[quote]A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it w..."/>

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Parts of Arizona law overturned

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 3, 2010 06:29
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2404
PAGE 1 of 2

Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:01 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

A federal judge dealt a serious rebuke to Arizona's immigration law on Wednesday when she put most of the crackdown on hold just hours before it was to take effect.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton sets up a lengthy legal battle as Arizona fights to enact the nation's toughest-in-the-nation law. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said the state likely appeal the ruling and seek to get the judge's order overturned.

But for now, opponents of the law have prevailed: The provisions that angered opponents will not take effect, including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The judge also delayed parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places — a move aimed at day laborers. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.

"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," Bolton, a Clinton appointee, said in her decision.

She said the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues. Other provisions of the law, many of them procedural and slight revisions to existing Arizona immigration statute, will go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.

http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20100728/OSH0101/100728091/1128
&located=rss


It's not over, they'll appeal, but it's a beginning. Some police departments are glad, and hopeful it will eventually be killed, as it's a strain on them:
Quote:

Quote:

Lancaster city's police chief said a proposal to have Pennsylvania adopt a version of Arizona's controversial law cracking down on illegal immigrants is not only a horrible idea, but offensive as well.

Chief Keith Sadler said the proposal would subject many citizens to police questioning solely because they have brown skin and speak a language other than English.

"Some of the people who come up with these ideas, I almost think I know what they're trying to say," Sadler said in an interview. "It's inexcusable. To me, it's, 'Anybody who's not white might be an illegal immigrant.' That's what I'm getting out of that.

"It's offensive. People who never come into contact with any kind of immigrants make a lot of assumptions on archaic stigmas, and it's frustrating."[

Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray called the proposal "politically motivated and not serious law enforcement," and said, if enacted, it would not hold up in court.

"How are you going to know who needs the papers?" the former defense attorney said. "When you say there are 'subjective' standards, what you're saying is it's unconstitutional."

Gray said a law similar to Arizona's is unnecessary because police already have the ability to check an individual's residency status with the federal government.

Mandating such inquiries would lead to poor relations between the police and the Hispanic community, which is made up of a large number of Puerto Rico natives, who are U.S. citizens, he said.

Even outside the city, the legislation is raising concerns in the law-enforcement community.

West Hempfield Township police Chief Mark Pugliese said Pennsylvania doesn't need the Arizona-type law.

"I don't know that the system is broken right now," he said.

"There is a process in place through which we can verify a person's status," he said. Instead of enacting a new law, Pugliese said he would work to improve the government's system of verifying immigration status.

Ephrata Borough police Chief William L. Harvey questioned whether the proposal would provide officers with additional training on how to identify illegal immigrants.

"There's going to have to be an immense amount of training in how to make correct determinations, and in the area of documentation, especially counterfeit," Harvey said. "That's going to be a huge market."

And should the bill become law, who's going to pay for that training?

"This commonwealth has cut back funding for police training immensely," Harvey said. "Whose dime is this going to be on? If it fell upon me, I need this budget for other things."

He said the proposed requirements under the bill would add another layer of responsibility on already strapped and undermanned police forces.

"If you would talk to officers on the street, if you look at the traditional roles in 1980 when I walked in the door versus 2010, we have increased the demands on law enforcement at some mathematical quotient that we have not been able to keep up with," Harvey said.

"I now have got a litany of topic matters that I have to have officers trained in, and a lot of them are risk management issues to protect my municipality from liability. Now we're raising the bar and raising the workload more.”

New Holland Borough Mayor Wilbur Horning, who oversees the police force there, said he had not read the legislation. But he voiced frustration over the federal government's failure to control illegal immigration.

"The one thing that I do feel strongly about is that we, as a nation, need to decide what our immigration policy is going to be in this country," he said. "I really feel that it has been neglected and it's time for us to come up with a policy.

: http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/253661#ixzz0v6hPlZro



Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:34 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Hate to say "I toldja so"...


Oh, wait. No I don't.




That's for all my right-wing friends out there. :)




AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:03 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Took longer than expected, but sure enough, Lord and Lady Douchebag make the scene.

Sorry to disappoint y'all....


Quote:

Arizona Will Appeal Ruling on Immigration Law, Governor Says


Arizona appealed a judge’s ruling that struck key provisions of a state law requiring police to determine the immigration status of people stopped for questioning, said Governor Jan Brewer.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco would hear arguments over the law in mid-September, according to a request for expedited proceedings submitted by Brewer today. Arizona would have two weeks to file its first brief under the proposed schedule.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton in Phoenix held yesterday that the state can’t mandate that police make a “reasonable attempt” to determine whether a person is legally in the U.S. and then detain him if there is “suspicion” that he isn’t.

The schedule should be sped up because the barred provisions “were critical to address serious criminal, environmental, and economic problems Arizona has been suffering as a consequence of illegal immigration and the lack of effective enforcement activity by the federal government,” Arizona said in a copy of its appeals court filing that it provided.

“America is not going to sit back and allow the ongoing federal failures to continue,” Brewer said today in a statement. “We are a nation of laws and we believe they need to be enforced.”




Justice will prevail, in the end.

One way, or the other.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:06 PM

WHOZIT


Does this mean the boycott is off? HOT DAM! I'm catching the 3:10 to Yuma!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:43 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Well, historically speaking, they have about a 1-in-4 chance of overturning the judge's overturning of the law. Appeals courts generally uphold the lower court's ruling about 75% of the time.

So yes, justice WILL prevail, as it just did.



AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:50 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Americans have a fundamental right to protect themselves and their borders. If not, then there is no point in having a constitution or even a country.

Americans will do what's right. Even if our Gov't won't.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:56 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:





Obviously Nelson is pointing to where the thread for civil discourse on this subject starts, 'cuz I doubt it will be this one.

My understanding is the judge only really changed the "mandatory" part of asking for papers, but they can still do so.

Niki, for every quote you find from people who don't like this law I'm sure I could find just as many that think it's a good idea (I'm not inclined to), or more to the point, think that when you have 12 million people living illegally in your country it's time to admit the system is seriously fa-schizzled. Some police chief in Pennsylvania doesn't like it? Of course he doesn't want any more paper work! "Cripes, I got enough aggravation."
I hesitate to say a majority of Americans agree with the law or it's intended result, because a majority of American elected W. Twice. But it's still a democracy, so in the spirit of this thread, Ha Ha!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:58 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


At one time, a majority of Americans supported segregation. Didn't make them right, and it still doesn't.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:17 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
At one time, a majority of Americans supported segregation. Didn't make them right, and it still doesn't.




Only you would equate segregation to illegal immigration.

Well, you and our current President, perhaps.




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:26 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I have opposed the Arizona law, but freely admit that there is an illegal immigration problem. This problem is best combatted in a myriad of ways that down't involve requiring people to carry proof of citizenship in their day-to-day activities. The border is your first opportunity to stop the illegals, but we have never invested much on border security, preferring to invest our funds for national defense overseas. The second opportunity comes at the workplace, by crippling employers who hire illegals. This measure alone will solve the majority of the problem. (And the latter has been very successful already in Arizona, with many illegals evacuating due to an inability to find employment here.)

This problem is an argument between those who favor a scalpel, and those who favor a grenade. I don't want anyone hit by the shrapnel, so a scalpel is my preferred implement.

--Anthony


Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:28 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
At one time, a majority of Americans supported segregation. Didn't make them right, and it still doesn't.



Yeah, but more recently a majority of fans thought Spain would win the World Cup, and they were right! So that proves it. What else ya got?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:30 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Snark, snark, snark...gawd I'm sick of it.

On to the real issue: Yes, Pizmo, he struck down PARTS of it, the UNCONSTITUTIONAL parts, not the whole thing. The police aren't just bothered by paperwork; if you read it, they're more bothered by the fact that the relationship they've had with the Hispanic community has been damaged, ergo no information from same to help them solve crimes, AND I heard one sheriff talking about how it makes extra work for his guys the way it's been written giving them less time to deal with other things, costs his taxpayers and is unnecessary.

Of course we have the right to protect our country. But if you're talking Constitution, it SHOULD protect citizens from being pulled over and demanded to show their papers even when they're legal citizens AND, if they don't have them on them, be taken off to jail. Remember that part in the Constitution? Something about "illegal search and seizure"??

The feds need to get off their asses and deal with THIS "third rail". Not that they will, or will try to come together for any REALISTIC solution...so it goes on...

As to it being overturned on appeal, you must not have noted that it's being adjudicated at the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco. We're a Sanctuary City, remember? I doubt you'll get much sympathy for an appeal here...

And Mike makes a good ponit. At one time not only did the majority of Americans favor segretation, the same is true of women in the armed forces, interracial marriage, Blacks AND JEWS in the armed forces, and much, much more. Gawd forbid we should evolve...


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:32 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
At one time, a majority of Americans supported segregation. Didn't make them right, and it still doesn't.




Only you would equate segregation to illegal immigration.




And only YOU would equate a comparison to an equation. But that's because you're such a complete and utter douchebag, of course.





AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:36 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I have opposed the Arizona law, but freely admit that there is an illegal immigration problem. This problem is best combatted in a myriad of ways that down't involve requiring people to carry proof of citizenship in their day-to-day activities. The border is your first opportunity to stop the illegals, but we have never invested much on border security, preferring to invest our funds for national defense overseas. The second opportunity comes at the workplace, by crippling employers who hire illegals. This measure alone will solve the majority of the problem. (And the latter has been very successful already in Arizona, with many illegals evacuating due to an inability to find employment here.)

This problem is an argument between those who favor a scalpel, and those who favor a grenade. I don't want anyone hit by the shrapnel, so a scalpel is my preferred implement.

--Anthony


Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.




Bingo.

Some of the law is being upheld, and some of it should probably be EXPANDED upon, or at least EXPOUNDED upon. The part of the law that says it's a crime to harbor illegals was upheld. Good. Let's apply that to "harboring" illegal employees at the workplace, and crack down on it from that end by making employers responsible for verifying employees' legal work status.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:38 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
At one time, a majority of Americans supported segregation. Didn't make them right, and it still doesn't.



Yeah, but more recently a majority of fans thought Spain would win the World Cup, and they were right! So that proves it. What else ya got?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com




And I would have a problem with you passing a law that said that Spain HAD TO WIN the World Cup. I don't care what you or soccer fans *WANT* - I care what's LEGAL, and what you're passing laws about.


AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:54 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Snark, snark, snark...gawd I'm sick of it.

On to the real issue: Yes, Pizmo, he struck down PARTS of it, the UNCONSTITUTIONAL parts, not the whole thing.



You hold that up like it's a vindication of how barbaric the law is, how the law obviously demeans people, how horrible those in favor of it are, how our country's decency saved the day, when in fact what the judge found was UNCONSTITUTIONAL was AZ overreaching the FED by trying to address border issues themselves. THE FEDS found the law UNCONSTITUTIONAL because in the constitution it says the US Gov shall be the sole arbiter of border law and not the states.

I think it's most likely that some of you can't get past some of the posters on this board that are in favor of the law. The one thread about choosing your politics - do you choose them because of who you might sit next to or because of the principles? I think the principle that when a legal avenue to a goal is possible and it is ignored on such a scale, then the reward of that goal should be withheld. What kind of precedent are you setting? Do you have kids? I mean it seems fundamental.

"Your honor, I'm sorry, I just really wanted the cash in the drawer. I know I didn't earn it but I really wanted it and I didn't want to wait."

"It's ok young man, we appreciate your effort, you can have the cash. But let that be a lesson to ya."

"Yes your honor, I sure will."

I saw a former Clinton US/Mexico liaison on CNN talking about how Mexico is outraged by this law. "Any good coming from it?" "Well, it has made us (Mexico) look more closely at our own immigration laws. Turns out we're less forgiving on all of the South American illegals that come to our country to get into America than the US is on our illegals..." How touching. The law is even making Mexico sit up straight.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:02 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:


"Your honor, I'm sorry, I just really wanted the cash in the drawer. I know I didn't earn it but I really wanted it and I didn't want to wait."

"It's ok young man, we appreciate your effort, you can have the cash. But let that be a lesson to ya."

"Yes your honor, I sure will."



I take it that in this instance, Arizona wanted the "cash"? The "cash" being that they wanted to do what THEY wanted, and didn't really care whether it was legal or constitutional or not.

You seem to be basing your whole legal argument here on the idea that you don't like illegals and want to be able to do whatever you want in order to round them up and ship 'em out, and legalities and constitutions be damned.

As Anthony pointed out so eloquently, we're not arguing about whether illegal immigration is a problem; we're arguing about who you run over in your headlong rush to some sort of final solution.

The federal judge - a conservative judge who was nominated by John Kyl, of all people - ruled that there are parts of the law that Arizona can't enforce because they are simply not in the constitution, and/or Arizona doesn't have the primacy to enforce those laws and usurp them from the federal government.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:07 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"I think it's most likely that some of you can't get past some of the posters on this board that are in favor of the law. The one thread about choosing your politics - do you choose them because of who you might sit next to or because of the principles? I think the principle that when a legal avenue to a goal is possible and it is ignored on such a scale, then the reward of that goal should be withheld."

Hello,

My personal problem is that I don't want citizens who may fit a certain profile to have to produce evidence of citizenship. I like that the U.S. doesn't require citizens to have proof of citizenship when they're going about their business. It makes the U.S. seem less oppressive than many other nations, and I enjoy that atmosphere.

If the goal is to stop illegal immigrants, then all efforts to stop them should target them in a precise fashion. Precision is not the aim of the new law. It is more a blunderbuss, with an emphasis on the blunder.

On the other hand, I have said before that I am sad about the grounds under which the law is likely to be overthrown. Not for any noble reason of liberty and equality, but rather for the simple reason that the Feds like to hold that stick, and don't want anyone else to pick it up.

I'll voice support of any proposal to stem the tide of illegal immigrants that does not carry the strong likelihood of infringement on the rights of citizens. I've already said where I think the action is: Cut off the money.

--Anthony


Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:12 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I have opposed the Arizona law, but freely admit that there is an illegal immigration problem. This problem is best combatted in a myriad of ways that down't involve requiring people to carry proof of citizenship in their day-to-day activities. The border is your first opportunity to stop the illegals, but we have never invested much on border security, preferring to invest our funds for national defense overseas. The second opportunity comes at the workplace, by crippling employers who hire illegals. This measure alone will solve the majority of the problem. (And the latter has been very successful already in Arizona, with many illegals evacuating due to an inability to find employment here.)

This problem is an argument between those who favor a scalpel, and those who favor a grenade. I don't want anyone hit by the shrapnel, so a scalpel is my preferred implement.




I really do agree with a lot of what you say on this Anthony, especially employers hiring illegals.

I feel I'm missing an essential part of this debate though. The one where US citizens of Mexican ancestry say how fed up they are at being looked at and treated like they might be illegal because they live in a state where there are 1/2 million illegal Mexican immigrants. Don't the negative consequences of all those illegals impact the legal US/Mexican citizenry the most? Anthony, would you be worrying about your papers or your father being harassed if that wasn't the case? I would just love to hear one vital Mexican American voice say, "My people need to follow US law on this."

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:16 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"I think it's most likely that some of you can't get past some of the posters on this board that are in favor of the law. The one thread about choosing your politics - do you choose them because of who you might sit next to or because of the principles? I think the principle that when a legal avenue to a goal is possible and it is ignored on such a scale, then the reward of that goal should be withheld."

Hello,

My personal problem is that I don't want citizens who may fit a certain profile to have to produce evidence of citizenship. I like that the U.S. doesn't require citizens to have proof of citizenship when they're going about their business. It makes the U.S. seem less oppressive than many other nations, and I enjoy that atmosphere.




Somebody should write some sort of Constitutional Amendment to that effect. Something about the rights of the people to be secure in their persons and papers, and no searches or seizures being made without a warrant based on probable cause.

Oh. Shit. Somebody already DID all that. How quickly they forget...

Quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Of note, it DOESN'T say, "Unless you really think they're illegal aliens" or "unless you really don't like the way they look".

Quote:


If the goal is to stop illegal immigrants, then all efforts to stop them should target them in a precise fashion. Precision is not the aim of the new law. It is more a blunderbuss, with an emphasis on the blunder.



BIG emphasis on the blunder.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:18 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

I would just love to hear one vital Mexican American voice say, "My people need to follow US law on this."



You mean you want the people who are here LEGALLY to follow U.S. law, like they already did and do?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:34 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Bant on, Anthony.
Quote:

what the judge found was UNCONSTITUTIONAL was AZ overreaching the FED by trying to address border issues themselves
You just said it...they struck down the unconstitutional part. The part where their law was “overreaching”. It’s exactly that “overreaching” that is my only complaint against the law. Thanx..

Your comparison means nothing to me, and what does having kids have to do with ANYTHING? Are we not entitled to our opinion unless we have children? The difference is in FORCING the police to question anyone who looks Mexican to show their papers—and unless they can do so immediately, jailing them. That’s a simple distinction to me. The difference between letting police do their job and forcing them (under penalty of being sued) to question anyone a citizen thinks they should question. That’s the result of the law, however they tried to couch the terms.

We’re not debating that illegal immigration is right, nobody has said that and I don’t believe anyone thinks that. Mike’s statement is right:
Quote:

we're arguing about who you run over in your headlong rush to some sort of final solution.
Anthony answered it well, too
Quote:

It makes the U.S. seem less oppressive than many other nations, and I enjoy that atmosphere.
I would phrase it that I’m PROUD of the U.S. for not accosting citizens because of their looks and don’t want to see that hcanged.

One of the points is, if you’re going to go after illegals, go after the EMPLOYERS, because they are the ones both profiting from illegal immigration and as a result PROTECTING illegals. But nobody wants to do that, it hits in the pocketbook; they’d rather force the police to accost people on the street, and even jail American citizens (it HAS happened, I posted the facts of specific instances). Citizens held in jail until their relatives can come get them with citizenship proof is just plain wrong. Forcing the police to do ICE’s job a well as their wn is also wrong.
Quote:

love to hear one vital Mexican American voice say, "My people need to follow US law on this."
They HAVE. Many of them. They’re as frustrated as anyone that the fed hasn’t dealt with the immigration problem, but they’re also afraid of being accosted because of the provisions of this law.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:41 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:


"Your honor, I'm sorry, I just really wanted the cash in the drawer. I know I didn't earn it but I really wanted it and I didn't want to wait."

"It's ok young man, we appreciate your effort, you can have the cash. But let that be a lesson to ya."

"Yes your honor, I sure will."



I take it that in this instance, Arizona wanted the "cash"? The "cash" being that they wanted to do what THEY wanted, and didn't really care whether it was legal or constitutional or not.

You seem to be basing your whole legal argument here on the idea that you don't like illegals and want to be able to do whatever you want in order to round them up and ship 'em out, and legalities and constitutions be damned.




No, yesterday was Wednesday. WTF? I actually love people who break the law, it's that whole fantasy Independence vibe from Firefly - a work of fiction - that I embrace for my real life ethos. I use the rationale that "The Man" is keeping me down - I'm not sure how just that it can't be me - so I applaud anyone who seems to be at odds with The Man. If I reduce my standards far enough I can actually feel stronger because I will surround myself with increasingly weaker people. You might say staying weak is how I feel strong. You should try... oh,
nevermind!

That's as serious as your post was to me.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:47 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"I think it's most likely that some of you can't get past some of the posters on this board that are in favor of the law. The one thread about choosing your politics - do you choose them because of who you might sit next to or because of the principles? I think the principle that when a legal avenue to a goal is possible and it is ignored on such a scale, then the reward of that goal should be withheld."

Hello,

My personal problem is that I don't want citizens who may fit a certain profile to have to produce evidence of citizenship. I like that the U.S. doesn't require citizens to have proof of citizenship when they're going about their business. It makes the U.S. seem less oppressive than many other nations, and I enjoy that atmosphere.




Somebody should write some sort of Constitutional Amendment to that effect. Something about the rights of the people to be secure in their persons and papers, and no searches or seizures being made without a warrant based on probable cause.

Oh. Shit. Somebody already DID all that. How quickly they forget...

Quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Of note, it DOESN'T say, "Unless you really think they're illegal aliens" or "unless you really don't like the way they look".

Quote:


If the goal is to stop illegal immigrants, then all efforts to stop them should target them in a precise fashion. Precision is not the aim of the new law. It is more a blunderbuss, with an emphasis on the blunder.



BIG emphasis on the blunder.



Wouldn't that Constitutional Amendment apply to US citizens?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:50 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

I would just love to hear one vital Mexican American voice say, "My people need to follow US law on this."



You mean you want the people who are here LEGALLY to follow U.S. law, like they already did and do?



You really just don't want to understand. Just for the record. "I think my people from Mexico who want to immigrate to the US should follow US immigration law." Too simple? Go ahead, twist it.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:59 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"Don't the negative consequences of all those illegals impact the legal US/Mexican citizenry the most? Anthony, would you be worrying about your papers or your father being harassed if that wasn't the case? I would just love to hear one vital Mexican American voice say, "My people need to follow US law on this."


Hello,

There are voices in the legal immigrant community that decry the actions of illegals. My own father, in fact. But when folks are being uncareful in their lawmaking, it's hard to back their position. Take our fellow citizens out from in front of the crosshairs of legislation, and you're likely to see more voiciferous support for actions taken to curb illegal immigration.

Just once I'd like someone writing a law to stop and think, "Wait... could this possibly have an unwanted side effect? If so, How can we prevent that?" Instead, people seem quick to write laws and slow to refine and correct them. I'm not one of the conspiracy theorists who claim that the law is designed to be racist, but I do wonder why the lawmakers don't make significant changes when this possibility is pointed out to them.

Instead, they simply tacked on verbiage like, "And nobody will be racist about this" (I paraphrase) without stopping to consider that wishing doesn't make it so. I'd wager if the law said that all citizens must be prepared to prove citizenship at all times, there'd be a degree more outcry from a wider base of folks.

--Anthony



Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:01 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


""I think my people from Mexico who want to immigrate to the US should follow US immigration law." Too simple? Go ahead, twist it."

Hello,

Not simple enough.

"I think people who want to immigrate to the US should follow US immigration law."

--Anthony




Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:09 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

I would just love to hear one vital Mexican American voice say, "My people need to follow US law on this."



You mean you want the people who are here LEGALLY to follow U.S. law, like they already did and do?



You really just don't want to understand. Just for the record. "I think my people from Mexico who want to immigrate to the US should follow US immigration law." Too simple? Go ahead, twist it.



No, you REALLY just aren't being clear. You're not communicating well. You said you wanted ONE vital Mexican AMERICAN to say "MY people need to follow U.S. law on this."

If you're speaking to Mexican AMERICANS, aren't "their people" AMERICAN CITIZENS? Your lack of clarity really makes it seem as though you're asking Americans to ask Americans to follow American law. I found that quite a strange request, and wanted clarification.

Now it seems as though you want Americans to speak for Mexicans. Shall black people from Detroit now speak for Africans from Somalia, too?

Anthony is, if I'm not mistaken, of Hispanic descent. He has said repeatedly that he has issues with illegal immigration, and wants it curbed, and wants people to follow legal routes to come to this country. Is he not "vital" enough for you on this board? Or is he not Mexican enough?



AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:13 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
""I think my people from Mexico who want to immigrate to the US should follow US immigration law." Too simple? Go ahead, twist it."

Hello,

Not simple enough.

"I think people who want to immigrate to the US should follow US immigration law."

--Anthony




Wait, Anthony - that'll never work; you didn't specifically mention Mexicans!


"My people" are Americans. My ancestors were Germans. I think people who want to immigrate to the U.S. should follow U.S. immigration law, too. No matter WHERE they come from. Ireland, Mexico, Germany, Iraq, Cuba, South Africa, wherever.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:56 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Quote:

Arizona preparing appeal of immigration ruling

Other provisions that were less contentious were allowed to take effect Thursday, including a section that bars 'Sanctuary Cities' in Arizona from disregarding federal immigration laws.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100729/D9H8OM480.html



Just like I'm appealing a fed traffic ticket for the past 3 years, since the feds never obey their own laws.

72 Percent Say Government Not Enforcing Immigration Laws
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/29/fox-news-poll-percent-say-governm
ent-enforcing-immigration-laws
/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:58 PM

MAL4PREZ


This whole thing is like bad parenting. The parents are off busy smoking dope or something, so the kids have to come up with their own rules to keep order. Then the parents show up and are shocked at how the older one is beating on the younger. Duh!

The federal govt needs to figure their shit out. On one hand, they have this path to legal citizenship that they insist everyone should follow. On the other hand, the cheap labor is nice, so they let the rule-breaking slide. (If it wasn't so, they'd be busting companies for employing illegals, rather than going after the illegals themselves, right? It wouldn't be that hard to go after employers. So why haven't they?)

The feds need to work their shit out. Either let people from ALL other nations work here, or go after the employers. Until mommy and daddy lay down the law, the states will continue to come up with these asinine unconstitutional laws and thousands of well-meaning people will get stuck in the middle of the battle.

So why don't the Feds do anything? I think it's two-pronged. Part of it is the hand of the corporations - the folks who have the cash to sick lobbyists on congress looooove cheap labor. The other part of it is pure old-fashioned racism. Sorry I don't have the research on hand to post, but I've heard from sources I trust: if you search down the actual hands that write tough immigration laws, the actual fingers who typed it on the keyboard, you'll find some hardcore white supremacists. They set it down in the 50s: their goal was to make whitey afraid of browny, to make browny look like a big scary invader.

Why else is the inclusion of "Mexico/Mexican" such an important thing? We don't care about Canadians so much, because they look like us. It's just those brown skinners -- we can't have them polluting our pure Aryan blood.



-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:04 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
""I think my people from Mexico who want to immigrate to the US should follow US immigration law." Too simple? Go ahead, twist it."

Hello,

Not simple enough.

"I think people who want to immigrate to the US should follow US immigration law."




I completely agree in broad US immigration terms, but in terms of this debate, Arizona, it is Mexican immigrants we're talking about.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:12 PM

MINCINGBEAST


I wonder, has anyone read the decision? I've downloaded it and skimmed it, and might actually finish it if I can't find a better way to pass the time before I die.

To be clear, the law has not been "over turned." This is just round one of what promises to be a long and dreary struggle. A preliminary injunction issued because the Judge found that 1) the US government was likely to succeed on the merits of their claim 2) and would suffer irreperable harm without an injunction. The injunction settles nothing: it preserves the status quo. It prevents the law from going into effect untill its legality can be more thoroughly litigated. Even if the appeal fails, it will fail as a preliminary injunction. And the actual law is going to be held to a different standard--"likely to succeed on the merits."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:19 PM

MINCINGBEAST


There's a difference between a law that would require US citizens to carry proof of citizenship at all times, and a law that would require a US citizen under "reasonable suspicion" to provide a law enforcement officer with proof of citizenship when it is requested.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:23 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

I think people who want to immigrate to the U.S. should follow U.S. immigration law, too. No matter WHERE they come from. Ireland, Mexico, Germany, Iraq, Cuba, South Africa, wherever.



Shit, we agree. So how about those in AZ?

Some numbers on total illegals in the US and percent of all illegals nationwide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States

Mexico 6,570,000 69%
El Salvador 510,000 9%
Guatemala 430,000 8%
Philippines 280,000 4%
Honduras 280,000 5%
India 270,000 5%

I'm thinking we can pull some people from the Ireland, Germany, Iraq, Cuba, & South Africa squads you were concerned about.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:37 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by mal4prez:
This whole thing is like bad parenting. The parents are off busy smoking dope or something, so the kids have to come up with their own rules to keep order. Then the parents show up and are shocked at how the older one is beating on the younger. Duh!

The federal govt needs to figure their shit out. On one hand, they have this path to legal citizenship that they insist everyone should follow. On the other hand, the cheap labor is nice, so they let the rule-breaking slide. (If it wasn't so, they'd be busting companies for employing illegals, rather than going after the illegals themselves, right? It wouldn't be that hard to go after employers. So why haven't they?)

The feds need to work their shit out. Either let people from ALL other nations work here, or go after the employers. Until mommy and daddy lay down the law, the states will continue to come up with these asinine unconstitutional laws and thousands of well-meaning people will get stuck in the middle of the battle.

So why don't the Feds do anything? I think it's two-pronged. Part of it is the hand of the corporations - the folks who have the cash to sick lobbyists on congress looooove cheap labor. The other part of it is pure old-fashioned racism. Sorry I don't have the research on hand to post, but I've heard from sources I trust: if you search down the actual hands that write tough immigration laws, the actual fingers who typed it on the keyboard, you'll find some hardcore white supremacists. They set it down in the 50s: their goal was to make whitey afraid of browny, to make browny look like a big scary invader.

Why else is the inclusion of "Mexico/Mexican" such an important thing? We don't care about Canadians so much, because they look like us. It's just those brown skinners -- we can't have them polluting our pure Aryan blood.



I would guess Mexico/Mexican because of the shear numbers of illegals from Mexico.
That's the nuts on this debate is that the truth is it will definitely attract people who hate "brown people." I can't think of a single person in favor of this law that I *like* or even respect that much, but I bet nothing would get done in AZ without it.
I agree "The feds need to work their shit out" and I've even speculated that AZ wrote this knowing it would be controversial just to force the Feds' hand.


Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:45 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Where was I talking about "squads", Piz? I must have missed that, seeing as I never mentioned it. Could it be that you're assigning my position for me so you can pretend you knocked it down?

I'm asking why you seem to insist on having the word "Mexican" included in any law about immigration. Shouldn't "Illegal immigrant" or "illegal resident" cover it, NO MATTER WHERE THE PERSON CAME FROM?

Your problem seems to be that you want to be very, very specific, and aim laws by name solely at "Mexicans". So I take it you aren't so much against illegal immigration, as you are against illegal MEXICAN immigration. So you stop all the Mexicans. Great. What happens when you find out you now have 6.5 million Guatemalans pouring across your border? Another hastily-written law that applies ONLY to Guatemalans?

How about just writing one set of immigration laws and applying it equally to all? What's the major malfunction with that idea?

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:48 PM

FREMDFIRMA



The turd of racism still stinks like shit no matter how much pretty frosting they try to hide it with, doesn't it, Mikey ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:49 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
There's a difference between a law that would require US citizens to carry proof of citizenship at all times, and a law that would require a US citizen under "reasonable suspicion" to provide a law enforcement officer with proof of citizenship when it is requested.




And that difference lies entirely in the twilight zone of what constitutes "reasonable suspicion". I'd prefer the higher standard of "probably cause" backed by a warrant stating specific details.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:57 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

The turd of racism still stinks like shit no matter how much pretty frosting they try to hide it with, doesn't it, Mikey ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.




Y'know, I'm trying very hard NOT to think that's the real agenda here; that's why I'm asking that we start applying generic catch-all (no pun intended) terms like "Illegal entrant" and "Illegal resident", because that has absolutely nothing to do with someone's color, race, heritage, ethnic background, or anything else except whether they entered this country legally or not.

But yeah, if you start front-loading the legislation with words like "Mexican" or "Hispanic", then you're just BEGGING for not only charges of racism, but legal challenges of discrimination as well. And there's no fucking point to using such wording; some of it is too specific ("Mexican" would let through everyone from Honduras, for instance, while "Hispanic" would likely block Cubans, which from all I can gather is NOT the intended target of such legislation).

Words matter, people. Not mentioning Mexicans specifically by nationality in your law doesn't mean you can't target Mexican illegals in Arizona; it DOES mean you can target Canadian illegals in Seattle, Chinese illegals in San Francisco, or Guatemalan illegals in Louisiana. In short, it allows you to target the problem groups in the problem areas.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 6:38 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Where was I talking about "squads", Piz? I must have missed that, seeing as I never mentioned it. Could it be that you're assigning my position for me so you can pretend you knocked it down?

I'm asking why you seem to insist on having the word "Mexican" included in any law about immigration. Shouldn't "Illegal immigrant" or "illegal resident" cover it, NO MATTER WHERE THE PERSON CAME FROM?

Your problem seems to be that you want to be very, very specific, and aim laws by name solely at "Mexicans". So I take it you aren't so much against illegal immigration, as you are against illegal MEXICAN immigration. So you stop all the Mexicans. Great. What happens when you find out you now have 6.5 million Guatemalans pouring across your border? Another hastily-written law that applies ONLY to Guatemalans?

How about just writing one set of immigration laws and applying it equally to all? What's the major malfunction with that idea?




Great, you can't win a straight debate so you make shit up. Take your time, scroll up and find where I said anything about insisting "on having the word "Mexican" included in any law about immigration." Take your time, honesty is important.

fwiw "How about just writing one set of immigration laws and applying it equally to all? What's the major malfunction with that idea?"

Fine by me, type it up and I'll sign it.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 6:41 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

The turd of racism still stinks like shit no matter how much pretty frosting they try to hide it with, doesn't it, Mikey ?

-Frem



If you're talking to me then have the guts to talk directly to me.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 6:50 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Where was I talking about "squads", Piz? I must have missed that, seeing as I never mentioned it. Could it be that you're assigning my position for me so you can pretend you knocked it down?

I'm asking why you seem to insist on having the word "Mexican" included in any law about immigration. Shouldn't "Illegal immigrant" or "illegal resident" cover it, NO MATTER WHERE THE PERSON CAME FROM?

Your problem seems to be that you want to be very, very specific, and aim laws by name solely at "Mexicans". So I take it you aren't so much against illegal immigration, as you are against illegal MEXICAN immigration. So you stop all the Mexicans. Great. What happens when you find out you now have 6.5 million Guatemalans pouring across your border? Another hastily-written law that applies ONLY to Guatemalans?

How about just writing one set of immigration laws and applying it equally to all? What's the major malfunction with that idea?




Great, you can't win a straight debate so you make shit up.



Like your "squads" you claimed I mentioned? That kind of making shit up? Is that what you're referring to?

Quote:


Take your time, scroll up and find where I said anything about insisting "on having the word "Mexican" included in any law about immigration." Take your time, honesty is important.



Show me where I said you INSISTED on it. Scroll up and read it carefully. Twice, if you need to. See the word "seem" in there? You SEEM to have an issue with it.

Here's the exact passage:

Quote:


I'm asking why you seem to insist on having the word "Mexican" included in any law about immigration. Shouldn't "Illegal immigrant" or "illegal resident" cover it, NO MATTER WHERE THE PERSON CAME FROM?



If you don't insist on using the word "Mexican", fine. You seem obsessed with pointing out that Mexicans are the entire problem when it comes to immigration, though. (Note I said you SEEM obsessed; doesn't mean you ARE, just means that's how I see it from here, from reading your words). You keep bringing up WHERE people come from, rather than THAT people are coming here illegally.

Quote:


fwiw "How about just writing one set of immigration laws and applying it equally to all? What's the major malfunction with that idea?"

Fine by me, type it up and I'll sign it.



Are you pope of this dump now? Are you the Governor of Fireflyfans.net? President of RWED?

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 6:55 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
If you're talking to me then have the guts to talk directly to me.


If I was, I woulda!

Don't be an ass, Piz - there's a whole reek of racism about this mess, and thing is, aside from any moral judgements, it's very damn distracting from coming up with some kinda reasonable solution.

So I wasn't droppin a slam on you specifically, or trust me, you woulda known it, I was speaking in general of this whole stupid issue.

And bein less than honest about it, that there ARE racist dicks who wanna justify that shit by codifying it into law, well, that kinda impinges on the legitimacy of the whole damn process, doesn't it ?

We need to admit that some of that is goin on, and shut it down before there's even a HOPE of honest discussions on the merits - and frosting it over and pretending that ain't what IS happening, that is not a solution either.

Happy now ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 6:57 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"I think it's most likely that some of you can't get past some of the posters on this board that are in favor of the law. The one thread about choosing your politics - do you choose them because of who you might sit next to or because of the principles? I think the principle that when a legal avenue to a goal is possible and it is ignored on such a scale, then the reward of that goal should be withheld."

Hello,

My personal problem is that I don't want citizens who may fit a certain profile to have to produce evidence of citizenship. I like that the U.S. doesn't require citizens to have proof of citizenship when they're going about their business. It makes the U.S. seem less oppressive than many other nations, and I enjoy that atmosphere.




Somebody should write some sort of Constitutional Amendment to that effect. Something about the rights of the people to be secure in their persons and papers, and no searches or seizures being made without a warrant based on probable cause.

Oh. Shit. Somebody already DID all that. How quickly they forget...

Quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Of note, it DOESN'T say, "Unless you really think they're illegal aliens" or "unless you really don't like the way they look".

Quote:


If the goal is to stop illegal immigrants, then all efforts to stop them should target them in a precise fashion. Precision is not the aim of the new law. It is more a blunderbuss, with an emphasis on the blunder.



BIG emphasis on the blunder.



Wouldn't that Constitutional Amendment apply to US citizens?



Depends on who you ask, it seems. The Fourth Amendment doesn't say anything about that; it says "the people".

Of course, I completely understand if you don't consider non-citizens real people. I don't agree, but I see how you got there. It's how we managed to make torture completely legal in this country, after all, by deciding that only "real" Americans are actual people deserving of human rights, and anyone else can suck on it 'til they drown...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:11 PM

MINCINGBEAST


You need a warrant to arrest someone or seize property; this entails probable cause and specificty. And a magistrate. Even then, there are many exceptions, and probable cause alone is generally enough to constitutionally justify obnoxious police behavior.

Reasonable suspicion is a much lower standard, generally justified by exigent circumstances like officer safety. A cop can frisk you for a gun without probable cause, for example, because the law doesn't want to make it too difficult for officers to protect themselves. The law strives for balance. Of course officers exploit this. "I was concerned for my safety and frisked him, when I felt something that I instantly recognized as drugs." Bullshit, but it happens all the time, and usually sticks. Doesn't mean these searches are bad. A laws value isn't determined by its potential for abuse. Cops have this discretion over all laws.

Is there a better enforcement mechanism then giving officers, who have lawfully detained someone, discretion to request proof of citizenship based on reasonable suspicion? The current law directs officers to; that's most of the trouble. At what point are we comfortable with cops making such a request? Say, Jose was stopped because his car has no tags. He is swarth. He speaks no English. Jose has no ID (which cops can generally demand). He is evasive. The stop happens in a border town. At any point, in that ill conceived hypo, would it be proper for the officer to say "are you a US citizen?"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:11 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"I think it's most likely that some of you can't get past some of the posters on this board that are in favor of the law. The one thread about choosing your politics - do you choose them because of who you might sit next to or because of the principles? I think the principle that when a legal avenue to a goal is possible and it is ignored on such a scale, then the reward of that goal should be withheld."

Hello,

My personal problem is that I don't want citizens who may fit a certain profile to have to produce evidence of citizenship. I like that the U.S. doesn't require citizens to have proof of citizenship when they're going about their business. It makes the U.S. seem less oppressive than many other nations, and I enjoy that atmosphere.




Somebody should write some sort of Constitutional Amendment to that effect. Something about the rights of the people to be secure in their persons and papers, and no searches or seizures being made without a warrant based on probable cause.

Oh. Shit. Somebody already DID all that. How quickly they forget...

Quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Of note, it DOESN'T say, "Unless you really think they're illegal aliens" or "unless you really don't like the way they look".

Quote:


If the goal is to stop illegal immigrants, then all efforts to stop them should target them in a precise fashion. Precision is not the aim of the new law. It is more a blunderbuss, with an emphasis on the blunder.



BIG emphasis on the blunder.



Wouldn't that Constitutional Amendment apply to US citizens?



Depends on who you ask, it seems. The Fourth Amendment doesn't say anything about that; it says "the people".

Of course, I completely understand if you don't consider non-citizens real people. I don't agree, but I see how you got there. It's how we managed to make torture completely legal in this country, after all, by deciding that only "real" Americans are actual people deserving of human rights, and anyone else can suck on it 'til they drown...



I do so love a good torture!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:18 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
If you're talking to me then have the guts to talk directly to me.


If I was, I woulda!

Don't be an ass, Piz - there's a whole reek of racism about this mess, and thing is, aside from any moral judgements, it's very damn distracting from coming up with some kinda reasonable solution.

So I wasn't droppin a slam on you specifically, or trust me, you woulda known it, I was speaking in general of this whole stupid issue.

And bein less than honest about it, that there ARE racist dicks who wanna justify that shit by codifying it into law, well, that kinda impinges on the legitimacy of the whole damn process, doesn't it ?

We need to admit that some of that is goin on, and shut it down before there's even a HOPE of honest discussions on the merits - and frosting it over and pretending that ain't what IS happening, that is not a solution either.

Happy now ?

-Frem




My blood's up, had to check.
Sadly, I don't think you're ever going to stop race on this one.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:26 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by mincingbeast:
You need a warrant to arrest someone or seize property; this entails probable cause and specificty. And a magistrate. Even then, there are many exceptions, and probable cause alone is generally enough to constitutionally justify obnoxious police behavior.

Reasonable suspicion is a much lower standard, generally justified by exigent circumstances like officer safety. A cop can frisk you for a gun without probable cause, for example, because the law doesn't want to make it too difficult for officers to protect themselves. The law strives for balance. Of course officers exploit this. "I was concerned for my safety and frisked him, when I felt something that I instantly recognized as drugs." Bullshit, but it happens all the time, and usually sticks. Doesn't mean these searches are bad. A laws value isn't determined by its potential for abuse. Cops have this discretion over all laws.



Couple things:

1) Who are you, and what have you done with Mincing?

2) A law's value SHOULD be at least partially determined by its potential for abuse.

Quote:


Is there a better enforcement mechanism then giving officers, who have lawfully detained someone, discretion to request proof of citizenship based on reasonable suspicion? The current law directs officers to; that's most of the trouble. At what point are we comfortable with cops making such a request? Say, Jose was stopped because his car has no tags. He is swarth. He speaks no English. Jose has no ID (which cops can generally demand). He is evasive. The stop happens in a border town. At any point, in that ill conceived hypo, would it be proper for the officer to say "are you a US citizen?"



"... directs officers to; that's most of its trouble." Yup. That's why I pointed it out way back when it was passed. I pointed out that there are very specific differences in wording, between "may" and "shall". This law says "shall" - in other words, the officer MUST ask. That's a world of difference in one little word.

Sadly, nobody seemed to get that except for one federal judge... Maybe I missed my calling!


AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:31 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:


I do so love a good torture!




And really, who doesn't? How else to pass a lazy Thursday?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 15:41 - 7 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 14:12 - 3411 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 11:18 - 2071 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 05:27 - 6154 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts
RFK Jr. Destroys His Candidacy With VP Pick?
Wed, March 27, 2024 11:59 - 16 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Wed, March 27, 2024 10:57 - 49 posts
Ha. Haha! HAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!!
Tue, March 26, 2024 21:26 - 1 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL