Diesel_dyk wrote:
If you don't feel that way, then like I said, its a fundamental question that's leads you to a different result. I know from parts of my own family, who came over from Europe during the past 120 years, the authorities are not your friends. you prosper inspite of them not because of them. And the police are their agents. They don't have to be racist or criminals, they have a job to do, they are told to go out and generate revenue. That's what tickets are for, its for revenue generation under the guise of public safety. Laws often have a dual purpose. The purpose for public consumption and then the real reason for the law. If I stand back, I can honestly say, with full objectivity that the AZ laws on ID checks and the ethnic studies law, when taken together show that the AZ state are engaging in a policy that will see an exodus of illegals from the state. And that these people will probably just got to other states so the laws are not fixing the illegal immigration problem. And if AZ appears to be becoming too unfriendly or hostile to hispanic citizens, they will start leaving the state too. Its similar to cities giving homeless people bus tickets to other cities. If the people move then its not their "problem" anymore.
If that's true, then why have authorities to begin with? It sounds like they are more trouble than they are worth, if we assume the things above.
Diesel_dyk wrote:
On the 14th Amendment, you do realize that that is the amendment that applies the bill of rights onto the states. So the whole argument about repealing the 14th Amendment is a states rights issue and the whole argument over repealing the 14 th Amendment is a twisted fantasy by states rights advocates to return the country to a pre civil war state. The civil war was fought to bring the states more fully into the union and to form more of a federation. The republic died with the civil war, states lost practically all of their powers with the civil war amendments, and we effectively became a federation from that point forward. Going back to pre civil war era would be a huge mistake and the problem we have today as I see it is that the civil war amendments were not fully implemented in the first place due to resistance from the states during the reconstruction period. So I'll differ with you on that one because I think that the full powers of the civil war amendments should be recognized and enforced and the states should be brought even further into a federal style of govt. and I think that the general trend has been towards the full recognition of the role of the federal govt vis-a-vis the civil war amendments. So in other words, I believe the exact opposite should occur, the 14th Amendment should be strengthened not diminished or repealed. The reason for my position on that is that being a US citizen should mean exactly the same thing no matter where I live. I shouldn't be a US citizen plus some rights in one state and a citizen minus some rights in another state. The whole idea of a checkerboard of rights is the antithetical to the idea of living in a nation, having national citizenship and rights based on the idea of individual equality. To permit differentiation between states regarding individual rights would permit states to make life difficult for groups deemed "undesirable" within their borders, in the hopes of pushing these groups into another state, whether those undesirables are hispanic, black, gay or whatever... which brings me back to the point of AZ becoming unfriendly to hispanic culture and singling out people who look illegal, which really reads who look hispanic, for the purpose of harrassment. So on the 14th Amendment argument, I would strongly disagree. It would be an absolute disaster if the country lost the progress made in the last 50 years that saw the country move towards a uniform or national standard of a individual rights. I personally would not want to see individuals thrown to the mercy of pockets of bigotry and that is exactly what you would get if the 14th Amendment were repealed. The people who are twisting the argument are those arguing in favor of its repeal and who dislike the progress on individual rights that is being made, like I posted before these positions are rear guard actions attempting to halt that progress, which is also why there has been an attempt to poison the word "progress."
I see where you're coming from, but I'd actually prefer the country was split into several pieces. I know that's not going to happen, but the next best thing is to weaken the federal government and push for more states' rights.
Yes, I realize there is a historical context for how this was used to support racism, but I believe a lot has changed since the Civil War, and quite frankly, I can understand why some states like AZ feel the way they do towards Latinos. To be honest, if I lived in that state, I'd probably feel the same way. If I lived in California, I'd also likely feel that way.
Nevertheless, different cultural environments and issues require more localized rules. This is why I believe states' rights are more important than having a strong federal government.
And to be honest, if I were Latino, I'd probably move away from AZ or California because of the racial tension. There are plenty of areas of this country where the tension is lower, so as a Latino individual, life would be much more pleasant in those areas.
It kind of reminds me of how many blacks moved out of the South after the Civil War. I would've done the same had I lived back then and was black. No amount of government intervention can guarantee your safety or truly change the mindset of an area's people. People have to change on their own with time. Over time, the tension in AZ and California will diminish as Latinos essentially assimilate these areas. Until then, it will be very racially charged, and laws like these will be passed to deal with the situation.
So all these noble intentions of pushing forth tolerance via a stronger federal government seem rather pie-in-the-sky to me. In many ways, I think things would've turned out better without there having been a Civil War. All Reconstruction did was lay the groundwork for the development of groups like the KKK. And the Union didn't really care what happened to blacks, because they gave them freedom without giving them education, property, or money. Freedom alone in a capitalistic society means little to nothing. You need these other things in order to progress as an individual.
One of the few cases where federal intervention did actually accomplish something positive was forcing the end of segregation. That was necessary and practical, because it was a systemic change. It didn't truly attempt to change people's minds, but it did force whites to associate with blacks as equals. So, in that particular case, a stronger federal government was pertinent. Also, affirmative action made sense back when it was first established. However, I think enough time has passed that it no longer has any relevance.
Diesel_dyk wrote:
Anyway, this talk about states rights wouldmake an interesting poll question for DST. do you consider yourself to be a US citizen, or a citizen of your state, or both? Which do you identify with more? And if there were a fight between the US govt and your state, which side would you pick up arms and fight against? hmmm and I wonder if it would matter to some people which party controlled the whitehouse. I guess its kind of an in depth civil war question.
For me, that would be easy, I would consider myself to be a US citizen first and foremost because I beleive in national citizenship, and I really don't need any recognition of state citizenship, as I consider that to be a relic of the past. and I would fight with the US govt against any state govt, including my own, regardless of who was in the whitehouse.
What do you think Turq? should I post it?
It's a good poll idea. Give it a shot.
I'm probably in the minority here, but I consider myself more a citizen of North Carolina. Granted, I do hold the paradoxical belief that Congress acts too factionalized along state lines instead of serving national interests. The reason I believe this is because Congress, by definition, is supposed to serve national interests instead of state ones.
Other than that, however, I favor states' rights over having a strong federal government, and I identify more with my state than with the country as a whole.
