Justice Dept Files Suit Against Arizona.

[TwistedTails]

Deny it all you like, they're colonies by another name.

I denied nothing, as there is nothing to deny. The distinction between colony and protectorate is quite clear.

Not a race issue ... nothing to do with HISPANICS (see above)??? Oh well ... if you say so.

Salud!

If the law specified ANY race, creed, or color, I would be first in line to oppose it. It does not.

Cheers.

[DuncanONeil]

Do you play Torq?

Perhaps all of this is a ploy by the Mexican Government to take over the portions of the land they lost in earlier centuries?

I just watched an interview on CNN: A woman and her family were going to have to move out of Arizona because of this law, she had been in the country Illegally for 18 years. What made me think was, 18 years?? why do they have to do the interview in SPANISH???

This is one of the main reasons Illegal Immigrants are becoming the focus for this law, they do not want to intigrate with the United States.. During the Demonstrations in Arizona they were numerable Mexican Flags, If they want to become citizens, why weren't they showing American Flags? In California, some Hispanic High School students lowered the American Flag and Raised the Mexican Flag, they thought it was funny and shows their heritage.

If being Mexican is so important why do they come here?

[DuncanONeil]

As presented the data you have here is meaningless. I know it says main language, but are we to presume from that that there are 480,000 - oh say - Japanese that can not speak English?

Wikipedia tells us

According to the 2000 census,[9] the main languages by number of speakers older than five are:

1. English - 215 million
2. Spanish - 28 million
3. American Sign Language - 2.0 million
4. Chinese languages - 2.0 million + (mostly Cantonese speakers, with a growing group of Mandarin speakers)
5. French - 1.6 million
6. German - 1.4 million (High German) + German dialects like Hutterite German, Texas German, Pennsylvania German, Plautdietsch
7. Tagalog - 1.2 million + (Most Filipinos may also know other Philippine languages, e.g. Ilokano, Pangasinan, Bikol languages, and Visayan languages)
8. Vietnamese - 1.01 million
9. Italian - 1.01 million
10. Korean - 890,000
11. Russian - 710,000
12. Polish - 670,000
13. Arabic - 610,000
14. Portuguese - 560,000
15. Japanese - 480,000
16. French Creole - 450,000 (mostly Louisiana Creole French - 334,500)
17. Greek - 370,000
18. Hindi - 320,000
19. Persian - 310,000
20. Urdu - 260,000
21. Gujarati - 240,000
22. Armenian - 200,000

Are American signers to be regarded as unAmerican because they don't speak English?

Why stop there? Why not insist on Anglo-Saxon. After all, look at Iceland. That's pretty much a "pure" country (mostly Scandinavian stock, but a bit of Irish blood, too) speaking a language that hasn't changed very much for over ten centuries.

Although the USA does not have "official" languages, it has a number of States which are unofficially bi-lingual, and one state which is officially bi-lingual. Four Territories are also officially bi- or tri-lingual, but they don't count - they're only colonies, not proper Americans.

[DuncanONeil]

Hear Hear thorne!!

[DuncanONeil]

Actually her ruling made it illegal for any officer in AZ to be a participant in any action related to immigration.
Although it is going to the 9th, the Administration is not going to prevale. The law is sound, not new immigration law. Much of what the judge used to make her decision is based on inappropriate precedent, a violation of legal and judicial practices for a law not yet in force.

According to Bob Christie of the Associated Press:

States that had been watching Arizona's immigration law in hopes of copying it received a rude awakening when a judge put most of the measure on hold and agreed with the Obama administration's core argument that immigration enforcement is the role of the federal government.

The ruling marked a repudiation of the Arizona law as U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton indicated that the government has a good chance at succeeding in its argument that federal immigration law trumps state law. It was an important first-round victory for the government in a fight that may not be settled until the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in.

But opponents of the law said the ruling sends a strong message to other states hoping to replicate the law. "Surely it's going to make states pause and consider how they're drafting legislation and how it fits in a constitutional framework," Dennis Burke, the U.S. Attorney for Arizona, told The Associated Press. "The proponents of this went into court saying there was no question that this was constitutional, and now you have a federal judge who's said 'hold on, there's major issues with this bill.'"

He added: "So this idea that this is going to be a blueprint for other states is seriously in doubt. The blueprint is constitutionally flawed."

Gov. Jan Brewer called Wednesday's decision "a bump in the road" and vowed to appeal.

Her spokesman Paul Senseman said the state would ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Thursday to lift Bolton's preliminary injunction and to expedite its consideration of the state's appeal.

The key sponsor of Arizona's law, Republican Rep. Russell Pearce, said the judge was wrong and predicted that the state would ultimately win the case.

In her temporary injunction, Bolton delayed the most contentious provisions of the law, including a section that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. She also barred enforcement of parts requiring immigrants to carry their papers and banned illegal immigrants from soliciting employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers that congregate in large numbers in parking lots across Arizona. The judge also blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.

"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," said Bolton, a Clinton appointee who was assigned the seven lawsuits filed against Arizona over the law.

Other provisions that were less contentious were allowed to take effect Thursday morning, including a section that bars cities in Arizona from disregarding federal immigration laws.

The 11th-hour ruling came just as police were preparing to begin enforcement of a law that has drawn international attention and revived the national immigration debate in a year when Democrats are struggling to hold on to seats in Congress.

The ruling was anxiously awaited in the U.S. and beyond. About 100 protesters in Mexico City who had gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy broke into applause when they learned of the ruling. They had been monitoring the news on a laptop computer. Mariana Rivera, a 36-year-old from Zacatecas, Mexico, who is living in Phoenix on a work permit, said she heard the news live on a Spanish-language news program.

"I was waiting to hear because we're all very worried about everything that's happening," said Rivera, who phoned friends and family with the news. "Even those with papers, we don't go out at night at certain times there's so much fear (of police). You can't just sit back and relax."

More demonstrators opposed to the law planned to gather on Thursday, with the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network and the immigrant-rights group Puente saying they would march from the state Capitol at dawn.

Demonstrations also are planned for outside Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office, said activist Salvador Reza.

Lawmakers or candidates in as many as 18 states say they want to push similar measures when their legislative sessions start up again in 2011. Some lawmakers pushing the legislation said they would not be daunted by the ruling and plan to push ahead in response to what they believe is a scourge that needs to be tackled.

Arizona is the nation's epicenter of illegal immigration, with more than 400,000 undocumented residents. The state's border with Mexico is awash with smugglers and drugs that funnel narcotics and immigrants throughout the U.S., and the influx of illegal migrants drains vast sums of money from hospitals, education and other services.

"We're going to have to look and see," said Idaho state Sen. Monty Pearce, a second cousin of Russell Pearce and a supporter of immigration reform in his state. "Nobody had dreamed up, two years ago, the Arizona law, and so everybody is looking for that crack where we can get something done, where we can turn the clock back a little bit and get our country back."

Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped write the law and train Arizona police officers in immigration law, conceded the ruling weakens the force of Arizona's efforts to crack down on illegal immigrants. He said it will likely be a year before a federal appeals court decides the case.

"It's a temporary setback," Kobach said. "The bottom line is that every lawyer in Judge Bolton's court knows this is just the first pitch in a very long baseball game."

In the meantime, other states like Utah will likely take up similar laws, possibly redesigned to get around Bolton's objections.

"The ruling ... should not be a reason for Utah to not move forward," said Utah state Rep. Carl Wimmer, a Republican from Herriman City, who said he plans to co-sponsor a bill similar to Arizona's next year and wasn't surprised it was blocked. "For too long the states have cowered in the corner because of one ruling by one federal judge."

The core of the government's case is that federal immigration law trumps state law — an issue known as "pre-emption" in legal circles and one that dates to the founding of America. In her ruling, Bolton pointed out five portions of the law where she believed the federal government would likely succeed on its claims.

The Justice Department argued in court that the law was unconstitutional and that allowing states to push their own measures would lead to a patchwork of immigration laws across the nation and disrupt a carefully balanced approach crafted by Congress.

Arizona argues that the federal government has failed to secure the border, and that it has a right to take matters into its own hands.

For now, the federal government has the upper-hand in the dispute, by virtue of the strength of its arguments and the precedent on the pre-emption issue. The Bush administration successfully used the pre-emption argument to win consumer product cases, and judges in other jurisdictions have looked favorably on the argument in immigration disputes.

"This is clearly a significant victory for the Justice Department and a defeat for the sponsors of this law," said Peter Spiro, a constitutional law professor at Temple University who has studied immigration law extensively. "They will not win on this round of appeals. They'll get a shot after a trial and a final ruling by Judge Bolton."

[DuncanONeil]

Agreed!

I sincerely hope you never go to one of the protectorates and tell someone they are living in an American Colony. The results would be predictably bad.

Why are we still flogging the race issue here? It is a diversion at best. AZ passed a law that allowed them to enforce a federal law that the federal government wouldn't enforce for political reasons. It is a States rights issue, It is a federal negligence issue, it is a public safety issue. What it is not is a race issue.

Cheers
Twisted

[DuncanONeil]

Many, if not most, of the illegal immigrants speak Spanish as a second language when they walk across the border! Why then is it so hard for them to pick up another language. Especially when they can use it every day?

Nobody has said that immigrate to US is a picnic. But is that sufficient grounds to aborgate the law and allow wholesale ignorance thereof? The issue, as has been said often enough, it is not a matter of race but legality!~!

It's not for me to contradict you, Thorne, but, according to the US Census-takers, ASL is another language. I simply defer to their greater wisdom.

What puzzles me is why everyone is making such a fuss because someone else speaks the nation's second language (eventually to be its first) - as if that, in itself, was reason for deportation. It's not at all surprising that a Spanish speaker would speak Spanish in a state that belonged to Spain or has been under Spanish influence from the middle of the 16th century until about 160 years ago.

I can assure you that the British government publishes documents in a variety of European and Asian languages ... even Celtic languages on occasion, and runs Asian and Celtic language radio & tv stations, too. If there were sufficient demand, I'm sure the BBC would open a new Spanish channel, too. If a speaker of a foreign language comes over here and discovers he needs help to avail himself of the vast array of benefits and services we gladly provide to such parasites (for no other reason than we're insane) then there is a vast array of leaflets and other publications in every tongue you can imagine so that he doesn't have to miss out on a single week's benefits for lack of understanding!

Why, we even have road signs in French, German, and God knows what other languages reminding these interlopers to drive on the left - although our free health service is always available in case of accident.

And, Thorne, I shall be visiting Finland shortly. I expect to be able to confirm that most Finns will speak to me in English, and that there will be many signs in airports, hotels and elsewhere in English designed to help me get about. If I visit museums, cathedrals or other sights, there will be brochures in English explaining the exhibits etc.

Finally, I don't believe ther is a single government in the world that doesn't have an immigration policy affected by the immigrants it wants to receive and those it doesn't. Basically, if you're wealthy or have a special skill, you're welcome. If you're poor and uneducated, you can just fuck off.

[DuncanONeil]

Deny it all you like, they're colonies by another name

.

col·o·ny
   /ˈkɒləni/
–noun, plural -nies.

any people or territory separated from but subject to a ruling power.

Therefore places like Guam and Puerto Rico are not colonies!

Not a race issue ... nothing to do with HISPANICS (see above)??? Oh well ... if you say so.

Salud!

Illegal is not a race therefore his position is correct!!

[DuncanONeil]

I guess it's just semantics. I'll concede the point.

I won't concede! The question as asked by the Census is "Does this person speak a language other than English at home?". Based on that and the other two questions it is to develop an understanding of how people are doing at becoming American!

It's not because they speak Spanish, but because they haven't bothered to learn to speak English as well. Again, if I were moving to another country, I would make damned sure I learned the dominant language of that country. It only makes sense.

I have recently learned that many, if not most, of the illegals have Spanish as a second language!

Naturally. You're a tourist, and they want tourist money. I don't have any problem with that. I don't have a problem with companies who provide signs and ads in both English and Spanish. It only makes economic sense. What I object to is the government providing aid to criminals (aka illegal aliens) who have not, and will not, payed into the system they are destroying.

I can not speak to Finland though I can get info on Sweden as my son recently visited there. I do know about Japan. You can find sign written in English letters but that is about it. Most all highway signs are in Kanjii, while signs on transit platforms can be found in Kanjii, Kana, and Romajii. Romajii is likely the only that you will recognize. if it is the name of the town you might be able to know what to do. I am sure you can read "Fuji", "Tokyo" and the like but they are not in English! But pray tell what is 東京 or 日本 or even 中川?(

[DuncanONeil]

After a careful reading of both the Constitution and Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 81 (13th para) I am forced to concluded differently than both you and Publius Huldah. Though the language seems clear the meaning is not. The "State" in question is not a subordinate member of the Union, but that of a Foreign State as is shown by Hamilton's repeated references to sovereigns and consuls.

I came across this article. If the author is correct, why hasn't this point been brought up previously? Also if the author is correct, this shows how the Constitution is no longer relevant.

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial

FTA (emphasis and formating lost in the cut and paste):

[chuck]

After a careful reading of both the Constitution and Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 81 (13th para) I am forced to concluded differently than both you and Publius Huldah. Though the language seems clear the meaning is not. The "State" in question is not a subordinate member of the Union, but that of a Foreign State as is shown by Hamilton's repeated references to sovereigns and consuls.

I don't claim to be an attorney or even a student of law, but as a layman, I don't see how you come to your conclusion. In the paragraph above the one in question (in Article III Section 2.) I find this list: "--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

In that list, the wording uses the term "foreign states" to differentiate between states of the USA and other states. I don't see why you assume the usage of the word "state" would be different in the very next paragraph. (The Eleventh Amendment also is careful to include the descriptor "foreign" when referencing a foreign state.)

[DuncanONeil]

I explained in my original response. Since when is the Governor of a state referred to a soverign? Since when does a member state have a consulate with the national Government or vice versa. These references clear make "state" to have the meaning of "the body politic as organized for civil rule and government" as opposed to "any of the bodies politic which together make up a federal union, as in the United States of America."
Therefore the subordinate courts do have jurisdiction.

I don't claim to be an attorney or even a student of law, but as a layman, I don't see how you come to your conclusion. In the paragraph above the one in question (in Article III Section 2.) I find this list: "--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

In that list, the wording uses the term "foreign states" to differentiate between states of the USA and other states. I don't see why you assume the usage of the word "state" would be different in the very next paragraph. (The Eleventh Amendment also is careful to include the descriptor "foreign" when referencing a foreign state.)

[chuck]

I can't disagree with you and I respect that you have more background and have done more research than I have. My original question reflected that I had doubts about the validity of the premise of an article from a source that is obviously biased. But my doubts are based on the fact that I have seen nothing in the way of that concept being raised by the parties involved... parties that have more incentive, background, and research capability than either of us. But other than that, I still have not heard anything that refutes the contention of the author. Frankly, your response confuses me more than it explains.

I explained in my original response. Since when is the Governor of a state referred to a soverign?

I did not find a reference to a governor of a state being referred to as a sovereign in your response or in the original article. However, I did find the State of Arizona named as a defendant in the article.

Since when does a member state have a consulate with the national Government or vice versa.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

These references clear make "state" to have the meaning of "the body politic as organized for civil rule and government" as opposed to "any of the bodies politic which together make up a federal union, as in the United States of America."
Therefore the subordinate courts do have jurisdiction.

"These references" I have to assume are the Constitution and The Federalist Papers yet I cannot find the quotes you provided in them. As mentioned before, the Constitution seems to contradict your concept that the word "state" excludes the states in the USA. I have not read the Federalist Papers as you have indicated that you have, but I did refer to the paragraphs preceding and following the paragraph that was referenced in the article. In both of those paragraphs, the word "state" was clearly used to address the states in the USA. In the paragraph following the paragraph under discussion, the word "nation" was used when a more general term was needed.

I appreciate your effort to explain why the contention of the article is wrong, but so far, you have only supplied references that support it.

[MMI]

I denied nothing, as there is nothing to deny. The distinction between colony and protectorate is quite clear.

Semantics apart, the distinction between a colony and a protectorate is such a fine one as to be non-existent

If the law specified ANY race, creed, or color, I would be first in line to oppose it. It does not.

Cheers.

Not even Southern states (whose political views are surpassed only by the previous apartheid regime in South Africa) would nowadays be daft enough to specify a particular race when formulating their exclusion laws. But it's not how you word your laws, it's how you apply them.

[MMI]

I guess it's just semantics. I'll concede the point.

Thank-you

It's not because they speak Spanish, but because they haven't bothered to learn to speak English as well. Again, if I were moving to another country, I would make damned sure I learned the dominant language of that country. It only makes sense.

Good for you.

I don't know if we still have any monoglot Gaelic or Welsh speakers, but it's not so long ago that we did. Should they have been made to learn English, simply because most people spoke that language? I do believe there are native indians in USA who don't speak English. What are you going to do about that?

We do have second generation Asian families in this country who do not speak English: they do not need to. Their friends and acquaintances speak their language, so why should they have to learn an alien language. If they need to communicate with a monoglot English speaker, they'll find an interpreter (who will also be an imigrant). Wouldn't it be a courtesy if some of us learned their language instead?

The trouble with Americans is that they have inherited from us that dreadful Anglo-Saxon arrogance which leads them to believe that everyone else must learn English, while all an English speaker has to do when in a foreign country is shout louder. All we've succeeded in doing is erase countless cultures.

Which language would you have everyone in India speak? What about China? Should everyone be made to learn Cantonese?

See? By your own admission, it's insane to provide benefits for every person who enters the country, whether legally or not. That's all we've been saying: DON'T provide those benefits, DON'T make things easy for them, DON'T allow them to stay illegally. IT'S INSANE!!

Evidently, my sarcasm went straight over your head.

Naturally. You're a tourist, and they want tourist money. I don't have any problem with that. I don't have a problem with companies who provide signs and ads in both English and Spanish. It only makes economic sense. What I object to is the government providing aid to criminals (aka illegal aliens) who have not, and will not, payed into the system they are destroying.

They are NOT fucking destroying your system, and if only you'd let them, they'd contribute just as much as your forefathers did after they entered America. It's the blinkered, isolationist, self-righteous bigots who want to keep America pure who will destroy the system.

Exactly! So why do you assume that the US should be any different. Why castigate the American people because they want the same policies as any other country. Despite the fact that our government doesn't care to enforce those policies. There are enough poor and uneducated people in this country without importing more.

Why? Because it's wrong!

Wouldn't it be a much better idea simply to improve your education system? Then, the invitation Steelish has quoted to me with such pride would once more have meaning, rather than sounding as hollow as the Statue they appear on. Just try getting a Green Card and you'll see why so many give up and cross the border illegally.

[TwistedTails]

Well this has turned arrogant and insulting, Odd how that happens when reason fails.
To those who discussed this topic with reason and decorum, it was a pleasure.
I exit here.

Cheers
Twisted

[Thorne]

I don't know if we still have any monoglot Gaelic or Welsh speakers, but it's not so long ago that we did. Should they have been made to learn English, simply because most people spoke that language?

Why? Most likely they are in their own country (illegally appropriated by the British?). They aren't really all that interested in speaking with the English.

I do believe there are native indians in USA who don't speak English. What are you going to do about that?

I don't know about that! They've had to learn English in order to run their casinos. Either that or they are speaking Spanish, because when Spain, and then Mexico, owned those territories they sure as hell weren't interested in learning Apache!

We do have second generation Asian families in this country who do not speak English: they do not need to. Their friends and acquaintances speak their language, so why should they have to learn an alien language. If they need to communicate with a monoglot English speaker, they'll find an interpreter (who will also be an imigrant). Wouldn't it be a courtesy if some of us learned their language instead?

A courtesy, yes. But it shouldn't be a requirement. It's getting to that point here in the US, if it hasn't already. If WalMart, for example, wants to post bi-lingual signs in order to accommodate Spanish speaking customers, more power to them: it makes good business sense. But if a Mom-and-Pop restaurant doesn't care to entice Spanish speaking customers, because they don't speak Spanish themselves, why should they be required to post signs in Spanish?

The trouble with Americans is that they have inherited from us that dreadful Anglo-Saxon arrogance which leads them to believe that everyone else must learn English, while all an English speaker has to do when in a foreign country is shout louder. All we've succeeded in doing is erase countless cultures.

Oh, so THAT'S where that comes from! Well thanks a pant load!

Fortunately for me I come from Eastern European stock, so I managed to miss that particular disease, though it embarrasses me no end when I hear about such things.

Which language would you have everyone in India speak? What about China? Should everyone be made to learn Cantonese?

Personally, I don't give a damn what they speak. That's their problem, not mine.

Evidently, my sarcasm went straight over your head.

Well, if you're going to make your sarcasm so sensible, it's your own fault.

They are NOT fucking destroying your system, and if only you'd let them, they'd contribute just as much as your forefathers did after they entered America. It's the blinkered, isolationist, self-righteous bigots who want to keep America pure who will destroy the system.

Well let's see now. They come into the country illegally, costing billions of dollars in an effort to keep them out. But wait! You say it's wrong to keep them out! We can do away with the border patrols and the border crossings. We'll just let anyone in who wants to come. Drug dealers, gang members, terrorist. What the hell! They're only looking for their part of the American dream, right?

But they're utilizing infrastructure, despite the fact that they don't pay taxes to help pay for that infrastructure, thereby costing us billions more dollars. Perhaps if we didn't have to pay for illegals we could afford better health care for tax paying citizens.

Wouldn't it be a much better idea simply to improve your education system?

And if we didn't have to pay for educating the children of these illegals we could afford a better education system for our own children.

Just try getting a Green Card and you'll see why so many give up and cross the border illegally.

So basically, you're saying that the American people should feel responsible because the Mexican and Central American governments can't support their own populations? But when we try to do something to help a foreign country regain control of itself we are accused of being modern-day conquistadors, slashing and burning our way through peaceful civilizations.

Well maybe the solution is to send all of the illegals entering the US over to England. After all, you'd be more than happy to help them. Wouldn't you?

[MMI]

So basically, you're saying that the American people should feel responsible because the Mexican and Central American governments can't support their own populations? But when we try to do something to help a foreign country regain control of itself we are accused of being modern-day conquistadors, slashing and burning our way through peaceful civilizations.

Maybe I am saying both of those things, but without the connection you are making.
(1) You resent helping those who need your help, but you have more wealth than anyone else and are still accumulating it as fast as you can, while poorer nations fall deeper into poverty.
(2) By regain control of itself, you mean you install a form of democracy or despotism (you don't mind which) on nations you wish to have control over

(I know Britain is just as bad, but at least we don't enact laws that are designed to allow Hispanics to be persecuted in such a way.)

[QUOTE=Thorne;882909]Well maybe the solution is to send all of the illegals entering the US over to England. After all, you'd be more than happy to help them. Wouldn't you?[/QUOTE

Tell you what, I'll take your Hispanics: you take our Anglo-Saxons.

[Thorne]

(1) You resent helping those who need your help, but you have more wealth than anyone else and are still accumulating it as fast as you can, while poorer nations fall deeper into poverty.

Not quite. I resent being forced to help those who commit crimes against me and my country. I resent being forced to help those who demand that help without making any effort to help themselves. I resent being forced to help those who would spit on me because I refuse to learn their language, while they in turn refuse to learn the language of those they seek help from.

(2) By regain control of itself, you mean you install a form of democracy or despotism (you don't mind which) on nations you wish to have control over

Sadly, there has been far too much of that.

(I know Britain is just as bad, but at least we don't enact laws that are designed to allow Hispanics to be persecuted in such a way.)

And yet the law is not specifically aimed at Hispanics, but at ILLEGALS! Of ANY nationality. True, Hispanics make up the vast majority of those illegals, especially along the southern borders, but that's more an accident of geography than any hostility towards Hispanics in general. Are there those who discriminate against Hispanics. Sure there are, and they are wrong. Just as those who discriminate against African-Americans are wrong. Or those who discriminate against Irish, or Scots, or Italians or any other nationality you care to name. Personally, I don't discriminate against anyone. I only ask that those who violate the law be treated as criminals, not as poor unfortunates who don't know any better and deserve more than an actual law-abiding citizen.

Tell you what, I'll take your Hispanics: you take our Anglo-Saxons.

Tempting, tempting, but no, you'll have to take all the Irish as well.

[denuseri]

(1) You resent helping those who need your help, but you have more wealth than anyone else and are still accumulating it as fast as you can, while poorer nations fall deeper into poverty.

Excuse me our Country also does far more than any others to help those same people.

(2) By regain control of itself, you mean you install a form of democracy or despotism (you don't mind which) on nations you wish to have control over.

You mean like we did with England, France, Italy, Germany and Japan...some of which are among the most prosperous nations on earth?

[MMI]

(1) You resent helping those who need your help, but you have more wealth than anyone else and are still accumulating it as fast as you can, while poorer nations fall deeper into poverty.

Excuse me our Country also does far more than any others to help those same people.

It's true that the US provides much more foreign aid than any other country, but it needs to be noted where that aid goes before you claim to be doing more than any other to help poorer nations. By far the greatest part of US foreign aid goes to "front-line" states (according to my out-of-date sources, to Israel and Egypt, mostly, neither of which is a developing country, but I'm sure a significant amount is going to Afghanistan and Iraq, too) to support USA's military and political objectives, while the development needs of countries like India receive relatively miniscule amounts. On the other hand, Nordic countries, which give significantly more per head of population than America gives, although less in dollar terms, channel their aid towards the regions where they believe it will do most good.

It's not for nothing that the richest country in the world is known as a "generous miser," because it is recognised that aid from America is given for the donor's benefit, not the recipient's.

(2) By regain control of itself, you mean you install a form of democracy or despotism (you don't mind which) on nations you wish to have control over.

You mean like we did with England, France, Italy, Germany and Japan...some of which are among the most prosperous nations on earth?

I don't know what you are referring to; the Marshall Plan perhaps? It took us until at least the year 2000 to repay the credit you gave us, so, like I said, when you take into account the profits you made on the goods you supplied to help our recovery, plus the interest you received for the credit extended, then the aid you gave was for your benefit rather than ours.

Whether you did mean the Marshall Plan or not, it is true that the countries you mention are all under your direct influence ... so much so that we in Britain frequently call ourselves the 51st state. However, you did not change our government, nor France's.

Finally, if you add the economies of those five nations together, the total would compare with the size of the American economy, yet you'd probably find that the aid given by those five nations far exceeds the aid given by America (I can only find stats for 2002, where those countries' aid donations were twice those of America).

If I've missed the point, i apologise: please explain.

[denuseri]

It's true that the US provides much more foreign aid than any other country, but it needs to be noted where that aid goes before you claim to be doing more than any other to help poorer nations. By far the greatest part of US foreign aid goes to "front-line" states (according to my out-of-date sources, to Israel and Egypt, mostly, neither of which is a developing country, but I'm sure a significant amount is going to Afghanistan and Iraq, too) to support USA's military and political objectives, while the development needs of countries like India receive relatively miniscule amounts. On the other hand, Nordic countries, which give significantly more per head of population than America gives, although less in dollar terms, channel their aid towards the regions where they believe it will do most good.

Yes not only out of date, but inaccurate, and misleading...look at the scource where you got that information. Isreal has never been the top country to recieve aide from the USA.

It's not for nothing that the richest country in the world is known as a "generous miser," because it is recognised that aid from America is given for the donor's benefit, not the recipient's.

That is simpley not true.


Additionally the generosity of the American people is far more impressive than our governments if you do not count those instances where we take upon ourselves the cost of defending said recipients as was the case with Europe and Japan and South Korea.

Private aid/donation typically through the charity of individual people and organizations can be weighted to certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give more than twice the US official foreign aid sometimes more at any given time.




I don't know what you are referring to; the Marshall Plan perhaps? It took us until at least the year 2000 to repay the credit you gave us, so, like I said, when you take into account the profits you made on the goods you supplied to help our recovery, plus the interest you received for the credit extended, then the aid you gave was for your benefit rather than ours.

I am refering to the whole kit and kaboodle. Everything from lend lease to actually comming over and sitting there in person with our military for the past century and all the things that come with it and like protecting your borders from the communists after saving you from the fascists. (Gee I wonder how much the USA has spent protecting you and others and how that would look if it were listed as Aide.

Whether you did mean the Marshall Plan or not, it is true that the countries you mention are all under your direct influence ... so much so that we in Britain frequently call ourselves the 51st state. However, you did not change our government, nor France's.

See what nice people we can be if you are cooperative with us.

Finally, if you add the economies of those five nations together, the total would compare with the size of the American economy, yet you'd probably find that the aid given by those five nations far exceeds the aid given by America (I can only find stats for 2002, where those countries' aid donations were twice those of America).

In relationship to their GNDP perhaps on a precentage per capita basis...but not even close in the actual dollar ammount delievered which is still several times more than those countries combined.

If I've missed the point, i apologise: please explain.

My point was...that the United States of America and the Representitive type of Democracy we promote...isn't some evil empire like some would have us made out to be from eaither envy, fear or spite and that we have our Founding Fathers and the legacy they have passed down to we their posterity to thank for that.

[MMI]

My research abilities have always left a lot to be desired, but never mind, that can only make things easier for my opponents to ride a coach and horses through my arguments. I agree and concede that I might not have known the true facts when I posted my last message, and I confess I am not a lot wiser now, but I have looked a little further into the matter. The following quotes are selective, and might be quite unreliable - I do not know. There may be more information that contradicts the inferences I draw from it, but I put them forward in good faith, knowing you will correct me if I am wrong.

According to USAID http://www.usaid.gov/policy/budget/money/, the US provided some US$16.6bn to various countries in 2009. Israel was not listed as one of them. I imagine, as USAID only accounted for less than $17bn of the aid given in 2009, that it did not include military aid. I note a number of Middle Eastern countries did benefit, although one would not normally rate them very high on the list of the world's most needy nations - for example, Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, as well as Georgia and South Africa which are a little further afield. Why should they get so much?

According to the Congress Research Service's paper, US Foreign Aid to Israel (4/12/2009) http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf, Israel has benefited considerably from US largesse:

Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. From 1976-2004, Israel was the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, having been supplanted by Iraq. Since 1985, the United States has provided nearly $3 billion in grants annually to Israel.

Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance. In the past, Israel also had received significant economic assistance. Strong congressional support for Israel has resulted in Israel’s receiving benefits not available to other countries.

In August 2007, the Bush Administration announced that it would increase U.S. military assistance to Israel by $6 billion over the next decade.
...

For FY2010, the Obama Administration requested $2.775 billion in FMF to Israel.
...

On July 9, 2009, Congressman Christopher Smith introduced H.R. 3160, the Israel Foreign Assistance Appropriations Act, 2010. Among other items, the bill would require “that none of the funds made available ... shall be available to finance the procurement of ... services that are not sold by the United States Government ...

The following comments appear on the website of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2676. It's dated 2005, but I reckon it's just as true today as it was then:

The World’s Most Generous Misers
Tsunami reporting misrepresented U.S. giving

By Ben Somberg

In March 1997, [a poll] asked Americans which area of federal expenditure they thought was the largest ... Sixty-four percent of respondents said it was foreign aid—when in reality foreign aid made up only about 1 percent of total outlays (Washington Post, 3/29/97).

Today, Americans think about 20 percent of the federal budget goes toward foreign aid. When told the actual figure for U.S. foreign aid giving (about 1.6 percent of the discretionary budget), most respondents said they did not believe the number was the full amount (Program on International Policy Attitudes, 3/7/05).

It’s no wonder that most Americans think they live in an extremely generous nation: Media reports often quote government officials pointing out that their country is the largest overall aid donor, and the biggest donor of humanitarian aid. But what reporters too often fail to explain is how big the U.S. economy is—more than twice the size of Japan’s, the second largest, and about as big as economies number 3–10 combined. Considered as a portion of the nation’s economy, or of its federal expenditures, the U.S. is actually among the smallest donors of international aid among the world’s developed countries.

The Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ... statistics on how much ... assistance the world’s 22 wealthiest countries give each year ... show that as a portion of Gross National Income, the U.S. now ranks second-to-last in giving, at 0.16 percent. (In 2004, Italy dropped into last place below the U.S.)

The U.S. also gives much less than what the industrialized countries pledged to give at the 1992 Rio Conference, which was 0.7 percent of their GDP. U.S. development aid, at 0.16 percent of GDP, represents less than one-quarter of this promise.
...

[Press] coverage of foreign aid is as notable for what it doesn't say as for what is does. Areas the media usually don't examine include:


* Debt Payments. Many aid recipients in the developing world are burdened by debt payments to the wealthy nations and institutions, often for loans taken out decades earlier by dictatorial regimes that squandered the money. While the developing world receives about $80 billion in aid each year, it pays the developed world about $200 billion(emphasis supplied); it is still uncertain how much of that will be relieved.

* Pledges are just pledges. George W. Bush's Millennium Challenge Account—announced in March 2002 with great fanfare—hasn't disbursed a dollar yet. After the 2003 Iran earthquake, many nations only delivered a fraction of the aid they had initially pledged. The media should treat pledges as what they are: promises that may or may not be kept.

* Adjusting for inflation. When the New York Times and Washington Post reported on George W. Bush's announcement of the Millennium Challenge Account (3/15/02), the articles said the pledge represented a 14 percent increase in U.S. aid flows, but with inflation factored in, it was only a 7 percent increase (Economic Reporting Review, 3/18/02).



================================================== =====

As you point out that America eventually joined in the two World Wars on the winning side, you could say it was the USA that won World War I and World War II - and Hollywood always does. But you could say it sat on the sidelines, making money out of both sides, until Japan dragged them in.

Where was America when Hitler invaded Poland? Canada was there. So was Australia. But no Yanks. How many millions of lives would have been saved if your brave boys had stepped in and stopped it before it started? How many Jews, communists, gypsies and homosexuals would have still been alive. Don't take credit for winning a war you stood aside from until the participants had fought themselves to a virtual standstill, and your fresh, well-armed warriors only had to take on battle-weary opposition.

I prefer to think that Germany was beaten by the Russian winters and the heroic efforts of the Red Army, rather than by the Western Allies, still less by USA alone.

As for the Pacific, where were America's forces when Japan invaded Burma, Singapore and Malaya. Doing their own thing, that's where they were, not helping us, their allies.

So well done, USA, for defeating the forces of evil single-handedly once again!

[DuncanONeil]

I am sorry that it has become confusing but legal talk often seems to engineered to do just that.

The appropriate section of the Constitution; "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Note in the language -- "affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls," This clearly does not refer to any office holder of any state in the union. This is followed by "and those in which a State shall be a Party" First consideration; "and those". Would you agree that this refers to "In all Cases"? Therefore could also read "'and (In all Cases) in which a State shall be a Party'". To follow the situation that you have put forth, that "State" refers to a member state of the union, would be placing these state on par with the appointed representatives of foreign states and those foreign states themselves. It seems unlikely that the founders of a nation would be placing in law a factual standing that every subset of this new nation is equivalent to all nations without the borders of this newly formed nation.

I realize the fact that we as a nation refer to portions of our country as states and foreign nations also as States. This is some would say a weakness of the language. But it does make it incumbent upon us to read the use of various words with great care. The close proximity of the word "State" with other words that refer to appointed representatives of foeign nations gives weight to the fact that use of the word "State" in this context is meant to mean foreign country not a subset of the US.

I discussed this with a separate set of "grey matter" and his opinion in regards to the paragraph is similar to yours. However he refers to paragraph one and concludes that since this is a state law and not a case, "in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States" but that of a state the Supreme Court does not then have original jurisdiction.

So I have again laid out my thoughts and consulted to verify them. I still think I am correct but the alternative case has merit as well.

I can't disagree with you and I respect that you have more background and have done more research than I have. My original question reflected that I had doubts about the validity of the premise of an article from a source that is obviously biased. But my doubts are based on the fact that I have seen nothing in the way of that concept being raised by the parties involved... parties that have more incentive, background, and research capability than either of us. But other than that, I still have not heard anything that refutes the contention of the author. Frankly, your response confuses me more than it explains.I did not find a reference to a governor of a state being referred to as a sovereign in your response or in the original article. However, I did find the State of Arizona named as a defendant in the article.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

"These references" I have to assume are the Constitution and The Federalist Papers yet I cannot find the quotes you provided in them. As mentioned before, the Constitution seems to contradict your concept that the word "state" excludes the states in the USA. I have not read the Federalist Papers as you have indicated that you have, but I did refer to the paragraphs preceding and following the paragraph that was referenced in the article. In both of those paragraphs, the word "state" was clearly used to address the states in the USA. In the paragraph following the paragraph under discussion, the word "nation" was used when a more general term was needed.

I appreciate your effort to explain why the contention of the article is wrong, but so far, you have only supplied references that support it.

[DuncanONeil]

Semantics apart, the distinction between a colony and a protectorate is such a fine one as to be non-existent

I agree semantics be dammed! The differences are QUITE clear!

Not even Southern states (whose political views are surpassed only by the previous apartheid regime in South Africa) would nowadays be daft enough to specify a particular race when formulating their exclusion laws. But it's not how you word your laws, it's how you apply them.

So here you are taking the position that the authorities have the worst possible reason for deciding that enforcing Federal law is something they should do? That means that you are assuming the outcome of something before it happens. You know what that means, correct?

By the way have you personally read the law??

[DuncanONeil]

There is a great deal I coukld say about this post of yours but I am a bit tired or being repetitious.

So since everything I would have to say boils down to one thing that is what I will say.

YOU ARE WRONG!

Thank-you



Good for you.

I don't know if we still have any monoglot Gaelic or Welsh speakers, but it's not so long ago that we did. Should they have been made to learn English, simply because most people spoke that language? I do believe there are native indians in USA who don't speak English. What are you going to do about that?

We do have second generation Asian families in this country who do not speak English: they do not need to. Their friends and acquaintances speak their language, so why should they have to learn an alien language. If they need to communicate with a monoglot English speaker, they'll find an interpreter (who will also be an imigrant). Wouldn't it be a courtesy if some of us learned their language instead?

The trouble with Americans is that they have inherited from us that dreadful Anglo-Saxon arrogance which leads them to believe that everyone else must learn English, while all an English speaker has to do when in a foreign country is shout louder. All we've succeeded in doing is erase countless cultures.

Which language would you have everyone in India speak? What about China? Should everyone be made to learn Cantonese?



Evidently, my sarcasm went straight over your head.



They are NOT fucking destroying your system, and if only you'd let them, they'd contribute just as much as your forefathers did after they entered America. It's the blinkered, isolationist, self-righteous bigots who want to keep America pure who will destroy the system.



Why? Because it's wrong!

Wouldn't it be a much better idea simply to improve your education system? Then, the invitation Steelish has quoted to me with such pride would once more have meaning, rather than sounding as hollow as the Statue they appear on. Just try getting a Green Card and you'll see why so many give up and cross the border illegally.

[DuncanONeil]

You have noticed that manufactures of the products we use every day are not labeling in both English and Spanish.

What about the Hmong, why do they have to learn one of these two languages to get along??

Why? Most likely they are in their own country (illegally appropriated by the British?). They aren't really all that interested in speaking with the English.


I don't know about that! They've had to learn English in order to run their casinos. Either that or they are speaking Spanish, because when Spain, and then Mexico, owned those territories they sure as hell weren't interested in learning Apache!


A courtesy, yes. But it shouldn't be a requirement. It's getting to that point here in the US, if it hasn't already. If WalMart, for example, wants to post bi-lingual signs in order to accommodate Spanish speaking customers, more power to them: it makes good business sense. But if a Mom-and-Pop restaurant doesn't care to entice Spanish speaking customers, because they don't speak Spanish themselves, why should they be required to post signs in Spanish?


Oh, so THAT'S where that comes from! Well thanks a pant load!

Fortunately for me I come from Eastern European stock, so I managed to miss that particular disease, though it embarrasses me no end when I hear about such things.


Personally, I don't give a damn what they speak. That's their problem, not mine.


Well, if you're going to make your sarcasm so sensible, it's your own fault.


Well let's see now. They come into the country illegally, costing billions of dollars in an effort to keep them out. But wait! You say it's wrong to keep them out! We can do away with the border patrols and the border crossings. We'll just let anyone in who wants to come. Drug dealers, gang members, terrorist. What the hell! They're only looking for their part of the American dream, right?

But they're utilizing infrastructure, despite the fact that they don't pay taxes to help pay for that infrastructure, thereby costing us billions more dollars. Perhaps if we didn't have to pay for illegals we could afford better health care for tax paying citizens.


And if we didn't have to pay for educating the children of these illegals we could afford a better education system for our own children.



So basically, you're saying that the American people should feel responsible because the Mexican and Central American governments can't support their own populations? But when we try to do something to help a foreign country regain control of itself we are accused of being modern-day conquistadors, slashing and burning our way through peaceful civilizations.

Well maybe the solution is to send all of the illegals entering the US over to England. After all, you'd be more than happy to help them. Wouldn't you?

[chuck]

Duncan,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Sorry for the delay in responding.

I am sorry that it has become confusing but legal talk often seems to engineered to do just that.

That's the truth. I'm tempted to post a recent negative article about lawyers in politics.

As to the exclusion of states in the union in the intent, I'm inclined to agree with you not because of the wording, but more on the basis of my original observation; no one with knowledge and vested interest has brought the issue up.

Of your reasoning, the following has the most impact.

It seems unlikely that the founders of a nation would be placing in law a factual standing that every subset of this new nation is equivalent to all nations without the borders of this newly formed nation.
[...and...]
The close proximity of the word "State" with other words that refer to appointed representatives of foeign nations gives weight to the fact that use of the word "State" in this context is meant to mean foreign country not a subset of the US.

I appreciate your attention to detail, your logic, your knowledge, and especially your effort. On a different topic, sometime I would like your opinion on the effect of punctuation in the fifth amendment (http://www.ccel.us/Fifth.html)

[DuncanONeil]

Duncan,
On a different topic, sometime I would like your opinion on the effect of punctuation in the fifth amendment (http://www.ccel.us/Fifth.html)

First a little pedagogy.

• Use a semicolon [ ; ] to separate closely related independent clauses: It is rare, but certainly possible, that you will want a semicolon to separate two independent clauses even when those two independent clauses are connected by a coordinating conjunction. This is especially true when the independent clauses are complex or lengthy and when there are commas within those independent clauses.
• Rules for Comma Usage Use a comma to separate the elements in a series (three or more things), including the last two.

On to the article. The writer is attempting to combine a list of items within a single clause of the sentence. In the process he refers to two semicolons in the Amendment. There are three but the first does not seem to bother him.

• Clause 1 of the Amendment deals with the necessity of an indictment and exceptions thereto.
• Clause 2 deals with the issue of double jeopardy.
• Clause 3 deals with a list of things:
  
  • First not compelled to testify against oneself in a criminal trial.
  • Second not to be deprived of life without due process.
  • Third not be deprived of liberty without due process.
  • Fourth not be deprived of property without due process.
• Clause 4 Private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation.

Now if these clauses were contingent on each other or part of another clause they would make little to no sense standing alone.

Further his argument falls apart in and of itself. He claims a requirement to testify against self interest. "(T)he amendment ... assumes that people will be compelled to testify against themselves." Further; "(a)s long as the witness is apprised of any charges against him, as long as he or she is provided legal counsel, as long as all facets of due process are afforded him". How are the officers of the court to know these things when it is the persons own testimony that provides the grounds for legal action?
I was going to go into Due Process" but that would take some time. What I found was making MY head spin. In that process I did run across a related matter. If Mr. Gwinn is correct in his analysis then there is an inherent discrepancy between the Fifth & Fourteenth Amendments. Gwinn says all of the material between "limb" and "law" are inextricably linked, yet the Fourteenth shows that not to be the case.

That is what I have on the issue now. How say you?

[chuck]

Duncan,
Thanks for your observations, analysis and comments.

That is what I have on the issue now. How say you?

I agree with the contention of the author because:
1. I interpret the sentence to have the same intent that he has concluded.
2. I believe that direct questioning of the defendant was the primary method of finding out what actually happened. They didn't have the sophisticated crime catching tools available in the 18th century so they couldn't afford to throw out the defendant's statements.
3. I personally think his interpretation is the way it should be to be fair for the most number of people. (I know, #3 is my opinion and what I think it should be isn't a valid cause to interpret the constitution that way, but it is bias that I have to be aware of since it influences how I want to read the sentence).

In my way of thinking, each of the clauses you pointed out are independent and for this discussion, we only need to consider the third one:

[*]Clause 3 deals with a list of things:

• First not compelled to testify against oneself in a criminal trial.
• Second not to be deprived of life without due process.
• Third not be deprived of liberty without due process.
• Fourth not be deprived of property without due process.

The actual clause:

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

I parse it out differently than you do. You say it is a list of four items; I think of it as a list of two. My reasoning is that the "nor" plus a verb is the primary separation. They are spelling out what the government may not do. "Life," "liberty," and "property" are just parts of what is being deprived.
1. "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,"
2. "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,"
The final comma in this clause is obviously not used to separate an element of a list but to provide separation of the phrase that indicates the requirement for the government to override the two prohibitions. If the "due process" phrase was only intended for the "deprived" part, they would have separated the "compelled" part with a semicolon.

Further his argument falls apart in and of itself. He claims a requirement to testify against self interest. "

Read the way I parsed it, it does allow the government to compel (or require) the defendant to testify as long as due process is adhered to.

I was going to go into Due Process" but that would take some time.

I don't want to get into it either. For the sake of discussion here, I assume someone in a court of law with council has been accorded due process and someone who is tortured in a back room has not, with a lot of haggling in situations between those extremes.

If Mr. Gwinn is correct in his analysis then there is an inherent discrepancy between the Fifth & Fourteenth Amendments. Gwinn says all of the material between "limb" and "law" are inextricably linked, yet the Fourteenth shows that not to be the case.

I don't see your point or the relevance here at all. Are you talking grammar or substance?

My 2nd and 3rd reasons to agree with the author pretty much stem from my belief that the framers wanted truth and justice. They were not looking for a loophole for the guilty to use to avoid the consequences of their actions.