Undocumented immigration in border states

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiz

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.

Spoiler: Show

(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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

[
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Show me where you are required by law to carry state ID.

---

I looked around for it and I'm a tad off.

Spoiler: Show

(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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Is the constitution a living flexible document?

---

Absolutely not.

Clear enough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by l33tpirata13

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by l33tpirata13

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devilsadvocate

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.

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

The point is, many legal Mexican-Americans have close Mexican relatives. Some live in the states...

---

That is most emphatically not the question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

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.

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.

: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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by l33tpirata13

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by l33tpirata13

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.

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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 (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) 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 (today the Army, Navy, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" 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 or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 999969999

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.