51
   

May I see your papers, citizen?

 
 
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 01:40 am
@roger,
The McDonald's case seems to be an old one, based on a previous Arizona law targeting employers of illegal aliens:
Quote:
....deputies were tipped off in November to the McDonald's they raided by a caller to their illegal immigration hot line, and the tipster alleged several employees bragged about being illegal immigrants. Deputies used government databases to identify 51 workers who appear to be illegal workers, and were looking for the 30 outstanding suspects.

Probable cause here has no connection to the new law - it's just action to enforce an old law. All this Arizona boycott hysteria seems overdone.
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 01:52 am
@High Seas,
Sorry forgot the link - it's from Associated Press, entitled "Sheriff raids 4 McDonald's in ID theft case"
http://www.ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1278076

ID theft is definitely criminal; it's the fastest growing crime in the country, which should suffice as "probable cause":
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/websites/idtheft.html
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 05:28 am
@ebrown p,
Quote:
3) To continue the more general fight against what I see as racism and anti-immigrant sentiment


You did it again.
You continue to call every attempt to control the borders and to stop ILLEGAL immigration as being anti-immigrant.
Nobody is against immigration, as long as its done LEGALLY.
When someone enters this country ILLEGALLY, they are breaking the law.
Now you may not like the law, but it is still the law.

You are being intentionally dishonest when you call this an anti-immigrant bill.
Nothing in the law is anti--immigrant, it is however anti ILLEGAL immigrant.

There is a difference.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 06:07 am


The ObamaMedia refuses to acknowledge that out borders are still wide open and that the Hispanic invasion continues. Why? Because this doesn't fit nicely into their narrative ... that narrative, as delivered by Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano, being that our borders are secure as they've ever been. We know that's nonsense, and so does she .. but the ObamaZombies out there are willing to buy anything that comes out of his administration.

OBAMAMEDIA DISTORTS ARIZONA
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 07:22 am
@mysteryman,
Quote:
Nobody is against immigration, as long as its done LEGALLY.


This is very clearly not true.

Quote:
Nothing in the law is anti--immigrant, it is however anti ILLEGAL immigrant.


The racial profiling in this law is anti--immigrant (or anti-people who look like an immigrant).

ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 07:28 am
@mysteryman,
MysteryMan wrote:
You did it again.
You continue to call every attempt to control the borders and to stop ILLEGAL immigration as being anti-immigrant.


****... this is too easy.
Exhibit 1

H20Man wrote:
The ObamaMedia refuses to acknowledge that out borders are still wide open and that the Hispanic invasion continues.


(Geez. I don't really even need to quote... it is it the post right above.)

0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 07:28 am
@ebrown p,
There is nothing (legally or morally) wrong with what Arizona is doing.

BTW, all people look like an immigrant to native Indians even you.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 07:46 am
@H2O MAN,


Anyone that thinks this is OK is suffering from Cranial Rectosis.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 08:54 am
Lumping immigrants into a single category . . . whether they are here legally or illegally . . . is just plain wrong. I have a great many immigrants among my students and some are hard-working and honest and make real progress while others are sneaky and dramatic about any problems they have and go nowhere. That pretty much parallels native born Americans. People are people.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 08:59 am
@H2O MAN,
Quote:

BTW, all people look like an immigrant to native Indians even you.


H20Man, Have I told you that you are one of my favorite posters on A2K?

Tell me the difference between "native Indians" and the brown skinned immigrants now crossing the border (Hint: 160 years ago there was no border there).

DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 09:36 am
@mysteryman,
I have to agree on e_brownp on this one. This law pretty clearly targets brown-skinned people, whether they are citizens, legal residents, or people in the country illegally.

Why anyone would support this erosion of our civil liberties is beyond me.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 09:44 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:




Tell me the difference between "native Indians" and the brown skinned immigrants now crossing the border.


Crossing the border illegally is illegal no matter what shade of Black/Brown/Pink etc... the criminals skin is.

In your own words, tell me the difference between a non-existent border from long ago and an established border that is recognized internationally.




0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  3  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 10:11 am
Does this mean that when a cop pulls me over for speeding and demands to see my drivers liscense, insurance card, and car registration I can tell him he is profileing me. This arguement is stupid. So far the police in az have had cause to check on people after a legal stop or phone call. Why dont we wait to see if they do use this law illegally.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 10:16 am
@rabel22,
rabel22 wrote:

Why dont we wait to see if they do use this law illegally.


You are using tools that are rarely used these days... logic and common sense.

Bravo!
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 10:18 am
@rabel22,
I suggest that you read the thread.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 10:52 am
@rabel22,
Quote:
Why dont we wait to see if they do use this law illegally.


Because there is reasonable suspicion that this law is racist.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 11:35 am
@ebrown p,
Quote:
Why dont we wait to see if they do use this law illegally.
ebrown p wrote:
Because there is reasonable suspicion that this law is racist.
There is nothing to stop us from being racist as to aliens,
trying to break in here.





David
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 11:49 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

You continue to call every attempt to control the borders and to stop ILLEGAL immigration as being anti-immigrant.

I know you didn't address this to me, but my concern is about infringing on the rights of US citizens with brown skin because other people with brown skin are crossing illegally. We shouldn't tolerate police walking into a business and arresting US citizens because of their skin color without so much as asking for their ID.
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 11:52 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

There is nothing to stop us from being racist as to aliens,
trying to break in here.

But their is something that requires the government not to be racist to US citizens, even if they resemble aliens trying to break in here.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2010 01:15 pm
@engineer,
Quote:
I know you didn't address this to me, but my concern is about infringing on the rights of US citizens with brown skin because other people with brown skin are crossing illegally
I don't accept the premise that the right to walk around without the police asking you for your identity is a human right. It is a nicety, which can be and should be suspended if conditions call for doing so...and they certainly do.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 02:43:08