[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

I dunno. I LIKE accountability and truth from my politicians. You don't. S'cool. I like chocolate and I'll bet you like vanilla.

I like accountability, let's start with holding the Democrats accountable for the ever-increasing costs of that health care bill they rammed through Congress, not a law that has yet to take effect that no one has apparently even read?

[talaniman]

Democrats don't raise insurance company premiums, insurance companies due. And I doubt they consult with democrats, or republicans before they do.

[speechlesstx]

Thats my take on the Arizona law. Bred by fear, and a political quick fix, in an election year. Make it so bad, the Governor has signed a new law banning minority optional education,

Have you read the law? You have it backwards see, the law is the response to a real problem due to inaction on the part of the federal government. The knee-jerk reaction to the law is what's made up of imaginary hobgoblins designed to keep the populace alarmed.

[speechlesstx]

Democrats don't raise insurance company premiums, insurance companies due. And i doubt they consult with democrats, or republicans before they do.

I said nothing about insurance companies raising rates, I'm speaking entirely of the lies and shenanigans pulled by Congress and this administration in passing the legislation resulting in an ever-increasing price tag for the bill.

[excon]

You have it backwards see, the law is the response to a real problem due to inaction on the part of the federal government. The knee-jerk reaction to the law is what's made up of imaginary hobgoblins designed to keep the populace alarmed.

Hello again, Steve:

You've BOTH got it right. The law IS a response to the feds doing NOTHING, and it IS a bad law based on fear.

You tell me, Steve, how many times did we hear about that rancher near the border who got himself killed by illegals?? Then you have the cojones to say that the REACTION to this racist law is what's causing the fear... Dude!

excon

[speechlesstx]

The rancher's murder may have contributed to the passage of the law, but it was not the basis of law. I stand on my comments and still await your holding the administration responsible for apologizing to one of the world biggest human rights violators in the world for a law that hasn't been read and hasn't violated one person's rights.

[talaniman]

Have you read the law? You have it backward see, the law is the response to a real problem due to inaction on the part of the federal government. The knee-jerk reaction to the law is what's made up of imaginary hobgoblins designed to keep the populace alarmed.

Yes I have read the law, and stop, and think given the lowered crime rate over the last 3 years, and additional funding, and training of local police to deal with the problem, why make a law in fear and panic rather than just address the problem, put some of those low paying employers in jail for hiring illegals in the first place. Would you risk your life on going somewhere where you couldn't make a dime? Not fair to hang a carrot out, and get mad when a rabbit comes to eat it.

I said nothing about insurance companies raising rates, I'm speaking entirely of the lies and shenanigans pulled by Congress and this administration in passing the legislation resulting in an ever-increasing price tag for the bill.

The article you quoted also says,


"Just like other authorized programs, the discretionary programs in health reform will need to compete for funds within set budgetary limits,” the aide said. “Republicans fighting to repeal reform can say what they want, but the bottom line is that CBO says reform will reduce the deficit and slow the growth of health care costs — period.”

Read more: CBO ups health care cost projections - Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com

So that's another wild claim by republicans, when the facts are not in evidence yet. What is the republican plan to address this issue, and why didn't it get done when they had the house, senate, and the white house?? More so, why is the bill that has half the amendments adapted, proposed by republicans, still opposed? Tell you why, ELECTIONS ARE HERE FOLKS, and that's all its about, not working together for solutions.

Fear has always been a great republican tactic, because conservatives are always scared of losing something. Doesn't matter the rest of the world is starving, as long as they have theirs its cool, and conservative don't share, the take, and then holler because everyone else wants a piece of pie to.

End of rant!

[speechlesstx]

Yes I have read the law, and stop, and think given the lowered crime rate over the last 3 years

What "lowered crime rate" are you referring to?

and additional funding, and training of local police to deal with the problem, why make a law in fear and panic rather than just address the problem,

What fear and panic? The only fear and panic I see is that coming from the left over a law they haven't read. We have an administration that hasn't read the law which is not in effect, volunteering it as an example of our human rights abuses in apology to a regime that's murdered millions of its own people.

Not fair to hang a carrot out, and get mad when a rabbit comes to eat it

.

Tell the feds to enforce their own laws instead of dangling carrots.

So that's another wild claim by republicans, when the facts are not in evidence yet.

And an aide's word is facts in evidence?

Fear has always been a great republican tactic, because conservatives are always scared of losing something

Excuse me, but after discussing a reasonable law that's been compared to Nazism and Soviet-style repression I find that quite amusing.

[tomder55]

Fear and Panic is a democrat talking point that is meaningless.
The truth is that the law is tempered and a reasonable reaction to the Federal Government's abrogation of responsibility in defending the borders .

[excon]

Fear and Panic is a democrat talking point that is meaningless. The truth is that the law is tempered and a reasonable reaction to the Federal Government's abrogation of responsibility in defending the borders .

Hello again, tom:

Spoken like a true believer. Any law, however, that targets illegal aliens for deportation WITHOUT addressing the circumstances of their arrival, which is that we INVITED them, isn't reasonable at all. Laws must be made in CONTEXT.

In fact, as I've mentioned before, the doctrine of ESTOPPEL makes the Arizona law illegal on its face:

"Estoppel by laches precludes a party from bringing an action when the party knowingly failed to claim or enforce a legal right at the proper time. This doctrine is closely related to the concept of statutes of limitations, except that statutes of limitations set specific time limits for legal actions, whereas under Laches, generally there is no prescribed time that courts consider "proper." A defendant seeking the protection of laches must demonstrate that the plaintiff's inaction, Misrepresentation, or silence prejudiced the defendant or induced the defendant to change positions for the worse."

excon

[talaniman]

Chart: Arizona crime statistics - latimes.com

Both sides in Arizona's immigration debate use crime argument - Los Angeles Times

Hard to argue facts fellows as crime is DOWN across the country. More so in Arizona, so what's up with the fear? Okay more needs to be done, but even though 70% are supporting this bill, the 30% who don't are making an awful lot of noise. Bet this changes after the election, when you don't need the right wing all revved up and willing to do anything for a vote.

[smoothy]

Hello again, tom:

Spoken like a true believer. Any law, however, that targets illegal aliens for deportation WITHOUT addressing the circumstances of their arrival, which is that we INVITED them, isn't reasonable at all. Laws must be made in CONTEXT.

In fact, as I've mentioned before, the doctrine of ESTOPPEL makes the Arizona law illegal on its face:

"Estoppel by laches precludes a party from bringing an action when the party knowingly failed to claim or enforce a legal right at the proper time. This doctrine is closely related to the concept of statutes of limitations, except that statutes of limitations set specific time limits for legal actions, whereas under Laches, generally there is no prescribed time that courts consider "proper." A defendant seeking the protection of laches must demonstrate that the plaintiff's inaction, Misrepresentation, or silence prejudiced the defendant or induced the defendant to change positions for the worse."

excon

The Arizona law is crafted on and parallels the Federal law.

Why "Brown" people think they have any god given right to violate OUR laws is beyond comprehension. AND its not just Latinos... Illegals come from other places too... and they aren't above the law by virtue they speak spanish as a first and sometimes only language any more than any other illegal is.

There is a law on the books. Just because someone decides to not enforce it to collect the equivalent of bribes to look the other way doesn't render it unenforcible by someone not on the take.

Same with drug addicts... Heroin, Crank, Crack... pot.


All illegal... and for good reason.

[talaniman]

Originally Posted by tomder55
Fear and Panic is a democrat talking point that is meaningless. The truth is that the law is tempered and a reasonable reaction to the Federal Government's abrogation of responsibility in defending the borders .

What has been unclear is what does Arizona really want, beside a very conservative election outcome. For proof of fact, just watch McCain keep pandering further to the right. Don't worry, when the election is over there will be no more fear mongering. But the taxes will go up. State taxes from lost revenues because of all the boycotts from the 30%!

[speechlesstx]

I'm on lawyer, but that sure sounds to me like that would only possibly apply (if it could apply at all) if someone was charged for violating the old law but prosecuted under the new law. Even then, current law says immigrants must carry their papers at all times. So how exactly would this apply?

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

ANY law that pretends that we didn't invite them in, employ them, let them settle here and start families, and then for the last 50 years totally ignored their presence here, is AGAINST the doctrine of laches.

excon

[speechlesstx]

The law didn't invite them in, the law didn't employ them, the law didn't let them settle here and start a family, they've been breaking the law all along. If they've entered the country illegally since the last amnesty was granted they're breaking the law. I think you're going to have a tough time selling that one. But don't worry, as soon as Obama gets all his empathetic judges in place folks will start getting justice based on something besides the law.

[excon]

The law didn't invite them in, the law didn't employ them, the law didn't let them settle here and start a family, they've been breaking the law all along.

Hello again, Steve:

That's the idea. If they were breaking the law all along, as you say, yet the federal government DIDN'T do anything about it, that's when laches attaches. It'll fly too. It's the same idea regarding the statutes of limitations... They weren't written to give a criminal a pass. No, they were written because they realized that passing time DOES alter context.

excon

[tomder55]

Doctrine of laches... the principle that says I can squat on someone else's property and then claim it as mine because the person hasn't actively kicked me off the property.

In the case of Arizona they have ruled that "laches may not be imputed to a party for mere delay in the assertion of a claim."

I would also think that a claim of laches would have to be submitted before it ever was invoked.

[excon]

I would also think that a claim of laches would have to be submitted before it ever was invoked.

Hello again, tom:

There has to be a case first. So, the time to assert laches is right after one is arrested.

Look. I'm no lawyer, and I didn't receive any emails telling me what the illegals are going to do. They probably won't follow my advice - but they SHOULD. No, I ain't no lawyer, but I can read..

excon

[smoothy]

When you were stopped the last time for any traffic offense... did you tell the cop to piss off when he asked for your ID (if you had the balls to do so what happened?). Why should Latinos be exempt.

After all everyone else has to produce an ID... they all get run for outstanding warrants etc...

What makes Latinos (Russians, Chinese, Indians "not native Americans", etc) special in not being checked for immigration status as well.


After all, 43 states require you to have some for of legal ID... and 100% of motor vehicle operators are required to do so.