Bob

It certainly is tragic the the USA is trying to deport this guy after rejecting his request for political asylum. If he is deported, he will certainly return to Israel as his life would be threatened in the Palestinian territories.

Unfortunately, Israel is acquiescing to the demands of its enemies. The message being sent is that terrorism and delegitimization are effective tools against Israel and the USA. Obama didn't take a position in response to fauxtilla, rather he sat on the fence and didn't support Israel. Obama isn't coming out strongly in support of Israel's security needs at the UN. Israel itself is bowing to the pressure of its enemies by loosening the blockade and outsourcing its security to outsiders (i.e. allowing Turks to play a role in monitoring the flow of goods and people between Israel, the Mediterranean, and Gaza), and conducting an "investigation" with outsiders into events that clearly do not need an investigation. Israel's very right to defend itself is under attack from many fronts. Bassad says that war is now more likely in the reason. Iran, Lebanon, Turkey, and other enemy countries are promising to send ships with martyrs who intend to force the IDF to use violence. The situation doesn't look good.

He`s too puritanical and I reject his take that Islam cannot be moderated. Perhaps what he needs to add, along the lines of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's perspective, is that Islam needs to be liberalized and reformed in ways that have occurred among the Christian and Jewish communities. Isrhad Manji also talks about this. As it stands, now, conservative Islam cannot be reconciled with universal values of freedom and liberty. The proof is out there for all to see.

Again, none of that is new. It simply gives Arizona the permission to levy a fine (and other variable costs such as jail costs) to foreigners who are found guilty of violating EXISTING FEDERAL LAW(S). So it's new in one sense, that Arizona has added monetary penalties to EXISTING FEDERAL LAW, which is relevant context you're too ignorant to mention.

If you go to YouTube, there are many interviews that he's done. It's quite an unique story!

No new immigration law has been passed. The criteria under which foreigners can immigrate to the USA hasn't changed. You're too simple to comprehend these distinctions. I honestly feel bad for you.

Those are all existing federal laws. SB 1070 allows Arizona to enforce EXISTING FEDERAL LAWS, which includes levying a $500 fine on a non-compliant foreigner (the "new" law from Arizona). Do you not know that foreigners are legally obligated to carry documentation on their person when in USA? Are you ignorant of this fact? Just as you must carry your driver's license on your when driving, all foreigners must carry documentation proving their legal permission to be in the USA. More accurately, this allows Arizona to levy a fine for non-compliance with FEDERAL LAW. You're also still wrong when you say that Arizona is creating new immigration laws. More accurately, it's a new law giving more responsibility to state and local authorities to enforce existing federal laws. No new immigration law was passed, even though you keep saying that. Here's the existing federal law requiring foreigners to carry proof of their legal permission to be in the USA at all times; common sense, really.

Good luck citing any part of the law that corroborates your false claim that - "It would allow the police to charge immigrants with a state crime for not carrying immigration documents". This is pure fiction. If you were interesting in learning and not just talking, you'd actually consult the law and spend ten minutes reading it. Come on, you didn't even know the law was passed by Arizona's Senate, and you probably couldn't even name Arizona's governor (or previous governor!!! ) You think you're fooling anyone into thinking you've actually read any of the law? Feel free trying to back up your falsehoods.

Arizona isn't writing "immigration legislation". Saying it over and over again won't make it true. Nothing in your link backs up your assertion that the new law constitutes "immigration legislation" or that the new law "...would allow the police to charge immigrants with a state crime for not carrying immigration documents." You're just as wrong now as you were twelve hours ago. Interestingly, the comments to the website you linked show support for the new law - any reasonable person would support this law.

Since when have Jews been "elevated beyond others who suffer"? Once you explain what you're getting at, please then explain the relevance of this charge to Israel's establishment and current battles with its enemies.

The bill was already signed into law a little while back. It comes into effect at the end of July. Where've you been? More accurately, this bill gives local and state police the authority to confirm legal permission of individuals to be in the country. This involves coordination with the federal government. I don't know the details, but the verification procedure involves the federal government - as obviously the federal government has the information on who is and isn't allowed in the country.

Really? Where does the law say that? Nobody ever disputed that it was a new a law. Congratulations on this astute observation. Here are your own statements: Enforcement is not exclusively a federal power. Furthermore, SB 1070 requires police officers to transfer those suspected of being illegal to federal agencies. Just because a law is federal, doesn't mean other levels of enforcement can't play a role. No it isn't. It's a law permitting and requiring state and local police to play a role in the enforcement of existing federal immigration laws. This law is not an immigration law. An immigration law would alter the conditions under which foreigners can come and stay in the USA. SB 1070 does nothing of the sort. An intelligent person would know the difference between an "immigration law" and a new state law regarding the enforcement of existing immigration laws. This is an important distinction you can't understand. Seriously, stop posting on the subject matter if it's over your head.

Let's try to swerve the conversation away from idiocy for a moment - do you folks (I'm looking particularly at the Americans, here) think Obama sincerely believes he's doing the right thing and acting on conscience or do you think he's pandering to a component of his base? I wonder how the Hispanic community of Arizona feels about this law.

No, they're not. Immigration laws remain the same.

Arizona isn't changing any immigration laws. What on earth are you talking about? Arizona isn't rewriting the rules under which people can enter and reside in the country. All Arizona is doing is adding an avenue through which local and state law enforcement can now ask persons for proof of legal status in the USA. None of the controversy regarding this law has suggested that somehow this is a overstepping of state jurisdiction into that of the federal sphere. Why do I even bother replying to you? Perhaps your hostility to me causes you to make a fool of yourself out of desperation to disagree with me. If you don't understand the subject matter of the thread, don't post.

How does that make sense? Local and state police can arrest people for federal crimes. What's different here? If illegal presence in the country is a federal crime, local and state police can still facilitate arrests and then transfer them to the federal system for court. Am I missing something? Do we divide up the responsibility to exclude certain government agencies/law enforcement from other problems like hurricanes, floods, terrorism, or civil unrest (understandably more immediate and short-term problems, but so what?)? From another perspective, shouldn't Obama be supportive of Arizona in its efforts (with popular support) to address a serious problem it's dealing with? Arizona is a state with a a major stake in the problem of illegal immigration, what's wrong with extending the scope of what the current local and state police are doing in order to address this problem?

I still don't understand what "comprehensive immigration reform" is. Is that amnesty? Or put another way, a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants? I'd love to read the details of any serious proposals to those ends. More importantly, doesn't closing the border take priority over addressing the desires of illegal immigrants to become legitimate residents of the country? Secure the border, stop the influx of illegal immigrants, then address the presence of those who got in.

You think it's an issue of turf? What is this, a Law and Order episode with a beef between the local police department and the FBI? I think it's pretty obvious this is either Obama pandering to a particular group of his base and/or him fulfilling his sincere personal ideological leanings.

Yeah, I found that anecdote very interesting! I also get the impression that Malcolm "lifts" a lot of his material, but he does give a lot of credit to others in his books. Have you read the three books I mentioned above? It's great that Gladwell's Canadian, too. Here's some cool video with him at the 92nd street Y in NYC: Associated videos on the right side of the page also have a few long interviews with Gladwell. I like the guy.

Pink triangle for homosexuals? Blacks executed ASAP? What blacks were in Europe at the time? WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! You are just making things up as you go along - there were no pink or purple triangles! There were virtually no blacks in Europe! Roma persecuted years before the Jews, as we've been persecuted for thousands of years? How can someone be so ignorant? The stupidity of this post simply cannot be ignored. You know nothing about the Holocaust. Do yourself a favour, go to a Holocaust museum, leave the cave you live in and get out into the world. Educate yourself. Read a book on the Holocaust, just do something! The lesson to be learned from the Holocaust IS NOT to hate Jews and Israel! Reading posts like your embarrasses me that you're a Canadian - how can we have such ignorance and hate in this beautiful country? Shameful. Trust me, judging from your posts you are in NO position to be talking about European history. At least I can admit ignorance on matters.

He narrates his own audiobooks. He's definitely got a knack for observing various phenomenons within our society and offering some interesting (and sometimes obvious) observations. He also has a knack for systematizing these things in relatively easy-to-digest ways. His books are nice easy reads. Anyone interested in listening to his audiobooks: The Tipping Points, Outliers, or Blink? Send me a PM.

Defending Identity - Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy If anyone in here is interested in listening to the audiobook, let me know. I may be able to arrange something for you.

Son of Hamas: A Gripping Account of Terror, Betrayal, Political Intrigue, and Unthinkable Choices. If any of you are interested in reading this book, send me a PM. It's a pretty short book and it's a very easy read. Very intense. Here's a link to its Amazon.com advertisement.

Aren't these semi-flexible permissions desirable, though? Don't you want to police to be able to deal with the problem of illegal immigration? The way I look at it, who doesn't have proof of their legal status in a country whenever they leave the house? Forget about carrying documentation around when you travel, virtually every time I leave the house I have some sort of ID with me. And if I lived in a place with a serious illegal immigration problem that just passed this type of law, I'd make certain to carry ID with me at all times.

That's a pretty keen observation. Perhaps they're just making their presence known, and developing some sort of positive rapport with the residents who are more likely to be committing crimes or know about crimes committed or to be committed. It could be a way of gathering intelligence to stop crime. Either way, the activity of the police you're describing, I'm sure, contributes to a safer environment. You're certainly very observant.