Who tends to blow themselves up? Muslim Extremists (certainly not babies and little old ladies).
Who tends to assassinate doctors? Christian extremists.
Who tends to blow up buildings? American military veterans who distrust the federal government and are really into guns.
What, you think we shouldn't profile white conservative Christian veteran gun owners? Political correctness gone mad! Just ask the Moonie Times. Thin-skinned nutjobs.
|
I have a much better solution to all of this. Lets start the largest construction project in North America. We can connect the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. It will be the New Panama Canal. Not only will this give thousands of jobs to help the unemployed have jobs butit is very hard to swim a 100 yard moat with 24 tall steel walls. Tunnels "we do need know stinkin'tunnels". It also saves energy in fuel waste for oil tankers and the like. If not I say a Phalanx system every two miles along the border and a no mans land on both sides of the country. like Israel.
Why do all this to keep people who want to come to this country for a better life, because these people are willing to break the law to get here which means they are willing to break the law once they get here. If they want to get here they can come in legally and actually become citizens by taking the tests and learning our history and our language. Is it racial profiling, duh, it because hoards of Canadian's aren't swarming Washington, Montana, and North Dakota. It's Hispanic's for Mexico. It's not like the chinese are coming from Mexico to get here. If it was swarms of Merman swarming California i would think the same. There is a right way to be here and a wrong way to be a citizen and breaking the law is not one of them. This is the only problem I have with whole thing. And no Amnesty...thank you.
|
It's not about being thin-skinned or afraid. It's about putting in place mechanisms to treat people differently based on race. No matter how noble the original motivation, history teaches us that such systems *will* eventually be abused.
Certainly, there will be those that abuse power...
BUT...
If there is a evil bad kitten rapist on the loose, and he is described as being blue with red freckles, then is it reasonable to detain green people with white freckles?
My example while strange, illustrates my point...
If the floods of illegal immigrants are mostly Latino in origin...
IMO, pretty cut and dry actually...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
It's not about being thin-skinned or afraid. It's about putting in place mechanisms to treat people differently based on race. No matter how noble the original motivation, history teaches us that such systems *will* eventually be abused.Certainly, there will be those that abuse power...
BUT...
If there is a evil bad kitten rapist on the loose, and he is described as being blue with red freckles, then is it reasonable to detain green people with white freckles?
My example while strange, illustrates my point...
If the floods of illegal immigrants are mostly Latino in origin...
IMO, pretty cut and dry actually...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Oddly, my comment to which you responded has disappeared (at least for me; note to board dev: mutexes are your friend ;-) ).
Your example is of a specific instance. A better analogy would be if we subsequently assume that all blue people with red freckles are also rapists, and treat them as such until proven otherwise.
While there is certainly an attractive practicality to what you advocate, the price is just too high.
Who tends to blow themselves up? Muslim Extremists (certainly not babies and little old ladies).Who tends to assassinate doctors? Christian extremists.
Who tends to blow up buildings? American military veterans who distrust the federal government and are really into guns.
What, you think we shouldn't profile white conservative Christian veteran gun owners? Political correctness gone mad! Just ask the Moonie Times. Thin-skinned nutjobs.
How many times does it have to happen before it becomes a 'tendency'?
|
|
Some extremely amusing anecdotes
While I am indeed pro-life, I do not however, advocate blowing up abortion clinics, or killing doctors that perform abortions. Nor do I give much credence to those anti-government groups calling themselves militias...
You know damn well what I meant...
You just wanted to be obtuse! ;-P
|
The vast majority of illegal immigrants in Arizona are Hispanic; no one is denying that. When one claims that, as a group, illegal immigrants are violent criminals to a disproportionate degree, what one is really saying is that Hispanics are violent criminals to a disproportionate degree.
First I'd like to point out that hispanic* is not a race, so it could not become a a basis for racist discrimination. Furthermore I still don't see you providing quotes of explicit statements that any race, or even illegal immigrants are violent criminals.
Not sure how you came to this xenophobic conclusion as nobody has posted within this thread that they have a problem with legal immigration.
*Hispanic (coined by Jimmy Carter IIRC) is what I personally dub a supra race (like white, black, or asian), one of those 'catch all' terms for people who belong to any of a throng of races used to make labeling easier.
|
|
I tell you, it's those Mexicans. Except for a few "clean" ones, they're criminals. Plus, who wants a bunch of young workers? It's not like we have an aging population and longer life spans, or anything.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go reflect on Moral Superiority by Accident of Birth.
Anyone who crosses a the border without a visa and a passport is, by definition, a criminal. Hate to break it to you.
If Washington would bother to enforce current immigration laws, Arizona wouldn't be in the position of having to take matters into their own hands.
But, that's cool, not enforcing immigration laws made it much easier for people like me to smuggle in massive amounts of drugs, so, whatever.
|
|
In this very thread there is an assumption shared by many that immigrants are more likely to be criminals than natives, an idea that is:Not saying I agree with the law.. But I would like to make one point..
If they are an Illegal immigrant, then they are a criminal.
Just to clarify, "illegal" does not equal "criminal".
Adultery is illegal. People who commit adultery are not criminals. It can be dangerous to conflate the two terms.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled flamewar.
Edit: I'll point out that entering the country or remaining there without a visa is considered a crime, albeit not a felony, as was mentioned in another post.
First time offense is not a felony, it is a Federal misdemeanor. Any subsequent illegal entry is, in fact, a felony.
|
|
The vast majority of illegal immigrants in Arizona are Hispanic; no one is denying that. When one claims that, as a group, illegal immigrants are violent criminals to a disproportionate degree, what one is really saying is that Hispanics are violent criminals to a disproportionate degree.First I'd like to point out that hispanic* is not a race, so it could not become a a basis for racist discrimination. Furthermore I still don't see you providing quotes of explicit statements that any race, or even illegal immigrants are violent criminals.
Not sure how you came to this xenophobic conclusion as nobody has posted within this thread that they have a problem with legal immigration.
*Hispanic (coined by Jimmy Carter IIRC) is what I personally dub a supra race (like white, black, or asian), one of those 'catch all' terms for people who belong to any of a throng of races used to make labeling easier.
Hispanic was coined by the Romans to describe people from Hispanola, i.e. Iberia, i.e. Spain. The term was first used in the U.S. by Puerto Ricans as a self identifier. It was only been in the last thirty years that it has been universally applied to pretty much all Spanish and Portuguese speaking people. Whether or not Carter was the first to use it as such? Dunno.
Anyone who crosses a the border without a visa and a passport is, by definition, a criminal. Hate to break it to you.
You're not "breaking" anything to anyone. The semantics have been debated to death upthread; I refer you there if you're truly interested. I, for one, am done with it.
If Washington would bother to enforce current immigration laws, Arizona wouldn't be in the position of having to take matters into their own hands.
This is absolutely true, if not relevant to the issue of whether AZ's law will lead to racial profiling.
But, that's cool, not enforcing immigration laws made it much easier for people like me to smuggle in massive amounts of drugs, so, whatever.
I have no idea what this has to do with anything in this thread. I'm not arguing federal immigration laws shouldn't be enforced. I'm arguing that this isn't the way to do it.
Furthermore I still don't see you providing quotes of explicit statements that any race, or even illegal immigrants are violent criminals.
No? How about:
<SNIP>
I have personal experiance with an illegal that broke into his ex-girlfriends apartment while she was showering and began beating her. I and my roommate responded from upstairs and I fought him off of her while my roommate got her to safety. The really sad part came the next day when he ignored the restraining order, snuck in at night through a window and raped her at knife point. The police knew who he was and he even boasted to her in a letter that he was safe back in mexico and that it was her fault for breaking up with him because she damaged his honor or some sort of machismo BS.
This is indicitive of the illegal mindset. Look at the crime rates for california. I think the L.A. times did an article about how 95% of all murder warrents were for illegals.* </SNIP>
Aside from not really understanding what "personal" experience means, I'd say this is pretty darn clear. Or do you think that "95% of all murder warrents" [sic] in L.A. are actually "for illegals," as Mr. Tindall claims?
And then there's this:
<SNIP>Phoenix is the #2 city IN THE WORLD for kidnappings. Mexico is #1. If I am not mistaken, a large portion (if not the greater portion) of this is from the illegal immigrants population.*</SNIP>
No data. Just "if I'm not mistaken." Are you kidding me?
And those are just from this thread.
*emphasis mine
Edit: I can see how TigerDave may have made an honest error. But how can you take what Tindall said as anything but xenophobic and racist? "Something bad once happened to an acquaintance of someone I know, so violence must be indicative of the illegal mindset."
WTF?
I understand where you are coming from bugleyman... But I have to ask you why you aren't ranting about all the other profiling "travesties?"
((Note, I am using television shows like Criminal Minds for the base numbers of my statistics, not any linkable source. So take the numbers given with a grain of salt.))
When some insanely high percentage of arsonists, like 96%+, are male, is it gender profiling when looking for an arsonist authorities focus on men?
When some insanely high percentage of serial killers, like 90%+, are white men, should we be outraged when authorities are looking for white men when looking for a serial killer?
((Also, should I be outraged when I fit 90%+ of the profiles given in Criminal Minds?))
If an insanely high percentage of illegal immigrants in Arizona are Mexican, why should we be outraged when the authorities look at Mexicans to see if they are illegal immigrants? (Feel free to replace the word Mexican with whatever term is preferred.)
As long as the law remains "identity checking" and not "arrest then check identity" I think it has to be a necessary evil.
I mean, if anyone expects to enforce the restriction of illegal immigration.
I understand where you are coming from bugleyman... But I have to ask you why you are ranting about all the other profiling "travesties?"
((Note, I am using television shows like Criminal Minds for the base numbers of my statistics, not any linkable source. So take the numbers given with a grain of salt.))
When some insanely high percentage of arsonists, like 96%+, are male, is it gender profiling when looking for an arsonist authorities focus on men?
When some insanely high percentage of serial killers, like 90%+, are white men, should we be outraged when authorities are looking for white men when looking for a serial killer?
((Also, should I be outraged when I fit 90%+ of the profiles given in Criminal Minds?))
If an insanely high percentage of illegal immigrants in Arizona are Mexican, why should we be outraged when the authorities look at Mexicans to see if they are illegal immigrants? (Feel free to replace the word Mexican with whatever term is preferred.)
As long as the law remains "identity checking" and not "arrest then check identity" I think it has to be a necessary evil.
I mean, if anyone expects to enforce the restriction of illegal immigration.
I don't recall mentioning other profiling "travesties" (your word, not mine).
If one really wanted to restrict illegal immigration, one would attack the source of the problem: Those who employee illegals. Remove the incentive. But that's really beside the point.
If a police officer detained me and questioned me for a serial murder strictly because I'm a white male, then yeah, you'd better believe I'd have a problem with it. In the case of stopping people due to race, yeah, it might be effective. But it does far more harm than good, and not just to the victims of profiling.
I don't recall mentioning other profiling "travesties" (your word, not mine).
Sorry. Typo. Edited previous post. I meant "you aren't"
If one really wanted to restrict illegal immigration, one would attack the source of the problem: Those who employee illegals. Remove the incentive. But that's really beside the point.
Now you are doing profiling of your own, suggesting that everyone who hires an illegal immigrant is the source of all illegal immigration.
When I know from personal experience that some people who hire illegal immigrants do so in an attempt to help those people not be a drain to the country. I'm not suggesting the theory is sound.
|
If one really wanted to restrict illegal immigration, one would attack the source of the problem: Those who employee illegals. Remove the incentive.
I saw something really interesting the other day about incentive in a comment to an article. The point was made that another incentive to illegal immigration is "if your kid is born here it's an American citizen". Specifically, they called out the 14th Ammendment,
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The comment theorized that the bold part above could be interpreted to mean that an illegal immigrant is subject to the jursidiction of their home country first, thus the child should be a citizen of that country. Not sure how that would actually fly in the face of decades of legal precedent.
I don't recall mentioning other profiling "travesties" (your word, not mine).Sorry. Typo. Edited previous post. I meant "you aren't"
If one really wanted to restrict illegal immigration, one would attack the source of the problem: Those who employee illegals. Remove the incentive. But that's really beside the point.Now you are doing profiling of your own, suggesting that everyone who hires an illegal immigrant is the source of all illegal immigration.
When I know from personal experience that some people who hire illegal immigrants do so in an attempt to help those people not be a drain to the country. I'm not suggesting the theory is sound.
Fair enough. I just believe that, in general, attacking the supply is wrongheaded, when we should be going after the demand. Look at drugs: Attacking the supply just drives up the price, which creates more of an incentive for people to smuggle and sell drugs.
I don't think it's profiling to suggest that people wouldn't move illegally if they couldn't get jobs, but maybe I'm missing your point?
No worries on the typo; I was confused on my end as well.
Director of Narrative
|
The first illegal immigrant I met was this Canadian chick from Saskatchewan or Manitoba (or one of those other made up places way north in the magical land of Canadia ;)). She worked at the same restaurant as me for 10 years before going back to Canada voluntarily (this time to Vancouver). We also made her an unofficial Official Texan.
The first illegal immigrant I met was this Canadian chick from Saskatchewan or Manitoba (or one of those other made up places way north in the magical land of Canadia ;)). She worked at the same restaurant as me for 10 years before going back to Canada voluntarily (this time to Vancouver). We also made her an unofficial Official Texan.
Surely she only worked at your restaurant when she wasn't kidnapping or raping people, right? Or is that only the bad, dark illegals? =P
I'm a police officer in a large Texas city, which has a pretty high number of illegal/undocumented aliens/immigrants. It ticks me off when I arrest one for a crime, but I don't care about the non-criminal ones.
I don't have statistics, but I do have first-hand experience. The vast majority of illegal immigrants that I deal with are just looking to make a better life. Most of them try to keep their heads down and avoid bringing the law on them and their families. One of the officers that I work with used to himself be an illegal immigrant. (He was born in Mexico and smuggled into America as a young child. When he was an adult, he went through the legal process to become a citizen, which took several years. He then became a police officer several years after that.) I can say with conviction that most crimes (property/personal crimes) are not done by illegal immigrants, although that is not to say that none of them are. I suspect that it's proportionately smaller than the population.
This law is insane and leads only to racial profiling. It is absolutely clear to me what the message says to law enforcement, because I am law enforcement. The only law I can morally support in regards to illegal immigration is checking the status of those who are arrested for serious crimes, as we have an obligation to remove the (proportionately small) criminal aliens.
The comment theorized that the bold part above could be interpreted to mean that an illegal immigrant is subject to the jursidiction of their home country first, thus the child should be a citizen of that country. Not sure how that would actually fly in the face of decades of legal precedent.
No matter what country you are a citizen of, you are subject to American jurisdiction when you are on American soil. Likewise, if you go to a foreign country, you are subject to their laws and jurisdiction.
How many of you have actually read the statute in question?
Fair enough. I just believe that, in general, attacking the supply is wrongheaded, when we should be going after the demand. Look at drugs: Attacking the supply just drives up the price, which creates more of an incentive for people to smuggle and sell drugs.
I don't think it's profiling to suggest that people wouldn't move illegally if they couldn't get jobs, but maybe I'm missing your point?
First, I only said it was profiling to claim employers were the problem for illegal immigration by hiring illegal immigrants. As if they were hiring them specifically to cause more illegal immigration.
As to the rest... It just muddies the thread a bit. It could be taken from your posts (I wish to stress before hand that I am not trying to suggest this is what you meant) that the growers, producers, and smugglers of cocaine (as one example) aren't responsible, and only the users should be prosecuted.
In the end, all sources of the problem need to be addressed, almost simultaneously, if anything meaningful is to be accomplished. And if that is done, you will get to see just how much of a second class citizen illegal Mexicans will become. (I.e.: If it was considered criminal activity to hire illegal immigrants, or to support them in any way [such as giving them money on the street, or food], just imagine how all Mexicans would be treated then.)
How many of you have actually read the statute in question?
I did. Well, at least the beginning of it. I couldn't get very far into it.
|
|
The comment theorized that the bold part above could be interpreted to mean that an illegal immigrant is subject to the jursidiction of their home country first, thus the child should be a citizen of that country. Not sure how that would actually fly in the face of decades of legal precedent.No matter what country you are a citizen of, you are subject to American jurisdiction when you are on American soil. Likewise, if you go to a foreign country, you are subject to their laws and jurisdiction.
True, but isn't a foreigner who is accused of a crime here entitled to contact their home embassy for assitance, same as an American abroad? Therefore, it could be interpreted that the home country takes precedent and has the primary jurisdiction. At least, that is what the comment I mentioned was arguing for when the ammendment was written shortly after the Civil War.
|
|
Fair enough. I just believe that, in general, attacking the supply is wrongheaded, when we should be going after the demand. Look at drugs: Attacking the supply just drives up the price, which creates more of an incentive for people to smuggle and sell drugs.
Thanks for the belly laugh!
Wow, seriously. You don't actually believe that drugs cost more now than they did before the "War on Drugs" really started rocking in the Eighties, do you?
No, no and no. Sorry.
|
|
Just read the statute. They built themselves a pretty sweet loophole in there.
20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
What it doesn't clarify is what is "lawful contact." Passing someone walking down the street and initiating a conversation is lawful, is it not? Additionally:
38 Sec. 3. Title 13, chapter 15, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
39 adding section 13-1509, to read:
40 13-1509. Trespassing by illegal aliens; assessment; exception;
41 classification
42 A. IN ADDITION TO ANY VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW, A PERSON IS GUILTY OF
43 TRESPASSING IF THE PERSON IS BOTH:
44 1. PRESENT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LAND IN THIS STATE.
45 2. IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1304(e) OR 1306(a).
So they've said that being in the state without a green card is now considered trespassing. Given the intent of this legislation, I am positive that this is not going to be used solely to tack on additional penalties when somebody is found to be illegal. It is opening the door for officers to stop anyone they suspect of being illegal since they are now violating the law (circular logic FTL).
Furthermore (and Godwin be damned), are we really going to allow police officers to run around in the USA acting like Gestapo officers?
It would also be nice to note that this is the same state that is giving birthers credence by requiring all officials to produce a birth certificate to be placed on the ballot in their state.
BLUF: this policy encourages racial profiling and gestapo-like tactics...a buddy of mine summed it up fairly well:
So I remember this one time back in WWII Germany where you had to show the Nazis your paperwork proving you weren't jewish if you looked questionably jewish. I also remember a time in Arizona where you had to show your paperwork proving you weren't foreign if you looked questionably foreign. Wait a minute...
What it doesn't clarify is what is "lawful contact." Passing someone walking down the street and initiating a conversation is lawful, is it not?
"Lawful contact" is not a conversation on the sidewalk. Lawful contact requires a situation where the policeman has already detained the individual, such as for a traffic stop.
"Reasonable suspicion" requires evidence that leads the police officer to suspect lawbreaking. Case law has repeatedly affirmed that ethnicity is not an acceptable criterion for such.So they've said that being in the state without a green card is now considered trespassing. Given the intent of this legislation, I am positive that this is not going to be used solely to tack on additional penalties when somebody is found to be illegal. It is opening the door for officers to stop anyone they suspect of being illegal since they are now violating the law (circular logic FTL).
And such an arrest would end up in front of the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where it will die a messy death. They're clearly trying to give local law enforcement the same capabilities as the Border Patrol, since the Feds have obviously failed to control illegal immigration.
|
|
What it doesn't clarify is what is "lawful contact." Passing someone walking down the street and initiating a conversation is lawful, is it not?"Lawful contact" is not a conversation on the sidewalk. Lawful contact requires a situation where the policeman has already detained the individual, such as for a traffic stop.
"Reasonable suspicion" requires evidence that leads the police officer to suspect lawbreaking. Case law has repeatedly affirmed that ethnicity is not an acceptable criterion for such.
So they've said that being in the state without a green card is now considered trespassing. Given the intent of this legislation, I am positive that this is not going to be used solely to tack on additional penalties when somebody is found to be illegal. It is opening the door for officers to stop anyone they suspect of being illegal since they are now violating the law (circular logic FTL).And such an arrest would end up in front of the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where it will die a messy death. They're clearly trying to give local law enforcement the same capabilities as the Border Patrol, since the Feds have obviously failed to control illegal immigration.
Given that they have now made it a crime to be on ANY land, public or private if you are not a citizen, how does one define reasonable suspicion? By merely being on public property, they have potentially committed a crime, have they not? As written, this law could be used to ask anybody for paperwork proving immigration status at any time. And you know as well as I how long it takes for court cases to be decided. The fact that this type of bill wasn't laughed down when introduced says something about the sad state of affairs the country is in right now.
EDIT: And where is this definition of lawful contact you're using coming from? I did a search on a legal dictionary and yielded no results. I think that's something that should have been clarified IMO.
You know damn well what I meant...
I do know what you meant, which is why I posted what I did. If you think racial profiling is a great idea, let's start rounding up white Christian veterans and making them prove they're not storing up big piles of fertilizer.
Hell, the most famous and successful terrorist organization in American history was a white veterans' organization. They rode around lynching people and wearing sheets. If you think it's absurd to treat all white people you come across as potential Klansmen, you should think it's just as absurd to treat any brown person you come across as a potential illegal who should be under obligation to prove otherwise.
If you think there's some excuse to treat non-whites worse than whites, we have a word for that.
|
|
You know damn well what I meant...I do know what you meant, which is why I posted what I did. If you think racial profiling is a great idea, let's start rounding up white Christian veterans and making them prove they're not storing up big piles of fertilizer.
Hell, the most famous and successful terrorist organization in American history was a white veterans' organization. They rode around lynching people and wearing sheets. If you think it's absurd to treat all white people you come across as potential Klansmen, you should think it's just as absurd to treat any brown person you come across as a potential illegal who should be under obligation to prove otherwise.
If you think there's some excuse to treat non-whites worse than whites, we have a word for that.
Bigot?
Racist?Worthlesswasteofair?
Redneck? /rant
Sorry, I just cannot stand ignorant racists. Plus this whole tea party thing with them wanting to start militias is just too reminiscent of the civil war. As soon as s#@% starts goin down I'm grabbing my family and headin for canada. The last thing I need are some ignorant teabagging militiamen harrassing (or worse) my family because I'm white, my wife is black, and to top it all off we had the audacity to breed.
|
Take it as you will, but I find it more than a bit humorous that the folks who complain about illegal immigration into the US are complaining about people who are coming into a country that was founded by what today would be referred to as illegal immigrants ... and particularly violent ones at that.
I don't think your historical analogy is sound. IIRC the immigration policy of early America was basically open.
The first race-based immigration act (iirc) was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1880, which revised the Burlingame Treaty of 1860-something. So really, this isn't a new issue. In my opinion, it is more about xenophobia than anything else. The "They're taking out jobs!" argument was also the one used in the 1880s.
Re. Burlingame: Amazing it took over 150 years for China to go from Most Favored Nation status, back to MFN...only now they also hold much of our national debt. It's kind of like looking in a mirror: everything is the same, but in reverse. Soon, we'll be working on their railroads!
Re: not speaking English; a friend of mine (exchange student) recently got beat up by a Korean bigot for not speaking Korean in Korea. If you ever traveled to a country where you couldn't speak the language, you wouldn't be so quick to judge. It can be hard to learn a new lingo - have some compassion.
Thanks for the belly laugh!
This is essentially what this whole thread is for me.
I'm to the point that it's not worth it to argue. I just sit back and laugh.
The first race-based immigration act (iirc) was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1880, which revised the Burlingame Treaty of 1860-something. So really, this isn't a new issue. In my opinion, it is more about xenophobia than anything else. The "They're taking out jobs!" argument was also the one used in the 1880s
Expressions of xenophobia are always fundamentally the same. The same empty complaints were made about the Irish, the Italians, and everybody else it was fashionable to hate when they started coming into the country in numbers. Usually by those one generation removed from hearing the same about themselves.
Bigot?
Racist?
Worthlesswasteofair?
Redneck? /rant
I am hesitant to call anybody a worthless waste of air, because to me it implies that the waste is one which should be eliminated.
Sorry, I just cannot stand ignorant racists.
You're not the only one. Making apologies and rationalizations for charging the police to perform racial harassment is beyond the pale to me.
Loaded? Yes. Straw-man? I'm not so sure. In this very thread there is an assumption shared by many that immigrants are more likely to be criminals than natives, an idea that is:1. Wrong.
2. Racist.
1. Wrong? I will ignore what others have said about being here illegally automatically makes them a criminal. That can be a bit disingenuous, though I can see merit in it. Others have better access to statistics than I, but there are lies, damned lies and statistics. So I agree that it is entirely _possible_ that illegal immigrants exhibit the same or less criminal profile than native-born Americans. That's possible.
But what about the stack of laws broken simply by illegal status? No driver's license, no SS/FICA/Medicare taxes, etc. It seems that if suddenly an additional 10 million or so taxpayers started paying taxes, maybe my governmetn wouldn't be trying to nickel and dime me into the poorhouse.
2. Racist? I am trying hard to be be civil. I am married to an immigrant. A LEGAL immigrant. You should hear here talk about illegal immigrants. She LOATHES them, since she has had to go through untold invasions of her privacy, spend 1000s of dollars (if not 10,000s) and countless hours of her time jumping through an incredibly complex set of regulations while dealing with people who are often quite rude (and perhaps racist). So if I am a racist (and by extension, my immigrant wife is a racist, then who is not a racist? THose, like you, who seem to claim that circumventing a legal process, no matter how vexsome or misguided, are perfectly fine? If we wnat to whip out the race card, I suggest your opinion is the racist one, as "these poor people" have no other option to come to America. What about LEGAL immigrants.
Again, I try to be civil, but my wife has upon occasion become fed up with all the illegals who don't go through the crap she has had to go through. I guess I'm married to a flaming racist, eh?
My apologiues for the big rant - I become vexed when no-one seems to want to engage in debate not on whether the law is misguided or racist, but rather how we can fix the problem. The law is not the problem, merely a symptom.
The Mexican government has no impetus (nor power) to halt illegal immigration. The Mexican government is not very strong, adn tends to be very corrupt (such as I have read). Why not annex Mexico?
|
|
What it doesn't clarify is what is "lawful contact." Passing someone walking down the street and initiating a conversation is lawful, is it not?"Lawful contact" is not a conversation on the sidewalk. Lawful contact requires a situation where the policeman has already detained the individual, such as for a traffic stop.
"Reasonable suspicion" requires evidence that leads the police officer to suspect lawbreaking. Case law has repeatedly affirmed that ethnicity is not an acceptable criterion for such.
So they've said that being in the state without a green card is now considered trespassing. Given the intent of this legislation, I am positive that this is not going to be used solely to tack on additional penalties when somebody is found to be illegal. It is opening the door for officers to stop anyone they suspect of being illegal since they are now violating the law (circular logic FTL).And such an arrest would end up in front of the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where it will die a messy death. They're clearly trying to give local law enforcement the same capabilities as the Border Patrol, since the Feds have obviously failed to control illegal immigration.Given that they have now made it a crime to be on ANY land, public or private if you are not a citizen, how does one define reasonable suspicion? By merely being on public property, they have potentially committed a crime, have they not? As written, this law could be used to ask anybody for paperwork proving immigration status at any time. And you know as well as I how long it takes for court cases to be decided. The fact that this type of bill wasn't laughed down when introduced says something about the sad state of affairs the country is in right now.
EDIT: And where is this definition of lawful contact you're using coming from? I did a search on a legal dictionary and yielded no results. I think that's something that should have been...
The definition of lawful contact is one that is explained to anyone serving in a capacity relating to law enforcement.
The law in Arizona does nothing more than mimic what is already Federal Law. Federal law states that if you are a resident alien that you carry a green card. Not carrying one means you are breaking Federal law. (And for the record, I carry my Social Security card and my State ID card with me in the event that I'm stopped by a policeman, as not doing so is against the law).Edit: I'm not a policeman, but I understand this alot better than most given what my actual vocation is. I work in a C-store (a truck stop to be precise). I'm a 39 year old Afro-American and I agree with what Arizona is doing. The Federal Government is doing nothing to stop the problem and so Arizona is taking matters into their own hands. Good for them. Hopefully Utah will follow suit, as it has been shown that when Az tightens the border situation, the illegals flee north to Utah from Arizona. My seven year old son lives there and quite frankly the last thing I want to hear is that illegal aliens killed my son.
What we have here are people reacting without understanding the depth of what is going on in Arizona and without reading the law. Bottom line: the law only allows law enforcement to enforce federal law.
What's wrong with that? In my mind, nothing.
Edit 2: Illegals (drug dealing ones to be exact) killed a rancher on his own property in Arizona, so I'm not being totally off-base when I say that my son could be killed by these very same people.
. . . big piles of fertilizer.
If big piles of fertilizer were illegal, most of Washington DC would be arrested. Just sayin'.
You know damn well what I meant...I do know what you meant, which is why I posted what I did. If you think racial profiling is a great idea, let's start rounding up white Christian veterans and making them prove they're not storing up big piles of fertilizer.
Hell, the most famous and successful terrorist organization in American history was a white veterans' organization. They rode around lynching people and wearing sheets. If you think it's absurd to treat all white people you come across as potential Klansmen, you should think it's just as absurd to treat any brown person you come across as a potential illegal who should be under obligation to prove otherwise.
If you think there's some excuse to treat non-whites worse than whites, we have a word for that.
Bigot?
Racist?
Worthlesswasteofair?
Redneck? /rantSorry, I just cannot stand ignorant racists. Plus this whole tea party thing with them wanting to start militias is just too reminiscent of the civil war. As soon as s#*% starts goin down I'm grabbing my family and headin for canada. The last thing I need are some ignorant teabagging militiamen harrassing (or worse) my family because I'm white, my wife is black, and to top it all off we had the audacity to breed.
WHOA NELLY!!!
Ok I will try to be more direct in my posts so as not to be acused of ranting again but you are makeing a very serious mistake by lumping the TEA Party movement with some type of racist milita groups. Nothing and I mean NOTHING could be further from the truth.I'm not going to extole the virtues of the tea party on this board but please visit one of THEIR official websites and not one put out by the oposition. I know for a fact that the tea party welcomes all races,genders and religions. I have attended the local tea party rallies to hear first hand exactly what they are about. I have also visited websites dedicated to getting opposition members in fromt of cameras to spread racist and false statements.
From my understanding of the basic tea party dogma a less intrusive smaller federal government is a very good thing and something that every american should expect. Keeping it's citizens safe and provideing the basic services that it was designed for should be all it has the power and funding to do.
I can say with absolute bconviction that the local tea party here in norfolk,VA is in no way shape or form racist nor do they support a milita in any capacity. If you would like more information I will be glad to provide links or talk off boards.
Fair enough. I just believe that, in general, attacking the supply is wrongheaded, when we should be going after the demand. Look at drugs: Attacking the supply just drives up the price, which creates more of an incentive for people to smuggle and sell drugs.Thanks for the belly laugh!
Wow, seriously. You don't actually believe that drugs cost more now than they did before the "War on Drugs" really started rocking in the Eighties, do you?
No, no and no. Sorry.
I never said anything about the efficacy of the War on Drugs, or the price history of drugs in the U.S. I was explaining the futility of prohibition in general. In the future, you should really read what others are saying, and think this stuff through rather than just posting whatever comes to mind out of reflexive opposition or in an apparent desire to appear clever and aloof.
FACT: Prohibition puts an upward price pressure on the prohibited item. Obviously the amount of pressure depends on the effectiveness of the prohibition.
FACT: An increase in price of the prohibited item encourages new entrants into the market. Or would you deal drugs and risk jail for $5 an hour?
Disagree all you like, but you're not going to overturn centuries of economic theory in a message board thread. If you believe otherwise, you're quite simply in over your head.
<SNIP> If you think there's some excuse to treat non-whites worse than whites, we have a word for that.
O U C H.
QFT
Thanks for the belly laugh!This is essentially what this whole thread is for me.
I'm to the point that it's not worth it to argue. I just sit back and laugh.
Ah yes, the "I'm not winning, so I'll just pretend the whole thing is a joke" ploy.
|
|
Thanks for the belly laugh!This is essentially what this whole thread is for me.
I'm to the point that it's not worth it to argue. I just sit back and laugh.
Ah yes, the "I'm not winning, so I'll just pretend the whole thing is a joke" ploy.
Either a clever ploy, or he really is laughing at you. I know which one I'd pick....
Either a clever ploy, or he really is laughing at you. I know which one I'd pick....Thanks for the belly laugh!This is essentially what this whole thread is for me.
I'm to the point that it's not worth it to argue. I just sit back and laugh.
Ah yes, the "I'm not winning, so I'll just pretend the whole thing is a joke" ploy.
1. I never said "clever" ;)
2. I don't care if he's laughing; I'm not interested in his opinion of me. I'm interested in the topic at hand, to which his posts is unrelated.As it turns out, I often shake my head at many of the posters here, but that doesn't mean glibly writing them off should be mistaken for an argument; it isn't. Neither is encouraging the behavior.
Trolling aside, did you have anything meaningful to add?
I don't care if he's laughing; I'm not interested in his opinion of me. I'm interested in the topic at hand, to which his posts is unrelated.
As it turns out, I often shake my head at many of the posters here, but that doesn't mean glibly writing them off should be mistaken for an argument; it isn't. Neither is encouraging the behavior.
He's probably laughing in general; he's a resident of the state in question.
Naah, I just read a few posts and figured my little piece of trolling wouldn't be noticed among all the crap being thrown around.Trolling aside, did you have anything meaningful to add?
Gotcha. Thanks for the reminding I'm taking myself far too seriously. ;-)
Time for a break.