Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 64

Thread: State Department Stands By Decision to Include Arizona in U.N. Human Rights Report

  1. #21
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 11:30 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,026

    re: State Department Stands By Decision to Include Arizona in U.N. Human Rights Report

    Quote Originally Posted by Le Marteau View Post
    The problem with Arizona's new immigration law is not that it's anti-immigration -- that's a perfectly reasonable thing to be in a border-province where legal and illegal immigration is a problem. The problem with it is the arbitrary nature of the law -- a random stop by a bigoted patrolman with your last name being "Lopez", and you could be in a bureaucratic nightmare proving you're a legal resident -- if you're not deported outright.
    Such little understanding of what you're talking about.

    Meanwhile, remember when England wasn't eastern Pakistan?

  2. #22
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    re: State Department Stands By Decision to Include Arizona in U.N. Human Rights Report

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Like Reagan did.


    Just saying . . . .
    I do not idolize or worship Reagan. He did some bad things like the1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act and the so called Firearm Owners Protection Act. Its because of that Reagan amnesty why we have the 12-20 million plus illegals in this country.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  3. #23
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,272
    Blog Entries
    1

    re: State Department Stands By Decision to Include Arizona in U.N. Human Rights Report

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Such little understanding of what you're talking about.

    Meanwhile, remember when England wasn't eastern Pakistan?
    Such little understanding of what you're talking about.

    Demography of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    White British 50,366,497 85.67%
    White 3,096,169 5.27%
    Indian 1,053,411 1.8%
    Pakistani 977,285 1.6%
    White Irish 691,232 1.2%
    Mixed race 677,117 1.2%
    Black Caribbean 565,876 1.0%
    Black African 485,277 0.8%
    Bangladeshi 283,063 0.5%
    Other Asian (non-Chinese) 247,644 0.4%
    Chinese 247,403 0.4%
    Other 230,615 0.4%
    Black (others) 97,585 0.2%

  4. #24
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,762

    re: State Department Stands By Decision to Include Arizona in U.N. Human Rights Report

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    This is why the only people who trust the Obama administration to handle illegal immigration are pro-illegals. Because they know that the only way Obama will handle it is with amnesty.
    Are you sure it was just Pres. Obama who has ever advocated amnesty for illegal aliens from Mexico?

    From the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) website:

    "Americans Spurn Illegal Alien Amnesty, Polls Say," dated 10/2001

    Just before Presidents Bush and (Mexico's President) Fox met in Washington to plot an amnesty for illegal aliens, FAIR released a national Harris poll it commissioned, confirming that the majority of Americans oppose an amnesty for illegal aliens in the United States. Based on a survey of over 1,000 voters, the poll found that Americans oppose an amnesty for illegal aliens by a 60 percent to 29 percent margin and are specifically against the proposed amnesty for Mexican illegal immigrants by 59 to 31 percent. Dan Stein, executive director of FAIR, announced the poll results at a press conference on August 30th that was covered by Telemundo, the Los Angeles Times, The Arizona Republic, La Opinion, Gannett News Service, and McClatchy Newspapers, among others.
    Or this from a little know website called Vdare.com:

    (Hate the title of the article, but...) "That Amnesty Proposal – Ruling Class Returns To Its Vomit (Again)"

    Amnesty—no one wants to call it that but that's what it is—was a major morsel on the Bush administration's plate before 19 perfectly legal immigrants carried out the biggest act of mass murder in human history. After that, amnesty went on the backburner, while various politicians scurried about pretending to do something about the mass immigration that made the Sept. 11 massacre possible.

    Now, four months later, with the Justice Department still unable to locate or deport aliens suspected of involvement in Sept. 11, the public attention span has proved short enough for the administration to get back to real business. As the Los Angeles Times reported last week,

    "the most significant development in the national immigration debate is what hasn't happened: No lawmaker of influence has moved to reverse the country's generous immigration policy, which for more than three decades has facilitated the largest sustained wave of immigration in U.S. history. Proposals to restrict a system that welcomed more than 9 million legal immigrants during the 1990s were not even accorded a formal hearing on Capitol Hill."

    [Los Angeles Times, "Wave of U.S. Immigration Likely to Survive Sept. 11," January 10, 2002]

    But if no lawmakers are moving to cut immigration, the administration, in addition to resurrecting amnesty from its political grave, is moving to provide more welfare to legal immigrants. As the Washington Post reported last week,

    "The Bush administration proposed yesterday that poor immigrants who have lived legally in the United States for at least five years be allowed to collect food stamps, restoring part of the safety net that was removed in a 1996 overhaul of the welfare system."
    Try not to allow yourself to become so blinded by partisanship that you fail to recognize that this immigration problem has been going on for at least the past 30 years and that both sides believe they have something to gain by not adequately sealing the boards. My question still remains, however, as the Vdare article dares to ask:

    "If boarder security and illegal immigration are so important to Republican politicians, why didn't they do something about it right after 9/11 when the nation was made to realized the dangers of not adhering to or improving our immigration policies?"

    Why now all of a sudden have they jumped on this immigration issue but are still unwilling to tackling it head-on but instead are willing to skirt around the issue by coming up with such lame solutions as amending the 14th Amendment? The answer is three-fold:

    1) Amnesty for illegal Mexicans means votes! That much is clear. By pandering to the Hispanic population, both sides wish to capture this largely elusive voting block.

    2) Cheap labor! When the economy was good, most politicians didn't mind having a few Mexicans toiling the fields or doing some of the odd jobs most Americans really don't want to do. But now that jobs are the hot button item in this deep recession, now suddenly people and politicians are pissed off about it (particularly those on the Right...now that they don't control Congress. Listen to their voices should they regain control and see what, if anything, they really do about immigration reform then.)

    3) To discredit the sitting President as being soft on immigration, yet which President since Reagon has publicly stated as part of his White House agenda he plans to tackle immigration reform after the mid-term elections? (I'm listening...chirp, chirp, chirp....the sound of crickets...that's what I thought.)

    Get it right, people. Neither side really wants to mess with this, and both sides have advocating amnesty for a good reason - YOU CAN'T DEPORT 38 MILLION PEOPLE (most of whom are Hispanic/Mexicans) WITHOUT HAVING AN ADVERSE AFFECT ON THE LABOR FORCE!!!

    It may not be the right way to go about solving our immigration problem particularly with our souther neighbor, but it is a solution worth exploring.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 09-03-10 at 01:44 PM.

  5. #25
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    re: State Department Stands By Decision to Include Arizona in U.N. Human Rights Report

    Quote Originally Posted by Le Marteau View Post
    The problem with it is the arbitrary nature of the law -- a random stop by a bigoted patrolman with your last name being "Lopez", and you could be in a bureaucratic nightmare proving you're a legal resident -- if you're not deported outright.
    The law does not allow for racial profiling and a lot of those officers are of hispanic decent going to have hispanic sounding names like Lopez.I do not know about in your country but the US is ethnically and racially diverse country.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    London, England and Dijon, France
    Last Seen
    03-06-11 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    598

    re: State Department Stands By Decision to Include Arizona in U.N. Human Rights Report

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Such little understanding of what you're talking about.

    Meanwhile, remember when England wasn't eastern Pakistan?
    I was going to reply to this with a demographic chart proving how miniscule the Pakistani population is in England, but... Jetboogieman beat me to it.

    Still, for redundancy's sake -- stop listening to every bit of anti-foreign propaganda FOX News puts out.

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    re: State Department Stands By Decision to Include Arizona in U.N. Human Rights Report


    My question still remains, however, as the Vdare article dares to ask:

    "If boarder security and illegal immigration are so important to Republican politicians, why didn't they do something about it right after 9/11 when the nation was made to realized the dangers of not adhering to or improving our immigration policies?"
    Objective Voice, there were two real reasons why George Bush and the Republican went down in the polls and that was by increasing the debt and the mishandling of the southern border. While he might have been a Republican, he was certainly not a conservative, and his lack of conservatism, especially in these two areas, led to his poor poll numbers and the eventual formation of the Tea Party.

    I think it can be agreed that Conservatives and liberals alike disagreed with much of what George Bush did in the latter part of his second term but perhaps for different reasons.

    But now the Americans have BHO not only continuing the Bush policies but exaggerating them to the point where recovery is ever less likely.

    The Republicans went astray during the last year of the Bush presidency, and most everyone can agree on that.

  8. #28
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    re: State Department Stands By Decision to Include Arizona in U.N. Human Rights Report

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    Are you sure it was just Pres. Obama who has ever advocated amnesty for illegal aliens from Mexico?

    From the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) website:

    "Americans Spurn Illegal Alien Amnesty, Polls Say," dated 10/2001



    Or this from a little know website called Vdare.com:

    (Hate the title of the article, but...) "That Amnesty Proposal Ruling Class Returns To Its Vomit (Again)"



    Try not to allow yourself to become so blinded by partisanship that you fail to recognize that this immigration problem has been going on for at least the past 30 years and that both sides believe they have something to gain by not adequately sealing the boards. My question still remains, however, as the Vdare article dares to ask:

    "If boarder security and illegal immigration are so important to Republican politicians, why didn't they do something about it right after 9/11 when the nation was made to realized the dangers of not adhering to or improving our immigration policies?"

    Why now all of a sudden have they jumped on this immigration issue but are still unwilling to tackling it head-on but instead are willing to skirt around the issue by coming up with such lame solutions as amending the 14th Amendment?


    Before you accuse someone of blind partisanship you might want to do a little research first.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/immigr...vist-past.html

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-ele...-romney-7.html

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/immigr...migration.html

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/immigr...ondi-rice.html

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/immigr...l?daysprune=-1

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/immigr...l?daysprune=-1
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  9. #29
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    re: State Department Stands By Decision to Include Arizona in U.N. Human Rights Report

    Quote Originally Posted by Le Marteau View Post

    Brewer's response, however, was much less mature. He essentially said, "Hey, you can't turn me in for human rights violations, I'm an American! I don't have to listen to that "international law" nonsense!"
    Well, we don't.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    re: State Department Stands By Decision to Include Arizona in U.N. Human Rights Report

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    This is one of the funniest political stories about a major political player that I've seen for quite some time. At least one that doesn't do irreparable damage.

    FOXNews.com - State Department Stands By Decision to Include Arizona in U.N. Human Rights Report
    It's my understanding that the UN report is an annual thing and all countries divulge information for its tabulation. It doesn't mean the U.S. is engaged in human rights violations. Hilary is Secretary of State so it would be her job to do this.

    I know Fox turns everything into a scandal but this is small potatoes. The UN has also been documenting the U.S. treatment of domestic Muslims since 9/11, and other minorities since long before then. You don't hear a stink about that.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •