Talk:Arizona's 2010 Immigration Act

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Talk:Arizona's 2010 Immigration Act as edited by Muteswan (Talk | contribs) at 06:38, May 2, 2012. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


Good work, William! I might suggest that you include some of the background on the controversy, especially the fact that the Arizona law is far milder than the Federal statutes, which no one, including Obama, Holder and the DNC, have ever objected to. The "protests" by the left seem to be nothing other than a pedestrian "Red Herring".... --ṬK/Admin/Talk 14:48, 26 May 2010 (EDT)

Thanks for your advice, but today and tommorrow, I'm going to be working on a video that will be up on youtube a few days from today, which will promote this new article I created. Also, I don't know much about the detailed history of the Arizona law. In the meantime, if you or anyone else know more about it than I, can you help me out with that and other needed updates and changes if you wish? That will be of great help to me and will save me a lot of time. God bless you all!!! Willminator 16:27, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
Not about the history of the AZ law, but the federal statutes allow for agents of the Federal Government to stop anyone, at anytime, for reason or not, and demand their "papers". They can detain anyone, which is far more draconian than the Arizona law the liberals are complaining about.....--ṬK/Admin/Talk 19:10, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
Ok, I'll see if I can work on that tommorrow Thursday morning. Willminator 22:11, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
I was only able to find information and a summary of Mexico’s immigration policy, but I can’t find any place that has information on and summarizes U.S immigration policy, which I know, like you said, is less lax on illegal immigrants than Arizona’s new immigration bill. Need some help on that… Willminator 11:01, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

No. The Federal Law is far more draconian than Arizona's. That is the salient point. I suggest a Google search....I have seen comparisons on Michelle Malkin's site and O'Reilly's for sure, possibly Hannity's. The whole point is the "protests" about the AZ law are totally contrived, liberal clap-trap. Where were the protests about the Federal law? It allows Federal Officers to stop and detain anyone, even you or I, for any reason whatsoever, no matter if we didn't even break a law....and the Arizona law has safeguards in place to prevent that kind of thing from happening. --ṬK/Admin/Talk 16:35, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

I reworded a bit the first 2 questions to liberals and the last section's title to reflect a bit more on the point you mentioned. Anyway, I found this interesting article that contains some useful for the U.S immigration policy vs. Arizona Senate Bill 1070 section, but I don’t know what to write from this. What should we take from this? [1] Willminator 16:53, 9 June 2010 (EDT)


I'm not sure the tone of the article is appropriate. While I agree, and it is obvious, that the bill does not beg racial profiling, asking "liberals" to read the article in the article ("Liberals, read the new law for yourselves once and for all, please.") and then later posing questions to them makes this work seem like a pseudo-homework assignment as opposed to an encyclopedia article--IDuan 15:24, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

Yeah, I feel like the patronizing tone of the article is more counter-productive than anything, encouraging liberals to reaffirm their beliefs rather than take a second look.Fasdfad 07:48, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

Three more questions:

1. Did it occur to anyone that it is illegal to be illegal?

2. Whether a state can defend the national borders that may be an open question, but did anyone notice that Arizona is trying to defend the Arizona's borders?

3. "We are all immigrants"; Yes, almost all Americans are descendants of immigrants; but of legal ones. "We have to show compassion." Question: Does compassion mean that America should let in ALL the poor and oppressed people of the world? If not, then why should we favor those who force their way illegally?