Arizona governor signs immigration bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
They should be so lucky considering that Mexican immigration policies are much stricter than the United States.
 
deafskeptic said:
I was thinking the same thing.
Click to expand...

I doubt Communism will happen; not as long America keeps its system of trias politica in order: separation of Congress, President and the Supreme Court.

I know "never say never," but if we look at history, in which "history repeats itself," Communism in practice is more closely tied to agricultural societies, with ruling elites, and revolutions. Fascism... however has close ties to corporate backings and democratic populism-- both are real concerns in any industrial or post-industrial democratic nations.
 
kokonut said:
They should be so lucky considering that Mexican immigration policies are much stricter than the United States.
Click to expand...

can you please tell me what are the Mexican immigration policies?
 
souggy said:
I doubt Communism will happen; not as long America keeps its system of trias politica in order: separation of Congress, President and the Supreme Court.

I know "never say never," but if we look at history, in which "history repeats itself," Communism in practice is more closely tied to agricultural societies, with ruling elites, and revolutions. Fascism... however has close ties to corporate backings and democratic populism-- both are real concerns in any industrial or post-industrial democratic nations.
Click to expand...

If the South ever reverts back to it agricultral roots, how likely do you think that Southerners would go communist? Given that many anti commies - maybe even most of them - live in the South, how likely do you think that'll happen? :hmm: Just asking.

Of course, it could happen in the USA. Just not too likely given the current trends.
 
For those who are claiming Arizona's law is unconstitutional. . . read Article 4 section 4.

Arizona has a right to protect itself from an invasion. Especially, since the Feds failed to do so.

500,000 illegals is an invasion - something that the left will try to deny.

Here are a few points to ponder. When was the last time you had dinner in a "Mom and Pop's"? How about, when was the last time you had your house repaired, painted, built, by a family owned business? If you live in an area unaffected by illegals, you may readily see these. If you live in an area affected, and are old enough to have witnessed these events, you have seen these family owned and operated businesses run to the ground. Family's get torn apart this way.

I should know, it happened to mine. It happened to my father and my grandfather's business roughly about the same time. Right when they could no longer compete with "corporations" that hired illegals at reduced labor costs.

Hell, even a neighboring county's new courthouse was being built by illegals before someone "asked some questions" and it was discovered.

The left does NOT want ANYONE asking questions. If you do, you will be labeled a racist. They especially do not want Law Enforcement Officers asking questions.

Why? Ask yourself that very important question.

Who wants to grant amnesty to illegals so they can stay in power?

500,000 additional votes from Arizona would go to the man who granted them amnesty.

The democratic party has become so fixated on their party's own personal gain, that they have forgotten all about the legitimate American workers that are unfairly competing with illegals. They DO NOT care about America, they care about POWER, and POWER only.

They want YOU to be dependent on THEM.
 
Last edited:
Steinhauer said:
Here are a few points to ponder. When was the last time you had dinner in a "Mom and Pop's"? How about, when was the last time you had your house repaired, painted, built, by a family owned business? If you live in an area unaffected by illegals, you may readily see these. If you live in an area affected, and are old enough to have witnessed these events, you have seen these family owned and operated businesses run to the ground. Family's get torn apart this way.

I should know, it happened to mine. It happened to my father and my grandfather's business roughly about the same time. Right when they could no longer compete with "corporations" that hired illegals at reduced labor costs.
Click to expand...
but that's the state matter. The state should do something about it. These corporations are in state jurisdiction (not federal) and if the state suspects them of illegally hiring illegals, then the state government should go ahead and investigate in conjunction with federal agents or themselves and bring the evidence to federal government.

Steinhauer said:
Hell, even a neighboring county's new courthouse was being built by illegals before someone "asked some questions" and it was discovered.
Click to expand...
so it's the county's incompetence and perhaps an ignorance that led to hiring illegals to build it? Federal Government has nothing to do with this.

Steinhauer said:
The left does NOT want ANYONE asking questions. If you do, you will be labeled a racist. They especially do not want Law Enforcement Officers asking questions.

Why? Ask yourself that very important question.

Who wants to grant amnesty to illegals so they can stay in power?
Click to expand...
what power?

Steinhauer said:
500,000 additional votes from Arizona would go to the man who granted them amnesty.

The democratic party has become so fixated on their party's own personal gain, that they have forgotten all about the legitimate American workers that are unfairly competing with illegals. They DO NOT care about America, they care about POWER, and POWER only.

They want YOU to be dependent on THEM.
Click to expand...
but.... GOP is the one who did not want to work on passing the federal immigration law that is nearly identical to Bush's & Obama's immigration bill.

What's up with that? Why did GOP block every effort to pass federal immigration law?
 
Steinhauer said:
For those who are claiming Arizona's law is unconstitutional. . . read Article 4 section 4.

Arizona has a right to protect itself from an invasion. Especially, since the Feds failed to do so.

500,000 illegals is an invasion - something that the left will try to deny.
Click to expand...

now we will begin the political science class. Steinhauer - spit out the gum and pay attention.

Article 4 - Section 4 in Constitution states "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

A very interesting argument indeed because that legal interpretation is not specific and it is up to Congress to interpret it. hhmm... exactly what constitutes the "Invasion" and "Domestic Violence"? Is Arizona being invaded by an enemy country? If so - an immediate military response will be taken.

Unfortunately - only the Congress can get to say what constitutes the invasion and only they can take action on it... not state but it allows the state to request for federal help and the federal government has done so with federal funding and Border Patrol agents. The immigration is a federal matter so Arizona cannot prosecute, incarnate, and deport the illegals. The Supreme Court was very cleared about this.

Arizona officials filed the lawsuit in 1994 to recover more than $121 million that they said the state was owed for illegal immigrants serving time in prison...

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider arguments that the U.S. government must pay up because it has failed to meet its constitutional obligation to protect states from an "invasion" of illegal border crossers...

"Although the federal government may have the luxury of abdicating its constitutional duty to protect Arizona's borders, Arizona cannot solve the problems that this abdication causes by following the federal government's example and abdicating its duty to prosecute and incarcerate illegal aliens who commit felonies within Arizona's unprotected borders," Arizona argued in its high court appeal.
Click to expand...

The lawsuit cited Article 4 of the Constitution, which says that the United States "shall protect each of [the states] against invasion." But U.S. District Judge Judith Keep in San Diego and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco threw out the lawsuit on grounds that California and Arizona are not being "invaded" by a hostile, foreign power.

The issue of who pays... is a political issue, not a legal one, they said.
Click to expand...

and that concludes your political science lesson of the day :cool2:
 
Jiro said:
but that's the state matter. The state should do something about it. These corporations are in state jurisdiction (not federal) and if the state suspects them of illegally hiring illegals, then the state government should go ahead and investigate in conjunction with federal agents or themselves and bring the evidence to federal government.
Click to expand...

That's a much better solution than what AZ passed into law imho.
 
Jiro said:
now we will begin the political science class. Steinhauer - spit out the gum and pay attention.

Article 4 - Section 4 in Constitution states "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

A very interesting argument indeed because that legal interpretation is not specific and it is up to Congress to interpret it. hhmm... exactly what constitutes the "Invasion" and "Domestic Violence"? Is Arizona being invaded by an enemy country? If so - an immediate military response will be taken.

Unfortunately - only the Congress can get to say what constitutes the invasion and only they can take action on it... not state but it allows the state to request for federal help and the federal government has done so with federal funding and Border Patrol agents. The immigration is a federal matter so Arizona cannot prosecute, incarnate, and deport the illegals. The Supreme Court was very cleared about this.





and that concludes your political science lesson of the day :cool2:
Click to expand...

your claiming 500,000 illegals is not an invasion ..... hmmmm.

Are you sure you have a good grasp on the English language?

1/3rd of the prisoners in California prisons are illegals. They are not in prison for being illegal. They are in prison for gang related violent crimes and drug dealing.

How is that for a definition of domestic violence?

Sacrificing security over freedom? Take a look at Obamacare ... really, stare at it.
 
Steinhauer said:
For those who are claiming Arizona's law is unconstitutional. . . read Article 4 section 4.

Arizona has a right to protect itself from an invasion. Especially, since the Feds failed to do so.

500,000 illegals is an invasion - something that the left will try to deny.
Click to expand...

Article 4 said:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Click to expand...

Okay...

"Domestic violence" and "invasion" are the key here. Now... this clause has been used in case of invasions and insurrections; both are organized. If it was used everytime there was an "invasion" of immigrants, why wasn't it used in the past against Germans, the Irish, the Italians?

Case history? Pullman Strike - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now obviously, the Pullman Strike was organized, and it was a form of insurrection. Since they reacted to the scenario with violence by derailing a train and burning down the town, the President's decision to use the military was justified.

Here are a few points to ponder. When was the last time you had dinner in a "Mom and Pop's"? How about, when was the last time you had your house repaired, painted, built, by a family owned business? If you live in an area unaffected by illegals, you may readily see these. If you live in an area affected, and are old enough to have witnessed these events, you have seen these family owned and operated businesses run to the ground. Family's get torn apart this way.

I should know, it happened to mine. It happened to my father and my grandfather's business roughly about the same time. Right when they could no longer compete with "corporations" that hired illegals at reduced labor costs.
Click to expand...

Same thing happened to mom and pop stores in Alberta; virtually no illegal immigrants there. ALmost non-existent. No it was companies like Wal-Mart, hiring felons and elderly for low wages, and strong labour unions like Safeway that drove the mom and pop stores out of business. The ones still left are the ones that fulfilled a certain niche ie. catering to Ukrainians who miss the taste of home; rare Asian ingredients for the Taiwanese, Korean and Vietnamese refugees; carpenters who specialized in spiral staircases for the wealthy. So, I highly doubted illegals caused your family business to decline if it happened everywhere else in absence of illegals; hell, it's not unknown for small-scale ranchers and farmers to hire illegals as ranch-hands anyway.

The left does NOT want ANYONE asking questions. If you do, you will be labeled a racist. They especially do not want Law Enforcement Officers asking questions.

Why? Ask yourself that very important question.
Click to expand...

You means corporates don't want anyone asking question. They're the ones that are lobbying Congress; otherwise, the immigration bills GWB tried to push through would had passed.


Who wants to grant amnesty to illegals so they can stay in power?

500,000 additional votes from Arizona would go to the man who granted them amnesty.

The democratic party has become so fixated on their party's own personal gain, that they have forgotten all about the legitimate American workers that are unfairly competing with illegals. They DO NOT care about America, they care about POWER, and POWER only.

They want YOU to be dependent on THEM.
Click to expand...

Riiiiiiiight... and the alternative is any better? There's a reason why a lot of people consider both parties to be the same-- except for differing debate issues (like gay rights.) Bills don't seem to pass, regardless of who propose them, and who push them.
 
Steinhauer said:
your claiming 500,000 illegals is not an invasion ..... hmmmm.

Are you sure you have a good grasp on the English language?

1/3rd of the prisoners in California prisons are illegals. They are not in prison for being illegal. They are in prison for violent crimes and drug dealing.

How is that for a definition of domestic violence?
Click to expand...

That's what they said about the Irish. A lot of them were in prisons. A lot of them were criminals. They were entering America en masse.

Yet... the clause in Article Four was never used. Why?
 
Steinhauer said:
your claiming 500,000 illegals is not an invasion ..... hmmmm.
Click to expand...
I didn't claim anything. I gave you the Supreme Court's and U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' rulings. The one with a pretty good grasp on laws, Constitution, and English :wave:

Steinhauer said:
Are you sure you have a good grasp on the English language?

1/3rd of the prisoners in California prisons are illegals. They are not in prison for being illegal. They are in prison for gang related violent crimes and drug dealing.

How is that for a definition of domestic violence?
Click to expand...
Are you sure you have a good grasp on laws and Constitutions? See above.

Steinhauer said:
Sacrificing security over freedom? Take a look at Obamacare ... really, stare at it.
Click to expand...
Ah... so you're putting Arizona's immigration law in same category as Obamacare? I am.. baffled :dizzy:

btw - I do not support Obamacare in case you don't remember.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top