Easy Tex, don't implode, and don't kick your dog. Take a step back and listen to yourself, you argue this is an open and shut case, absolutely nothing constitutionally was violated, and anybody who says differently are liars, racists (how ironic in this case...lol), didn't read the Bill, have no reading comprehension, and push extreme left wing stupidity.
No imploding here, and I don't have a dog. You say I am arguing that this is an open and shut case, that's just not true. I argue that I believe this to be a good law that will pass the Constitutional litmus test. Then I tell why I believe that to be so. Your argument is that the law (not a bill) is un American and anyone that supports it are Marxist, communistic and/or nazis. My little tirade was nothing but throwing a little of the hate speech back at you. Didn't like it much did ya? It is your refusal to show any comprehension of the law and continue to say it is encouraging profiling that is unfounded in any piece of fact. In other words, :show me the proof of profiling:.
The law is not just unconstitutional, its “facially” unconstitutional, if you know what that means.
Actually, I have never heard the word "facially" applied in this context. Of the face unconstitutional? concerned with or used in improving the appearance of the face unconstitutional ? Sorry, neither one makes sense.
States do not get to legislate intn'l/nat'l affairs. States legislate state issues, and the federal govt legislates intn'l/nat'l affairs.
And you’d know that if the Conservative Texas School Boards didn't keep changing content in our text books.
The Az law does not legislate intn'l/nat'l affairs, it supports federal law. I have said on this thread that if the AZ law was unconstitutional it would be so on the balance of powers between state and feds, I think there is a fine line there that will probably have to be decided by the SCotUS. I will bow to their decision, will you?
Now Tex, if your bent on displacing Mexicans in your own state, who's going to do the low wage jobs such as shoveling manure off your ranch ?...
Never said I was for displacing Mexicans from any state, nope, never said nor implied it either. I am for displacing illegal immigrants from the US, whatever country they are from or whatever state they are in. Hardly a racist stance.
Contrary to what your masters on hate radio ....Hate to disappoint youbut I don't listen to Mike Malloy or Peter Weibe. I also do not listen to Limbaugh or any of the other "conservative talk show people either. and fauxsnooze (do I get to make up senseless words too)may tell you, this law is not simply a “strengthening of existing federal laws”.. Its rascism for political points, and worrisom at the polls, pure and simple. How is this racism? I doubt many, if any, politicians do anything without "political points" in mind.They may just simply target “hispanics” right now, but whats there to stop officials from, lets say targeting people with a “european” accent? How does this law "target hispanics''? Now, I do understand that the law will effect mostly Mexicans because of the proximity to Mexico , but the law is clearly directed to all illegal immigrants. The facts are also clear that thousands of middle eastern Muslim extremists cross the boarders as well. Wouldn't it be nice to stop a few of them as well?
When we allow the rights of other people to be trampled on, we pretty much guarantee that our rights will be the next to go.
Please tell me exactingly what rights are being trampled on. You have made many unfounded claims of this but yet have not proven even one right that has been trampled on. But know, you asking for us to have faith in people like Sherriff Joe A-hole, that they'll do the right thing.... I'm pretty sure you have insisted that we trust Obama, even though he has proven time and time again that he is a liar. So what's the difference?
On a side note, speaking of toughguy sheriff of USA, Joe Arpaio and his aggressive tactics against illegal immigrants have been frequently in the news lately. 93 people were detained in the latest sweep, and officers suspected about 63 of them are illegal immigrants. This brings up the question – on what ground were the other 30 detained and if they are legals, isn't it an argument that "reasonable suspicion" doesn't work in certain cases?
I don't know what grounds they were detained on and you don't either. You are speculating that there were no reasons for the detainment when you know absolutely nothing of the circumstances. There are many laws that could have been broken by those 30 that have nothing to do with legal status in the US. You are so willing to believe that anyone that doesn't agree with your thoughts are racists (IMO that makes you a racist) and neo-nazis.
The law threatenes to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.
Basic notions of fairness are highly interpretive and ambiguous. Going outside of the lines that you draw does not necessarily create unconstitutional actions.
How bout this, deport the Repugs (the ones that are trying to destroy America) and keep the hard working Immigrants...
That still does not address the problem with criminal aliens.
You make me laugh out loud claiming that republicans are trying to destroy America, all they are trying to do is keep the liberals from giving it away.
flips your switch go for it dude. Epithets and slurs seem to be a matter of course for you. Have I said some things that I shouldn't have? You're damn right I have and I have no problem admitting it. You wanna call me on it? Go for it. You won't hurt my feelings any. I know how to apologize if it is needed. Some don't. 
