-
Undocumented immigration in border states
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" but nonetheless: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPUtyOzrK3U
Forgive the chop job:
Quote:
Originally Posted by megabyteme
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 999969999
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
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:
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
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?
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
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?
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
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/impac...accidents.html
The story is the same for illegal immigrants in any country.
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
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.
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bigboab
"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?
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
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. ...
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
clocker
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bigboab
"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.
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
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?
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
megabyteme
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.
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
megabyteme
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.
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Skiz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
megabyteme
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):
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
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
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
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:
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
megabyteme
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
megabyteme
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.
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
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?
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
megabyteme
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
megabyteme
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Skiz
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):
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
megabyteme
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
megabyteme
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.
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
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.
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by
megabyteme
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%...%204-14-10.pdf
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
megabyteme
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
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%...%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.
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
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?
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
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:
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
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*
Quote:
Originally Posted by J2K4
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:
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
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.
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.
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
megabyteme
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*
Quote:
Originally Posted by J2K4
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.
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
BTW-
The ACLU thinks NAMBLA is A-Okay
.
How did you arrive at that one?
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
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...
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
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:
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
BTW-
The ACLU thinks NAMBLA is A-Okay
.
How did you arrive at that one?
http://old.nationalreview.com/images...02_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, 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
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Please stick to the topic at hand, J2... :ermm:
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
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.
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
@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...-organizations
Quote:
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
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
megabyteme
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.
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by
megabyteme
Please stick to the topic at hand, J2... :ermm:
You brought up the ACLU, not me.
Let's get down to it then:
Spoiler:
Show
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4 cont...
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
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
megabyteme
*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.
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
@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...-organizations
Quote:
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.
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
megabyteme
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
You brought up the ACLU, not me.
Let's get down to it then:
Spoiler:
Show
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4 cont...
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.
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Skiz
Your insinuating that I don't see the giant Hispanic elephant in the room. Trust me, I see it; it's just irrelevant.
This ^...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Skiz
No one gives a shit where they came from, it's how they came.
...and this ^.
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Skiz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
megabyteme
*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.
-
Re: Undocumented immigration in border states
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
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:
