May I see your papers, citizen?

Oops, US Citizen arrested in police raid. Police refused to listen to protestations that she was a citizen. I guess they didn't use their car computers. Also notice that this was clearly an immigrant sweep. The "investigation" into people working under false identities hardly warrants sweeping into a restaurant and handcuffing all the employees.

Quote:

According to Sheriff Joe Arpaio, deputies believe 51 employees at the four McDonald's locations -- two in Mesa and one each in Tempe and Scottsdale -- might have gotten jobs by using false or stolen identities.

According to MCSO spokesman Douglas Matteson, deputies began serving the warrants at about 7 a.m.

So far, 21 people have been arrested.

One woman, however, was an American-born citizen; Viridiana Ramirez, a shift manager at McDonald's and single mother, was handcuffed and taken into custody. Ramirez said she tried to explain that she was a citizen but the officers would not listen, and she was still detained for four hours.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Anytime there is a military action, or a political struggle, there are consequences that ripple beyond the target. That is the nature of battle.

That is true -- but it's not an excuse for battling. It's a compelling reason to oppose all battles except the one that are narrowly tailored to prevent catastrophes that would be even worse than the battles themselves. This standard disqualifies most of the military actions America has been engaged in. Indeed, in the history of the United States, I can only think of three wars (out of 17 I counted) that I could defend: The war of 1812 (where Britain attacked America), World War II (which Japan and Germany declared on America), and the invasion of Afghanistan following 9/11. All others, including the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, were unjustified in terms of their redeeming benefits.

To repeat, the argument that killing innocents is in the nature of the battle is an argument against battles, not an excuse for them.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

The civil war was unjustified? It is unjustified to put down rebellions?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

I am consciously separating the discussion between what is effective from the discussion about what is moral.

And I am consciously not separating them. Hurting people is immoral. It is only justified when it's effective and necessary for achieving a purpose that would be even more immoral to deny. Satisfying anti-Arizona resentments among consumers doesn't qualify as such a purpose.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The civil war was unjustified? It is unjustified to put down rebellions?

Let me put it this way. When Lincoln put down the rebellion that called itself the Confederacy, that was exactly as justified or unjustified as when King George put down the rebellion that called itself the United States of America.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
The civil war was unjustified? It is unjustified to put down rebellions?

Let me put it this way. When Lincoln put down the rebellion that called itself the Confederacy, that was exactly as justified or unjustified as when King George put down the rebellion that called itself the United States of America.

But, it wasn't unjustified for King George to put that rebellion down! It was perfectly justified.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer, quoting AZfamily.com wrote:

One woman, however, was an American-born citizen; Viridiana Ramirez, a shift manager at McDonald's and single mother, was handcuffed and taken into custody. Ramirez said she tried to explain that she was a citizen but the officers would not listen, and she was still detained for four hours.

I hope she sues their pants off for this wrongful arrest. That's how you discourage abusive government.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

As so often in questions of justice, it's important to remember that two wrongs don't make a right. The colonies and the South shouldn't have rebelled, The English and the North shouldn't have struck the rebellion down.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

As so often in questions of justice, it's important to remember that two wrongs don't make a right. The colonies and the South shouldn't have rebelled, The English and the North shouldn't have struck the rebellion down.

Just disagree with you there on both counts. The rebellion was justified - and so was the response, for different reasons.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

It is only justified when it's effective and necessary for achieving a purpose that would be even more immoral to deny. Satisfying anti-Arizona resentments among consumers doesn't qualify as such a purpose.

I agree with you-- in fact, satisfying "anti-Arizona resentments" is not my goal in the least.

The specific goals of this battle are:

1) To roll back this law in Arizona.
2) To prevent other states from starting down this path.
3) To continue the more general fight against what I see as racism and anti-immigrant sentiment.

If this law is rolled back, and no other states start down this path-- that would be a worthy purpose for a boycott in my opinion.

Your question about whether this is effective is a fair and relevant question.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Just disagree with you there on both counts. The rebellion was justified - and so was the response, for different reasons.

Then as now, the tea-baggers should have just paid their taxes and shut up. Having started the rebellion, George IV should have let them go. And Lincoln should have condemned the slaves under Eminent Domain, freed them, and paid their owners fair market value in compensation. That's how Britain abolished slavery throughout her Empire, and it would have probably prevented the South from segregating in the first place.

I suppose there's no room for agreement, is there?

2 Replies

@Thomas,

I dunno, it depends on how absolutist we both want to be. How about we agree that boycotts are sometimes justified and sometimes not, and that wars are sometimes justified and sometimes not?

That way we can get back to more substantive discussion:

http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/CRAYOLA-ARIZONA.jpg

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

As I understand it nobody ever abolished slavery until it ceased to be profitable.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Liberal tea-baggers are running this country and enslaving the dumbmasses that voted for them.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

....
I hope she sues their pants off for this wrongful arrest.

There was reasonable suspicion of identity theft and use of fraudulent social security numbers - both criminal offenses. Besides, police everywhere in the US have the right to detain anyone for up to 24 hours without a charge - and she was let go after 4 hours. She has no grounds to sue.

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Today on I-95 I passed a truck flying confederate flags with a sign on the back that said: "Somewhere in Kenya a Village is Missing its Idiot". Up and down the freeway (it was rush hour, so we were in stop-go traffic) other drivers were pointing and laughing. I didn't notice if he had Arizona plates.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

If this law is rolled back, and no other states start down this path-- that would be a worthy purpose for a boycott in my opinion.

Why not boycott the federal government while you're at it? The Arizona law follows the federal law almost word-for-word.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

When Arizona commissions a navy, I will concede the point.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

A navy? Funny, I looked up the federal law and it says nothing about ships:

Quote:

Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien,"
any citizen of any country other than the United States who:
* Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
* Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
* Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;
has committed a federal crime.

May I see your papers, citizen?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know