Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Gwar! wrote:So instead of having three people leech welfare, they have 1 child in an orphanage?

I wonder which costs less money actually...

So your assumption is that a couple who make the dangerous crossing from Mexico to the US do it not to work hard and build a better life for themselves and their new family, but to sit around on welfare?

You know how people have this idea of Chinese and Indian people being very hard working... well I've been to those countries and they are not somehow naturally harder workers than us. It's just that the Chinese and Indian people most of us see are the ones who left home to chase better economic opportunities in other countries - so people assume Chinese and Indian people are hard workers, when it's immigrants in general that are hard workers.

Now, obviously that doesn't mean illegal immigration is a good thing (every nation needs controls on who it allows into the country as the supply of labour is much greater than the supply of first world jobs) but your assumption that someone would crosses the border and later becomes a citizen would then shift onto welfare and not try to build a better life through hard work is very ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:Actually the treatment of english soldiers was only due to the fact that they had colonials as prisoners as well. It wasn't civilized, it was a primitive version of "equally assured destruction".

What the hell is going on in school over there? Seriously?

sebster wrote:
So your assumption is that a couple who make the dangerous crossing from Mexico to the US do it not to work hard and build a better life for themselves and their new family, but to sit around on welfare?

You seem to have an idealized view that every Mexican illegal is one of heaven's angels. I know and work with a lot of Mexicans and aside from the ones that do come over and leech from our government, there are also the gangbangers and drug runners that hang out over here. A lot of them don't get U.S. citizenship so that they can jump back across the border and evade extradition when the law gets after them for murder, rape, drugs, you name it.
The thing is, most of the Mexicans that are here legaly are pissed about it because it gives them a bad name, but they are scared to do anything because they have family back in Mexico that could end up dead if they did.

dogma wrote:

helgrenze wrote:
Face it, Mexico is acting like they are being attacked with these laws

Why is that important?

helgrenze wrote:
And our fearful leader is allowing them to attempt to dictate policy in This country.

As far as I know it isn't illegal for foreign governments to broadcast political messages in the United States. Moreover, by taking offense to Mexican actions with respect to Arizona's legislative decisions you are allowing yourself to be influenced by a foreign government.

Mexican President Calderon sees those in this country illegally simply as "migrants", as if the southwestern states are part of Mexico.

In a speech to the U.S. Congress, Near the end of his speech, Calderon switched into Spanish for a message in support of comprehensive immigration reform. "I want to tell immigrants who are working here in this great country that we admire them, that we miss them, that we are fighting for your rights, and that we're working hard for Mexico and for your families," he said.

Would an American President be allowed to make such a statement or comments critical of Mexico policy while in that country.
The answer is NO. Mexican law prohibits foreign nationals from doing so on Mexican soil.

My opinion being influenced by comments of this kind is one thing, His assumption that he has any influence over laws in this country is another. Obama may not like the laws Arizona is passing, but He is President of this Nation... not some political appointee placed in Washington by Mexico. He needs to start acting like the Leader he sold himself to be and stop acting like a whipped dog everytime some other country gets annoyed.

I for one have no problem with the new Arizona laws. They may not be able to get them to stick, but if it gets the Fed. Gov. to actually do something worthwhile on the matter then its a plus.

Everyone has their own opinions and thats a given. Thing is unless you actually live around and SEE the problems firsthand then you do not really see whats going on. People can spout off all the laws they want, but these days laws are made to be broken or abused.

Lets take Unemployment Insurance for example. Its been stated on this board the stipulations that are in place to receive it. Come to Mississippi then - those stipulations do not exist, at least where I work. It doesn't matter if you get laid off, quit, got fired, threatened to beat the crap out of the boss ect, ex employees at my work place have received their benefits. We have fought this several times, but it didn't matter - benefits received.

WIC/free Govt food - go work there and see how things really work. Does it do good - yes, is it abused - absolutely. People that are elligible go in and get items just because they can - not because they need it. If they really NEEDED it then it wouldn't be allowed to ROT in the back of their truck. The "I didn't really need it, but it WAS free" comment kind of sealed the deal.

I had the pleasure of meeting several Hispanic workers at a previous employement. They had work visa's though so they were legally here until their paperwork expired. These workers were from Honduras however. If you want to see tempers flair - mess up and call a Honduran a Mexican and see what happens.

If everyone played by the rules everything would be hunky-dory and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The system is made to be broken though.

helgrenze wrote:And our fearful leader is allowing them to attempt to dictate policy in This country.

Much like Arizona is attempting to dictate federal policy, no?

Federal jurisdiction is not necessarily exclusive Warboss.

Frazzled wrote:Federal jurisdiction is not necessarily exclusive Warboss.

Didn't say it was. However, with SB1070 Arizona is attempting to dictate federal policy. Which is the evil that helgrenze was accusing Mexico's leader of doing.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

But while we're on the subject, the law Fate is referencing in the OP is in clear violation of the Constitution, and SB1070 is too, as immigration law is exclusively under federal jurisdiction.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Federal jurisdiction is not necessarily exclusive Warboss.

Didn't say it was. However, with SB1070 Arizona is attempting to dictate federal policy. Which is the evil that helgrenze was accusing Mexico's leader of doing.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

But while we're on the subject, the law Fate is referencing in the OP is in clear violation of the Constitution, and SB1070 is too, as immigration law is exclusively under federal jurisdiction.

You're not getting the difference.

1. A state trying to act by example to get the federal government to do its job. It an internal matter.
2. Allowing a foreign head of state to criticize a portion of the union and then have a sitting President agree with him against a state (aka his own citizens). Who the hell does he work for? Its nuts and screamining hypocrisy (look atb Mexico's laws) Arizona should have immediately sent a bill to mexico for estimated helatchare costs for illegal immigrants for the last 20 years.

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Federal jurisdiction is not necessarily exclusive Warboss.

Didn't say it was. However, with SB1070 Arizona is attempting to dictate federal policy. Which is the evil that helgrenze was accusing Mexico's leader of doing.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

But while we're on the subject, the law Fate is referencing in the OP is in clear violation of the Constitution, and SB1070 is too, as immigration law is exclusively under federal jurisdiction.

You're not getting the difference.

1. A state trying to act by example to get the federal government to do its job. It an internal matter.

You seriously don't see that Arizona is attempting to dictate where federal funds are spent with SB1070?

2. Allowing a foreign head of state to criticize a portion of the union and then have a sitting President agree with him against a state (aka his own citizens). Who the hell does he work for?

All of We The People, not just those living in Arizona.

Its nuts and screamining hypocrisy (look atb Mexico's laws) Arizona should have immediately sent a bill to mexico for estimated helatchare costs for illegal immigrants for the last 20 years.

Ah, yes. The way to remain a world superpower is clearly to adjust your behaviour to that of the LCD.

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Federal jurisdiction is not necessarily exclusive Warboss.

Didn't say it was. However, with SB1070 Arizona is attempting to dictate federal policy. Which is the evil that helgrenze was accusing Mexico's leader of doing.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

But while we're on the subject, the law Fate is referencing in the OP is in clear violation of the Constitution, and SB1070 is too, as immigration law is exclusively under federal jurisdiction.

You're not getting the difference.

1. A state trying to act by example to get the federal government to do its job. It an internal matter.
2. Allowing a foreign head of state to criticize a portion of the union and then have a sitting President agree with him against a state (aka his own citizens). Who the hell does he work for? Its nuts and screamining hypocrisy (look atb Mexico's laws) Arizona should have immediately sent a bill to mexico for estimated helatchare costs for illegal immigrants for the last 20 years.

It is called diplomacy to attempt to assuage the feelings of others across the world relative to how we do things here and how we protect our own interests. However, it becomes appeasement when we start giving up American interests and policies to other parts of the world in order to placate them. So long as the Federal government does not approve of illegal immigration to the extent that they put a giant seal of approval of people illegally moving into America, we will have states like Arizona try and combat the illegal immigration as best as they could, which is by passing laws to combat illegal immigration.

Mistress of minis wrote:Theres this thing called 'Identity theft' thats pretty easy these days- and thats one of the biggest routes from which they are getting access to welfare, social security and other programs- fraudulent IDs are also how many of them are attaining work- this is why SB 1070 is going to be useful as it gives law enforcement the ability to really determine the validity of documaent carried by people that are in questionable situations.

Buzzz. Sorry, not true. I was a case worker for over 2 years here in Oklahoma and maintained a caseload of over 600 families. Of these families, I would estimate that less than 10% included households with illegal immigrants. Here is what families are eligible for, in households that have illegal immigrants; 1) Medical (in the form of medicaid) to any citizen children. 2) Food Stamps (SNAP) for any citizens in the household on a pro-rata basis. 3) Day Care assistance for the citizen children (depends on the state). For medical assistance, applicants must provide proof of citizenship

The 2002 Farm Bill restores SNAP eligibility to most legal immigrants that:

Have lived in the country for 5 years; or
Are receiving disability-related assistance or benefits, regardless of entry date; or
Starting 10-1-03, are children regardless of entry date.

Certain non-citizens such as those admitted for humanitarian reasons and those admitted for permanent residence are also eligible for the program. Eligible household members can get SNAP benefits even if there are other members of the household that are not eligible.

Mistress of minis wrote:Its not as cut & dry as a yes/no answer as you'd think either. A good freind of mine works for Az DES, and since they currently cant ask for citizenship paperwork- their ability to exclude or include someone based on nationality is often limited. So alot of happy illegals make it out the door once they learn the tricks of the system.

Your friend is doing it wrong and the supervisor that told him/her this needs to be reported. Even the Arizona online screening process asks about citizenship and states, "Note: If you answer "No" to this question, you will be asked about the immigration status of each person. You do not need to be a citizen to qualify for benefits. The administrators for this website do not collect or report data if you answer "No"." Also, the Arizona Policy Book clearly states a 40 quarter work requirement for non-citizens. So this is actually more stringent than the 5 years required by federal law. https://extranet.azdes.gov/faapolicymanual/wwhelp/wwhimpl/js/html/wwhelp.htm
Ask them about Participant Error code U1
"U1 One or more of your household members failed to meet citizenship or noncitizen status. "

Also ask them why they are not following Arizona Policy FAA2.N which requires: "Participants who declare U.S. citizenship must provide documented verification of U.S. citizenship. "When the CA, NA, or ST participant does not provide verification of their citizenship, key DI in the PT field on SEPA for the participant. Key HB in the INELIG RSN field on SEPA.

When all potentially eligible citizen participants fail to verify their citizenship, deny the CA or NA application. Key HB in the DENIAL CLOSURE REASON field on AFED and FSED and send the appropriate notice." Emphasis mine. Note that NA stands for Nutrition Assistance.

Mistress of minis wrote:The moms never spoke english except to say, 'Hospital!! Baby!' And thats how they get on welfare, food stamps, and a several other free money deals.

I don't envy the medicaid system that's probably overloaded in Arizona. I don't know medicaid in Arizona but in Oklahoma, illegal moms are eligible for 1 Dr. visit before birth and the medical services related to the birth itself.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Federal jurisdiction is not necessarily exclusive Warboss.

Didn't say it was. However, with SB1070 Arizona is attempting to dictate federal policy. Which is the evil that helgrenze was accusing Mexico's leader of doing.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

But while we're on the subject, the law Fate is referencing in the OP is in clear violation of the Constitution, and SB1070 is too, as immigration law is exclusively under federal jurisdiction.

Umm, we are US citizens, and have a right to dictate via legislation to have the laws of our state enforced- since the Feds are not enforcing the laws to any great effect.

Mr Calderon is NOT a US citizen, and does nothing to ease our problems- because it will make his job more difficult in his own country when the laws here are enforced and they cant easily slip through th e cracks and benefit. Then Mr Calderon will have to deal with his own citizens that are discontent.

SB 1070 is not a violation of the constitution- try reading it for yourself. I think Mr Obama did, and thats why he stopped bad mouthing it.

Laws are supposed to be just(ergo Justice), so when a law is being exploited so often and for so long, no one can be surprised when the people that have to pay for it get fed up.

But hey- most of you arent citizens in Arizona- and hence you cannot vote on the issue, nor elect/re-elect people that are voting on these difficult issues. So these are really just distant things you see through the TV or computer screen- when it comes time to vote here I'm going to keep voting to keep the ILLEGAL immigrants liable for thier actions and crimes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:Theres this thing called 'Identity theft' thats pretty easy these days- and thats one of the biggest routes from which they are getting access to welfare, social security and other programs- fraudulent IDs are also how many of them are attaining work- this is why SB 1070 is going to be useful as it gives law enforcement the ability to really determine the validity of documaent carried by people that are in questionable situations.

Buzzz. Sorry, not true. I was a case worker for over 2 years here in Oklahoma and maintained a caseload of over 600 families. Of these families, I would estimate that less than 10% included households with illegal immigrants. Here is what families are eligible for, in households that have illegal immigrants; 1) Medical (in the form of medicaid) to any citizen children. 2) Food Stamps (SNAP) for any citizens in the household on a pro-rata basis. 3) Day Care assistance for the citizen children (depends on the state). For medical assistance, applicants must provide proof of citizenship

Are you, or have you been a case worker in Arizona?

Mistress of minis wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Federal jurisdiction is not necessarily exclusive Warboss.

Didn't say it was. However, with SB1070 Arizona is attempting to dictate federal policy. Which is the evil that helgrenze was accusing Mexico's leader of doing.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

But while we're on the subject, the law Fate is referencing in the OP is in clear violation of the Constitution, and SB1070 is too, as immigration law is exclusively under federal jurisdiction.

Umm, we are US citizens, and have a right to dictate via legislation to have the laws of our state enforced- since the Feds are not enforcing the laws to any great effect.

Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them.

And last I checked, there were a couple of challenges being mounted.

Have fun while it lasts.

Mistress of minis wrote:SB 1070 is not a violation of the constitution- try reading it for yourself.

I have read it. It is in violation of the constititution. RAW and RAI, it's also bad policy for reasons I gave in the other thread.

Mistress of minis wrote:But hey- most of you arent citizens in Arizona- and hence you cannot vote on the issue, nor elect/re-elect people that are voting on these difficult issues. So these are really just distant things you see through the TV or computer screen- when it comes time to vote here I'm going to keep voting to keep the ILLEGAL immigrants liable for thier actions and crimes.

Sure. But as written, SB1070 isn't the way to do it. Even if we grant you the idea that it's not unconstitutional, it's bad policy. It grants local authority no discretion on how many resources they allocate to fighting illegal immigration as opposed to, say, major crimes, for one instance of it being a bad law made just to appease the voters.

Mistress of minis wrote:

Are you, or have you been a case worker in Arizona?

No but I am quite capable of reading both federal statute as well as Arizona state policy; both of which I have provided for you. So, if your friend and company are failing to meet both federal and state statute, they are doing something wrong. Only citizens (or qualified legal immigrants) are supposed to benefit from food stamp (SNAP) assistance. As I mentioned before, it is possible that a household, that has illegal immigrants among its members, could be receiving SNAP assistance; however, it will be a prorated amount based upon the number of legal immigrants/citizens in the household. That is federal law as administered by USDA under statute.

Heck, until the 2002 Farm Bill, even legal immigrants were ineligible. In 2002, they partially restored eligibility based upon the number of years the legal immigrant had resided in the U.S. (5 years). This is the minimum for eligibility. Arizona statute/policy expanded this to 40 work quarters (10 years). Don't believe me? Here's the statute: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/pdfs/Non_Citizen_Guidance.pdf Specifically see Section IX of the law.

Again, I can't help it if your friend is in violation of federal law by providing benefits to illegals; however, that doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist. Personally, if I were as concerned as you appear to be about illegal immigrants receiving services and was aware of infraction, I'd be contacting the local office of the Attorney General or the welfare fraud hotline: 1-800-251-2436

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them.

So speaks the foreigner.

agnosto wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:

Are you, or have you been a case worker in Arizona?

No but I am quite capable of reading both federal statute as well as Arizona state policy; both of which I have provided for you. So, if your friend and company are failing to meet both federal and state statute, they are doing something wrong. Only citizens (or qualified legal immigrants) are supposed to benefit from food stamp (SNAP) assistance. As I mentioned before, it is possible that a household, that has illegal immigrants among its members, could be receiving SNAP assistance; however, it will be a prorated amount based upon the number of legal immigrants/citizens in the household. That is federal law as administered by USDA under statute.

Heck, until the 2002 Farm Bill, even legal immigrants were ineligible. In 2002, they partially restored eligibility based upon the number of years the legal immigrant had resided in the U.S. (5 years). This is the minimum for eligibility. Arizona statute/policy expanded this to 40 work quarters (10 years). Don't believe me? Here's the statute: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/pdfs/Non_Citizen_Guidance.pdf Specifically see Section IX of the law.

Again, I can't help it if your friend is in violation of federal law by providing benefits to illegals; however, that doesn't mean that the law doesn't exist. Personally, if I were as concerned as you appear to be about illegal immigrants receiving services and was aware of infraction, I'd be contacting the local office of the Attorney General or the welfare fraud hotline: 1-800-251-2436

Gee, thats really helpful. Did you miss the whole part about identity theft? Do you think Az DES can afford to investigate every potential case of suspected ID fraud? If valid documents are provided- they cant deny the benefits. You're stating what is supposed to happen. In some idyllic fantasy world maybe that happens- but here it doesnt because the system is overwhelmed- hence SB 1070 being considered necessary.

Keep in mind that the Federal Immigration laws arent even enforced here(ergo SB 1070) - expecting lesser laws to be enforced seems almost delusional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them.

So speaks the foreigner.

Ya, I often wonder about that too. People from other countries looking at all this from a purely academic standpoint get exceedingly tiresome when theyre rather ignorant to the realities that make this sort of change something thats undertaken despite the obvious difficulty of the task.

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them.

So speaks the foreigner.

Are you just being a curmudgeon? This is, among other things, exactly what the Supreme Court does.

Did you mean to quote some other part of my post?

Mistress of minis wrote:a, I often wonder about that too. People from other countries looking at all this from a purely academic standpoint get exceedingly tiresome when theyre rather ignorant to the realities that make this sort of change something thats undertaken despite the obvious difficulty of the task.

Yes, objective bystanders pointing out that laws like those in the OP are expressly contradicted in the Constitution must get real old.

Are foreigners not allowed to study US law now?

Do you have to be at least a permanent resident?

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them.

So speaks the foreigner.

Stay classy Frazz.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them.

So speaks the foreigner.

Are you just being a curmudgeon? This is, among other things, exactly what the Supreme Court does.

Did you mean to quote some other part of my post?

Mistress of minis wrote:a, I often wonder about that too. People from other countries looking at all this from a purely academic standpoint get exceedingly tiresome when theyre rather ignorant to the realities that make this sort of change something thats undertaken despite the obvious difficulty of the task.

Yes, objective bystanders pointing out that laws like those in the OP are expressly contradicted in the Constitution must get real old.

You make the statement it will be poured out by the US Supreme Court.

I would not presume to say what a foreign court will say about an internal matter. Its the height of Hubris.
Unless you're a past or present SCOTUS Justice you can't make that claim.
Are you a SCOTUS Justice? Are you an attorney specialized in Federal procedure and capable of arguing before the SCOTUS?
If you are neither you are patently unqualified to make such a statement. As your flag denotes a foreign country the preseumption is you are not qualified.

Study is one thing- but when you seem to forget that laws change- they are not set in stone.

They change when theres a need for it to do- and its not an easy process.

You call it objective- I call it being ignorant of the realities that make us willing to fight for change. Many of these laws are antiquated- and are not up to the task of dealing with the world we live in now.

Kilkrazy wrote:Are foreigners not allowed to study US law now?

Do you have to be at least a permanent resident?

How many study US law?

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them.

So speaks the foreigner.

Fraz I think you meant to post something insightful and instead posted something you should PM yourself a warning for.

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them.

So speaks the foreigner.

Are you just being a curmudgeon? This is, among other things, exactly what the Supreme Court does.

Did you mean to quote some other part of my post?

Mistress of minis wrote:a, I often wonder about that too. People from other countries looking at all this from a purely academic standpoint get exceedingly tiresome when theyre rather ignorant to the realities that make this sort of change something thats undertaken despite the obvious difficulty of the task.

Yes, objective bystanders pointing out that laws like those in the OP are expressly contradicted in the Constitution must get real old.

You make the statement it will be poured out by the US Supreme Court.

I would not presume to say what a foreign court will say about an internal matter. Its the height of Hubris.
Unless you're a past or present SCOTUS Justice you can't make that claim.
Are you a SCOTUS Justice? Are you an attorney specialized in Federal procedure and capable of arguing before the SCOTUS?
If you are neither you are patently unqualified to make such a statement. As your flag denotes a foreign country the preseumption is you are not qualified.

Those conditions make almost everyone in the USA unqualified too.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them.

So speaks the foreigner.

Are you just being a curmudgeon? This is, among other things, exactly what the Supreme Court does.

Did you mean to quote some other part of my post?

Mistress of minis wrote:a, I often wonder about that too. People from other countries looking at all this from a purely academic standpoint get exceedingly tiresome when theyre rather ignorant to the realities that make this sort of change something thats undertaken despite the obvious difficulty of the task.

Yes, objective bystanders pointing out that laws like those in the OP are expressly contradicted in the Constitution must get real old.

You make the statement it will be poured out by the US Supreme Court.

I would not presume to say what a foreign court will say about an internal matter. Its the height of Hubris.
Unless you're a past or present SCOTUS Justice you can't make that claim.
Are you a SCOTUS Justice? Are you an attorney specialized in Federal procedure and capable of arguing before the SCOTUS?
If you are neither you are patently unqualified to make such a statement. As your flag denotes a foreign country the preseumption is you are not qualified.

Those conditions make almost everyone in the USA unqualified too.

Yep. Teacher's Unions have nothing on the lawyer union.

SB11:02> =post_id=1665588&

Frazzled wrote:You make the statement it will be poured out by the US Supreme Court.

I would not presume to say what a foreign court will say about an internal matter. Its the height of Hubris.
Unless you're a past or present SCOTUS Justice you can't make that claim.
Are you a SCOTUS Justice? Are you an attorney specialized in Federal procedure and capable of arguing before the SCOTUS?
If you are neither you are patently unqualified to make such a statement. As your flag denotes a foreign country the preseumption is you are not qualified.

Allow me to quote myself:

"Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them."

What about that do you find objectional?

Mistress of minis wrote:Study is one thing- but when you seem to forget that laws change- they are not set in stone.

They change when theres a need for it to do- and its not an easy process.

You call it objective- I call it being ignorant of the realities that make us willing to fight for change. Many of these laws are antiquated- and are not up to the task of dealing with the world we live in now.

I agree, when are you getting around to dropping that silly second amendment? Militias are pointless now.

Or are we not talking about the Constitution? It wouldn't make any sense, because that's been the context of the discussion, but I've learned not to assume.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Are foreigners not allowed to study US law now?

Do you have to be at least a permanent resident?

How many study US law?

*Raises hand*

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them.

So speaks the foreigner.

Are you just being a curmudgeon? This is, among other things, exactly what the Supreme Court does.

Did you mean to quote some other part of my post?

Mistress of minis wrote:a, I often wonder about that too. People from other countries looking at all this from a purely academic standpoint get exceedingly tiresome when theyre rather ignorant to the realities that make this sort of change something thats undertaken despite the obvious difficulty of the task.

Yes, objective bystanders pointing out that laws like those in the OP are expressly contradicted in the Constitution must get real old.

You make the statement it will be poured out by the US Supreme Court.

I would not presume to say what a foreign court will say about an internal matter. Its the height of Hubris.
Unless you're a past or present SCOTUS Justice you can't make that claim.
Are you a SCOTUS Justice? Are you an attorney specialized in Federal procedure and capable of arguing before the SCOTUS?
If you are neither you are patently unqualified to make such a statement. As your flag denotes a foreign country the preseumption is you are not qualified.

Those conditions make almost everyone in the USA unqualified too.

Yep. Teacher's Unions have nothing on the lawyer union.

You know that logic works for quite a few other things which you yourself comment on quite often.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

"Sure, but if your laws are unconstitutional, they'll be overturned as soon as the Supreme Court gets a look at them."

What about that do you find objectional?

Mea culpa. I read that as you making an interpretation of what the SCOTUS would do, not what would happen if it did. I apologize.

One of my best friends from law school was swedish. Another girl in my class was Russian.

I'm an American lawyer, and I agree with him that if a law is unconstitutional, SCOTUS will overturn it.

If is a mighty word.

I'd be curious what aspect SCOTUS would overturn, but IIRC AZ is in the Ninth Circuit, so it'll probably be struck down on appeal, with that action overturned by the SCOTUS.