Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Proof of Citizenship
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| I'll add if the White House had not canceled the wall or ignored multiple urgent request from AZ to send national guard.... |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
Article One, Section Eight of the US Constitution says that the US Congress, not George W. Bush, Vice President Cheney and the President's advisors have the power to declare war.
I am not clear on what prevents us from fighting a war in Alaska or Hawaii.
Article One, Section Eight of the US Constitution says that the US Congress, not the State of Arizona, has the power to declare war. Your vocabulary is impressive. Your knowledge of the Constitution, not so much. |
Anonymous
I'm doing my best. It's subtle, but pay attention and maybe you can grasp the distinction between "declaring war" and a Presidential decision to "invade". Congess did not declare war nor was a declaration of war requested. I may be incorrect but I believe that the last time Congress officially declared the US to be in a state of war against another country/countries was World War II. The US has been involved in armed conflicts and the President does not need Congressional approval to dispatch US Armed Forces where US interest is involved--among the biggies--Korean Conflict and Viet Nam and there are other instances of US intervention involving US interests. Maybe I know a wee bit more about the Constitution than you. I hope that someday soon you will be able to comprehend what you read. Oh, damn, I gave you credit for being smarter than a rock . Arizona has "declared War" is a figure of speech, e.g., "war on poverty" and "war on ignorance." We have a "war on terrorsts and terrorism". Are you getting the picture? Maybe you are smarter than a rock but dumber than a mushroom. (I use the word "dumb" as in the US venacular: "Dumb and Dumber.) As for Alaska and Hawaii (shame on you, you didn't look up "contiguous") there is no reason why we can't have a war in either state but there are few Hispanic illegals (and I am only guessing about this) in Hawaii and I doubt more than a dozen in Alaska. Maybe Sara Palin knows. "You betcha." Thank you for your kind words about my vocabulary. If you choose to respond, please, please, use you dictionary for its inteded purpose--not as a door stop--to look up words you don't understand, or, in your case, look up all words over one syllable--look it up. |
Anonymous
|
New poster. PP, you write well. But if you are going to ridicule another poster about a subject, you should have a working knowledge of it. No, presidents cannot engage in armed conflict over any extended period of time without Congressional approval, pursuant to the War Powers Resolution. They must report to Congress and seek approval in any such situation.
Do yourself a favor. Don't google and try to rebut. It won't end well. Just stand corrected, and in the future don't stretch your knowledge for the purpose of humiliating others. |
Anonymous
You are absolutely right. I was rude, mean, and hateful. My apologies to the PP (or PPs) to whom I responded. Thank you for reminding me that an anonymous response does not give me license to hurt or humiliate anyone and that anonymity can turn one into a bully. Thank you, also, for the not so subtle reminder that I'm not nearly as knowledgeable or smart as I believe myself to be. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
Fess up smart ass. You don't know the meaning of "contiguous" yourself. You wrote "If we don't make war overseas then the only place the US can fight a war is within the CONTIGUOUS United States." The "contiguous" United States does not include Alaska or Hawaii. Contrary to your assertion, if we don't fight a war overseas, we can still fight a war in Alaska or Hawaii and still not be fighting within the contiguous US. Get it? Either your vocabulary or your logic is wrong. Or, maybe both. Given the stupidity of the rest of your post, my money is on both. What does the number of Hispanic illegals in a country have to do with whether we go to war or not? How many Hispanic illegals were in Iraq? You cast a lot of aspersions and do a lot of name-calling for someone whose arguments are very flawed. |
Anonymous
What's the birther bill there? |
Anonymous
|
Jeff, I am not sure why this is getting to you so much.
In case you haven't noticed, there are tons of laws that are enforced in a racist fashion. Has it ever occurred to you that white young middle class teens seem to have these drug orgies and never pay a price in the penal system, but in some strange way, black men get some 30 years in prison for "distribution" of drugs. As a black woman who has never used drugs, I grew up with many white friends who saw smoking pot as a rite of passage. My parents let me know that if I did it, I would go to jail, unlike my peers. I believed my parents and never touched so much as a cigarette. If I wanted to make trouble tomorrow, I could arrest all the Whitman kids who smoke pot, and throw them in jail for a good long time, legally. I could ruin the lives of many a U. of MD student for drug use if I wanted. And I have not even gone to the issue of DUI, which some white teens (and other groups too) seem to find funny. If I decided to slap every drunk drive r with a 5 year sentence, life would be hard for many people ( but better for many). So Jeff, while you or your children experiment with drugs, think of the black man in jail who delivered the drugs to you. Now getting back to the issue of illegal immigration, it is ILLEGAL. As I have said before, many Americans who are defending this practice love the fact that these people are so desperate that they do our lawns for cheap. I suppose that what many of you are defending IS the illegal staus that keeps them desperate. Maybe that's why this mess developed. Maybe, we could find a way to let some folks out of jail to pick the fruit, improve the work conditions, and start an honest economy, and stop fooling ourselves. Please understand that I see this AZ position as somewhat racist, but not completely. If these were blond Russians in LARGE numbers, coupled with a bad economy, eventually they would have been noticed. But it is curious hopw the typical right wing, anti government people are OK with this new stance of their state. I would have expected them to say NO to being asked to prove their citizenship. We have laws for a reason, and it is part of the democratic process. I am having trouble arguing this one in favor of these people, just like I have no sympathy for drugs users, sellers, drunk drivers, illegal immigrants.... |
Anonymous
|
I'm not a big fan of anonymous commenters who come in and try to "sum it all up", but let me sum it up for you:
If there were anything like a majority of Americans who supported stopping the immigration of undocumented foreigners, we'd beef up the INS with a DEA-like enforcement arm, and pass legislation making the criminal penalties for hiring undocumented workers similar to the penalties for trafficking in crack cocaine. Say mandatory minimum of 5 years in Federal prison. Everything else is a smokescreen designed to gull the painfully uninformed into thinking the political Right has any interest whatsoever in curtailing the problem. They don't. The fact that there is absolutely no public support for such a course tells you everything you need to know about the American public's commitment to stopping the problem. Notice how I said, "the American public's commitment", not Obama's commitment, Nancy Pelosi's commitment, or Al Franken's commitment. If you're one of the small percentage of Americans who do care, let me tell you right now, your neighbors don't give a shit. Not when balanced against cheap daycare and landscaping. You can give away your civil liberties piecemeal if you like, but this has fuck-all to do with stopping illegal immigration, and everything to do with certain politicians in Arizona making you feel good that they're "doing something." |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
I'm not sure that this is getting to me any more than any other political issue. Have you not read my posts before?
Are you actually suggesting that it is ok to enforce laws in a racist manner? I am as opposed to the disparities that you cite just as much as I am opposed to any other discrimination. Also, for the record, I was raised to understand the dangers of illegal drugs (and it didn't require the threat of jail). Almost alone among my peer group, I had a drug-free youth. If my children do otherwise, the police will be the least of their worries.
This would be a good theory (though, not one supported by any sort of evidence) where it not for the fact that I support giving illegals a clear path to citizenship and also widening legal immigration. I support strong sanctions on anyone who exploits or abuses undocumented workers.
If people were prejudiced against blond Russians, that would also be wrong and I would also oppose it. The fact that this is a racist law is exactly why so many right wingers support it. They don't think it will apply to them because they assume their status will never be questioned. As I pointed out in an earlier post, Arizona passed a law to not participate in the REAL ID program. The right wingers there didn't want to have Federal ID standards applied to them. They only want Hispanics to have to identify themselves and prove their right to be in the country. Notably, some right wingers understand the problems with this law and are opposing it. One Republican Representative even compared it to the practices of Nazi Germany.
If someone is suspected of using illegal drugs, selling illegal drugs, or driving drunk, they are considered innocent until proven guilty. The Arizona law assumes an individual is guilty of being an illegal immigrant until they prove otherwise. It turns the US justice system on its head. That is why the law is un-American. You shouldn't worry about "these people", but rather "you people", meaning those that don't care about the destruction of American values. |
Anonymous
|
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
This suggestion ignores reality. The issue is not whether we will have illegals or not have illegals. We will have them at least until such time as the economies of their home countries develop considerably. The real issue is how the illegals are treated. Unless you favor them living their lives entirely in the shadows -- with all the associated problems that brings -- a path to citizenship is the best alternative. There are huge disparities in the numbers of legal and illegal immigrants. The number of planes required to ferry illegals back home could not be filled by legals. |
Anonymous
Your solution does not scale well. |
Anonymous
Not. The best way to deal with this is enforce the law. No anmesty. The political problems in the home countries are brought on most by corruption, and to some extent, bad luck. The corrupt are generally not the ones waiting to get a visa legally, but rather they are often the ones here working illegally. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
Have you ever been to any of these places? There are a number of reasons for the problems in their home countries. To the extent that corruption plays a role, it is the rich and powerful that are the most corrupt. With a few exceptions, the corrupt are indeed getting their visas legally. They sure as hell are not climbing fences to get here. Do really think that anyone is going to give up a life of siphoning a nation's wealth to come here to cut your grass and wash dishes in a restaurant? |