New Arizona Immigration Law Poll

[Greal]

Obviously all the dark people on a normal street are illegal immigrants. While all the white people are perfect people.

[Our Constitution]

AMENDMENT XIV:

Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes

READ IT BEFORE THE REPUBLICANS BITCH-SLAP YOU WITH IT.

sorry caps.

[The Corparation]

1. A cop could be an ass if he wanted to and arrest even an American who didn't have there license (It's a federal Law)

Source?

Under the Arizona law, its a crime not to carry ID proving your a US citizen, thus nothing would stop a cop who didn't like your attitude could ,if you didn't have ID on you, arrest you.

[Tekania]

The only reason Mexicans are scrutinized more than others is that most of the illegal aliens in America are from Mexico.

Actually, no... This is untrue, most illegal Aliens in the US per-capita are El Salvadoran.... Mexicans make up the most per capita LEGAL Aliens in the US.

[Muravyets]

AMENDMENT XIV:

Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes

READ IT BEFORE THE REPUBLICANS BITCH-SLAP YOU WITH IT.

sorry caps.

Reduce the font size and attach a link and maybe we'll take the trouble to see you be wrong again.

[New Chalcedon]

Again, to the various pro-immigration-law people here, I would recommend a read of Farnhamia's post. (With thanks to TCT for pointing it out). SCOTUS has a well-established case history of defending the rights of aliens within the USA, especially as they pertain to due process. Despite Scalia's presence on the Court, I don't think they're going to stop now.

[Our Constitution]

http://books.google.com/books?id=gEMFAA ... &q&f=false

And now you can be wrong.

And here is a very good Blog on the subject as well:
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisi ... ction.html

[Muravyets]

http://books.google.com/books?id=gEMFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA351&lpg=PA351&dq=Sec.+1992+of+U.S.+Revised+Statutes&source=bl&ots=hiUkJO-8Q7&sig=bIDRSDC2m3qgpJ7VjBG98wua1b4&hl=en&ei=I03aS9D5No6U8gTb07FF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

And now you can be wrong.

And here is a very good Blog on the subject as well:
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisi ... ction.html

What the muthafuck are you talking about? That provision has nothing at all to do with this.

[Our Constitution]

They are not under U.S. Jurisdiction.

False.

But they are not American citizens and do not have the rights that come with citizenship. You are not entitled to live in the United States simply by being alive.

If they are in the US, they are under US jurisdiction and subject to US law -- including the protections that come with it.

And you are wrong, the same Congress that established the 14th Amendment which is where the entire concept of the word "jurisdiction" comes from.

I think you need to look more into the use of the word "jurisdiction"

[Muravyets]

They are not under U.S. Jurisdiction.

False.

But they are not American citizens and do not have the rights that come with citizenship. You are not entitled to live in the United States simply by being alive.

If they are in the US, they are under US jurisdiction and subject to US law -- including the protections that come with it.

And you are wrong, the same Congress that established the 14th Amendment which is where the entire concept of the word "jurisdiction" comes from.

I think you need to look more into the use of the word "jurisdiction"

Gods, you have got to be kidding.

[North Calaveras]

I'm not saying that they are the only group to do so. What I am saying is that they clamor for more rights as Americans from on side of their mouths and from the other proclaim the greatness of Mexico. There is nothing wrong with taking pride in your heritage (as long as it doesn't exceed your pride in America), but it doesn't exactly display loyalty or a desire to assimilate when every "immigrant rights" march is nothing but a flood of foreign flags and languages.

They said that about the Irish some years ago, you know. Again, how do you like your crow?

What do the Irish have to do with this? It doesn't matter which country you come from; you can't show more loyalty to your old country than to America and expect to be accepted.

Exactly! This doesn't apply to the Irish! They're white! You'd never know just by looking at them that they're here illegally. Not like those Mexicans.

Actually mexicans are white or at least half white, as there are only three races in the world Mongoloid: Native americans, asians Negro: Most Africans and Caucasian: Europe and middle east.

Correction: Theres like two more than that i think, but the vast majority are caucasian and mongoloid.

[Tekania]

http://books.google.com/books?id=gEMFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA351&lpg=PA351&dq=Sec.+1992+of+U.S.+Revised+Statutes&source=bl&ots=hiUkJO-8Q7&sig=bIDRSDC2m3qgpJ7VjBG98wua1b4&hl=en&ei=I03aS9D5No6U8gTb07FF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

And now you can be wrong.

And here is a very good Blog on the subject as well:
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisi ... ction.html

Citizenship doesn't alter jurisdiction. I think you're confusing yourself. Anyone who is not under Diplomatic Immunity while on US soil in representation of another foreign nation, is under US Jurisdiction.... Jurisdiction is defined by the extension of the law over a defined extent of territory. You're under the jurisdiction of the government which has legal determination of the territory upon which you stand (regardless of your citizenship)... If you cross south of the border into Mexico, you'll be in the jurisdiction of Mexico, if you cross north, you'll be in the Jurisdiction of Canada; and subject to those laws there, and penalties.

[Nordicus]

It is really impossible to discuss anything with you if you are just not going to read what you respond to. I'm going to walk you through this one and then you're on ignore because I'm tired of your bs:

1) Your "walkthrough" is wrong because "Poster #3" did not say what your "walkthrough" said; it was not even particularly close. You initially twisted Poster #2's statement to be that the Feds should have deported all the darkies, now you are trying to make it out like you said that it "wouldn't have been necessary" for the *state* to 'deport the darkies.' That is intellectually dishonest, if not outright lying.
2) The "read what you respond to" line is rich, since your posts indicate that you yourself are not doing so.

As for "my bs," I can only assume that you are affronted at my amateurness at the field, since your BS is a whole level above my own meager offering.

Feel free to put me on ignore, since you've already been ignoring 90% of what I've said from my first response to you onwards... and that seems to be your modus operandi here, anyways. If you have such trouble dealing with anyone who disagrees with you, combined with your own, to put it lightly, less than civil way of dealing with people, I shouldn't be surprised if you have half the board on ignore. But, again, feel free to stick your head in the sand, since you seem to be incapable of realizing that people with different opinions are simply that, rather than half-witted demonic hatemongers willfully trying to destroy everything you hold dear. Your conversation with Flameswroth was rather... enlightening... in that regard, and I personally have to say that the views you expressed there (namely, how you feel that "no law you might agree with gets passed" and that anything he thinks is a good idea must automatically have something wrong with it) make you seem a far more scary person to have as a political leader than anybody else (save maybe Neu Mittani, if he's not just being a troll) that I've seen pipe up in this thread.

The very best I can assume of you, based on your posts here, is that you are extremely overly-emotional about this issue, and that you were correct in your first post in the thread (which, IMO, is one of the few places that can be said of you). The /other assumption I could draw would likely get me banned if I voiced it here, yet you've acted rather like a textbook example of it. Suffice it to say, the ignoring will be mutual. Too bad all this textwall will be wasted on you, as experience has shown that you will read no further than the first sentence, perhaps only half of the first sentence.

Securing the border means preventing people from crossing illegally in the first place. That's not exactly something that even a strong spin can twist; the dictionary definition of "secure" has two entries that would support the intended meaning, and none that would support the deportation meaning you drew.

Actualy, that's exactly what it means. Because 'preventing people from crossing illegally in the first place' is impossible. 100% completely impossible. You could deploy the entire army across your southern border and people would STILL cross illegally, unless you stopped ALL people crossing. Therefore, 'securing the border' refers more to catching people inside the United States and deporting them with a great enough efficiency to discourage such activity and thus reduce the flow of people across the border. Thus, securing it.

The dream of an impervious border will remain forever that.

No, actually, deportation is NOT securing the border, it is a supplement to securing the border. They are separate but related concepts. Securing the border refers only to making the border less porous. While you could perhaps view laws targeting businesses which employ illegals as securing the border, I fail to see how the same could be said of the great game of whack-a-mole that is deportation, nor have I seen any reputable sources which conflate the two.

'Illegal' Immigration is one of the hardest things to convince many American, Americans that I would otherwise mostly agree with, that it is not bad for the United States, and that any problems that such an issue might have can be avoided without walling off this entire nation and turning into a Fascist Police State in order to stop something that is not a problem.

Bullshit. Look at all the crime statistics related to illegal immigrants. If you don't want to do the research yourself, there's a pretty comprehensive (and well-cited, based on the articles I've read so far) collection of information here:
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/

[Muravyets]

Okay, let's review:

The ironically named Our Constitution (which I guess does not refer to the US one) seems to think that:

1) A provision of the Constitution that specifically states that it applies to "any person" within US jurisdiction does not apply to certain persons within US jurisdiction.

2) The Congress coined the word "jurisdiction" in that provision.

3) The word "jurisdiction" apparently means something other than place where the US government is the legal authority.

4) All foreign visitors to the US have diplomatic immunity.

5) No foreigners have ever been arrested, tried or imprisoned for committing crimes in the US.

6) If people have diplomatic immunity, the US could still prosecute and deport them, even though, according to AC, they are not within our jurisdiction.

And on the basis of all this, AC cops a condescending attitude towards other posters. Well, that explains a lot about supporters of the AZ law, as far as I'm concerned. Sorry, but.

[The Corparation]

'Illegal' Immigration is one of the hardest things to convince many American, Americans that I would otherwise mostly agree with, that it is not bad for the United States, and that any problems that such an issue might have can be avoided without walling off this entire nation and turning into a Fascist Police State in order to stop something that is not a problem.

Bullshit. Look at all the crime statistics related to illegal immigrants. If you don't want to do the research yourself, there's a pretty comprehensive (and well-cited, based on the articles I've read so far) collection of information here:
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/

Well that seems a completely unbiased source of information....oh wait it isn't.

[Whole Conviction]

Securing the border means preventing people from crossing illegally in the first place. That's not exactly something that even a strong spin can twist; the dictionary definition of "secure" has two entries that would support the intended meaning, and none that would support the deportation meaning you drew.

Actualy, that's exactly what it means. Because 'preventing people from crossing illegally in the first place' is impossible. 100% completely impossible. You could deploy the entire army across your southern border and people would STILL cross illegally, unless you stopped ALL people crossing. Therefore, 'securing the border' refers more to catching people inside the United States and deporting them with a great enough efficiency to discourage such activity and thus reduce the flow of people across the border. Thus, securing it.

The dream of an impervious border will remain forever that.

No, actually, deportation is NOT securing the border, it is a supplement to securing the border. They are separate but related concepts. Securing the border refers only to making the border less porous. While you could perhaps view laws targeting businesses which employ illegals as securing the border, I fail to see how the same could be said of the great game of whack-a-mole that is deportation, nor have I seen any reputable sources which conflate the two.

Actually, there are a lot of people in favour of this bill who are saying that it will 'secure the border'. That term is a lot more broad than simply preventing people from coming over in the first place. Which is, after all, IMPOSSIBLE.

[Muravyets]

<snip a protracted rant about me (plus two other responses that were wrong anyway>

I am not the topic of this thread.

You made that necessary.

[Muravyets]

Actually mexicans are white or at least half white, as there are only three races in the world Mongoloid: Native americans, asians Negro: Most Africans and Caucasian: Europe and middle east.

Correction: Theres like two more than that i think, but the vast majority are caucasian and mongoloid.

Yeah, but are they white enough?

[New Chalcedon]

'Illegal' Immigration is one of the hardest things to convince many American, Americans that I would otherwise mostly agree with, that it is not bad for the United States, and that any problems that such an issue might have can be avoided without walling off this entire nation and turning into a Fascist Police State in order to stop something that is not a problem.

Bullshit. Look at all the crime statistics related to illegal immigrants. If you don't want to do the research yourself, there's a pretty comprehensive (and well-cited, based on the articles I've read so far) collection of information here:
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/

Well that seems a completely unbiased source of information....oh wait it isn't.

I was so tempted to say this, but refrained. Nordicus (an indicative name if ever there was one), I would suggest you actually get a relatively balanced source on that. And I don't mean "Fair and Balanced" FauxNews, either.

[Whole Conviction]

That is a mis-interpretation of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. A Mexican Citizen in the United States is under Mexican Jurisdiction through the Mexican Consulate / Embassy. These are very well crafted matters of International Diplomacy.

You are quite simply wrong my friend.

Huh. Interesting definition of 'jurisdiction'. You're mistaken, hwoever. The only persons present in the United States (or any other country) which are NOT subject to that country's laws are those with diplomatic immunity. Tourists, undocumented aliens, visa holders and others are subject to the jurisdiction of the country they are in. If a Mexican citizen commits a crime in LA, he can be tried in LA courts. That's what jursidiction means. Is there another meaning you were interpreting?

[The Corparation]

Actually mexicans are white or at least half white, as there are only three races in the world Mongoloid: Native americans, asians Negro: Most Africans and Caucasian: Europe and middle east.

Correction: Theres like two more than that i think, but the vast majority are caucasian and mongoloid.

Yeah, but are they white enough?

History says no.

[North Calaveras]

Actually mexicans are white or at least half white, as there are only three races in the world Mongoloid: Native americans, asians Negro: Most Africans and Caucasian: Europe and middle east.

Correction: Theres like two more than that i think, but the vast majority are caucasian and mongoloid.

Yeah, but are they white enough?

History says no.

Its also funny because Mexicans are a nationality but a vast amount of people on NS think that Mexicans are a race.

[Muravyets]

Actually mexicans are white or at least half white, as there are only three races in the world Mongoloid: Native americans, asians Negro: Most Africans and Caucasian: Europe and middle east.

Correction: Theres like two more than that i think, but the vast majority are caucasian and mongoloid.

Yeah, but are they white enough?

History says no.

Its also funny because Mexicans are a nationality but a vast amount of people on NS think that Mexicans are a race.

An even vaster number of people in Arizona seem to think so, too. How else do they imagine they can just look at someone and judge they are likely to be here illegally, unless they are judging by the person's appearance. So, they decide someone "looks Mexican" and that means they can't possibly be American, and harassment commences.

[The Corparation]

Actually mexicans are white or at least half white, as there are only three races in the world Mongoloid: Native americans, asians Negro: Most Africans and Caucasian: Europe and middle east.

Correction: Theres like two more than that i think, but the vast majority are caucasian and mongoloid.

Yeah, but are they white enough?

History says no.

Its also funny because Mexicans are a nationality but a vast amount of people on NS think that Mexicans are a race.

An even vaster number of people in Arizona seem to think so, too. How else do they imagine they can just look at someone and judge they are likely to be here illegally, unless they are judging by the person's appearance. So, they decide someone "looks Mexican" and that means they can't possibly be American, and harassment commences.

Funny how many of those people who l"ook Mexican" aren't from Mexico but from farther south.

[Tekania]

That is a mis-interpretation of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. A Mexican Citizen in the United States is under Mexican Jurisdiction through the Mexican Consulate / Embassy. These are very well crafted matters of International Diplomacy.

You are quite simply wrong my friend.

Huh. Interesting definition of 'jurisdiction'. You're mistaken, hwoever. The only persons present in the United States (or any other country) which are NOT subject to that country's laws are those with diplomatic immunity. Tourists, undocumented aliens, visa holders and others are subject to the jurisdiction of the country they are in. If a Mexican citizen commits a crime in LA, he can be tried in LA courts. That's what jursidiction means. Is there another meaning you were interpreting?

You'll have to forgive him, he's likely never been outside of the US... Living in his very insular life secluded from reality.

Not even US Military personnel outside of their base/ship are immune from the legal jurisdiction of the country they are standing in. If I'm ported in Naples, and decide to go visit the ruins in Pompeii, if I break Italian laws, I can be arrested, tried, convicted and serve my sentence in Italy (and likely end up then transported back to the US to go through the same in the military courts under the UCMJ, since it's pretty hard not to violate one without the other).