• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizona lawmakers modify immigration law

Why is it that those who like to cloak themselves in the label of "Conservative" and try to talk about "small government" are the ones who cheer the loudest every time big government/big brother flexes its power?

If you understood what a conservative was, you'd know that they are strong believers in the rule of law. The AZ is a strengthening of local laws affirming a federal one.

Claiming that this is an expansion of government is an example of having not read the legislation.
 
You guys can whine and moan all day but that ain't gonna change the FACT that the illegal aliens look and speak like Mexicans.

The problem with that Cap'n is that so do a lot of US citizens. Its not ok to trample on the rights of citizens in a fishing expedition to try to find the undocumented.
 
If you understood what a conservative was, you'd know that they are strong believers in the rule of law. The AZ is a strengthening of local laws affirming a federal one.

Claiming that this is an expansion of government is an example of having not read the legislation.

That's fine too.....just don't try to pretend that you are for small government. Most so called "conservatives" these days are the biggest advocates for a huge expansion of government. That is how they differ remarkably from the Barry Goldwater conservatives.
 
That's fine....but just don't try to claim that you are for "small government".

This law is not an expansion of government. It's government enforcing existing laws.

But please, don't let that stop you from spewing more of the typical liberal bull**** we've all come to expect from you all.
 
This law is not an expansion of government. It's government enforcing existing laws.

But please, don't let that stop you from spewing more of the typical liberal bull**** we've all come to expect from you all.

Oh please. If it were as you claim...there would be no need for a new law.
This is a huge effort to expand government....and your spewing of the typical right-wing bull**** is not gonna change it from what it is.
 
If you understood what a conservative was, you'd know that they are strong believers in the rule of law. The AZ is a strengthening of local laws affirming a federal one.

Claiming that this is an expansion of government is an example of having not read the legislation.

You are right, however, due to the influx of birthers, truthers, Limbaugnuts and Coulterism's, the label "conservative" has been bastardized in the worst manner and nobody of reasonable mind would want to be associated with the modern day definition, as percieved by most of society.

Funny, that the, I would say, 12% of conservative whacko's, on the rightwing lunatixc fringe, somehow end up defining the conservative label while the, I would say, 12% of the liberal whacko's out on the leftwing fringe are simply laughed at.

Wonder why that is?
 
That's fine....but just don't try to claim that you are for "small government".

That's the difference between Barry Goldwater true "Conservatives" and the people who like to use the label "conservative" today. Goldwater and his crew truly believed in small government. Todays "Conservative" is a champion of big brother big government.


But I am for small government, on the Federal level.

The biggest problem with the fed. is that one size does not fit all. They have absolutely no idea of the problems and concerns of my part of the country, yet they keep making laws that directly affect the lives and livelihoods of people here.

If the fed would stick with the powers enumerated in the Constitution and let the States deal with all of the local problems our budgets would be balanced, there wouldn't be a deficit, and we wouldn't have military bases all over the planet. If the States could deal with local issues the laws would make sense on a local level.

That's why the Constitution has Article I, section 8

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That's it. those are the sole enumerated powers of the federal government.... everything else is the business of the States.
 
But I am for small government, on the Federal level.

LOL....so that's the definition of a "conservative" of today. :doh


"We want a small Federal Government but welcome the Big Brother state government into our lives as much as possible." :2funny:
 
LOL....so that's the definition of a "conservative" of today. :doh


"We want a small Federal Government but welcome the Big Brother state government into our lives as much as possible." :2funny:

Without the mandate from the fed., we'd have a much smaller state gov. than we presently have.

DD... grow up.
 
Without the mandate from the fed., we'd have a much smaller state gov. than we presently have.

DD... grow up.

Hey...you are the one who said it not me.....

I'm just pointing about the absurdity in the claim by many on your side of the aisle that you believe in small government.

THAT couldn't be farther from the truth and this new Arizona law is just another example of that.

Most so-called "conservatives" of today....haven't seen an arm of the government that they don't love to embrace.
 
Hey...you are the one who said it not me.....

I'm just pointing about the absurdity in the claim by many on your side of the aisle that you believe in small government.

THAT couldn't be farther from the truth and this new Arizona law is just another example of that.

Most so-called "conservatives" of today....haven't seen an arm of the government that they don't love to embrace.

No, you are highlighting your own liberal talking point blinders.

Carry on, I'd never stop an adversary when they are committing suicide.
 
It doesn't matter what they change, the left will still oppose it and cry "racism"... it's just what they do.

Agreed!
Ironically... the mexicans are the racists. Who is stepping on WHO???

I guess they wont mind if i break into their house and steal ****. If they get mad at me.... I shall call them a RACIST!!! :soap
 
Oh please. If it were as you claim...there would be no need for a new law.
This is a huge effort to expand government....and your spewing of the typical right-wing bull**** is not gonna change it from what it is.


Would you care to explain exactly how this expands govt?
 
The bill use to say that race could not be used "solely" as the basis for the suspicion that someone might be illegal. So, Cochise is correct, the bill not only explicitly mentioned race but explicitly said it could be part of the suspicion. At least that egregious legalization of racial profiling has now been removed.

maybe a draft, but not the final that went for signature nor the changes that are being forwarded.
 
No, you are highlighting your own liberal talking point blinders.

Carry on, I'd never stop an adversary when they are committing suicide.

Leave it to a right-winger to try to claim that an expansion of government powers is not an expansion of big government.

Thats an exercise in "conservative" logic. :doh
 
Would you care to explain exactly how this expands govt?

Easy. It REQUIRES agents of the government to search for proof of citizenship if it has reason to suspect that the person may be undocumented.
In fact, it allows any citizen to file suit against the government if that citizen believes that the government is not enforcing the mandate.

The bigger question is how is this NOT an expansion of government.
 
All AZ has to do is require proof of legal residency when applying for a DL or State ID card, then require all residents, over the age of 18, to have one, and ask EVERYBODY, when stopped or detained, for their card.

The same as they do everywhere else. No card? Then there's your reasonable suspicion no matter what color they are.

But, it matters not. The pro-illegal's would just find something else to whine about.

Actually, this anti-racist could possibly support such a move on a temporary basis in states where immigration is a problem. I consider the AZ law as originally written to be unquestionably racist. A law doesn't have to be racist in intent to be racist in effect. And both are equally unacceptable. It is the effect, after all (even if it 'only' psychological), that is important to me.
 
Easy. It REQUIRES agents of the government to search for proof of citizenship if it has reason to suspect that the person may be undocumented.

No expansion there, only another duty for the existing law enforcment.

In fact, it allows any citizen to file suit against the government if that citizen believes that the government is not enforcing the mandate.

No expansion here either. You can sue the govt 12 ways to Tues. and it does not expand in any way.


The bigger question is how is this NOT an expansion of government.

You are not answering the question dude. Almost like you are avoiding it.
 
Actually, this anti-racist could possibly support such a move on a temporary basis in states where immigration is a problem. I consider the AZ law as originally written to be unquestionably racist.

A law doesn't have to be racist in intent to be racist in effect. And both are equally unacceptable. It is the effect, after all (even if it 'only' psychological), that is important to me.


What about the law as modified, the one this thread is about.
 
What about the law as modified, the one this thread is about.

Unfortunately, I think it will be ineffective as modified, though it does have the benefit of removing the racist effect of the original draft.

Though I didn't mention my thinking on that matter at the time, this is precisely why I responded to Captain America's idea favorably. I think his idea would have the possible benefit of being effective while simultaneously avoiding racism. Indeed, I believed that was the reason why he came up with it. I read the frustrated tone of his post as such.

So, am I close enough to being on track? And who made you the topic gestapo, anyway?
 
Unfortunately, I think it will be ineffective as modified, though it does have the benefit of removing the racist effect of the original draft.

Though I didn't mention my thinking on that matter at the time, this is precisely why I responded to Captain America's idea favorably. I think his idea would have the possible benefit of being effective while simultaneously avoiding racism. Indeed, I believed that was the reason why he came up with it. I read the frustrated tone of his post as such.

So, am I close enough to being on track? And who made you the topic gestapo, anyway?

Thanks for letting me know what you thought of the modifcations.
I never viewed the original law as racist, though many on here did. I wondered if their opinion was formed by not understanding the wording of the law. If these changes make it easier to swallow for some folks, then good, I am glad AZ did them.
Not trying to be the thread police, just that some here try to change the subject in an attempt to cloud the arguments, glad you are not one.
 
No, if you think this won't be abused then you're a fool. Also, they should take out the part where the cops can be sued for not enforcing this. That or the cops should start pestering all the white people too...just to make sure. That guy could be Irish, French, English, Russian, German, etc. Once enough white people are bothered by the law, it will change.
I can say this, in Boston white people do get pestered namely Irish immigrants who are here illegally and when caught do get deported.
 
My bad. I meant the "Indians" from Mexico.

There. Better Cochise? :roll:

What's with the quotation marks and sarcasm? I'm just bringing up an important point about the racist nature of Mexico and Hispanic society more generally that many people seem to be unaware of. Indians are at the bottom of the social rung, and are usually rural peasants that are first driven to urban areas and then into the U.S.
 
What's with the quotation marks and sarcasm? I'm just bringing up an important point about the racist nature of Mexico and Hispanic society more generally that many people seem to be unaware of. Indians are at the bottom of the social rung, and are usually rural peasants that are first driven to urban areas and then into the U.S.

Well, I'm stuck in an American frame of mind. Here, we are a melting pot. No matter of WHERE your ancestors came from, once you're American, you're American. If an individual sneaks under the border wire from Mexico, unless they just passed thrugh on their way from Central America, they're Mexican to me. Don't care if they're indians, white as snow, or whatever. To me, Mexican is a nationality, not a race. It is inclusive of ALL citizens in it's nation domain.
 
Back
Top Bottom