Arizona Governor Signs Additional Controversial Bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
darkdog said:
Human rights violations? In China? Wha...???
Click to expand...

no.... I'm talking about a specific human violations relating to American corporations. When American corporation contracts with a factory, it makes sure the factory abides by its standard of human rights.

I'm not talking about human rights violation in China politically-wise.
 
Jiro said:
no.... I'm talking about a specific human violations relating to American corporations. When American corporation contracts with a factory, it makes sure the factory abides by its standard of human rights.

I'm not talking about human rights violation in China politically-wise.
Click to expand...
If that's what you meant, then fair enough, although you certainly worded things poorly, especially since individual factory conditions are totally irrelevant. LA's not boycotting individual factories in Arizona for individual human rights abuses. They're boycotting the entire state for what they perceive as human rights abuses by the state government, you know, "politically-wise".
 
LA's not boycotting individual factories in Arizona for individual human rights abuses. They're boycotting the entire state for what they perceive as human rights abuses by the state government, you know, "politically-wise".
Click to expand...

And that makes it all the more ironic here. Not to mention totally hypocritical.
 
darkdog said:
If that's what you meant, then fair enough, although you certainly worded things poorly, especially since individual factory conditions are totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...
re-read my previous post -

2. human rights violation? like what? If I recall correctly - before doing business, the Americans make sure it abides by its term of contract such as no child labor.

Poorly worded? nah. you probably misunderstood.

darkdog said:
LA's not boycotting individual factories in Arizona for individual human rights abuses. They're boycotting the entire state for what they perceive as human rights abuses by the state government, you know, "politically-wise".
Click to expand...
and illegal.
 
darkdog said:
I don't care if someone makes a billion posts as long as they're well-informed and coherent. If not, they're better off spending their time learning stuff than pontificating. That's why I don't have that many posts- because there's too much I don't know for me to litter up this site with posts on things I know little about. I mostly post if I know something about the topic and have something coherent to say about it.
Click to expand...

I understand your reasons for it but not everyone is the same. Some people post a lot and some dont. Maybe that's how Jiro keeps himself educated on current events...

Question...how do you know what Jiro knows and doesnt know?
 
Jiro said:
re-read my previous post -

2. human rights violation? like what? If I recall correctly - before doing business, the Americans make sure it abides by its term of contract such as no child labor.

Poorly worded? nah. you probably misunderstood.
Click to expand...
The topic was about human rights violations by governments and when China came up, you responded with "Human rights violations? Like what?" and then threw out a non sequiter that's unrelated to the conversation. Most reasonable readers would interpret that the way I did.

Jiro said:
and illegal.
Click to expand...
What part of the law contradicts what part of the Constitution?
 
darkdog said:
The topic was about human rights violations by governments and when China came up, you responded with "Human rights violations? Like what?" and then threw out a non sequiter that's unrelated to the conversation. Most reasonable readers would interpret that the way I did.
Click to expand...
I suppose I should go easy on you? :aw: from what I see - only you were :confused:

darkdog said:
What part of the law contradicts what part of the Constitution?
Click to expand...
http://www.alldeaf.com/war-political-news/77377-legal-showdown-arizonas-immigration-law.html
 
I see nothing in that thread that would indicate that they AZ bill is illegal
 
darkdog said:
I'm guessing you're referring to the 14th amendment, although you never specifically said "This law violates the 14th amendment." So how would it violate either due process or equal protection?
Click to expand...

5th, 6th, state doing the federal duty, and borderline racial profiling.
 
Jiro said:
5th, 6th, state doing the federal duty, and borderline racial profiling.
Click to expand...

Racial profiling may continue to occur.....but it is specifically forbidden in the AZ bill.

There are many matching State and Federal laws......No reason why AZ can't adopt it's own law with regards to illegal immigrants
 
TXgolfer said:
Racial profiling may continue to occur.....but it is specifically forbidden in the AZ bill.
Click to expand...
and it's forbidden in federal law as well and yet..... it's still happening.

TXgolfer said:
There are many matching State and Federal laws......No reason why AZ can't adopt it's own law with regards to illegal immigrants
Click to expand...
good luck with the funds AZ does not have to detain them. and to enforce it.
 
Jiro said:
and it's forbidden in federal law as well and yet..... it's still happening. .
Click to expand...

Exactly...It already happens....This law isn't going to cause something that isn't already happening.


good luck with the funds AZ does not have to detain them. and to enforce it
Click to expand...

Perhaps they should backcharge the Feds for not doing their job. :shrug:
 
TXgolfer said:
Exactly...It already happens....This law isn't going to cause something that isn't already happening.
Click to expand...
so why the redundancy by making it a state law? it's opening up to more legality and financial burden..... like (see below)

TXgolfer said:
Perhaps they should backcharge the Feds for not doing their job. :shrug:
Click to expand...
nope. not anymore since it's now the state law. the federal government is not responsible for state law. I wouldn't be surprised if feds are not going to challenge this law. why bother with legal expense and trouble? The feds will just sit back and chuckle as Arizona will drown in the cost of enforcing its new immigration law.
 
Jiro said:
so why the redundancy by making it a state law? it's opening up to more legality and financial burden..... like (see below)
Click to expand...

This has been answered 100 times. Because the Feds haven't been doing their F-ing jobs.

Jiro said:
nope. not anymore since it's now the state law. the federal government is not responsible for state law. I wouldn't be surprised if feds are not going to challenge this law. why bother with legal expense and trouble? The feds will just sit back and chuckle as Arizona will drown in the cost of enforcing its new immigration law
Click to expand...

Exactly.....Which is why I say AZ should back charge the Feds.....And if the Feds leave AZ hanging......The people should stop paying their income tax. If the Feds aren't going to do their job why pay them?????
 
TXgolfer said:
This has been answered 100 times. Because the Feds haven't been doing their F-ing jobs.
Click to expand...
nothing new in federal complaint department. next please!

TXgolfer said:
Exactly.....Which is why I say AZ should back charge the Feds.....And if the Feds leave AZ hanging......The people should stop paying their income tax. If the Feds aren't going to do their job why pay them?????
Click to expand...
again - because of this federal law is now a state law... Arizona is now responsible for immigration matter. It will bear the cost itself. too bad. :aw:
 
Jiro said:
again - because of this federal law is now a state law... Arizona is now responsible for immigration matter. It will bear the cost itself. too bad. :aw:
Click to expand...

LOL.....It doesn't quite work that way. But if you support the Federal government turning it's back on Americans over petty politics that's your choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top