The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Arizona counter sue's
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5471
Page 1 of 7

Author:  Uncle Fester [ Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Arizona counter sue's

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02 ... forcement/

Quote:
The announcement is the latest swipe in the ongoing legal dispute between Arizona and the U.S. Department of Justice over the state's tough immigration law. After the Obama administration challenged that law, a judge last year blocked key portions of it from going into effect. While the case is on appeal, Brewer said the countersuit will be filed as part of the federal government's challenge.

"It's outrageous the United States Department of Justice sued the people of Arizona to stop Senate Bill 1070," Brewer said. "Our message for the federal government is very simple -- use federal resources to combat the cartels who are breaking the federal law."

Arizona plans to sue on five different counts, including a claim that the federal government has failed to enforce immigration laws enacted by Congress and a claim it has failed to reimburse the state for costs associated with jailing criminal immigrants.


It's like watching a tennis match, back and forth we go.

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

Teeheehee! Arizona has really been a dark horse surprise coming up strong on Texas in the "delighting States' rights people" race lately.

Author:  Lex Luthor [ Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:08 pm ]
Post subject: 

I don't think people should be jailed unless they're doing something violent or destructive against others, or stealing, so I agree with not reimbursing them.

Author:  Screeling [ Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Lex Luthor wrote:
I don't think people should be jailed unless they're doing something violent or destructive against others, or stealing, so I agree with not reimbursing them.

So because of your personal feelings, you'll overlook the rule of law. Good stuff.

Author:  Rorinthas [ Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:

Lex Luthor wrote:
I don't think people should be jailed unless they're doing something violent or destructive against others, or stealing, so I agree with not reimbursing them.


They're breaking the law, and that doesn't make it fair to all the good hard working people who do the paperwork and get it right. They're getting to be here for free when others have to work for it. Isn't that a form of stealing?

Author:  Lenas [ Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Screeling wrote:
So because of your personal feelings, you'll overlook the rule of law. Good stuff.

All of Lex's political reasoning is based on how he feels about a topic.

Author:  Xequecal [ Thu Feb 10, 2011 9:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Rorinthas wrote:
They're breaking the law, and that doesn't make it fair to all the good hard working people who do the paperwork and get it right. They're getting to be here for free when others have to work for it. Isn't that a form of stealing?


I'm one of the people who got in legally, and I have to say the legal process is a little scummy. You can wait on a list for 7-14 years, and then hope you win the lottery for a slot, or you can get an immigration lawyer and essentially spend $20,000 to bypass the list and buy your way in. The Mexicans cannot get in legally because they simply can't afford it.

Author:  Lenas [ Thu Feb 10, 2011 9:16 pm ]
Post subject: 

My girlfriend was on the list for seven years before she turned 21, qualified as an adult and the government told her she had to reapply by herself. That cost a lawyer and $10k to fix. Such a shitty system we've got here, it's ridiculous. "Give me your tired, your poor," my ***.

Author:  Lex Luthor [ Thu Feb 10, 2011 9:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Rorinthas wrote:
Lex Luthor wrote:
I don't think people should be jailed unless they're doing something violent or destructive against others, or stealing, so I agree with not reimbursing them.


They're breaking the law, and that doesn't make it fair to all the good hard working people who do the paperwork and get it right. They're getting to be here for free when others have to work for it. Isn't that a form of stealing?


I don't care, and that doesn't make it stealing. They shouldn't go to jail for walking over land without harming anything. It's barbaric.

Author:  Xequecal [ Thu Feb 10, 2011 9:56 pm ]
Post subject: 

Honestly, there are very good reasons the immigration system works the way it does.

The fact is, Americans are not going to do backbreaking labor farm jobs. Those jobs are not worth minimum wage, (remember 90 hours/week even on minimum wage is not exactly a pittance, even if there's no overtime) but even if they paid minimum wage I suspect Americans would still not do them.

I get this suspicion because in Germany (admittedly not the US, but still first world with first world attitudes) they actually tried this. Germany has no minimum wage, in case you didn't know, so the government decided they would try subsidizing the farm labor jobs for German citizens. The jobs were worth like 7 Euro per hour for 80 hours a week and guess what? The Germans by and large turned up their noses and they still had to bring in immigrant labor.

This is the first world. People don't want to do 90 hours a week of manual labor in the outdoors in the first world.

Author:  Lex Luthor [ Thu Feb 10, 2011 9:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

Soon machines will do 100% of this manual labor instead of 95% or whatever it is, and then this aspect of the debate will be moot.

Author:  Elmarnieh [ Thu Feb 10, 2011 10:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

Repeal our entitlement systems and open the borders.

Win win.

Author:  Xequecal [ Thu Feb 10, 2011 10:06 pm ]
Post subject: 

Oh, there are plenty of theoretical solutions that would work great, but frankly, if you try to vote me into a 90-hour/week manual labor job, I'm fairly certain I can find five friends with votes that will vote to tell you to go **** yourself.

Author:  Rorinthas [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Xequecal wrote:
Rorinthas wrote:
They're breaking the law, and that doesn't make it fair to all the good hard working people who do the paperwork and get it right. They're getting to be here for free when others have to work for it. Isn't that a form of stealing?


I'm one of the people who got in legally, and I have to say the legal process is a little scummy. You can wait on a list for 7-14 years, and then hope you win the lottery for a slot, or you can get an immigration lawyer and essentially spend $20,000 to bypass the list and buy your way in. The Mexicans cannot get in legally because they simply can't afford it.


I can't afford a new car. The car companies mark them up way too much. We know how much value they loose once they are driven off the lot. Should I go steal one? No I'd go to jail and they'd take the car away.

That said I appreciate your effort and think the process needs reform.

Author:  Hopwin [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Lenas wrote:
Screeling wrote:
So because of your personal feelings, you'll overlook the rule of law. Good stuff.

All of Lex's politicalreasoning is based on how he feels about a topic.

Fixed.

Author:  Corolinth [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:16 am ]
Post subject: 

So how does that make him any different from the rest of you?

Author:  Aizle [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Arizona counter sue's

Quote:
"It's outrageous the United States Department of Justice sued the people of Arizona to stop Senate Bill 1070," Brewer said. "Our message for the federal government is very simple -- use federal resources to combat the cartels who are breaking the federal law."


I think my Irony-o-meter just pegged...

Author:  Kaffis Mark V [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:35 am ]
Post subject: 

Where's the irony? They passed a law to let state resources perform the necessary tasks that the federal government was not committing the resources to perform.

The Federal government is trying to stop them from doing so, saying "that's none of your business, that's our job!" So Arizona is saying back, "If it's your job, **** do it so we don't have to."

Where's the irony?

Author:  Aizle [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:14 am ]
Post subject: 

Essentially it's "We're pissed you sued us, so we're going to sue you!" Seems pretty clear and obvious to me.

Author:  Rynar [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Aizle wrote:
Essentially it's "We're pissed you sued us, so we're going to sue you!" Seems pretty clear and obvious to me.


Really? It's all about hurt feelings and childishness, and not about the process by which the law works when you have major disagreements between the state and federal governments?

Author:  Nitefox [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Aizle wrote:
Essentially it's "We're pissed you sued us, so we're going to sue you!" Seems pretty clear and obvious to me.



Please tell me your kidding.

Author:  Aizle [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Rynar wrote:
Aizle wrote:
Essentially it's "We're pissed you sued us, so we're going to sue you!" Seems pretty clear and obvious to me.


Really? It's all about hurt feelings and childishness, and not about the process by which the law works when you have major disagreements between the state and federal governments?


Of course it's not all about hurt feelings. And obviously it's how the process works. What I'm amused by is that they are "outraged" that they were sued, when as you stated that's the process for working out major disagreements. Yet that outrage didn't prevent them from suing right back. Again, as is the process.

Author:  Nitefox [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Aizle wrote:
Rynar wrote:
Aizle wrote:
Essentially it's "We're pissed you sued us, so we're going to sue you!" Seems pretty clear and obvious to me.


Really? It's all about hurt feelings and childishness, and not about the process by which the law works when you have major disagreements between the state and federal governments?


Of course it's not all about hurt feelings. And obviously it's how the process works. What I'm amused by is that they are "outraged" that they were sued, when as you stated that's the process for working out major disagreements. Yet that outrage didn't prevent them from suing right back. Again, as is the process.



IT'S NOT ABOUT THE SUING!

Author:  Khross [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

Aizle wrote:
Of course it's not all about hurt feelings. And obviously it's how the process works. What I'm amused by is that they are "outraged" that they were sued, when as you stated that's the process for working out major disagreements. Yet that outrage didn't prevent them from suing right back. Again, as is the process.
Actually, it was rather outrageous that the Federal Government sued, and the Justice Department relocated the suit repeatedly until it got a sympathetic judge. It was more outrageous that the Federal Government used the arguments it did to get an injunction against the law as well.

There's no irony here. The Justice Department will relocate Arizona's suit until it gets a sympathetic judge, and the States and Citizens lose a First Amendment right. And after that is all said and done, you'll still defend the President directing that Justice Department.

Author:  darksiege [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:15 pm ]
Post subject: 

So Aizle since you do not appear to get it (or care)... We work for the same company. You run the maintenance department and part of that job is pest control.

You do maintenance, but there is a mouse infestation... My kitchen staff is constantly having mouse related trouble.

Since you will not get the job done, i take some of my departments budget and say "I will do it myself"

You get pissy and run to HR about my department stepping onto your job. And they tell me ro cease and desist.

But i still have the mouse problem, why is it ironic for me to go to HR and demand that you do your job to keep the mice out?

Page 1 of 7 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/