New Arizona Law called "fundamentally racist."

Post Reply New Topic

What do you mean by co-sign?

Key part of that amendment is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
The current law is wrong because the foreigner is not a subject of USA, and therefore not a citizen.
HR 1868 has been introduced to correct the problem of anchor babys.
Pass that and it will save tax payers billions in just birthing costs.

Sorry, Inventor, but not every illegal immigrant is a tax evader (and there are enough citizens in that category to make it moot) - and relying on such claims weakens your overall argument. What percentage of those imprisoned actually belong there? And what benefit is there in incarceration other than gross cost? Seek a solution that does not fundamentally violate the principles on which this nation has developed instead of seeking to form some sort of "morally acceptable" Nuremberg structure. I am incredibly ashamed of many of those who I share this country with, and their actions. What an immense disappointment.


M.

co-sign

To agree with. (This term is mostly used on message boards.)

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens.

After Katrina the recovery was run by people who brought in crews of illegals, and underbid jobs that should have gone to citizens. We have plenty of people who do roofing, drywall, painting, but their jobs were stolen.

Having the jobs that are the right of a citizen, under equal protection of the laws, was violated.

Jobs that were paid for by the government, tax payer money, part of the recovery process, were taken by non citizens who did not pay taxes, then left with the money.

Meanwhile, our citizens who had lost everything were left in FEMA camps.

The tax payer funds spent on recovery were to provide jobs for the displaced.

Citizens are being denied the equal protection of the laws.

In a market place of citizens, wages, taxes, are set by law, and bringing in illegals is a violation of many laws. We have been deprived of property without due process of law. Employment reserved for citizens is property.

Our highest law has reserved these things for citizens, an equality of opertunity, an equality of obligations.

Non citizens are granted permission to be here, but mostly they are not allowed to work, for employment is reserved for citizens. A Green Card is highly valued because it does include permission to work.

Our entire system is based on privileges, most reserved for citizens, some granted to legal non citizens, under the equal protection of the laws.

Those who do not play by the rules we call criminals, and lock up. It has worked fairly well.

That you do not approve of the Constitution, seek to overthrow the established law of the land that has protected the citizens for several hundred years is also mentioned, it is called Treason.

Our form of self government under law, agreed to by free men, out of enlightened self interest, has been a beacon of hope to a world where men held their views to be above the rights of all.

I know people from China, Somaliland, Algeria, Mauritania, Egypt, here with a Green Card, studying for the exam, who support the same things I do, and are all much better Americans than you are.

Thank you for the insult, Inventor, but I would argue that those who would put forth the efforts are better fellow citizens than the ideal you are expounding. We are dealing with national citizenship and not state residency; while those responsibilities not attributed to the federal govt are the domain of the state, this is a glaring violation of one of those Constitutional principles which I am apparently ignorant of.

Independent thought isn't "treason", nor has anything I said dismissed the intent of the document which has led a single nation for just over 200 years. Stagnation is the death of culture and society; if that is the future you desire, then by all means pursue it. But I will also fight to keep the mentality that led to one of the greatest losses of life and integrity through military conflict from some 70 years ago from repeating itself here.

Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.


M.

All rights not granted to the Federal Government, or to the States, are hearby reserved to the people.

No State shall fail to enforce the rights and privileges of the citizens. For that would deprive them of life, liberty, or property.

Nor deny any citizen within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The law of the land is the property of the people. Federal and State have an obligation to preserve it.

"I do hearby swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of The United States of America, against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

My life, liberty, property is in danger from 15,000,000 nameless criminals who have just decided to come here and do as they will. It is also in danger from domestic enemies who support them.

The Federal and State Governments serve the rights of the citizens, and can be replaced by the citizens if they fail in their duty and oath of office.

We The People, Citizens of The United States of America, own the Constitution, the Laws, and the right to be governed only with our consent. Congress has no power, and shall make no laws, that infringe upon the rights granted under the Constituion, which can ony be changed by a vote of the Citizens.

70 years ago Mother Russia repelled an invasion of illegals. They paid in blood to preserve their land, language, culture, and rights as Citizens.

Now our way of life has been invaded by a criminal army, shall we resolve this under law, or are you pushing for something else?

Your consideration of all those seeking a better life as criminal and a threat to you only serves to weaken your arguments through gross stereotypes. Law is law; jurisdictionally, under the laws you seek shelter behind, the state has no place in this arena. If the law dealt with state residency, that is one thing - this is another. Solve it legally, and with sense - find a solution instead of following the policies that led to the last great international conflict. People seem to confuse the fact that it was the Nationalist aspect over the Socialist that led down that path.


M.

The States come first in protecting the rights of citizens. Unless you live in D.C.

All criminals are seeking a better life, through taking the property of others.

You wish to steal my Constitution, and the laws that define who is a citizen.

So Mister Chamberlain, giving them the Sudaten land did not bring peace in our time, it lead to more and larger invasions.

Appeasement leads to more demands, and more troops crossing borders and claiming what used to belong to others.

Murder, drug running, setting up drug networks, tax evasion, taking the rights of citizens, is what you are supporting, and with a constant threat of international conflict.

Give up your Constitution and Laws, or we will make trouble for you!

Your Declaration of War on the Citizens of These United States is noted.

There is nothing to say to the unreasonable and irrational; the rights and authority of the individual states vs. the federal government is relatively clearly defined. You wish to act in the manner of a petty dictator, that is your right, but do not expect me to join you. All the crimes you list are committed by citizens as well, so your line in the sand does not signify anything notable to me. You wish to lose the credibility this nation has by acting above the justifications of others... and that is shameful.

Sadly, I've lost much respect for you in this exchange due to your decision to make things a personal affront, and it does little to prove your point. You may keep your Declaration of Intolerance, however, as I have no need for it.


M.

Last edited by makuranososhi on 03 May 2010, 11:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Inventor, you become tiresome.

Fact is States can copy and enforced Federal law. 1,000's of examples on the books.

Explain to me the criminal actions of your foreign buddies this last Saturday when I was assaulted with a flying water bottle?

Explain the attempted murder of the police in AZ?

Explain the rush of US citizen's to that grocery store that fired 300 illegals in AZ?

Maku, how about you give your job to one of your foreign felon buddies. Then we will see if your self preservation works.

People like me and Inventor are not going to change our mind. We are going to FIGHT for our rights as US citizens and for
our livelihood. So either the foreign scum leave in peace or we bust heads.
A nation of citizens is what we are and nationalism goes with that.

While state and federal laws may cover similar crimes, the situation dictates jurisdiction; this is not a new or foreign concept. Criminal buddies? I've made no excuse for those who choose violence; what excuse do you propose for racial profiling, intimidation of legal citizens, and criminal behavior on the part of law enforcement? I don't expect you to answer, because there isn't one. Are there problems? Of course, but that does NOT justify abandoning the principles this nation was founded on. As for my job, I'm self-employed twice over. If you can do my job better than me, you can earn it. You too can be replaced for a fraction of the cost overseas while contributing further to the hole in the economy.

Might doesn't make right... more often, it makes foolish. Your argument could just as easily be used against any Euro-descendant on the American continents... and arguments of convenience do not tend to carry much weight with me. Fight your battles. Pay your price. I've worked in affluent schools as well as those whose students were more likely to be illegal than legal immigrants, and I would rather work with those - regardless of race or status - who work and strive than the complacent. Those in FEMA trailers were mentioned earlier as a source of labor... these same trailers which in several cases became meth labs.

Changing your mind doesn't matter to me. One side will endure, the other will fall. You are welcome to continue living in anger and fear, but in this instance at least I do not share your apparent xenophobia.


M.

Asking if someone is a citizen, and if not, are they here legally, is in no way criminal behavior on the part of law enforcment.

Coming across the border at night with a backpack of drugs is a lot of criminal behavior.

The One Principal this country was founded under, is equal justice under law.

The Contitution is the law that protects the rights of citizens.

Elected and appointed officals are barred from changing that law, and must swear an oath that they will uphold it, before they can take office.

It is a system that has served us well, the main reason that millions of legal immigrants have wanted to become citizens, and we will defend it.

Everyone coming here was fleeing the whims of petty tyrants, who put themselves above the rights of all.

That two Wrong Planet Moderaters chose to overthrow all of the Protections and Rights of The Citizens of these United States, in favor of their drug running friends from the Mexican cartels, is noted.

Your entire argument boils down to calling us all Nazis for wanting to keep and enforce the long existing law of the land.

Inventor, enough fabrication. First, one moderator has spoken -as an individual- to express their dissenting opinion. You have done nothing more here than overdramatize, which is less than I expect from you. You make a gross and improper accusation regarding "drug rujnning friends" which while I find insulting, is nothing compared to the level of raced-based contempt that seems apparent in your posting. There is also the long standing "innocent until proven guilty" which I can only see being reversed by your absolute claims of tax evasion and drug running, something that occurs in only the smallest percentage of immigrants. Lastly, no one was called a Nazi until you invoked Godwin's Law as my focus has had nothing to do with their party or beliefs, but the manner in which "outsiders" were classed, abused, and legislated into the margins. Your goal will have a much more far-reaching and destructive effect than I care to witness, in my opinion... for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. For every repression, rebellion; for every grievance, revenge. History has long shown this to be the unfortunate route that you seem bent on pursuing. If they wish to pursue the issue in a legal manner, I invite them to - there are problems - but this law is not justified or legal as written and designed.

And by the way, Inventor - these are opinions, not facts. It would be appreciated if you presented yours appropriately as such.


M.

I see you can quote; now please reread the last post that specifically addresses that point regarding the intentional avoidance of party reference and deliberate focus on the legislative policies of the period.


M.