biggish data

Why was her answer considered a 'gaffe'?

"The show was without any major gaffes, except for Miss Philippines' answer when asked what her biggest mistake in life was and how she fixed it.

"In my 22 years of existence, I can say there is nothing major," Venus Raj said.

Before the pageant, Raj was rated among the top contestants in an online poll on the pageant's website. She finished in fifth place."

AP Article

Gee, 22 years old and never had to solve a world crisis?

I didn't watch, so maybe something was lost in the translation.

The judges are looking for the contestants to share a personal experience. She should have prepared to answer such a question with some kind of personal struggle, even if she doesn't consider it major.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-08-24 00:27:00

It was an easy first amendment issue on individuals' right to assemble, right there is plain English.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

That part right there indicates that you think constitutional law requires little or no interpretation for reasonable application, which is amusing considering that campaign money is no where mentioned in the First Amendment, nor is there any indication that money is equated to speech. So coming from a guy who believes that it has been the Left (Liberals, Progressive) Judges that have gone beyond the scope and meaning of the Constitution, that is rich.

....

Textualism vs. constructionism

The strict constructionist says that the literal meaning of a law is the best way to interpret that law; the law should be understand to mean what it says, on its face, that it means. An example of this is when Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said that the First Amendment's command that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" meant exactly that, "no law."

This approach has the virtue of simplicity. Critics say it can also lead to problems. Parts of a law, in isolation, can be rigid. Reading sentences of the Constitution in isolation, in the name of a "strict construction", can leave questions about whether the meaning of the text at issue can be fully understood without considering the context (the legal, political and social environment) in which the law was written. Although Justice Black would have said that "no law" can be passed that abridges the freedom of speech, he would not have said that treasonous speech should be protected, or that shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater is an act of speech that should be protected under the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech.

http://judgepedia.or..._interpretation

Edited by El Buscador, 06 August 2010 - 04:55 PM.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-08-06 16:54:00

The other way around. Judges have ventured beyond the confines of the Constitution a long time ago, beginning with John Marshall.

But that's your opinion. Judges have to make legal opinions based on parameters of the Constitution. It really comes down to opinion and whether such opinion was grounded in reason and logic and a practical application of constitutional law.

Let me ask you, as someone who considers himself more conservative - do you think SCOTUS' ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was strict constructive approach or a more contextual approach, and why do you think it was?

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-08-06 14:47:00

read on,

this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

In other words, judges should not substitute their will, for that of the people, or the legislature.

This is like the Fundamentalists who take a literal approach the Bible. Interpretation as well as practical application of law is inevitable and unavoidable. Logic and reason applied to vague generalities is what judges have to do all the time. For example, "All men are created equal..." is not a specific set of instructions that can be applied uniformly.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-08-06 09:18:00

"Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by
individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to Col. Vanneter, 1781.

"Many of the opposition [to the new Federal Constitution] wish to
take from Congress the power of internal taxation. Calculation
has convinced me that this would be very mischievous." --Thomas
Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1788.

"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the
whole taxes of the General Government are levied... Our revenues
liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus
applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see
his government supported, his children educated, and the face of
his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich
alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his
earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811.

= Progressive

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-08-01 14:04:00

Are you refuting his claim and source or attacking him personally because you are wrong?

Refuting what claim? That Jefferson would make such a statement but only apply such reason to France? Bill surely would have gotten laughed out of history class. :rofl:

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-08-01 11:13:00

That letter to Madison was written in 1785:

You must have been the class clown.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-08-01 00:24:00

He was talking about France.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-31 21:40:00

That sounds familiar: Don't discuss the substance, attack the messenger. Which part, in any of the quoted material, do you disagree with?

Why don't find a more ideologically neutral source? Like I said, Bill - how I would have loved to see you make these kinds of silly arguments back with your history teachers.

Here's a quote of Jefferson's regarding taxation:

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is
to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the
higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they
rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-31 19:36:00

The Heritage Foundation? :rofl:

What's next, an historic synopsis from the John Birch Society? :rofl:

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-31 16:39:00

http://www.answers.c...marshall-harlan

I will give you a hint: The Republican party was the abolitionist party. Progressives like yourself like to reinvent history. Andrew Jackson was the founder of the Democrats, not Jefferson. The mascot of your party refers to Jackson. You really should read the history of your party, and of the Progressive movement.

Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive and a Republican. :lol:

Your argument is getting sillier by the minute. Somewhere during history class, you were dozing off. This isn't about political parties but of mindsets and yes, Thomas Jefferson was by definition, progressive. He was heavily influenced and inspired by the Enlightenment. You've just got it stuck in your head that because you don't like some policies that have happened that were progressive, that must mean all progress is bad. Progress isn't a political movement, but a mindset, but feel free to cite a source that says otherwise.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

John Marshall Harlan - (born June 1, 1833, Boyle county, Ky., U.S. ? died Oct. 14, 1911, Washington, D.C.) U.S. jurist. In the 1850s he was a lawyer and county judge in Boyle county, Ky. From 1861 to 1863 he commanded a Union regiment in the American Civil War. He served as state attorney general (1863 ? 67) and ran unsuccessfully as a Republican candidate for governor in 1871 and 1875. In 1877 he was appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States by Pres. Rutherford B. Hayes. During his tenure, which lasted to his death in 1911, he became one of the most forceful dissenters in the court's history and its outstanding liberal justice. His best-known dissenting opinions, such as those in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and the Civil Rights cases (1883), favoured the rights of blacks. He also issued famous dissents in favour of the federal income tax (1895) and opposing monopolies in cases arising under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. His grandson John Marshall Harlan (1899 ? 1971) also served on the Supreme Court (1955 ? 71).

Edited by El Buscador, 31 July 2010 - 12:37 PM.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-31 12:24:00

Guess which side was your Progressive buddies were on for two of three of the decisions you cited? Just think, what would Woodrow Wilson do?

What history books were you reading? It was the industrious, northern states that were free states. They were the 'progressives' of that era. The ending of slavery was 'progressive', just as the the Endangered Species Act under Nixon was progressive. Progress is not defined by political ideology, but by the parameters of moving forward. As brilliant and forward thinking (progressive) as Thomas Jefferson was, he owned slaves. Andrew Jackson was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Cherokee and other Native American tribes. BTW - what is your label for the mindset that is diametrically opposed to progress? Cavemanism? :rofl:

Edited by El Buscador, 31 July 2010 - 06:32 AM.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-31 05:45:00

That because Progressives want judges to pull "implied" rights out of the ether, while at the same time want to deny rights that are expressly written into the Constitution.

On the case of whether or not a search is "unreasonable", the courts have determined, correctly, that an individual search, may, or may not be reasonable. However, searches in general, applied without prejudice, are reasonable in most cases. For instance, a Game Warden may stop and search any vehicle to determine whether or not that vehicle has poached animals, (or eggs?). Or, vehicle checkpoints may check all, or even random vehicles, passing
through. TSA may search all passengers and baggage boarding a plane, etc.

Yes. Those dirty Progressives were behind the Dred Scott ruling, Plessy v. Ferguson, or even the recent ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-30 16:12:00

Where in the constitution does it protect us from having to carry papers. I see where it protects us from anyone searching our 'papers' without warrant or probably cause.

Think about that logic. Why would a law abiding citizen have to carry with them, identification at all times and be subject to imprisonment for not doing so? Do you think the Founding Fathers envisioned a free country like that?

As for where to find it in the Constitution - my friend, if you think every right of yours if spelled out verbatim in the Constitution, I've got some moon cheese I'd like to sell you. See below:

What is the History of the 4th Amendment?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."

The Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" was adopted as a protection against the widespread invasions of privacy experienced by American colonists at the hands of the British Government. So-called "writs of assistance" gave royal officers broad discretion to conduct searches of the homes of private citizens, primarily as a way of discovering violations of strict British customs laws. This practice led to a unique awareness among our Founding Fathers of the threat to individual liberty and privacy that is created by unchecked government search powers.

Today, the Fourth Amendment has lost its preferred status among our cherished Bill of Rights Protections. In recent decades, growing concerns regarding crime and public safety in America have forced our Courts to sacrifice the privacy rights contained in the Constitution with the ever-expanding demands of law-enforcement interest. The Supreme Court's rulings in Fourth Amendment cases demonstrate the challenge involved in reconciling these competing ideals.

Ultimately, the Constitution's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures has been stripped in recent years and tailored to suit the needs of modern law enforcement as we wage wars against drugs and terrorism. For this reason, it is important for conscientious citizens to be familiar with the lawful parameters of police authority to conduct searches, as well as the legal doctrines by which that authority is limited.

http://flexyourrights.org/faq

Edited by El Buscador, 30 July 2010 - 06:20 AM.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-30 06:16:00

I am an American who has lived in many countries, all of which have strict Immigration Laws. Everywhere i have ever lived, UK, Italy, Philippines, Kuwait and I have also visited many countries including Russia. If you are caught as an undocumented or with an expired visa of any sort you will be deported immediately, go home to your country where ever you came from. End of story.

US Citizens are protected by our beloved U.S. Constitution from having to carry papers with us 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in order to prove to local law enforcement that we are here legally should they ever question our legal status. So when a draconian law such as SB1070 tries to circumvent our constitutional rights by giving authority to local law enforcement to ask for papers from anyone they suspect (including U.S. Citizens) and then detaining them without bail, indefinitely until USCIS clears the suspect, those who love the U.S. Constitution will stand up and challenge such draconian measures.

This is a victory for our beloved Constitution. All Americans should be proud that our civil rights prevailed.

Edited by El Buscador, 28 July 2010 - 02:41 PM.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-28 14:34:00

Arizona immigration law: Key parts struck down by judge

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton has issued a preliminary injunction preventing several sections of Arizona's new immigration law from becoming law, at least until the courts have a chance to hear the full case.

Key parts of Senate Bill 1070 that will not go into effect Thursday:

• The portion of the law that requires an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there's reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally.

• The portion that creates a crime of failure to apply for or carry "alien-registration papers."

• The portion that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for or perform work. (This does not include the section on day laborers.)

• The portion that allows for a warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe they have committed a public offense that makes them removable from the United States.

The ruling says that law enforcement still must enforce federal immigration laws to the fullest extent of the law when SB 1070 goes into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday. Individuals will still be able to sue an agency if they adopt a policy that restricts such enforcement.

Bolton did not halt the part of the law that creates misdemeanors crimes for harboring and transporting illegal immigrants.

Bolton's ruling followed hearings on three of seven federal lawsuits challenging SB 1070. Plaintiffs include the U.S. Department of Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union, Phoenix and Tucson police officers, municipalities, illegal immigrants and non-profit groups.

She denied legal requests by Gov. Jan Brewer, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and several other defendants seeking to have the lawsuits dismissed because, they argued, the plaintiffs did not prove that they would be harmed by the law if it went into effect.

Next, hearings will be scheduled to begin hearing the full case in the seven lawsuits. All or some of the suits could be consolidated. A full court hearing is likely to involve appeals, possibly as far as the U.S. Supreme Court, and could take several years.

Read more: http://www.azcentral...l#ixzz0v04SMVoq

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-28 12:44:00

No, I am not in the discussion...hehe
Just adding a reference

http://www.brennance..._file_39242.pdf

Interesting report. :thumbs:

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-20 15:27:00

Food for thought: it is estimated that more than 20 million American citizens do not have government-issued photo ID.

That's ok, the good Sheriff Arpaio has plenty of tents to house them.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-20 12:44:00

Why do I need to prove that? My statement was that the DL/State ID card that my wife (LPR) and I presently carry at all times already:

1) Is routinely asked for.

2) Proves our current legal presence in the US.

As for LE Officers acting based on suspicion, they already do that. If they see a someone acting suspicious they stop and talk to them, ask for ID and inquire as to what they're doing. It's common in neighborhoods that have a high rate of drugs & prostitution. This just expands that to require them to confirm the legal status if they have reason to suspect the subject isn't here legally.

Seriously, if the whole "Driving while brown" issue is your biggest concern they why not advocate expanding it to requiring them to determine legal status of everyone they make contact with and have cause to confirm ID? Then all of us white guys (and gals) will be subject to it also!

1. It's a false argument because the issue isn't about having to show ID, but to prove ones citizenship based on mere suspicion.

2. That is not entirely accurate. But for the sake of argument, if that were accurate, then why would you ever have to show additional documentation verifying your legal status, which SB1070 gives local law enforcement the authority to do? Secondly, you are required to show a valid DL during a routine traffic stop. You are not required by law to provide identification to a law officer every time you are asked. They can detain you on reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed, but not providing ID is not a crime. Even if you are pulled over and didn't have your DL with you, it's a misdemeanor.

I don't want to have to prove my citizenship to law enforcement on a routine basis. That is harassment. I've done nothing wrong and asking me to prove my legal status without probable cause violates my constitutional rights and privileges. Citizens should be free to go about their own business without being harassed by cops. You may be willing to give up your constitutional rights over this issue, but don't count me in or most Americans.

Edited by El Buscador, 20 July 2010 - 12:15 PM.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-20 12:15:00

Personally I believe that our IDs should easily identify that we are legally present in the US, see my previous post here.

I know a lot of people will compare this the the Nazis restricting travel through personal identification papers but it's already happening here. Try to board a plane without ID. Try to check-in to a hotel without ID.

The "safeguard" against racial profiling in this law is the the LE Officer can't just stop someone and ask for proof of legal presence, they need a valid reason for contact. Of course there will always be people who abuse the system but they will be the minority. The upside of this is that if (I lived in AZ and) know the house next to me is full of illegals then I can call the cops on them when they're partying too loud at 11pm and when the cops come they can ask of proof of legal presence when they roll-up on a house of 25 non-related people.

Not a perfect solution but I'm in favor of anything that puts USC & LPR rights & protection above the entitlements the illegals seem to believe they have here.

For domestic flights, you only need to show a state ID or DL, just like in a routine traffic stop. Hotels, the same thing. In fact, I challenge you to find any other time where citizens are selectively required to prove their legal status based on mere suspicion.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-20 11:31:00

Every time you are stopped you are required to prove your identity. If you can't then the police can detain you until they can determine who you are.

In the State of Illinois you can't get a Drivers License or State issued ID card without presenting a verifiable SSN Card.

My Drivers License proves I'm in the US Legally.

Bob, I was assuming you were following the previous posts because in post #171 (just 6 posts back), I explained the difference between asking for a driver's license from a motorist when they are stopped and asking them for proof of citizenship.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-20 09:25:00

If the price of a little security is that I have to produce ID if stopped in AZ then I'm fine with that.

Your citizenship status has nothing to do with whether you can legally drive here or not. Citizens shouldn't have to prove they are here in the U.S. legally every time they are stopped. That's unnecessary harassment that serves no other purpose but to provide peace of mind to people with irrational fear about the impact of illegal immigration on their lives. Never mind that it's also unconstitutional.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-20 09:03:00

Tahoma - ok - you answered the questions that you posed. Got it !

FWIW, I did not sugarcoat anything...

Intrusive situation? It's not intrusive, at all. One is being asked for ID - why is that intrusive ?

Local law enforcement has the authority and jurisdiction in requesting someone to identify themselves, and it is a misdemeanor to be driving without your license, however, SB1070 goes further by giving authority and jurisdiction to local law enforcement in asking anyone they stop for verification of their citizenship status by mere suspicion (meaning - without probable cause). What Tahoma is trying to explain to you is all the implications that would or could lead to over a myriad of circumstances. People who aren't even the slightest troubled by that, either don't know our constitutional rights, or don't care as much about the Constitution as they thought they did.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-20 02:10:00

Sorry Bud,

This is what I have seen with my own eyes in the town I grew up in Irving Texas. Lived there for over 40 years had to recently move since it has become a sancturay for Illegals. They have Fvcked up the city and the community and the neighborhoods.

ICE had a officer stationed in the Irving Jail and they were turning over Illegals to ICE, but ICE told Irving to stop turning over Illegal unless they have commited a felony

http://www.dallasnew...n1.2954b02.html

Personal impressions are merely anecdotal and prove nothing. I was born in raised in the Phoenix area where there are a lot of Hispanics as well. In fact, my grandfather was a customs agent along the border in Sasabe, Nako and Nogales. Our family has had a lot of experience around Hispanics and I can tell you we never feared for our lives or believed that their presence here was wreaking havoc on our quality of life in any way, but again its anecdotal.

Fundamentally, there is no distinction between undocumented and documented immigrants in terms of their economic impact. They work, pay taxes and are consumers all the same. But if you don't believe me, you can take a look at this from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' report on U.S. Immigration and Economic Growth: Putting Policy on Hold.

The economic contributions of immigrants are enormous. With immigrants filling such a significant share of job openings, it is clear the pace of U.S. employment growth is closely tied to the pace of immigration.

Immigration policy not only determines how effectively the United States can compete for foreign workers but also their socioeconomic progress after they have arrived. Both aspects are important to future economic growth. Both also require these policies to be implemented, not just left to languish.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-17 20:34:00

They bring in crime, drugs, poverty, over burden the public schools, the hospitals, and they even over burden the power grids.

All unsubstantiated claims that originate from groups like NumbersUSA and FAIR. You've just bought into their lies.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-17 10:08:00

How the hell can you call anyone in this forum racist when everyone here is in an interracial relationship.

There are Hispanics who are bigoted towards Blacks, just as there are Japanese who are bigoted towards Chinese and vice versa (WWII era). Even among Filipinos, there are some light skinned, Spanish-blooded Filipinos who are bigoted towards the darker skinned Filipinos. I would agree that the term 'racism' gets misused to really mean bigotry or prejudice. Racism is typically reserved to describe someone who truly believes their ethnicity is 'racially superior' to another's, whereas bigotry (intolerance towards people who are different) can be more of a cultural attitude. As for whether racism is a factor that fuels the immigration debates - it is a fact that White Supremest groups have been funding legislation such as SB1070 through groups such as NumbersUSA and FAIR, as fronts. They fear of the 'browning' of America, and their ultimate goal is to drastically reduce all immigration in this country. There are lot of angry Americans frustrated with this economic recession and are looking for a scapegoat. Many of them find a scapegoat in the millions of undocumented workers that have come here from Mexico.

Edited by El Buscador, 17 July 2010 - 10:07 AM.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-17 10:00:00

I'd love to see a Lawsuit by all 50 states against the Federal Government for failing to even attempt to secure our borders thus subjecting the State Governments to the financial burden of providing free services to all of the illegal immigrants.

The border will never be 100% secure. That's like believing that we can actually win the war on drugs. We're already spending hundreds of millions of dollars and have more border agents deployed on the border than any point in history. Like the war on drugs, until we recognize the problem for what it is - economic, we'll never get a real handle on it.

Perhaps someday, Canada, the U.S. and Mexico will form a union much like the EU - where you can be an Irish national and find work in the Netherlands without needing a Visa.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-15 16:07:00

How is it possible for the Federal Gov't to sue AZ when in fact it is just enforcing a Federal law ? Im lost........................

Come on, Jason. I went to great lengths to explain why earlier in this thread, and your only answer was that law reigns supreme. No offense, but you obviously have little understanding of U.S. history and our beloved U.S. Constitution. Some of us paid attention in class.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-15 00:23:00

Local law enforcement wouldn't.couldn't nd won't ask for a history on her status, a simple state ID, drivers license, or social security card will prove legal status, why complicate things ?

That's not accurate, if you read SB1070. According to the law, a law enforcement officer who suspects that someone here is illegal is required to ask the suspect for verification of status, in addition to whether they present a DL or ID. While Arizona's MVD (Motor Vehicle Division) may require proof of citizenship in order to obtain a license, not every state does. State DL or ID's are not proof of citizenship in general and if an officer has suspicion of someone's legal status he may require further verification. But lets assume that as long as she has her license with her, she'll be fine. So imagine if her wallet gets stolen, or she makes a quick run to the store to buy milk, forgets her license and gets stopped. Normally, without SB1070 should could face a potential ticket for driving without a license which is understandable. However, in that event, if the officer suspected that she might be here illegally, she would be detained without bail indefinitely until immigration cleared her name. I could go on with a myriad of hypotheticals that would all lead to detention without bail. That is my own personal issue with the law itself. An officer can suspect me of stealing a vehicle, but without making a formal arrest, he could not detain me, at least not without violating my civil rights of due process.

As for Social Security Cards - legal aliens can obtain one. Same with DL or state issued ID's. Keep in mind that about half of those who are undocumented here in the U.S., came here legally and are overstayed Visas.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-11 21:30:00

If you don't like the law in Arizona then its time for you to find a new homestate.

BOTTOM LINE, A Law is a LAW, simply abide by it or get out. I said several times, I have no problem with anyone as long as they are LEGAL.

My cousin used to work at a Hospital in San Ysirdro, at the hospital there were many Illegal Mexicans going there for treatment, when they were asked for any documents they became irate and could not speak english. Is this fair ? I am UNION, I have to work 180 hrs every month to qualify for medical benenfits and these illegals come here and get it for free.....hmmmm its just so wrong, i don't care if you are a Filipino that has overstayed their Visa, Canadian or a Latino but if you are illegal then you need to get the flock out of here.

Ive seen protests and rallies where illegals would walk in front of City Hall and demand rights, how do they have the nerve to protest and demand rights when they are not even legal, I can go on and on and give my truthful feelings about this but I would probably be banned with the things that I would say. Instead I will refrain from doing so and stay decent.

I won't continue to go round and round with you on the legitimacy of every law on the books. If you have such blind faith in our elected politicians to enact laws that are always right and just, then that is your prerogative. I suppose Jose Rizal should have never challenged Spanish Rule or that the Founding Fathers of this great country of ours should have ever challenged the British Monarchy and its rule of law. Some people are sheep and follow blindly, while others like Rizal dare to stand up to injustice even if its the law of the land. I wish you the best in your future endeavors in this great country of ours, and I sincerely hope that your future spouse or you will not have to endure any infringement on your constitutional rights and privileges.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-11 17:27:00

So let me ask this of you, do you believe it's OK to be here in the United States Illegaly ? if not then why is this a bad law ? it only mirrors federal law that is hardly enforced and creates an oppertunity to relieve border states that are forced to pay for legal consul and tax money for people that should't even be here because they choose to go against US law's

It's not ok, but it's not the big deal that many here in America, particularly during this economic recession make it out to be. Immigrants, both documented and undocumented have contributed both to our economy and to our country. We should recognize those who are willing to work hard for a better life here instead of vilifying them as criminals because they had no legal avenue to immigrate here. Our immigration system is broken and needs to be fixed. However, we must look for pragmatic solutions and not draconian laws that will compromise our constitutional rights and liberties.

I happen to live in Arizona. My wife is often mistaken for being Mexican. There was a period of several months (almost 6 months) when we applied for her 10 year Green Card, where her 2 year, conditional Green Card had expired, even though the USCIS sent her a letter saying that it was extended for an additional year until her 10 year card arrived in the mail. Now imagine if she were stopped for a routine traffic violation while all she had was an expired 2 year GC. Local law enforcement would have no way of knowing whether she was telling the truth beyond contacting immigration and waiting for them to clear her name. In the meantime, according to the new Arizona Law, she would be detained without bail. Most people who support the law, don't understand that such an issue could possibly happen. They don't realize that local law enforcement does not have the authority or resources to verify someone's legal status in a case where a legal alien like my wife was in. They don't see that far into the potential legal problems with this law, yet is very clear for anyone wishing to read it - if you cannot provide documentation proving you are here legally, you can be detained by law enforcement, without bail, and indefinitely until the USCIS clears your good name. And anyone here who has dealt with the speed of the USCIS can see that such a detention could last for quite some time.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-11 16:02:00

It doesn't matter a law is a law.

It's a good thing our Founding Fathers didn't feel that way or we'd still be subjects of the UK.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-11 02:30:00

Yes I believe in open borders, I think everyone should be able to come here. Its far too expensive to come here the legal route thats why we have these problems. They should make immigration cheaper/easier, or just drop the laws.

Other countries offer paths to be legal so why not?

I don't think it is possible in today's post 911, to have open borders. However, I do think that anyone who is hard working and wants to make a better life for themselves should be given a reasonable chance to do so. What I find odd is that so many here are bringing over spouses (most often Filipinas) from a Third World country with relative ease and yet they are so opinionated against Mexicans coming here for a better life. Right now as it stands, if you are poor and from Mexico, there is no legal pathway to immigrate here, short of marrying a Kano. We've got plenty of Filipinas who sought out a Kano to specifically immigrate here for a better life. Most Pinays here share more in common with the Mexicans wanting to immigrate to the U.S. than with their own Kano husbands.

Edited by El Buscador, 11 July 2010 - 02:03 AM.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-11 02:02:00

Why is this even a Topic ? LAWS are LAWS and if you are illegal then get the h e l l out of here, it took alot of time and money to get my fiancee a visa so do things the right way. I can go on and on with this topic and I am sure if I was at a bar debating it with some idiot that is against it that this would turn physical. I just dont understand the mentality of these illegals !!!

Because laws are enacted through legislation, by elected politicians. And if you generally trust politicians to always create sound and just laws, I've got some prime real estate I'd like to sell you on the moon. The Arizona law (SB1070) has been argued by prominent legal scholars as being in violation of our beloved U.S. Constitution. We don't blindly follow laws simply because they are made into laws. We have it within our American spirit, the sense to look at the merits or laws that are created, as to whether they are just or not.

It was only 40 years ago, that in many states, many Fil-Am couples (racially mixed couples) could not marry legally. And at the time, such laws that restricted racially mixed couples from marrying were popular. It wasn't until the Supreme Court ruled that such state laws were unconstitutional. So keep that in mind when you believe that all laws are good and never should be questioned or challenged. You owe it to yourself, especially being of Filipino decent, to know the history of race relations in this country. I'm willing to bet that you'd have a different outlook on Arizona's law, if your spouse happened to be pulled over while driving and was waiting for her Green Card in the mail. Without any proof that she is here legally, in Arizona she would be detained without bail until immigration would clear her name, which for anyone who has gone through USCIS knows, is not terribly expedient.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-11 01:52:00

http://www.filamako....ion-law-sb1070/

The following are statements from the National Federation of Filipino American Association (NaFFAA) on this controversial anti-immigration law.

Statement by the NaFFAA National Board
On Arizona's Anti-Immigration Law

We join the voices of civil rights leaders, constitutional rights scholars and legal experts across the country who have expressed grave concerns about Arizona's anti-immigrant enforcement law, SB 1070. Among other things, this measure allows law enforcement to question anyone based on "reasonable suspicion" that they may be undocumented. Even citizens and legal immigrants caught not carrying proof of their U.S. legal status could be charged as felons.

We share the widespread alarm within the Asian Pacific American community that this law legalizes unchecked racial profiling by police authorities and places all minorities under constant suspicion. It instills fear and distrust in government and undermines this country's principles of justice, fairness and equal treatment under the law.

Sixty four years ago, our own Carlos Buloson wrote about being treated like a criminal because he was Filipino. During his time, Filipinos were often the target of racial violence. Law enforcement authorities routinely stopped and searched cars with Filipino men. "I came to know afterward that in many ways it was a crime to be a Filipino in California," Bulosan wrote in his autobiography. "I came to know that the public streets were not free to my people."

We've come a long way as a nation in welcoming people from different lands who wish to make America their home. Arizona's new law is a step backward and moves this great country in the wrong direction. It brings back the America that rejected Bulosan for being Filipino. As immigrants, we've all toiled and suffered and shared the same journey when we came to this country. We have enriched America with our skills and talents. We have built strong communities and contributed immensely to our nation's progress.

It's for these reasons that we urge Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that reunites families, strengthens communities and promotes basic freedoms. We call on our elected officials to once and for all enact an immigration reform measure that upholds our Constitution, respects civil liberties and human rights, and celebrates our nation's values of inclusiveness, compassion and justice.

NaFFAA invites everyone in the Filipino American community to endorse this statement and join us in working together for a fair, just and humane immigration reform.

- – - – - – - – - – -

The National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA) is a private, non-profit, non-partisan tax-exempt organization established in 1997 to promote the active participation of Filipino Americans in civic and national affairs. NaFFAA is composed of 12 regions with a national office in Washington, D.C. that monitors legislation and public policy issues affecting Filipino Americans. NaFFAA partners with local affiliate organizations and national coalitions in advocating for issues of common concern.

National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA)
email:
jonmele@aol.com
phone: 202.361.0296
web: http://www.naffaa.org

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-07-10 18:44:00

I don't believe most marry solely to get out of the Phil's is all, although some do seems condescending to think most do it to escape poverty.

I understand that sentiment, but statistically speaking, Jack is right about most of the Filipinas that are on those dating websites. Just like you can expect to find a number of scammers as well as a number of deviant Kanos looking for a young housemaid/sex toy.

If I lived in PI and wanted to leave or go abroad which seems like most people do, then I would be in Nursing School. It seems like one of your best way to get out of PI.

Yep. Me too, or some other highly marketable skill.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-09-10 00:11:00

Sorry if the truth hurts

I would actually think the number would be closer to 90% of girls from poor economic families use match making sites to escape poverty

Heck I don't blame them.........

I agree although I'd say poor and under-educated. If a Filipino (male or female) studies to become an RN in the Philippines, for example, they have a chance to work and live abroad. My wife's three older sisters did just that - one worked in Saudi Arabia for awhile and two of them work and live in Ireland.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-09-09 09:21:00

Seriously?

How else would he explain his sudden charm with women?

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-09-09 02:44:00

That comment might be par for Off Topic or the Politics and Religion threads but me thinks you look like a true jackass posting it here.

I think Jack was including himself in that percentage.

one...two...tree

Male

Philippines

2010-09-09 00:13:00