Clinton says Ariz. to be sued over immigration law, but Justice Dept. won

reply to post by LDragonFire

I was hoping that this thread would be a serious discussion of immigration and the deterioration that is ravaging our southern border states. But you poison the well from the start with accusations of racism my friend. There is plenty of racism to go around on all sides. As long as race is an issue in these matters, everybody will suffer.

Absolutely not, give it back to Native Americans of witch Im one, and so are these Mexican illegals yall keep blabbering about....We were here first we should be able to move around this continent if we wish. Or at least get the same option your ancestors got...

Mexicans are descended from Native Americans and Europeans(Spanish). According to your logic, maybe we should give it back to the Spanish......
Just saying.

If your neighbors knocked on your door you would let them in wouldn't you?

I will always invite my good Latino neighbors into my house when they knock on the door, as I have judged their character and have found it to be outstanding. But I will never let my crackhead neighbors into my house.

The federal government makes these people illegal so the corporations can take advantage of them, this has been going on against Native Americans since Columbus showed up.....

People make themselves illegal when they sneak into another country.

I so long for the day this country gets Sioux-ed!!!

Once again, you can accomplish nothing by bringing race into the debate. I mean, how would it make you feel if I were to say something like.........
Indians are living proof that Mexicans ...k buffalo?......You see, it does nothing to further the debate.

We are a nation of laws, and those laws must be upheld. No one is above the law. We are all equally bound by it. And to disregard it would be inviting anarchy to establish a grip, as it is now doing along our southern border.


[edit on 18-6-2010 by MY2Commoncentsworth]

reply to post by LDragonFire


You keep whining that you believe the AZ law is unconstitutional, but you havent stated on what grounds. Why havent you? You dont really know do you?

Incidentally, since you want to bring up the Constitution, you do know the federal government has a constitutional obligation to defend this nations borders dont you?

Ever actually read the Constitution, or do you just pick up the usual talking points from others who have their head planted firmly up their ass?

[edit on 18-6-2010 by brainwrek]

The State of Arizona should sue the Federal government over the immigration law, simply because some illegal ALIENS are criminals. We do NOT want anymore CRIMINALS than what the jail system could handle.

I give up.

Im just as guilty of racism as this law I'm arguing against. It sure is easy to be racist, I would assume its similar to greed or any other ill of today's society. It was not my attempt to be racist, but there it is in black in white. In my opinion we are headed down a slippery slope, and being one person I can't take the burden of arguing this on my own...... I really wish to enjoy my time here on ats, perhaps a lurker is the way to go.

We will see how this will be ruled on and just like California's Proposition 187 it will be determined within the courts.

So think of me as a disinfo agent, or a whiner or a cry baby or dumb, but my heart was in the right place.

Im against any law that targets minorities and I feel this law does that, please excuse me for not being smart enough or for not being a attorney and for not being able to show the parts of the law that I feel is unconstitutional or even racist, that's up to the attorneys on both sides to argue this case before the court.

I was asked whether I would choose a Canadian or a Mexican doctor? I was told that Canadian professionals can come up to the border and inter in less than a hour, but Latinos can't or Latino farm workers can't.

My interpretation of this law is if law enforcement sees any Latino walking down the street it is there duty to check there papers.

My apologies for my racist remarks, and from this day forward I will not post on this issue here on ats.

good day and good luck

reply to post by LDragonFire


Have you even read the law?

From your posts, it seems you havent even come close to reading it.

reply to post by LDragonFire


Don't give up!
(second line).

I have read the bill myself, and here it is so you can as well.

www.azleg.gov...


From my point of view I see the federal government winning. We need to unite and stop these states from thinking they have so much power. Bottom line this is a federal issue not state. I would say that the feds will when this one. Don't listen to all the anti-obama propaganda and read the bill yourself and make your own CHOICE.

Thanks!

reply to post by Y2Zgt


I have not only read the bill, (and I did so because of my own fears it was a law that would trespass on the rights of individuals), I have also read the Arizona Constitution that undeniably prohibits government from abrogating and derogating the rights of an individual. Having read both the bill and the Arizona Constitution, it is my firm belief that the State of Arizona has done nothing wrong, and certainly nothing illegal.

The 10th Amendment makes perfectly clear that states rights do exist, and while it is correct that the federal government has been tasked with protecting this nations borders, Arizona is just one state of many that has suffered the consequences of trusting the incompetency of the federal government. Please don't bring Obama into this, as that man has only been President for about a year and half now, and the immigration problem goes back much further than that. Obama has nothing to do with this other than he is the current President, and if he wants to blatantly ignore the 10th Amendment in favor of an out of control government than that is on him.

The State of Arizona has a right to protect their own sovereignty. They have not seceded from the Union, and their bill mirrors the federal law regarding immigration. If this nation falls into civil war again, it will not be because of rogue states but because of a rogue federal government that has endeavored to erode the rights of not just the states, but the people. We the People do not need to support government, the government was created by We the People to support us, and our inalienable rights. No immigrants inalienable rights have been ignored in regards to this law of Arizona's, and if a particular LEO steps out side the bounds of their jurisdiction, that immigrant is protected by both a federal and state Constitution that demands that immigrant be given full respect of his or her rights.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I applaud you for debating with respect and actually pointing out facts. But with the topic of the thread if the feds sue Arizona, how do you think will be the winner? Not who do you want to when but who do you think will??

reply to post by Y2Zgt


If this battle is fought civilly and in the courts where it belongs, the State of Arizona will more than likely win. The State of Arizona has not just the 10th Amendment as legal authority, they have their own constitution, and a federal Constitution that guaranteed them a republican form of government, which means they have the right and sovereignty to protect their own borders as they see fit, and given that this bill does not in anyway circumvent federal law, there is no way the federal government has a case. Further, if it is the federal government suing Arizona then burden of proof lies with them, and if you choose to defend their stance then burden of proof lies with you. Don't tell me who you think should win, give a legal reason as to how they can win.

Let me get this straight Clinton goes to Peru a Spanish speaking nation

to break the news about Arizona to be sued over their immigration

Law based on the immigration laws already on the books of the United States Of America.

Hillary does not even announce her intentions in her own country and

maybe she thinks she gets Brownie Points for making this

announcement in South America. Way to go Hillary degrade Arizona

when you are part of an Administration of the United States Of America

that will not uphold the immigration laws on the books already. What if

each individual 50 states files law suits against the U.S. government for not

honoring and upholding the immigration laws already on the Books?

huh! ^Y^

[edit on 18-6-2010 by amari]

Incredible why is the US defending so much mexicans on this issue.

Is it because arizona's bill interferes with the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, a treaty which was heavily mandated by the US, but still includes some tidbits like this: There shall be firm and universal peace between the United States of America and the Mexican Republic, and between their respective countries, territories, cities, towns, and people, without exception of places or persons. www.mexica.net...

That part is pretty ambiguous and can be interpreted to mean many things however it may explain why a Chinese national or European national has to definately have legal papers on everything while a mexican doesnt.

I'm just throwing this out here because it does puzzle me why the Obama admin, is willing to go the distance with a lawsuit on this issue, but to be quite honest I do support the Arizona's bill if it's going to bring security and more peace to the state, while I also support president Obama all the way as well, so that's why I'm puzzled as to why he is doing this.

Could it be this treaty have to do with anything on this issue, or does the Obama Admin is interfering because they have a different agenda on this?

[edit on 18-6-2010 by bartholomeo]

All anyone has to say is Clinton Waco
Was that racist or just separation of
Church and Government threw Fire?

Here's hoping Arizona really sticks it to the federal government.

I would like to think most of my fellow South Carolinians are pulling for yall. At this point, it's almost more about states' rights than the actual law, though I know the law is important to yall. I have decided that I won't argue the law because I DON'T LIVE THERE and I have no experiences there. But I support the local government's right to the law, period.

reply to post by TheFinalTruth14


States rights is actual law, as in the Supreme Law of the Land. Every state has been guaranteed a republican form of government by Constitution, and the 10th Amendment makes perfectly clear that states have rights. That is the law.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux



I think you might have misunderstood my point a little. I don't think the actual immigration law itself is as important as the State Vs. Federal government battle we are about to see.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by TheFinalTruth14

 

That is the law.

This matter has been before the courts of the NWO for some indeterminate amount of time,almost a lifetime. Nothing has changed. Nothing will change.
YOU WILL CHANGE.
YOU ARE CHANGING.
YOU ARE TRANSMOGRIFIED.

You are expected to convict yourself of the unnamed crime and then execute yourself,Like a dog.
The Trial,Kafka.
Plot summary

(As the novel was never completed, certain inconsistencies exist within the novel, such as disparities in timing in addition to other flaws in narration.)

On his thirtieth birthday, a senior bank clerk, Josef K., who lives in lodgings, is unexpectedly arrested by two unidentified agents for an unspecified crime. The agents do not name the authority for which they are acting. He is not taken away, however, but left at home to await instructions from the Committee of Affairs.

K. goes to visit the magistrate, but instead is forced to have a meeting with an attendant's wife. Looking at the Magistrate's books, he discovers a cache of pornography.

K. returns home to find Fräulein Montag, a lodger from another room, moving in with Fräulein Bürstner. He suspects that this is to prevent him from pursuing his affair with the latter woman. Yet another lodger, Captain Lanz, appears to be in league with Montag.

Later, in a store room at his own bank, K. discovers the two agents who arrested him being whipped by a flogger for asking K. for bribes, as a result of complaints K. previously made about them to the Magistrate. K. tries to argue with the flogger, saying that the men need not be whipped, but the flogger cannot be swayed. The next day he returns to the store room and is shocked to find everything as he had found it the day before, including the Whipper and the two agents.

K. is visited by his uncle, who is a friend of a lawyer. The lawyer was with the Clerk of the Court. The uncle seems distressed by K.'s predicament. At first sympathetic, he becomes concerned K. is underestimating the seriousness of the case. The uncle introduces K. to an advocate, who is attended by Leni, a nurse, who K.'s uncle suspects is the advocate's mistress. K. has a sexual encounter with Leni, whilst his uncle is talking with the Advocate and the Chief Clerk of the Court, much to his uncle's anger, and to the detriment of his case.

K. visits the advocate and finds him to be a capricious and unhelpful character. K. returns to his bank but finds that his colleagues are trying to undermine him.

K. is advised by one of his bank clients to visit Titorelli, a court painter, for advice. Titorelli has no official connections, yet seems to have a deep understanding of the process. K. learns that, to Titorelli's knowledge, not a single defendant has ever been acquitted. He sets out what K.'s options are, but the consequences of all of them are unpleasant: they consist of different delay tactics to stretch out his case as long as possible before the inevitable "Guilty" verdict. Titorelli instructs K. that there's not much he can do since he doesn't know of what crime he has been accused.

K. decides to take control of his own life and visits his advocate with the intention of dismissing him. At the advocate's office he meets a downtrodden individual, Block, a client who offers K. some insight from a client's perspective. Block's case has continued for five years and he appears to have been virtually enslaved by his dependence on the advocate's meaningless and circular advice. The advocate mocks Block in front of K. for his dog-like subservience. This experience further poisons K.'s opinion of his advocate, and K is bemused as to why his advocate would think that seeing such a client, in such a state, could change his mind. (This chapter was left unfinished by the author.)

K. is asked to tour an Italian client around local places of cultural interest, but the Italian client short of time asks K. to tour him around only the cathedral, setting a time to meet there. When the client doesn't show up, K. explores the cathedral which is empty except for an old woman and a church official. K. decides to leave as a priest K. notices seems to be preparing to give a sermon from a small second pulpit, lest it begin and K. be compelled to stay for its entirety. Instead of giving a sermon, the priest calls out K.'s name, although K. has never known the priest. The priest works for the court, and tells K. a fable, (which has been published separately as Before the Law) that is meant to explain his situation, but instead causes confusion, and implies that K.'s fate is hopeless. Before the Law begins as a parable, then continues with several pages of interpretation between the Priest and K. The gravity of the priest's words prepares the reader for an unpleasant ending.


On the last day of K.'s thirtieth year, two men arrive to execute him. He offers little resistance, suggesting that he has realised this as being inevitable for some time. They lead him to a quarry where he is expected to kill himself, but he cannot. The two men then execute him. His last words describe his own death: "Like a dog!"



[edit on 18-6-2010 by RRokkyy]

reply to post by TheFinalTruth14


I understood your point, and mine wasn't to take you task, merely to clarify that states rights is law. That is an important fact of law that need be clarified in this thread, and your wording, albeit in support of Arizona's law, read as if states rights was not rooted in law. I felt compelled to clarify that states rights is rooted in law.

reply to post by RRokkyy


I have read more than just The Trial by Kafka, and it is always the same with that guy. Whether it be The Metamorphoses, or the simple fable he tells about a rat in a maze, the outcome is always the same, which is a pointless life that culminates in death. I admire Kafka's brevity and style of simplicity, but do not at all admire his message of futility, any more than I admire your message of futility. If you wish to be nothing more than a cockroach, a rat, or a dog, that is your choice.

Kafka died just about a decade after another writer who believed that life was absurd and futile was born, and that writer was Albert Camus. Camus' first philosophical writing was The Myth of Sisyphus, (a Greek figure of whom Kafka often wrote about as well), of which he attempted to use the parallel of Sisyphus to the futility of man's existence. However, what Camus failed to realize is that the Myth of Sisyphus had not survived since time immemorial because Sisyphus engaged in a futile effort. On the contrary, Sisyphus' myth survives because of how he inspired humanity.

Sisyphus was punished for tricking the gods, and his punishment was to push a rock up a mountain, only to find that once at the top of the mountain it would roll back down and Sisyphus would have to begin the task all over again. However, regardless of how hard existentialists of the 20th century attempted to interpret his task as one of futility, such futility can not in any way explain how such a myth would survive since time immemorial. Myths survive because of universal truths that touch humanity's soul and inspire their imaginations, and the futility of humanity is hardly one of those universal truths.

Sisyphus continued to trick the gods, even after his punishment, in that he committed fully to the task at hand and would even race the rock down the mountain to beat it to the bottom, and then with all his heart and might push it back up the mountain as quickly and efficiently as he could. Long before the existential poets, who wallowed in self pity, took on the subject of Sisyphus, the great poet Ovid took him on, and in his writings, in order to illustrate how moving Orpheus' song sung for Hades was, by telling us how even Sisyphus took a moment to break from his task to sit on his rock and listen to Orpheus' song. This literary technique would have no meaning at all if Sisyphus weren't so committed to his task.

That commitment was the undoing of the gods, and where the gods had hoped to warn humanity of the consequences of disobeying gods, Sisyphus showed humanity that they always had a choice, and in that choice, even Camus had to agree, that it is in the struggle that we find our happiness. Surrender is not struggle. If you wish to surrender, do so, but don't think for a second that humanity will admire you for such cowardice. No myths will be told about Rrokkyy if Rrokkyy's purpose in life was to surrender.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Didn't take any offense to your reply. I was kinda just wanting to clarify that I wasn't stating or thinking different.

No biggie, just worded it differently. Thankfully we're on the same side.