Obama's incendiary remarks spurred vandalism in Arizona

F

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
Vandals smear refried beans into swastikas in Ariz. capital, more protests planned

JONATHAN J. COOPER • Associated Press Writer • April 26, 2010

PHOENIX (AP) — The conflict over a sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration in Arizona intensified Monday as vandals smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the state Capitol's windows.

More protests were planned Monday after thousands gathered this weekend to demonstrate against a bill that will make it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant in Arizona.

~snip~

***

FOX NEWS

In an unusual White House attack on state legislation, President Barack Obama harshly criticized an Arizona measure to crack down on illegal immigration and made clear Friday that he is looking for an election-year fight over the volatile issue.

Hours later, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the nation's toughest immigration law, making illegal immigration a state crime and requiring police to question people about their immigration status if officers suspect they are in the U.S. illegally.

Brewer, a Republican, said the state action was forced by Washington's failure to secure the U.S. borders and solve the nation's thorny illegal immigration problem. "Decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation," she said.

The president said it was the state that was "misguided" and that the Arizona measure would "undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans."

Obama said he instructed the Justice Department to "examine the civil rights and other implications" of the new law. Justice officials said they were considering their options, and it wasn't clear Friday what they might do. Regardless, the law seemed certain to be challenged in court by opponents.
Click to expand...
There seems to be an odd symbiotic relationship between Obama and anyone who isn't white and/or American.
 
fossten said:
There seems to be an odd symbiotic relationship between Obama and anyone who isn't white and/or American.
Click to expand...

You got it. What part of "illegal" alien, immigrant(or what have you) don't people get.

Illegal means NOT legal. It doesn't mean legal for people if they weren't born in America.
 
Obama came to divide this country, it's that simple.

When's the last time he stood up for anybody who is white?
 
fossten said:
Obama came to divide this country, it's that simple.

When's the last time he stood up for anybody who is white?
Click to expand...

mmm, biden? That's all I can think of, and that's probably because he knows we would have lost votes by not doing so. I never hear anything about biden.
 
He went to he funeral of the people killed in the mine blast of WV, they were all white! Don't be afraid Foss, its not like the black race enslaved the white race for hundreds of years, or used black soldiers for experiments.
 
lincolnx2 said:
He went to he funeral of the people killed in the mine blast of WV, they were all white! Don't be afraid Foss, its not like the black race enslaved the white race for hundreds of years, or used black soldiers for experiments.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, Obama will get payback for you guys. That's his stated goal. Spread the wealth and right the wrongs.
 
lincolnx2 said:
He went to he funeral of the people killed in the mine blast of WV, they were all white! Don't be afraid Foss, its not like the black race enslaved the white race for hundreds of years, or used black soldiers for experiments.
Click to expand...

No, blacks sold blacks into slavery, in fact, Africans were extremely vocal opponents to the white Christian abolitionists in America.

.....and the military did far more experiment on white soldiers, and not just syphilis.
YouTube- Atomic Bomb Test on human subjects
 
Awesome! We'll bring one hundred dollars each and live like kings.

*swigs Coronita*
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So Foss, exactly what did Obama say that incited these actions - what were the incendiary remarks?

And, do you think Arizona's bill is constitutional? How do you think it will get around the 4th?
 
foxpaws said:
So Foss, exactly what did Obama say that incited these actions - what were the incendiary remarks?

And, do you think Arizona's bill is constitutional? How do you think it will get around the 4th?
Click to expand...
Fox, if you can't read, I'm not going to help you.

The constitutionality of the bill hasn't been decided yet. I know that you haven't read the bill, either. Get back to me when you do.

If you really want to learn something, Byron York covers the constitutionality question here.
 
fossten said:
Fox, if you can't read, I'm not going to help you.

The constitutionality of the bill hasn't been decided yet. I know that you haven't read the bill, either. Get back to me when you do.

If you really want to learn something, Byron York covers the constitutionality question here.
Click to expand...

This is all that was stated in your 'articles' Foss - from FauxNews - without context and also without source to complete context...

The president said it was the state that was "misguided" and that the Arizona measure would "undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans."
Click to expand...

That is incendiary?

And Byron York - as a source - some journalist?

How about WSJ Law Blog, along with Law Professors...

It sounded to the Law Blog like we were heading toward a big federalism showdown. So we turned to Karl Manheim of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and Erwin Chemerinsky of UC Irvine Law to pregame it for us. Their response: the law is DOA.

Here is the text if anyone is interested - a rather short bill actually...
 
foxpaws said:
This is all that was stated in your 'articles' Foss - from FauxNews - without context and also without source to complete context...



That is incendiary?

And Byron York - as a source - some journalist?

How about WSJ Law Blog, along with Law Professors...

It sounded to the Law Blog like we were heading toward a big federalism showdown. So we turned to Karl Manheim of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and Erwin Chemerinsky of UC Irvine Law to pregame it for us. Their response: the law is DOA.
Click to expand...
Some blogger - as a source? :rolleyes:

Let me ask you a question and let's see if you can answer it honestly, Fox.

Did you a) read the law or b) read York's column?

If not, then you're just playing dueling position papers. In other words, you just want to waste time and distract from the topic.

What Obama said was as incendiary as anything Rush said that caused the OKC bombing, according to Bill Clinton. Sorry you don't get the sarcasm. I'm just using the standard set by you DKos lefties.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yes I did read both -

and this is where I think there might be problems...

ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws; indemnification

E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.
Click to expand...

Any public offense includes being an illegal immigrant - so, the probable cause thing gets tied up with how and why do you arrest?

My law source and I are getting together for golf tomorrow - so I will ask lots of questions then... right now - just with me reading this, it looks like this could be the sticking point in regards to the 4th...
 
foxpaws said:
yes I did read both -

and this is where I think there might be problems...



Any public offense includes being an illegal immigrant - so, the probable cause thing gets tied up with how and why do you arrest?

My law source and I are getting together for golf tomorrow - so I will ask lots of questions then... right now - just with me reading this, it looks like this could be the sticking point in regards to the 4th...
Click to expand...
Keep cherrypicking, fox...you're predictable. You conveniently didn't read any further.

So, did you read York's column or not? I knew you couldn't answer the question honestly.

You're not even a good liar anymore.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes I did read York - and I think he might be wrong - I think the 4th will come into play with this bill.

I did read further - are you talking about the part of the bill where it talks about reasons - such as traffic offenses, or that they could be escaped convicts, for being pulled over and asked for proof?

Those are just examples foss - the real meat of the bill lies in the part where I pulled - they only have to have cause to believe that the person has committed 'any public offense' which includes being an illegal immigrant... that is the only reason a police officer needs to demand proof... There doesn't need to be an additional reason... like York stated here...

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

If you read the law, the police or other law officer only has to believe that any public offense has occurred. Since being in this country illegally is a public offense, the police will be allowed to detain someone for that reason alone.

The 'lawful contact' could include just immigration status as it is stated in the bill.
 
Calabrio said:
No, blacks sold blacks into slavery, in fact, Africans were extremely vocal opponents to the white Christian abolitionists in America.
Click to expand...

This is true. The slave trade was fueled by the tribal wars in Africa and they in turn sold the war captives to slave traders. Reintegration of the diasporic and native Africans was no walk in the park either. I forget where this happened but something like 300 African Americans moved back to the Ivory Coast and threw their passports in the water. 2-3 days later the natives thought the beach was haunted because there was a strange light aura but it was actually the diasporic looking for their passports. IIRC the ones that were sold into slavery were shameful, and there was resentment. There's a reason why Africa was called the Dark Continent for so long... white people didn't really explore it until I think around the beginning of the 18th century. I think the more racist view is to assume that Europeans just went over to Africa and caught them with nets. It was abolished in 1865 though. I think it's a dead issue, that is, unless one can find a surviving slave owner and slave. :rolleyes:
 
However this turns out in court, the truth is that Obama and the fed forced Arizona's hand by refusing to enforce border security. Arizona is desperate. Our economy is being sucked dry by illegals flooding our borders and eating up medical care and welfare. Crime is on the rise, directly attributable to the cartels just south of the border.
 
fossten said:
However this turns out in court, the truth is that Obama and the fed forced Arizona's hand by refusing to enforce border security. Arizona is desperate. Our economy is being sucked dry by illegals flooding our borders and eating up medical care and welfare. Crime is on the rise, directly attributable to the cartels just south of the border.
Click to expand...

True.....but it was going on long before Obama was in office.

Hats off to Arizona for putting the issue on the front burner.

Maybe Texas will get on board.
 
ford nut said:
True.....but it was going on long before Obama was in office.

Hats off to Arizona for putting the issue on the front burner.

Maybe Texas will get on board.
Click to expand...

It is a huge problem in Colorado, for many many years, long before Obama. There has been much interest in the Arizona law here. There have been a lot of laws that have dealt with this, especially in California, regarding state services and illegal immigrants. They usually get cut up in Federal Court.

The Feds do need to do something... The states aren't the best choice for handling this, because if Arizona cracks down and New Mexico doesn't, we still have the same problem - multiplied now, in New Mexico. And then those problems move north, into Colorado, Wyoming, the Dakotas.

If the law in Arizona does get the Feds off their butt - then it has done some good.

But, the AZ law will get knock down, and I would imagine pretty soon.
 
foxpaws said:
The Feds do need to do something... The states aren't the best choice for handling this, because if Arizona cracks down and New Mexico doesn't, we still have the same problem - multiplied now, in New Mexico. And then those problems move north, into Colorado, Wyoming, the Dakotas.
Click to expand...
Too late for that. The FEDS don't WANT to do anything about it. You're smoking something or you think we are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 89 (members: 0, guests: 89)
Back
Top