US government sues Arizona over anti-immigration law

I sort of agree with you and sometimes no matter how unpopular something you need to do the right thing but IMO not the things Obama is doing. I do think sometimes you have to do something unpopular to protect the country. I don't want the President and Congress to do everything they want no matter what the majority of people want. We voted them in and we can vote them out. It almost looks like a "fuck you" all the stupid people don't know what is good for them with almost everything.

 

don't you live in Pacific Beach? that's like me saying I live near Inglewood, so I understand black-on-black crime.

 

How are any of these being denied them?

 

Of course you can, and it would be the single best action America could take to help Mexico progress into a stable country with a vibrant economy.

If Mexicans had no easy out in America maybe they would stay home and contribute some energy and sweat and brainpower to make their country a place worth living in. All we do by excusing their invasion is assure Mexico's eventual collapse into hell.

 

No more horror than their illegal migration has caused here in America.

I really think you underestimate their fortitude and ability to cope with domestic disruption.

Most of them have homes or family they lived with in Mexico, and many travel back and forth frequently. They are here for our money, our bennies, and to deal drugs, and they didn't even have the decency to ask if they could come. They are the single biggest drain on our economy and the reason our middle class has nearly disappeared into poverty and half our citizens cannot afford healthcare.

Your compassion is misplaced.

 

The Geneva Conventions are the essential basis of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts.

They do not apply to domestic invasions where there is no armed conflict.

We have a Constitution and laws for that.

 

It is a crime to enter the US illegally.

 

It's President Obama's responsibility to protect the border. He has chosen not to do so. In light of that intentional abdication of his responsibility, the people of Arizona have the right to protect themselves. If we were invaded by a foreign power and President Obama decided not to resist, the states would be well within their rights to activate their National Guards and form militias. All Arizona is doing here is asking people for ID. It's perfectly reasonable.

So, if we were invaded by 13MM soldiers, we wouldn't have the right to resist and send them back to wherever they came from? Will German veterans of WWII now sue the countries they invaded because they were forcibly removed? As for being "an international crime against humanity", what precedent do you site, or is it just your opinion?

If we can give them health care, provide them education, we can certainly send them back. And send them back we should. Borders mean something. Without them, there are no nation-states and you have no sovereignty.

And I think these people broke our laws by crossing the border illegally. We have a right to defend our borders, our territory and if their goal is to become voters, our sovereignty.

 

And many of us are saying they're here illegally, and we're stuck with that fact.

It's not a forced migration if we're sending them home, no more than when my student visa expired and I had to head back to the States. Actually, there is a difference; I was actually there legally.

It would be akin to me moving into an unoccupied house and then crying about being forced to leave it when the owners found out I was squatting illegally.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_immigration_enforcement_lawsuit[/quote]

That's Ann Althouse, actually. I don't think she'd like being called a he. IIRC, she's a law professor at a school in Wisconsin. I'm guessing she may have a better handle on it than most of us.

Actually the legal action represents an enforcement of the laws already on the books. See, the bitch about laws is that once they're made, they have to be enforced.

 

They are invaders. However, that doesn't mean they're covered under the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention does not apply to a nation enforcing laws already on its books that don't result in the mass extermination of a people.

Where is the "forced migration"? They are not leaving their homes; we are asking them to return to them.

Please. This argument is beneath you. People can be pulled over only if they're suspected of breaking the law. And then they're asked for identification. If I don't have my drivers' license, registration and proof of insurance, I'm violating the law no matter what my race or nationality.

If you want to see true racism, check out the practice of DWB (driving while black) on Lake Shore Drive.

Their prescence here makes it de facto that they committed a crime: they crossed the border illegally. It's not "[dehuminizing]" or ["demonizing"] them to send them back home.

 

Here's a little bit more info on Ms. Althouse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Althouse

 

The law says nothing about only stopping drivers. The police can also detain pedestrians. Since when is it a violation of the law to be outside, not driving, without a driver's license or some other form of ID?

 

They have to be suspected of doing something. Now, certainly you can stretch it to be suspected of being illegal, but you can do the same with almost any law.

The bottom line is that cops are busy enough. It's beyond unlikely they will start "hunting" for illegals when they've had the means at their disposal though the current laws to do the same thing.

You and I have both lived in Sweden. You know as well as I if Polisen decide to stop you and ask for your identification, you had better have your passport on you, otherwise you're being detained until your residency can be properly determined. They don't need to have cause, it can just be a slow day. If that's the requirement is PC Sweden where illegal immigration isn't much of an issue, why is it so outrageous if the police here are able to ask for identification when cause is actually required?

 

I've never encountered that or seen that in Sweden. Denmark, certainly, but Denmark is basically the black sheep of Scandinavia in that respect and Denmark is extremely xenophobic...hardly PC at all. Of course, I never lived in Scania, which is the only part of Sweden which seems be somewhat akin to Denmark. The vast majority of Sweden isn't like that at all. They may ask for ID, like police here sometimes do, but they cannot detain you for not producing it. I was once wandering around the police house, waiting for a place to open...a cop asked me for my ID, because they were detaining some Hells Angels. I didn't have anything on me, but there wasn't anything they could do. They could, theoretically, have asked me for a contact who they could call to vouch for my identity but they couldn't have legally detained me.

And is that something you admire in Denmark? As a libertarian, it seems a bit surprising that you'd endorse the rights of the police to demand identification of anyone they find suspicious in an effort to ferret out illegal immigrants. The "hassle 100 legal residents so that 1 illegal immigrant doesn't go free" doesn't seem libertarian at all.

 

I was referring directly to Sweden, not to Denmark. It's their law. As a foreign national employed in Sweden, I was required to carry my passport (and specifically my passport) with me at all times. If I didn't have my passport, Policen were required to ascertain my identity by taking me to where my passport was or detain me until I could provide such proof. My business partner was out jogging, was pulled over for illegally crossing the street and I had to bring his passport down to the station, so I have first-hand knowledge what the law is and that it is enforced. Regardless, my point is that a society many would consider highly protective of individual rights has given its police much more discretion in terms of demanding identification than we in the US have.

And it was a nice attempt to twist my argument, but my point is that the Arizona law doesn't allow racial profiling; it requires that you have to either committed an infraction or suspected of committing one to be stopped by the police and asked to supply identification. And for the record, that's the law everywhere in the US. If I'm driving and am pulled over, do they allow me not to have ID? If I'm pointed at by others and accused of looting a store, do they take my word for it that I am who I say?

If you attempt to take this law to its logical extreme, to put it in its worst light as to what may happen, why shouldn't we do so for every law?

As for being a Libertarian, I certainly possess Libertarian beliefs, but not across the board. Don't try to simplify my beliefs, it will only result in me having to correct you.

 

You know how it sounds stupid when someone equates a sporting event with a war or someone says someone they work with is worse than Hitler?

Think about that next time you write something like that. By the way, calling 911 and saying "my wife is at the bottom of the pool" is every bit a murder as holding her under on purpose.

The sad thing is that there is probably some truth to what I wrote about Captain Kirk the wife killer, unlike your mass migration baloney.

 

I should, but I don't. I have received a ticket for jaywalking, however. Oh yeah, and they asked me for my ID, too.

Tell that to my grandfather's family. Oh, yeah, you can't. They were shot in the head and dumped in a mass grave outside of Minsk because of their religion. So, was it a "crime against humanity" when my landlord didn't renew my lease and forced me to migrate somewhere else?

Racial profiling is strictly prohibited. Again, you're from Chicagoland. You tell me about DWB. Most aren't speeding. THAT's racial profiling. The Arizona law has protections against that kind of thing. You actually have to commit a crime or be suspected of one. You wish to color it in the very worst way. Like I said to Minstrel, we can take any law and abuse it to violate the spirit of the law. To compare asking people for their identification with the Holocaust is not only insulting, but idiotic.

Citizenship and residency are two different things. The law is pretty clear on that point.

Okey dokey. Or--and I'm just spitballing here--a judge will say the Federal Government doesn't have the right to decide which laws they'll enforce and which ones they'll let go. And especially when drugs and gangs are flowing over the border endangering the public.