Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2010-05-02 15:41:52
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5648|London, England

Kmarion wrote:

People opposed to this law are begging for an example of misuse. You know it. I know it.
And when one example occurs, it will become the rule as opposed to the exception, in their eyes at least. We'll never heard the end of it, it'll be the PATRIOT Act all over again.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-05-02 15:42:42)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-05-02 15:47:29
blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|6936
yeah they are protesting here in Chicago 2, considering that there is big Hispanic population, some people didnt go to the Cubs game, when the Cubs were playing Arizona Diamondbacks...
https://blog.su-spectator.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Immigration-Rally-Wrigley-Field-3-by-glycerine517.jpg

was just reading some other people's comments on there and someone wrote a harsh ass comment
These mexicans are screwin our country up. Ilegal immigration is bankrupting our border states. I think we should round up all the illegals and line them up on the border, shoot them all dead and hang their bidies high so all the other wanna be illegals will think twice about crossing into OUR country
comments section

also from my personal experience when I used to work at Red Lobster all the Mexicans worked in the kitchen, any who some guy Luipe or Lupe not sure how u spell it, anyways he got deported like 4 or more time and he kept coming back, and the place kept offering him the same job regardless of his citizenship/immigration status...
2010-05-02 15:52:55
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Yes, I can see why latino citizens would want to crack down on illegals, just like a lot of other citizens because illegals are competetors in the labor market and they depress wages. And I agree that Latinos are going to eventually take over the US by population, that's just demographics.

But that doesn't answer whether this law is a good, just or moral law. You can't throw some citizens under the bus to try and fix a problem. Let me put it another way:

All you need is drivers license? here are the probable outcomes
Number of non-illegal "looking" citizens within AZ asked to produce their license under this new law = 0%
Number of citizens outside of AZ asked to produce their license under this AZ law =0%
Number of illegal "looking" citizens asked to produce their license under this new law >0%

Its a bad law when the application of the law will place a burden on only some citizens based on how they happen to look.
Its a bad law, period. If people think its okay for others to bear the burden although all citizens are supposed to be equal, then it would appear that there is basic and fundamental problem concerning peoples' perception on what it means to be an American citizen. Its on that basis that I label this law as being irrational and one being based on divisive calls for an us versus them mentality.

Its also interesting that the Texas governor has rejected this law. http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/04/29 … n-law.html
Perry also sympathized with separatists not too long ago.  I wouldn't put much stock behind what he has to say.

I know what you're saying, but to condemn this law not due to its actual wording but to how it could be abused is kind of like saying laws against crack are racist because black people disproportionately use crack.

Being illegal isn't based on race.  Yes, some people act as if it is, but condemn the abuse of the law, not the law itself.

Some people being more affected by this law isn't due to the law being bad, it's due to the circumstances.

As for my fundamental perception of what being an American citizen is...  well, I'd say it's about going to the lowest bidder.  Everything is up for sale in this country, and soon enough, amnesty will be on the agenda.
2010-05-02 15:53:15
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6819|Global Command

Kmarion wrote:

People opposed to this law are begging for an example of misuse. You know it. I know it.
Except, I believe they will be waiting a long time.

If anything, local cops are more likely to turn a blind eye to known illegals. Again, a large percentage of LE in Arizona is Hispanic. Locals cops like having the ability to give street pardons. e.g. " esse, we know you aren't legal, tell us where the kidnapping victim is or when the drugs are coming across and you can go. "


Yes, I am assuming based on life experience with cops.
2010-05-02 16:34:15
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6285|Truthistan

Kmarion wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

All you need is drivers license? here are the probable outcomes
Number of non-illegal "looking" citizens within AZ asked to produce their license under this new law = 0%
Number of citizens outside of AZ asked to produce their license under this AZ law =0%
Number of illegal "looking" citizens asked to produce their license under this new law >0%
Where does it say this? You are speculating.
What this is, is something called game theory... its what a rationalist uses when analysing something to see if its rational.
This law failed. Its irrational.


Now if the law were more confined to perhaps asking for identification of people suspected to be engaging in gang activity, which is probably where the real problem is, then the law would look to be more tailored to specific purpose. and if your a citizen engaged in gang activity then you really don't have much of a complaint. But this law is so broad and so discretionary and its likelihood to have a negative impact on certain citizens is almost a sure thing, to call it anything other than irrational would be stupid.


Don't be such a textualist, "it doesn't say that so it therefor does not exist" /whatever.
2010-05-02 16:37:39
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6285|Truthistan

Turquoise wrote:

Perry also sympathized with separatists not too long ago.  I wouldn't put much stock behind what he has to say.
Point is that this law will further marginalize the GOP everywhere. Perry is in preservation mode. Everyone knows that Latinos are taking over and any party not willing to change with the times is a dinosaur. You don't tick off (brown) voters to get at the illegal problem.
2010-05-02 16:37:57
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6891|132 and Bush

Profiling is illegal. Yes you are speculating.. you just don't realize it.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Don't be such a textualist, "it doesn't say that so it therefor does not exist" /whatever.
Without results or examples it doesn't exist.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2010-05-02 16:41:43
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6891|132 and Bush

It's funny to watch how the so called proponents of anti-racism don't hesitate to identify the people they are defending by their skin color (brown people). They do it much more than the people they claim are racist.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2010-05-02 16:43:42
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6839|San Diego, CA, USA

ATG wrote:

I would be in favor of annexation of Mexico...
You don't want that, trust me.  We would have a permanent underclass that would vote for whomever would guarantee them government cheese - the Democrats would love it.

Full disclosure: I'm Hispanic
2010-05-02 16:43:48
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6285|Truthistan

Kmarion wrote:

Profiling is illegal. Yes you are speculating.. you just don't realize it.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Don't be such a textualist, "it doesn't say that so it therefor does not exist" /whatever.
Without results or examples it doesn't exist.
Profiling is illegal so it doesn't exist... I think you forgot your sarcasm tags /whatever

Without results or examples it doesn't exist... I beg to differ the law was passed it does exist... its fair game to analyse it for probable results. Just because you like the law doesn't mean its rational.
2010-05-02 16:44:39
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Perry also sympathized with separatists not too long ago.  I wouldn't put much stock behind what he has to say.
Point is that this law will further marginalize the GOP everywhere. Perry is in preservation mode. Everyone knows that Latinos are taking over and any party not willing to change with the times is a dinosaur. You don't tick off (brown) voters to get at the illegal problem.
Oh, I'm well aware of the prevailing trends.  Granted, I'm not so sure if any rational person would want to run things in about 20 years.  If things don't change for the better in Phoenix, it's gonna be a real hellhole very soon.

There are areas of Southern California and Southern Texas that are basically becoming Mexico -- in terms of crime and poverty.

I'm not sure if losing these areas politically is such a bad thing, because honestly, I don't see why people would want to continue living there much longer.  Illegals might flood these places, but a lot of actual citizens are gonna move away.
2010-05-02 16:47:58
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6285|Truthistan

Kmarion wrote:

It's funny to watch how the so called proponents of anti-racism don't hesitate to identify the people they are defending by their skin color (brown people). They do it much more than the people they claim are racist.
Heh, I'm not the one who passed an irrational law that is going to negatively affect citizens who happen to look like illegals. I'm only pointing out that that is the likely result. BTW did you just call the law racist because its going to affect people with brown skin, because I didn't do that, you just did. I called the law irrational because all citizens as supposed to be equal and this law will have negative effects on people who happen to look like illegals.


Funny how the "reverse racists" cry racism even when racism isn't even being debated.
2010-05-02 16:48:57
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6839|San Diego, CA, USA
Perhaps we should adopt Mexico's immigration policy and be square?  Oh wait...  :-P
2010-05-02 16:49:11
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6891|132 and Bush

Your unintended consequences, as of yet, do not exist.. though I think you are implying those consequences are intended. As far as ambiguity.

Arizona Constitutional Conservatives are not hard nosed ideologues unwilling to diplomatically communicate and clarify their position to lawfully secure the peace in AZ.

In the past days, some critics of the new Arizona immigration law have said that it will lead to Arizona becoming a police state. Many of the criticisms — some including the words Nazi and fascist — have been based on a general objection to the law and to the enforcement of the country’s immigration laws. But some have been specifically focused on a few key phrases in the law. …

    The first concerns the phrase “lawful contact,” which is contained in this controversial portion of the bill: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…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…” Although the drafters of the law said that the intent of “lawful contact” was to specify situations in which police have stopped someone because he or she was suspected of violating some other law — like a traffic stop — critics said it would allow cops to pick anyone out of a crowd and “demand their papers.”

    So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

    “It was the intent of the legislature for ‘lawful contact’ to mean arrests and stops, but people on the left mischaracterized it,” says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the law. “So that term is now defined.”

AZ law contained nothing NEW but reflected precisely Federal Laws. There is no “new” element introduced to immigration law in the AZ bill signed into law.
In case you or the ACLU are not up to date. It doesn't look so.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2010-05-02 16:51:56
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6285|Truthistan

Turquoise wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Perry also sympathized with separatists not too long ago.  I wouldn't put much stock behind what he has to say.
Point is that this law will further marginalize the GOP everywhere. Perry is in preservation mode. Everyone knows that Latinos are taking over and any party not willing to change with the times is a dinosaur. You don't tick off (brown) voters to get at the illegal problem.
Oh, I'm well aware of the prevailing trends.  Granted, I'm not so sure if any rational person would want to run things in about 20 years.  If things don't change for the better in Phoenix, it's gonna be a real hellhole very soon.

There are areas of Southern California and Southern Texas that are basically becoming Mexico -- in terms of crime and poverty.

I'm not sure if losing these areas politically is such a bad thing, because honestly, I don't see why people would want to continue living there much longer.  Illegals might flood these places, but a lot of actual citizens are gonna move away.
And AZ is a border state and you just made the case for why this law is reactionary and irrational. The border areas are being taken over and latino peple who live there are nevertheless citizens even though it may look like Mexico. So who is that will bear the burden on the enforcement of this law?
2010-05-02 16:58:41
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6891|132 and Bush

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

It's funny to watch how the so called proponents of anti-racism don't hesitate to identify the people they are defending by their skin color (brown people). They do it much more than the people they claim are racist.
Heh, I'm not the one who passed an irrational law that is going to negatively affect citizens who happen to look like illegals. I'm only pointing out that that is the likely result. BTW did you just call the law racist because its going to affect people with brown skin, because I didn't do that, you just did. I called the law irrational because all citizens as supposed to be equal and this law will have negative effects on people who happen to look like illegals.


Funny how the "reverse racists" cry racism even when racism isn't even being debated.
"Looks like illegal". And how does an illegal look? Like a different race?... na, race isn't being discussed here at all .

I said brown people to be clear, the words I was talking about. I didn't think I could be any more clearer.


It's acutally pretty funny.
"Billy it's not polite to say that.
Say what
Brown people
Ya but you just did."


gj billy.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2010-05-02 16:59:05
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6285|Truthistan

Kmarion wrote:

Your unintended consequences, as of yet, do not exist.. though I think you are implying those consequences are intended. As far as ambiguity.

Arizona Constitutional Conservatives are not hard nosed ideologues unwilling to diplomatically communicate and clarify their position to lawfully secure the peace in AZ.

In the past days, some critics of the new Arizona immigration law have said that it will lead to Arizona becoming a police state. Many of the criticisms — some including the words Nazi and fascist — have been based on a general objection to the law and to the enforcement of the country’s immigration laws. But some have been specifically focused on a few key phrases in the law. …

    The first concerns the phrase “lawful contact,” which is contained in this controversial portion of the bill: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…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…” Although the drafters of the law said that the intent of “lawful contact” was to specify situations in which police have stopped someone because he or she was suspected of violating some other law — like a traffic stop — critics said it would allow cops to pick anyone out of a crowd and “demand their papers.”

    So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

    “It was the intent of the legislature for ‘lawful contact’ to mean arrests and stops, but people on the left mischaracterized it,” says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the law. “So that term is now defined.”

AZ law contained nothing NEW but reflected precisely Federal Laws. There is no “new” element introduced to immigration law in the AZ bill signed into law.
In case you or the ACLU are not up to date. It doesn't look so.
Umm, one problem.... immigration law is not supposed to be applied against citizens. I don't care is the police ask illegals if they are illegal. The problem is that there is a failure to understand the effects of the law on citizens. Its apparent that you fail to seperate the illegals you want to persecute from the US citizens who will be negatively affected. Sorry if the truth gets in the way of the witch hunt.

So the talk about immigration law and the impact on actual illegals is irrelevant, so for now let's deal with the effect on citizens m'kay.
2010-05-02 16:59:08
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6839|San Diego, CA, USA
I'm Hispanic and I support Arizona's new law.  If police have lawful contact with you and they can't identify you then they should be able to ask ICE, a federal agency, for assistance in identifying you - this is reasonable.

Lawful contact people...lawful contact.
2010-05-02 17:00:10
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6891|132 and Bush

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:


Point is that this law will further marginalize the GOP everywhere. Perry is in preservation mode. Everyone knows that Latinos are taking over and any party not willing to change with the times is a dinosaur. You don't tick off (brown) voters to get at the illegal problem.
Oh, I'm well aware of the prevailing trends.  Granted, I'm not so sure if any rational person would want to run things in about 20 years.  If things don't change for the better in Phoenix, it's gonna be a real hellhole very soon.

There are areas of Southern California and Southern Texas that are basically becoming Mexico -- in terms of crime and poverty.

I'm not sure if losing these areas politically is such a bad thing, because honestly, I don't see why people would want to continue living there much longer.  Illegals might flood these places, but a lot of actual citizens are gonna move away.
And AZ is a border state and you just made the case for why this law is reactionary and irrational. The border areas are being taken over and latino peple who live there are nevertheless citizens even though it may look like Mexico. So who is that will bear the burden on the enforcement of this law?
Don't we all bear the burden of law enforcement?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2010-05-02 17:01:35
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6695|North Carolina

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:


Point is that this law will further marginalize the GOP everywhere. Perry is in preservation mode. Everyone knows that Latinos are taking over and any party not willing to change with the times is a dinosaur. You don't tick off (brown) voters to get at the illegal problem.
Oh, I'm well aware of the prevailing trends.  Granted, I'm not so sure if any rational person would want to run things in about 20 years.  If things don't change for the better in Phoenix, it's gonna be a real hellhole very soon.

There are areas of Southern California and Southern Texas that are basically becoming Mexico -- in terms of crime and poverty.

I'm not sure if losing these areas politically is such a bad thing, because honestly, I don't see why people would want to continue living there much longer.  Illegals might flood these places, but a lot of actual citizens are gonna move away.
And AZ is a border state and you just made the case for why this law is reactionary and irrational. The border areas are being taken over and latino peple who live there are nevertheless citizens even though it may look like Mexico. So who is that will bear the burden on the enforcement of this law?
The law isn't irrational itself, although the responses to it seem to mostly be that way.

On the one hand, you have angry white people that supported the bill, and on the other hand, you have Latinos already protesting the law before it's being implemented.

There's plenty of irrationality to go around with this situation, but the law itself, as Kmarion pointed out, only reinforces federal laws.

Granted, I would argue irrationality created this situation to begin with, when companies began hiring illegals.  If that had never happened to begin with, we wouldn't be in this mess.

We also wouldn't be in this mess if the federal government had taken the rational approach of actually doing something about border security.

Since we're now dealing with an irrational public on both sides of the issue, it's hard to say what the rational course of action actually is other than getting the hell out of the area.

I can't really say that profiling is irrational given the circumstances.  It's not technically legal, but it could work, if it was allowed.
2010-05-02 17:02:58
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6285|Truthistan

Kmarion wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Oh, I'm well aware of the prevailing trends.  Granted, I'm not so sure if any rational person would want to run things in about 20 years.  If things don't change for the better in Phoenix, it's gonna be a real hellhole very soon.

There are areas of Southern California and Southern Texas that are basically becoming Mexico -- in terms of crime and poverty.

I'm not sure if losing these areas politically is such a bad thing, because honestly, I don't see why people would want to continue living there much longer.  Illegals might flood these places, but a lot of actual citizens are gonna move away.
And AZ is a border state and you just made the case for why this law is reactionary and irrational. The border areas are being taken over and latino peple who live there are nevertheless citizens even though it may look like Mexico. So who is that will bear the burden on the enforcement of this law?
Don't we all bear the burden of law enforcement?
phffffft
not under this law, that's obvious. you forgot the part about being equal before and under the law.
2010-05-02 17:03:08
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6891|132 and Bush

Harmor wrote:

I'm Hispanic and I support Arizona's new law.  If police have lawful contact with you and they can't identify you then they should be able to ask ICE, a federal agency, for assistance in identifying you - this is reasonable.

Lawful contact people...lawful contact.
not even..

So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any OTHER law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”
Why the hell do you think they finger print you when you are being arrested? 90% of the people posting in this thread aren't even aware of what this law allows for.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2010-05-02 17:07:01
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6891|132 and Bush

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

And AZ is a border state and you just made the case for why this law is reactionary and irrational. The border areas are being taken over and latino peple who live there are nevertheless citizens even though it may look like Mexico. So who is that will bear the burden on the enforcement of this law?
Don't we all bear the burden of law enforcement?
phffffft
not under this law, that's obvious. you forgot the part about being equal before and under the law.
hmm, If I didn't speak English that would allow for them to check my immigration status IF I WAS DETAINED FOR SOME OTHER REASON.. and I would be ok with it. They already run your record as it is. This would allow them to check your immigration status as well.. basically to see if you are breaking any other laws. Like immigration.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2010-05-02 17:09:35
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6285|Truthistan

Turquoise wrote:

The law isn't irrational itself, although the responses to it seem to mostly be that way.

On the one hand, you have angry white people that supported the bill, and on the other hand, you have Latinos already protesting the law before it's being implemented.

There's plenty of irrationality to go around with this situation, but the law itself, as Kmarion pointed out, only reinforces federal laws.

Granted, I would argue irrationality created this situation to begin with, when companies began hiring illegals.  If that had never happened to begin with, we wouldn't be in this mess.

We also wouldn't be in this mess if the federal government had taken the rational approach of actually doing something about border security.

Since we're now dealing with an irrational public on both sides of the issue, it's hard to say what the rational course of action actually is other than getting the hell out of the area.

I can't really say that profiling is irrational given the circumstances.  It's not technically legal, but it could work, if it was allowed.
Like I posted earlier, immigration law doesn't apply to citizens. The claim that all they are doing is echoing federal law is a red herring and attempts to subterfuge from the fact the feds can't enforce immigration law on citizens.


The law is irrational, except that it promotes the irrational base on both sides, for that purpose alone the law makes perfect sense. And I agree that the wing nuts of both parties are out in full force on this one.... on an aside, I hope they battle hard enough to cause cap trade and vat to be delayed until after the elections.
2010-05-02 17:12:31
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6285|Truthistan

Kmarion wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Don't we all bear the burden of law enforcement?
phffffft
not under this law, that's obvious. you forgot the part about being equal before and under the law.
hmm, If I didn't speak English that would allow for them to check my immigration status IF I WAS DETAINED FOR SOME OTHER REASON.. and I would be ok with it. They already run your record as it is. This would allow them to check your immigration status as well.. basically to see if you are breaking any other laws. Like immigration.
You keep talking immigration, who cares if illegals get asked for papers, that's a red herring, I'm talking about citizens. Do you have anything else to contribute except to show that you want to get at illegals even if it hurts other citizens?

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard