[BadKosh]

So Eric Holder hasn't even bothered to READ the AZ law but he's still against it? Typical of this administration running its mouth and having no clue as to reality. Sounds like the first few months of Obama's term where he stupidly interjected himself into his radical professor buddies brush with the law and calling the cops the bad guys without knowing what he was talking about either. Sounds like the health care sham that nobody knew what was in it until after they passed it. Pathetic.

[Chongo]

Does the boycott include the water we've been selling to Los Angeles and the rest of CA? We've been them selling part of our allotment of Colorado River water for years.

[BadKosh]

Even the Jack-ass Napolitano hasn't read the AZ law, but like the rest of the libs she's against it. I can't understand why the libs continue to support such inept fools unless they are equally inept. The press is completely ignorant and unread, and explains why so many shallow types are clueless to the content. They keep watching in complete ignorance. How sad that they are getting their news as propaganda.

RealClearPolitics - Video - Napolitano Admits She Hasn't Read Arizona Law But Says She Wouldn't Sign It

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

What you're witnessing is the BIG LIE in full effect. Just repeat a lie often enough and loud enough, and it will become 'truth'- page 1, rule 1 of the left's handbook. It's why they'll take the world 'illegal' out of the debate on illegal immigration and think their being clever. To have to debate a REAL issue with all the facts intact means the lefty 'house of cards' position generally loses by default.

So gee, you expect people engaged in this sort of dishonesty to actually READ a law they're required to lie about and mislabel to even stand a chance of mounting an 'effective' opposition? PUH-LEASE.


Meanwhile, as the LA city council made jackasses of themselves boycotting AZ and trying to compare it to Nazi Germany (ohhhh so clever and original! No one's ever thought of that before!) the LA times took a poll, and despite trying every which way they could to water down the poll choices, the public tore the jackasses a new one by over 90%.

Poll: Was the L.A. City Council right to pass a boycott of Arizona? | Opinion L.A. | Los Angeles Times

Whoooosh- there goes that house of cards toppling down.

Face it, the ONLY way libs are even players in a debate like this -which is really about enforcing existing laws, not any of their wished for racist fantasies- is to trot out their usual tactics: lie, make ignorant comparisons to Nazis, ignore all actual facts and details, fail to even glance at the actual law, mislabel the debate, and when all else fails, just yell "RACISM!" at the top of their lungs.

[ort888]

You are a bitter bitter man.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I've read the bill.

It says to qualify for any subsidies for health insurance, "individuals must be lawfully present in a state in the United States."

See, the bill says no illegals will get subsidized health insurance.

Oops, my bad. That was the healthcare bill which you spend time arguing that illegals with still get subsidies regardless of what the bill says.

When you're trying to ensure that illegal residents are not beneficiaries of US entitlements, a Federal safeguard or measure is implemented. When you exclude the safeguard as the original iteration of the healthcare bill did (I don't recall where that ended up), you leave open the real problem of entitlements for illegal residents. That's why the safeguards were designed.

Boycotting services and products is unconstitutional now?

Yes, a government is not to boycott another as it discriminates against the very industries employing the very people whose rights you claim to be championing. In 1951, the SCOTUS ruled that municipalities may not pass ordinances that discriminate against interstate commerce unless doing so is the only possible way to fulfill a legitimate local purpose. LA has passed an ordinance that outright bans official travel to Arizona among other things.

Again, what's most ironic to me about these boycotts is you could almost pick any other state in the US and disenfranchise fewer Latinos.

What about boycotting gay marriages? Or boycotting sex toys?
Alabama bans the sale of sex toys.

This is a right-mess. What about boycotting irrelevance or Tourette's syndrome?

US citizens have the constitutional right to boycott whatever product or services they want, as long as it's not required by law.

I'm genuinely asking here, are you American? You don't seem concerned about what is and is not constitutional. You're not concerned about what the Arizona law actually says or how law is already enforced in the US today. You have an axe to grind and you're going to grind it. I get it. You're acting in defense of a minority you feel is not getting a fair shake. I understand that.

What's hypocritical to me is throwing around the word "constitution" as if you haven't been woefully silent about States passing laws prohibiting the enforcement of Federal immigration policy creating sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants over the past decade. Nary a word. If you were to just say you don't like immigration control because you perceive it as being directed against a specific demographic, one that you feel compelled to defend; I could say nothing to argue your perspective.

Otherwise, it seems little more than emotional gibberish.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm genuinely asking here, are you American? You don't seem concerned about what is and is not constitutional. You're not concerned about what the Arizona law actually says or how law is already enforced in the US today. You have an axe to grind and you're going to grind it. I get it. You're acting in defense of a minority you feel is not getting a fair shake. I understand that.

What's hypocritical to me is throwing around the word "constitution" as if you haven't been woefully silent about States passing laws prohibiting the enforcement of Federal immigration policy creating sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants over the past decade. Nary a word. If you were to just say you don't like immigration control because you perceive it as being directed against a specific demographic, one that you feel compelled to defend; I could say nothing to argue your perspective.

Otherwise, it seems little more than emotional gibberish.

US citizens have the constitution right to boycott any business they want. Especially those businesses who have 'Whites Only' signs under a Rand Paul's vision of America.

[hyteckit]

US citizen being harassed and jailed.

In danger of being deported even with ID and birth certificate.

American Citizen Faced Deportation | NBC Chicago

This will only escalate in Arizona when the new immigration law goes into effect, giving Arizona police officers the same power as federal ICE agents.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

US citizens have the constitution right to boycott any business they want. Especially those businesses who have 'Whites Only' signs under a Rand Paul's vision of America.

Yes, but US municipalities do not. Egadz man, keep up. For what it's worth, I don't see that your vision for America (or of America for that matter) as "Latinos first" is any more productive.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

US citizen being harassed and jailed.

In danger of being deported even with ID and birth certificate.

American Citizen Faced Deportation | NBC Chicago

This will only escalate in Arizona when the new immigration law goes into effect, giving Arizona police officers the same power as federal ICE agents.

I'm curious what supporters of this law have to say about this. Conservatives *should* be up in arms about the violation of citizens' rights and the power it puts in the hands of the state, but I feel like most people who consider themselves conservatives today don't even know the definition of the word.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

I'm curious what supporters of this law have to say about this. Conservatives *should* be up in arms about the violation of citizens' rights and the power it puts in the hands of the state, but I feel like most people who consider themselves conservatives today don't even know the definition of the word.

What... about a State's right to act in its best interest in lieu of yet another ineffectual Federal bureaucracy? If you're curious what supporters of this law have to say about it, you're welcome to consult any of the 70% of this country who support it. What we've established in this thread is that the lion's share of opposition is unaware of how SB1070 actually reads. The whole "you're going to stop them for looking hispanic" nonsense.

Anyone who has ever been approached for a suspected violation of law (having nothing to do with immigration) has been subjected to displaying some form of identification. This is not a new concept for any citizen be they black, white, hispanic, asian, italian, etc... If you don't know this, you've been sheltered by your gated community.

People are fine with immigration law, it's enforcing it that has their underwear all bundled up apparently.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What... about a State's right to act in its best interest in lieu of yet another ineffectual Federal bureaucracy? If you're curious what supporters of this law have to say about it, you're welcome to consult any of the 70% of this country who support it. What we've established in this thread is that the lion's share of opposition is unaware of how SB1070 actually reads. The whole "you're going to stop them for looking hispanic" nonsense.

Anyone who has ever been approached for a suspected violation of law (having nothing to do with immigration) has been subjected to displaying some form of identification. This is not a new concept for any citizen be they black, white, hispanic, asian, italian, etc... If you don't know this, you've been sheltered by your gated community.

People are fine with immigration law, it's enforcing it that has their underwear all bundled up apparently.

Right, but my question was how do you possibly support a law which imprisoned an American citizen for no reason for 72 hours? Every conservative SHOULD be up in arms over that.

Again, they just don't know the definition of conservative is all...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

Right, but my question was how do you possibly support a law which imprisoned an American citizen for no reason for 72 hours? Every conservative SHOULD be up in arms over that.

Again, they just don't know the definition of conservative is all...

What... up in arms over false arrests? Yeah, they're despicable to be sure. So much to champion, so little time. You might know that there are numerous examples of false arrest all having nothing to do with SB1070.

Can you please explain how SB1070 was used to falsely imprison someone for 72 hours, approximately 2 months before the law goes into effect?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What... up in arms over false arrests? Yeah, they're despicable to be sure. So much to champion, so little time. You might know that there are numerous examples of false arrest all having nothing to do with SB1070.

Can you please explain how SB1070 was used to falsely imprison someone for 72 hours, approximately 2 months before the law goes into effect?

It's not a question of how SB1070 was used, but how SB1070 will be used.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

It's not a question of how SB1070 was used, but how SB1070 will be used.

So, you been riding around in Dr. Who's TARDIS or something?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

It's not a question of how SB1070 was used, but how SB1070 will be used.

Unless you can explain to me how any other law cannot be used to discriminate, I'll have to conclude that all laws allow for the possibility of discrimination and this cannot be a logical basis for not having laws.

BTW, this is the second time someone has tried to encourage opposition to SB1070 using an anecdote of false arrest that occurred months before SB1070 even goes into effect. Is it possible to debate this issue honestly?

So... my question to Jokell82 is; how could you possibly oppose a law which in August will begin clarifying the rights of your suspect to avoid the possibility of imprisoning an American citizen for no reason for 72 hours?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

BTW, this is the second time someone has tried to encourage opposition to SB1070 using an anecdote of false arrest that occurred months before SB1070 even goes into effect.

Not to mention, in Illinois, not AZ. I guess those into emo-politics are going to have a LONG list of states to boycott as minority criminals latch on to using every instance of being detained for something as an excuse to yell 'racial profiling'. A perfect template for a "Get out of jail free card' being set up by the usual suspects.

[BadKosh]

A humorous look at the Border situation in AZ...


PJTV - Imagine There's No Border - Mpg

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

A humorous look at the Border situation in AZ...


PJTV - Imagine There's No Border - Mpg

No racial profiling there.

As if illegal immigrants were just Mexicans.