Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Drudge Report Sets Targets on Mayor Coleman

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Drudge Report Sets Targets on Mayor Coleman

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 257 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #372336

    Aaron Marshall
    Participant

    cory wrote >>
    The law is constitutional. If the Feds did their job and secured our borders, Arizona wouldn’t have to make laws at a state level. It’s easy for Coleman to say what’s best for Arizona when Huh? Columbus is not faced with the same problems as Arizona. Like the attorney general, I bet Coleman hasn’t even read the law. I won’t be voting for his re-election.

    Whether you agree with this Arizona law or not, it obviously is a violation of the 14th Amendment. That’s the one that includes the equal protection clause, you know “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    Put another way, you can’t pass laws that apply only to certain segments of the population. Such as, you know, laws that target people who look like illegal immigrants.

    #372337

    gramarye
    Participant

    The more interesting question to me is whether the boycotts are constitutional under the “dormant Commerce Clause” doctrine. But that’s neither here nor there.

    I oppose Coleman’s move, but I don’t think it amounts to all that much in the grander scheme of things. Though of course a lot of Dispatch commenters seem to.

    #372338

    dsigner
    Participant

    Not sure why we needed to take a stand… is there a lot of official Columbus to AZ travel? Overall, I admit the border / immigration issue has been neglected by the Federal Government, but I think the recent AZ law is a bit misguided. Why leave it up to the suspicion of the police? Why not just make it mandatory to check immigration status upon any crime, ticket, etc. Already AZ has a law that when hiring ANY employee they do such a check. Just take the subjectivity out of it.

    #372339

    roy
    Participant

    Rick Carraway wrote >>
    Mayor Coleman’s banning of city travel to Arizona has been picked up by the Drudge Report.

    The story’s linked on Drudge below the fold, seventh down with the header “Ohio city bans worker travel to AZ” making this thread title a bit hyperbolic.

    What I want to know is why Coleman’s IT director wanted to visit AZ for a “computer conference” in the first place.

    #372340

    That’s strange, Roy. Earlier it said, “Mayor Coleman: Take a step back and literally FUCK YOUR FACE!”

    Sorry, Les Grossman flashback.

    Don’t think the headline is hyperbolic: A headline on Drudge is being targeted by Drudge. He puts up link so to send his army of internet assailers out into the interwebs to gobble up message boards…as has happened at the Dispatch. It’s a chorus of, “Mayor Coleman. Read the bill!”

    ~

    Don’t know if it was necessary or not for Mayor Coleman to stand up against injustice, but I sure am glad that he did. It’s a symbolic gesture, not a substantive one. But it was the right thing to do. Our political leaders should more often be so bold.

    #372341

    joev
    Participant

    roy wrote >>

    What I want to know is why Coleman’s IT director wanted to visit AZ for a “computer conference” in the first place.

    You think something is suspicious about professional development?

    #372342

    gramarye
    Participant

    The injustice is the Swiss cheese border.

    The Arizona law is an imperfect response to a threat, but at least it *is* a response. The open-borders lobby is out in full force trying to bring it down from without because it enjoys strong popularity within Arizona–but I note that they have been denouncing the Arizona law while being curiously quiet about either their affirmative case for open borders (which they know is both a political and legal dead loser) or their proposal for federal action that would actually make the Arizona law unnecessary.

    #372343

    An open border isn’t an injustice, just a tremendous liability.

    But as the saying goes, two wrongs don’t make a right.

    You can’t single out a racial group and not anticipate a backlash; of course it’s popular in Arizona. But the rest of the country may more dispassionately approach the issue and recognize that America’s not only been a champion of immigrants, but of minority rights under majority rule. We have an obligation to oppose the intrusion on rights here.

    Will Arizona be able to prove a compelling interest here? Perhaps. But it won’t be able to prove that this law is narrowly tailored. It will fail once it reaches the courts.

    #372344

    Bear
    Participant

    gramarye wrote >>
    The injustice is the Swiss cheese border.

    Well… the injustice lies somewhere in the hypocrisy of the coexistence of tension between the Swiss cheese border and an economy that depends heavily on it….

    #372345

    gramarye
    Participant

    Rick Carraway wrote >>
    An open border isn’t an injustice, just a tremendous liability.
    But as the saying goes, two wrongs don’t make a right.

    True, but that’s like saying “two wrongs don’t make a right” for criticizing someone for defending themselves with deadly force against deadly force. Yes, killing is wrong–but it’s nevertheless legal in that circumstance.

    The saying “two wrongs don’t make a right” is also not exactly available to someone who consciously perpetrates one of them, i.e., those abetting the de facto open-border status quo.

    You can’t single out a racial group and not anticipate a backlash; of course it’s popular in Arizona. But the rest of the country may more dispassionately approach the issue and recognize that America’s not only been a champion of immigrants, but of minority rights under majority rule. We have an obligation to oppose the intrusion on rights here.
    Will Arizona be able to prove a compelling interest here? Perhaps. But it won’t be able to prove that this law is narrowly tailored. It will fail once it reaches the courts.

    I wouldn’t assume that that is the standard that will be used. After all, all it does is add additional teeth to existing federal immigration law; it’s no more racially conscious than the federal regime it strengthens. Any racial bias in the Arizona law is necessarily present in the federal regime; moving something from an essentially civil infraction to a criminal act is a racially neutral change.

    #372346

    cory
    Member

    Aaron Marshall wrote >>

    cory wrote >>
    The law is constitutional. If the Feds did their job and secured our borders, Arizona wouldn’t have to make laws at a state level. It’s easy for Coleman to say what’s best for Arizona when Huh? Columbus is not faced with the same problems as Arizona. Like the attorney general, I bet Coleman hasn’t even read the law. I won’t be voting for his re-election.

    Whether you agree with this Arizona law or not, it obviously is a violation of the 14th Amendment. That’s the one that includes the equal protection clause, you know “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
    Put another way, you can’t pass laws that apply only to certain segments of the population. Such as, you know, laws that target people who look like illegal immigrants.</blockquote
    The 14th admendment protects the rights of citizens, not illegal immigrants who are hindering our economy and commiting crimes against our country. The law isn’t about how someone “looks,” it gives police the right to question the legal status of someone who has given them propable cause to believe they are in the country illegally. Jan Brewer knows what is best for her state and has said that racial profiling will not be tolerated. Maybe a better solution would be a national ID card that is linked to someone’s social security number and can be used to check the legal status of ANYONE in the US.

    #372347

    cory
    Member

    Something I saw online…

    1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
    * * * * * * * *
    2. All ballots will be in this nation’s language..
    * * * * * * * *
    3.. All government business will be conducted in our language.
    * * * * * * * *
    4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long
    they are here.
    * * * * * * * *
    5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office
    * * * * * * * *
    6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food
    stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any
    burden will be deported.
    * * * * * * * *
    7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at
    least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
    * * * * * * * *
    8. If foreigners come here and buy land… options will be restricted.
    Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens
    naturally born into this country.
    * * * * * * * *
    9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a
    foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or
    his policies. These will lead to deportation.
    * * * * * * * *
    10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively
    hunted and when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be
    arranged. All assets will be taken from you.
    * * * * * * * * *
    Too strict ?

    The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO!

    #372348

    JonMyers
    Participant

    cory wrote >>
    Something I saw online…
    1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
    * * * * * * * *
    2. All ballots will be in this nation’s language..
    * * * * * * * *
    3.. All government business will be conducted in our language.
    * * * * * * * *
    4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long
    they are here.
    * * * * * * * *
    5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office
    * * * * * * * *
    6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food
    stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any
    burden will be deported.
    * * * * * * * *
    7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at
    least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
    * * * * * * * *
    8. If foreigners come here and buy land… options will be restricted.
    Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens
    naturally born into this country.
    * * * * * * * *
    9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a
    foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or
    his policies. These will lead to deportation.
    * * * * * * * *
    10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively
    hunted and when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be
    arranged. All assets will be taken from you.
    * * * * * * * * *
    Too strict ?
    The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO!

    By the way, Obama is a Muslim. The internet told me so.

    #372349

    DavidF
    Participant

    cory wrote >>
    Something I saw online…
    1. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools.
    * * * * * * * *
    2. All ballots will be in this nation’s language..
    * * * * * * * *
    3.. All government business will be conducted in our language.
    * * * * * * * *
    4. Non-residents will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long
    they are here.
    * * * * * * * *
    5. Non-citizens will NEVER be able to hold political office
    * * * * * * * *
    6 Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food
    stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs. Any
    burden will be deported.
    * * * * * * * *
    7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount at
    least equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.
    * * * * * * * *
    8. If foreigners come here and buy land… options will be restricted.
    Certain parcels including waterfront property are reserved for citizens
    naturally born into this country.
    * * * * * * * *
    9. Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a
    foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or
    his policies. These will lead to deportation.
    * * * * * * * *
    10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be actively
    hunted and when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be
    arranged. All assets will be taken from you.
    * * * * * * * * *
    Too strict ?
    The above laws are current immigration laws of MEXICO!

    Wow, what an incredibly long post to not have any kind of point. I believe the discussion is Arizona’s new law specifically, and American immigration policy in general.

    Unless this is what you are advocating?

    #372350

    JonMyers
    Participant

    Really, DavidF. Agreed, I fail to see the point.

    Mexican immigration laws requiring Spanish to be exclusively written and spoken………………. as told in English.

    It just seems like the typical pointless racist/ hate bullshit that circulates around the net, which is cited as “fact” to get stupid white people fired up.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 257 total)

The forum ‘Politics’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe below: