No. :-|Quote:
Originally Posted by ']['ear
Printable View
No. :-|Quote:
Originally Posted by ']['ear
Wait, "Beemer" is the BMW. Who the heck spells it "Bimmer?" I feel like I just walked into a Peter Sellars movie. "Does your doug bite?"
Google Fight: Bimmer Wins!
Oh hell no, there are way more than two. There simply is no "generally" on the Right when it comes to immigration.Quote:
Originally Posted by ']['ear
Uh, it's Dread. He's been doing it forever. Remember how the old Zionuts thread was merely his recent attempt to keep it relatively confined to one place?Quote:
Look, we all know that wingnuts do stupid stuff. Do you gain something by posting their antics? Is this a Lewkowskian attempt at quoting the DU to discredit the 98% of the political spectrum leftwards of him? Or is it an attempt to get us to lose respect for you, since you have friends like this? :o
Unless I'm mistaken, its against the law to be present in that area; a trespassing of sorts, in which case its considered illegal. I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Yeah, I was just saying this almost seems as an extension of older actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
OK, why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
We can even set aside the whole fact that we're all "illegal immigrants" to this country, living off the land our ancestors and/or forefathers outright stole from the indigenous people. OK, we didn't steal all of it... a lot of it we got as a result of exterminating the natives, but that's hardly taking the moral high ground or anything.
But, anyway... why? Why do peaceful, law abiding (except for immigration law, which is beyond fucked) immigrants "obviously [not] belong here," and why should we be punishing people/businesses that are willing to hire them?
I'd happily employ a legal immigrant and/or citizen to do the monkey work and office cleaning where I work... know anyone who'll do it for ~$3 an hour, w/o benefits?
Interesting that you'd say that... especially right after OG's "they don't belong here, jail business owners" post. The right certainly doesn't have a monopoly on ignorant/hypocritical immigration bullshit... unless you wanna call OG a Republican. And don't let me discourage you from doing so; it would be hella fun to watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by ']['ear
I'm saying that mass protests to "boycott Arizona" are about as mature as demanding to see Obama's birth certificate every day. And to point out that people are focusing on the wrong thing. I've never said I think this law is a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by ']['ear
Curious what you think "it" is in this case. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
GoobacksQuote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
and because its illegal. Its simply part of our immigration policy. Just like the policy thats allowed Miami to become Cuba's second capital.
I see. So by that logic, marijuana users, for example, "obviously don't belong here," as they violate the law as well.
And what the fuck is a Goobacks?
deportation for pocession, thats a new one. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Well, the only reason you could seem to come up with for why "[illegal immigrants] don't belong here" is that they break the law. (In particular, the shitty and moronic immigration laws in this country.) Funny you don't like that same standard applied to the illegal activities you partake of, innit?
I referred to the policy this country has adopted on immigration, and those that ignore it. Not deportation for all illegal activities.
but you didn't see the word policy in the first post, and tried to tied illegal immigrants with all illegal offensives, because you're a fucking idiot.
By that standard, any humans that wandered away from the original puddle of muck are illegal immigrants. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Posting about wingnuts saying or doing stupid things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
+Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
They had to wait until you were standing still, and ask for your ID for loitering? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by CitizenCain
Mature? You're comparing commerce to.....the birthers? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
No, Arizona relies heavily on business conventions, sports events, vacationers, tourism of all sorts. (Because really, there has to be an incentive to visit a desert where it's 102 in the shade.) The typical white male golfer probably won't "boycott" but others might. There's supposedly a big baseball event planned (for the World Series?), if advertisers pull out and people don't show up it could make a big impact on the local economy or at least get media coverage.
edit and what the hell is a gooback?
This sounds like a reasoned response to the Arizona is Racist! hysteria.
Aside from Cain's blind side when it comes to cops and immigration, any thoughts?Quote:
Consider the Source
I'm in my third decade of following politics and media and I thought I had seen it all, but I must say that I was taken aback by the national reaction to SB 1070--how could the reaction to the bill have been so widespread while the information about the bill was so utterly wrong?
The two are obviously connected. The media portrayal of the bill made it sound like Kristallnacht and naturally the rest of the country reacted when they thought that Arizona was implementing a bill that violated the constitution on several fronts.
I've been trying to figure out the exact point at which incorrect information went national and I think I found it here.* E.J. Dionne--arguably the most influential political reporter in Washington--used his "Post Partisan" column to decry Arizona's "Shameful" immigration bill.
It is nothing short of astonishing that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Friday signed a bill that could make it dangerous just to look Hispanic.
Based on what he knew, Dionne had the right to be astonished and the national media soon descended on Arizona. Later President Obama himself would blast Arizona's "irresponsible" actions.
However, most of the factual information that E.J. Dionne used in his analysis was simply wrong. What was the source of these errors? Dionne made it clear that he got his information from an April 22nd Arizona Republic editorial--Dionne included a link as well as a large block quote from the editorial. Unfortunately, ALL of the facts about the bill that Dionne used as the basis of his column--a column that lit a national fire and ended with the President singling out Arizona for ridicule--were wrong.
I've copied the block quote (in blue) that Dionne used and will analyze the statements line by line, but rather than just trusting my analysis of the bill, please refer to the sidebar in the article in today's paper that the Republic itself used to describe the bill. It seems that once the Republic had time to analyze what the bill actually did, they described the bill in dramatically different terms than the editorial.
Here's the first "fact" that E.J. Dionne picked up from the Republic
The broad anti-immigrant bill passed by the Legislature this week makes it a crime to be in the country illegally
Wrong. It's already a crime to be in the country illegally. SB 1070 made it a STATE crime by copying the federal language. This makes a huge difference because opponents used Dionne's quote to say that Arizona was adopting its own immigration policy as well as criminalizing being in the country illegally. Both of those assumptions are wrong. Sunday's article got it right by emphasizing that the bill made it a "state crime."
and gives local cops the job of demanding documentation if they have reasonable suspicion someone lacks it.
Wrong. Local cops have the job of asking for documentation only if they believe it's "practicable" and even that requirement is eliminated if they believe that asking for documentation "may hinder or obstruct an investigation." The essence of this provision is that it prohibits cities or police departments from adopting a policy that stops the police from checking immigration status. Again Sunday's explanation of the bill's provisions got this point right.
Back to the editorial upon which Dionne relied...
The need to carry proper ‘papers’ falls squarely on Arizona's Latino population -- including those born and raised in the Grand Canyon State.
Wrong--and frankly outrageous. Federal law already requires resident aliens to carry registration documents. SB 1070 makes it a state crime to violate the federal law. The law doesn't apply to "those born and raised in the Grand Canyon State" because they are obviously citizens. The law also lists documents that provide a presumption of citizenship one of which is a Driver's License. There is no need for citizens to carry their birth certificate or passport. Once again, if you read the explanation in Sunday's Republic, you will see how incorrect the editorial is.
The bill invites racial profiling and ignores the fact that Latinos are an intrinsic part of Arizona's history and its future.
Wrong. Actually, the bill prohibits racial profiling by saying that race can only be considered to the "extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." And under no circumstances can the officer "solely" consider race, color or national origin. (He can "consider" race as a factor just like he can under federal and Arizona law now.) Sunday's version doesn't even address this point because the bill makes it so clear that racial profiling is NOT allowed that it wasn't even worth a mention--that's because there's no change in the law. Racial profiling was not allowed before the bill and it's not allowed after the bill.
The bill . . . is bringing thundering bad publicity that will echo for years to come. It will lead to lost economic-development opportunities, lost tourism and lost opportunities to expand our trade and commercial ties with Mexico.
Well, this part is actually true. The bill really is bringing bad publicity that will echo for years to come. It's too bad that the bad publicity is based on a factually inaccurate editorial that received national exposure.
So what's the Republic going to do about it? Obviously simply correcting the editorial on A2 is inadequate. Randy Lovely needs to tell us who wrote the editorial and what went wrong. After all, the faulty reporting has had nation wide implications and may cost Arizona billions of dollars. It's not possible to un-ring this bell. But I for one would like to hear how the Republic is going to ensure that it doesn't get rung again.
Footnote: Dionne's post couldn't have been part of the first wave in which the wrong information went national, because the post was written after Governor Brewer had already signed the bill. But I think it was likely responsible for the second wave--the one that included the President--and I think that the first wave probably also relied on the Republic editorial. I used Dionne as an example because he CLEARLY relied on the editorial. My guess is that the editorial was widely read beforehand and was responsible for the initial wave as well.
http://www.espressopundit.com/2010/0...ly--wrong.html
They broke the law. It is against the law to enter the country illegally. Thus they are criminal if they go into this country illegally.Quote:
The part that I don't understand how a lot of people in the US can't differentiate between 'having no legal status' and 'being a criminal'. From there it's a small step to dehumanizing the subjects of the debate. I can understand if people want some sort of regulation of immigration, but this nonsense of illegal aliens as criminals is really too much.
Honestly I hope states pass more laws against illegal aliens because its clear the federal government wants them here. People who harbor illegal aliens should also lose the right to vote too... ;) One big thing would be for states to require proof of citizenship before eligible for food stamps, welfare and other items. While we are at require employers to verify citizenship.
Bottom line - You break our laws you are a criminal.
I swear, its like Google is a foreign language for you some of ya'll.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
They took our jobs!
I like it when I agree with Lewk. Everyone should have to carry ID at all times, and if you can't produce a valid one when asked, the police would just summarily shoot you. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Federal law already requires resident aliens to carry registration documents. SB 1070 makes it a state crime to violate the federal law. The law doesn't apply to "those born and raised in the Grand Canyon State" because they are obviously citizens. The law also lists documents that provide a presumption of citizenship one of which is a Driver's License. There is no need for citizens to carry their birth certificate or passport.
plus
Actually, the bill prohibits racial profiling by saying that race can only be considered to the "extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." And under no circumstances can the officer "solely" consider race, color or national origin. (He can "consider" race as a factor just like he can under federal and Arizona law now.) Sunday's version doesn't even address this point because the bill makes it so clear that racial profiling is NOT allowed that it wasn't even worth a mention--that's because there's no change in the law. Racial profiling was not allowed before the bill and it's not allowed after the bill.
Equals confusion.
They basically expanded federal law to the state, because they complained the feds weren't doing enough to enforce existing laws. Which means they expect the state police to enforce the laws. Using their "discretion" or judgement of what's "practical". Riight.
You can't tell "who was born here" and we don't have to carry ID (or even have a driver's license if we don't drive). So, if residents aliens already carry ID, but those born here don't have to....what the fuck?
Heh I'm so sorry to hear that you won't be able to agree with me on this issue. Not having your ID on you isn't cause for summary execution. It is cause for the officer to follow the potential illegal back home so he can prove he has an ID. The idea of carrying an ID isn't an onerous requirement. Don't you carry a drivers license to drive your car?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Since when do I drive a car? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Wrong. It's not illegal to not carry ID if you're a legal resident. How would the cop know? You automatically assumed a guy without ID is illegal and gives the cop cause to follow him back home? No. And saying a driver's license is presumptive proof of citizenship is just stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
So you'd be cool with carrying your birth certificate or social security card around with you everywhere you go? Because there really isn't a portable and easily replaceable ID yet that exists for American citizens to identify themselves as such... :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Where in the bill does it require this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
The bill itself allows for a Drivers License to end the questioning if you are driving a car.
Again the cops can't stop you for being brown while walking, you have to be doing something else that would require them to ask for your ID.
Just like the Feds...or is it that the Feds can do no wrong but the State cops are total idiots/racists?
There is no need for citizens to carry their birth certificate or passport.
Or driver's license (unless they're driving). And SS cards don't have photos. Legal aliens have to carry "registration documents".
Put it all together and it's a state law saying there's really no way to tell illegals from citizens. But be suspicious.
So, if you're brown and don't speak English, or have a Spanglish accent, you should probably find a fake driver's license or fake worker visa papers, just in case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Just like the Federal Law. Hmmmm.
It doesn't. Ostensibly an illegal immigrant living and working in the United States would have the same amount of documentation to provide as to their legal immigration and acceptance or travel into the country as would an American citizen who was born here...ie. none. If you want to say "Driver's License" consider the fact that not everyone may go out and get one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath