What should be done about illegal immigration?

@Advocate,

Quote:

Here is a another fed-up white, gun-totin', bigot from Arizona weighing in.

There are non-white Arizonans who are very upset about this racist bill.

This isn't the first time Arizona has been in the middle of a racial controversy. It was the NFL that forced them to admit that Martin Luther King was a national figure.

0 Replies

Quote:

Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others, that includes, for example, recent efforts in Arizona which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness which we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their community that is so crucial to keeping us safe.

2 Replies

@ebrown p,

Obama is misguided, probably the most mis-guided president in history. In fact, is he even constitutional, maybe he needs to check that out? After all, he is a constitutional expert, right?

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

I am curious, is there anyone that is a greater apologist on this forum, or anywhere for that matter, a greater apologist for illegally entering this country than ebrown? It seems he or she has everyone beat hands down. Unless it could be O'Bill. They say "follow the money, " and I seem to recall O'Bill had a business or a restaurant or something where he may have hired illegals at slave labor prices, I'm not sure, Bill feel free to correct the record here, but I do have recollection from a couple years ago something being said about that. I wonder about ebrown in regard to follow the money issue? After all, nothing else would seem to explain it, his justifications and arguments are nothing short of bizarre if nothing else would apply. I am making no accusation, just expressing a curiosity in regard to his work with illegals.

0 Replies

A very reasonable and logical opinion:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/26/john-lott-arizona-immigration-law-fear-enforcement/

"Fears of Arizona's Immigration Law Are Bogus
By John Lott
- FOXNews.com

It's hard to argue that the requirements of Arizona's new immigration law will impose an undue burden.

When Arizona's new law was signed on Friday, Hispanics demonstrated outside the state capitol in Phoenix, fearful of what it would mean for them. "If a cop sees them and they look Mexican, he's going to stop me," a 18-year-old Hispanic told the Associated Press. "What if people are U.S. citizens? They're going to be asking them if they have papers because of the color of their skin." The young man claimed that he was that even though he was a U.S. citizen he risked being arrested and put in jail.

Other news stories discuss Hispanics believing that they will have to have to carry multiple IDs to avoid prison. "Even if you're legal, you're in fear that maybe your driver's license isn't going to be enough or if you're walking down the street and the police stop you," a 21-year-old University of Arizona college student told CNN. "It's a constant fear we're living in and even legal citizens are afraid to go out."

But it is a dangerous game stirring up fears of people being hunted down and put in jail because of their race or nationality. The law specifically bans picking up someone just because they are Hispanic or even because the person was originally from Mexico or any other country you can read a copy of the law right here. Anyone arrested for a crime must have their immigration status determined before they are released. Thus, it is not just Hispanics who will be required to provide evidence of citizenship, but so will all whites, blacks and Asians. If the eligibility for public services depends on citizenship, again, everyone who applies, regardless of race, will have to provide an ID. In other circumstances, law enforcement officials must have reasonable suspicion, not based simply on the person's race or origin, that the individual is an illegal alien before they can ask to check someone's ID.

Police today already have to deal with the "reasonable suspicion" standard all the time in other areas of law enforcement, and most understand very well how this standard limits what they can do. Police know that they can't pull over drivers for fear that they are smuggling drugs just because they are black. "Reasonable suspicion" requires that the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to convince a person of "reasonable prudence" that a crime has been committed. Obviously in a state such as Arizona, with an estimated half a million illegal immigrants, the vast majority OF illegal aliens are going to be Hispanic. But the reasonableness standard used by Arizona specifically requires something other than just race or national origin.

The ID requested is hardly draconian: a driver's license, a non-operating identification license, valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification, or "any valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification." Rather than requiring multiple IDs as some fear, the law clearly says that "any" of the IDs is sufficient. And the notion of having to carry IDs is not something unique to Arizona. President Obama and many Democrats, such as Senator Charles Schumer, support a national ID card, so it hard to argue that Arizona's requirement will impose an undue burden.

Even if a person does not present the required ID, that doesn't necessarily mean the person faces problems. The new Arizona law requires that "a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person." Today, this is not hard to accomplish quickly as computer records have photographs and other identifying details for people who have state-issued IDs. The only exception to making "a reasonable attempt" is if making that investigation would "hinder or obstruct" a criminal investigation. That isn't going to effect many cases.

Obama has now instructed the Justice Department to find some way to challenge the new law. It seems very unlikely that they will succeed in stopping the law's primary requirements. Sadly, the president and others are unjustifiably stirring up extreme fears. This might be good short-run politics, but those stoking these fears must realize that their credibility is on the line. Unless some federal law will quickly be rammed through Congress, it will soon become evident that U.S. citizens and legal residents have absolutely nothing to fear."

1 Reply

@okie,

Well here's a "sane" law enforcer that disagrees with this arcane, immigration,
okay to "profile anyone", bill:

http://countdownwithkeitholbermann.com/keith/video-az-sheriff-rejects-immigration-law/

I agree with him!

0 Replies

@okie,

I find it quite funny that you think we need a national ID okie.

When Clinton proposed using a standard for all driver's licenses the GOP went ballistic about how opposed they were to a national ID.

0 Replies

I thought it was amusing when the Sharpton and Jackson, the race pimps, announced that they were going to AZ to protest the new law. After all, it is mostly the blacks who are losing jobs to the illegals.

In my area, it is rare that you see a black doing any kind of outside work. This is despite the fact that the unemployment rate for young blacks is pushing 50 %.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

On the contrary, Rev. Sharpton should be encouraged to travel to Arizona! Not only does he have an unbroken success record from Tawana Brawley to the Duke lacrosse team, he's also a distinguished historian, having said, on the topic of black history studies:

Quote:

White folks was in caves while we was building empires ... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.

You can't make that stuff up. I'm sure the AZ illegals will welcome his support with wild enthusiasm.

2 Replies

@High Seas,

Quote:

You can't make that stuff up.

Seems like YOU feel that you can make stuff up, though, whenever you like. Still waiting for you to have the courage to admit your bullshit lies in the other thread, or provide evidence.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

My patience has just about run out, Cycl, but I'll make one last effort - try and follow steps closely:

1. Dead girl is autopsied, bullet is extracted.
2. Bullet is sent for ballistics tests along with all guns present in crime scene.
3. Ballistic tests determine that gun that fired bullet that killed girl was held by one of the intruders, a female.
4. That evidence is submitted to prosecutors, who, accordingly,
5. Bring charges against said female.

Is this 5-step still too complex for you? Then you're either stupid or completely demented - in which case it's useless to expect you to substantiate your latest idiotic post about me "making stuff up". On the off chance you're neither stupid nor demented, provide some evidence for that last statement.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

My patience has just about run out, Cycl, but I'll make one last effort - try and follow steps closely:

1. Dead girl is autopsied, bullet is extracted.
2. Bullet is sent for ballistics tests along with all guns present in crime scene.
3. Ballistic tests determine that gun that fired bullet that killed girl was held by one of the intruders, a female.
4. That evidence is submitted to prosecutors, who, accordingly,
5. Bring charges against said female.

Is this 5-step still too complex for you? Then you're either stupid or completely demented - in which case it's useless to expect you to substantiate your latest idiotic post about me "making stuff up". On the off chance you're neither stupid nor demented, provide some evidence for that last statement.

Did you or did you not say that YOU had the ballistics evidence? Do I need to link to you saying that, HS? I don't think you can even keep track of your own bullshit these days.

You are the one claiming that it wasn't Shawna Forde who shot and killed the girl, but instead someone else. Yet it was her who was charged with the murder. You specifically claimed that those of us who were denouncing her for this were incorrect.

You know you fucked up and were talking out your ass and now are too cowardly to walk it back. Frankly I don't give a **** how much patience you have left with me, because it's not worth discussing things with someone who is so wacko that you can't remember what you said and aren't willing to face the fact that you made erroneous arguments while insulting people.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

You are the one claiming that it wasn't Shawna Forde who shot and killed the girl, but instead someone else.

Prove this, you dimwit, or shut up.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

So wtf did you mean in this post?

http://able2know.org/topic/133272-12#post-3975693

Or this one?

http://able2know.org/topic/133272-12#post-3974095

Quote:

I'm surprised that YOU dare answer on this thread - if you had ANY real interest in the death of the girl you would have FOUND OUT by now WHOSE gun fired the bullet that killed her - the ballistics results came back long ago. All you care about is scoring cheap political points, not the death of a child - ditto for the clowns who followed your lead, btw, did ANY of you look up who fired the shot that killed the girl?

Do you now KNOW if either PARENT's gun killed her? No - of course not! So much for your "compassion". Hypocrites, one and all.

The ballistics came back, and the Minuteman member Forde was charged with murder - not either parent. So what the **** were you talking about?

At this point you make yourself look like a damn fool calling someone else a dumbwit. You continually intimated that those of us on the side accusing this lady of murder were wrong; you claimed you had a link to the ballistics evidence - which you don't - and that it 'could have been' the parents who killed her, which it wasn't.

The truth is that you looked like an ass from the very start in that thread. It's clearly obvious that you support the Minutemen and don't give a **** that these people murdered other people.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

One at a time since you're obviously VERY VERY slow on the uptake. Post 1:

Quote:

High Seas wrote:
I'm surprised that YOU dare answer on this thread - if you had ANY real interest in the death of the girl you would have FOUND OUT by now WHOSE gun fired the bullet that killed her - the ballistics results came back long ago. All you care about is scoring cheap political points, not the death of a child - ditto for the clowns who followed your lead, btw, did ANY of you look up who fired the shot that killed the girl?

Do you now KNOW if either PARENT's gun killed her? No - of course not! So much for your "compassion". Hypocrites, one and all.

That means that none of the posters on that thread foaming at the mouth about the (imaginary) Minuteman leader had actually BOTHERED to look up WHO got indicted for the girl's killing by the ballistics evidence. Got it now? Good - I'll move to the second link.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

And here's a parsing of your post 2:

Quote:

@ebrown p,
I'm surprised that YOU dare answer on this thread - if you had ANY real interest in the death of the girl you would have FOUND OUT by now WHOSE gun fired the bullet that killed her - the ballistics results came back long ago. All you care about is scoring cheap political points, not the death of a child - ditto for the clowns who followed your lead, btw, did ANY of you look up who fired the shot that killed the girl?

Do you now KNOW if either PARENT's gun killed her? No - of course not! So much for your "compassion". Hypocrites, one and all.

EXACTLY what it SAYS. NONE of you on that thread - starting with the lying author who started it - had BOTHERED to find out WHO killed the girl.

If you still don't get it you got major-league problems with reading comprehension.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

It doesn't matter which of the invaders fired the ******* bullet, Helen. If you participate in a home invasion where people are murdered, you're a ******* murderer. Shawna Forde was charged with 1st degree murder. Because we don't have access to the ballistics information, we rely on the police to make these determinations for us.

If you have information on whose gun fired the bullet, present it. You've spent a lot of time alleging that people were wrong but ZERO time presenting evidence that you claim you are in possession of. In fact, my first conversation with you on that thread was a polite request for more evidence, to which you responded with scorn and insults.

Disgusting how you are splitting hairs at this point. If you don't have anything better then this ridiculously weak defense of your posts, don't even bother responding, mkay?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

On the contrary, Rev. Sharpton should be encouraged to travel to Arizona! Not only does he have an unbroken success record from Tawana Brawley to the Duke lacrosse team, he's also a distinguished historian, having said, on the topic of black history studies:

Quote:
White folks was in caves while we was building empires ... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.

You can't make that stuff up. I'm sure the AZ illegals will welcome his support with wild enthusiasm.

The quote is priceless if Sharpton really said this. Do you have a link showing that he made this statement? I love it.

3 Replies

@Advocate,

Plenty of links, here's one:

Quote:

....While giving a speech at New Jersey’s Kean College in 1994, Sharpton walked headlong into his own Imus-ism when he judiciously and eloquently opined, “White folks was in caves while we was building empires ... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mbarber/070423

Sharpton himself doesn't remember saying it - though everyone else present at the speech actually heard it and wrote it down verbatim.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Sharpton isn't alone - there's a whole collection of similar gems elsewhere on the net - just type "white folks" into any search engine:

Quote:

"White folks was in caves while we was building empires... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it." -- Rev. Al Sharpton

"There's no great, white bigot; there's just about 200 million little white bigots out there." -- USA Today columnist Julienne Malveaux

The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the lake of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years." -- Louis Farrakhan who campaigned for congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in 2002, City College audience in New York

"I want to go up to the closest white person and say: 'You can't understand this, it's a black thing' and then slap him, just for my mental health." -- Charles Barron, a New York city councilman at a reparations rally, 2002

"Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them." -- Mary Frances Berry, Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights

(I) "will not let the white boys win in this election." -- Donna Brazile, Al Gore's Campaign Manager on the 2000 election

"The old white boys got taken fair and square." -- San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown after winning an election

"The Medicaid system must have been developed by a white male slave owner. It pays for you to be pregnant and have a baby, but it won't pay for much family planning." -- Jocelyn Elders

In a disgraceful pursuit to spread white guilt Susan Sontag stated: "The white race is the cancer of human history."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=White%20guilt&defid=3274966

0 Replies

What should be done about illegal immigration?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know