Islamic Cultural Center/Muslim Mosque near ground Zero

[David Jamieson]

Anonymous guy? My name is Tim Egan.

The only thing I've been confronted with, is your biased certainty that anyone who even asks questions of your positions on this thread, hates all of Islam, and like assumptions on your part.

How is my ideology 'hate and intolerance", specifically, that is?

Very good!

Tim, prior to your announcement you were indeed just some anon voice.

So, please tell us all how denying this centre, across and down the street from an already established mosque is an affront to the sensitivity of americans?

If you don't despise Islam, what's the problem? Why can't they have their centre wherever they bloody well please? Is it insensitive to say stop discriminating based on religion? It is completely discriminatory to deny these people their right to build their centre.

What are you basing teh denial on? Sensitivity? Gimme a break, that is laughable.

Be sensitive and join us in denying the rights we afford everyone else to Muslims.

And yes, I am down on folks who are against this position because I see it as wrong. That is how points of view work.

so, tell me Tim, why should these people be denied their right to build their center?

who is it insensitive to to reach out , pray and meet other muslims?

do tell, I'm all ears.

Plenty of Muslims died in the WTC on 9/11/01 too, as well as Canadians, Germans, French, and so on. It certainly wasn't exclusively and American tragedy and it certainly wasn't an Islamic attack.

It was an act of criminal terrorism apparently carried out by criminals.

You cannot kill in the name of Islam anymore than you can kill in the name of Christ.

people kill in the name of hatred, profit, fear, intolerance, and occasionally in self defense. The latter being the least common of the way of killing.

anyway, why do you want these people to be denied their right as americans?

[Reality_Check]

Do you think bigotry is involved with the St. Nicholas Church?

Bigotry? Hardly. For starters there is one major difference between the potential Islamic Cultural center and St. Nicholas Church. The latter is actually at Ground Zero and the former isn't. The negotiations between the church and the Port Authority were just that...negotiations. They fell through. It happens.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/ny.../19church.html

The fate of the church, a narrow whitewashed building that was crushed in the attack on the World Trade Center, was supposed to have been settled eight months ago, with a tentative agreement in which the church would swap its land for a grander church building on a larger parcel nearby, with a $20 million subsidy from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. This would have allowed work to begin at the south end of the site.

But the two sides never came to final terms. After months of negotiations, the Port Authority, which is overseeing reconstruction at ground zero, ended its talks with the church on Monday, saying that the church had sought increasingly costly concessions.

Complaints, of course, abound on both sides.

The authority now says that St. Nicholas is free to rebuild the church on its own parcel at 155 Cedar Street, just east of West Street. The authority will, in turn, use eminent domain to get control of the land beneath that parcel so it can move ahead with building foundation walls and a bomb-screening center for trucks, buses and cars entering the area.

“We made an extraordinarily generous offer to resolve this issue and spent eight months trying to finalize that offer, and the church wanted even more on top of that,” said Stephen Sigmund, a spokesman for the Port Authority. “They have now given us no choice but to move on to ensure the site is not delayed. The church continues to have the right to rebuild at their original site, and we will pay fair market value for the underground space beneath that building.”

The church officials also want to build a larger church, one the won't actually fit on the parcel of land where the destroyed one was.

St. Nicholas officials had hoped to build an impressive structure, with a traditional Greek Orthodox dome, and a nondenominational center for visitors to ground zero. That will not be possible on the church’s original 1,200-square-foot lot, although church officials say they hope for reconciliation.

That was the negotiation, to get a larger piece of land. It hasn't worked out. Fairly simple, no?

[BJJ-Blue]

Well, then we're in agreement. I don't think the mosque should be built, because Muslims SHOULD be sensitive to what happened there. However, if they absolutely wish to, who is to say they can't?

Yes, we are in complete agreement on this one.

[BJJ-Blue]

Apparently reading comprehension is not your strong suit (kind of reminds me of another poster...). Clearly the Department of Justice feels that the SB1070 infringes on powers reserved to the Federal Government (i.e. immigration). Hence the challenge. The courts will resolve the dispute. Which is the way things are supposed to work.

I still want to hear why YOU say Arizona's law infringes on the Federal Government's powers. I'm discussing this topic with YOU, not Gov't lawyers, not judges, not Jan Brewer, YOU. So I want to hear YOUR take on it.

[Drake]

I still want to hear why YOU say Arizona's law infringes on the Federal Government's powers. I'm discussing this topic with YOU, not Gov't lawyers, not judges, not Jan Brewer, YOU. So I want to hear YOUR take on it.

Border control is specifically the right of the federal government. States have zero rights here. It's specifically stated in the Constitution.

[Reality_Check]

I still want to hear why YOU say Arizona's law infringes on the Federal Government's powers. I'm discussing this topic with YOU, not Gov't lawyers, not judges, not Jan Brewer, YOU. So I want to hear YOUR take on it.

YOU should work on your reading comprehension. Note the word in bold...

The courts have already ruled that immigration is the purview of the Federal Government. So...

Clearly the Department of Justice feels that the SB1070 infringes on powers reserved to the Federal Government (i.e. immigration).

If immigration is the purview of the Federal Government (as has been adjudicated), and SB1070 infringes on that...I think one can reach a reasonable conclusion regarding the merits of the Department of Justice's case.

[BJJ-Blue]

So are you two saying that a State does not have a right to enforce Federal law?

[BJJ-Blue]

YOU should work on your reading comprehension. Note the word in bold...

You should do the same.

I simply asked YOU to explain YOUR stance on why YOU say Arizona is overstepping it's bounds. It's a simple request. YOU took a stance, I just want YOU to explain, in YOUR own words, why YOU took that stance.

[David Jamieson]

The State has a duty to adhere to federal law and enforce state laws.
They do not have the right to amend federal law as far as I know.

Federal law is enforced by federal agencies, not by states.

US customs is federal not state, the FBI is federal and not state, Immigration and naturalization is federal not state.

Arizona does not have the right to enforce federal law.
Arizona is entitled to lodge complaints about the feds failure to do so and to ask for them to enforce the laws they expect them to adhere to.

Vigilante citizens only make matters worse all the way round because they are acting out of emotional exasperation and generally in ignorance of the law themselves. they are certainly not within their rights to enforce the border security, that's for sure.

[MightyB]

Arizona does not have the right to enforce federal law.
Arizona is entitled to lodge complaints about the feds failure to do so and to ask for them to enforce the laws they expect them to adhere to.

(Cough) Ahem...

"While police demands of documents are common on subways, highways and in public places in some countries, including France, Arizona is the first state to demand that immigrants meet federal requirements to carry identity documents legitimizing their presence on American soil."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us...s/24immig.html

[BJJ-Blue]

Your statement is laughable on so many levels.

The State has a duty to adhere to federal law and enforce state laws.
They do not have the right to amend federal law as far as I know.

Arizona's law in no way amends Federal law. The part of the law the DOJ sued over was where Arizona was requiring law enforcement to determine individuals immigration status when there was law enforcement contact. They did not in any way ammend Federal immigration law.

If you disagree, please explain how Arizona's law amends Federal law in this instance.

Federal law is enforced by federal agencies, not by states.

So if local or State police see a carjacking, they cannot enforce the law? Remember, carjacking is a FEDERAL crime now. So if a local police dept sees a person carrying fully automatic rifle they can't arrest him? Possessing automatic weapons is against FEDERAL law as well. So are you really telling us that any non-Federal law enforcement agency would not be allowed to enforce that law (ie, arrest the guy with the gun), but would have to call ATF and let them do it? Are you really saying this????

Vigilante citizens only make matters worse all the way round because they are acting out of emotional exasperation and generally in ignorance of the law themselves. they are certainly not within their rights to enforce the border security, that's for sure.

We are not talking about vigilante citizens. We are talking about a bill that was justly passed by a lawfully elected State Legislature and signed into law by that State's lawfully elected Governor.

[MightyB]

The Federal Law: http://www.theodora.com/ina_96_title_2.html

211 DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS

SEC. 211. [8 U.S.C. 1181]

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and subsection (c) no immigrant shall be admitted into the United States unless at the time of application for admission he (1) has a valid unexpired immigrant visa or was born subsequent to the issuance of such visa of the accompanying parent, and (2) presents a valid unexpired passport or other suitable travel document, or document of identity and nationality, if such document is required under the regulations issued by the Attorney General. With respect to immigrants to be admitted under quotas of quota areas prior to June 30, 1968, no immigrant visa shall be deemed valid unless the immigrant is properly chargeable to the quota area under the quota of which the visa is issued.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 212(a)(7)(A) of this Act in such cases or in such classes of cases and under such conditions as may be by regulations prescribed, returning resident immigrants, defined in section 101(a)(27)(A), who are otherwise admissible may be readmitted to the United States by the Attorney General in his discretion without being required to obtain a passport, immigrant visa, reentry permit or other documentation.

(c) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to an alien whom the Attorney General admits to the United States under section 207.

[SanHeChuan]

If you disagree, please explain how Arizona's law amends Federal law in this instance.

Well for one,

Because according to Federal Law, State and Local law enforcement have to be specifically trained by ICE to enforce Immigration law.

The Arizona law required ALL State Law enforcement to enforce Immigration law without regard of their qualifications to do so.

26 law enforcement officers trained by ICE to enforce immigration law
Graduates join more than 1,200 287(g) trained officers nationwide

[BJJ-Blue]

Well for one,

Because according to Federal Law, State and Local law enforcement have to be specifically trained by ICE to enforce Immigration law.

The Arizona law required ALL State Law enforcement to enforce Immigration law without regard of their qualifications to do so.

26 law enforcement officers trained by ICE to enforce immigration law
Graduates join more than 1,200 287(g) trained officers nationwide

Why is the Federal Gov't training State and local LE to enforce immigration law when David clearly stated "Federal law is enforced by federal agencies, not by states"?

Also, I do not believe Arizona's law made Arizona LE enforce the law themselves. It just stated they had to determine a person's immigration status when there was LE contact. I believe that if Arizona LE had found someone here illegally they were required that person over to Federal LE so the Feds could enforce the law. It did not call for Arizona LE to deport the person (ie, enforce the law) themselves. Am I wrong?

And again, the DOJ sued Arizona under the provision that REQUIRED Arizona LE to determine a person's immigration status. Virginia recently passed a similar law to Arizona's, but with one major difference; their law states that law enforcement CAN CHOOSE to determine a person's immigration status, but it does not REQUIRE them to do so. And the DOJ has yet to sue Virginia. That should tell you something.

[MightyB]

So I've posted the actual law and I started to read over Arizona's. They are in-fact enforcing US Federal Law. If a person is detained and can't prove legal immigration status as defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act, then they can deport them. 'Nuff Said.