May I see your papers, citizen?

@CoastalRat,

Quote:

I don't think the Arizona law is the answer because even if its legality is upheld, it will not solve the larger issues nor stop people from entering the US illegally. It will only send them home where they will attempt again to return. This solves nothing for us or for those coming here illegally.

The answer is obvious (and I think we all agree on this point).

We need to come up with a solution on a national level that addresses the concerns of Americans from all walks of life. It is certain that when this solution is reached, it will include border security and economic issues as well as dealing with issues of compassion, family and human rights.

Quote:

(See how well I avoid the term "illegal immigrant?)

Thank you,

Whether I am overly sensitive or not, you have no idea how much easier this little courtesy makes it for me to hear what you are saying. (In case you didn't catch it, "illegal immigrant" is less offensive than the use of illegal as a noun).

2 Replies

@CoastalRat,

Ooops, I meant as mentioned by Hawkeye. Sorry dude.

1 Reply

You know, in thinking about this and reading everything here, I firmly believe that if we got all the politicians out of this and a group of normal, hard working citizens sat down to come up with a solution (maybe a bunch of A2K'ers) we could come up with a sensible solution to the problem. But like many issues, this has become a political football, with those on both side of the aisle pushing for a result that will bring a voting block into their camp. It never occurs to them that they are playing with people's lives.

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

Quote:

You know, in thinking about this and reading everything here, I firmly believe that if we got all the politicians out of this and a group of normal, hard working citizens sat down to come up with a solution (maybe a bunch of A2K'ers) we could come up with a sensible solution to the problem.

I am much more skeptical then you are CoastalRat, I don't think that normal Americans are any less divided then the politicians that represent us.

It would be an interesting experiment though. Should we set up a thread called "The A2K solution to immigration" to see if we could come up with a plan that would even get a widespread agreement here?

I would like to participate as an interested American-- I probably shouldn't be the one to set up the thread Wink

.

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

I've read comments from Arizonans complaining about the porous border. I think the present governor requested assistance in that area from the Obama administration at least 5 times in the past year or so, and Napolitano probably did as well when she was governor.

IMO, if border enforcement is going to be ignored, they should at least set up check points to allow these people to cross safely (and thereby foil the dastardly 'coyotes' who should be jailed without parole). The vast majority are coming here for a better life and leaving unspeakable poverty and a government that has proven to be incompetent in caring for its citizens. It would also be better protection for those Americans who own property or live on or near the border.

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

Quote:

Ooops, I meant as mentioned by Hawkeye. Sorry dude.

I may be wrong that this newest law has that part of Arizona policy. It was passed in the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007, which was challanged in court but it survived.
http://udallcenter.arizona.edu/immigration/publications/2008_GANS_lawa.pdf

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

The answer is obvious (and I think we all agree on this point).

We need to come up with a solution on a national level that addresses the concerns of Americans from all walks of life.

That's the point of the law in Arizona, isn't it. We haven't come up with a national solution, and there is no sign we are going to.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Oh crap, I knew I'd do this. I've always had a hard time staying mad at someone. As soon as I had sent the message saying I was done conversing with you, I knew I'd probably not follow through eventually. I'm even regretting calling you an ass. At least a little bit of regret. Oh well.

That would be an interesting thread. I may try to start something like that tonight after dinner. And while I know that "normal" citizens are just as divided, my point is that once the politics are taken out of the equation, a reasonable solution can be agreed upon. Other than our obvious disagreement about the Arizona law, I think the two of us are closer than we realize to how we would solve the problem of illegal immigration. Or maybe not.

0 Replies

@roger,

Quote:

ebrown p wrote:

The answer is obvious (and I think we all agree on this point).

We need to come up with a solution on a national level that addresses the concerns of Americans from all walks of life.

That's the point of the law in Arizona, isn't it. We haven't come up with a national solution, and there is no sign we are going to.

No Roger.

The Arizona law is blatantly one-sided (in spite of the silly Rasmussen propaganda poll that is being repeated ad nauseum). It passed on a party line vote, and is deeply resented by significant constituencies both inside and outside the state.

Ironically the groups behind the Arizona law are the exact same groups that are opposing national immigration legislation. They even led a successful filibuster against the bipartisan McCain-Kennedy bill that had the support of a majority in Congress.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

I didn't see you reply to Cyclops, but I thought he asked a great question.

Do you have a problem with people who have committed a felony being called "felons"?

It does seem to be the same thing.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

I am going to start another thread for this conversation, but to answer this case--

Felon has always been a noun. It means "someone who has committed a felony". It carries no political or emotional weight beyond this meaning.

In Contrast, consider the word "queer".

Queer originally had the meaning "something odd, out of the ordinary and perhaps dangerous". And.. it was originally an adjective.

When "Queer" took on the meaning of homosexual, to the point that the word was assumed to be "homosexual" it was offensive. Ascribing the word to the behavior was contrived to insert a political judgement into the language.

When the word "queer" became a noun, it was especially hateful.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Quote:

When the word "queer" became a noun, it was especially hateful.

it was usually said in a negative sense, and it may have been said in hate by some but all uses of the word queer were not said with hate. The meaning of the word could be changed too, both Nigger and slut were once assumed to be negative, but have had their definitions changed to include positive use.

You should start a tread...you people who like to police language piss me off. It is a thinly veiled attempt to control the discussion, to decide for others what can be talked about, and how. I believe in liberty and freedom, this infringement upon my rights as a individual has to stop.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

I believe in liberty and freedom, this infringement upon my rights as a individual has to stop.

Has to stop? Or you'll do what?

Jeez

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

I believe in liberty and freedom, this infringement upon my rights as a individual has to stop.

I haven't infringed on your rights in any way.

You have the right to say whatever you want. I have the right to say whatever I want. Freedom of speech goes both ways. That I have the right to offend you doesn't mean you don't have the right to be offended.

Let's move this to another thread.

((For that matter, I have never heard the word "illegal" used as a noun in a positive sense)).

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

.............., I have never heard the word "illegal" used as a noun in a positive sense)).

LOL - this is truly wonderful, and so true! I wonder why that is Smile

0 Replies

Here's a prominent Sheriff who says he's not going to enforce this law.

Quote:

The sheriff acknowledged that this course of action could get him hauled into court. SB 1070 allows citizens to sue any law enforcement official who doesn’t comply with the law. But Dupnik told Nunez that SB 1070 would force his deputies to adopt racial profiling as an enforcement tactic, which Dupnik says could also get him sued. “So we’re kind of in a damned if we do, damned if we don’t situation. It’s just a stupid law.”

Dupnik had harsh words for anyone who thinks SB 1070 will not lead to racial profiling. “If I tell my people to go out and look for A, B, and C, they’re going to do it. They’ll find some flimsy excuse like a tail light that’s not working as a basis for a stop, which is a bunch of baloney.“

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/28/pima-arizona-sheriff/

The sheriff is exactly right. Cops will use bullshit excuses to go after people, and it's going to lead to a lot of tough situations.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

They’ll find some flimsy excuse like a tail light that’s not working as a basis for a stop, which is a bunch of baloney.“

cops do this already. I had a cop follow me for ten minutes until I finally touched the center line so that he could pull me over. I was driving a conversion van, he after the stop told me that he was looking for illegals, and they often travel in vans like mine.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
They’ll find some flimsy excuse like a tail light that’s not working as a basis for a stop, which is a bunch of baloney.“
cops do this already. I had a cop follow me for ten minutes until I finally touched the center line so that he could pull me over. I was driving a conversion van, he after the stop told me that he was looking for illegals, and they often travel in vans like mine.

What a great use of that cops' time! And thanks for proving the point: cops will specifically find bullshit reasons to harass people in order to try and enforce this. This is a bad thing, though you don't seem to see it that way.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

.... Cops will use bullshit excuses to go after people...

The sheriff in question should educate himself on USSC decisions - police already have the right to ask someone for his name and ID >

Quote:

All nine justices agreed that a person who is not behaving in a way that gives rise to
an articulable suspicion of criminality may not be required to state his name or show
identification. ....
Accordingly, it is clear that even after Hiibel, the Supreme Court will protect
the right to remain anonymous of persons who are not suspected of any criminal
wrongdoing......
To be sure, the reasonable suspicion standard is not as protective as the probable
cause standard. But it is hardly toothless. On any given day, the overwhelming
majority of the population takes no action that gives rise to reasonable suspicion for
the police to stop and frisk.

> as long as he can be reasonably suspected of "any criminal wrongdoing" and federal law already says being in the US illegally IS criminal wrongdoing. The case is called "Hiibel", maybe someone could send it to the sheriff soon.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Still waiting on your answer re: your claims of ballistic evidence in the other thread. Are you avoiding backing up your rather bold and (futile) attempts at insult? The honorable thing to do would be to admit it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

May I see your papers, citizen?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know