A HUGE problem with IMBRA?

[Brazilophile]

... in response to Wrong Again, posted by Ray on Jan 8, 2006

You have no understanding of the hierarchy of laws, and this is WAY off-topic, so this is my LAST post in this thread.

The federal Constitution is the law of the land.  Other laws, such as state Constitutions, cannot supercede the federal Constitution.  If legislatures write bills that supercede higher laws, they can be challenged and struck down as unconstitutional or in violation of a higher law.

IMBRA is ONLY the law of the land to the extent that its provisions do not violate any other laws deemed to be higher.  For example, the powers of BCIS/INS are set out in the Act which created it, the Homeland Security Act (HSA).  IMBRA cannot require BCIS to perform duties which are beyond its constitutional powers set out in that act (HSA), unless IMBRA itself is an amendment to the HSA.

None of the provisions in IMBRA have yet been tested or challenged as to their constitutionality, though they are likely to be over time.

I claim that the Acts creating the myriad of federal agencies do not require them to conduct their affairs in any language other than the offical language of the US, or deal with other nationals in any language other than other countries' official languages.  So long as those Acts supercede IMBRA, then it cannot legally/constitutionally require a federal agency to communicate in non-official languages.

We disagree as to whether the US has English as its official language.  If you feel strongly enough about your position, then test it.  Go to a small claims court, a traffic court, etc, and request that the proceedings be conducted in Russian, Swahili, or Urdu etc., as that is your primary language (say), and see what the presiding judge tells you.  LOL!

[Ray]

... in response to Re: Wrong Again, posted by Brazilophile on Jan 8, 2006

DUH!

No need for a lecture on the U.S. Constitution Mr. Arrogance. Why do you think I posted the message that started this thread? Because the IMBRA law as it is written is stupid and unenforceable with regard to the “primary language” issue. Why you insisted on harping on this “official language” nonsense is beyond me.

I don’t care if they amend IMBRA to read “…in the official language of the applicant’s country of citizenship” or something similar. It is STILL stupid and unenforceable for the reasons that I previously explained and won’t bother to explain again. If you can’t understand that, then YOU have a communication problem.

You can dance around the issue all you like, but you are still WRONG when you insist that English is the “official language” of the United States. I suggested that you do your homework before opening your mouth on this topic again, but no, you insisted on making yourself look ignorant AGAIN. Arguing with you is like arguing with a toilet full of crap, so I think I’ll just flush you now so you can clear your mind… ROFL!

Oh, if you really feel strongly that English SHOULD be made the official language of the U.S., then there are any number of groups you can support to make that happen. You may wish to write to your elected federal representatives urging them to support such legislation. One of the most recent bills is H.R. 997 -- The English Language Unity Act of 2005. But, expect a fight from the Democrats  on any attempt toward this end :-)

http://www.usenglish.org/inc/news/preleases/viewRelease.asp?ID=166

Bye…

Ray

[Heat]

... in response to Still Wrong..., posted by Ray on Jan 8, 2006

Ray,

He is not even an American.  His command of the English language is barely passable and he knows nothing about the Constitution.  Yet he lectures you on the law.

I find his arrogance to be unmatched.