Jump to content

The bill that will make most of you illegal


glassgowkiss

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The "love it or leave it" is a popular counter-argument that attempts to nullify all possible criticisms. It's sort of a last ditch attempt to avoid facing unpleasant truths about our "perfect Union."

 

It's very versatile. It's quite similar to the "why do you hate America" argument the right has been using for a while. It can be used against any argument.

 

Good Americans don't rock the boat, right?

 

Don't like it? Then GET OUT! And take some Mexicans with ya!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine how much smoother everything will be once we get rid of everyone who disagrees with us!

 

Give it a rest. This is not about disagreeing, but about singing the same fucking tune so endlessly. The dude is not forced to live here. Nobody is.

 

Well, I don't know him (at all). But it sounds like, to me, he's not complaining about being forced to live here, but is complaining about things in his adoptive country that he doesn't like. That sounds pretty American too me. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

USA for USA:

 

Listen to all this all you douchebags

it's time that we laid down the law

we're tired of taking your shit

and we ain't 'gonna take it no more

be prepared to fight and die

so that we may be free

and if you don't like it here

than pack your shit and leave

our forefathers died in war

so that you could live better

we at least owe it to them

to keep the stars and stripes forever

 

Planting bombs in planes

blowing up our ships

kill our kids and woman

find these dickless slobs

hang them by the scrotum

lets end the terrorism

 

You think yourself a god

would follow to the death

a spineless yellow faggot

a bunch of stinking slobs

hiding behind masks

show yourself 'ya maggot

 

United we stand

divided we fall

and that's the way it's gonna be

don't ever forget the soldiers

who died for liberty

 

All the bullshit countries

who think they'll beat the giant

world peace upheaval

we'll nuke 'em to the stone age

send the message clear

ya don't fuck with the eagle

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you even IMAGINE if we got "tough" with industry that hires illegals? Sure, like Americans are gonna want to go pick fruit for a dollar a day. :rolleyes:

 

actually, if you are good, you'll make 120 a day. at least in washington. more during cherry harvest. guys who come up from latin america will make a year's wages in just a month or two. it's kind of an incentive, you know? i imagine i'd be doing the same in their shoes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

so, you support slave labor? so you get cheap fruit, right?

 

 

OH! I get it now. They're slaves! They don't wanna be here!!! No wonder you guys want to send them home so badly.

 

Clearly, if farmers didn't keep enslaving them, there would be no illegal immigrants here at all, they'd all just stay home! Brilliant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Clearly, if farmers didn't keep enslaving them, there would be no illegal immigrants here at all, they'd all just stay home! Brilliant!

 

You've been exposed to too much Kevbone.

 

Is that like asbestos?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, unless and until you're willing to get ruthless with illegal employers and carry a national ID card you're just whistling that tune up your own asshole.

 

Well, Joseph, it looks like Obama doesn't want states to crack down on employers either:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/03/justice-dept-challenges-arizona-immigration-law-targeting-employers/

 

The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court decision that upheld Arizona's right to punish employers for hiring illegal immigrants.

 

The Arizona law gives the state the right to suspend or terminate business licenses.

 

"If you hire a person in this country illegally knowingly, you'll lose your license. First offense, 10 days. Second offense, revocation, never to do business in the state of Arizona again," said Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican who helped draft the new controversial Arizona law that cracks down on illegal immigrants.

 

The Obama administration apparently worries letting that law stand would leave in place a precedent that states have a legitimate role in enforcing immigration laws – a notion the administration fiercely opposes.

 

"The argument that the Justice Department is making here, is you know, the fundamental question, which is where does state authority begin and end when it comes to federal immigration law?" said Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Council.

 

The Arizona statue relies on a law passed by the U.S. Congress in 1986, which made clear federal law preempts the states on immigration – but left one exception: "The provisions of this section preempt any state or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ unauthorized aliens."

 

"Congress said very clearly that licensing and similar laws can be used to impose consequences on employers who hire unauthorized aliens at the state level," said Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. "And that's exactly what Arizona did."

 

Oddly enough, the law in question was signed in 2007 by then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, now Obama's Homeland Security secretary.

 

Not only that, but the law was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

 

"And bear in mind that 9th Circuit is generally regarded as one of the more liberal circuits in the United States – and so the Obama administration, evidently, believes that the 9th Circuit views on this question is too conservative for this administration," Kobach said.

 

And this is yet another issue in the ongoing tug of war between Washington and the states, especially Arizona.

 

"The idea that states can't be involved in immigration law in any way is wrong," Johnson said. "The states have always had a role to play in immigration enforcement. The tricky part is defining where that authority begins and ends."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am all choked up that conservatives are suddenly all up and 'states rights' again after relentlessly fucking Florida in the 2000 election, California over CAFE standards, and atttempting to remove all states' rights to provide oversight on credit, insurance, and the environment. Choked up I tell you - to think that conservatives have rediscovered their indignation - oh, the humanity! More like, oh, the hypocrisy!

 

The administration isn't going to be picking through trash for what may be the odd worthwhile components of the law - it's quite appropriately rejecting it wholesale. Personally I think they should let them run with it an even maybe encourage Texas and the Southern states to jump on the [back of the] bus, too. What the hell, there'll be plenty of white patriots voting republican in 2012, so who the hell needs all those nasty latino votes anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, basically, what you're trying to say is that your earlier rant about holding employers accountable was just a smoke screen to somehow make your radical ideology seem more reflective? That, my aging professor, is not only hypocrisy--it's downright Machiavellian. Time to reexamine your belief system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...