| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
Comments:
<0> send all of the mexicans to Arizona and California, it's all their fault.
<1> I just don't see the logic
<0> And then back charge them for the shipping expense.
<2> it is up to the states
<0> moron
<2> if the government can't or isn't 'willing to do anything about the immigration problem it then falls on the hands of the state
<0> Come up with a more ridiculous opinion please.
<0> No it does not.
<2> the state HAS to take responsibility for its borders
<3> bud`, there isnt any logic...its an untenable position being argued by someone who can't admit being wrong...
<0> No they do not.
<2> yes it DOES its in the constitution
<0> Cite where it says they have to.
<4> Hemi is right
<5> ajofi: hey...I liked your idea. :)
<6> WOWOW
<6> bleeeh
<7> The muslims aren't the brightest bulbs in the lamp. If they want the world's respect, try actually contributing something to humanity instead of just murdering, rioting, and complaining all the time.
<2> thank you gloriae
<8> DerekN: actually they have contributed
<2> i have already cited it
<8> more so than some anglo saxons
<0> `426Hemi (3:00:53 PM): yes it DOES its in the constitution
<0> where?
<7> vasili0s: They shoud contribute something today, in modern times.
<4> many of them are, DerekN, the terrorists are a tiny minority of muslims
<4> and most of their victims are muslims!
<8> gloriae: dont tell that to panini
<8> 60% man !
<8> 60 f'n percent
<3> 60%?
<9> 60%man, 40% jack***
<0> `426Hemi (3:00:53 PM): yes it DOES its in the constitution
<0> where?
<8> Espectro: stay in georgia
<9> where from vas?
<8> we need to keep folk like you, contained.
<6> sblah
<10> ajofi, I'm actually looking at the constitution gith now... can't find it... unless its in the state constitution.
<10> right*
<0> Article IV Section 4 says the US government is responsible for protection against invasion.
<8> heh
<0> The constitution doesn't say what happens if the US government fails to do what it says in the constitution.
<10> ajofi, and immigration law is federal...
<2> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
<0> The ***umption is that the federal government will do what the constitution says.
<11> Bah
<2> Amendment VI
<2> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the a
<11> they allowed Brokeback Mountain in Singapore
<0> The POWER of border security is expressly delegated to the federal government.
<11> Damnit Singapore
<10> Hemi, but is not one of the powers granted to the feds, is to uphold federal law?
<2> ILLEGAL immigrants are criminals
<9> vasili0s: be known that my beloved Georgia will play a significant role in keeping you and bretheren lewsers in the electorate for years to come
<11> They're ruining my SoCon paradise
<2> Fernin EXACTLY
<0> Illegal immigrants are accused of a federal crime.
<9> damm
<6> On March 8, the U.S. House of Representatives p***ed a bill permanently exempting Ukraine from trade restrictions imposed under the 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment, which ties trade status to the rights of Jews to emigrate
<10> Hemi, but immigration law is federal...
<10> Thus its the feds duty.
<2> ajofi and states must uphold FEDERAL LAW
<6> The timing of the bill's p***age was not accidental. Tomorrow marks the beginning of a two-day official visit to Washington by Ukraine's Foreign Minister Borys Tarasyuk. And more critically, Ukrainian parliamentary elections are scheduled for March 26.
<9> gotta eat it i guess
<3> Aarticle 1, section 10....it sweet an nice
<0> 426: Not without funding.
<4> you really can't have it both ways. if bush had sent federal troops, there would have been screeches that he was preempting state authority etc
<4> as he didn't, the screeches are because he didn't
<10> ajofi, depends on the situation. :)
<4> so what else is new
<6> well
<10> ajofi, well, legally they don't have to.
<6> mid april was too late
<2> Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
<2> A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.
<2> the border crossings are ILLEGAL and happened in "said state"
<0> Border security is exclusively federal.
<4> do the texas rangers still exist?
<2> when caught in say "colorado" they should be offered up to the states where the crime was originally commited
<2> Yeh gloriae
<6> not his fault
<0> And they should be processed and tried by the federal courts in that state.
<0> It is NOT a state issue.
<9> well the southeast states aren't likely to invade sonora and sur
<5> That's why I said I agreed with ajofi when he said ship them back to Arizona or California.
<9> and even the border patrol thing i dicey
<3> gloriae, yep..they're perennial cellar dwellers in the American League West
<9> except for federally approved ones
<0> except that the shipping bill goes to the federal government, not to those states.
<2> enough of ajofi and his arguing the sky is really purpley green
<5> ajofi: I won't argue that point with you.
<0> 426: you're wrong and you've provided not a single wit of compelling evidence otherwise
<6> within the past 30 minutes quiet a few articles on the Ukraine have popped up on Bush's site
<2> heh if it doesn't go to those states then why did the states have authority to sue the federal government to block the port deal
<2> Next!
<4> DeDannan: some texas rangers are tex mex, too
<10> Anyone can sue anyone.
<6> I don't know who is involved here
<5> Can an ex-president sue a president?
<6> clearly the man who read the letter
<10> I don't believe a decision was made in any of the cases.
<9> don't believe so
<9> an ex-pres can sue an ex-pres of course
<2> basically the whole thing with this immmigration crap is that the democratically controlled southern states that have the largest problem with illegal immigration only want to use it as a political tool, if they were really concerned with illegal immigration they would put their own national guard troops on the border to stop illegal immigratiion to begin with
<2> which is their Constitutional right
<10> So even if they brought up a case, the judge would hear arguments on whether or not there should be a default judgement, or whether the case carries merit. That itself will take a bit while everything hangs in limbo... so that doesn't mean the states have the power.
<5> Well, if that is true then "anyone can sue anyone" isn't true.
<2> all they have done is whine alot and do totally nothing
<3> texas is 'democratically controlled'?
<10> Yes, calling in the national guard would be a way of helping the issue, especially if the national guard took a hard stance.
<10> because the guard is funded by the feds for the most part.
<2> the states can turn around and sue the federal government for reimbursement
<2> its that easy
<9> bush should snap some necks
<9> can't get sued
<2> bbiab
<3> Florida is a 'democratically controlled state'?
<6> I'm seeying 3 names pop up over and over
<0> Heaven forbid the ****ing federal government should actually protect the borders.
<10> That requires effort...
<10> and spines...
<0> NO instead "FOTD" 426 says that it's easier for states to just do it then sue for reimbursement.
<2> again, let me say this one more time
<0> Right.
<0> That's logical.
<6> ah
<6> I get the hillary jokes now
<10> What I find odd...
<9> equal protection from canadians...
<0> Sue for reimbursement.
<0> Tie **** up in the courts.
<10> Is the fact that a majority of constituents in the southern states want border protection...
<0> Cost taxpayers even MORE money.
<10> Where is their representation?
<2> When the Federal government refuses to act, the STATES have the right to protect their own borders
<2> what part of this aren't you getting ajofi?
<0> All because the federal government is ignoring the law.
<0> states have the *RIGHT* not the responsibility.
<2> so are the states
<0> Nothing says they are responsible.
<6> remember that she had a letter sent to her from Israel
<0> Feds are responsible.
<0> Their job.
<2> they have the responsibility to UPHOLD FEDERAL LAW
<2> get a clue
<4> most of it, I suspect, Hemi
<0> Not when it costs them a ****load of money that is unfunded by the federal government.
<12> hi
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#firebird
#hardware
#flash
uncompact emails
protestitution
#windows
winetools gtk-alternative-button-order
ozone layer greehouse effect
zidane owning brazil
#politics
|
|