Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mexican President Gets Standing Ovation In Congress After Condemning Arizona Immigration Law

page: 2
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 20 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
REMOVE ALL THESE OLD FARTS FROM CONGRESS! THEY DO NOT RIGHTFULLY REPRESENT YOU! THEY HAVE NEVER MET YOU, THEY DO NOT WORK IN YOUR BEST INTEREST!

Sorry for the caps, the usual apology, but its the truth, its common sense.




posted on May, 20 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Legion2112
 


First off let me apologize for taking so long to respond, I did not know you responded to my post until a few minutes ago.


Specifies that it is a class 1 misdemeanor for an occupant of a motor vehicle that is stopped on a street, roadway, or highway to attempt to hire or hire and pick up passengers for work at a different location, if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.


It is not directly racist in its text format. But using common sense to understand that including this in an immigration reform bill is aimed at people who search for work on street corners and in front of certain businesses.

Weak argument


Authorizes a peace officer to arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S.


I wonder how many professional lawyers they hired to make sure it does not sound racist? Anyways... What qualifies as probable cause to believe someone has commited a public offense? They could just say, "hey he's a Mexican, I don't like Mexicans" and under these narrow guidelines he could arrest a person upon suspicion without a warrant or even knowing anything happened. Such as just walking down the street and looking like you belong to a gang.

Moderate argument


Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.


Lawful contact? So in any situation where there is no infringement upon the law is occuring a police officer is permitted to stop a person and ask to see their papers. I wonder what reasonable suspicion would be then, it could be anything under the rainbow.

Strong argument

www.azleg.gov.../legtext/49leg/2r/summary/h.sb1070_04-19-10_astransmittedtogovernor.doc.htm



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by thehumbleone
 



Does it bother you when you see people with superior attitudes make derogatory prejudiced remarks about an entire population of people?

Yeah, me too.





posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Vitchilo

When 80% of the american people supports the Arizona anti-ILLEGAL immigration law...


80% Really? Do you have a source on that?

Still if 99% of the country support killing all the black people, that doesn't mean it's a good thing.


I'm surprised you didn't use the expression ''white devils''


Also, why couldn't you come up with an analogy like ''if 99% of blacks supported killing whites..?''

..liberals.. always pushing white guilt down the throats of bystanders.. gotta love'em

[edit on 21-5-2010 by The Cap de Pepene]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   
When will we wake up and realize that Calderon and the rest of Mexico is laughing at us???

www.youtube.com... e



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   
We have people complaining about the census and how much of a threat it is to privacy, and then we have these same people going on about how there is absolutely no problem for law enforcement to have authority to come to your house, or to you on the street, and demand your papers. Both appear to contradict one another, both arguments typically from the same people. The only real difference is that one is at a state level, the other is at a Federal level, one will largely affect a certain racial group, the other spans all ethnic groups.

Interesting when you look at the similarities, then the differences between these two arguments right?

The Mexican president got a standing ovation and to be frank I could not give a damn, This law is complete waste, passed conveniently during the 2010 elections (just in time you know?). It targets potentially every day american citizens, 'papers please' when you are taking your kids to the park. You cannot move freely in this country without potentially being harassed by law enforcement simply because 'look' out of place. Yet this is somehow going to solve the illegal immigration problem right? And while the big businesses continue to hire these illegals and continue to save millions, the law certainly will not be focusing on them. No, nope, these same politicians behind the bill will not give law enforcement that same authority to just waltz in and demand papers and information from these businesses, neither will there be a crackdown. After all, these businesses lobby and pay half the salaries of these politicians, so why not distract the population by targeting the brownies themselves right? Its a win win situation for the these politican opportunists. Act as if you give a damn about the issue, and at the same time cover up for your business buddies. Its perfect.

I keep on hearing this argument that the bill will not allow racial profiling, or that it does not mention racial profiling. Its like passing a law that will give registered sex offenders the right to be in contact with children. I mean we can certainly argue that the law specifically states that these sex offenders cannot assualt these children, but who is to say that will not happen? As I said, this law is a joke, and so long as the businesses continue to hire these illegals, and so long as the same politicians behind this bill continue to point fingers somewhere else, the problem will persist. Conservatives want to focus on the brown man, when the issue goes beyond just that. It's just so much more easier to score votes when you make out a scapegoat... which preferbly comes in the form of a person. In this case an hispanic man waving the Mexican flag.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
We have people complaining about the census and how much of a threat it is to privacy, and then we have these same people going on about how there is absolutely no problem for law enforcement to have authority to come to your house, or to you on the street, and demand your papers. Both appear to contradict one another, both arguments typically from the same people. The only real difference is that one is at a state level, the other is at a Federal level, one will largely affect a certain racial group, the other spans all ethnic groups.

Interesting when you look at the similarities, then the differences between these two arguments right?

The Mexican president got a standing ovation and to be frank I could not give a damn, This law is complete waste, passed conveniently during the 2010 elections (just in time you know?). It targets potentially every day american citizens, 'papers please' when you are taking your kids to the park. You cannot move freely in this country without potentially being harassed by law enforcement simply because 'look' out of place. Yet this is somehow going to solve the illegal immigration problem right? And while the big businesses continue to hire these illegals and continue to save millions, the law certainly will not be focusing on them. No, nope, these same politicians behind the bill will not give law enforcement that same authority to just waltz in and demand papers and information from these businesses, neither will there be a crackdown. After all, these businesses lobby and pay half the salaries of these politicians, so why not distract the population by targeting the brownies themselves right? Its a win win situation for the these politican opportunists. Act as if you give a damn about the issue, and at the same time cover up for your business buddies. Its perfect.

I keep on hearing this argument that the bill will not allow racial profiling, or that it does not mention racial profiling. Its like passing a law that will give registered sex offenders the right to be in contact with children. I mean we can certainly argue that the law specifically states that these sex offenders cannot assualt these children, but who is to say that will not happen? As I said, this law is a joke, and so long as the businesses continue to hire these illegals, and so long as the same politicians behind this bill continue to point fingers somewhere else, the problem will persist. Conservatives want to focus on the brown man, when the issue goes beyond just that. It's just so much more easier to score votes when you make out a scapegoat... which preferbly comes in the form of a person. In this case an hispanic man waving the Mexican flag.



Read the law online and cut and paste where it says they can do those things.. Please show me.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by ker2010]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Of course the president of mexico is not going to support this bill. My god, if mexicans in the USA start to lose work and there will be less money being sent back to the familys in mexico, which will lower there GDP because no one has any money to spend! Also, should the bill in that state be successful, it paves the way for other states to follow suit, and then what? US-mexicans get returned over the boarder, increasing the strain on mexico's resources, until the country can no longer handle it and then crime hits the roof while people starve to death and a small % of the mexican population continue to live in luxury.
Maybe they will deport all the illegals back to mexico and then big multinational companies will move their bussiness from america to mexico and then we may witness reverse migration!

The irony of it all, obviously we are at the mercy of capitalism. This is indeed all about money is it not?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   
calderon is just upset because he wants the cartel members to stay in the US since he cant deal with them.

And I dont see what the big deal on the AZ law is, because if you get pulled over a cop asks you for your ID (license), if you dont have it you can get arrested. same situation basically except they can send the illegals to get deported.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


This is the funniest post I've read all day.... you obviously have no concept of what the Senate is about... you do know that it's not supposed to reflect public opinion right? That's the job of the House of Representatives.... the Senate is a much different animal....

Here is your American History Lesson for today....


House member are elected directly by voters in districts drawn by their State governments. Each district would contain approximately 30,000 people. These districts would be redrawn every 10 years after the census to reflect population shifts. After the 1920 census, the size of the House was capped at 435. So now, instead of the number of House members growing every 10 years, the population size of each district grows. Senators, on the other hand, were chosen by their state legislatures. This would be changed by the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913. Now, the people of each state directly elect their Senators.


Different Responsibilities of the House and Senate

There are also some differences in the responsibilities given to each body. Revenue bills, or any bills that deal with raising money for the federal government, must be first introduced in the House before they can go to the Senate. And, only the Senate approves treaties and presidential appointments. In addition, for impeachment, the House brings the charges of impeachment and the impeachment trial takes place in the Senate. The Senate serves as the jury, deciding whether the accused is found guilty or not guilty of the charges. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial.

The Founder’s Expectations for the House Versus the Senate

Taken together, these differences show us that our nation’s founders expected the Senate to be wiser, nobler, and more detached from the people. The House, on the other hand, was expected to be more in touch with the people. The House would respond well to the desires of the people, but also be more impulsive. The Senate would be slow to change to public opinion, but also prevent more radical shifts in public policy.




WHy isn't American history required for political debates?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


Good point of reference. But, I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.

Calderon spoke to a Joint Session of congress in The House and the standing ovation was despicable. The only thing missing was a noise maker from Pelosi a Pinata drop from the ceiling and a pitcher of Margaritas for the gang.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   
We are surrounded by enemies looking to cut our throats and people think we should vote them out? I think we need to contemplate the magnitude of what is actually happening here. Did the spartans try to vote out Xerxes?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ker2010
Read the law online and cut and paste where it says they can do those things.. Please show me.


You know full well what part of the law I am refering to. The part of the law which grants police officers the right to demand papers from individuals anywhere with reasonable suspicion. The police officers do not need to prove guilt to demand papers from an individual so a police officer can pick out individuals based on their race and demand they present papers. It does not matter if the law prohibits racial profiling, it does not make a difference that the governor claims that nobody will be racially profiled, individual police officers can still abuse the law without admitting to anything.

You continue to deny and tell us all here there will be no racial profiling, but you know damn well that there is nothing preventing a police officer from doing so secretly. They do not need to be accountable as to why.

As to the other parts of the bill, it is completely useless. Other parts of the bill where it is illegal to transport illegal immigrants, where it is illegal to hire them for work, these are all laws already well in place for years. This law just rewrites other laws already in place to cover up for the power it has just given law enforcement. It does not enforce the other laws any further, any differently, aside from the fact of give police officers the power to harass individuals on a daily basis based on no warrant, proof or real explanation.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
Good for those guys in Congress who stood up and applauded
99% of the people have not read the bill, I have and it is not good. It's not illegal, but it is still terrible. It should be condemned for racism and the American people educated about it.

Finally Congress does something good.


Name it then. State EXACTLY what in the Bill (with it's amended language and draft amended HB 2162 addition....what is "RACIST" about it.

Here are the copies of the legislation and draft legislation.

SB 1070 and HB 2162....

Read it and tell us EXACTLY what is racist, disgusting or "wrong" about it.

I'll be waiting.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


Good point of reference. But, I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.

Calderon spoke to a Joint Session of congress in The House and the standing ovation was despicable. The only thing missing was a noise maker from Pelosi a Pinata drop from the ceiling and a pitcher of Margaritas for the gang.



Ahh.. I was responding to the OP referring to Senators...


My bad... I still don't see what's the big deal.... its a controversial law here in the US... many in congress support it.... many do not.... And those who sided with Calderons views expressed their sympathy for some of his points...

Isn't that what free speech is all about? Maybe I missed something, but when did we start hating on others for political views? We should disagree on views not be upset that another person has different views than us.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


Good point of reference. But, I'm not quite sure what you are referring to.

Calderon spoke to a Joint Session of congress in The House and the standing ovation was despicable. The only thing missing was a noise maker from Pelosi a Pinata drop from the ceiling and a pitcher of Margaritas for the gang.



Ahh.. I was responding to the OP referring to Senators...


My bad... I still don't see what's the big deal.... its a controversial law here in the US... many in congress support it.... many do not.... And those who sided with Calderons views expressed their sympathy for some of his points...

Isn't that what free speech is all about? Maybe I missed something, but when did we start hating on others for political views? We should disagree on views not be upset that another person has different views than us.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


No sweat.

I'm all for free speech but should this apply so liberally to Calderon? He commented from the WH lawn and then in this address to congress. Not to mention all of his previous comments prior to his royal treatment.

Calderon so blatantly ignores the aggressive immigration laws in his own country and yet chooses to attack Arizona's enforcement of the federal law and sadly gets a standing O from the very people who have done nothing to enforce the laws on our books.

It does not compute with me. Our president rolled out the red carpet for this man and all he does is criticize with the full support of Obama and the Dems in congress.

This just smells like a huge set up for the 2010 and 2012 elections. Gotta get that hispanic vote at all costs.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by thehumbleone
 


Really? you are quite the racist yourself. You just stereotyped every person in the south as being stupid. What is your IQ?

There were some racist cops before this bill was passed, and guess what, there will always be some racist cops, and racist postal workers, firefighters, healthcare workers, plumbers, cooks, computer programers and so on, and so on. The list is almost endless.
Just ask black people if they think they have been pulled over because of their race, oh and I bet the cops asked for their ID (papers).
I don't care as much about deporting people, as I do PROTECTING OUR BORDERS. We cannot allow people to jump the fence, so to speak, and invade our country illegally, and that goes for every single race on this planet. You cannot just hitch a ride on US citizen's back, while you plot to kill or harm us. It has to stop, before someone brings a freakin' nuke across and kills us all, even us stupid people in the south.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by sickofitall2012]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by The Cap de Pepene
 


So, you don't have a source on that statistic, huh? That's what I thought.

In FACT, it's not 80% at all. It's more like 55%.



A new Rasmussen poll shows 55 percent of U.S. voters support the idea of allowing police to stop and check the status of suspected illegal immigrants.


Source

Still, we don't live in a 'majority rules' country. Minorities' rights are protected, NO MATTER what percentage of the people don't like it.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Not quite BH, look at the wording.


A new Rasmussen poll shows 55 percent of U.S. voters support the idea of allowing police to stop and check the status of suspected illegal immigrants. One out of three in the 1,000 person national survey oppose that notion.


Nearly 70% support what the Arizona law actually allows.

Another 69 percent support the idea of requiring police to check identification and immigration papers when writing traffic tickets if they suspect the person is in the U.S. illegally. Twenty-three percent oppose that concept.


Source

[edit on 5/21/2010 by eNumbra]





new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join