- This topic has 473 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 16, 2010 at 9:03 AM #606382September 16, 2010 at 10:23 AM #605368
meadandale
Participant[quote=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.)[/quote]
According to Godwin’s Law…you fail.
September 16, 2010 at 10:23 AM #605455Participant[quote=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.)[/quote]
According to Godwin’s Law…you fail.
September 16, 2010 at 10:23 AM #606007Participant[quote=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.)[/quote]
According to Godwin’s Law…you fail.
September 16, 2010 at 10:23 AM #606114Participant[quote=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.)[/quote]
According to Godwin’s Law…you fail.
September 16, 2010 at 10:23 AM #606432Participant[quote=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.)[/quote]
According to Godwin’s Law…you fail.
September 16, 2010 at 11:42 AM #605443Diego Mamani
ParticipantGeez… even if it’s only a parenthetical remark?
LOLSeptember 16, 2010 at 11:42 AM #605530ParticipantGeez… even if it’s only a parenthetical remark?
LOLSeptember 16, 2010 at 11:42 AM #606082ParticipantGeez… even if it’s only a parenthetical remark?
LOLSeptember 16, 2010 at 11:42 AM #606189ParticipantGeez… even if it’s only a parenthetical remark?
LOLSeptember 16, 2010 at 11:42 AM #606507ParticipantGeez… even if it’s only a parenthetical remark?
LOLSeptember 16, 2010 at 1:18 PM #605493Eugene
Participant[quote=Diego Mamani]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.)[/quote]
We’ll have to see what the Supreme Court has to say. IIRC, the law was not blocked on the basis of being unconstitutional. It was blocked on the basis of imposing an undue burden on federal authorities, who’d have to spend more time and money responding to queries from cops in Arizona conducting traffic stops. An argument which does not really hold water IMHO.
September 16, 2010 at 1:18 PM #605580Participant[quote=Diego Mamani]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.)[/quote]
We’ll have to see what the Supreme Court has to say. IIRC, the law was not blocked on the basis of being unconstitutional. It was blocked on the basis of imposing an undue burden on federal authorities, who’d have to spend more time and money responding to queries from cops in Arizona conducting traffic stops. An argument which does not really hold water IMHO.
September 16, 2010 at 1:18 PM #606132Participant[quote=Diego Mamani]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.)[/quote]
We’ll have to see what the Supreme Court has to say. IIRC, the law was not blocked on the basis of being unconstitutional. It was blocked on the basis of imposing an undue burden on federal authorities, who’d have to spend more time and money responding to queries from cops in Arizona conducting traffic stops. An argument which does not really hold water IMHO.
September 16, 2010 at 1:18 PM #606239Participant[quote=Diego Mamani]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.)[/quote]
We’ll have to see what the Supreme Court has to say. IIRC, the law was not blocked on the basis of being unconstitutional. It was blocked on the basis of imposing an undue burden on federal authorities, who’d have to spend more time and money responding to queries from cops in Arizona conducting traffic stops. An argument which does not really hold water IMHO.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.