New Arizona Immigration Law

[Novax]

I think it is a start for taking care of the illegal immagrent issue. It is alot better then what the government has done for it, which is absolutly nothing. Although it does need to be retooled.

[Gamemaster300]

Originally Posted by Novax

I think it is a start for taking care of the illegal immagrent issue. It is alot better then what the government has done for it, which is absolutly nothing. Although it does need to be retooled.

i agree with that. (for what it's worth)

[Fat1Fared]

Originally Posted by Face

Those "cheap shots," while valid, were a snarky response to underling's sarcasm and not meant to be a debate on the matter. Though, I should point out that despite your claims those UK laws have not been repealed.

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled section 44 illegal

There has been discussion of it repealing it in the UK: http://orwellsdreams.wordpress.com/2...of-section-44/

The new government may do something about it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-laws-repealed

But, those laws, including section 44, are still in effect and still causing problems: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-sue-police.do

As an aside, those who are thoughtful and reasonable tend to at least attempt to check their facts before they make claims in a serious discussion.

=Face, while I am sure your vast search of the first page of bing gives you far greater knowledge than a fully trained human rights solicitor and lecturer, and 2 MP's of British parliament, I must explain to you, that Britain has only had a government for a week and as yet parlinment is not yet fully formed still, so it does take time to finish these all things, and the reason I did not go into vast depth is because it was an end note about a comment which had been mostly forgotten and people keep moaning about how much I write (this sort of points out why I write more.) I only brought it up because of talk I had with certain people I know in real life.
-=You also may wish to note that ECHR cannot make anything illegal, so if you are going to start questioning my knowledge and try to make yourself out to be this vast fountain of information, you may wish to understand the workings of Europe first. It can merely tell a county if it is acting outside the convention however the county will always be the actual lawmaker, because the ECHR is not an legislative or administrative body, it guidance committee, if anything and their is massive difference
-In fact the 1998 Human Rights Act takes britain far beyond its required duty under the treaty

=I also must ask how you, the person who is willyfully casting claims on my intent on these topic's, ever considered this anything more cheap point scoring, as it is not within the realm of this topic and adds nothing substantive to the topic, well unless you are claiming that failings in the British System justify failings in the US which i seriously hope you are not. So believing you are not making the the forenamed claim, all this is, is a cheap point scoring and pointless shot at Britian because Underling never made any comment as to Britians standing in this area because it is not point of the topic (something you admitted yourself, giving only further weight to this point) and in fact your last comment mixed with this seems more like you merely wish to make fun of people and their county. (something which if must do, surely making a topic for it would have been better idea,)
-Also claiming it was not meant to be up for debate seems a flimsy defence at best, because if you put such points, expect others to make comments on them.

=Now you may not have any respect for this topic or me, but I do feel that as a moderator you should conduct yourself with little more decorum as sarcastic comments can end up with flaming wars on the internet, something your meant to stop and also if do not think this topic is worth commenting on, do not comment, seems a logical answer, rather than to merely put supercilious comments about how amazing your judgment is and how that judgment is so beyond reproach as to make this how topic redundant, which is ironic considering that your only two points to this topic have been to constantly say the act don't say this or that (something which has been accepted and then moved on from as it not that point which is even in question) and to make a sarcastic comment at underling, which is plain pointless and childish,

[[^_^]]

Fared, the purpose of my previous post was to point out a factual error in your prior post when you stated that the law had "already been repealed". An error which you haven't not even acknowledged in this new post. If you had not erred, I would not have discussed the matter concerning English law any further.

My initial mentioning of it was a tongue-in-cheek response to underling's 'fantasyland' comment. You're the only one who took it up as some sort of serious statement.

Yet, you admonish me that I should not make sarcastic comments, while in the same post you speak sarcastically to me.

"Face, while I am sure your vast search of the first page of bing gives you far greater knowledge than a fully trained human rights solicitor and lecturer."

Neither of us should comment any further on English law in this thread, and if you wish to have a discussion with me concerning it, then PM me.

[Fat1Fared]

-Fair enough, I will talk to through PM, there normally better places to talk anyway

[HarleyThomas1002]

Relevent to this thread.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/american...ration-debate/

[Chiru]

From my experience, only a United States citizen can have a driver's license. Legal immigrants actually can drive too, but they have a different license. Illegal immigrants have no license. The police always ask for your license when they pull you over, so by many of your arguments, is this unconstitutional?

From what I know, the Arizona immigration law is simply reinforcing the United States Federal Law. Immigrants are supposed to carry their documents at all times, and for once, the state will enforce it. I don't see a problem with it- the only people who should have a problem with it are the illegals or people affiliated with the illegals.

I find it ridiculous how people could be offended by this, when it is already law. Either they do not have knowledge of the federal law, or perhaps their emotions are getting in the way of the facts?

[HarleyThomas1002]

[IamMcDoob]

Having lived in Arizona for the past 16 years, I can say without a doubt that I am a firm supporter of this bill. It may not be perfect, but it's necessary to help begin to fight back against the illegal immigrants. I'm open to any questions anyone has for me as to what it's like to live here, I've got plenty of stories to tell.