• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Arizona immigration law

Status
Not open for further replies.
hakr100 said:
For a large group canceling a convention, $150,000 is chump change. I am a member of an organization holding a convention later this year. I read somewhere that between the organization and the members who attend, we'll drop three to five million dollars in the convention city. I doubt the site committee will be picking anywhere in Arizona for future meetings.
Click to expand...

I think it's funny how only Lib****s and Lib**** run cities are "boycotting" AZ. Ridiculous. Why don't get give asylum to the taliban and Al Quieda while we are at it.
 
IOWA said:
I think it's funny how only Lib****s and Lib**** run cities are "boycotting" AZ. Ridiculous. Why don't get give asylum to the taliban and Al Quieda while we are at it.
Click to expand...

Once you figure out this connection in your mind, perhaps you'll explain it to those of us who only have two college degrees. :rolleyes:
 
First, read the law before passing judgment.

Second, live in az for a while before passing judgment.

Third, this is an existing federal law that the az leo's are now allowed to enforce. Also, see first again and check your reading comprehension.

My legal immigrant grandfather is rolling in his grave with all these freeloaders cheating their way into this country.
 
oakindustries said:
First, read the law before passing judgment.

Second, live in az for a while before passing judgment.

Third, this is an existing federal law that the az leo's are now allowed to enforce. Also, see first again and check your reading comprehension.

My legal immigrant grandfather is rolling in his grave with all these freeloaders cheating their way into this country.
Click to expand...


Agreed. I have family in AZ and they support this law 110%. As well as everyone they know in AZ.
 
Originally Posted by hakr100
Once you figure out this connection in your mind, perhaps you'll explain it to those of us who only have two college degrees. :rolleyes:


IOWA said:
What, in culinary arts? lol
Click to expand...


No, but I don't see why such a degree would be d
 
You think that because someone has a degree in culinary arts means that that person couldn't have been smarter than you were? That's not logical.
 
hakr100 said:
You think that because someone has a degree in culinary arts means that that person couldn't have been smarter than you were? That's not logical.
Click to expand...

No, what's not logical, is someone who has the culinary arts degree, thinking they are smarter because they have said degree.
 
If it means anything about the intentions of this bill... Arizona passed a bill that BANNED ethnic studies in public schools... specifically targetting latino studies.
 
I wonder exactly how many cities and whole states will boycott Arizona. I think it will have a dramatic effect on Arizona's entire tourism... especially dealing with Grand Canyon. It will definitely hurt Arizona more than Arizona's residents boycotting the boycotters. I don't know of any reason FOR ME to go to Arizona other than Grand Canyon, but I've already been there. It's an absolutely beautiful national park that everyone should go to disregarding the whole immigration law commotion.
 
I just thin the federal gov should put something in place to enable local authorities to do something about it. That'll end all the boycottsd
 
IOWA said:
I just thin the federal gov should put something in place to enable local authorities to do something about it. That'll end all the boycottsd
Click to expand...


I thought conservatives were against more intrusion into state and local governmental affairs by the feds, but you're calling for more of it, by "enabling local authorities to do something about (illegals)? :rolleyes:

There's nothing preventing Arizona state and local authorities from turning over illegals they arrest to border and immigration authorities.
 
hakr100 said:
I thought conservatives were against more intrusion into state and local governmental affairs by the feds, but you're calling for more of it, by "enabling local authorities to do something about (illegals)? :rolleyes:

There's nothing preventing Arizona state and local authorities from turning over illegals they arrest to border and immigration authorities.
Click to expand...

ok mr. "I just want to argue for the sake of argueing"

How exactly is it more intrusion by allowing enforcement of already exisiting (and needed) laws by more policing agencies, who should have had the power in the first place?
 
IOWA said:
ok mr. "I just want to argue for the sake of argueing"

How exactly is it more intrusion by allowing enforcement of already exisiting (and needed) laws by more policing agencies, who should have had the power in the first place?
Click to expand...


"Enabling" implies some sort of legislation. Believe it or not, in this country, for the federal government to "enable," there usually has to be a law that makes the "enabling" legal. Or perhaps you are suggesting the federal govenrment should "turn the other cheek" if a state is engaging in activities that might be unConstitutional or illegal under various federal procedural rules.

You may think that debating the points of law is arguing for the sake of argument, but I don't.

As I stated, Arizona state and local authorities have the ability to turn over illegals to federal authorities for legal disposition. What the "new" Arizona legislation does is play to the fears of the right. But, of course, this is an election year.
 
Vihzel said:
If it means anything about the intentions of this bill... Arizona passed a bill that BANNED ethnic studies in public schools... specifically targetting latino studies.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that. A public school shouldn't teach a specific ethnic study. That's what college and further self funded education is about. Public schools should give you your basic education to make it through life. It will still teach "Ethnic Studies" based upon American History, such as the Civil Rights Movement for blacks and women, because that was a period of American History. Targeting a specific ethnicity shouldn't be in public schools.....public schools, that's the key point.
 
TheBeardedMann said:
Nothing wrong with that. A public school shouldn't teach a specific ethnic study. That's what college and further self funded education is about. Public schools should give you your basic education to make it through life. It will still teach "Ethnic Studies" based upon American History, such as the Civil Rights Movement for blacks and women, because that was a period of American History. Targeting a specific ethnicity shouldn't be in public schools.....public schools, that's the key point.
Click to expand...

"The new law prohibits schools from teaching classes that promote "resentment" toward a race or class of people, that are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group, that promote the overthrow of the government or that "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals." But by most accounts, the courses in question aren't really teaching such things, and they're open to all students
 
Dude...you took "basic" way too literal. And world history should be taught. I personally don't think the study of a race of people should be taught in public schools.
 
TheBeardedMann said:
Dude...you took "basic" way too literal. And world history should be taught. I personally don't think the study of a race of people should be taught in public schools.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "basic" then? It can be interpreted is MANY different ways. When I think of basic, I think of not having any AP classes or any classes that are deemed "unnecessary" for preparation for life. Calculus BC AP definitely isn't basic and so isn't Art History AP (god that was a difficult class).

I've read the bill... and what I exactly don't understand is Section A 2 and Section F. They seem to contradict each other in that if there is a class on lets say... WW2, wouldn't that violate Section A 2? But wait... go down to Section F, and it's permitted. Why is Arizona selectively choosing what is allowed to bypass Section A 2? And now I'm wondering... how does latino studies in public schools violate the bill if it cooperates with Section E and Section F?

I'm puzzled :confused:
 
Vihzel said:
What do you mean by "basic" then? It can be interpreted is MANY different ways. When I think of basic, I think of not having any AP classes or any classes that are deemed "unnecessary" for preparation for life. Calculus BC AP definitely isn't basic and so isn't Art History AP (god that was a difficult class).

I've read the bill... and what I exactly don't understand is Section A 2 and Section F. They seem to contradict each other in that if there is a class on lets say... WW2, wouldn't that violate Section A 2? But wait... go down to Section F, and it's permitted. Why is Arizona selectively choosing what is allowed to bypass Section A 2? And now I'm wondering... how does latino studies in public schools violate the bill if it cooperates with Section E and Section F?

I'm puzzled :confused:
Click to expand...


A bit off topic but I never liked history. Never really interested me what some guy did 20000 years ago. I've always been a math/science guy mmyself. I loved me some pysics. Too bad I don't remember it lol.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom