate for complete amnesty. Because, well, they aren't supposed to be here. However, disregarding the constitution and instituting the Arizona Law allowing people to be harrassed based solely on suspicion is not how a civilized society functions.Declaration of Independance said:
No jail now? but you said jail them here:Dom said:
We fine them, but they don't have any real money.Domination said:
Forcing them to work for several years, we still have to feed, cloth, and shelter them for those years.
Aaaand wrong.Domination said:
Hmmm. Nope. Nowhere does it say in the passage or entire article that dems want to let them enter freely. I doubt you can find any serious politician that says borders should completly be dismantled. I'm into geo-political unity and I quite firmly beleive that at this stage tearing down borders is a very bad idea.Article Formaldehyde Posted on pg8 said:
We are a liberal nation? When did that happen? Basicaly all of the Europeans and most of the American here say that we are right leaning centrists at best. We are not a left leaning nation. As for California, only the densly populated areas are liberal. Back in the seventies there was this one californian politician who was so Anti-Gay that anti-gay people now look like moderates. Plus I think the Birther Queen Orly Taitz is from california. Plus they do have a conservative governor.Dom said:
Okay, what if one of the unchangeable rule was one that you disagreed with, say it was giving gays full rights and forcing Christian churches to marry gays. Would you still support the unchangeable nature of said rules?Dom said:
Okay, no communism, but what about Socialism, or so forth? Any time the government taxes you they are taking your property. However, where in the Constitution or BoR does it give you absolute rights to property?
If there is the right to life, no death penalties either. Unless of course you believe that they can be applied differently to individual cases, they property would no longer be an absolute. Right to life=No abortion or death penalty.
Further question: would the rules stay unchangeable even if there was a 99.9% majority asking for them to be changed? If you still belive they shouldn't be changed, then we no longer have a government by the people and for the people. Hence, Locke says we can revolt.
No one is asking you to like the president. I highly disliked Bush and I would point out to my friends where he was wrong and overstepping his authority, but I never once said a secession would be good or make up baseless lies about him. (Especialy lies that cannot occur, a communist dictator for example. There is no government in a communist society.)Dom said:
If you cannot respect the holder, then you do not respect the office. Simple as that.
Where did you get the idea that it wasn't a rebellion? The revolting states decided they would leave the Union and form their own government. In the process they attacked Union territory. How is that not a rebellion? Whether or not the CSA was a formal nation is another matter entirely.Dom said:
What does that have to do with the UN? The UN exists to promote freedom and equality across the world and to prevent war? Do you disagree with that?Dom said:
Source? Since when has the government prevented you from going into a store?
Errrrrrr. The government has the rights outlined in the Constitution. Among which is the ability to tax as per Section 8.
You are aware that a libertarian society expects people to be rational. No offense, not understanding basic concepts about our government and spouting inaccurate and offensive crap doesn't sound very rational. Please try to emulate the poster Ayn Rand in your posts a bit more. I disagree vehemently with his opinions but at least he knows what he is talking about.
EDIT: Slightly random, but are you aware traditionaly the meaning of Conservative is wanting a large central government that exerts force over people to make them conform? Just letting you know. Look up Klemens von Metternich and the Karlsbad Decrees and learn the origins of your movement.
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
Wait, what? I think this is a matter of federal level, not states.
So...you want to solve illegal immigration by...enslaving them. Ok.
Democratic opinions on immigration are as differed as every other issue. The democratic party is a very diversified tent encompassing several different political opinions. As always, support what you're saying with evidence, and don't let the opinions of 1 or 2 democrats give you false impressions of every member of the party.
And yet California banned gay marriage...
. Most of California is actually very conservative. It's just the fact that the Bay Area, and the LA Area, which are themselves extremely liberal have such a large population compared to the rest of the state that they override the conservative bits.What about abortion in the cases of rape or when the life of the mother is threatened?
How on earth could you hate your country so much? GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY YOU UNAMERICAN JERK!!
No. They were a bunch of treacherous rebels, much like ourselves when we first started the Revolutionary War. Unlike the South, however, we won.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
No, probably not. But at least the latter aren't obvious hypocrites, especially when they lend a helping hand by deliberately overpaying them instead of doing just the opposite.
Do you want to deprive me of my rights because I once had a Polish maid who was working in this country illegally?
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
I'll agree that they are hypocrites if they demonize the hiring of illegal workers and then hire illegal workers (however many/few of these hypocrites are indeed out there doing exactly that).
Your claim that you deliberately overpaid her may be true, or it may not be, only you know the truth. Any of the 'hypocrites' could try and make the same claim if they wanted to try and save face. You want generalizations, then I could generalize and say that you are defending illegal immigration because you benefited from the cheap labor. But I don't know the real story, and you don't know the real story of cases not your own unless it is one of the very, very few that hit the newspapers (usually the extreme cases where there was other illegal things going on).
One could be against illegal immigration, but also want to 'lend a helping hand'. They just think with better border enforcement they wouldn't so often be put into the situation where their help is directly requested.
Do you want to deprive me of my rights because I once had a Polish maid who was working in this country illegally?
I feel you should be in jail for employing the illegal (assuming you knew at the time they were illegal), and be given all the rights that arrested citizens get. And that goes for anyone regardless of where they fall on the political scale. If this happened dozens of years ago and there is a statue of limitations on that crime so it's well past it, then I don't care to see you prosecuted since it was so long ago.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt while deliberately trying to assassinate my character instead of addressing the issues.
You do realize that you have just described a quite sizeable portion of the population of Arizona, or any other state with a large number of undocumented immigrants, right?
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
You do realize that you have just described a quite sizeable portion of the population of Arizona, or any other state with a large number of undocumented immigrants, right?
A 'quite sizable portion of the population' of Wisconsin have had DWIs in their life, but I don't think they should go without being punished and the problem just ignored.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
No, they aren't even close to being the same numbers. To suggest they are is patently absurd, and so is insinuating that they are in any way similiar.
Have you ever even been in a state with a lot of undocumented immigrants? How do you think they keep from starving and why they have decided to live that way? They have jobs.
Have you ever even been in a state with a lot of undocumented immigrants? How do you think they keep from starving and why they have decided to live that way? They have jobs.
