I find your pessimism with regards to trust in your fellow man disheartening. It is also probably at the very root of your "put people in charge to tell us what is best for us" stance.
Trust in the righteousness of the powerful few is trust misplaced, imo. Better to trust in the deadlocked opinions of the masses.
I tend to think of myself as a realist more than a pessimest, and I'm not saying that people in charge should be telling us what is best for us, but until we change our form of government and our thinking as a country, that is what we have.
A true democracy might work on a state-by-state level, but for federal government, I feel that there still needs to be that oversight.
And I am telling you that such oversight is already built into the system. Look at the last couple of presidential elections, and how close the popular vote fell in the end. Do you really think that so many of your fellow Americans are so backwards that a majority (as defined in the Constituion for the passing of laws) would actually be able to pass oppressive laws willy-nilly?
I'm telling you that such a majority doesn't exist when it comes to almost ALL of the issues confronting us today. When was the last time two-thirds of this country agreed on ANYTHING?
I'm not saying that people in charge should be telling us what is best for us
Pardon me, but just a few posts ago you said exactly that.
|
I'm not saying that people in charge should be telling us what is best for usPardon me, but just a few posts ago you said exactly that.
We have a representative republic. In 99% of all matters, representatives should vote with the majority. These elected officials also must recognize when something that is the will of the majority is not what is either morally or legally right and be willing to go against the wishes of the majority. That is their two-fold duty as elected representatives. Hopefully this more fully explains what I meant.
I have often thought that, if I was to run for office, I would run on the platform of polling my constituents before votes. I would also make it clear that, when it came to matters of civil rights, I would take this information into account but ultimately vote in accordance with the law and what is morally right.
|
You leave out a part of your original post above that states that your ancestors embraced the culture here and did not attempt to change it, nor ask for special treatment. Is this to say that they meekly accepted the prejudice they encountered?Your thoughts on the overwhelming discrimination experienced by Irish citizens in this country(Irish need not apply statues for businesses, being pressed into military service upon arrival)?To be blunt, it was no different than what most every other minority group that has immigrated to the United States has had to deal with. The Irish had the double whammy of being (for the most part) Catholic as well.
My great grandfather worked on the railroad. When he died the family moved to Paterson and worked in the textile mills. From their they dispersed across the US and Canada. They never had it easy. But they had opportunity to make a better life.
Was the discrimination right? No. But at least they had the legal opportunity to come here and work hard and assimilate and become Americans.
Thats the same legal opportunity the Mexicans crossing the border illegally in Arizona have, by the way, but choose to not excersise.
I honestly fail to see how embracing America as your new home and assimilating to the American culture by an immigrant is the same as meekly accepting prejudice.
They learned english. They worked hard at whatever jobs they could get. Yes, at first, like most immigrants they lived in communities of their fellows. And as time went on, they built better lives for themselves and their families.
I never heard stories at family gatherings regarding any special instances of abuse or prejudice. I did hear that the children were all required to learn and speak english (more applicable to the Hungarian side of the family) growing up. I do know of relatives who are well off, successful in buisness, politically conected, served honorably in the military, etc.
Obviously whatever challenges they faced they chose to face and rise above rather than meekly accept. They clearly did not retreat into an insular migrant community. They became Americans.
Unlike those who come here illegally, the ones the Arizona law is intended to deal with. btw.
Steve, without offense that what you are talking is persecution of a minority...
Welcome to the other side of the coin.
Besides... already many cities of Arizona don't want such a law... incluthing Phonix... how then it was the majority clamoring for the gobernor for such policy?
decisions taken in the congress most of the time is decided in the congress without really caring for their citizens.. that is here and that is there...
otherwise we all be having a better lifes with fairer laws and with the needed reforms that politics stops ebcause it doesn't benefit to their inteerst.
Still... its part of a citizen to stand against an unfair law...
and no I can't alk for it i am Mexican and don't go that often to US so only the lwas that affect my coutnry directly make me a grievous stand (like how our waters woudl be sson polited by the msitake of a company, destroying a lot of animals and ecoosystems both needed for the world and my country economy) but we are not b@%&#ing about that...and by the way.. yeah I know that our politicians complaing would be called whinign.. but yours are called demanding? that goes with the position you know? discuss about policies that affect mutual interests... and if i remember well Obama already condemend the law... so Calderon is not telling him anything new or that he won't be expected...
and we will be falming him alie if he dien't go a whine like you say...
but isn't your country whining about Iran having nuclear research? it doesn't affect you, right?
Montalve, No offense taken and I hope we can continue to discuss this without anyone takeing offense to someone elses beliefs.
your point about Phoenix is well made and I conced that point to you. As far as how the law came about w/o a majority to put it in place and then vote for it I don't know. I wish I could answer that but I really don't know.
I am curious to know what reforms you are talking about in your earlier post. I would love to see some serious reforms take place but I'm guessing that my ideas and yours wouldn't match exactly so can you please explain what reforms you would like to see so I can have a better understanding of what your saying.
The major thing I wish to address is your position that we the US are whining about IRAN. The major reason IRAN is a threat is because they have admitted they would use them as an aggressor not in defense. They would use them to wipe out israel for religious reasons and nothing else. The immigration debate has no comparision because while some lives may be lost it can not compare to the massive lose of life IRAN would cause by gaining such destructive power.
I'm not saying that people in charge should be telling us what is best for usPardon me, but just a few posts ago you said exactly that.We have a representative republic. In 99% of all matters, representatives should vote with the majority. These elected officials also must recognize when something that is the will of the majority is not what is either morally or legally right and be willing to go against the wishes of the majority. That is their two-fold duty as elected representatives. Hopefully this more fully explains what I meant.
I have often thought that, if I was to run for office, I would run on the platform of polling my constituents before votes. I would also make it clear that, when it came to matters of civil rights, I would take this information into account but ultimately vote in accordance with the law and what is morally right.
I've seen this sort of position from you before, and as before I ask you who exactly you think you are that you should be allowed to force your morality upon anyone? That our government is taking it upon itself to legislate morality is at the base of the problem, don't you think?
That is at the heart of it...your morality is different from my own, and therefore should not play a part in the creation of law. Nor should anyone else's.
You leave out a part of your original post above that states that your ancestors embraced the culture here and did not attempt to change it, nor ask for special treatment. Is this to say that they meekly accepted the prejudice they encountered?Your thoughts on the overwhelming discrimination experienced by Irish citizens in this country(Irish need not apply statues for businesses, being pressed into military service upon arrival)?To be blunt, it was no different than what most every other minority group that has immigrated to the United States has had to deal with. The Irish had the double whammy of being (for the most part) Catholic as well.
My great grandfather worked on the railroad. When he died the family moved to Paterson and worked in the textile mills. From their they dispersed across the US and Canada. They never had it easy. But they had opportunity to make a better life.
Was the discrimination right? No. But at least they had the legal opportunity to come here and work hard and assimilate and become Americans.
Thats the same legal opportunity the Mexicans crossing the border illegally in Arizona have, by the way, but choose to not excersise.
I honestly fail to see how embracing America as your new home and assimilating to the American culture by an immigrant is the same as meekly accepting prejudice.
They learned english. They worked hard at whatever jobs they could get. Yes, at first, like most immigrants they lived in communities of their fellows. And as time went on, they built better lives for themselves and their families.
I never heard stories at family gatherings regarding any special instances of abuse or prejudice. I did hear that the children were all required to learn and speak english (more applicable to the Hungarian side of the family) growing up. I do know of relatives who are well off, successful in buisness, politically conected, served honorably in the military, etc.
Obviously whatever challenges they faced they chose to face and rise above rather than meekly accept. They clearly did not retreat into an insular migrant community. They became Americans.
Unlike those who come here illegally, the ones the Arizona law is intended to deal with. btw.
Emphasis mine. I would never intend to insult your family by referring to them as "the lucky ones" or anything so gauche, but I will say that rising above the challenges put in ones path when you are an ethnic or racial minority is, in many ways, to effect change with respect to the ethnic or racial majority. Just because it was not mentioned at family gatherings is not to say it didn't happen, I'm sure your ancestors had to deal with- and stand up to- all sorts of short-sightedness at the very least, as well as written and unwritten discrimination. This law, while intended to stand up to illegal immigration, has caused those who immigrated legally to stand up for themselves and those who share their ethnic background in protest, which is something I feel your ancestors(and mine, perhaps) had to do as well at least once or twice. These are the things a people have to do for themselves that often gets lost under the "making a better life for themselves" fiat.
Ghost post
This law, while intended to stand up to illegal immigration, has caused those who immigrated legally to stand up for themselves and those who share their ethnic background in protest
Yeah, it sure has. My legal immigrant wife is incredibly upset that millions of people get to circumvent the years of crap and 10's of thousands of dollars whe has spent to come here. I've seen stories where older immigrants, both legal and illegal, of Hispanic descent have complained about the people now crossing illegally.
|
|
I'm not saying that people in charge should be telling us what is best for usPardon me, but just a few posts ago you said exactly that.We have a representative republic. In 99% of all matters, representatives should vote with the majority. These elected officials also must recognize when something that is the will of the majority is not what is either morally or legally right and be willing to go against the wishes of the majority. That is their two-fold duty as elected representatives. Hopefully this more fully explains what I meant.
I have often thought that, if I was to run for office, I would run on the platform of polling my constituents before votes. I would also make it clear that, when it came to matters of civil rights, I would take this information into account but ultimately vote in accordance with the law and what is morally right.
I've seen this sort of position from you before, and as before I ask you who exactly you think you are that you should be allowed to force your morality upon anyone? That our government is taking it upon itself to legislate morality is at the base of the problem, don't you think?
That is at the heart of it...your morality is different from my own, and therefore should not play a part in the creation of law. Nor should anyone else's.
Equal protection under the law is a moral and legal obligation that was put into place by the declaration of independence and the constitution. If those morals aren't your morals then that's kinda scary tbh.
To cut in on this one X,
Equal protection under the law is a moral and legal obligation that was put into place by the declaration of independence and the constitution.
I agree, However it is there for the CITIZENS of this country not criminals that think they are entitled to take what previous and current generations have built.
Illegals have no rights in this counrty nor should they except for the basic human rights.
I would love to have them shipped to australia or china or any other counrty and demand the "rights" they are demanding here and see what happens.
I do not wish harm on anyone trying to better themselves and I am going out on a limb here and saying I am fairly certain that no one else on this board does either but I can not fathom where these foreign nationals get this overwhelming sense that just because they crossed the border they are suddenly entitled to all the rights and privaleges w/o haveing to do anything else.
|
|
Emphasis mine. I would never intend to insult your family by referring to them as "the lucky ones" or anything so gauche, but I will say that rising above the challenges put in ones path when you are an ethnic or racial minority is, in many ways, to effect change with respect to the ethnic or racial majority. Just because it was not mentioned at family gatherings is not to say it didn't happen, I'm sure your ancestors had to deal with- and stand up to- all sorts of short-sightedness at the very least, as well as written and unwritten discrimination. This law, while intended to stand up to illegal immigration, has caused those who immigrated legally to stand up for themselves and those who share their ethnic background in protest, which is something I feel your ancestors(and mine, perhaps) had to do as well at least once or twice. These are the things a people have to do for themselves that often gets lost under the "making a better life for themselves" fiat.
Keep in mind that we are talking well over a hundred years of family history here. And I am sure they did face all the same problems and prejudices most immigrants face. But the stories I heard growing up didn't mention those problems. Were they lucky? I am sure some members of my family could be called lucky just as some would be termed unlucky. As all families experience. I did hear about learning english and getting an education. And I know the successes worked very hard for that success. But when they came here, they left the old country and their allegience there behind.
I work with many Portugese in my field (construction laborer). Watching the three generations (more or less) I deal with one can see generational divisions pretty clearly. The older generation still has trouble with english, but can get by. They are also the hardest physical labor workers, old school if you will. The middle generation is also hard working, with many buisnessmen in the mix. Usually fluent in both english and portugese, sometimes to the point you might not hear an accent (depending on where they went to school). The youngest generation, fluent in english, usually (though not always) speaks some portugese. However, their attitude towards work is very American. They are not intersted in dad or an uncle getting them a union book. They are going to college and becoming investors, lawyers and doctors.
So my point is every group and every individual in that group faces these challenges and has to work to succeed in spite of them. I think this is a normal progression, from what I understand of history.
Being illegal is illegal plain and simple. They do not belong here. I am happy that Arizona is doing something Obama has promised he would do on his election run. It is about time the state steps in and does something where the federal government fails.
With that being said, I live in AZ. I know of countless illegals. Some are great people. Others are not. I do not feel remorse if they have to leave the country. Not in the slightest. I will be a father soon, and I cant find work because an illegal is willing to do it cheaper. I have lived back east most my life and the difference is apparent. viva los 1070
|
|
To cut in on this one X,
Equal protection under the law is a moral and legal obligation that was put into place by the declaration of independence and the constitution.
I agree, However it is there for the CITIZENS of this country not criminals that think they are entitled to take what previous and current generations have built.
Illegals have no rights in this counrty nor should they except for the basic human rights.
I would love to have them shipped to australia or china or any other counrty and demand the "rights" they are demanding here and see what happens.
I do not wish harm on anyone trying to better themselves and I am going out on a limb here and saying I am fairly certain that no one else on this board does either but I can not fathom where these foreign nationals get this overwhelming sense that just because they crossed the border they are suddenly entitled to all the rights and privaleges w/o haveing to do anything else.
I was speaking tangentially TBH. I agree that they do not fall under the protection of the US Constitution if here illegally (the exception being things like 4th amendment, etc. if accused of a crime). My problem is not with deporting illegals, which I believe should be done, but with the methods which they plan to use to accomplish that. The way this law is set up, it will cause legal citizens of hispanic heritage to be harassed in the search for illegal aliens of hispanic descent. That's my beef.
We just got onto the topic of representatives and the will of the people, and that was where the comment regarding equal protection came into play.
|
|
Being illegal is illegal plain and simple. They do not belong here. I am happy that Arizona is doing something Obama has promised he would do on his election run. It is about time the state steps in and does something where the federal government fails.
With that being said, I live in AZ. I know of countless illegals. Some are great people. Others are not. I do not feel remorse if they have to leave the country. Not in the slightest. I will be a father soon, and I cant find work because an illegal is willing to do it cheaper. I have lived back east most my life and the difference is apparent. viva los 1070
Do you think that legal citizens who could easily be confused with illegal aliens should be subject to harassment? The main concern with this legislation is that that is what's going to happen.
I agree in the sense that this is just another one of those laws that empowers the police force. Its one those laws where police are allowed to pull over someone that the suspect is up to 'no good' based off a broken tail light, or not wearing a seat belt, its just in this case its the color of their skin. The law states
"1. Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S."
&
"5. Allows a law enforcement officer, without a warrant, to arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the U.S."
With that said what is a 'reasonable attempt' is defined as, as I see it, up to that particular law enforcer whom is doing the inquiring. Furthermore, an officer needs probable cause to suspect the person committed a public offense. It is the same as AZ's DUI law. They need probable cause to believe you are drunk driving. If an illegal was caught being illegal without papers, the case may still get thrown out in court if the illegal proves the officer did not have probable cause to ask about his immigration status. This prevents the whole "hey you walking down the street! Show my your papers!" If the officer believe's the person committed a crime, and they look to be illegal (by color of skin so be it) then he can ask to see papers. It does not turn into a harassment factor until the person is suspect of breaking the law to begin with. Do not break the law, you will not get deported.
I find this law to be a huge step. I like it. I think it is needed. AZ took a step that no other state has done. Furthermore, now that AZ stood up for itself, tons of states are looking to follow suit.
Article on other Attempts
I just thought that I would make some points about a few things regarding illegal immigration.
Illegal immigration does have a significant effect on the national stage regarding American workers.
1. The most obvious: farmers and agriculture.
Small family owned farms, especially in the Southeast and the Midwest have difficulty competing with large business farms. Large farms that are competing with both other large farms and with family farms employ illegal immigrants and gain an unfair competitive advantage from doing so. So, although it is often stated that these immigrants are taking jobs that Americans are not rushing to fill it is overlooked by the media that these jobs are competing with American job holders and that the family farms end up losing in many aspects.
The argument that this unfair advantage will disappear if these workers are made LEGAL has a serious flaw. There are Americans working these positions who are losing their ability to earn a living because they are competing with illegal immigrants. The need to LEGALIZE this competition (as opposed to removing it) is limited because this "need" is in conflict with the "need" to protect the interest of our nation's citizens: Those who do work ther farms and are losing them due to the competition. If the large farms have difficulty competing with family farms when they stay within the rules (because they will have no one to work their large farms...) is not reason enough to change the laws to make them able to push out the small farms.
This also applies to a number of other agricultural businesses such as egg farms where eggs are lain for sale on the market. When I saw that the egg farm I always passed on the way to my Aunt's house in eastern Kentucky had closed, I just chalked it up to being unable to compete with the larger farms. I later learned that was a correct assumption. But, my viewpoint on what that meant changed when I saw that ICE had arrested 50+ illegal immigrants at an egg farm. Family owned agricultural businesses closing because they could not compete with large agricultiural businesses that were breaking the law by hiring illegals because they could not find enough American workers to fill their positions...because the Americans who would work such jobs already had them. But, they would go out of business and no longer have them.
In summary, illegal immigrants working in farms do compete with and affect the livelihoods of American family farmers, especially in the Southeast and Midwest. When farms in the southwest cannot find Americans to work their jobs it is a safe bet that Americans who are willing to work those jobs are already doing so.
2. How about construction
There are countless illegal immigrants who work in construction.
I believe it was in 2006 that ICE raided a construction company that operated in central Kentucky, my home state. The numbers are too old for me to remember but I was staggered at the number of employees who were illegal. At this time, Kentucky was very poor with regards to employment when compared to the rest of the nation. Michigan and the Katrina states had worse unemployment and they were the only ones.
An important point to be made is that there are countless single-person or father-son type construction contracotors. They are not employed by anyone and do not technically hold a "job". They are contractors who are hired to perform work for a fee (sometimes by general contractors but often by families/individuals) and have difficulty competing with large construction firms. When these firms hire illegals they are able to undercut these small-timers to the point of them no longer being able to compete. The amount of work theyget hired to perform is drastically reduced but they still retain their license to work what they can. Lost work for a small-time contractor does not register as being laid-off or a job lost due to downsizing and because the license is usually retained there is little evidence to be noticed when people skim the numbers.
In summary, illegal immigrants do have an effect on the job market because the companies they work for displace small-time contractors who do not have "jobs" that are lost but rather have fewer contracts that they sign.
I agree with the above post completely. As mentioned, I live and work in AZ. I was laid off due to not having enough work at my former employment. currently four illegal immigrants work at my former employment. One is actually routinely coming in drunk and missing work due to jail time (he beats his wife) yet my former employment does not fire him due to his acceptance of low pay and doing the jobs others wont do. I expect the next time he hits his wife, he wont be there no more...
<SNIP>You've summed it up pretty well. The only ones that have a problem with the law are the law breakers that it is designed to catch. </SNIP>
Absolutely (and obviously) untrue. I am a native born citizen, the law isn't designed to catch me, and I have a problem with the law. Or maybe you feel the law *should* be designed to catch me, 'cause, you know, I'm not a "real American" because I believe what I do?
It's hard to take you seriously when you say stuff like this.
I agree with the above post completely. As mentioned, I live and work in AZ. I was laid off due to not having enough work at my former employment. currently four illegal immigrants work at my former employment. One is actually routinely coming in drunk and missing work due to jail time (he beats his wife) yet my former employment does not fire him due to his acceptance of low pay and doing the jobs others wont do. I expect the next time he hits his wife, he wont be there no more...
This thread is going in circles.
Crack down on employers who choose to employ illegals == good. Racial profiling == bad.
I'm truly sorry you're unemployed, but try to see past your anger.
P.S. If you know for a fact that your former employer employees illegal aliens, report him!
I'd feel bad about reporting this particular company. Its a company that sells books to teachers and children. And I do see past my anger, I am just trying to let you readers know of some personal examples of how this law effects everyday people like you and me, and the impact illegals have.
|
I don't, for one moment, believe that only criminals have a problem with this law. It is clear that many law-abiding US citizens take issue with it. There is no reason for me to suspect that bugleyman is anything other than one such person. He has done a great job illustrating his dislike for the measure.
I have no problem seeing that some law-abiding American citizens have a serious problem with the new law, but I still don't understand why. Why is having to prove your citizenship such a big deal? I generally assume that this is the case when I am in other countries and it wouldn't bother me for a second if I had to here in the US.
Why is the new law such a big deal to law-abiding American citizens?
Tam
I could really go for some pizza right now.
|
|
Equal protection under the law is a moral and legal obligation that was put into place by the declaration of independence and the constitution. If those morals aren't your morals then that's kinda scary tbh.I'm not saying that people in charge should be telling us what is best for usPardon me, but just a few posts ago you said exactly that.We have a representative republic. In 99% of all matters, representatives should vote with the majority. These elected officials also must recognize when something that is the will of the majority is not what is either morally or legally right and be willing to go against the wishes of the majority. That is their two-fold duty as elected representatives. Hopefully this more fully explains what I meant.
I have often thought that, if I was to run for office, I would run on the platform of polling my constituents before votes. I would also make it clear that, when it came to matters of civil rights, I would take this information into account but ultimately vote in accordance with the law and what is morally right.
I've seen this sort of position from you before, and as before I ask you who exactly you think you are that you should be allowed to force your morality upon anyone? That our government is taking it upon itself to legislate morality is at the base of the problem, don't you think?
That is at the heart of it...your morality is different from my own, and therefore should not play a part in the creation of law. Nor should anyone else's.
Funny thing, equal protection under the law pretty much means, when someone who is here illegally is caught, they get a lawyer and they get to contact their Consul. Those are the only LEGAL rights they have.
The Declaration of Independence is irrelevant to the current discussion, as it is not a legal document.
|
|
For what it's worth, I see very little difference between this law and the law that requires me to show I.D. to buy beer. I must show proof that I am there legally, if I fail to do that then I can be forced to leave or be arrested. Welcome to the US of A, Happy Hour is now over.
Even better? There is no difference between this law and FEDERAL law already on the books and not being enforced.
Funny that.
|
For what it's worth, I see very little difference between this law and the law that requires me to show I.D. to buy beer. I must show proof that I am there legally, if I fail to do that then I can be forced to leave or be arrested. Welcome to the US of A, Happy Hour is now over.Even better? There is no difference between this law and FEDERAL law already on the books and not being enforced.
Funny that.
How dare they enforce the law! What gives them the right?! Oh, wait..... nevermind. ;)
P.S. I still got to get that package out for HoustonBaby, I haven't forgot, I just been lazy. :)
For what it's worth, I see very little difference between this law and the law that requires me to show I.D. to buy beer. I must show proof that I am there legally, if I fail to do that then I can be forced to leave or be arrested. Welcome to the US of A, Happy Hour is now over.Even better? There is no difference between this law and FEDERAL law already on the books and not being enforced.
Funny that.
There is a difference.
The Arizona law requires the state authorities to have stopped someone for some other violation and to have something that arouses their suspiscions before investigating immigration status.
With the federal law, none of that is necessary before hauling someone away to investigate their status.
|
|
Even better? There is no difference between this law and FEDERAL law already on the books and not being enforced.
Funny that.
Absolutely correct. What I really like is what is almost the very last lines of the law:
"C. This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens."
|
|
Montalve, No offense taken and I hope we can continue to discuss this without anyone takeing offense to someone elses beliefs.
of course, jsut wanted to make surethat I intended not to cross any personal line
your point about Phoenix is well made and I conced that point to you. As far as how the law came about w/o a majority to put it in place and then vote for it I don't know. I wish I could answer that but I really don't know.
neither do I, i just know that many cities along good part) of their income in either illegal and legal migrants and visitors... so this same cities seeing how they are afected byt this law are trying to make sure it doesn't affect them... Tucson, Phoenix, there was another one I just not.. Flag... don't remember, were going to demand the State's Goverment for an impractical and not impopular law... at least in those statements that was the posture.
they might have agreed at thebeginnign, or they might have not... the thing is that right now they are being affected for something that people feel is directed toward certain groups...
wether this is true or not is irrelevant... once an idea gets into people's head that is how they will see it, without a matter.
I could say that I went to Tucson and Nogales last weeked (my sister was ehre and my parent's decided to take her shopping, gthey don't see her that often) andwe had no trouble at all. Just a afroamerican ignored me when I asked something, but meh :P
wanted to check the used books stores, snif those shops are beautiful
I am curious to know what reforms you are talking about in your earlier post. I would love to see some serious reforms take place but I'm guessing that my ideas and yours wouldn't match exactly so can you please explain what reforms you would like to see so I can have a better understanding of what your saying.
i am speaking in general... i know in your side people demand an immigration reform... i am just talking about politicians in general.. damn we need many many f#%%ing reforms and thos sons of the b@@~*es politicians just sit on their assesmaking money for themselves...
so no i don't know your law or which reforms i think you need, but what i have read is thatindeed there are things needed but political "factors" stop this from happening.. its the same anywhere
The major thing I wish to address is your position that we the US are whining about IRAN. The major reason IRAN is a threat is because they have admitted they would use them as an aggressor not in defense. They would use them to wipe out israel for religious reasons and nothing else. The immigration debate has no comparision because while some lives may be lost it can not compare to the massive lose of life IRAN would cause by gaining such destructive power.
it was just lame example :P
the thing with Itan is a deep problem that has all to do with the creation of Israel and this country's agresive , hey they need that to survive there.. soi don't critizise... but that general region indeed is chaotic...one point of USA protecting Israel and not Iran is becuase they ahve interest in the are and Israel is an opening there, so I understand they keeping tabs on their resources and allies.
but in the end is the same... your goberment complains about the repercusions of a country of beginning somethigng agaisnt their "people" its obvious our president will complain (if nothing more, which is nothing but a gesture to appease OUR people) dying and being mistreated...
see it like a politician... he does the movement his people expects of him... we wouldn't have otherwise, or we would crisify him... that is how it works... it doesn't matter if arizona's gobernor is right or not, it doesn't matterif Obama is the president of the most powerful country or not...
we expect our president to put his pants and stand, if nothing else agaisnt something like this... so yeah he b%+*$es about it... good he is doing at elast taht part of his job
what he says won't change a bit... unless they decided to close the borders... bad movement unless we can find someone else to trade... (we have, but being realist most of what we sell we sell it to usa) and we buy a lot of things from you... i doubt the problem scalates... but economically its perjudicial to both nations.
I'd feel bad about reporting this particular company. Its a company that sells books to teachers and children. And I do see past my anger, I am just trying to let you readers know of some personal examples of how this law effects everyday people like you and me, and the impact illegals have.
That's a tough, tough spot. I can't claim to understand, but I do appreciate that you feel stuck between a rock and a hard place. :(
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS* THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
*(emphasis mine)
Apparently, "lawful contact" has been changed to "lawful stop, detention or arrest," though I couldn't find the exact text of the changes in context.
My problem is this: "Where reasonable suspicion exists" is dangerously vague. What constitutes "reasonable suspicion?" I don't see how anyone can assure that race and/or culture won't play a factor. For the record, I'd be fine with the bill if the police were to simply check everyone they arrest as a matter of course.
For those saying this is identical to federal law -- can someone provide a reference? I'm not familiar with anything like "where reasonable suspicion exists," but then again IANAL.
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS* THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).*(emphasis mine)
Apparently, "lawful contact" has been changed to "lawful stop, detention or arrest," though I couldn't find the exact text of the changes in context.
My problem is this: "Where reasonable suspicion exists" is dangerously vague. What constitutes "reasonable suspicion?" I don't see how anyone can assure that race and/or culture won't play a factor. For the record, I'd be fine with the bill if the police were to simply check everyone they arrest as a matter of course.
For those saying this is identical to federal law -- can someone provide a reference? I'm not familiar with anything like "where reasonable suspicion exists," but then again IANAL.
I believe there are other laws that deal with "reasonable suspicion", and there have most likely been court cases that helped define this for those other laws. Most cops aren't going to take an unnecessarily liberal interpretation of the law and risk a good collar.
|
|
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS* THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).*(emphasis mine)
Apparently, "lawful contact" has been changed to "lawful stop, detention or arrest," though I couldn't find the exact text of the changes in context.
My problem is this: "Where reasonable suspicion exists" is dangerously vague. What constitutes "reasonable suspicion?" I don't see how anyone can assure that race and/or culture won't play a factor. For the record, I'd be fine with the bill if the police were to simply check everyone they arrest as a matter of course.
For those saying this is identical to federal law -- can someone provide a reference? I'm not familiar with anything like "where reasonable suspicion exists," but then again IANAL.
in case law where officers are found to have acted legally (mostly Fed circuit courts, I didn't have much access to Texas state law in the joint), basically it is anything out of the ordinary. No insurance, out of date registration, more than common unease with being stopped, not stopping, no I.D. (you get a ticket for driving without proof of license most places, generally the judge will dismiss if you go to court and show a valid license), intoxication, marijuana smell, visible paraphernalia, too much activity in the cabin as officer approaches, etc. Any of those can trigger a search of the vehicle, and I presume Arizona is using that precedent to carry over to immigration checks.
Coincidentally, the Feds have no such restrictions, at least within 50 miles of the border.
The verbiage of the Arizona law echos Fed law, but is actually more restrictive in how officers may approach the situation. I think it is hyperbole to assume it is going to be a "round up the Hispanics" free-for-all in Arizona, as civil rights is the one arena where no one gets to hide behind the shield in this country. I'm pretty sure the cops (for the most part, there are always overzealous, or just plain assholish, ones) will be judicious, but strict, in the application of these rules. People who stay off the radar will probably continue to do so, but people who do something to prompt official contact should probably hope they're legit.
Feds really
|
|
Georgia college student Illegal alien it is going to court to see if she will be deported. The ACLU is saying the law which restrained her is one reserved for violent offenders only. She was blocking traffic in her car and was cited for doing so. Then they found she doesn't have a drivers licence.
Naaah....we'd just do the same thing to their political leaders who need cardiac surgery.
|
|
Barack Obama: "And thats when I sent the tanks into Arizona..."
Arizona Just keep provoking some kind of race hate thing.
|
|
Wow...do you think Canada should build a security fence with watch towers and marksmen to keep out the economic refugees comming in from the USA?What economic refuges?? I more Canadians who have moved here because the living expenses are much lower.
Right up to the point where you get sick and your insurance dont cover it.
Barack Obama: "And thats when I sent the tanks into Arizona..."
Arizona Just keep provoking some kind of race hate thing.
It is funny, someone above said they would be fine with the ID check issue if everyone had to do it. This possible law would require anyone who wanted to get on the ballot to provide evidence of their legal "natural born status", not just people that are "questionable". And yet it is still "racist".
Would it be wrong of me, at this late point in the discussion, to suggest that the Hispanic protesters are not helping themselves by waiving Mexican flags?
Since they are protesting that the law would be unfair to Hispanic Americans, should they not be waiving American flags?
Would it be wrong of me, at this late point in the discussion, to suggest that the Hispanic protesters are not helping themselves by waiving Mexican flags?
Since they are protesting that the law would be unfair to Hispanic Americans, should they not be waiving American flags?
I would agree.
At least with respect to those who are waving the flags, it appears the anger is not regarding race but rather the crackdown on illegal aliens from Mexico.
Would it be wrong of me, at this late point in the discussion, to suggest that the Hispanic protesters are not helping themselves by waiving Mexican flags?
Since they are protesting that the law would be unfair to Hispanic Americans, should they not be waiving American flags?
I would agree.
At least with respect to those who are waving the flags, it appears the anger is not regarding race but rather the crackdown on illegal aliens from Mexico.
The thing is that they are claiming is about race (rightly so, in my opinion).
But waiving Mexican flags is really bad tactics. Doing so will tend to push people who would otherwise have been "on-the-fence" or indifferent towards the law into support for it.
|
|
The thing is that they are claiming is about race (rightly so, in my opinion).
But waiving Mexican flags is really bad tactics. Doing so will tend to push people who would otherwise have been "on-the-fence" or indifferent towards the law into support for it.
Well, the Arizon law is really about whether or not someone is in the country illegally or otherwise breaking state/federal law.
And yes, waving the Mexican flag is a bad tactic. Whether the message they are sending is one of solidarity with the poor, down trodden, taken advantage of, illegal aliens or one of Mexican nationalism and anti American sentiment.
In either case, whichever is their true intent, I would believe it is within their first amendment right to free speach.
If all they are really doing is protesting what they see as an unjust law, I fail to grasp or understand the significance of what waving a foriegn nations flag has to do with that.
|
|
The thing is that they are claiming is about race (rightly so, in my opinion).
But waiving Mexican flags is really bad tactics. Doing so will tend to push people who would otherwise have been "on-the-fence" or indifferent towards the law into support for it.
Well, the Arizon law is really about whether or not someone is in the country illegally or otherwise breaking state/federal law.
And yes, waving the Mexican flag is a bad tactic. Whether the message they are sending is one of solidarity with the poor, down trodden, taken advantage of, illegal aliens or one of Mexican nationalism and anti American sentiment.
In either case, whichever is their true intent, I would believe it is within their first amendment right to free speach.
If all they are really doing is protesting what they see as an unjust law, I fail to grasp or understand the significance of what waving a foriegn nations flag has to do with that.
Unless they are showing support for the new Arizona law?
It's really less strict than mexican law on illegal immigration (quoted from a Washinton Times article):
"Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.
The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," violate Mexican law, are not "physically or mentally healthy" or lack the "necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents."
Go to Washington Times Article.
Would it be wrong of me, at this late point in the discussion, to suggest that the Hispanic protesters are not helping themselves by waiving Mexican flags?
Since they are protesting that the law would be unfair to Hispanic Americans, should they not be waiving American flags?
I would agree.
At least with respect to those who are waving the flags, it appears the anger is not regarding race but rather the crackdown on illegal aliens from Mexico.
The thing is that they are claiming is about race (rightly so, in my opinion).
But waiving Mexican flags is really bad tactics. Doing so will tend to push people who would otherwise have been "on-the-fence" or indifferent towards the law into support for it.
You believe it is rightly about race and I believe it is wrongly about race...
But, something that is overlooked is the involvement of many groups with the rally organization that have strong ties to Mexican Nationalism and the desire to annex back the southwest.
A few years ago when ICE was cracking down on workplaces that hired illegal immigrants there were protests that were much larger. They were organized by the groups mentioned above and the Mexican flag was everywhere in the protests. The situation was not like the tea party rallies where the media would zoom in and show a couple/few signs calling Obama a NAZI. In these cases, the photographers would pann back to show large sections of the crowd and the Mexican flag was practically every other demonstraor.
Note: practically every other demonstrator was participating in holding up/spreading out a flag rather than there existing one flag for every other person. It takes several people to hold up and spread out a flag for viewing...
This was in 2007 when the worst of the Iraq war was occurring and US servicemen were being regularly brought back in caskets draped with the American flag. There was a major backlash and the flags practically disappeared at the next protest with American flags being waved instead. But, many people, myself included, had already come to the decision that this Mexican nationalism was a major motivating factor in the protest and that the removal of such flags with their replacement by American flags was a calculated staged stunt with the original displays being the true feelings held by those demonstrators.
A point to be made was that although these protests had been treated by the media as grass roots movements they had been heavily organized by the above mentioned groups with Mexican Nationalist agendas. Their organization and PR was a big part of the reason for how quickly the change in flag display occurred.
I specifically stated that I agreed the current displays were in bad taste and made a point of adding the caveat of only applying it to those who were waving the Mexican flag for a reason. I specifically believe that those who were waving the Mexican flag were specifically doing it with the same Mexican nationalism ideals that were occurring prior. I intentionally chose to explicitly not apply this to those who were not waving Mexican flags because they weren't waving Mexican flags.
To sum it up, I believe those who ARE waving the Mexican flags are doing so because they have a larger agenda than merely criticizing (sp?) this law as racist.
Note: As always, one can claim exceptions, but with this case I believe it is using hyperbole. So, sure, some do it without trying to push a Mexican nationalist agenda. But, when compared to how widespread it occurred in the past and how quickly it changed once the backlash was felt, I think most still doing so are hardcore Mexican nationalists who believe the border needs to be changed.
I think people have been overlooking an important point related to what I pointed out earlier.
Arizona is a crossing point where illegal immigrants enter and funnel out to the rest of the US. That is why drug cartels use them to pipeline drugs from Mexico throughout the US.
Note: This is not implying that all or even a lot of illegal immigrants are drug couriers. I am stating that because they are illegal to begin with, the drug cartels make use of (however many it takes of) them to deliver their drugs.
This influence of the drug cartels and their moving into Arizona is directly related to Phoenix becoming the kidnapping capital of the US.
But now its members are living in fear as they are stalked by kidnappers after their proceeds, authorities say.Police in the desert city say specialized kidnap rings are snatching suspected criminals and their families from their homes, running them off the roads and even grabbing them at shopping malls in a spiraling spate of abductions.
"Phoenix is ground zero for illegal narcotics smuggling and illegal human smuggling in the United States," said Phil Roberts, a Phoenix Police Department detective.
"There's a lot of illegal cash out there in the valley, and a lot of people want to get their hands on it."
Last year alone, Phoenix police reported 357 extortion-related abductions -- up by nearly half from 2005 -- targeting individuals with ties to Mexican smuggling rings.
In addition, federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement police have also recorded cases of kidnappers snatching illegal immigrant day laborers off the street for ransom.
Agents have also recorded a growing number of "virtual kidnappings," in which abductors cold-call an immigrant's family falsely claiming that they are holding them hostage. The tactic is used frequently Mexico, where abduction is a lucrative and sophisticated industry.
So, this problem is directly related to the human and drug smuggling operations. This is an enormous reason for why Arizona has taken action.
Why not just make them all legal so as to not be targets of these criminals?
Because their presence really does affect (alter and reduce) the livelihoods of family farm and family business owners throughout the US as I pointed out previously.
Allowing illegal immigrants free access (legal entry) is an unacceptable burden upon people (family farm owners and family business owners) throughout the US. Removal of the population of illegal immigrants would greatly inhibit the operation of drug cartels working within Arizona and that is the reasoning behind the state taking action rather than passively allowing illegal entry by leaving it up to the (in)actions of the federal government.
I think it is unfair to label the Arizona law as being racist.
1. Does Arizona have significant reasons for trying to curtail illegal immigration?
Yes: competition with in-state (as well as out-of-state) legal businesses AND (the biggie) reducing the crime (kidnapping, drug-running) that is related to the illegal immigration.
2. Does the law allow the cops to stop anyone (most likely hispanic) to find out if they are illegal?
No. They must be part of some other legitimate stop such as a traffic violation.
3. But, can't the police make up a reason for stopping someone to justify their racial profiling?
Police CAN do lots of things. That does not make it right, it does not make such things widespread, and it does not mean that such practices (the lawful implementations) should be stopped.
Police can and have pulled over minorities and used the pull-over as an excuse for doing car searches and the like. This does not make the need (by law enforcement in general as opposed to specifically those who do so wrongly) to perform such actions to disappear and the fact that it can happen does not invalidate such actions from being performed. Courts have settled this. If it did, cops would not be allowed to ever search cars they pulled over.
But, cops are allowed to determine if it is reasonable to suspect something and take actions accordingly.
They do not need to have 100% proof and police can choose to investigate things when indicators of some form of criminal activity are present.
Arguing that the law should be repealed because they CAN use it as an excuse to racially profile is a bad one IMO, because the set of circumstances allowing investigation are similar to those for many other laws.
The "stereotypical" white person and the "stereotypical" black person can both carry drugs in their vehicles. The fact that SOME (specifically a few) officers (illegally) racially profile when choosing whose car to search is something worth complaining about (and taking steps to fix) but it does not invalidate the need for law enforcement to determine which vehicles are running drugs and use their judgement to determine which ones to investigate further.
The "stereotypical" white person and the "stereotypical" hispanic person can both be present in the US illegally. The fact that SOME (specifically a few) officers will (illegally) racially profile when choosing whose car to pull over (with the intention of determining immigration status) is something worth complaining about (and taking steps to fix) but it does not invalidate the need for law enforcement to determine who is here illegally and use their judgement to determine who(m?) to investigate.
End Note:
Since a much larger portion of the "stereotypical" hispanic population is here illegally than the "stereotypical" white population it should be no surprise that a much larger portion of that hispanic population would display indicators of being illegal than the white population with a much lower percentage of illegals. So, not surprisingly, a much larger portion of one ethnicity would be investigated than the other because their is a much higher incidence rate of the illegal activity among one group than the other.
Note: By "stereotypical" I am simly referring to whatever is the image that a person is visualizing of a particular group when that person argues that said group will be harassed or given a pass based upon being a member of such a group.