See Below
No, not that. Thanks for confirming me that you’re more into the
political fight than on SB1070 (With HB2162 of course). So you say that every law is a political fight between Republicans and Democrats? That’s why you can’t see beyond your nose of what could be fine or what’s wrong with SB1070. You approve SB1070 not because of what it says nor what it implies, you approve it because it’s a law passed by your political party. You’re wrong in believing that any law is a political fight. Political parties might use laws to gain votes, but that doesn’t mean that laws are for political prizes. Don’t use laws for obtaining legislative or executive power and then you will be able to see, without being a partisan, what’s wrong or what’s right with a law, and won’t care if Democrats or Republicans proposed it, that way you will judge it better. Thus we’ll have laws that are not biased, laws with the principles of the Constitution and laws that will be enforced to people that are not only Republicans or Democrats, but also to people that are affiliated with other political beliefs. Now, here comes one of my little made up conversations: “It comes to my mind Thomas Jefferson and James Madison fighting for power and putting the Constitution at the stake because of a political fight, would you believe that? Hell no. And I don’t kind myself for saying this.” Search for political, and you’ll see it concerns more with party politics than anything beyond that, so don’t mix things up. You’re Grandson is still 14, he’s still very young, you can still teach him the difference between political issues and laws, so he doesn’t commit the same mistakes of his Grandpa, or even his Father if that‘s what you taught to your Son.’ I hope I have made it clear this third time.
About the pointing fingers, I said that I perceived it’s toward the current administration, because that’s what “I read in many of these posts, if not all of them.” Sure, there might be fingers pointing on past administrations, but there are also posts, in favor of the law, praising for Mr. Bush, and other republicans. And there are many other posts as examples, and thus that’s why I perceive you’re more after the current Federal Administration than to resolve any issue. But, I don’t care if you hate our current Federal Administration, I’m just emphasizing that you’re more at hunting Federals than to debate on SB1070, and consequently you give the impression you don’t even know what the law says.
Now, I’m glad I’m taking you a little bit out of your bubble. Now you say there’s not a Federal Law as SB1070. Now, you’re getting out of your swamp. I said to “moreluck” to give me a link of the current Federal Law he/she proclaimed to be in existence for decades as SB1070.
The law has been in existence for decades as a Federal law.......no one questioned the constitutionality 'til AZ did something to remedy their problem. Are you clapping for Calderone too !!- Moreluck. And then, you stepped out for him/her saying: There is indeed a federal law...http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/...5----000-.html…- trplnkl. Ouh, you still added “Indeed.” But now, I see you agree with me, that there’s no such Federal Law, GOOD. So no DUH! Because that’s not what you and “moreluck” said, you guys were repeating Mrs. Brewer and Mr. Arpaio’s words. “There’s a Federal Law already.” At least you should repeat Mr. McClintok’s words, that says that “SB1070 reinforces Federal Law,” not that there’s a Federal Law already. Mr. McClintok sound smarter than the other two.. I’m also glad that you recognize that all people have individual rights, something you did not on past posts.
Discrimination against illegals from Mexico is not racism.- trplnkl.
Oh and BTW..illegal immigrants are NOT American citizens.- trplnkl. Emphasizing on this specific post, that by not being American Citizens, they don’t have Individual rights? And there are other posts like that. But, lets not go that far.
lawyers saw that there were gaps in protection of legal citizens from profiling and possible investigation with out probable cause or suspicions. HB2162 filled those gaps. - trplnkl. I never said you quoted the law, I said you even made it look worse in your
statement. And don’t foolish yourself in saying the law doesn’t allow profiling. You contradict yourself too much. I’m glad you changing your mind for better. Weren’t you the one that came up with the word “wet guys.” You hid it, thinking you were going to get away with that. Was that a subliminal message? Hehehehehe. I wonder who the hypocrite is. I’m glad you come from something such as “wetguys,” to Mexicans, then to Hispanics, and now that illegals are not only from Hispanic ancestry. Good, illegals come from any country. It’s something I already know. But, you shouldn’t be telling me, you should tell the people that put the pictures and jokes that targets mostly Mexican people. Now that I’ve made you understand that, you should make your guys understand it, too. I see you’ve been full of prejudice towards one group of people, and thus you will just ignore the racism of the law. If you even think SB1070 without HB2162 is fine, then there’s no need in wasting words on you, you will be limited just to your thoughts or what you hear from Mr. Arpaio and company. Now, you want me to debate on how to stop illegal immigration, good, I’m against it. If you want to debate about that, then open another thread, this is about SB1070 Anti-Immigration Law. Not about Anti-Illegal Immigration. It’s good you point things up to stop illegal immigration, but don’t touch my Bill of Rights. I’m sure there are better ways to resolve illegal immigration without putting Civil Rights on the line; it’s just not worth it.
Thanks for wishing me luck, but I don’t need it. Where have you offended my Constitution? Here,
They did not say the AZ was exactly identical, what was said is the AZ mirrors the Fed Law, not the same thing. If fact the AZ law has the anti-profiling language and the fed law does not. trplnkl. You think our Constitution doesn’t prevent racial profiling? Well, guess what? History has proved it does. Now, don’t say our Constitution is not Federal, and that you were citing that specific one on your link. The Federal Government won’t write the same think written on the Constitution word by word on this law. Why? Because the Constitution already applies on it. They don’t need to say
“may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States Constitution.” Like SB1070. Now, if it was to be written something like that maybe the law would have never been passed. Imagine if the Federal Government was subject to write the Bill of Rights on every law they passed, then we would have such a waste of paper, and ecologists would get mixed into politics. Now, you see where you have insulted my Constitution?
You sound like my supervisor when I show him the Contract. “Oh, no. That’s not what it implies.” But, he never tells me how it doesn’t, with a good explanation; without all that babble gabble. I’ve read all of the law, but why should I post all of it. If it started stupid, it’ll end stupid. And the one misreading between the lines, it’s you, in my posts. Anyway, you’re free to cite the parts you want of the law. You have freedom of expression.
I have these made up conversations… Well, at least I make a joke of a comical law. I don’t need two voices: Arpaio’s and Brewer’s for repeating the same two to three statements you people just hear and put on the table: “Have you read the law?” “Man, but there’s already a Federal Law like this one.” And I don’t remember the other ones, you should know them better.
Now, don’t ask me “Are you clapping for Calderon, too.” Or don‘t say something like, “Brewer and Arpaio are getting elected again.” I, still, don’t want to make this debate political. But, I still ask: Who the heck with an IQ of 20 signs this stupidity?
Wish you moreluck. Wish you, moreluck and the others could read my posts with integrity. And just because you don’t agree with them, say they’re full of gibberish; but, instead for you to explain to me why’s gibberish what I write.
See below
