• 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!

Brewer condemns report to UN mentioning Ariz. law

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
That fact that officials from a foreign nation officially recognized the prisoner as their citizen is evidence that the prisoner is indeed in the nation illegally and that person can then be shipped out the next day.
Click to expand...

Do you mean in general? Because, generally speaking, one can be here legally without being a citizen, and generally speaking there is such a thing as dual citizenship.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Then again, there's the minor problem that the Arizona law is not only 100% compatible with the United States Constitution, it's 100% compatible with extant federal law, and there is NO violation of civil or human rights embodied in that law.
Click to expand...

While it may be your opinion that the law is Constitutional, the proverbial jury is still out in the only place it matters, that being the courts.

Aside from that, while the residents of Arizona can be as angry with the Federal government as they like with respect to its handling of illegal immigrants, the fact remains that border regulation and naturalization procedures are the exclusive domain of the Federal government.

At any rate, I'm not thrilled with the idea of 50 laws like this popping up at the state level. This is the sort of thing which should be handled by one law, by one authority, not 50 slightly different ways by a myraid of authorities. Whether or not the Feds are doing their job doesn't change my opinion on that.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Let's see....Governess Brewer is under fire for defending the State from the invasion from Mexico of ravening hordes of illegal aliens. That is the background of any contemporary thread about Arizona and Governess Brewer.
Click to expand...

As heroic as that sounds, that isn't her job and she doesn't have the authority to do so even if she wanted to.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Do you know how to read?

How's your thinking powers doin' for ya?

Let's see....Governess Brewer is under fire for defending the State from the invasion from Mexico of ravening hordes of illegal aliens. That is the background of any contemporary thread about Arizona and Governess Brewer.

The recent knife in the back by the US Department of State, aka Hillary Clinton, was a political jab at one of the fifty United States on the international stage for the sole purpose of polarizing the electorate of the United States.

THAT'S what this discussion is about.

You need to comb my post carefully and see if you can find any more ignorant strawmen to fall out to join the comment that I claimed all foreigners arrested are illegal aliens. Hell, you need to find that statement itself.

Seriously, what the hell do you think the words "EVERY person arrested for deportation as a illegal alien " means?
Click to expand...

Hey, I am against what Clinton and the State Department did. I am DEFENDING Arizona and have since the law was announced. However, there are legal processes to be followed and I was arguing that Arizona has been to this point following them. One of the legal processes that all U.S. states are obliged to follow is to make sure foreign nations (legal or otherwise) have access to communication with their consulates/embassies when taken into custody.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Do you mean in general? Because, generally speaking, one can be here legally without being a citizen,
Click to expand...

You figured that one out all by yourself?

and generally speaking there is such a thing as dual citizenship.
Click to expand...


And, specifically speaking, there should not be a dual citizenship for the United States. A man either chooses to sever his prior allegiences when he becomes a US citizen, or he chooses to not become a citizen.

Which, by the way, is totally beside the point and you're deliberately making those flatulent non-sequitur noises because there's this little thing you're not mentioning about illegal aliens arrested for being in the country illegally.

They're not US citizens.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
As heroic as that sounds, that isn't her job and she doesn't have the authority to do so even if she wanted to.
Click to expand...

Yes, actually, defending the state and people of Arizona is the Governesses job.

Defending the state and people of Arizona is also the Messiah's job.

One of the two is trying to do her job, the other is doing his best to get Americans killed and harm the United States.

Can you figure out who is doing which?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
While it may be your opinion that the law is Constitutional, the proverbial jury is still out in the only place it matters, that being the courts.
Click to expand...

No.

The law is constitutional. The question is whether the courts are going to obey the Constitution, or do yet another ruling the violates the Constitution. They've done it before, with Plessy v Ferguson, Miller, Roe v Wade, etc.

Aside from that, while the residents of Arizona can be as angry with the Federal government as they like with respect to its handling of illegal immigrants, the fact remains that border regulation and naturalization procedures are the exclusive domain of the Federal government.
Click to expand...

And, so what you're saying is that every counterfeiter arrested by local police MUST be released because they weren't arrested by the Secret Service.

After all, the federal government has authority over the currency, not the states, just like you're claming that only the federal government has authority over the Invaders.

Good thing the law doesn't actually work the way you people who want the United States destroyed wished it did.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You figured that one out all by yourself?
Click to expand...

Hey, if your only counter when someone shows you the flaws of your argument is to make fun of them, maybe you'd be more comfortable someplace else -- like 4chan. :lol:

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
And, specifically speaking, there should not be a dual citizenship for the United States. A man either chooses to sever his prior allegiences when he becomes a US citizen, or he chooses to not become a citizen.
Click to expand...

You can believe that all you want, but your beliefs and the law are two entirely separate things. Thank goodness.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Which, by the way, is totally beside the point and you're deliberately making those flatulent non-sequitur noises because there's this little thing you're not mentioning about illegal aliens arrested for being in the country illegally.
Click to expand...

You said, "That fact that officials from a foreign nation officially recognized the prisoner as their citizen is evidence that the prisoner is indeed in the nation illegally and that person can then be shipped out the next day."

I demonstrated two cases in which officials from a foreign nation officially recognize a prisoner as their citizen doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on whether that prisoner is here illegally.


Scarecrow Akhbar said:
They're not US citizens.
Click to expand...


The fact that they're not US citizens has no bearing whatsoever on whether or they're here illegally.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yes, actually, defending the state and people of Arizona is the Governesses job.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Defending the state and people of Arizona is also the Messiah's job.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
One of the two is trying to do her job, the other is doing his best to get Americans killed and harm the United States.
Click to expand...

Do you ever find yourself looking in the mirror in the morning, as you get ready to go to work, and bursting out with laughter at the absurdity of some of the **** you say?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

Are you going to say it's the sheriff?

Border control is a federal government matter, that was viewed as so intuitively a federal concern that it didn't get actual mention.... unless Obama is using that lack of specific mention as a loophole that it's not his concern?

But, it goes down the line, if the federal government wont do it, then it's up to the states, and if they don't get the job done, then it's up to the citizens.

Nope.
Click to expand...

I gave my position... why is it not Obama's responsibility to have the borders protected??

Do you ever find yourself looking in the mirror in the morning, as you get ready to go to work, and bursting out with laughter at the absurdity of some of the **** you say?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so quick to make a statement like that... I mean, think about it... a sovereign nation is essentially like an organism of it's own, where all the different cells (people) accomplish the tasks to make the organism run like a well oiled machine... now, if the skin is paper thin, with holes in it, then outside things can get into the organism, some of it is benign, some beneficial, but every so often through these holes a virus might make it in and wreak havoc on the organism as a whole.

So, it's important that a nation, just as individuals need somewhat of a thick skin, it's also got to be permeable enough to allow in the good.

What would be the most logical? That the part of the body dealing with the veins, and the functions of all the various organs of the government cell, also be responsible for responding to 'holes' in the skin?? All Americans DO benefit from having a strong port entry system with guarded / closed borders, so they should all be taxed equally for this, right?

Beyond having local people in charge of local border / port areas to be hired for by the government to perform the task, I don't see why this wouldn't be a federal matter?
 
BmanMcfly said:
Are you going to say it's the sheriff?
Click to expand...

No. Read the oath of office she took.

BmanMcfly said:
But, it goes down the line, if the federal government wont do it, then it's up to the states, and if they don't get the job done, then it's up to the citizens.
Click to expand...

For that to be the case, government must have completely broken down and the Constitution must be tossed out the window. We're not anywhere near that point yet.

BmanMcfly said:
I gave my position... why is it not Obama's responsibility to have the borders protected??
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with what Scarecrow said. He said, "Defending the state and people of Arizona is also the Messiah's job."

It isn't.

Read the President's oath of office.

BmanMcfly said:
I wouldn't be so quick to make a statement like that... I mean, think about it... a sovereign nation is essentially like an organism of it's own, where all the different cells (people) accomplish the tasks to make the organism run like a well oiled machine... now, if the skin is paper thin, with holes in it, then outside things can get into the organism, some of it is benign, some beneficial, but every so often through these holes a virus might make it in and wreak havoc on the organism as a whole.

So, it's important that a nation, just as individuals need somewhat of a thick skin, it's also got to be permeable enough to allow in the good.

What would be the most logical? That the part of the body dealing with the veins, and the functions of all the various organs of the government cell, also be responsible for responding to 'holes' in the skin?? All Americans DO benefit from having a strong port entry system with guarded / closed borders, so they should all be taxed equally for this, right?

Beyond having local people in charge of local border / port areas to be hired for by the government to perform the task, I don't see why this wouldn't be a federal matter?
Click to expand...

You seem to be very confused.

I was laughing in Scarecrow's face for insinuating that the President of the United States "is doing his best to get Americans killed and harm the United States."

How you got anything else out of what I said is beyond me.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
It isn't.

Read the President's oath of office.
Click to expand...

His oath requires him to faithfully execute the office the President, which in turn is required by the Constitution to faithfully execute the laws. If he's purposely choosing not to enforce immigration law, then he's breaking his oath.
 
Which, of course, puts Holder in a serious pickle, because he went on record as saying the DoJ won't accept illegal alien referrals from AZ, yet federal law specifically forbids the federal government from doing that. If Obama acquiesces, then he's breaking his oath in that instance, too.
 
Hershaw - I would add that his suing AZ on behalf of the foreign nationals residing in the country illegally... So, it seems that he escalates this to what I can only define as treason given the levels of violence on the border regions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's at the very least anti-constitutional, what with that part of the constitution that says explicitly, that no president could sue a state or individual on behalf of a foreign country or people... maybe he thinks that since they made it in that they are no longer 'foreign'...
 
BmanMcfly said:
Hershaw - I would add that his suing AZ on behalf of the foreign nationals residing in the country illegally... So, it seems that he escalates this to what I can only define as treason given the levels of violence on the border regions.
Click to expand...

This is a good point, however if they aren't going to go after Nancy Pelosi, and Louise Slaughter for treason for trying to sabotage our own troops near the Turkish border during her visit to Syria in the Bush Administration, then they aren't going to level treason at anyone. But, they could very well have a high crime or misdemeanor in the Sustak debacle.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's at the very least anti-constitutional, what with that part of the constitution that says explicitly, that no president could sue a state or individual on behalf of a foreign country or people... maybe he thinks that since they made it in that they are no longer 'foreign'...
Click to expand...


Isn't that the liberal dream, a world without borders?


j-mac
 
zimmer said:
Brewer smashed two targets with one stone.
Obama administration and bitch slapped Hillary so hard it makes a serious dent in any challenge for the presidency. She doesn't stand for upholding the law and defending our borders and thinks so little of our laws she cites them as against human rights.

.
Click to expand...

OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!

off-with-her-head.jpg
 
j-mac said:
This is a good point, however if they aren't going to go after Nancy Pelosi, and Louise Slaughter for treason for trying to sabotage our own troops near the Turkish border during her visit to Syria in the Bush Administration, then they aren't going to level treason at anyone. But, they could very well have a high crime or misdemeanor in the Sustak debacle.
Click to expand...

It's because they both play for the same team... no, I don't expect that anything would actually be ACCOMPLISHED, but still I gotta state it like it is... that's the worst part of it, that there's nothing that can even really be done.

How would they create a 'vote of no confidence'?? I mean, the only people that still approve of Obama are those 'life-long democrat supporters and party members'... even then... since all the party members are pretty much slaves to the party line, they would vote down such a move...

Then, when it comes time, the people are going to vote another slick republican in, and then the roles switch... suddenly Rush Limbaugh is the big 'patriot' making 'tea party protests' or talking about the constitution and how the republican guy is terrible and occasionally eats babies... meanwhile, all the Glen Beck's and Palins suddenly support the government and say 'everythings fixed'... and then I'm gonna get called a 'bleeding heart liberal' and it's like in 'groundhog day'...

Isn't that the liberal dream, a world without borders?


j-mac
Click to expand...

It's ALSO the republican dream, they just approach the subject in a different way.... to illustrate :

Bush - I swear he had a yellow cake, we got intelligence, we gotta go to war... for 9-11.
Obama - I swear to end the war, by pulling out all the soldiers and replacing them with mercenaries.

And that modest difference in position makes the difference between a blood-thirsty animal, and a loving peacenik.
 
zimmer said:
I think it's great they've made a convoy for California. I hope they all end up there, flooding the state with more illegals... especially SF. Overburden the city and state to the point of breaking and creating an even bigger financial hole to crawl out of.

Let the suckers have even more illegals to fund. At some point citizens of The Golden State will be fed up with dem policies that have bankrupted a once prosperous and business friendly state... and let the courts keep telling the electorate their votes mean nothing as they implode.

.
Click to expand...

I really hate to see it when people say that about my home State Of California, SF maybe, but this State leads all the others in agicultural products of all kinds and even with an unemployment rate about 12 1/2% we still have the 8th largest economy in the world. Of course that's down from 5th.

Also some of us we even educated here and still grew up to Conservatives in the first degree, and advocate that we sticking up for the America we grew up in, and as the 8-28 March's theme said Restoring HONOR.

We have lost our way and allow the hateful Left to bully us with name calling, out right lies and other forms of intimidation, and they use the RACE CARD all the damn time. I find that Racists are usually first to call race into a discussion to muddy the water because they are not smart enough to come with cogent arguments.

As Conservatives when try the Left trys to baffle us with BULL SHTUFF we need to remain on point and stick to the truth and the facts, because they can't deal with either one.

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
And, specifically speaking, there should not be a dual citizenship for the United States. A man either chooses to sever his prior allegiences when he becomes a US citizen, or he chooses to not become a citizen.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And for those who were BORN dual-citizens? or tri-citizens in my case?
 
BmanMcfly said:
It's because they both play for the same team... no, I don't expect that anything would actually be ACCOMPLISHED, but still I gotta state it like it is... that's the worst part of it, that there's nothing that can even really be done.
Click to expand...

Sorry Bman, that just sounds way too defeatist to me. I am not willing to give up on the greatest nation ever to be on this earth.


How would they create a 'vote of no confidence'?? I mean, the only people that still approve of Obama are those 'life-long democrat supporters and party members'... even then... since all the party members are pretty much slaves to the party line, they would vote down such a move...
Click to expand...

Well, that's what I think that Obama, Pelosi, Reed and the criminal party in power are banking on right now, but trust me, there is a tipping point, history always provides one.

Then, when it comes time, the people are going to vote another slick republican in, and then the roles switch... suddenly Rush Limbaugh is the big 'patriot' making 'tea party protests' or talking about the constitution and how the republican guy is terrible and occasionally eats babies... meanwhile, all the Glen Beck's and Palins suddenly support the government and say 'everythings fixed'... and then I'm gonna get called a 'bleeding heart liberal' and it's like in 'groundhog day'...
Click to expand...

Well, probably so. But that to me if I were in that position would just signify that maybe the stances I take are too apathetic? You can't say you have no position then get mad because people don't understand where you are coming from....

It's ALSO the republican dream, they just approach the subject in a different way.... to illustrate :

Bush - I swear he had a yellow cake, we got intelligence, we gotta go to war... for 9-11.
Obama - I swear to end the war, by pulling out all the soldiers and replacing them with mercenaries.

And that modest difference in position makes the difference between a blood-thirsty animal, and a loving peacenik.
Click to expand...

So who said that a Bush like candidate is what we as conservatives want again? Bush screwed up on quite a few things, illegal immigration being one of them.

But what would you propose for the US?

j-mac
 
ludahai said:
U.S. law doesn't require it... nor should I have to if supporting the countries has no inherent contradiction... now, if it were say the U.S. and a state the U.S. is at war with, that is another story...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I suppose. I just always wondered about people that bear no true allegiance to a country. But hey, whatever works I suppose.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Yeah, I suppose. I just always wondered about people that bear no true allegiance to a country. But hey, whatever works I suppose.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Who determines TRUE allegence? Is there a written test?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom