View Full Version : Undocumented immigration in border states
MagicNakor
08-16-2010, 06:57 AM
While I don't have a horse in this particular race (Arizona immigration law), this section has an inordinate amount of Americans; it's very localised. ;) Each country faces its own immigration and crime issues. For one example, here's my illustrious MP attempting to justify allocating $9+ billion for prisons due to unreported crimes. He's no Gohmert talking about "terror babies" (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/38985) but nonetheless:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPUtyOzrK3U
Forgive the chop job:
How do you politely get someone to realize that their actions, and arguments are, in fact, racist. It is very easy for the majority (whites) to think of others (Mexican/Mexican-Americans) as only being "slightly inconveniences" by being pulled over and "checked out" in order to keep the area "safe".
Any conservative should recognize that this is FAR from being a "minor inconvenience".
You, and anyone else, would find this to be VERY unconstitutional if it were something you, yourself, had to face on a daily basis.
We've (US) already gone through this with the internment of Japanese-Americans. Can't we recognize it for what it is?
Mexico tries to protect the sovereignty of its borders with a far more draconian immigration law (as quoted in earlier posts) than the relatively mild Arizona law. It even states that it does not want to upset the demographic balance of its country. And that all immigrants who immigrate to Mexico must be capable of supporting themselves so they are not a drain on the government and taxpayers. I see nothing wrong with this.
And I see nothing wrong with the Arizona law. It merely mirrors the current Federal immigration law, which is mild in comparison to Mexico's immigration law.
If it were up to me, I would solve the problem by hiring enough full time, permanent border patrol agents to patrol both the entire northern and southern borders 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and to sufficiently man all border crossings and check points and airports and sea ports to ensure that people are entering legally. It is really the only solution to the problem. We must be able to control who comes into our country to remain a sovereign nation.
I also support a crackdown on any employer who hires illegal immigrants. Arizona already has this law (and is making its way to the U.S. supreme court), but unfortunately, it is not being fully and properly enforced. After I looked into this matter I found out that I was wrong about Sheriff Joe of Maricopa County. He is not enforcing it against employers, but just the employees, and I agree that is wrong.
I also agree with leet about a nationwide biometric i.d. card and database. It is essential to have such a system if we are really serious about immigration reform.
And if we would do all of the above things FIRST, to ensure that we have a system that can truly control who comes into our country and who works here, then I FULLY SUPPORT AMNESTY for all the current illegal immigrants to make them citizens and bring them out of the shadows and into our system, and maybe assimilate them a bit into the American culture.
Leaving the first aside, how is it that biometrics/implants are to be considered a solution?
How long before biometrics can be had on the street-corner, just like a one-off driver's license or passport?
It occurs to me that such an implant could seriously compromise one's privacy, but perhaps 'leet' hasn't considered this.
I wonder, too, why no one initiates a discussion as to why these people seem not to be the least inclined to expend much effort in aid of improving their lot in Mexico.
You don't like it where you are?
Break out the brooms and clean up your own shit.
What (if anything) does he propose we do about the sheer size of the influx of people and the load it puts on an inadequate U.S. infrastructure?
My question is one of scale: If biometrics are put into use, it will have to be an all-or-nothing approach. Will the populace capitulate to mandatory government fingerprinting, photographing, microchipping, tattooing, profiling? There would have to be both a state and a federal database. If the idea is to tell immigrants that that is the price of admission, how does that negate any of the concerns of racial profiling when asking for valid passport/driver's license/state ID? Something tells me the former wouldn't happen without a fuss, nevermind the cost for creating, implementing and maintaining such a system.
Mexico definitely has its own issues that need to be addressed if there is any hope of stabilising that border. That change has to come from within; I am not educated enough on that subject to provide any meaningful contribution, only superficial observation.
:shuriken:
bigboab
08-16-2010, 08:37 AM
Your 'MP' is talking a lot of sense. Better prisons are required to house long term offenders. As for unreported crime. They are going to raise the age of liability in this country(Scotland) to 12. That should lower the reported crime figures by a huge amount. They also ignore theft if it is under a certain value(unless it is from a business:whistling).
If the police can't be bothered, why should the public?
Let us designate MN's thread as the new start, then.
To begin at the beginning:
The flow of undocumented people over the U.S. border has long-and-far out-stripped the ability of extant controls, indicating a need for heightened capabilities there.
Do we build a wall?
Apparently not.
Do we expand the staffing and capabilities of border-patrol personnel?
No.
Do we allow individual states to address the problem on their own?
Definitely not.
Is this traffic even a problem?
Depends on who you ask.
Is there a biometric solution?
That's debatable - the prospect raises myriad other concerns, but so what?
Am I a racist for asking such questions?
The answer to that is a firm "yes", according to some.
One other thing:
While estimates are somewhat fuzzy, I have heard there are upwards of ten million undocumented people here.
I find myself wondering how many law-enforcement personnel are required to hassle them, given that we can expect they will have full plates harassing legal/naturalized citizens?
bigboab
08-16-2010, 02:03 PM
It is rather worrying about the carnage caused by illegal aliens driving motor vehicles. I have just found this site. (by accident.:whistling)
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_traffic_accidents.html
The story is the same for illegal immigrants in any country.
999969999
08-16-2010, 03:25 PM
As for biometrics, it need not be all that invasive. A simple Fingerprint Clearance Card could be morphed into a nationwide i.d. card and with mobile fingerprint readers, cops and employers could very quickly tell if the person's fingerprints match their i.d. card.
Arizona has a primitive and crude form of it currently in use... http://www.azdps.gov/services/Fingerprint/ ... and with some big adjustments, this system could go a long way to determining who is here legally.
clocker
08-16-2010, 04:17 PM
It is rather worrying about the carnage caused by illegal aliens driving motor vehicles. I have just found this site. (by accident.:whistling)
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_traffic_accidents.html
The story is the same for illegal immigrants in any country.
"Carnage on the highways!", eh?
I'll overlook the giant leaps of faith necessary to accept any of the conclusions of that site- after all, it's clearly stated, and often repeated, that "Nobody is keeping track!" of the statistics- but it does lead me to a question...
If this "carnage" is so unacceptable, in fact, so odious that it has led to calls to modify the 14th Amendment, where is the outrage over the "carnage" caused by guns and the subsequent reimagining of the 2nd Amendment?
No matter what statistics one choses to believe, far more people are killed/injured with guns than cars, so where is the right's outrage over this?
But...but...we're not talking about the second amendment, nor are we talking about any 'outrage' issuing from the Right.
We're talking about the border, controlling it, or not, etc. ...
bigboab
08-16-2010, 05:55 PM
It is rather worrying about the carnage caused by illegal aliens driving motor vehicles. I have just found this site. (by accident.:whistling)
http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_traffic_accidents.html
The story is the same for illegal immigrants in any country.
"Carnage on the highways!", eh?
I'll overlook the giant leaps of faith necessary to accept any of the conclusions of that site- after all, it's clearly stated, and often repeated, that "Nobody is keeping track!" of the statistics- but it does lead me to a question...
If this "carnage" is so unacceptable, in fact, so odious that it has led to calls to modify the 14th Amendment, where is the outrage over the "carnage" caused by guns and the subsequent reimagining of the 2nd Amendment?
No matter what statistics one choses to believe, far more people are killed/injured with guns than cars, so where is the right's outrage over this?
I'm not on the right. I am thinking of the poor buggers who can't afford comprehensive insurance and get involved through no fault of their own in a collision with an ILLEGAL alien driving the other vehicle. This is happening in most western countries who have an illegal alien problem.
I agree, guns should be made illegal with stricter controls but that is a different subject and would only create a diversion from the debate about the illegal alien problem.
megabyteme
08-16-2010, 06:12 PM
For those struggling with the concept of a Race-based law leading to people supporting that/those law(s) being considered (unknowing) "racists"...
Law #1: Blacks are required by law to ride at the back of the bus and give up their seats if a white desires the seat.
Law #2: Asians, by law are not allowed to own property, and count as 1/2 persons.
Law #3: By law,blacks are not allowed to vote.
Law #4: By law, blacks are not allowed o use public drinking fountains, and must use substandard "blacks only" restrooms.
The vast majority of current Americans would believe that supporters of these laws are, in fact, racist.
Law #5: By law, Latino and hispanic looking people must carry proof that they are not illegal aliens in the state of Arizona. This law is directly tied to race, violates constitutionally guaranteed rights, and is just as much a deterrent to legal, American-born citizens as the "illegals" it targets.
How does someone support this race-based law, and NOT believe they are (unknowingly) being racist?
bigboab
08-16-2010, 06:19 PM
For those struggling with the concept of a Race-based law leading to people supporting that/those law(s) being considered (unknowing) "racists"...
Law #1: Blacks are required by law to ride at the back of the bus and give up their seats if a white desires the seat.
Law #2: Asians, by law are not allowed to own property, and count as 1/2 persons.
Law #3: By law,blacks are not allowed to vote.
Law #4: By law, blacks are not allowed o use public drinking fountains, and must use substandard "blacks only" restrooms.
The vast majority of current Americans would believe that supporters of these laws are, in fact, racist.
Law #5: By law, Latino and hispanic looking people must carry proof that they are not illegal aliens in the state of Arizona. This law is directly tied to race, violates constitutionally guaranteed rights, and is just as much a deterrent to legal, American-born citizens as the "illegals" it targets.
How does someone support this race-based law, and NOT believe they are (unknowingly) being racist?
Laws should not discriminate against law abiding citizens of any country regardless of colour or religion.
Law #5: By law, Latino and hispanic looking people must carry proof that they are not illegal aliens in the state of Arizona. This law is directly tied to race, violates constitutionally guaranteed rights, and is just as much a deterrent to legal, American-born citizens as the "illegals" it targets.
How does someone support this race-based law, and NOT believe they are (unknowingly) being racist?
Where is that law? It certainly wasn't a portion of the AZ law or current VA law. I haven't even seen a law such as that proposed.
megabyteme
08-16-2010, 06:49 PM
Law #5: By law, Latino and hispanic looking people must carry proof that they are not illegal aliens in the state of Arizona. This law is directly tied to race, violates constitutionally guaranteed rights, and is just as much a deterrent to legal, American-born citizens as the "illegals" it targets.
How does someone support this race-based law, and NOT believe they are (unknowingly) being racist?
Where is that law? It certainly wasn't a portion of the AZ law or current VA law. I haven't even seen a law such as that proposed.
From NY Times regarding Ariz law: (Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html)):
The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.
999969999
08-16-2010, 07:00 PM
Rather than quoting what someone else said about the law, why not have a look at it for ourselves?
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
megabyteme
08-16-2010, 07:16 PM
Yeah, I've already got it on my desktop.
Does it surprise you that the law does not talk about the innocent people who will be "mistaken" for illegals, and possibly detained for not having "proof of citizenship" on them?
Again, this law is race-based. You guys seem to be the only ones missing that. The words "Latino" and "Hispanic" are race-based. This law targets, as its sole purpose, ....wait...for...it..... Latinos AND Hispanics.
BUYAKASHA. We've now established who this law effects. Let's continue another 25 pages and I'll show that the police are, in fact, involved. :slap:
Yeah, I've already got it on my desktop.
Does it surprise you that the law does not talk about the innocent people who will be "mistaken" for illegals, and possibly detained for not having "proof of citizenship" on them?
In the State of Texas (and maybe even Arizona as well), we are required by law to carry a valid state ID, be it a drivers license or state issued ID card. Why should non citizens be exempt from having to carry identification as well? If you're here legally, it shouldn't be any big deal to carry documentation stating as much.
I have a good friend who is married to a British girl and she is required by law to carry her green card and passport (or a copy) at all times. I find it incredibly odd that you and others are getting in a tiff about the same thing in AZ, only with the added text of "reasonable suspicion". :huh:
Again, this law is race-based. You guys seem to be the only ones missing that. The words "Latino" and "Hispanic" are race-based. This law targets, as its sole purpose, ....wait...for...it..... Latinos AND Hispanics.
Of course the words "Latino" and "Hispanic" are race based. So is "Caucasian" or "blacks". But what do they have to do with this debate or this law? What are we "missing"? None of them are mentioned a single time in SB 1070, so your point in mentioning them escapes me.
megabyteme
08-16-2010, 07:51 PM
Well, the past 25 pages have been discussing Latinos and Hispanics. I don't imagine any other race will be concerned about leaving the house without "proper documentation", nor will they be detained.
Just because the law does not expressly state its true, intended purpose, does not mean that anyone (present company excluded) will mistake what it is for. At the VERY least, Arizona is announcing themselves to the world as an unfriendly place for Latinos.
*EDIT* So, if a radio station called and offered you $1 Million to answer this question : "Who is the sole target of the new Arizona Immigration Law?" You would NOT be able to answer "Latinos". How about if they gave you a second shot, and read you the article from The New York Times (above)? Still unable to answer, skiz?
For those struggling with the concept of a Race-based law leading to people supporting that/those law(s) being considered (unknowing) "racists"...
Law #1: Blacks are required by law to ride at the back of the bus and give up their seats if a white desires the seat.
Law #2: Asians, by law are not allowed to own property, and count as 1/2 persons.
Law #3: By law,blacks are not allowed to vote.
Law #4: By law, blacks are not allowed o use public drinking fountains, and must use substandard "blacks only" restrooms.
The vast majority of current Americans would believe that supporters of these laws are, in fact, racist.
Law #5: By law, Latino and hispanic looking people must carry proof that they are not illegal aliens in the state of Arizona. This law is directly tied to race, violates constitutionally guaranteed rights, and is just as much a deterrent to legal, American-born citizens as the "illegals" it targets.
How does someone support this race-based law, and NOT believe they are (unknowingly) being racist?
Where is that law? It certainly wasn't a portion of the AZ law or current VA law. I haven't even seen a law such as that proposed.
From NY Times regarding Ariz law: (Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html)):
The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.
Yeah, I've already got it on my desktop.
Does it surprise you that the law does not talk about the innocent people who will be "mistaken" for illegals, and possibly detained for not having "proof of citizenship" on them?
Again, this law is race-based. You guys seem to be the only ones missing that. The words "Latino" and "Hispanic" are race-based. This law targets, as its sole purpose, ....wait...for...it..... Latinos AND Hispanics.
BUYAKASHA. We've now established who this law effects. Let's continue another 25 pages and I'll show that the police are, in fact, involved. :slap:
Well, the past 25 pages have been discussing Latinos and Hispanics. I don't imagine any other race will be concerned about leaving the house without "proper documentation", nor will they be detained.
Just because the law does not expressly state its true, intended purpose, does not mean that anyone (present company excluded) will mistake what it is for. At the VERY least, Arizona is announcing themselves to the world as an unfriendly place for Latinos.
*EDIT* So, if a radio station called and offered you $1 Million to answer this question : "Who is the sole target of the new Arizona Immigration Law?" You would NOT be able to answer "Latinos". How about if they gave you a second shot, and read you the article from The New York Times (above)? Still unable to answer, skiz?
I read the postage ^, larded heavily with references to Latinos and Mexicans provided by MBM and The New York Times.
I proceed to S.B. 1070, and find NO SUCH REFERENCES.
The language in the bill is generic; this is proper in all respects, and any presuppositions relative to oppressive enforcement upon Latinos/Hispanics is just that - a presupposition.
A democrat politician of some note recently said of much-more-earthshaking legislation (that) "We're just going to have to pass it to see what's in it".
MBM says, in effect, that even absent any language whatsoever regarding ethnicity/nationality, we must presume the law will be mis-applied before-the-fact.
I must ask for supporting legal reasoning, and no, I am afraid citing the NYT will not suffice.
I propose Arizona proceed on the basis of federal neglect and cleanly-drafted law, and let time and events show whether or not abuse follows.
The law provides - in painstaking detail - for easy legal recourse and monetary damages if it is misapplied.
To quote a liberal icon:
"We have nothing to fear but fear itself".
Oh yeah-
Calling me a racist before the fact won't work, either, so forget that.
One more thing.
I don't know why the 'leet' person hasn't posted here yet, but if it is because he has been idled by the mods, I propose he be loosed so as to give us the benefit of his wisdom...we really can't proceed without it.
megabyteme
08-16-2010, 09:03 PM
Just because the law does not expressly state its true, intended purpose, does not mean that anyone (present company excluded) will mistake what it is for. At the VERY least, Arizona is announcing themselves to the world as an unfriendly place for Latinos.
*EDIT* So, if a radio station called and offered you $1 Million to answer this question : "Who is the sole target of the new Arizona Immigration Law?" You would NOT be able to answer "Latinos". How about if they gave you a second shot, and read you the article from The New York Times (above)? Still unable to answer, skiz?
I must ask for supporting legal reasoning, and no, I am afraid citing the NYT will not suffice.
I propose Arizona proceed on the basis of federal neglect and cleanly-drafted law, and let time and events show whether or not abuse follows.
The law provides - in painstaking detail - for easy legal recourse and monetary damages if it is misapplied.
Calling me a racist before the fact won't work, either, so forget that.
I'm saying it is a race-based law. No one else seems to doubt this. Arizona borders Mexico. People are crossing the border. A $600 Million bill was just signed to protect the border. Are we doing the same from the north? Are we passing $600 Million bills to keep illegal Canadians out?
If this silliness doesn't stop, I will withdraw from this discussion because all three of you are (playing?) incredibly dumb. Quit it.
This law targets Latinos. Period. :dry:
*Addition* I suppose section-by-section analysis by the Arizona ACLU won't suffice, either... :(
http://acluaz.org/ACLU-AZ%20Section%20By%20Section%20Analysis%20of%20SB1070updated%204-14-10.pdf
I must ask for supporting legal reasoning, and no, I am afraid citing the NYT will not suffice.
I propose Arizona proceed on the basis of federal neglect and cleanly-drafted law, and let time and events show whether or not abuse follows.
The law provides - in painstaking detail - for easy legal recourse and monetary damages if it is misapplied.
Calling me a racist before the fact won't work, either, so forget that.
I'm saying it is a race-based law. No one else seems to doubt this. Arizona borders Mexico. People are crossing the border. A $600 Million bill was just signed to protect the border. Are we doing the same from the north? Are we passing $600 Million bills to keep illegal Canadians out?
If this silliness doesn't stop, I will withdraw from this discussion because all three of you are (playing?) incredibly dumb. Quit it.
This law targets Latinos. Period. :dry:
*Addition* I suppose section-by-section analysis by the Arizona ACLU won't suffice, either... :(
http://acluaz.org/ACLU-AZ%20Section%20By%20Section%20Analysis%20of%20SB1070updated%204-14-10.pdf
So, you, the NYT and the ACLU say it's racist?
Not enough.
I think a Mosque near Ground Zero is an incredible overstep, no matter the legalities, and 64% of Americans agree with me.
Does that make it so?
BTW-
The ACLU thinks NAMBLA is A-Okay, so by extension (and your logic) we can freely assume that you do as well.
I would not previously have guessed that.
One more thing (again) - who, precisely, is the "no one" you refer to when you say that "No one else seems to doubt" that this is a race-based law?
megabyteme
08-16-2010, 10:02 PM
I'm still trying to get you to admit that you recognize who this law is intended to effect.
If not Latino's, who?
And, "illegal immigrants" is a weak dodge. :dry:
megabyteme
08-16-2010, 10:06 PM
One more thing (again) - who, precisely, is the "no one" you refer to when you say that "No one else seems to doubt" that this is a race-based law?
Well, I've cited two sources that would be deemed credible for any of my graduate studies... :blink: I don't believe any news sources are talking about keeping the illegal Irish out of the state.
Again, who else is this targeting? :unsure:
*EDIT*
The ACLU thinks NAMBLA is A-Okay, so by extension (and your logic) we can freely assume that you do as well.
I would not previously have guessed that.
Not the same thing at all. You are supporting a race-based law. As I pointed out earlier, people who (went along with, or) support race-based laws were (unknowingly being) racist. This is a race-based law.
You demanded legal analysis. The ACLU's piece is probably the most credible analysis available. You are welcome; enjoy the read.
*EDIT2* In fact, if I were to support legislation allowing men to have sex with boys, then your logic regarding NAMBLA would fit. It doesn't. :dabs:
devilsadvocate
08-16-2010, 11:53 PM
In the State of Texas (and maybe even Arizona as well), we are required by law to carry a valid state ID, be it a drivers license or state issued ID card. Why should non citizens be exempt from having to carry identification as well? If you're here legally, it shouldn't be any big deal to carry documentation stating as much.
I have a good friend who is married to a British girl and she is required by law to carry her green card and passport (or a copy) at all times. I find it incredibly odd that you and others are getting in a tiff about the same thing in AZ, only with the added text of "reasonable suspicion". :huh:
Show me where you are required by law to carry state ID.
Permanent residents - immigrants granted residency, but not yet entitled to or not yet granted full citizenship - have to carry their residency card at all times, not their passport.
Well, I've cited two sources that would be deemed credible for any of my graduate studies... :blink: I don't believe any news sources are talking about keeping the illegal Irish out of the state.
Again, who else is this targeting? :unsure:
*EDIT*
The ACLU thinks NAMBLA is A-Okay, so by extension (and your logic) we can freely assume that you do as well.
I would not previously have guessed that.
Not the same thing at all. You are supporting a race-based law. As I pointed out earlier, people who (went along with, or) support race-based laws were (unknowingly being) racist. This is a race-based law.
You demanded legal analysis. The ACLU's piece is probably the most credible analysis available. You are welcome; enjoy the read.
*EDIT2* In fact, if I were to support legislation allowing men to have sex with boys, then your logic regarding NAMBLA would fit. It doesn't. :dabs:
It is NOT racism, it is DISCRIMINATION...the good kind, the kind you use to decide what to order at McDonalds.
That is the fact, no matter your graduate studies.
There are laws against pedophilia, laws that mention pedophiles by the habit that identifies them, laws that are worthwhile and correct.
These are also facts.
Nonetheless, your ACLU defends NAMBLA.
I am not aware that any other entity defends NAMBLA as a matter of policy.
These are facts.
S.B. 1070 addresses the problem of illegal aliens, be they Latino, Irish, Arab...what-have-you, anyone detained as an alien will be dealt with in accordance with the language of that law.
The federal government has it's own (pretty much verbatim) copy, which remains in effect, if mysteriously not in force on our southern border.
It would seem to me that, if the feds want to call foul on Arizona, they should do some laundry first.
Beyond all this, I cannot account for the faulty reasoning disseminated by whichever learning institution you are attending.
I think, without calling you an advocate for pedophilia, that the reasoning you are employing to denigrate S.B. 1070 aligns perfectly with the ACLU's compulsion to defend NAMBLA.
Thoughtful people surely agree.
devilsadvocate
08-17-2010, 12:01 AM
BTW-
The ACLU thinks NAMBLA is A-Okay
.
How did you arrive at that one?
Show me where you are required by law to carry state ID.
Permanent residents - immigrants granted residency, but not yet entitled to or not yet granted full citizenship - have to carry their residency card at all times, not their passport.
Whatever identification one chooses to carry, it should be sufficient to satisfy the gendarmes if one comes to their attention.
I can assure you that if I were detained (for whatever reason), and failed to produce identification, I would expect to be in legal custody until such time as I produce proper identification.
On what basis should anyone have a different expectation?
Perhaps I should ask you this:
Why (not just your opinion) is the federal statute not being enforced on our southern border?
Have you discussed this in your graduate classes, and if not, why not?
It's relevance to the issue at hand is inarguable...
megabyteme
08-17-2010, 12:14 AM
You are using slight-of-hand here, j2. Let's stick to immigration, shall we...
You demanded legal analysis. The ACLU has some pretty damn good ones. Do you have a legal entity which is willing to go on the record believing that this law (which will be struck down as unconstitutional- read the ACLU analysis) will focus on anyone other than Latinos? I would LOVE to read those... :yes:
If you cannot even determine who will be effected by this law, how is it that you feel qualified to debate it? :unsure: If that one is too tough, let's try "what it does", or "why it is being done"... Still "uncertain" that it targets Latinos? :rolleyes:
Where are your citations/legal analysis sources? :idunno:
BTW-
The ACLU thinks NAMBLA is A-Okay
.
How did you arrive at that one?
http://old.nationalreview.com/images/page_2002_murdock.gif
http://old.nationalreview.com/images/spacer.gif http://old.nationalreview.com/images/spacer.gif http://old.nationalreview.com/images/spacer.gif February 27, 2004, 9:20 a.m.
No Boy Scouts
The ACLU defends NAMBLA.
An old friend of mine once said this about the American Civil Liberties Union: "They're a bunch of whale-saving, criminal-loving pinkos — and thank God for them."
This remark nicely summarizes the ambivalence with which many people regard the ACLU. Few organizations dance closer to the very edge of the loony-Left precipice than it does. There seems to be no thug too hardened nor any cause too exotic for the ACLU to champion. At the same time, if America ever were unlucky enough to face a president who decided to remain in the Oval Office past her expiration date, the ACLU would battle her and her junta with every sharp courtroom argument, pointed legal filing, and well-aimed briefcase it could muster.
That said, the ACLU lately has stained the dark side of its reputation through its actions in two cases involving the treatment of vulnerable, young Americans. The ACLU is defending those who abuse children while attacking those who give them moral guidance. This contrast reveals the priorities of today's ACLU.
The Manhattan-based public-interest law firm is defending the North American Man-Boy Love Association in a $200 million civil lawsuit filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Curley. The Curleys claim that Charles Jaynes was driven by the literature and website of NAMBLA, an outfit that advocates sex between grown men and little boys, reportedly as young as age 8.
Jaynes did not simply read NAMBLA's materials and ponder its message. He and Salvatore Sicari actively sought a boy with whom to copulate. They picked 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley of Cambridge, Massachusetts. They lured him into their car as he played outside his home in October 1997. When Curley resisted their sexual advances, they choked him to death with a gasoline-soaked rag. Then they took the boy's body across state lines to Jayne's apartment in Manchester, New Hampshire. They molested the cadaver and stuffed it into a cement-filled Rubbermaid container. Finally, they crossed state lines again into Maine, whereupon they tossed Jeffrey Curley's remains into the Great Works River, from which it was recovered within days. Jaynes and Sicari were convicted of these crimes in 1998, for which they are serving life sentences.
So why blame NAMBLA? Is it any more responsible for this atrocity than is Vintage Books, the publisher of Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita? Imagine that Jaynes and Sicari had read that 1955 novel about a middle-aged intellectual's affair with a 12-year-old girl. What if these two men found an equally young female who they abused and killed, just as they murdered Jeffrey Curley in real life? Putting aside the fact that Lolita is a work of fiction, would Vintage Books face civil justice?
Probably not, nor would NAMBLA if it limited its output to fictional depictions of "man-boy love." It is difficult to pin imaginary crimes on actual criminals who turn make-believe into mayhem.
Within the realm of nonfiction, as revolting as its ideas are, NAMBLA certainly has a First Amendment right to argue that America's laws should be changed to permit sexual relations between adult men and third-grade school boys. Most Americans would disagree vehemently, as well they should. That's called debate. It's the American way.
As ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director John Reinstein sees it: "Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger important First Amendment freedoms."
However, as Fox News' Bill O'Reilly noted, there is more at play here than pamphleteering. "According to lawyers familiar with [NAMBLA's] website," O'Reilly explained, "it actually posted techniques designed to lure boys into having sex with men and also supplied information on what an adult should do if caught."
NAMBLA is "not just publishing material that says it's OK to have sex with children and advocating changing the law," says Larry Frisoli, a Cambridge attorney who is arguing the Curleys case in federal court. NAMBLA, he says, "is actively training their members how to rape children and get away with it. They distribute child pornography and trade live children among NAMBLA members with the purpose of having sex with them."
Frisoli cites a NAMBLA publication he calls "The Rape and Escape Manual." Its actual title is "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships."
"Its chapters explain how to build relationships with children," Frisoli tells me. "How to gain the confidence of children's parents. Where to go to have sex with children so as not to get caught...There is advice, if one gets caught, on when to leave America and how to rip off credit card companies to get cash to finance your flight. It's pretty detailed."
"In his diary, Jaynes said he had reservations about having sex with children until he discovered NAMBLA," Frisoli continues. "It's in his diary in 1996, around the time he joined NAMBLA, one year before the death of Jeffrey Curley."
The practical, step-by-step advice Jaynes followed goes far beyond appeals to sway public opinion in favor of pedophilia. Such language aids and abets felonious conduct. If such conspiracy results in homicide, it is reasonable for NAMBLA to face civil liability if not criminal prosecution.
Ohio's Court of Appeals found NAMBLA complicit in an earlier child-rape case. NAMBLA's literature, discovered in a defendant's possession, reflected "preparation and purpose," according to the Buckeye State's top bench.
The ACLU has offered material support to those who openly preach pedophilia and arguably encourage kidnapping, rape, and murder. Yet this legal group is energetically hostile to an organization that tries to turn boys into men, with sex alien to the process.
Since 1915, the Boy Scouts have managed land within San Diego's Balboa Park. It has built a swimming pool, a 600-seat amphitheater, and a camping facility that accommodates 300. Camp Balboa serves some 12,000 Boy Scouts annually through daylong events and weekend sleepovers. The Scouts' tie to this land is a 50-year lease offered by the San Diego City Council and signed in 1957. In exchange for their stewardship — including private investment for maintenance and development — the Scouts hand the city an annual lease payment of $1.00.
This arrangement is too much for the ACLU to swallow. It sued the City of San Diego to expel the Boy Scouts from Balboa Park. The ACLU contends that the Scouts are a religious organization and thus should be dislodged from the facility. Never mind that the Scouts did not bar other groups from using the park. In fact, according to Hans Zeiger, an 18-year-old Eagle Scout who has written about this controversy (http://www.americandaily.com/item/4353), Balboa Park hosted last summer's San Diego Gay Pride Festival.
Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones deemed the Boy Scouts a religious organization last July and declared that their involvement with Balboa Park violated the separation of church and state. The ACLU used this ruling to secure a settlement wherein the City of San Diego cancelled the Scouts' lease on the park, even though it did not expire until 2007 and, in fact, was extended in 2001 for 25 years. The ACLU also scored $950,000 in attorneys fees and court costs, thus fleecing taxpayers and deepening its pockets.
San Diego's Boy Scouts are appealing Judge Jones' ruling. A federal judge someday may decide whether or not the Scouts' good deeds will go unpunished.
The ACLU's supporters should contemplate where this organization has placed itself vis-à-vis NAMBLA and the Boy Scouts. The ACLU seemingly believes that everyone deserves a lawyer, no matter how odious his case. Perhaps, although it would be nice to see NAMBLA siphon its own bank account rather than the ACLU's to justify its evil ways. The ACLU decides for itself where to devote its finite resources. Hence, its leaders freely chose to stand with cheerleaders for pederasty while torpedoing those who mentor rather than rape little boys.
Today's ACLU makes one wish it would find some whales to save.
http://old.nationalreview.com/images/spacer.gif http://old.nationalreview.com/images/spacer.gif
megabyteme
08-17-2010, 12:19 AM
Please stick to the topic at hand, J2... :ermm:
devilsadvocate
08-17-2010, 12:43 AM
Show me where you are required by law to carry state ID.
Permanent residents - immigrants granted residency, but not yet entitled to or not yet granted full citizenship - have to carry their residency card at all times, not their passport.
Whatever identification one chooses to carry, it should be sufficient to satisfy the gendarmes if one comes to their attention.
I can assure you that if I were detained (for whatever reason), and failed to produce identification, I would expect to be in legal custody until such time as I produce proper identification.
On what basis should anyone have a different expectation?
Skiz posted that it is mandatory by law to carry state ID, I'd like him to show me that law. The possibilities of detention if you are suspected of having broken the law and you have no ID are irrelevant to my request.
Perhaps I should ask you this:
Why (not just your opinion) is the federal statute not being enforced on our southern border?
Have you discussed this in your graduate classes, and if not, why not?
What are you talking about?
It's relevance to the issue at hand is inarguable...
There are more border guards now than there has ever been, so what federal statute (not just your opinion ) is not being enforced. Not enforced and insufficiently enforced for your liking are two different things.
devilsadvocate
08-17-2010, 12:59 AM
@J2K4 I did some some quick research after you posted an opinion piece (opinion pieces tend to be high on opinion and low on factual substance)
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-statement-defending-free-speech-unpopular-organizations
August 31, 2000
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
So here's a few questions.
Do you think the first amendment is misguided?
Should commentators like Glenn Beck be liable for all these nut cases that are killing cops?
Should the NRA be held responsible for murders committed with legally held guns?
I value the freedoms protected by the constitution.
Back to the thread topic, which side do you fall on with this 14th amendment rhetoric
Please stick to the topic at hand, J2... :ermm:
You brought up the ACLU, not me.
Let's get down to it then:
You believe the law to be directed at Mexicans, and formulated thus to their detriment alone; you claim that the bulk of public opinion (plus the ACLU and the NYT) coincides.
I believe the law is generic, and no durable claim can be made that it is inherently racist in language or intent.
I would also claim that most people (especially, and most importantly, Arizonans) agree with me.
There will be no resolution here; you will not sway me, and I will not sway you.
I will add that no increase in volume or belligerence will change that fact, no matter your belief to the contrary.
You were wrong to counsel 'leet' to escalate his efforts, though I am quite sure you disagree with me on that point, as well.
I have been here a long time; I have engaged in this type of debate for decades, and I can count the minds I have changed on one finger.
We do what we are doing for the gallery, in hope of backstopping our cause.
That is a fact.
megabyteme
08-17-2010, 01:28 AM
Please stick to the topic at hand, J2... :ermm:
You brought up the ACLU, not me.
Let's get down to it then:
You believe the law to be directed at Mexicans, and formulated thus to their detriment alone; you claim that the bulk of public opinion (plus the ACLU and the NYT) coincides.
I believe the law is generic, and no durable claim can be made that it is inherently racist in language or intent.
I would also claim that most people (especially, and most importantly, Arizonans) agree with me.
There will be no resolution here; you will not sway me, and I will not sway you.
I will add that no increase in volume or belligerence will change that fact, no matter your belief to the contrary.
You were wrong to counsel 'leet' to escalate his efforts, though I am quite sure you disagree with me on that point, as well.
I have been here a long time; I have engaged in this type of debate for decades, and I can count the minds I have changed on one finger.
We do what we are doing for the gallery, in hope of backstopping our cause.
That is a fact.
I have no grudge with you, Good, Sir Knight. :)
Isn't it unfortunate, though, that we (humans) lack the power to truly sway others? My wife and I are a single class and a thesis away from our Masters (in Communication, BTW) and there is seldom anything truly gained, it seems, through dialog. Sure, there are hopes, but as you stated, it rarely happens.
My recent attempt to "have the gloves taken off" was a bit of an experiment. It followed NONE of the "rules" of ethical communication, but I wanted to see if raw, unrestrained emotion could have a swaying effect- or, it could have just been kinda fun to "let it all air out".
You earned my respect far before this thread, Kev, and you will have it long after this law is forgotten. :P
*EDIT* So, if a radio station called and offered you $1 Million to answer this question : "Who is the sole target of the new Arizona Immigration Law?" You would NOT be able to answer "Latinos". How about if they gave you a second shot, and read you the article from The New York Times (above)? Still unable to answer, skiz?
Your insinuating that I don't see the giant Hispanic elephant in the room. Trust me, I see it; it's just irrelevant.
Now, if you asked what spurred the need for legislation, or which border was being inundated with emigrants, I'd tell you it was the mass illegal emigration of people, which an overwhelming number of are Hispanics. That isn't racist, that's just a fact. AZ didn't pass legislation to deter Hispanics from emigrating, they passed legislation to keep illegals from emigrating.
Looking at your IP addy, I see you live far, far, away from what is to me a short afternoon drive - Mexico. Those of us in the border states have no problem with Mexicans or anyone else South of the border. Mexican culture is a big part of our State and always has been. Heck, my girlfriend is a US citizen, born in El Salvador. All that being said, we both have a major beef with illegal emigrants coming here and receiving a "free ride". So let me make this real clear: No one gives a shit where they came from, it's how they came.
@J2K4 I did some some quick research after you posted an opinion piece (opinion pieces tend to be high on opinion and low on factual substance)
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-statement-defending-free-speech-unpopular-organizations
August 31, 2000
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
So here's a few questions.
Do you think the first amendment is misguided?
Should commentators like Glenn Beck be liable for all these nut cases that are killing cops?
Should the NRA be held responsible for murders committed with legally held guns?
I value the freedoms protected by the constitution.
Back to the thread topic, which side do you fall on with this 14th amendment rhetoric
I see no need for the "anchor baby" language, and I think it should be deleted.
The rest of your questions are off-topic.
You brought up the ACLU, not me.
Let's get down to it then:
You believe the law to be directed at Mexicans, and formulated thus to their detriment alone; you claim that the bulk of public opinion (plus the ACLU and the NYT) coincides.
I believe the law is generic, and no durable claim can be made that it is inherently racist in language or intent.
I would also claim that most people (especially, and most importantly, Arizonans) agree with me.
There will be no resolution here; you will not sway me, and I will not sway you.
I will add that no increase in volume or belligerence will change that fact, no matter your belief to the contrary.
You were wrong to counsel 'leet' to escalate his efforts, though I am quite sure you disagree with me on that point, as well.
I have been here a long time; I have engaged in this type of debate for decades, and I can count the minds I have changed on one finger.
We do what we are doing for the gallery, in hope of backstopping our cause.
That is a fact.
I have no grudge with you, Good, Sir Knight. :)
Isn't it unfortunate, though, that we (humans) lack the power to truly sway others? My wife and I are a single class and a thesis away from our Masters (in Communication, BTW) and there is seldom anything truly gained, it seems, through dialog. Sure, there are hopes, but as you stated, it rarely happens.
My recent attempt to "have the gloves taken off" was a bit of an experiment. It followed NONE of the "rules" of ethical communication, but I wanted to see if raw, unrestrained emotion could have a swaying effect- or, it could have just been kinda fun to "let it all air out".
You earned my respect far before this thread, Kev, and you will have it long after this law is forgotten. :P
I am relieved to hear it was an 'experiment'.
I thought you'd gone off your nut.
If anyone ever figures out how to deliver a 'cyber-punch', however, we may have to re-assess.
Your insinuating that I don't see the giant Hispanic elephant in the room. Trust me, I see it; it's just irrelevant.
This ^...
No one gives a shit where they came from, it's how they came.
...and this ^.
megabyteme
08-17-2010, 02:05 AM
*EDIT* So, if a radio station called and offered you $1 Million to answer this question : "Who is the sole target of the new Arizona Immigration Law?" You would NOT be able to answer "Latinos". How about if they gave you a second shot, and read you the article from The New York Times (above)? Still unable to answer, skiz?
Your insinuating that I don't see the giant Hispanic elephant in the room. Trust me, I see it; it's just irrelevant.
Now, if you asked what spurred the need for legislation, or which border was being inundated with emigrants, I'd tell you it was the mass illegal emigration of people, which an overwhelming number of are Hispanics. That isn't racist, that's just a fact. AZ didn't pass legislation to deter Hispanics from emigrating, they passed legislation to keep illegals from emigrating.
Looking at your IP addy, I see you live far, far, away from what is to me a short afternoon drive - Mexico. Those of us in the border states have no problem with Mexicans or anyone else South of the border. Mexican culture is a big part of our State and always has been. Heck, my girlfriend is a US citizen, born in El Salvador. All that being said, we both have a major beef with illegal emigrants coming here and receiving a "free ride". So let me make this real clear: No one gives a shit where they came from, it's how they came.
And I, thank you for that, too. Ofc, it IS an issue with illegal immigrants (im= to enter; em=to exit a country). I voiced my sympathy for illegals in the last thread (war zone?) because of what the US's corn subsidies have done to the Mexican farmer AND the country's economy. If more people knew the truth, we would call them refugees and give them aid.
I live in eastern Washington. Our immigrant population comes seasonally with migrant workers and, just to the west (central Washington) we have a stable, growing population. There are no gang problems, no HUGE anything- to my knowledge.
I have a problem with this particular law because it creates a very un-American environment for anyone who, legal or otherwise, looks Latino. I meant to post a link, but I found an article stating that this law has significantly reduced the number of LEGAL Mexicans from crossing the border into Arizona. It is now known as a place that is unfriendly to Latinos. I don't imagine your girlfriend would be too excited about a trip to Ariz anytime too soon. And that REALLY sucks that we face that kind of trade-off. True violation of civil liberties, or illegal immigrants and the problems associated with them.
If you were born poor, and in Mexico, what would you do for your family? I know I would be doing exactly what the illegals are doing. Again, they get my sympathy.
Back to corn subsidies... we sell American produced corn for less than the cost of production in Mexico. We have flooded their markets, and seriously screwed anyone (LOTS) involved in Mexican agriculture. They live on corn. We screwed them. We can't continue to screw our neighbor AND not expect starving people to just lay down and die.
The answer to this, is not through arresting Latinos on border states through this law. They'll keep coming back- they have to. Does anyone think they want to "commute", leave their families, and their native country for a place where they are abused by the corporations that led to their failed agriculture in Mexico?
There is a need to do something. This law is NOT the way to solve the problem. Fair trade is a good first step.
megabyteme
08-17-2010, 02:08 AM
1) I am relieved to hear it was an 'experiment'.
2) I thought you'd gone off your nut.
3) If anyone ever figures out how to deliver a 'cyber-punch', however, we may have to re-assess.
1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive. :lol:
3... I am almost certain that chalice is spending his free time developing one. :yes:
In the State of Texas (and maybe even Arizona as well), we are required by law to carry a valid state ID, be it a drivers license or state issued ID card. Why should non citizens be exempt from having to carry identification as well? If you're here legally, it shouldn't be any big deal to carry documentation stating as much.
I have a good friend who is married to a British girl and she is required by law to carry her green card and passport (or a copy) at all times. I find it incredibly odd that you and others are getting in a tiff about the same thing in AZ, only with the added text of "reasonable suspicion". :huh:
Show me where you are required by law to carry state ID.
I looked around for it and I'm a tad off.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 869, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 821, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Essentially, it says residents are required by law to carry their DL if they are driving. If you are not driving, you do not have to carry your ID, but you are legally required to give your name, address, and date of birth to any police officer who requests it. If an officer suspects you are not who you say you are, that might cause them to arrest you anyway and take you downtown so they can determine who you really are.
Permanent residents - immigrants granted residency, but not yet entitled to or not yet granted full citizenship - have to carry their residency card at all times, not their passport.
I'm going by what she texted me directly, so I'm not sure if you are right or not. The point was that she is required to carry her immigration ID which demonstrates her status as an immigrant. Why would creation of a similar law on the state level create such an outcry?
devilsadvocate
08-17-2010, 02:17 AM
[
I see no need for the "anchor baby" language, and I think it should be deleted.
You see no need for the rhetoric, or you think that birthright citizenship should be abolished? Just to be clear
The rest of your questions are off-topic.
Nice dodge, but you were the one that said the ACLU is "A Okay" with NAMBLER. I didn't raise the subject. I simply wonder if you believe in the 1st amendment or you are prepared to ignore it and allow a precedent that could be later applied to groups or people you may approve of.
Is the constitution a living flexible document? yes or no? no deflection by complaining others think it is or isn't, just your opinion.
devilsadvocate
08-17-2010, 02:34 AM
Show me where you are required by law to carry state ID.
I looked around for it and I'm a tad off.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time of the offense, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 869, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 821, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Essentially, it says residents are required by law to carry their DL if they are driving. If you are not driving, you do not have to carry your ID, but you are legally required to give your name, address, and date of birth to any police officer who requests it. If an officer suspects you are not who you say you are, that might cause them to arrest you anyway and take you downtown so they can determine who you really are.
I was unable to find anything to support your original statement, and as a Texan that doesn't carry his wallet with DL when I am not driving (dog walks, park etc.) I had never heard of such a law, so had to question it.
Permanent residents - immigrants granted residency, but not yet entitled to or not yet granted full citizenship - have to carry their residency card at all times, not their passport.
I'm going by what she texted me directly, so I'm not sure if you are right or not. The point was that she is required to carry her immigration ID which demonstrates her status as an immigrant. Why would creation of a similar law on the state level create such an outcry?
She would have had to go though hoops with security to be granted residency. Immigration would have already verified her so there would be no need to carry a passport. Her card would have her details stored in it, including her fingerprints. You are correct about her having to have the card with her at all times.
Immigration enforcement is a federal concern not a state one.
megabyteme
08-17-2010, 02:34 AM
I made a rather lengthy, but I believe, a very relevant post on the last page. Hopefully people will read it- I attempt to identify the real problem, and work towards a more reasonable solution.
In addition, I would like to make the point that this law is an attempt to "do something", it does what it does at the cost of personal liberties of legal, American citizens who are Latino.
Even if people have the best intentions at heart (completely, 100% non-racist) it is still implementing a race-based solution to a problem. This is ALWAYS a mistake. It is doing something wrong, with good intentions. Added to that, it also succeeds in doing the wrong thing with the worst intentions when supported by actual racists.
We need to find a solution, yes, but not one at the expense of a legal, American group.
Is the constitution a living flexible document?
Absolutely not.
Clear enough?
devilsadvocate
08-17-2010, 02:40 AM
Is the constitution a living flexible document?
Absolutely not.
Clear enough?
Yes.
Then the question begs why you think the ACLU shouldn't have stood up for the constitution when an attempt to violate it was being made simply because the attempt was against vile scum?
Immigration enforcement is a federal concern not a state one.
Federal immigration enforcement can only be termed a non-concern these days, which fact leads inevitably to the state picking up the ball.
Arizona shouldn't have to be involved, but.
Immigration enforcement is a federal concern not a state one.
The fed has shown complete ineptitude at anything border related, thus the states are quite... umm... concerned.
This issue is not going away. VA has already passed similar legislation and another state as well (FL?) As long as the fed sits on their hands, the states will continue to tweak their laws so they are deemed constitutional and they can work on fixing the issues created by mass, illegal, emigration.
Immigration enforcement is a federal concern not a state one.
Federal immigration enforcement can only be termed a non-concern these days, which fact leads inevitably to the state picking up the ball.
Arizona shouldn't have to be involved, but.
^ Yep.
devilsadvocate
08-17-2010, 02:51 AM
Immigration enforcement is a federal concern not a state one.
Federal immigration enforcement can only be termed a non-concern these days, which fact leads inevitably to the state picking up the ball.
Arizona shouldn't have to be involved, but.
Explain then why deportations have dramatically increased since Obama took office. I'm not saying he is the reason, just that they have increased dramatically.
Also the amount of border guards has increased to record levels. Mostly due to a long term strategy started during the Bush administration and continued by this one
Also the amount of border guards has increased to record levels. Mostly due to a long term strategy started during the Bush administration and continued by this one
The increase in the size of the border patrol is of no consequence when they are hampered by practical policy, and in any case the increase has not kept pace with border traffic nor has the barest nod been given to the escalation in drug-related violence.
Our people are out-gunned and out-numbered.
Bush's policy was no less incoherent, and I do not defend it - the difference, however, coincides entirely with Arizona's decision to act in it's own interest.
Btw-
Have you noticed the tremendous backlash over S.B. 1070 emanating from the businesses whose habit it is to hire illegals?
To answer your other question, I have no problem whatsoever with the 1st Amendment, but, as there are exceptions to everything, I would point out that NAMBLA should qualify, if anything else does.
Now - as to your penchant for leading things off-topic, that will be the last of that.
Show us your attention-span is longer than 30 seconds, eh?
MBM-
As to your very relevant point about corn subsidies, perhaps you could fill in the gaps by elucidating on the relationship between the democrat-instigated subsidies, and the idiotic idea that ethanol will fuel our energy needs.
The name Tom Daschle comes to mind.
megabyteme
08-17-2010, 10:23 AM
Funny you should mention that, j. I was once very conservative (daily listener to Rush, G. Gordon- even saw him live, and Glen Beck- prior to his television insanity). Now, as you may have surmised, I lean to the left. I am not quite sure just how far I lean, though. I still have not found a single Democrat I trust in terms of politicians.
When it comes to information/intellectual property, I'm usually to the left of most of my professors. Civil liberties- you already know. Taxes- Corporations need to start paying them. Middle class/small business- needs to see some relief. there is still a middle-class, right? :idunno: The cost of education is insane. Health-care needs to be stabilized, then made available to everyone....
I'll gather up some info on corn subsidies before too long. Food, Inc is a fantastic intro to the Mexico immigration problem.
*EDIT* ...and I have ABSOLUTELY no love, or trust, for energy/oil companies. Fuk'n lying pricks! :mad:
999969999
08-17-2010, 01:07 PM
Immigration enforcement is a federal concern not a state one.
Drug enforcement is also a federal concern, but Arizona enforces drug laws as well. And yet there is no outcry over this.
And when Arizona tried to legalize marijuana, the feds said NO WAY! So they control the issue of drug enforcement, and still expect us to enforce it.
I hope everyone realizes that Arizona felt it had no other choice but to do this. Our state government is essentially going bankrupt very rapidly. We even sold our capitol buildings to raise money. We can't afford to take care of so many poor people flooding across our border.
MBM-
As to your very relevant point about corn subsidies, perhaps you could fill in the gaps by elucidating on the relationship between the democrat-instigated subsidies, and the idiotic idea that ethanol will fuel our energy needs.
The name Tom Daschle comes to mind.
Edit:
Intellectual honesty compels me to offer up the corpse of RMN to the current batch of subsidy gods.
megabyteme
08-17-2010, 08:18 PM
"I'm NOT a corn subsidizer!"- RMN :P
Corn is SUCH a huge food product. Walk around the grocery store and look for foods that don't have corn/corn-based products in them. It's staggering. I am curious ho3w much I will be able to find, but STRONGLY doubt there are more than a handful of politicians that ARE NOT tied, somehow, to this. BIG, BIG MONEY!
Again, I encourage everyone to give Food, Inc. a viewing. It's an eye-opener! The Corporation is also a must see, IMO. Not partisan, just filled with eye-opening truth.
I hope everyone realizes that Arizona felt it had no other choice but to do this.
There is a palpable presumption these days that the Constitution is about to take a real beating over these events...
megabyteme
08-17-2010, 08:46 PM
It is a BIG (over) step. These are some of the issues already on-the-table...
States rights
Responsibilities of schools/hospitals regarding illegals
Federal rights AND responsibilities
Law enforcement lines, and training
Civil rights of legal Latinos
Costs of detaining, transporting illegals
Employment verification requirements
Valid, legitimate identification requirements/verification standards
Open/free society vs. "safe"
That's a start....
*EDIT* Maybe enforcement was wrong, but "something" had to be done, and this law did bring A LOT of attention.
devilsadvocate
08-18-2010, 03:17 AM
The increase in the size of the border patrol is of no consequence when they are hampered by practical policy, and in any case the increase has not kept pace with border traffic nor has the barest nod been given to the escalation in drug-related violence.
What practical policy is hampering them?
I agree that more could be done, I'm questioning your theory that enforcement is a non concern.
Our people are out-gunned and out-numbered.
Bush's policy was no less incoherent, and I do not defend it - the difference, however, coincides entirely with Arizona's decision to act in it's own interest.
Bush's policy was/is pretty much the same one that exists today, Obama just carried it over. Given that due to the economic crash illegal immigration had been shrinking during the latter Bush years, it was funnily coincidental that AZ decided to act during Obama's term and not during the Bush years.
Apparently deficits matter now too.
Btw-
Have you noticed the tremendous backlash over S.B. 1070 emanating from the businesses whose habit it is to hire illegals?
Can't say I've noticed any group in particular, but I'm all for cracking down on employers.
To answer your other question, I have no problem whatsoever with the 1st Amendment, but, as there are exceptions to everything, I would point out that NAMBLA should qualify, if anything else does.
Now - as to your penchant for leading things off-topic, that will be the last of that.
Show us your attention-span is longer than 30 seconds, eh?
You introduced NAMBLA into the discussion, not me.
l33tpirata13
08-18-2010, 03:57 PM
Just to clarify, SB1070 does not "mirror" the Federal Law. Besides other things, it makes "aiding" an "illegal" a criminal offense. This means that if happen to have family over my house, and they happen to be "illegal" I could be prosecuted for having them over my house. Something everyone seems to leave out of any equation is how this impacts the Latino family unit.
They are directly targeting us. Banning Latino Studies isn't proof enough?
The increase in the size of the border patrol is of no consequence when they are hampered by practical policy, and in any case the increase has not kept pace with border traffic nor has the barest nod been given to the escalation in drug-related violence.
What practical policy is hampering them?
I agree that more could be done, I'm questioning your theory that enforcement is a non concern.
Our people are out-gunned and out-numbered.
Bush's policy was no less incoherent, and I do not defend it - the difference, however, coincides entirely with Arizona's decision to act in it's own interest.
Bush's policy was/is pretty much the same one that exists today, Obama just carried it over. Given that due to the economic crash illegal immigration had been shrinking during the latter Bush years, it was funnily coincidental that AZ decided to act during Obama's term and not during the Bush years.
Apparently deficits matter now too.
Btw-
Have you noticed the tremendous backlash over S.B. 1070 emanating from the businesses whose habit it is to hire illegals?
Can't say I've noticed any group in particular, but I'm all for cracking down on employers.
To answer your other question, I have no problem whatsoever with the 1st Amendment, but, as there are exceptions to everything, I would point out that NAMBLA should qualify, if anything else does.
Now - as to your penchant for leading things off-topic, that will be the last of that.
Show us your attention-span is longer than 30 seconds, eh?
You introduced NAMBLA into the discussion, not me.
True enough; however, I was not the one who brought up the ACLU, so go talk to him and/or stfu.
Just to clarify, SB1070 does not "mirror" the Federal Law. Besides other things, it makes "aiding" an "illegal" a criminal offense. This means that if happen to have family over my house, and they happen to be "illegal" I could be prosecuted for having them over my house. Something everyone seems to leave out of any equation is how this impacts the Latino family unit.
If the ICE somehow got wind of illegal aliens being housed illegally, and, upon investigation, found illegal aliens, then the illegal aliens should be detained. This would, of course, depend on reliable information.
Nothing unconstitutional there.
Now-
Can you tell me why, just because you are of a certain skin pigmentation, you should be exempted from a law that affects me the same way it does you?
They are directly targeting us. Banning Latino Studies isn't proof enough?
Could you save me some time (I'm cooking and preparing to eat my supper) and give me a link I can believe?
I mean, like, not Wikipedia?
devilsadvocate
08-18-2010, 09:23 PM
You introduced NAMBLA into the discussion, not me.
True enough; however, I was not the one who brought up the ACLU, so go talk to him and/or stfu.
True you didn't introduce the ACLU, but the introduction was directly related to the thread topic. NAMBLA has no connection and was introduced by you to try to discredit the ACLU rather than dissect what the ACLU actually wrote on the topic.
bigboab
08-18-2010, 09:29 PM
Is this thread veering off the topic and becoming personal? It is also threatening to become like texting with all the acronyms* that are being used. We are going to end up debating by just printing the alphabet.
On topic. It is the same in most countries. The illegal immigrants have found a way in. That is the fault of the (Federal) Governments, they are supposed to protect the national borders. Legalize the ones that are in and close the loopholes to prevent further influx. Otherwise every western country will go down the tube by having too many citizens and too few jobs.
* Plus the fact I can't be jucked looking up the meanings.(colloquialism)
I...close the loopholes to prevent further influx. Otherwise every western country will go down the tube by having too many citizens and too few jobs.
Leaving aside the issue of the illegal aliens extant - how do you propose we do this ^, Robert.
bigboab
08-18-2010, 09:54 PM
An amnesty, in order to get them 'on the books' and paying taxes.:)
Sorry misread that. Bring back the troops that are fighting wars that they will not win and station them along the border areas. It will be cheaper than the cost of the wars that are making the U.S. the whipping boy of the world. with us a close second.
Bring back the troops that are fighting wars that they will not win and station them along the border areas. It will be cheaper than the cost of the wars that are making the U.S. the whipping boy of the world. with us a close second.
No can do, sir.
Against all sorts of law; unconstitutional-ish.
megabyteme
08-18-2010, 11:36 PM
If the ICE somehow got wind of illegal aliens being housed illegally, and, upon investigation, found illegal aliens, then the illegal aliens should be detained. This would, of course, depend on reliable information.
Nothing unconstitutional there.
Now-
Can you tell me why, just because you are of a certain skin pigmentation, you should be exempted from a law that affects me the same way it does you?
So, you are saying that if members of your family (brother, sister, children, cousin, aunt, uncle...) were accused of a non-violent offense, you would turn them away, and/or notify the authorities?
The point is, many legal Mexican-Americans have close Mexican relatives. Some live in the states...
Where are your loyalties- family, or to the state? It's a tough spot when you are forced to chose. However, I am certain many proud Americans still chose family first.
So, you are saying that if members of your family (brother, sister, children, cousin, aunt, uncle...) were accused of a non-violent offense, you would turn them away, and/or notify the authorities?
Take a moment or three to consider the question you've asked in response to my post.
The point is, many legal Mexican-Americans have close Mexican relatives. Some live in the states...
That is most emphatically not the question.
Where are your loyalties- family, or to the state? It's a tough spot when you are forced to chose. However, I am certain many proud Americans still chose family first.
Loyalties?
The question is one of law and order, nothing more-or-less.
What you would do, what you think I would/should do...nothing whatsoever to do with the law.
megabyteme
08-19-2010, 12:09 AM
You, and I, won't be put in a sticky legal situation because we have family to dinner. Mexican-Americans should NOT be, either. That is what we are saying.
Okay - back to the law.
I am not talking about Mexican-Americans, I am talking about illegal aliens.
You are not talking about Mexican-Americans, either; you are referring to Mexicans, and, more to your point, Mexican-Americans can go to Mexico any time they like to visit relatives without running any sort of legal risk.
Btw-
You aren't really talking about "dinner", either, are you.
megabyteme
08-19-2010, 01:31 AM
:blink:
I'll have to check back tomorrow to see what we were talking about. But I don't really mean see. Nor do I mean I'll. I don't even really, truly mean to.
Until then...
Well, "until" is a bit of a misnomer...
bigboab
08-19-2010, 07:14 AM
Bring back the troops that are fighting wars that they will not win and station them along the border areas. It will be cheaper than the cost of the wars that are making the U.S. the whipping boy of the world. with us a close second.
No can do, sir.
Against all sorts of law; unconstitutional-ish.
You may have to exhume 'Jim Crow' and change some of it from colour to illegal immigrant.:whistling
No can do, sir.
Against all sorts of law; unconstitutional-ish.
You may have to exhume 'Jim Crow' and change some of it from colour to illegal immigrant.:whistling
See, now you're perpetuating racism, just like every other white American.
Get a tan, why don't you.
They are directly targeting us. Banning Latino Studies isn't proof enough?
Additional thoughts on this:
Is it your contention that Latinos are coming to the U.S. to access our educational system in order to study...themselves?
Also - having read S.B. 1070, I don't recall any language banning "Latino Studies"...perhaps you could cite the relevant sections.
999969999
08-19-2010, 02:03 PM
Just to clarify, SB1070 does not "mirror" the Federal Law. Besides other things, it makes "aiding" an "illegal" a criminal offense. This means that if happen to have family over my house, and they happen to be "illegal" I could be prosecuted for having them over my house. Something everyone seems to leave out of any equation is how this impacts the Latino family unit.
They are directly targeting us. Banning Latino Studies isn't proof enough?
We need more assimilation in the United States, not less of it. Should taxpayers really be expected to pay for Latino Studies? If it was taught off campus using private funds, then great, that's freedom of speech.
Look at it from my perspective, let's say I wanted to take an Austrian Studies course when I was in high school. Should taxpayers be expected to pay for that?
Even if it was a completely benign course that just taught about the history of Austria, well, taxpayers already pay for world history courses to be taught, and that should be enough depth at the high school level anyways. They should really be focusing more on math, science, reading, and writing skills at the high school level. An in depth course about Austria should be saved until college, or should be for the inquiring student to read about on his own outside of class.
999969999
08-19-2010, 04:47 PM
The "ethnic studies" law is actually a completely different law from SB 1070.
It is HB 2281...
It states... "THE LEGISLATURE FINDS AND DECLARES THAT PUBLIC SCHOOL PUPILS SHOULD BE
6 TAUGHT TO TREAT AND VALUE EACH OTHER AS INDIVIDUALS AND NOT BE TAUGHT TO
7 RESENT OR HATE OTHER RACES OR CLASSES OF PEOPLE.
8 15-112. Prohibited courses and classes; enforcement
9 A. A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL IN THIS STATE SHALL NOT INCLUDE
10 IN ITS PROGRAM OF INSTRUCTION ANY COURSES OR CLASSES THAT INCLUDE ANY OF THE
11 FOLLOWING:
12 1. PROMOTE THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
13 2. PROMOTE RESENTMENT TOWARD A RACE OR CLASS OF PEOPLE.
14 3. ARE DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR PUPILS OF A PARTICULAR ETHNIC GROUP.
15 4. ADVOCATE ETHNIC SOLIDARITY INSTEAD OF THE TREATMENT OF PUPILS AS
16 INDIVIDUALS."
I happen to agree with that!
You can find the entire law to read for yourself right here...
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2281s.pdf
And you decide if it really is as horrible as some people are saying.
And here is what our Superintendent of Public Instruction had to say about it....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,592863,00.html
"Martin Luther King gave his famous speech in which he said we should be judged by the quality of our character, rather than the color of our skin. And that has been among my deepest beliefs my entire life. And so this has made me opposed to dividing students by race.
In the Tucson school district -- this was what led me to introduce this legislation -- they divide the kids up. They've got Raza studies for the Latino kids. Raza means "the race" in Spanish. African-American studies for the African-American kids, Indian studies for the native American kids and Asian studies for the Asian kids. And they're dividing them up just like the old South.
And I believe that what's important about us is what we know, what we can do, what's our character as individuals, not what race we happen to have been born into. And the function of the public schools is to bring in kids from different backgrounds and teach them to treat each other as individuals. And the Tucson district is doing the opposite. They're teaching them to emphasize ethnic solidarity, what I call ethnic chauvinism. And I think that's exactly is the wrong thing to do in the public schools, and that's why I introduced this legislation to give myself the authority to put a stop to it.
HORNE: Well, one of the things that happened was that when Delores Juerta said that, there was a lot of controversy and people told me I should stop schools from having controversial speakers. And I said No, kids learn from controversial speakers, but they need to hear both sides. So I brought down Margaret Garcia Dugan (ph), who's my deputy and who's running for my position now, as I'm running for attorney general. And I brought her down to give a speech because she grew up in an immigrant family and she's also a Republican. And she said, I'm a proud Latina and a proud Republican, and I don't hate myself. And she gave them a very high- quality speech about how they should be skeptical, they should avoid stereotypes.
In the middle of her speech, a group of students that are in the Raza studies program got up, put their fists in the air, turned their back to her. The principal asked them to sit down and listen, and they walked out on their own principal.
These kids I believe did not learn this rude behavior from home. They were taught at home to be polite. They learned this rude behavior from the Raza studies teachers. And it's dysfunctional for them because as adults, they need to learn to deal with disagreement in a civil way. If they think the way to deal with disagreement is by being rude or getting in people's face, they're going to be unsuccessful adults.
So I think this is mostly dysfunctional for the students that are in this Raza studies program being subject to a revolutionary curriculum, a curriculum that tells them that we took Arizona and other states from Mexico and it should go back to them, that tells them that the enemy is capitalism, that they're oppressed and they should be resentful.
These kids' parents and grandparents came to this country, most of them legally, because this is the land of opportunity, and they trust their children to our schools. And we need to teach these children that this is the land of opportunity, and if they work hard, they can achieve anything, and not teach them that they're oppressed."
Bring back the troops that are fighting wars that they will not win and station them along the border areas. It will be cheaper than the cost of the wars that are making the U.S. the whipping boy of the world. with us a close second.
No can do, sir.
Against all sorts of law; unconstitutional-ish.
Such as...?
My idea has always been the same as bb's. Why would that break any law(s)? Honest question.
The "ethnic studies" law is actually a completely different law from SB 1070.
It is HB 2281...
So it has nothing to do with emigration or the AZ immigration law? Take it to another thread please; that discussion does not belong here.
No can do, sir.
Against all sorts of law; unconstitutional-ish.
Such as...?
My idea has always been the same as bb's. Why would that break any law(s)? Honest question.
It starts with things like this V - pay particular attention to the emboldened section:
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_law) (18 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_18_of_the_United_States_Code) § 1385 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1385.html)) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era_of_the_United_States), with the intention (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act)) of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformed_services_of_the_United_States) (today the Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army), Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy), Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force), and State National Guard forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States) when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_agency_powers), police (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police), or peace officer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_officer) powers that maintain "law and order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_order_%28politics%29)" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States.
The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) or Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress). The Coast Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Coast_Guard) is exempt from the Act.
The "ethnic studies" law is actually a completely different law from SB 1070.
It is HB 2281...
So it has nothing to do with emigration or the AZ immigration law? Take it to another thread please; that discussion does not belong here.
True, but the matter was raised by Mr. 'leet', so.
I am tempted to tell a true story, a story that is so 'on-point', I dare not tell it for being thought a liar.
megabyteme
08-19-2010, 07:43 PM
"ON-POINT" would be a nice change...by all means. :)
Such as...?
My idea has always been the same as bb's. Why would that break any law(s)? Honest question.
It starts with things like this V - pay particular attention to the emboldened section:
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_law) (18 U.S.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_18_of_the_United_States_Code) § 1385 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1385.html)) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era_of_the_United_States), with the intention (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act)) of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformed_services_of_the_United_States) (today the Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army), Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy), Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force), and State National Guard forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States) when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_agency_powers), police (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police), or peace officer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_officer) powers that maintain "law and order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_order_%28politics%29)" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States.
The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) or Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress). The Coast Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Coast_Guard) is exempt from the Act.
I'm not sure that applies. It sounds as if the military cannot enforce something which the state of local agencies currently have reasonable control of, but the border is "controlled" by the fed - the Border Patrol and ICE, and the fed has also let it be know that this is their territory.
bigboab
08-20-2010, 05:30 PM
Get Congress to set up a buffer zone that will be the responsibility of the military only. A lot of the Mexican and the Canadian borders are rivers, canyons and lakes etc. It will be good training for the troops.
You mean, like the Korean DMZ?
Now, there's an idea.
bigboab
08-20-2010, 08:22 PM
You mean, like the Korean DMZ?
Now, there's an idea.
Yes. It would be a bit onesided though. It's a win win.:)
You mean, like the Korean DMZ?
Now, there's an idea.
Yes. It would be a bit onesided though. It's a win win.:)
That alone would disqualify it.
elbuitre
08-23-2010, 09:21 PM
Get Congress to set up a buffer zone that will be the responsibility of the military only. A lot of the Mexican and the Canadian borders are rivers, canyons and lakes etc. It will be good training for the troops.
There are millions of people living in towns that are in the border.
bigboab
08-23-2010, 09:52 PM
Get Congress to set up a buffer zone that will be the responsibility of the military only. A lot of the Mexican and the Canadian borders are rivers, canyons and lakes etc. It will be good training for the troops.
There are millions of people living in towns that are in the border.
Truman, Hoover and Eisenhower did it to create jobs for the troops coming home. Does 'Wetback' ring any bells from your history lessons?
http://www.wtxpatriots.org/joomla/index.php/deportation-history
elbuitre
08-24-2010, 12:36 AM
your point being? do you want to remove everyone living there?
your point being? do you want to remove everyone living there?
If they're illegal aliens, yes.
elbuitre
08-24-2010, 01:41 PM
sure! but , he was saying he wants a dmz along the mexican border, that would require to remove all people, not just illegal aliens
l33tpirata13
08-24-2010, 02:05 PM
There are millions of people living in towns that are in the border.
Truman, Hoover and Eisenhower did it to create jobs for the troops coming home. Does 'Wetback' ring any bells from your history lessons?
http://www.wtxpatriots.org/joomla/index.php/deportation-history
I don't care who the hell you think you are, or refer or quote, my great-grandfather, may he rest in peace, WAS NOT and IS NOT a WETBACK!!!!!!! Stop using such derogatory racist terms. He was a BRACERO!!!!!!! Wetback is the equivalent of the N-word. Don't be so willing to use it! He came to the US during WWII, and worked his ass off for Americans who promised him papers. They lied and took advantage of him. They used the power of government to try and screw him. I say "try" because that's all they did, he obviously came out on top since there are well over 300 of his descendants here in the US and in Canada.
megabyteme
08-24-2010, 02:30 PM
I don't care who the hell you think you are, or refer or quote, my great-grandfather, may he rest in peace, WAS NOT and IS NOT a WETBACK!!!!!!! Stop using such derogatory racist terms. He was a BRACERO!!!!!!! Wetback is the equivalent of the N-word. Don't be so willing to use it! He came to the US during WWII, and worked his ass off for Americans who promised him papers. They lied and took advantage of him. They used the power of government to try and screw him. I say "try" because that's all they did, he obviously came out on top since there are well over 300 of his descendants here in the US and in Canada.
I always find it amazing how much immigrants have done/tolerated in order to become "Americans". I use the quotes out of sad necessity. Even those who did everything (some were given legal status) still exist(ed) in a climate that refuses to recognize them as equals.
megabyteme
08-24-2010, 02:45 PM
BTW, anyone who feels the need to delete posts like the above, has already lost the debate. It has happened WAY too many times lately. Quit being a coward. :dry:
bigboab
08-24-2010, 07:13 PM
Truman, Hoover and Eisenhower did it to create jobs for the troops coming home. Does 'Wetback' ring any bells from your history lessons?
http://www.wtxpatriots.org/joomla/index.php/deportation-history
I don't care who the hell you think you are, or refer or quote, my great-grandfather, may he rest in peace, WAS NOT and IS NOT a WETBACK!!!!!!! Stop using such derogatory racist terms. He was a BRACERO!!!!!!! Wetback is the equivalent of the N-word. Don't be so willing to use it! He came to the US during WWII, and worked his ass off for Americans who promised him papers. They lied and took advantage of him. They used the power of government to try and screw him. I say "try" because that's all they did, he obviously came out on top since there are well over 300 of his descendants here in the US and in Canada.
There was no offence meant. I was under the impression that a Wetback was someone who had swum across the Rio Grande in order to enter the U.S.A. illegally. Your Grandad was invited into the U.S.A. So the term Wetback could no way be referring to him.
megabyte
I always find it amazing how much immigrants have done/tolerated in order to become "Americans". I use the quotes out of sad necessity. Even those who did everything (some were given legal status) still exist(ed) in a climate that refuses to recognize them as equals.
This is a two way street. The vast majority of first, second, and sometimes third generation immigrants still regard 'the mother country' as their home and not their adopted country. Go into most cities in the world and there will be ethnic areas, some of them 'no go' areas to the native population.
l33tpirata13
08-24-2010, 08:58 PM
There was no offence meant. I was under the impression that a Wetback was someone who had swum across the Rio Grande in order to enter the U.S.A. illegally. Your Grandad was invited into the U.S.A. So the term Wetback could no way be referring to him.
I'll take you at your word. Just keep in mind, when quoting anything, always look at the source. Mojado was what they called him after they did't want him here anymore. When they were in need of ranchers, they were called Braceros, as in "Arms".
Truman, Hoover and Eisenhower did it to create jobs for the troops coming home. Does 'Wetback' ring any bells from your history lessons?
http://www.wtxpatriots.org/joomla/index.php/deportation-history
I don't care who the hell you think you are, or refer or quote, my great-grandfather, may he rest in peace, WAS NOT and IS NOT a WETBACK!!!!!!! Stop using such derogatory racist terms. He was a BRACERO!!!!!!! Wetback is the equivalent of the N-word. Don't be so willing to use it! He came to the US during WWII, and worked his ass off for Americans who promised him papers. They lied and took advantage of him. They used the power of government to try and screw him. I say "try" because that's all they did, he obviously came out on top since there are well over 300 of his descendants here in the US and in Canada.
If you had read the link that boab placed in the same post, you would have known it was a historical reference, and in no way a slur.
BTW, anyone who feels the need to delete posts like the above, has already lost the debate. It has happened WAY too many times lately. Quit being a coward. :dry:
The only content that has been deleted in this thread has been off topic posts, and that was only after warnings were ignored. Nothing is ever removed in this section or the rest of the board for that matter because a mod doesn't agree with the content. Ever.
If you take issue with the way things are done, make a report thread or PM the mod/admin; don't throw out fallacious accusations in this thread. It is again, off topic.
l33tpirata13
08-24-2010, 09:31 PM
Historical reference? Oh yeah, now you're calling my great-grandfather a liar? Oh no, you know you're right because you lived through it and you know everything, right? Cuz, he had reason to lie to me. Stop defending the use of that word!!! I don't care who you are. That word is exactly the same as the N word. Just like i can't say white derogatory terms. If you want to defend that, it's on you. I'm sure you can find more than a couple history books from the 30's and 40's that refer to African Americans as the "N" word. Are you going to quote them too?
Historical reference? Oh yeah, now you're calling my great-grandfather a liar? Oh no, you know you're right because you lived through it and you know everything, right? Cuz, he had reason to lie to me. Stop defending the use of that word!!! I don't care who you are. That word is exactly the same as the N word. Just like i can't say white derogatory terms. If you want to defend that, it's on you. I'm sure you can find more than a couple history books from the 30's and 40's that refer to African Americans as the "N" word. Are you going to quote them too?
If you're unable to have grown-up discussions, you probably shouldn't post in this section.
"Operation Wetback was a repatriation project of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service to remove illegal Mexican immigrants ("wetbacks") from the Southwest."
In this context, it does have a historical value. How can you not not see that? :frusty:
It has nothing to do with your grandfather or anyone else.
Should we destroy all copies of 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' because it has the word "nigger" in it? Of course not.
@boab - That was a good link to some good information. I'm waiting on J2's response to that as he's more in touch with the legal parameters I believe from then to now.
l33tpirata13
08-24-2010, 10:49 PM
Historical reference? Oh yeah, now you're calling my great-grandfather a liar? Oh no, you know you're right because you lived through it and you know everything, right? Cuz, he had reason to lie to me. Stop defending the use of that word!!! I don't care who you are. That word is exactly the same as the N word. Just like i can't say white derogatory terms. If you want to defend that, it's on you. I'm sure you can find more than a couple history books from the 30's and 40's that refer to African Americans as the "N" word. Are you going to quote them too?
If you're unable to have grown-up discussions, you probably shouldn't post in this section.
"Operation Wetback was a repatriation project of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service to remove illegal Mexican immigrants ("wetbacks") from the Southwest."
In this context, it does have a historical value. How can you not not see that? :frusty:
It has nothing to do with your grandfather or anyone else.
Should we destroy all copies of 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' because it has the word "nigger" in it? Of course not.
@boab - That was a good link to some good information. I'm waiting on J2's response to that as he's more in touch with the legal parameters I believe from then to now.
How is what he posted in any way historically accurate? What are their sources?
How is what he posted in any way historically accurate? What are their sources?
Read this very carefully, you ^ and MBM:
For purposes here, with specific regard to the dispute at hand, "wetbacks" and "braceros" aside?
Leet puts his great-grandfather up against Bob's citation, and Bob wins.
If Leet wants to question Bob or his citation, it is incumbent on Leet to begin by providing a counter.
That is the way debate/discussion works.
Are we to believe pigmentation is a free pass to the peremptory hissy-fit?
This fucking guy wants to shoot his horse in the starting gate, and here we have another member egging him on, ffs.
No offense intended, of course.
MagicNakor
08-25-2010, 12:28 AM
How would a DMZ work within the United States, vis-à-vis Federal/State powers/obligations/rights? Would it require a tacit agreement between border states, or can the Federal government "claim" the land?
:shuriken:
bigboab
08-25-2010, 07:08 AM
How would a DMZ work within the United States, vis-à-vis Federal/State powers/obligations/rights? Would it require a tacit agreement between border states, or can the Federal government "claim" the land?
:shuriken:
Congress is empowered to 'sieze' land for the protection of the States. Mass (global)immigration as seen today has got to stop. Too many immigrants want to change the law to 'their' laws. We've had cases in the U.K. of 'honour' killings, where the victim reneged on a 'contract marriage' was murdered, sometimes by their own family. I saw a member of TV audience saying, Why can't we have 'Sharia Law' for the area we live in?
I'ts like Gerrymandering, only using people instead of borders.
The tax payers of today are going to be the huddled masses of tomorrow.:rolleyes:
bigboab
08-25-2010, 10:56 AM
I won't be posting in this section anymore. :wave:
I don't seem to remember you posting in this section before. If you are using this account to overcome a banning or disablement then I'm afraid there is a chance that you won't be posting in any section again. Pity. A debate is about many aspects of a 'problem'. If you can't debate and prove that your version is correct or accept that your version is wrong, then debating is not your forte. Bye.:(
bigboab
08-25-2010, 11:28 AM
I'm not going to battle with mods deleting posts that they don't agree with. My "ban" is for 1 day- no big deal. However, skiz has shown his inability to moderate this topic fairly. His "Tejas, formerly Texas" as his location shows much"...
If anyone wants to give me a perm ban for using this known dupe account, so be that, also...
Mods have a difficult job. This is not the Lounge. If you stray off topic or become personal then that part or whole of your post will be deleted. A can't see Skiz doing anything untoward. In fact he does a very good job and very rarely has, or needs to interfere in this section.
P.S. there you go contradicting yourself by posting again. :rolleyes:
l33tpirata13
08-25-2010, 01:52 PM
Wow, so now MBM gets a ban because he makes some sense? According to J2d2, my great grandfather is a Wetback, and anyone that says it's "history" can call him that also. The sources cited for that "wiki" were completely one sided. The very people that the article states were called bigots, are the same ones they are citing. You consider that link as a credible source? Not ACLU though, right? Is it history or just an excuse to throw racist terms around without consequence? Putting things into perspective, J2d2 and others with his views live in secluded rural areas, where this form of thinking is rampant. New Mexico or western texas, doesn't represent the US by any means.
Oh and if the mods were doing their jobs, which they are not, it wouldn't get personal. J2d2 seems to get as personal as he wants without any sort of consequence. Why is that? Will this post be deleted too?
Wow, so now MBM gets a ban because he makes some sense? According to J2d2, my great grandfather is a Wetback, and anyone that says it's "history" can call him that also. The sources cited for that "wiki" were completely one sided. The very people that the article states were called bigots, are the same ones they are citing. You consider that link as a credible source? Not ACLU though, right? Is it history or just an excuse to throw racist terms around without consequence? Putting things into perspective, J2d2 and others with his views live in secluded rural areas, where this form of thinking is rampant. New Mexico or western texas, doesn't represent the US by any means.
Oh and if the mods were doing their jobs, which they are not, it wouldn't get personal. J2d2 seems to get as personal as he wants without any sort of consequence. Why is that? Will this post be deleted too?
Okay - back all that up, pal.
Quote exactly where and how I called you or your Grandfather a "wetback".
Also-
Shoot MBM a PM and beg him to post in support of your accusations.
Actually, it needn't be MBM - anybody will do.
How is what he posted in any way historically accurate? What are their sources?
How about The Texas State Historical Association?
There is a complete bibliography as well with plenty of reputable sources.
Operation Wetback was a repatriation project of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service to remove illegal Mexican immigrants ("wetbacks") from the Southwest. During the first decades of the twentieth century, the majority of migrant workers who crossed the border illegally did not have adequate protection against exploitation by American farmers. As a result of the Good Neighbor Policy, Mexico and the United States began negotiating an accord to protect the rights of Mexican agricultural workers. Continuing discussions and modifications of the agreement were so successful that the Congress chose to formalize the "temporary" program into the Bracero program, authorized by Public Law 78. In the early 1940s, while the program was being viewed as a success in both countries, Mexico excluded Texas from the labor-exchange program on the grounds of widespread violation of contracts, discrimination against migrant workers, and such violations of their civil rights as perfunctory arrests for petty causes. Oblivious to the Mexican charges, some grower organizations in Texas continued to hire illegal Mexican workers and violate such mandates of PL 78 as the requirement to provide workers transportation costs from and to Mexico, fair and lawful wages, housing, and health services. World War II and the postwar period exacerbated the Mexican exodus to the United States, as the demand for cheap agricultural laborers increased. Graft and corruption on both sides of the border enriched many Mexican officials as well as unethical "coyote" freelancers in the United States who promised contracts in Texas for the unsuspecting Bracero. Studies conducted over a period of several years indicate that the Bracero program increased the number of illegal aliens in Texas and the rest of the country. Because of the low wages paid to legal, contracted braceros, many of them skipped out on their contracts either to return home or to work elsewhere for better wages as wetbacks.
Increasing grievances from various Mexican officials in the United States and Mexico prompted the Mexican government to rescind the bracero agreement and cease the export of Mexican workers. The United States Immigration Service, under pressure from various agricultural groups, retaliated against Mexico in 1951 by allowing thousands of illegals to cross the border, arresting them, and turning them over to the Texas Employment Commission, which delivered them to work for various grower groups in Texas and elsewhere. Over the long term, this action by the federal government, in violation of immigration laws and the agreement with Mexico, caused new problems for Texas. Between 1944 and 1954, "the decade of the wetback," the number of illegal aliens coming from Mexico increased by 6,000 percent. It is estimated that in 1954 before Operation Wetback got under way, more than a million workers had crossed the Rio Grande illegally. Cheap labor displaced native agricultural workers, and increased violation of labor laws and discrimination encouraged criminality, disease, and illiteracy. According to a study conducted in 1950 by the President's Commission on Migratory Labor in Texas, the Rio Grande valley cotton growers were paying approximately half of the wages paid elsewhere in Texas. In 1953 a McAllen newspaper clamored for justice in view of continuing criminal activities by wetbacks.
The resulting Operation Wetback, a national reaction against illegal immigration, began in Texas in mid-July 1954. Headed by the commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization Service, Gen. Joseph May Swing, the United States Border Patrol aided by municipal, county, state, and federal authorities, as well as the military, began a quasimilitary operation of search and seizure of all illegal immigrants. Fanning out from the lower Rio Grande valley, Operation Wetback moved northward. Illegal aliens were repatriated initially through Presidio because the Mexican city across the border, Ojinaga, had rail connections to the interior of Mexico by which workers could be quickly moved on to Durango. A major concern of the operation was to discourage reentry by moving the workers far into the interior. Others were to be sent through El Paso. On July 15, the first day of the operation, 4,800 aliens were apprehended. Thereafter the daily totals dwindled to an average of about 1,100 a day. The forces used by the government were actually relatively small, perhaps no more than 700 men, but were exaggerated by border patrol officials who hoped to scare illegal workers into flight back to Mexico. Valley newspapers also exaggerated the size of the government forces for their own purposes: generally unfavorable editorials attacked the Border Patrol as an invading army seeking to deprive Valley farmers of their inexpensive labor force. While the numbers of deportees remained relatively high, the illegals were transported across the border on trucks and buses. As the pace of the operation slowed, deportation by sea began on the Emancipation, which ferried wetbacks from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, and on other ships. Ships were a preferred mode of transport because they carried the illegal workers farther away from the border than did buses, trucks, or trains. The boat lift continued until the drowning of seven deportees who jumped ship from the Mercurio provoked a mutiny and led to a public outcry against the practice in Mexico. Other aliens, particularly those apprehended in the Midwest states, were flown to Brownsville and sent into Mexico from there. The operation trailed off in the fall of 1954 as INS funding began to run out.
It is difficult to estimate the number of illegal aliens forced to leave by the operation. The INS claimed as many as 1,300,000, though the number officially apprehended did not come anywhere near this total. The INS estimate rested on the claim that most aliens, fearing apprehension by the government, had voluntarily repatriated themselves before and during the operation. The San Antonio district, which included all of Texas outside of El Paso and the Trans-Pecos, had officially apprehended slightly more than 80,000 aliens, and local INS officials claimed that an additional 500,000 to 700,000 had fled to Mexico before the campaign began. Many commentators have considered these figure to be exaggerated. Various groups opposed any form of temporary labor in the United States. The American G.I. Forum, for instance, by and large had little or no sympathy for the man who crossed the border illegally. Apparently the Texas State Federation of Labor supported the G.I. Forum's position. Eventually the two organizations coproduced a study entitled What Price Wetbacks?, which concluded that illegal aliens in United States agriculture damaged the health of the American people, that illegals displaced American workers, that they harmed the retailers of McAllen, and that the open-border policy of the American government posed a threat to the security of the United States. Critics of Operation Wetback considered it xenophobic and heartless.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Carl Allsup, The American G.I. Forum: Origins and Evolution (University of Texas Center for Mexican American Studies Monograph 6, Austin, 1982). Arnoldo De León, Mexican Americans in Texas: A Brief History (Arlington Heights, Illinois: Harlan Davidson, 1993). Juan Ramon Garcia, Operation Wetback: The Mass Deportation of Mexican Undocumented Workers in 1954 (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1980). Eleanor M. Hadley, "A Critical Analysis of the Wetback Problem," Law and Contemporary Problems 21 (Spring 1956). Saturday Evening Post, July 27, 1946. Julian Samora, Los Mojados: The Wetback Story (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1971).
l33tpirata13
08-25-2010, 08:22 PM
Wow, so now MBM gets a ban because he makes some sense? According to J2d2, my great grandfather is a Wetback, and anyone that says it's "history" can call him that also. The sources cited for that "wiki" were completely one sided. The very people that the article states were called bigots, are the same ones they are citing. You consider that link as a credible source? Not ACLU though, right? Is it history or just an excuse to throw racist terms around without consequence? Putting things into perspective, J2d2 and others with his views live in secluded rural areas, where this form of thinking is rampant. New Mexico or western texas, doesn't represent the US by any means.
Oh and if the mods were doing their jobs, which they are not, it wouldn't get personal. J2d2 seems to get as personal as he wants without any sort of consequence. Why is that? Will this post be deleted too?
Okay - back all that up, pal.
Quote exactly where and how I called you or your Grandfather a "wetback".
Also-
Shoot MBM a PM and beg him to post in support of your accusations.
Actually, it needn't be MBM - anybody will do.
Back what up? What is there to dispute? You want to pretend like that bit of "history" is valid enough to call my family a derogatory term. It's that simple. You want to defend a site that makes wiki look like a paysite simply because it calls Braceros, Wetbacks. I don't have anything to prove, you've done enough.
Also-
Be realistic. You do realize you live in NM, right? These types of ideas are rampant in those parts. Talk of militarizing the border is nothing more than fantasy. It will never happen. EVER. So why even discuss it? Saying that you're out of touch is an understatement. That's just the facts, sorry.
Who backs YOU up? Someone that doesn't just delete posts to YOUR liking please.
l33tpirata13
08-25-2010, 08:42 PM
How about The Texas State Historical Association?
There is a complete bibliography as well with plenty of reputable sources.
Operation Wetback was a repatriation project of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service to remove illegal Mexican immigrants ("wetbacks") from the Southwest. During the first decades of the twentieth century, the majority of migrant workers who crossed the border illegally did not have adequate protection against exploitation by American farmers. As a result of the Good Neighbor Policy, Mexico and the United States began negotiating an accord to protect the rights of Mexican agricultural workers. Continuing discussions and modifications of the agreement were so successful that the Congress chose to formalize the "temporary" program into the Bracero program, authorized by Public Law 78. In the early 1940s, while the program was being viewed as a success in both countries, Mexico excluded Texas from the labor-exchange program on the grounds of widespread violation of contracts, discrimination against migrant workers, and such violations of their civil rights as perfunctory arrests for petty causes. Oblivious to the Mexican charges, some grower organizations in Texas continued to hire illegal Mexican workers and violate such mandates of PL 78 as the requirement to provide workers transportation costs from and to Mexico, fair and lawful wages, housing, and health services. World War II and the postwar period exacerbated the Mexican exodus to the United States, as the demand for cheap agricultural laborers increased. Graft and corruption on both sides of the border enriched many Mexican officials as well as unethical "coyote" freelancers in the United States who promised contracts in Texas for the unsuspecting Bracero. Studies conducted over a period of several years indicate that the Bracero program increased the number of illegal aliens in Texas and the rest of the country. Because of the low wages paid to legal, contracted braceros, many of them skipped out on their contracts either to return home or to work elsewhere for better wages as wetbacks.
Increasing grievances from various Mexican officials in the United States and Mexico prompted the Mexican government to rescind the bracero agreement and cease the export of Mexican workers. The United States Immigration Service, under pressure from various agricultural groups, retaliated against Mexico in 1951 by allowing thousands of illegals to cross the border, arresting them, and turning them over to the Texas Employment Commission, which delivered them to work for various grower groups in Texas and elsewhere. Over the long term, this action by the federal government, in violation of immigration laws and the agreement with Mexico, caused new problems for Texas. Between 1944 and 1954, "the decade of the wetback," the number of illegal aliens coming from Mexico increased by 6,000 percent. It is estimated that in 1954 before Operation Wetback got under way, more than a million workers had crossed the Rio Grande illegally. Cheap labor displaced native agricultural workers, and increased violation of labor laws and discrimination encouraged criminality, disease, and illiteracy. According to a study conducted in 1950 by the President's Commission on Migratory Labor in Texas, the Rio Grande valley cotton growers were paying approximately half of the wages paid elsewhere in Texas. In 1953 a McAllen newspaper clamored for justice in view of continuing criminal activities by wetbacks.
The resulting Operation Wetback, a national reaction against illegal immigration, began in Texas in mid-July 1954. Headed by the commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization Service, Gen. Joseph May Swing, the United States Border Patrol aided by municipal, county, state, and federal authorities, as well as the military, began a quasimilitary operation of search and seizure of all illegal immigrants. Fanning out from the lower Rio Grande valley, Operation Wetback moved northward. Illegal aliens were repatriated initially through Presidio because the Mexican city across the border, Ojinaga, had rail connections to the interior of Mexico by which workers could be quickly moved on to Durango. A major concern of the operation was to discourage reentry by moving the workers far into the interior. Others were to be sent through El Paso. On July 15, the first day of the operation, 4,800 aliens were apprehended. Thereafter the daily totals dwindled to an average of about 1,100 a day. The forces used by the government were actually relatively small, perhaps no more than 700 men, but were exaggerated by border patrol officials who hoped to scare illegal workers into flight back to Mexico. Valley newspapers also exaggerated the size of the government forces for their own purposes: generally unfavorable editorials attacked the Border Patrol as an invading army seeking to deprive Valley farmers of their inexpensive labor force. While the numbers of deportees remained relatively high, the illegals were transported across the border on trucks and buses. As the pace of the operation slowed, deportation by sea began on the Emancipation, which ferried wetbacks from Port Isabel, Texas, to Veracruz, and on other ships. Ships were a preferred mode of transport because they carried the illegal workers farther away from the border than did buses, trucks, or trains. The boat lift continued until the drowning of seven deportees who jumped ship from the Mercurio provoked a mutiny and led to a public outcry against the practice in Mexico. Other aliens, particularly those apprehended in the Midwest states, were flown to Brownsville and sent into Mexico from there. The operation trailed off in the fall of 1954 as INS funding began to run out.
It is difficult to estimate the number of illegal aliens forced to leave by the operation. The INS claimed as many as 1,300,000, though the number officially apprehended did not come anywhere near this total. The INS estimate rested on the claim that most aliens, fearing apprehension by the government, had voluntarily repatriated themselves before and during the operation. The San Antonio district, which included all of Texas outside of El Paso and the Trans-Pecos, had officially apprehended slightly more than 80,000 aliens, and local INS officials claimed that an additional 500,000 to 700,000 had fled to Mexico before the campaign began. Many commentators have considered these figure to be exaggerated. Various groups opposed any form of temporary labor in the United States. The American G.I. Forum, for instance, by and large had little or no sympathy for the man who crossed the border illegally. Apparently the Texas State Federation of Labor supported the G.I. Forum's position. Eventually the two organizations coproduced a study entitled What Price Wetbacks?, which concluded that illegal aliens in United States agriculture damaged the health of the American people, that illegals displaced American workers, that they harmed the retailers of McAllen, and that the open-border policy of the American government posed a threat to the security of the United States. Critics of Operation Wetback considered it xenophobic and heartless.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Carl Allsup, The American G.I. Forum: Origins and Evolution (University of Texas Center for Mexican American Studies Monograph 6, Austin, 1982). Arnoldo De León, Mexican Americans in Texas: A Brief History (Arlington Heights, Illinois: Harlan Davidson, 1993). Juan Ramon Garcia, Operation Wetback: The Mass Deportation of Mexican Undocumented Workers in 1954 (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1980). Eleanor M. Hadley, "A Critical Analysis of the Wetback Problem," Law and Contemporary Problems 21 (Spring 1956). Saturday Evening Post, July 27, 1946. Julian Samora, Los Mojados: The Wetback Story (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1971).
I don't see anything credible. The most recent reference is from the GI forum, which is obviously prejudiced. The other semi recent one, is from someone based in Arlington Heights which happens to be KKK central in Illinois. The rest of the references are from the 70's and 50's. Yeah, really credible. It doesn't matter and as i said, unless you're Mexican you can't use that word. I don't care who you are. The world changes SKIs, i suggest you go along with it.
I'm telling you why people started using that word, but you still refuse to put it to rest. It was an ignorant term used by Whites to describe Braceros. Its that simple. I don't see why I have to spell it out for you. The fact that you found some literature to "back up your sources", doesn't mean much. Anyone can find literature on whatever they want to find. I actually knew someone who lived it, but my input isn't valid?
Look i really dont care what fantasies you want to discuss here, about militarizing the border or whatever. All im saying is that referring to Braceros as wetbacks is wrong. It may be historically accurate, but it's wrong. Just like it would be accurate that it was commonplace to call blacks the N word. I'm telling you its offensive, that should be enough. I don't care if you wanna use them as reference, just call them what they were BRACEROS. Thats all i ask.
I don't see anything credible...
:frusty:
Take the blindfold off, ffs.
bigboab
08-25-2010, 09:06 PM
Bracero
Mexican farm worker, legally admitted to the United States on a temporary contract basis from 1942 to 1964. The intention of that practice was to control the influx of ‘wetbacks’ (Mexican workers who crossed the Rio Grande illegally), to regulate the conditions of employment and to protect the wage levels of domestic workers. Close to 180,000 of such workers were legally contracted in 1964, the last year of the program. Their legal admission was discontinued because of the adverse effect their availability was alleged to have had on employment of U.S. nationals.
(verbatim)Encyclopaedia Britannica 1974
I'm sorry I can't find a better unbiased reference than that.
I think I will close on that. I get a sore head knocking it against the wall.:cry:
elbuitre
08-25-2010, 09:38 PM
Congress is empowered to 'sieze' land for the protection of the States. Mass (global)immigration as seen today has got to stop. Yeah right. congress is going to remove all infrastructure along the border, move millions of Americans out of their home and make trade with Mexico (3rd largest trade partner, double than that of Japan) harder to stop people from coming to do shitty jobs. Congress has not been able to build a wall for this very reason; A lot of land they want to take is on the hands of universities and they're fighting the federal government for it.
Okay - back all that up, pal.
Quote exactly where and how I called you or your Grandfather a "wetback".
Also-
Shoot MBM a PM and beg him to post in support of your accusations.
Actually, it needn't be MBM - anybody will do.
Back what up? What is there to dispute? You want to pretend like that bit of "history" is valid enough to call my family a derogatory term. It's that simple. You want to defend a site that makes wiki look like a paysite simply because it calls Braceros, Wetbacks. I don't have anything to prove, you've done enough.
Also-
Be realistic. You do realize you live in NM, right? These types of ideas are rampant in those parts. Talk of militarizing the border is nothing more than fantasy. It will never happen. EVER. So why even discuss it? Saying that you're out of touch is an understatement. That's just the facts, sorry.
Who backs YOU up? Someone that doesn't just delete posts to YOUR liking please.
How about The Texas State Historical Association?
There is a complete bibliography as well with plenty of reputable sources.
I don't see anything credible. The most recent reference is from the GI forum, which is obviously prejudiced. The other semi recent one, is from someone based in Arlington Heights which happens to be KKK central in Illinois. The rest of the references are from the 70's and 50's. Yeah, really credible. It doesn't matter and as i said, unless you're Mexican you can't use that word. I don't care who you are. The world changes SKIs, i suggest you go along with it.
I'm telling you why people started using that word, but you still refuse to put it to rest. It was an ignorant term used by Whites to describe Braceros. Its that simple. I don't see why I have to spell it out for you. The fact that you found some literature to "back up your sources", doesn't mean much. Anyone can find literature on whatever they want to find. I actually knew someone who lived it, but my input isn't valid?
Look i really dont care what fantasies you want to discuss here, about militarizing the border or whatever. All im saying is that referring to Braceros as wetbacks is wrong. It may be historically accurate, but it's wrong. Just like it would be accurate that it was commonplace to call blacks the N word. I'm telling you its offensive, that should be enough. I don't care if you wanna use them as reference, just call them what they were BRACEROS. Thats all i ask.
This stuff makes me giggle, it's so stupid.
An entity unto yourself, now?
I would say, in the entire history of this board, that you are far and away the thickest individual to achieve and abuse membership here.
I used to occasionally wander around the torrent section to amuse myself reading rampant stupidity; stupidity so deep and wide as to send me searching in vain for a stronger descriptive, BUT...
You - you take the mother-fucking cake, Chicago.
You are the most unrelentingly and unremittingly STOOOPID person to ever post in these hallowed halls.
Now, that is saying something - just ask me.
There - now you can say I've insulted you, I will certify the truth of that statement, and you still can't make a case for racism, you piece-of-shit.
Keep posting, asshole.
Btw-
I'm not from New Mexico, stupido.
pentomato
08-25-2010, 11:27 PM
But...but...we're not talking about the second amendment, nor are we talking about any 'outrage' issuing from the Right.
We're talking about the border, controlling it, or not, etc. ...
Shouldn't we trying to control our citizens first, the way they kill each other with those gun thingins? Many more are killed by guns that illegals with cars, so lets fix the constitution the right way.
l33tpirata13
08-26-2010, 02:22 AM
Back what up? What is there to dispute? You want to pretend like that bit of "history" is valid enough to call my family a derogatory term. It's that simple. You want to defend a site that makes wiki look like a paysite simply because it calls Braceros, Wetbacks. I don't have anything to prove, you've done enough.
Also-
Be realistic. You do realize you live in NM, right? These types of ideas are rampant in those parts. Talk of militarizing the border is nothing more than fantasy. It will never happen. EVER. So why even discuss it? Saying that you're out of touch is an understatement. That's just the facts, sorry.
Who backs YOU up? Someone that doesn't just delete posts to YOUR liking please.
How about The Texas State Historical Association?
There is a complete bibliography as well with plenty of reputable sources.
I don't see anything credible. The most recent reference is from the GI forum, which is obviously prejudiced. The other semi recent one, is from someone based in Arlington Heights which happens to be KKK central in Illinois. The rest of the references are from the 70's and 50's. Yeah, really credible. It doesn't matter and as i said, unless you're Mexican you can't use that word. I don't care who you are. The world changes SKIs, i suggest you go along with it.
I'm telling you why people started using that word, but you still refuse to put it to rest. It was an ignorant term used by Whites to describe Braceros. Its that simple. I don't see why I have to spell it out for you. The fact that you found some literature to "back up your sources", doesn't mean much. Anyone can find literature on whatever they want to find. I actually knew someone who lived it, but my input isn't valid?
Look i really dont care what fantasies you want to discuss here, about militarizing the border or whatever. All im saying is that referring to Braceros as wetbacks is wrong. It may be historically accurate, but it's wrong. Just like it would be accurate that it was commonplace to call blacks the N word. I'm telling you its offensive, that should be enough. I don't care if you wanna use them as reference, just call them what they were BRACEROS. Thats all i ask.
This stuff makes me giggle, it's so stupid.
An entity unto yourself, now?
I would say, in the entire history of this board, that you are far and away the thickest individual to achieve and abuse membership here.
I used to occasionally wander around the torrent section to amuse myself reading rampant stupidity; stupidity so deep and wide as to send me searching in vain for a stronger descriptive, BUT...
You - you take the mother-fucking cake, Chicago.
You are the most unrelentingly and unremittingly STOOOPID person to ever post in these hallowed halls.
Now, that is saying something - just ask me.
There - now you can say I've insulted you, I will certify the truth of that statement, and you still can't make a case for racism, you piece-of-shit.
Keep posting, asshole.
Btw-
I'm not from New Mexico, stupido.
Only you would be so ignorant. Is your life really that pathetic you have to make simple thing, like not using a racist term to describe my ancestors, into a huge political issue? Are you really that small? Receiving insults from degenerates like yourself, tickles me.
You seriously like to stroke your own ego, for what reason, I don't know. You're not a smart person by any means AT ALL. I suspect that's why you take your far-out political views to the board, since no one will listen to you for more than a couple seconds in real life.
Oh and if you're going to insult in a different language, at least get it right. ESTUPIDO!
Only you would be so ignorant. Is your life really that pathetic you have to make simple thing, like not using a racist term to describe my ancestors, into a huge political issue?
And there is a nice, neat example of your ignorance and deficient powers of discrimination - I haven't referred to you or your great-grandfather by any racial terms except in your fevered imagination, and I defy you to find anyone on this board who would agree that I have.
Oh and if you're going to insult in a different language, at least get it right. ESTUPIDO!
Well, then.
Sorry, pecker-head.
999969999
08-26-2010, 02:12 PM
Hmmm... seems like this thread, which started out on solid footing, has degenerated into incoherent racist rants from leet again. What a surprise!
Another example of taxpayer money being wasted on public schools in the form of ethnic studies and MECHA.
999969999
08-26-2010, 02:16 PM
Wow, so now MBM gets a ban because he makes some sense? According to J2d2, my great grandfather is a Wetback, and anyone that says it's "history" can call him that also. The sources cited for that "wiki" were completely one sided. The very people that the article states were called bigots, are the same ones they are citing. You consider that link as a credible source? Not ACLU though, right? Is it history or just an excuse to throw racist terms around without consequence? Putting things into perspective, J2d2 and others with his views live in secluded rural areas, where this form of thinking is rampant. New Mexico or western texas, doesn't represent the US by any means.
Oh and if the mods were doing their jobs, which they are not, it wouldn't get personal. J2d2 seems to get as personal as he wants without any sort of consequence. Why is that? Will this post be deleted too?
You mean Red States can't win elections? How do you think Bush won both elections? The Red States.
chalice
08-27-2010, 12:23 AM
People like me win when people like l33t affect this vicarious vehemence.
So, I kinda win this debate. Yeah, debate! Even though I didn't even partake in it.
Anyone who disagrees is a Mexican or some such derivative.
l33tpirata13
08-27-2010, 01:20 PM
Wow, so now MBM gets a ban because he makes some sense? According to J2d2, my great grandfather is a Wetback, and anyone that says it's "history" can call him that also. The sources cited for that "wiki" were completely one sided. The very people that the article states were called bigots, are the same ones they are citing. You consider that link as a credible source? Not ACLU though, right? Is it history or just an excuse to throw racist terms around without consequence? Putting things into perspective, J2d2 and others with his views live in secluded rural areas, where this form of thinking is rampant. New Mexico or western texas, doesn't represent the US by any means.
Oh and if the mods were doing their jobs, which they are not, it wouldn't get personal. J2d2 seems to get as personal as he wants without any sort of consequence. Why is that? Will this post be deleted too?
You mean Red States can't win elections? How do you think Bush won both elections? The Red States.
He won because of Latinos. FACT!!! He promised us immigration reform and all he did was ignore the problem. I don't see there being a GOP without the Latino vote, which they banked on. Why they are going after Latinos, is beyond me. Seems like the party is suicidal.
999969999
08-27-2010, 10:49 PM
You mean Red States can't win elections? How do you think Bush won both elections? The Red States.
He won because of Latinos. FACT!!! He promised us immigration reform and all he did was ignore the problem. I don't see there being a GOP without the Latino vote, which they banked on. Why they are going after Latinos, is beyond me. Seems like the party is suicidal.
"Martin Luther King gave his famous speech in which he said we should be judged by the quality of our character, rather than the color of our skin. And that has been among my deepest beliefs my entire life. And so this has made me opposed to dividing students by race.
In the Tucson school district -- this was what led me to introduce this legislation -- they divide the kids up. They've got Raza studies for the Latino kids. Raza means "the race" in Spanish. African-American studies for the African-American kids, Indian studies for the native American kids and Asian studies for the Asian kids. And they're dividing them up just like the old South.
And I believe that what's important about us is what we know, what we can do, what's our character as individuals, not what race we happen to have been born into. And the function of the public schools is to bring in kids from different backgrounds and teach them to treat each other as individuals. And the Tucson district is doing the opposite. They're teaching them to emphasize ethnic solidarity, what I call ethnic chauvinism. And I think that's exactly is the wrong thing to do in the public schools, and that's why I introduced this legislation to give myself the authority to put a stop to it.
HORNE: Well, one of the things that happened was that when Delores Juerta said that, there was a lot of controversy and people told me I should stop schools from having controversial speakers. And I said No, kids learn from controversial speakers, but they need to hear both sides. So I brought down Margaret Garcia Dugan (ph), who's my deputy and who's running for my position now, as I'm running for attorney general. And I brought her down to give a speech because she grew up in an immigrant family and she's also a Republican. And she said, I'm a proud Latina and a proud Republican, and I don't hate myself. And she gave them a very high- quality speech about how they should be skeptical, they should avoid stereotypes.
In the middle of her speech, a group of students that are in the Raza studies program got up, put their fists in the air, turned their back to her. The principal asked them to sit down and listen, and they walked out on their own principal.
These kids I believe did not learn this rude behavior from home. They were taught at home to be polite. They learned this rude behavior from the Raza studies teachers. And it's dysfunctional for them because as adults, they need to learn to deal with disagreement in a civil way. If they think the way to deal with disagreement is by being rude or getting in people's face, they're going to be unsuccessful adults.
So I think this is mostly dysfunctional for the students that are in this Raza studies program being subject to a revolutionary curriculum, a curriculum that tells them that we took Arizona and other states from Mexico and it should go back to them, that tells them that the enemy is capitalism, that they're oppressed and they should be resentful.
These kids' parents and grandparents came to this country, most of them legally, because this is the land of opportunity, and they trust their children to our schools. And we need to teach these children that this is the land of opportunity, and if they work hard, they can achieve anything, and not teach them that they're oppressed."
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.