What aspects of the truth do you believe I am ignoring?
I have already shown what aspects of the truth you have ignored.
Wait- does the existence of one specific negate the generality? That’ll be useful the next time we see a “This Liberal did this, so therefore all Liberals are hypocrites” thread.
Why limit it to the SDMB? As you said, we’ve got far fewer Cons than Libs, so requiring parity between the two parties is a sucker bet. Let’s expand it to other, more Conservative-leaning boards. I betcha I can find more Conservative poutrage than Liberal.
However, if you’re looking for a specific example here on the forums, may I direct your attention to Sam Stone?
So I’m the unique outlier? I feel so special.
[
If there are valid concerns about the law, why are you so concerned that others are presenting invalid concerns? We’re heading back into the territory you explored during the latest Presidential election, wherein you allowed the existence of the lunatic fringe to dissuade you from voting for Obama. That wasn’t a legitimate argument then, and it’s not one now.
I have not said I was right. I accept the correction you pointed out.
I object to your characterization of me being a liar or having ulterior motives. Do I have a track record on the SDMB for lying? Did you check to see if I participated in any of your 8 million debunkings? Or did you just assume I was a liar with nefarious motives who couldn’t possibly have missed your incisive legal commentary regarding the Arizona immigration law because it is required reading around here?
What’s with the ellipses? It’s a bit like debating Captain Kirk here. More to the point, it IS unenforceable. Arizona has neither the manpower to do it nor could its legal system handle the caseload nor the vast amount of harassment lawsuits that would flood the courts from legal citizens.
It’s unconstitutional (remember the constitution?) because immigration is federally enforced… period.
And your example is ridiculous and shows you either don’t know the law or you just like to rant. This law has nothing to do with border enforcement. No Arizona cop is going to standing at the border catching terrorists as they try to enter the country so your point is moot. Especially considering the terrorist that have already struck US soil and those arrested in recent plots entered the country legally and this law wouldn’t have done shit to stop them. Keep pulling out that “terrorist” bogeyman though. It displays your lack of an actual point.
Lastly, as been already pointed out enough but I’ll do it one last time: the judge? Recommended by a conservative and unanimously approved by a conservative Senate.
Because “valid concerns” does not equal “reason to overturn.”
When the debate goes out inot the public sphere, and people claim the law allows people to be detained if they’re brown-skinned and arrested if they have no papers, more people will respond to polls with “I oppose the law.”
And I’m sure I could ask you the same questions about the health care bill and death panels. Were you sanguine about the “death panels?” After all, there WERE valid concerns about the law – why would you be concerned if people were presenting invalid ones?
Agreed. But then, I did vote for Obama.
Not as a rule, no. But it does negate your cite:
What on earth would make you “suspect” that?
That is seriously the most fucked up thing I have heard yet in this thread. The process for a legal immigrant to become a “voter” takes about a decade. Did you know that? It requires citizenship, which comes after having a green card, which comes after having an H1-B. (with the exception of a few lottery winners, or a family sponsored entrant)
The list of potential trans-legals (I just made that up) would fit on a post-it note. He/she would have to first be an illegal immigrant. Then leave the country. Then start the immigration process.
If there was an immigration process at all available to this potential trans-legal, they would never have entered illegally in the first place.
So from this point, to get an illegal immigrant onto the voter list is about a 15 year process.
Do you seriously consider that a swell?
We deport you to Arizona. 
[quote=“Whack-a-Mole, post:103, topic:548345”]
You missed this nine-page, 506 post behemouth, didja?
And this one, a mere 402 posts?
This one went twelve pages and 593 posts. Didn’t see it either, huh?
Hey, here’s a tiny one. Seven pages, 326 posts.
Never saw any of those, huh?
Yes. Fine of not more than $100, imprisonment not more than 30 days, or both.
No. I suspect that the Democrats would like to create an amnesty program for illegal immigrants and eliminate the process you’re talking about.
That’s a case where you would presumably be able to show that someone’s rights were not being protected. Who’s rights are the feds failing to protect if they don’t follow immigrants around asking to see their green cards every five seconds.
They check green cards at the border. Is that not enforcement? What would constitute enforcement?
What does “protecting rights” have to do with this issue?
Why did you suddenly add it to the discussion?
You suspect that based on what evidence? Can you name a single prominet Democrat who has ever proposed or even suggested anything like that?
I did not read them. What part of that are you not understanding? Do you really think I have not been around here long enough to know that posting something that was soundly debunked in the last few months wouldn’t be pounced on immediately? I’ve only been around here a decade or so afterall. :rolleyes:
Also, I checked the rules and did not see anything that said we must read what you deem necessary.
I showed you my process and while it provided inaccurate information it was an honest attempt and understandable mistake to make. I told you I did not participate in any of your threads yet you continue to dance and sling snarky accusations my way.
Hey, Bricker? Evaluation needed here. How does the Judge’s ruling affect the ability given in the law, for private citizens to sue the government to force them to enforce it?
You’re avoiding the question.
Let me put it another way. If someone’s voting rights are being broken, you have evidence that a law is being broken. The fact that an immigrant is not arrested for not carrying a green card is not evidence that a law was being broken, or that any known violation of a law was willfuly ignored.
I’d still like to know what you would consider to be acceptable enforcement of the green card law. Should we hire millions of ICE agents to follow legal immigrants around and make sure they’ve got their cards every time they go to the grocery store or walk the dog? Does the United States have a compelling public interst in doing this? Is the interest in making sure that permament residents carry their green cards with them while they’re mowing their lawns sufficient to justify the personnel and expense it would take to station ICE agents outside the homes of all permamnt residents to make sure they don’t try to go buy a pack of cigarettes without their green card on them?
Do you believe that you are somehow victimized if the feds don’t do this?
More importantly, do you believe the state of Arizona is being victimized if the feds don’t do that? What is Arizona’s personal interest in trying to pass a law like this? How is the state of Arizona negatively affected if a permant resident does not carry his green card with him when he goes to the corner store? What public interest does it serve for the state of Arizona other than to make an excuse for harassment?
Talked to my FIL and MIL and they say, even though they are US citizens that they are not going to visit Arizona (which they were planning on doing). they figure, why bother with the hassle of potentially having to prove they are US citizens. (They are from Mexico)
Sure the law may say one thing, but when you got guys like Araipo sdown there, it certainly doesn’t seem like a very hospitable environment.
From Judge Bolton’s opinion:
Damn Lightnin’, you got lawyered! Never use the term “any,” it’s too specific. You have to use weasel words like, “by and large.”
“For reference, by and large the threads started by a Conservative about Obama, Ayers, Pelosi…[a filled with conservative outrage]”
Using the term “any” means that if he can show even just one thread in a thousand, your statement is false. Substituting a weasel word means that all you have to do is show one thread to prove your assertion.
And that is why Palin will by and large win any debate against Obama.