OT – Illegal’s, Arizona, and Obama…

[Huckleberry]

Sad what our gov’t has come to…

[poorgradstudent]

I hate feeding trolls, but I’m just going to say that the federal suit is not siding with illegals or Mexico… it’s actually to protect the rights of the millions of US Citizens of Latino origin.

It was a badly written, unconstitutional law. There are ways to do the same thing legally, such as with random, rolling interstate stops where you stop everyone for papers. But that probably wouldn’t be popular, since it burdens everyone, not just a minority.

[poorgradstudent]

I hate feeding trolls, but I’m just going to say that the federal suit is not siding with illegals or Mexico… it’s actually to protect the rights of the millions of US Citizens of Latino origin.

It was a badly written, unconstitutional law. There are ways to do the same thing legally, such as with random, rolling interstate stops where you stop everyone for papers. But that probably wouldn’t be popular, since it burdens everyone, not just a minority.

[poorgradstudent]

I hate feeding trolls, but I’m just going to say that the federal suit is not siding with illegals or Mexico… it’s actually to protect the rights of the millions of US Citizens of Latino origin.

It was a badly written, unconstitutional law. There are ways to do the same thing legally, such as with random, rolling interstate stops where you stop everyone for papers. But that probably wouldn’t be popular, since it burdens everyone, not just a minority.

[poorgradstudent]

I hate feeding trolls, but I’m just going to say that the federal suit is not siding with illegals or Mexico… it’s actually to protect the rights of the millions of US Citizens of Latino origin.

It was a badly written, unconstitutional law. There are ways to do the same thing legally, such as with random, rolling interstate stops where you stop everyone for papers. But that probably wouldn’t be popular, since it burdens everyone, not just a minority.

[poorgradstudent]

I hate feeding trolls, but I’m just going to say that the federal suit is not siding with illegals or Mexico… it’s actually to protect the rights of the millions of US Citizens of Latino origin.

It was a badly written, unconstitutional law. There are ways to do the same thing legally, such as with random, rolling interstate stops where you stop everyone for papers. But that probably wouldn’t be popular, since it burdens everyone, not just a minority.

[Dougie944]

What part of the law was unconstitutional? You say that as a blanket statement without supporting your claim by telling us the part that is unconstitutional according to you. It was written mirroring the federal law that is already in place for Border Patrol Agents. It even went a step further and elevated the suspicion levels needed for state and local law enforcement to act.

[Dougie944]

What part of the law was unconstitutional? You say that as a blanket statement without supporting your claim by telling us the part that is unconstitutional according to you. It was written mirroring the federal law that is already in place for Border Patrol Agents. It even went a step further and elevated the suspicion levels needed for state and local law enforcement to act.

[Dougie944]

What part of the law was unconstitutional? You say that as a blanket statement without supporting your claim by telling us the part that is unconstitutional according to you. It was written mirroring the federal law that is already in place for Border Patrol Agents. It even went a step further and elevated the suspicion levels needed for state and local law enforcement to act.

[Dougie944]

What part of the law was unconstitutional? You say that as a blanket statement without supporting your claim by telling us the part that is unconstitutional according to you. It was written mirroring the federal law that is already in place for Border Patrol Agents. It even went a step further and elevated the suspicion levels needed for state and local law enforcement to act.

[Dougie944]

What part of the law was unconstitutional? You say that as a blanket statement without supporting your claim by telling us the part that is unconstitutional according to you. It was written mirroring the federal law that is already in place for Border Patrol Agents. It even went a step further and elevated the suspicion levels needed for state and local law enforcement to act.

[Diego Mamani]

It certainly takes a tea party sympathizer, anti-immigrant type to misspell “illegals.” What country is the OP from?

According to the law of the land, only the Federal government has jurisdiction over immigration matters. The bigoted Arizona law may be popular with the majority now, but that doesn’t make it constitutional. (The National Socialist party in Germany was very popular with the majority in the 1930s, but they were still on the wrong side of history.)

[Diego Mamani]

It certainly takes a tea party sympathizer, anti-immigrant type to misspell “illegals.” What country is the OP from?

According to the law of the land, only the Federal government has jurisdiction over immigration matters. The bigoted Arizona law may be popular with the majority now, but that doesn’t make it constitutional. (The National Socialist party in Germany was very popular with the majority in the 1930s, but they were still on the wrong side of history.)

[Diego Mamani]

It certainly takes a tea party sympathizer, anti-immigrant type to misspell “illegals.” What country is the OP from?

According to the law of the land, only the Federal government has jurisdiction over immigration matters. The bigoted Arizona law may be popular with the majority now, but that doesn’t make it constitutional. (The National Socialist party in Germany was very popular with the majority in the 1930s, but they were still on the wrong side of history.)

[Diego Mamani]

It certainly takes a tea party sympathizer, anti-immigrant type to misspell “illegals.” What country is the OP from?

According to the law of the land, only the Federal government has jurisdiction over immigration matters. The bigoted Arizona law may be popular with the majority now, but that doesn’t make it constitutional. (The National Socialist party in Germany was very popular with the majority in the 1930s, but they were still on the wrong side of history.)

[Author]

Posts