Arizona dares L.A. to carry out boycott [Updated]

page: 9
46
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Sigh. This is all utter insanity.

Any state banning another state is a dangerous little game.

Problems can be worked out or around or with or through without trying to cause the destruction and economic collapse of others.

Want to take the "United" out of the "United States"? Because that's what some of you are advocating. You are taking a giant leap...backwards.




posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by guohua
Don't call us Racist and Bigots for trying to regain control of our cities and economy and even our education system.


I'd call people racists and bigots for implementing and supporting laws that criminalise everyone based on their appearance and not on their actions.

It doesn't matter how you people spin it or try to justify it, this law is a hateful, knee-jerk, mindless, pathetic attempt to pander to the propaganda-driven people, and not to fix a genuine problem.
And you are ALL falling for it, as expected.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snarf
Yeah!!!!!


Cuz there is no better way to enforce the law, than to shred the constitution and do whatever the *#$% you want!


I've heard the statement made that the Arizona law is unconstitutional, but I haven't see the SCOTUS ruling or a written legal challenge to a particular segment of the law.

Can you give us a little more information? Here is a link to the law, in case that helps.

Thanks,

WTFover

[edit on 19-5-2010 by WTFover]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
While I applaud The Idea of economic Santions on LA I am afraid it's not possible. Congress will step in and do its job.


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 Defence 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 is the Full Extent of Congress' Powers.

*Note: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Congress hasn't done this since 1913.

So I guess that means we have a Banker Run Oligarchy no longer a Constitutional Republic like our founders Gave us.


Is it time to Water the Tree of Liberty yet? It is looking mighty parched.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


The law is the same law that is already written federally. Only this law gives the state the right to do the job the federal government is not.

Raist



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I'm 100% behind Arizona's "new" law. As others have mentioned these threatened boycots serve no purpose and will solve nothing. With all of the publicity even if AZ. and L.A. solve their problems people have already chosen sides and I fear the tit for tat will not cease. Maybe if Eric Holder and Miss Nonothing about homeland security actually read the freakin ten pages before going on CNN and spouting off, this would not be the issue it is. This law is not new, it will just be enforced from now on!




[edit on 19-5-2010 by JMech]



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   

I'd call people racists and bigots for implementing and supporting laws that criminalise everyone based on their appearance and not on their actions.


So how is feeling that "illegally being in the country, et al." a race instead of an action?

RC



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


Exactly what is racist about a law that states, in unequivocal terms, that a law enforcement officer, in the execution of his duties, is required to verify the legal status of a given suspect, where reasonable suspicion exists, only after the commission of a separate infraction?

Fundamentally, that's what I fail to understand coming from people that call this law racist... in essence, if a cop pulls someone over for say, speeding... and that person for example has no drivers license or i.d. of any kind, or is acting shifty and speaks no English, he can then attempt to verify the legal status of that person. How on God's green Earth is that racist? Or in any way unconstitutional?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people".


**Theodore Roosevelt 1907



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Digital_Reality
This is bad times boys and girls. States fighting against each other is going to tear us apart for sure.
We need to find some way to stay united. We need to work together for a solution and not find ways to hurt each other. This is hurting the entire USA.


I am still laughing at Obama supporters. wasn't he supposed to be the uniter and not the divider?

This is going to spread like a disease if a cure ain't found.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


There were two illegal aliens arrested today in my area. Perfect example of racial profiling. Both were from Sweden.



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
reply to post by WTFover
 


There were two illegal aliens arrested today in my area. Perfect example of racial profiling. Both were from Sweden.


Let me guess, some cop just saw them sitting around, minding their own business, eating those meatballs...

Or, maybe probable cause was developed and an investigation revealed their illegal status. Kinda like the Arizona law requires, huh?



posted on May, 19 2010 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


you live up to your screen name...


..Our President has failed to uphold the laws set out by Congress and states are not allowed to enforce the federal laws. Immigration and Customs Enforcement lack funding and staff to handle the current situation. We have judges and district attorneys that are more dedicated to sentencing ICE agents then to enforcing our immigration laws.

This issue is no longer one which we can sit idly by and hope for a solution. We have solutions. First, we need to secure our borders. Second, we need to remove all financial incentives for illegal immigrants. And third, we need to demonstrate the clear and responsible pathway to legal immigration.


Phil Libertore



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   
1. If a cop pulls someone in a motor vehicle over, he/she is going to ask for a driver's license and/or proof of insurance right? If the individual was pulled over for a moving violation, equipment violation, expired tabs, suspect vehicle description, wanted plates, etc.. regardless of ethnicity they have to prove who they are right? If vehicle is or is suspect of being involved in a crime, all vehicle occupants would have to prove ID right? This is no different now with the new law then it was before.
2. If a cop questions or arrests someone not in a motor vehicle and the reason is because of a criminal act, suspicion of a criminal act, matching the description of a suspect, etc.. the above still applies. The individual has to prove who they are right? Photo ID and all that? Not any different than before.
3. A cop detains or pulls someone over because he/she thinks the individual might be an illegal is a scenario that will just not happen. Everyone knows this. Cops don't have time for that bs.
4. This law is not much more than a token gesture to the concerned voters. Why do lawmakers do such things? For re-election.
5. The people who are outraged with this law are either illegals, friends/family of illegals, or liberals who will fight against anything. Why would anyone else object?

Advice to illegals, don't commit any crimes, don't operate a motor vehicle in the US, then you don't have to sweat it, back to the SSDD. Oh, and make a note to apply for lawful citizenship one of these days and we'll welcome you as countrymen/women.

I apologize to any and all US Citizens who have already or could be in the future asked to prove your citizenship when you are confronted by law enforcement and if you have not committed a crime. Please possibly consider it a patriotic duty? It would sure help matters if those who could possibly be affected "unjustly" by appearance to find it in their hearts to openly voice approval of lawful immigration and border security in this volitile environment.

A novel idea would be to require of EVERYONE, regardless of appearance, to produce the same required documentation. State law could require that all citizens and lawful aliens carry proper identification at all reasonable times?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
I posted this in another similar thread and got mo response.....but gave no solid evidence niether...so...I offer some local info. if some one cares to look into it.

I lived in Las Vegas a solid 10 years and Nevada, "by word of mouth of my neighbor that worked for the state of Nevada at the Hoover Dam"
claimed that NV makes 85%+ of LA and souther CA's power, and could supply much more but the northerners...Utah and Wyoming buy a big chunk.
So my theory is that the threat by AZ. a good election tactic/or whatever it is, IMO has little or no real reason for LA to back down AZ power is not needed, as long as Nevada stays outa this....but hey its just good ole boys that talked about work over beers and the grill on the weekend, maybe he was just tellig me make believe stories...

I'm not out to debate this, just tossing the info. out there, I have not seen it meantioned by anyone or considered...I'm prolly wrong..

Peace and best of luck to all....I'm not touching the reasoning for the posturing....
TY for readin Doc...



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Doc Holiday
 


This whole thing could probably be boiled down to politcal posturing; idle threats with a side of publicity.

sidenote: Val's Doc is one of the best movie characters. He made that movie legit. My favorite line:
Doc: [After seeing Wyatt knock Swilling down with one blow] It appears he missed an excellent chance to keep his mouth shut.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


DUI, driving without a license, no insurance for starters. They had attended a local university and after graduation, they just stayed instead of returning home as was required by their visas.


I have no sympathy for the "stop and show your papers, without cause" routine. I have access to a machine shop on Friday nights and am usually working until early Saturday morning. 3 out of 5 times I get stopped at a DUI checkpoint and am asked "for my papers". Our Supreme Court has ruled that the "public has a vested interest" in these stops. Well I happen to believe that the "public has a vested interest" in the illegal alien situation. When DUI checkpoints are rules illegal, then maybe I'll have some concern about potential illegals being asked to "show their papers".



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


When you were asked for these "papers" after you left work, were they for verifying your residential status or to verify DMV/Insurance status?

I doubt the police in Pittsburgh are verifying Legal status during stops and Arizona Law's haven't even gone into effect yet. If you are pissed that you have to show your ID and Insurance Card during a Traffic Stop, I would kindly suggest other modes of transportation that do not require those things.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by prionace glauca
I doubt the police in Pittsburgh are verifying Legal status during stops and Arizona Law's haven't even gone into effect yet. If you are pissed that you have to show your ID and Insurance Card during a Traffic Stop, I would kindly suggest other modes of transportation that do not require those things.


Let me explain a few things to you. DUI checkpoints are a violation of the Constitution. Plain and simple. You are being profiled because you are driving at a certain time of day. There is no probable cause involved. I have been required to produce identification even though I was a PASSENGER in the vehicle. Here's a real curveball for you. Arizona doesn't need a law to do what their law specifies. If you are stopped or detained for cause, you are required to identify yourself. If you don't have proper documentation, that IS probable cause to check your immigration status.





new topics
top topics
 
46
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join