timschochet
Footballguy
Good for Obama.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
Yea, Obama!
timschochet
Footballguy
Glad you approve! I admit it surprises me a little bit, but what the hey? I will take support from wherever I get it.Yea, Obama!
Glad you approve! I admit it surprises me a little bit, but what the hey? I will take support from wherever I get it.Yea, Obama!
oneohh
Footballguy
This is shtick, right?
timschochet
Footballguy
Why, no it isn't.
Statorama
Footballguy
You've been drinking heavily tonight, haven't you?Glad you approve! I admit it surprises me a little bit, but what the hey? I will take support from wherever I get it.Yea, Obama!
timschochet
Footballguy
GO LAKERSYou've been drinking heavily tonight, haven't you?Glad you approve! I admit it surprises me a little bit, but what the hey? I will take support from wherever I get it.Yea, Obama!
Matt Waldman
Footballguy
Take some time to cool off and if you decide to return when you're allowed, please temper your responses. Responses directed to a member you share this forum space where you say he hopes he will get killed and calling him names isn't going to fly around here even if its just said out of anger.
guest 54788
Prince of ShantyTown
look Matty, we know you're new here and all, but you need to quote the guy that you're giving the TO to, so we know who to laugh at and ridicule.Matt Waldman said:
SofaKings
Footballguy
As JB has stated in the past, there needs to be a trail of evidence in order for the judicial system to work correctly.Arch Stanton
Footballguy
fixed
Link?
Mister Martie
Footballguy
Mookie Blaylock communicated his support of "offing" the president and tim in one sentence. I could almost see the spittle on his screen.As JB has stated in the past, there needs to be a trail of evidence in order for the judicial system to work correctly.
oneohh
Footballguy
Mookie Blaylock communicated his support of "offing" the president and tim in one sentence. I could almost see the spittle on his screen.
Last edited by a moderator:
Courtjester
The Town Drunk
So let's take taxpayer dollars to sue a US State so that State then has to take it's money to turn around and defend said lawsuit which in essence is a law that the Federal prosecutor, who will be bringing the case, is sworn to uphold.
Auuuughhh, my head exploded...
Auuuughhh, my head exploded...
timschochet
Footballguy
OK, let's start over. 1. There is a big difference between trying to arrest people attempting to enter this country illegally, and arresting people who are already in this country illegally. 2. In order to arrest people for being illegal who are already in this country, law enforcement will inevitably engage in racial profiling. I realize they claim they won't, but I am convinced that there is no other way to do it. That is why the federal government does not "enforce" these laws in terms of trying to round up people who are already here. That is why I hope this new law is unconstitutional (though I have no idea if this is so.) It cannot be enforced without racism. I am glad that the Obama administration will challenge this law, though the ACLU was doing it anyway. It needs to be challenged. It is unAmerican, IMO, to be arresting people who are here working and deport them for being non-citizens. Even attempting to do so will result in racism no matter how else you try to slice it. If they are committing crimes like murder and other violence, that's one thing. Arrest them. If you need more police, hire them. But focusing on the majority, who once they have arrived here are law-abiding citizens, is ridiculous.So let's take taxpayer dollars to sue a US State so that State then has to take it's money to turn around and defend said lawsuit which in essence is a law that the Federal prosecutor, who will be bringing the case, is sworn to uphold.Auuuughhh, my head exploded...
Actually, it's very-American. Surrendering is un-American.OK, let's start over. 1. There is a big difference between trying to arrest people attempting to enter this country illegally, and arresting people who are already in this country illegally. 2. In order to arrest people for being illegal who are already in this country, law enforcement will inevitably engage in racial profiling. I realize they claim they won't, but I am convinced that there is no other way to do it. That is why the federal government does not "enforce" these laws in terms of trying to round up people who are already here. That is why I hope this new law is unconstitutional (though I have no idea if this is so.) It cannot be enforced without racism. I am glad that the Obama administration will challenge this law, though the ACLU was doing it anyway. It needs to be challenged. It is unAmerican, IMO, to be arresting people who are here working and deport them for being non-citizens. Even attempting to do so will result in racism no matter how else you try to slice it. If they are committing crimes like murder and other violence, that's one thing. Arrest them. If you need more police, hire them. But focusing on the majority, who once they have arrived here are law-abiding citizens, is ridiculous.So let's take taxpayer dollars to sue a US State so that State then has to take it's money to turn around and defend said lawsuit which in essence is a law that the Federal prosecutor, who will be bringing the case, is sworn to uphold.Auuuughhh, my head exploded...
timschochet
Footballguy
Surrendering to what? To hard-working people who leave everything in their previous lives in order to come here and contribute to our society? I just described the vast majority of those who come here illegally. It seems to me we should WANT to surrender to that. What is this country supposed to be about, anyhow? We are proud to be different from every other country on Earth: a free society, made up of immigrants, of people seeking a new life. That is supposed to be the true American spirit. These people are the modern day pioneers.
Phurfur
Footballguy
Someone sure did a number on you!I love the way you state your thoughts as facts.OK, let's start over. 1. There is a big difference between trying to arrest people attempting to enter this country illegally, and arresting people who are already in this country illegally. 2. In order to arrest people for being illegal who are already in this country, law enforcement will inevitably engage in racial profiling. I realize they claim they won't, but I am convinced that there is no other way to do it. That is why the federal government does not "enforce" these laws in terms of trying to round up people who are already here. That is why I hope this new law is unconstitutional (though I have no idea if this is so.) It cannot be enforced without racism. I am glad that the Obama administration will challenge this law, though the ACLU was doing it anyway. It needs to be challenged. It is unAmerican, IMO, to be arresting people who are here working and deport them for being non-citizens. Even attempting to do so will result in racism no matter how else you try to slice it. If they are committing crimes like murder and other violence, that's one thing. Arrest them. If you need more police, hire them. But focusing on the majority, who once they have arrived here are law-abiding citizens, is ridiculous.So let's take taxpayer dollars to sue a US State so that State then has to take it's money to turn around and defend said lawsuit which in essence is a law that the Federal prosecutor, who will be bringing the case, is sworn to uphold.Auuuughhh, my head exploded...
timschochet
Footballguy
I can only write "IMO" so many times. Of course I believe that my opinions are true. Otherwise they wouldn't be my opinions.
You must be joking. I don't care about their motives. We have procedures for people to come here legally. And we have laws against people coming here and staying here illegally. We should not turn a blind eye to people so willing to flout our laws simply for their own benefit. I have no respect for foreigners who ignore our laws. And I certainly have no respect for Americans willing to look the other way.
timschochet
Footballguy
I am not joking. And while you don't care about their motives, I certainly do. And we should turn a blind eye to them because these are stupid laws, and they are flouting them not just for their benefit, but for ours as well. As for respect, personally I respect much more people who are willing to risk their lives to get here rather than those lucky enough to be born here (including myself.) Immigrants, whether with papers or without, are the true Americans.
LHUCKS
Footballguy
SofaKings
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Well, Christo, you have LHUCKS support. (And Sofa Kings.) Do you feel strengthened in your position?
I don't need anyone to tell me you are a sap.
timschochet
Footballguy
Well, if nothing else, I'm delighted I could make you laugh on this beautiful Sunday morning. Happy Father's Day!
timschochet
Footballguy
My wife tells me the same thing. I AM a sap.
Limp Ditka
Footballguy
Phurfur
Footballguy
This entire thread is based on a lie. "Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law" is inaccurate. The federal law is tougher than the AZ law because AZ spells out racial profiling as being illegal and the Feds do not.
I would bet that less than 1% of you have even read the law. It is only 10 pages long which is shorter than this thread, what is your excuse.
I would bet that less than 1% of you have even read the law. It is only 10 pages long which is shorter than this thread, what is your excuse.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
And for those of us who have read the law and STILL hate it?
The fact that you hate this law amuses me.
Phurfur
Footballguy
Fire away but stick to the truth!
Last edited by a moderator:
oneohh
Footballguy
Fixed
timschochet
Footballguy
Please explain in what way I hate the constitution.
timschochet
Footballguy
Well that's why I'm here.
timschochet
Footballguy
The ACLU and a coalition of civil rights groups have filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona challenging Arizona's new law requiring police to demand "papers" from people they stop who they suspect are not authorized to be in the U.S. The extreme law, the coalition charged, invites the racial profiling of people of color, violates the First Amendment and interferes with federal law.
June 17, 2010
The lawsuit charges that the Arizona law unlawfully interferes with federal power and authority over immigration matters in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution; invites racial profiling against people of color by law enforcement in violation of the equal protection guarantee and prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the 14th and Fourth Amendments; and infringes on the free speech rights of day laborers and others in Arizona.
One of the individuals the coalition is representing in the case, Jim Shee, is a U.S.-born 70-year-old American citizen of Spanish and Chinese descent. Shee asserts that he will be vulnerable to racial profiling under the law, and that, although the law has not yet gone into effect, he has already been stopped twice by local law enforcement officers in Arizona and asked to produce his "papers."
Another plaintiff, Jesus Cuauhtémoc Villa, is a resident of the state of New Mexico who is currently attending Arizona State University. The state of New Mexico does not require proof of U.S. citizenship or immigration status to obtain a driver's license. Villa does not have a U.S. passport and does not want to risk losing his birth certificate by carrying it with him. He worries about traveling in Arizona without a valid form of identification that would prove his citizenship to police if he is pulled over. If he cannot supply proof upon demand, Arizona law enforcement is required to arrest and detain him.
Several prominent law enforcement groups, including the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, oppose the law because it diverts limited resources from law enforcement's primary responsibility of providing protection and promoting public safety in the community and undermines trust and cooperation between local police and immigrant communities.
Organizations and attorneys on the case, Friendly House et al. v. Whiting et al., include:
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project: Jadwat, Lucas Guttentag, Cecillia Wang, Tanaz Moghadam and Harini P. Raghupathi;
MALDEF: Viramontes, Tom Saenz, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, Nina Perales, Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, Gladys Limón and Nicholás Espiritu;
NILC: Joaquin, Karen C. Tumlin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S. Keaney, Vivek Mittal and Ghazal Tajmiri;
ACLU Foundation of Arizona: Dan Pochoda and Annie Lai;
APALC: Su, Ronald Lee, Yungsuhn Park, Connie Choi and Carmina Ocampo;
NDLON: Chris Newman and Lisa Kung;
NAACP: Laura Blackburne;
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP: Bradley S. Phillips, Paul J. Watford, Elizabeth J. Neubauer,Joseph J. Ybarra, Susan T. Boyd and Yuval Miller; and
Roush, Mccracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega: Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.
XXXXXXXXXXXX
I have already donated $100 toward this lawsuit and I urge all readers to do the same. Christo, can we count on your contribution?
June 17, 2010
The lawsuit charges that the Arizona law unlawfully interferes with federal power and authority over immigration matters in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution; invites racial profiling against people of color by law enforcement in violation of the equal protection guarantee and prohibition on unreasonable seizures under the 14th and Fourth Amendments; and infringes on the free speech rights of day laborers and others in Arizona.
One of the individuals the coalition is representing in the case, Jim Shee, is a U.S.-born 70-year-old American citizen of Spanish and Chinese descent. Shee asserts that he will be vulnerable to racial profiling under the law, and that, although the law has not yet gone into effect, he has already been stopped twice by local law enforcement officers in Arizona and asked to produce his "papers."
Another plaintiff, Jesus Cuauhtémoc Villa, is a resident of the state of New Mexico who is currently attending Arizona State University. The state of New Mexico does not require proof of U.S. citizenship or immigration status to obtain a driver's license. Villa does not have a U.S. passport and does not want to risk losing his birth certificate by carrying it with him. He worries about traveling in Arizona without a valid form of identification that would prove his citizenship to police if he is pulled over. If he cannot supply proof upon demand, Arizona law enforcement is required to arrest and detain him.
Several prominent law enforcement groups, including the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, oppose the law because it diverts limited resources from law enforcement's primary responsibility of providing protection and promoting public safety in the community and undermines trust and cooperation between local police and immigrant communities.
Organizations and attorneys on the case, Friendly House et al. v. Whiting et al., include:
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project: Jadwat, Lucas Guttentag, Cecillia Wang, Tanaz Moghadam and Harini P. Raghupathi;
MALDEF: Viramontes, Tom Saenz, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, Nina Perales, Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, Gladys Limón and Nicholás Espiritu;
NILC: Joaquin, Karen C. Tumlin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S. Keaney, Vivek Mittal and Ghazal Tajmiri;
ACLU Foundation of Arizona: Dan Pochoda and Annie Lai;
APALC: Su, Ronald Lee, Yungsuhn Park, Connie Choi and Carmina Ocampo;
NDLON: Chris Newman and Lisa Kung;
NAACP: Laura Blackburne;
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP: Bradley S. Phillips, Paul J. Watford, Elizabeth J. Neubauer,Joseph J. Ybarra, Susan T. Boyd and Yuval Miller; and
Roush, Mccracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega: Daniel R. Ortega, Jr.
XXXXXXXXXXXX
I have already donated $100 toward this lawsuit and I urge all readers to do the same. Christo, can we count on your contribution?
I don't contribute to causes I don't support. The claim that this interferes with federal power is a joke. And the law specifically prohibits racial profiling. The only way to successfully challenge it would be to demonstrate that it was being enforced unconstitutionally despite the safeguards in the law itself. Suspicion of racial profiling is not enough. Facts must be developed. The issue is not ripe for determination. You've wasted your money.
Last edited by a moderator:
So then secure the borders; not a silly law that will do nothing to solve the problem, and waste tax payers money even more. THe problem with the law is that it does nothing to secure the border. So guess what you ship them back and they run right back across... thats real smart. You have a law that is not back by the some of police in Arizona.
Look We need to do something but this is the wrong way to do it. You have to start at the border first, then once that is secured you can then remove the illegals.
videoguy505
Footballguy
I don't remember this provision in the law.
timschochet
Footballguy
Serious question, because I'm no lawyer like you are: are you sure about this? It seems to me that I've read in the past where courts overturned laws based on the potential of the law to be unconstitutional. Why not in this case? If you could reasonably demonstrate that the enforcement of this law will inevitably result in racial profiling despite the fact that the law prohibits it, that should be enough to overturn it. I think this can be reasonably demonstrated with just a little common sense.
AZ is dealing with a situation where the Feds have failed to secure the border. Illegals are here, now. No amount of border security in the future will effect the illegals who are already here. And AZ has the right to have illegals who are in AZ removed, now.
Perhaps you can locate one of these cases.
timschochet
Footballguy
Which right is that, exactly?
timschochet
Footballguy
I dunno. Are you saying that in the history of the courts, this has never happened?
