Meanwhile, Tom McClintock (R-California), responds to the double standard of the Mexican president. Of course, there was no standing ovation for him.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
This oughta provoke a few responses from the leftie wingnuts…
That is patriotic & courageous, not shameful. It would’ve been shameful if no one cheered & supported him.
AZ law is poorly written, bigoted and anti-freedom.
Wow, Tom McClintock is a racist bastard. “you can come here as long as you leave behind everything that has anything to do with what you had before you were here.” I wonder if he thinks things like St. Patrick’s Day and Dingus Day are bad things or just things that brown people do?
Ok, curmudgeon, show us all EXACTLY which paragraph of the Arizona law is:
A) poorly written,
B) Bigoted, or
C) Anti-freedom.
Haven’t read it yet, have you?
It has become intensely obvious this Democratic Congress is completely out of touch and doesn’t care whatsoever about the law.
Again, I have to refer the uninformed to the general consensus on the Arizona law.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/13/the-73-fringe-that-supports-az-immigration-law/
And here I thought Obamacare was going to be the end of Democratic control.
Little did I know it was going to be immigration.
Here, curmudgeon, I’ll give you a hand. Below is the link to the Arizona law, line by line.
You can just answer my questions above by referring to the exact poorly written, bigoted, and anti-freedom content by line.
http://azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
@curmudgeon
troll much?
Treasonous bastard this president. What a shmuck. Enjoy your one term.
#3. Your going to have to find another schtick asshole, the racist BS doesnt work anymore.
#5. Ah_Yea, Don’t expect a response, it would require some thought.
Yes, Colonel Panic, I’m not waiting…
This is Hilarious.
Dems turning on each other.
Expect more of the same.
Let’s hear it for Hope and Change!!
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/21/anti-obama-tack-buoys-some-democrats/
How dare the President of Mexico speak his mind.
The Republicans are use to having cool air blown up their ass by their lobbyists.
Shocking display of in your face talk in Congress. Reprehensible.
#9. You do understand that the idiot Mexican president own country’s policies are exactly the opposite of what he preached to us.
Are you stupid? He shouldn’t even be allowed to speak…or step foot in this country when his country’s Military invades our country time and again. That’s an act of war you liberal moron.
Please remove your head from your ass for once.
Of course Calderon is going to be against enforcing anti-ILLEGAL immigration laws in the U.S. and not in Mexico. Enforcing it in the U.S. will hurt his country’s economy. Likewise if he didn’t enforce it in Mexico.
I don’t seen how this “shameful display” is shocking. Double Standards are synonymous with Liberals.
#8 Quoting the Washington Times, that Moonie-owned newspaper? Why do you hate America so much? đ
But hey, don’t want to interrupt the wingnut circle jerk going here. Carry on, guys. đ
Er…what’s “shameful” about that? The Arizona law is horrible and racist. Mexico isn’t Iran…they’re NOT our enemy, they’re a friend, one of our biggest trading partners and a major ally. It’s not treason to cheer for their democratically elected President. It’s ok. Grow up.
#10 Colon
“He shouldnât even be allowed to speak⌅step foot in this country ….his countryâs Military invades our country ..”
OK, I’m the stupid one? LOL. You fucking moron. I couldn’t care less what the Pres of Mexico says.
The worst response is cry that he didn’t blow cool air up your ass.
I’m cheering him too!
#9 Once again Dallas tries to spin the story to his way of thinking: How dare the President of Mexico speak his mind.
El Presidente is a hipĂłcrita. He wags his finger at the U.S. but does turns a blind eye to his own country’s restrictive laws.
The point of the article is the outrageous response from the Democrats who claim they are Americans. After watching this despicable response by the soon-to-be-departed Democrats, I really wonder whose side they are on.
“B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY 20
OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS 21
STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS 22
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, 23
WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE 24
PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 25
PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). 26 ”
Nowhere in this “law” is a provision to what defines “reasonable suspicion”.
There are provisions in it that defines other portions of the law in 13-2319 (F) but not in the above section.
In Section 11-1051 (E) the law does not define how probable cause would be implemented in a case which results in removal from the US.
What is worse is that any challenge to the law results in the violator having to provide preponderance of evidence and may be liable for fees and costs in their right to challenge the policy. This is contrary to the legal standard of being innocent until proven guilty. It adds a burden of cost for defense that is onerous at best.
Without definition of “reasonable suspicion” and the suspension of Presumption of Innocence, this “law” is unreasonable and unconstitutional.
Cursor_
So asking that you are loyal to the country that you want to immigrate to is racist?
Hmmm, you see, I thought that racism was discriminating against someone purely because of their race.
But what do I know, I thought that most Mexicans were Caucasian!
18, Cursor_,
If an officer’s judgment is challenged, I’m sure a jury will find against the officer in a heartbeat.
You can’t quantify everything. It’s on a case-by-case basis. Explicitly spelling out what is “reasonable” will open the door for legal loopholes. It should be common sense.
14, Glass Half Full,
What EXACTLY is racist for trying to uphold laws in place at the Federal level that the Federal level refuses to enforce by ensuring it gets enforced at the state level? And how EXACTLY is enforcing anti-ILLEGAL immigration policies racist?
ILLEGAL immigrants come from countries around the world. If the Federal government would have done its job, then Arizona wouldn’t have had to make a redundant law which now obligates themselves to essentially uphold federal policies.
#20 That thought in and of itself lends to loopholes as well.
This is no more different than laws that were removed dealing with homosexuals and african-americans. Where police routinely abused their position with “probable cause”.
Again why define other aspects of this law and leave the main portion without guidance?
And what of Presumption of Innocence?
It is just a bad law. No other way to look at it.
Cursor_
#21
There is NOTHING racist about this law. As there is only one race, human.
The issue is that it is vague enough to cause the officer to easily commit prejudiced decisions.
To use the vernacular of other forums, poorly crafted law is poorly crafted.
Cursor_
22, Cursor_,
Society has standards for what is “reasonable”. Political partisans and lawyers employ polemics to discredit what is reasonable by societal norms.
What you are doing is making no distinction between a LEGAL immigrant and an ILLEGAL immigrant. You seem to imply that the two are one in the same thing.
Humoring your “concern”, let’s say a LEGAL immigrant is pulled over and questioned for a “reasonable” cause. What do you suppose are the consequences?
I wonder why “small government” conservatives aren’t boo’ing Arizona’s big government over-reach.
23, Cursor_,
So can you give some guidance on prejudiced decision? Obviously society or a jury will not clearly understand that so perhaps you can spell it out? To me that SHOULD be common sense, but it seems like you want EVERYTHING spelled out. Why don’t you start with your own wording?
The Democrats know they’re hated, and rather than change to satisfy our reasonable demands, they’re trying to appeal to non-citizens: “Promise you’ll vote for us and we’ll make you citizens.”
25, Greg Allen,
Securing our borders is part of our national defense. Constitutionally it is an obligation of the Federal government. But since the current administration doesn’t believe in operating within the enumerated powers of the Constitution nor upholding its obligated duties, I suppose Arizona was forced into this.
let me add something that few have noticed..
LOOK in the upper right corner for the TIME.
The second video is done AFTER hours.
NO ONE IS THERE. This is a trick to get your comments into the Daily agenda, WITHOUT standing infront of everyone.
29, ECA, The main point is McClintock is on the record now for making his comments. He probably did it so that his time wasn’t cut short with someone hitting the gavel telling him his time is up. And it was probably “AFTER” hours because it does take a little time to make something presentable for the record knowing your opposition is going to take every chance to knit pick your wording.