May I see your papers, citizen?

@Cycloptichorn,

I'm sure the good legislature of Arizona has taken this into account and deems the risk acceptable in order to solve the problem of illegal aliens in their state. Something tells me that officers will be given strict instructions to do all they have a right to do to enforce the law. I doubt that not doing enough to enforce it is going to be a problem. Mind you it could, but I would be surprised.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I think Arizona is hoping to have consequences. They are hoping illegal immigrants will bypass their state and head elsewhere. They won't mind that kind of boycott at all.

Actually, they might. This might very well have serious economic consequences for Arizona-- not the least of which that businesses in the service/agricultural areas are going to be hit.

This is not including the boycotts which are already being organized.

The last racial controversy in Arizona involved the Martin Luther King Holiday. This ended after Arizona lost a Superbowl because African Americans and their supporters in a sport that has a significant number of African American players.

If the courts don't reverse this law on the grounds that it is racist, the economic sanctions will.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

So the argument against this law, as you see it, is that the law is racist? Nowhere in this bill is any particular race targeted. And before you make the argument, I will certainly concede that the majority of illegals in Arizona are probably Hispanic, but that does not make the law racist

3 Replies

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

I'm sure the good legislature of Arizona has taken this into account and deems the risk acceptable in order to solve the problem of illegal aliens in their state. Something tells me that officers will be given strict instructions to do all they have a right to do to enforce the law. I doubt that not doing enough to enforce it is going to be a problem. Mind you it could, but I would be surprised.

I would heavily bet that it will be a problem, because the rabid right-wing in that state will not tolerate lesser levels of enforcement from the less Conservative cities. Flagstaff and a few other towns are already moving to sue the state over this bill.

I would encourage you to read the NRO piece I posted above - the situation created by the different sections of this law puts the State in a real bind.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

Quote:

So the against this law, as you see it, is that the law is racist? Nowhere in this bill is any particular race targeted. And before you make the argument, I will certainly concede that the majority of illegals in Arizona are probably Hispanic, but that does not make the law racist

CoastalRat,

I don't know how familiar you are with the history of the Jim Crow laws. Many of them were written to not include race.

Under Jim Crow, for example, to stop black people from voting-- they didn't pass a law saying "No black people can vote". Jim Crow laws set up a series of barriers to voting-- literacy tests etc.-- that were explicitly designed with one end in mind.

No one now argues that literacy tests as a requirement for voting (which said nothing about race) were design to keep blacks from voting-- and no one denies that that was the effect.

Quote:

I will certainly concede that the majority of people effected by Jim Crow laws were probably black, but that does not make the law racist

Funny enough, that argument was actually made in the past century.

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

So the argument against this law, as you see it, is that the law is racist? Nowhere in this bill is any particular race targeted. And before you make the argument, I will certainly concede that the majority of illegals in Arizona are probably Hispanic, but that does not make the law racist

Oh, come on.

99.9% of those who are in Arizona illegally are Hispanics; this law was written to control illegals but what it will REALLY do is control Hispanics. Same was as the original Marijuana laws were written to control Hispanics; the same way that Crack Cocaine laws are written to control Blacks in America.

You need to look beyond the letter of the law and think about it's application.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Jim Crow laws were an attempt to violate existing federal law. The Arizona law is an attempt to enforce federal laws. There is no comparison in my opinion. You may believe otherwise, but I fear you are in error whether you choose to admit that or not. Of course, I'm sure you believe my belief is in error, so I guess we are even in that regard. Wink

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Its application will begin the process of removing illegal aliens from the state of Arizona. I have freely admitted that the vast majority of those removed will be Hispanics. If this identical law were passed in some other area, let's say NY, then I would bet the vast majority of illegals removed from the state would be of some other ethnicity/nationality. Are we going to stop passing/enforcing laws simply because some class of people will be disproportionately affected? Wow. Seems a new tax on tanning salons that I believe was part of the HC bill (I could be wrong however) is racist because it will affect caucasians to a much greater degree than any other ethnicity. Maybe we should be making a stink about that one too?

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

Its application will begin the process of removing illegal aliens from the state of Arizona. I have freely admitted that the vast majority of those removed will be Hispanics. If this identical law were passed in some other area, let's say NY, then I would bet the vast majority of illegals removed from the state would be of some other ethnicity/nationality. Are we going to stop passing/enforcing laws simply because some class of people will be disproportionately affected? Wow. Seems a new tax on tanning salons that I believe was part of the HC bill (I could be wrong however) is racist because it will affect caucasians to a much greater degree than any other ethnicity. Maybe we should be making a stink about that one too?

I guess you don't read much Republican writing, because several of your fellows have done exactly that.

Yes, when laws are written to specifically impact a certain group, you have to be extremely careful - even if you intentionally make the language as neutral as possible. As was pointed out re: Jim Crow laws above. Your distinction regarding 'defying or enforcing' Federal law is immaterial - the fact that you have a positive opinion of one and a negative opinion of another doesn't matter, the courts will view them in the same way.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

Coastal Rat...

The Arizona law violates Federal law (read the ACLU brief on the subject for more details). Pretty much every legal expert outside of a small conservative circle agrees with this.- and, soon enough, it will soon be shown in court.

But the worst part of this bill is that it is understood, by pretty much everyone outside of a small group of apologists, to be a slap in the face of Hispanic Americans.

This is why you have such an outcry from around the country- from political figures, including pretty much every Hispanic Congressman, including one from Arizona...

to entertainers from George Lopez to Shakira...

to religious leaders from Catholic Bishops to Evangelical
Christian Leaders...

Whether or not the Arizona law is illegal will be decided in the courts (although it seems very likely it is illegal).

However the national backlash from Americans around the country with or without brown skin is unmistakable. I have yet to find a person with brown skin who is not personally offended by this bill (I sure there are a couple).

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I'm sorry Cy, maybe my reasoning abilities are not as advanced as others. As a product of public schools I think I have an excuse. But I just do not see how the simple fact that most illegals in Arizona are Hispanic makes this law racist. But if I accept your reasoning, then is the federal law against illegals also racist since most illegals in this country are non-caucasian? It would seem to be that would have to be the case. Now if the argument against the Arizona law is a constitutional one, I can understand the objection. I can see where it could have a problem that the court will have to decide. But if it is racist, then you might as well throw out the federal immigration laws since they would be racist also. (Again, my reasoning may be faulty, but blame the state of Maryland for that No me.)

1 Reply

Coastal Rat wrote:

(Again, my reasoning may be faulty, but blame the state of Maryland for that No me.)

So, when one passes through Maryland's educational system one loses the ability of self-educating or even reasoning?

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown, I'm quite content to wait and see what the courts have to say. I'm certain this is headed that direction. Is there an outcry of opposition to this law from all over the country? Sure. But I don't think the citizens of Arizona give a whip what George Lopez, Shakira, other entertainers, congressmen, governors, clergy, brown skinned people, white skinned people or black skinned people think. They are trying to solve a problem that they believe is reaching a boiling point. THEY are the ones who are dealing with the consequences of illegal aliens in their state and they are fed up. Their law might well be struck down and if and when that happens, they will look for other ways to deal with the problem.

So, short of throwing open the border and giving anyone who decides to come here citizenship, what would you have the people of Arizona do?

0 Replies

@Francis,

Guess you'll have to be the judge of that Francis.

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

For what it is worth-- to many of us using the noun "illegal" to refer to a human being is offensive. It takes away the fact that even people who break commit such horrible crimes as crossing a border or overstaying a visa are human beings.

Of course, you have the right to ignore me on this... then again you can refer to people as "niggers" if you want... no one can stop you just because some of us find it offensive.

But if you want to have a reasonable dialog on the issue, where the human aspects of the issue are discussed as well as the legal ones, you should avoid this demonizing term.

3 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

For what it is worth-- to many of us using the noun "illegal" to refer to a human being is offensive. It takes away the fact that even people who break commit such horrible crimes as crossing a border or overstaying a visa are human beings.

that seems a bit extreme, sure the true legal speak would be to say they were visitors who breached a border or overstayed their visa, but to take offense to illegal seems ridiculous

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

I will henceforth simply refer to them as "criminal border violators." Would that soothe your PC sensibilities?

You sir are an ass. You have responded in such a way as to lead others to believe I have or would ever refer to any human being as a "nigger." As far as I know, up to this moment in time, I have never insulted anyone on this board before. That has now changed. You are simply an ass and my conversations with you are now at an end. So go screw yourself you ignorant little man you.

3 Replies

@CoastalRat,

there's things i probably don't agree with you about, but this time i applaud you

1 Reply

@djjd62,

Quote:

that seems a bit extreme, sure the true legal speak would be to say they were visitors who breached a border or overstayed their visa, but to take offense to illegal seems ridiculous

that which is against immigration law is illegal...how is that ridiculous?? It is definition. We don't however pursue some illegal acts, but the majority is tired of this illegal act getting a free pass. This is why we have seen in the last few years many state laws targeting those who are in our country illegally.

Quote:

The number of states passing immigration-related bills has skyrocketed this year. No fewer than 1,404 pieces of immigration-related legislation were introduced in legislatures during the first half of 2007, with 182 bills becoming law in 43 states. That is more than double the number of immigration-related state laws enacted during all of 2006, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/14/AR2007101401266.html

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

I will henceforth simply refer to them as "criminal border violators." Would that soothe your PC sensibilities?

You sir are an ass. You have responded in such a way as to lead others to believe I have or would ever refer to any human being as a "nigger." As far as I know, up to this moment in time, I have never insulted anyone on this board before. That has now changed. You are simply an ass and my conversations with you are now at an end. So go screw yourself you ignorant little man you.

A few of us figured this out awhile back.

0 Replies

May I see your papers, citizen?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know