It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Yeah, good luck with that. 20:1 skippy posts a barely related question instead of providing evidence or trying to make a sensible argument.
Are you really going to fucking argue this case? I'll ask again: are you really, REALLY going tofucking do this?Really?That's the same questiondemocrat governorsare asking the administration.No, Steve, that's not the fucking question. I am asking you whether or not you are actually going to sit in your chair and rally against a law which is patently unconstitutional and racist.Stop pussyfooting around, building strawmen, and answer my goddamn question.
Are you really going to fucking argue this case? I'll ask again: are you really, REALLY going tofucking do this?Really?That's the same questiondemocrat governorsare asking the administration.
Are you really going to fucking argue this case? I'll ask again: are you really, REALLY going tofucking do this?Really?
"patently unconstitutional and racist"
Main Entry: racÃ‚Â·ismPronunciation: \Ã‹ÂˆrÃ„Â-Ã‹ÂŒsi-zÃ‰Â™m also -Ã‹ÂŒshi-\Function: nounDate: 19331 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
I am asking you whether or not you are actually going to sit in your chair and rally against a law which is patently unconstitutional and racist.Stop pussyfooting around, building strawmen, and answer my goddamn question.
Police officers already run a check on a person when they stop them to check for outstanding warrants. Checking immigration status is no different.
Would you consider this law racist if it was passed in Hawaii or Alaska?
Do you feel that this law will only be used against illegal immigrants who originate from South and Central America?
Do you consider it racist because discretion is given to the officer on the scene to check immigration status?
Would it still be racist if everyone were required to be checked?
I like Stephen Colbert's solution to illegal immigration: get a metric-shitton of crotchety old people, move them to the border, and have them tell the illegal immigrants to get off their lawn.
Police officers already run a check on a person when they stop them to check for outstanding warrants. Checking immigration status is no different.Yes, Steve, it is. They check everyone's outstanding warrants at stops. As it stands, white individuals will not have their citizenship checked, an inherent inequity. Spend more than a few seconds thinking about this and look past your own willful ignorance, and you will realize that racism is inherent here. If theydidcheck everyone's immigration status, perhaps with an RFID on everyone's driver's license, you would solve the problem of racism, but a multitude of other constitutional issues would remain, the supremacy clause not the least among them.
There are two parts of this section of the law that Bolton and the attorneys debated.The first prohibits state and local government from restricting law enforcement from enforcing federal immigration law to the fullest extent permitted by federal statute.Bolton asked ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat and later Department of Justice attorney Edwin Kneedler why the state should not be allowed to require all local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law."Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have remained and entered the United States illegally?" the judge asked. "Who am I to stop the state of Arizona?"But she also held the state's lawyer, John Bouma, to the fire with questions about whether this portion of the state law pre-empts federal law. Bouma said it did not."Law-enforcement officers have been enforcing federal immigration laws for years," he said.
Bolton told Kneedler that he didn't need to bother talking about why the federal government viewed as unconstitutional the provision on not having documents. But she sharply questioned his contention that the state cannot tell its officers they must determine the immigration status of people they stop Ã¢Â€Â” which is normally done with a call to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.Kneedler warned that if every state in the country adopted such a measure, it would create "a huge burden" on the federal agency.Bouma said the new law merely directs local officers to help the federal government identify illegal immigrants. He contended that the Obama administration doesn't want to enforce much of the existing federal immigration law.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton said during a hearing that the provision that makes it a state crime to lack immigration documents apparently conflicts with a Supreme Court ruling that says states cannot create their own immigration registration systems.
In other news: My anger has blackened, hardened, and weighed down my heart to the extent that my pure, unfiltered fury threatens to collapse into a black hole and consume ALL OF CREATION.
This sucks twice as hard since "The Dream Act" was repelled along with the "Don't ask don't tell". Why would some one be against these two acts is beyond me
VERY RELEVANT:I have a friend in Chicago who's been trying and failing to immigrate for most of his life, and the failure of the DREAM Act is really messing with his chances. He's absolutely brilliant and a very, VERY good community organizer and activist. He also helps run one of the biggest Model UN conferences in the world. He managed to graduate from college in spite of all of this. Now, he's trying to get a Netroots Scholarship to offset the cost of working on gaining citizenship, as well as bringing attention to his cause. If you could take a minute to read his profile and add your name to his petition, it would be awesome; my dad worked for 15 years to get citizenship even with a green card, so seeing this guy succeed would mean a lot to me. Thanks guys.http://www.democracyforamerica.com/netroots_nation_scholarships/1320-chirayu[Also, I usually hate shameless plugs, but I'll make an exception here.]