So... Arizona

[ShivaX]

Given all the craziness coming out of the state I can't believe we don't have a thread about it.

[txshurricane]

Craziness...or common sense? It's good to see a state standing up where the feds constantly fail.

Perfect solution? No. Good first step? I think so.

[Vigil80]

I get the feeling that there's more than one issue on the table here, as it were.

[Dorkandproudofit]

Craziness...or common sense? It's good to see a state standing up where the feds constantly fail.

Perfect solution? No. Good first step? I think so.

Umm, explain to me how a law so heavily open to racial profiling and intrusion of privacy is a step in the right direction.

[Zecon]

With the protestors at the capitol and the teabagg.. err tea partiers in DC they should just have one big Royal Rumble.

[J Arcane]

I almost started the thread several times.

My proposed title: "Die papiere bitte."

I decided against it because I knew we had at least one genuine racist on P&R, and didn't feel like seeing where that thread would go as a result.

My thoughts, in short, are that it violates everything I still believe about what makes this country great. It is an affront to freedom, and to the principles upon which our nation once stood.

[Generation ABXY]

I'm somewhat surprised it took this long, too (to get a thread, I mean), but I just figured most people were similarly wary of how badly it might spiral out of control.

[Zecon]

I almost started the thread several times.

My proposed title: "Die papiere bitte."

I decided against it because I knew we had at least one genuine racist on P&R, and didn't feel like seeing where that thread would go as a result.

My thoughts, in short, are that it violates everything I still believe about what makes this country great. It is an affront to freedom, and to the principles upon which our nation once stood.

Hey, fuck you.
We damn near committed genocide of a peaceful people and stole their land fair and square.
So that gives us a right to decide who we can and cannot let into the country.

[Inspector Fowler]

I have posted this elsewhere, but I love it.

I live in a college town of mostly white people with a large Hispanic percentage. I like Mexican people. They are nice, and I especially like women with dark eyes and hair. :) I am the last person who would ever be racist.

But I also am very, very tired of pulling over illegal immigrants, shrugging my shoulders, and sending them away. I do not waste my time writing them tickets. They will simply go buy another "Mexican Consular ID" that doesn't even have a fucking birthday on it. If they're not driving drunk, I don't waste my time. And with the DUIs, it's still just to get them off the street, because after they get out of jail they'll just go buy another ID and Juan Garcia-Lopez is now Juan Martinez and the warrant doesn't apply to him if he doesn't get arrested again.

I hate - hate - that people make this a race thing. If white French Canadians were storming over the border by the millions, nobody would feel bad at all if we sent them back up to Canada. But like 90% of this country is filled with tons of liberal guilt, and so they feel like it's a race thing. It's not - it's a "please stop breaking the law with almost total impunity" thing.

Since it's unlikely we can improve the living conditions in Mexico, I would be happy if we set up a very permissive guest worker program. They could have big entrance stations. You would go and get photographed, fingerprinted, retina scanned, and DNA swabbed. You would get a taxpayer ID number. And a permanent photo ID.

Every day, week, month, whenever, you could cross the border freely - retina scans take only a few seconds to verify your identity. You could drive up, the guard could look at your ID, scan your eye quickly, see that it really is you, and send you on your way. We have been using this technology at our local jail for years now.

I don't know, maybe that's too reasonable. The far right wants to build a wall with machine gunners every five feet, and the far left thinks illegal immigrants should be allowed to come up here and work every job in the fucking country because they feel bad.

I'd prefer to create a working system that allows for real accountability while acknowledging that Mexico is so crappy that we can't truly stop people from wanting to come up here.

[Dorkandproudofit]

I almost started the thread several times.

My proposed title: "Die papiere bitte."

I decided against it because I knew we had at least one genuine racist on P&R, and didn't feel like seeing where that thread would go as a result.

My thoughts, in short, are that it violates everything I still believe about what makes this country great. It is an affront to freedom, and to the principles upon which our nation once stood.

Am I the only one wondering who the racist is?

[Hawkzombie]

EDIT: Nevermind, I posted late again after opening the thread :P

I'm with Inspector. Once we make immigration a little more lax, (the guest worker thing is a thing of brilliance) then suddenly we don;t have corporations helping to propagate the problem by hiring illegals and paying then pennies on the dollar under the table.

Force equal pay and suddenly people won't want to hire illegals. I've always been a huge proponent of that sort of system.

Am I the only one wondering who the racist is?

I'm wondering the same thing..

[ShivaX]

I'm somewhat surprised it took this long, too (to get a thread, I mean), but I just figured most people were similarly wary of how badly it might spiral out of control.

Thats why I didn't post for a long time. I was also debating a title similar to what J Arcane mentioned, but figured I could just say "Arizona" and we'd get someplace.

[Generation ABXY]

Am I the only one wondering who the racist is?

I have an idea of who I think he thinks it might be, but I could be way off base and overlooking someone completely...

Oh, and, for the most part, I agree with what Fowler had to say.

Thats why I didn't post for a long time. I was also debating a title similar to what J Arcane mentioned, but figured I could just say "Arizona" and we'd get someplace.

You're a braver man than I - I'm just content to let sleeping dogs lie, I guess. :D

[Inspector Fowler]

Also - a second reply -

This law is NOT for racial profiling. Think about it - if you racially profile every fucking ACLU lawyer in the country will be on you if you're a cop.

Here, let's play a game called, "Do I have probable cause?" or "Would a reasonable person in my shoes think this person is here illegally?"

A car is driving with only parking lights after dark. This is a common sign of DUI.

I stop the car. The driver is not drunk. He does not speak English. When I speak Spanish and ask for his Driver License, he looks terrified. He smiles at me, and hands me a Mexican Consular ID. It does not even have a date of birth on it and I can thus be pretty sure it was not issued by a government.

I ask the driver how long he has been in the country. He says three years. Pretending to assume he is legally here, I tell him that if he actually lives in the States, he must get a license - I dunno about AZ but in CO they even provide the driver's handbook in Spanish. He again smiles sheephishly, and is starting to sweat. He tells me something in Spanish but my Spanish isn't good enough to understand him.

I again ask if he has any ID - every single Visa holder I've ever met knows they need to be able to present it, and we have a lot of legal immigrants on my campus. He points to his ID card. I politely say, "What is your date of birth?" He pretends not to understand me - hey, buddy, my Spanish may not be expansive but my accent is good.

I ask again. He tells me some date. Based on how he says it, I'm pretty sure he is making it up.

So. You tell me, liberals. Is this guy here legally? Would you reasonably assume that a driver with no license, unable to provide me with a name and date of birth that is in the DMV computer, who does not speak English and claims to have lived here three years, with an ID card that is clearly fake is legal and phenomenally dumb?

The standard for probable cause that I've always been taught is, "Would a reasonable person in your situation with the evidence available to you believe that a crime has been committed by this individual?"

And yes, any reasonable person would. If you - you legal US citizens on CoG - are driving your car with no headlights on, I have every fucking right to stop you and demand a Driver License. You must procure it or I can ticket you. But if you don't have it, and give me your name and date of birth, I can still verify your identity. How is any of the above racial profiling? Try this fun game. Park on the side of the road and guess the race of all the people driving by you at night. Good luck.

[J Arcane]

I have posted this elsewhere, but I love it.

I live in a college town of mostly white people with a large Hispanic percentage. I like Mexican people. They are nice, and I especially like women with dark eyes and hair. :) I am the last person who would ever be racist.

But I also am very, very tired of pulling over illegal immigrants, shrugging my shoulders, and sending them away. I do not waste my time writing them tickets. They will simply go buy another "Mexican Consular ID" that doesn't even have a fucking birthday on it. If they're not driving drunk, I don't waste my time. And with the DUIs, it's still just to get them off the street, because after they get out of jail they'll just go buy another ID and Juan Garcia-Lopez is now Juan Martinez and the warrant doesn't apply to him if he doesn't get arrested again.

I hate - hate - that people make this a race thing. If white French Canadians were storming over the border by the millions, nobody would feel bad at all if we sent them back up to Canada. But like 90% of this country is filled with tons of liberal guilt, and so they feel like it's a race thing. It's not - it's a "please stop breaking the law with almost total impunity" thing.

The solution to the problem would seem to me to be to make them legal. Not criminalize them more.

This is why it's so often assumed to be a "race thing". Because rather than step back a moment and consider the simple solution that worked for us just fine for 200 years, people froth about "shipping them dirty Mexicans back over the border".

And because illegal immigration is not a Mexican only issue, but it's treated as one by the anti-immigration lobbies. In the last city I lived in, there were far, far more Eastern European illegals than Mexicans, but no one whines about them fuckin' Russians stealin' all our jobs.

Since it's unlikely we can improve the living conditions in Mexico, I would be happy if we set up a very permissive guest worker program. They could have big entrance stations. You would go and get photographed, fingerprinted, retina scanned, and DNA swabbed. You would get a taxpayer ID number. And a permanent photo ID.

Every day, week, month, whenever, you could cross the border freely - retina scans take only a few seconds to verify your identity. You could drive up, the guard could look at your ID, scan your eye quickly, see that it really is you, and send you on your way. We have been using this technology at our local jail for years now.

Frankly, dude, that's some creepy Big Brother shit you just described right there, at least as it sounds to me.

I do not think it acceptable to treat what should be prospective new citizens any differently than existing natural-born citizens.

I don't know, maybe that's too reasonable. The far right wants to build a wall with machine gunners every five feet, and the far left thinks illegal immigrants should be allowed to come up here and work every job in the fucking country because they feel bad.

I'd prefer to create a working system that allows for real accountability while acknowledging that Mexico is so crappy that we can't truly stop people from wanting to come up here.

If we actually let them become citizens, then we'd have that accountability.

But the present societal structure we have in place doesn't want them to be real citizens. They'd have to pay them real, legal wages, and follow labor and workplace safety laws. They'd have to treat them like human beings, instead of a servant class.

[J Arcane]

Am I the only one wondering who the racist is?
Methinks some folks missed txs' rant about the filthy Mexicans.

[Generation ABXY]

The solution to the problem would seem to me to be to make them legal.

Honestly, I've considered amnesty, but 1)it rather seems a slap in the face to all the people who were going through the proper channels and 2)if we've shown we'll do it once, nothing stops future potential immigrants from trying to game the system once more and putting us back in the same, untenable position.

...unless you're suggesting a completely open border (which I don't think you are, mind you).

[Dorkandproudofit]

Methinks some folks missed txs' rant about the filthy Mexicans.

When was this?

[J Arcane]

Honestly, I've considered amnesty, but 1)it rather seems a slap in the face to all the people who were going through the proper channels and 2)if we've shown we'll do it once, nothing stops future potential immigrants from trying to game the system once more and putting us back in the same, untenable position.

...unless you're suggesting a completely open border (which I don't think you are, mind you).
The problem is, the standards have been raised far higher than they were historically, and the existing immigration system favors certain ethnicity and regions over others, I think rather unfairly.

I really don't see how it's any kind of insult to the people who suffered through the previous system, to correct the imbalance. That strikes me as the old black man complaining about how easy kids have it today now that the CRA has come and gone. I mean, I guess he's got a point, but it seems like a pretty backwards way of looking at it.

[J Arcane]

When was this?
I hate to bring it up again, especially since it's a closed thread, but this. (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showpost.php?p=525583&postcount=269)

[Generation ABXY]

The problem is, the standards have been raised far higher than they were historically, and the existing immigration system favors certain ethnicity and regions over others, I think rather unfairly.

I really don't see how it's any kind of insult to the people who suffered through the previous system, to correct the imbalance. That strikes me as the old black man complaining about how easy kids have it today now that the CRA has come and gone. I mean, I guess he's got a point, but it seems like a pretty backwards way of looking at it.

Yeah, sorry, I was thinking as I typed and probably should have phrased that better. The first point more serves to negatively reinforce the second, which I still think could be a bit of a problem going forward.

[Hawkzombie]

I'm still for putting employers to task for hiring illegals under the table for a fraction of the cost. We want to target the illegals, but the real problem is WHY they're coming here. Not just better opportunity, but people are all for hiring them under the table.

Hell, when I moved to Canada, I was able to get a job under the table for lower pay. I changed my mind at the last minute, because I didn't want to get deported if I was caught. I mean, they hired me as a security guard. It's a little crazy.

[J Arcane]

Man, I am really not looking forward to going through citizenship for Canada, but I really wanna live in Vancouver.

[Hawkzombie]

It was...annoying.

Are you getting sponsored? I was sponsored, and it took about 2.5 years, because we filled the paperwork out wrong the first time, and my dad's friend sent in the wrong background check information.

First order of business: Get the paperwork, file from within Canada. Just say you're there for a visit, and even buy a two way ticket if you have to. Don't tell them you're unemployed (If you quit your job to move there), and come with about 200-400 dollars in Canadian AND a credit card (mine was canceled, but they didn't look that close). This is in case you get stopped at the border.

Fill out ALL the paperwork correctly which means looking over everything more than once. Get all medical checks and such done asap as well (Ours took so long I had to do them twice). GET BACKGROUND CHECKS. Depending on the state, you'll need both Federal FBI checks and Local Police checks. Get 2 sets of fingerprints done and get copies from yourself you can send in. This means going to any police station (I did it up here) and getting the stuff done.

Send the paperwork off ASAP. While it's being processed, you can't leave the country or it voids it, but then they can't deport you either until it's done.

It was an exhausting process, but I don't regret it one bit.

[J Arcane]

It's some years off yet, I have to finish my Master's first, but I know that I'm going for something in film or TV, and I don't want to live in LA, so Vancouver or NYC are my next best options, and frankly, I'd rather live in Vancouver as I love the Pacific Northwest climate and I wouldn't be too far away from family and friends there.

[Kelegacy]

“When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” -Leviticus 19:34

[Generation ABXY]

“When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” -Leviticus 19:34

I'll... uh, be sure to throw that back in God's face the next time he's drafting immigration policy?

[Hemalin]

Arizona also isn't a fan of those funny accents. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html?m od=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5)
State education officials say the move is intended to ensure that students with limited English have teachers who speak the language flawlessly. But some school principals and administrators say the department is imposing arbitrary fluency standards that could undermine students by thinning the ranks of experienced educators.

Which I'm sure would disqualify a vast majority of Americans.

[txshurricane]

Am I the only one wondering who the racist is?
Methinks some folks missed txs' rant about the filthy Mexicans.
Methinks someone is getting filthy Mexicans confused with filthy outlaw illegal alien ghetto trash. Big difference, but I don't expect someone with a heart bleeding out of their eyes to see the distinction. :)

[ClannerDelta]

Frankly, dude, that's some creepy Big Brother shit you just described right there, at least as it sounds to me.

I do not think it acceptable to treat what should be prospective new citizens any differently than existing natural-born citizens.

Did I miss something? Was I not issued a SS number and forced to register for the draft? Inspector's idea isn't much more extreme than a passport. Yes, I would also support a measure for fingerprinting every citizen. The DNA swabs are a bit much though. Just from a "Holy shit, how much worse would it have been if Hitler had that sort of database?" standpoint.

Getting them in the system requires they have an identity in the system.

[ShivaX]

Also - a second reply -

This law is NOT for racial profiling. Think about it - if you racially profile every fucking ACLU lawyer in the country will be on you if you're a cop.


See the problem is the law says "reasonable cause" is looking like an illegal.

What do illegals in Arizona tend to look like?

The other problem is that its not a tool for the police, its a mandate. If you think the cops aren't enforcing it well enough, theres a provision for suing the police department.

Its one things if say you pull over a van with 20 people in it for a traffic violation and ask for some IDs or paper. Its a completely different thing when you pull over a car with two latinos in it for being brown and demand proof of citizenship - which you're actually required to do by the law.

Of course the Governor can't tell you what an illegal looks like and she signed the bill. The police down there are very less than pleased by this, especially since its a requirement that they get IDs in casual encounters and conversations - ie someone comes to you to report a murder or other serious crime, you better get his proof of citizenship or you're breaking the law. The cops already had a hard enough time getting people to give them information, now its going to be pretty much impossible for them.

[txshurricane]

Also - a second reply -



This law is NOT for racial profiling. Think about it - if you racially profile every fucking ACLU lawyer in the country w



See the problem is the law says "reasonable cause" is looking like an illegal.



What do illegals in Arizona tend to look like?



The other problem is that its not a tool for the police, its a mandate. If you think the cops aren't enforcing it well enough, theres a provision for suing the police department.



Its one things if say you pull over a van with 20 people in it for a traffic violation and ask for some IDs or paper. Its a completely different thing when you pull over a car with two latinos in it for being brown and demand proof of citizenship - which you're actually required to do by the law.



Of course the Governor can't tell you what an illegal looks like and she signed the bill. The police down there are very less than pleased by this, especially since its a requirement that they get IDs in casual encounters and conversations - ie someone comes to you to report a murder or other serious crime, you better get his proof of citizenship or you're breaking the law. The cops already had a hard enough time getting people to give them information, now its going to be pretty much impossible for them.
I was under the impression that ID was only supposed to be presented if the person was already being cited or charged with a violation. Is this not the case?

[ShivaX]

I was under the impression that ID was only supposed to be presented if the person was already being cited or charged with a violation. Is this not the case?

You're supposed to do that, but theres also this:

Police may arrest a person if there is probable cause that the person is an alien not in possession of required registration documents;

And because of this:

SB1070 also prohibits state, county, or local officials from limiting or restricting "the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law" and provides that Arizona citizens can sue such agencies or officials to compel such full enforcement.

Not busting every brown person will eventually result in your department being sued. Cause what if you talk to some hispanic dude about something, someone gets it on film and then its later determined he was an illegal? Well then you aren't enforcing the law to the fullest extent and are open for a lawsuit.

In a lot of ways it comes down to this: What is "probable cause" for suspecting someone in Arizona of being an illegal immigrant? I'm betting its not looking like this:
http://i33.tinypic.com/5xn6hh.jpg
But I bet if you look like this:
http://i12.tinypic.com/2n04j82.jpg
You're getting busted for it.

[txshurricane]

I'll have to do some more research, because if the police really have a loophole like that, then I have a problem with it. Yes...even I have some humanity left.

[ShivaX]

I'll have to do some more research, because if the police really have a loophole like that, then I have a problem with it. Yes...even I have some humanity left.

One of the big things is that law makes "looking like an illegal immigrant" probable cause.

[txshurricane]

I'll have to do some more research, because if the police really have a loophole like that, then I have a problem with it. Yes...even I have some humanity left.



One of the big things is that law makes "looking like an illegal immigrant" probable cause.
But the law doesn't outright say that, does it? The cops have to at least see or fabricate a jaywalking violation, or lane change without signaling...something to that effect, right?

I can see where the law would inadvertently allow cops to fish for illegals, but cops already do that in Arizona. This just allows them - or obligates them - to detain the person for not having proof of citizenship. In Texas, you can be arrested for any moving violation except failure to signal lane change - it's up to the officer's discretion. I suppose a law like that would obligate cops to arrest people they'd normally let slide; can't say I'd like to be an Arizona cop right now.

At any rate, I'm curious to hear what a lot actual legal immigrants think of the new law. My two Mexican immigrant neighbors have differing opinions, but the one who says it's "unfair" has family here illegally. The two British immigrants I've conversed with about it are in full support - admittedly, they're as white as white can be.

[DoctorFinger]

Folks, keep in mind that US law - Federal law - requires all legal aliens to have their Green Card on them at all times. Not having it on you is grounds for deportation or fines. The AZ law only gives law enforcement explicit permission to check for that card in cases where they've already made a stop.

That said, the AZ law - and the ones which followed on Ethnic studies and accents in classrooms - are obnoxious. Yes, there are a lot of problems with the chaos in Mexico spilling over the border, but this law is not only useless it's counter-productive. Every cop in AZ will be too afraid of a legal shitstorm to ask about immigration status at all now. So where 3 months ago the cops felt fine investigating the legality of a suspect, now they won't. That's the real problem.

[Inspector Fowler]

One of the big things is that law makes "looking like an illegal immigrant" probable cause.

This is the kind of misinformation that makes people hate this law.

Probable cause is not being expanded by this law. I hear a lot of people who aren't lawyers, judges, or cops weighing in on this. I spent between 200 and 300 hours studying the Constitution and state law. I have had years practicing it in the streets. Find me the sentence in the bill that says, "If they look pretty Mexican, just arrest them."

Additionally - re-read what you quoted. The bill says that your local town cannot create any new laws restricting the police power to enforce the state law. In other words, no town can create "sanctuary" laws that prohibit their officers from enforcing this state law.

And DoctorFinger, a lot of the problem is that state or local cops have no federal jurisdiction. Just as an FBI agent cannot write you a speeding ticket, a local cop cannot enforce federal immigration policy. Unless he has an ICE resource available to respond almost immediately, he cannot detain somebody long enough for an investigation.

What this law does is makes it a state crime to be in violation of the federal law. This is really only beneficial if the state works with ICE - because Arizona can't deport people.

A few years ago, when illegal immigration was a hot topic, ICE stationed somebody in our jail 3 days a week. Nobody (at all) gets to leave jail unless their identity can be verified. Most people can have a friend or relative bring some kind of proof of identity - in rare cases the DMV might have to send over a license photo. Everybody who could not prove who they were was interviewed by ICE.

What happened to them? I don't know. My understanding is that very, very, very few people are deported. But at least they were brought into the system.

So while I applaud the Arizona law as a good first step and an attention getter that hopefully can focus the nation on the fact that our politicians have not ever taken one single substantial step to resolve illegal immigration, it doesn't really help the situation unless all those people are also going to be contacted by ICE and sent back to their country of origin.

Look, I've been clear that I have a heart for Mexican immigrants. Hell, I speak Spanish better than a lot of illegals speak English. I understand that their country is dangerous, poor, and scary (which is sad because they have many resources that only their rich capitalize on). Hell, their own government encourages illegal emigration to the US! But it's time we closed the border to illegal - criminal - immigrants. And if you are doing something illegal, you're a criminal.

Now, as I also stated above, I would prefer a more humane approach that creates a guest worker program that rewards those who follow the rules. I would like to see people who want to better their lot in life able to do so without a death-defying desert crossing followed by years of living quasi-underground, fearful of being uprooted and sent home.

But I also believe strongly that any nation that refuses to protect its borders is foolish. Knowing that millions enter your border completely unchecked, undocumented, and unwatched - and doing not a fucking thing because you're afraid of being labeled as racist - is mind-numbingly idiotic.

[Blue]

I read somewhere that this reminded someone of a certain group asking another group to "show them their papers". That was honestly my first thought too and this law is disgusting.

[txshurricane]

Why should you be allowed to roam freely without proper documentation? Most countries would beat the piss out of you for being there illegally.

Get caught in Mexico without your passport. I dare you.

[nnanji]

Why should you be allowed to roam freely without proper documentation? Most countries would beat the piss out of you for being there illegally.

Get caught in Mexico without your passport. I dare you.

Why should American citizens of Hispanic descent have to live in fear of being out of their house without proper ID? Would you like being detained until proof of your citizenship could be obtained? Have you never forgotten your wallet when you left the house?

[txshurricane]

Why should you be allowed to roam freely without proper documentation? Most countries would beat the piss out of you for being there illegally.



Ge



Why should American citizens of Hispanic descent have to live in fear of being out of their house without proper ID? Would you like being detained until proof of your citizenship could be obtained? Have you never forgotten your wallet when you left the house?
Sure I have, and I've been detained for it, twice.

[nnanji]

Sure I have, and I've been detained for it, twice.

Really? And you are OK with that?

[roboninja]

"Can I see your papers" was the go-to line for mocking the opponents in the Cold War, and now it seems okay? Who won that Cold War again?

Yes, I love hyperbole, but my point stands. What happened?

EDIT: Thanks, ABXY, now I look like a jackass :p

[Generation ABXY]

Folks, keep in mind that US law - Federal law - requires all legal aliens to have their Green Card on them at all times. Not having it on you is grounds for deportation or fines. The AZ law only gives law enforcement explicit permission to check for that card in cases where they've already made a stop.

I was reading that the other day; seems like this could be another one of those moments where the hyperbole could get more annoying than the issue at hand.

"Congrats folks, you've been living in 'Nazi Germany' for years! What now?"

[J Arcane]

An interesting perspective on where this bill is really coming from: (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/02/opinion/02rich.html?hp)

To the “Take Back America” right, the illegitimate Obama is Illegal Alien No. 1. It’s no surprise that of the 35 members of the Arizona House who voted for the immigration law (the entire Republican caucus), 31 voted soon after for another new law that would require all presidential candidates to produce birth certificates to qualify for inclusion on the state’s 2012 ballot. With the whole country now watching Arizona, that “birther” bill was abruptly yanked Thursday.

[nnanji]

I have been reading more about this law, and what bothers me the most is that it lowers the search criteria from probable cause to reasonable suspicion, and that it makes any lawful contact with police an opportunity to search and detain people. However, I am also relieved that many constitutional lawyers seem to be assuming that the law will be challenged and overturned before it goes into effect.

[Hotcod]

I thought the federal law in the states is that you do not have to show ID when challenged if you are a citizen and that the issue with this law is that it pretty much revokes that right based on profiling. If a Hispanic has given some form of "probable cause" that refuses to show ID claiming his a citizen and doesn't have to then the police are then forced to arrest him until proof can be found that he is a legal citizen.

In other words a citizen who may have been born in the united states by parents who where born in the united states could be forced to carry around ID based purely on his heritage where a more white looking guy wouldn't.

So it's not so much an issue with what the law is trying to do and the powers that law gives more than the outcome it results with for the legal citizens of the US who could end up being arrested for using there rights based on profiling. It's again the question of freedom for people who are not commiting crimes vs the ability to catch those that are.

For me a law like this would be a step too far past the line. You may as well introduce a law stating every one must carry an ID card with them at all times. A law that the UK government has faced huge civil liberty challenges to push through and that was going to be a blanket law not one that will mostly effect a group based on there race.

So in other words it's the same old 'security vs liberty' argument that started the profiling of Muslim getting on to a plane.

[Vigil80]

Obviously, there's no answer that everyone will be remotely comfortable with. It isn't a race thing, at least not for everyone. Though there does come a point where common sense should take over, and one realizes that there may be a pattern to the people you are looking out for.

But I can understand not wanting race to be a basis for law. That, like so many other things, is a dangerous, slippery slope. On the other hand, "citizenship for everyone!" errs too much in the opposite direction.

There is already a system in place for legal immigration. Sure, it likely needs revision, streamlining, and so on, but it isn't as if there's no recourse for folks who want to be U.S. citizens, and I for one welcome them.

There's a lot of sense in what Fowler says, probably due in part to being on the front lines, and I agree with just about all of it. I also think that there are ways to enforce the (spirit of the) law without even directly addressing the immigrants themselves. For example, hit employers with something like a $20,000 minimum fine for each "undocumented worker" found in their employ. That would only have to happen a couple times before the message was sent.

Incidentally, for the folks who are nervous about IDs, it's pretty much already like this for everyone, at least everywhere I've been in the country. Literally "walking around" is basically the only thing you can do without proper ID. Even then, if you think that a cop - and by extension, the greater system - will be fine and dandy with you not having it or refusing to show it - white, black, brown, green, or purple - you're being naive. Right or wrong? I'm not sure as of this moment, but it's probably a separate discussion altogether.

[J Arcane]

On the other hand, "citizenship for everyone!" errs too much in the opposite direction.


And why is that? I doubt there's a one of us here that doesn't owe their existence in this country to just such a policy.

[Vigil80]

In short, I think you may be painting with pretty broad strokes to make your point. For one, it wouldn't solve anything moving forward. Free citizenship for anyone, no questions asked, just grab a card off the pile on your way in? It's an idyllic concept, but I'm guessing you could imagine some of the potential problems for yourself.

Others, such as Fowler and ABXY, have already made concise responses to that end, also.

[ShivaX]

Sure I have, and I've been detained for it, twice.

Did you commit a crime?

Cause you CANNOT be detained for not having identification on you.

[Ultima Thulian]

The AZ law regarding it's policy against illegal immigration is unconstitutional in my opinion, not to mention pointless.

Hate to spoil your fun folks, but there isn't a solution to completely "cure" illegal immigration in the states. There are things that can be done to help the situation, sure (building a fence being NOT one of them), but the problem will likely exist on a large scale for a long, long time. Which is damn unfortunate, since it is a real issue.

[J Arcane]

In short, I think you may be painting with pretty broad strokes to make your point. For one, it wouldn't solve anything moving forward. Free citizenship for anyone, no questions asked, just grab a card off the pile on your way in? It's an idyllic concept, but I'm guessing you could imagine some of the potential problems for yourself.

Others, such as Fowler and ABXY, have already made concise responses to that end, also.
Worked for my grandparents. Worked for generations of people.

I'm not so historically ignorant as to forget that anti-immigration hysteria isn't new either. Time was, it was the Italians, or the Irish, or the Chinese, though most of the latter were treated the same way we treat Mexicans now.

[ShivaX]

This is the kind of misinformation that makes people hate this law.

Probable cause is not being expanded by this law. I hear a lot of people who aren't lawyers, judges, or cops weighing in on this. I spent between 200 and 300 hours studying the Constitution and state law. I have had years practicing it in the streets. Find me the sentence in the bill that says, "If they look pretty Mexican, just arrest them."


Fine.

http://legaltalknetwork.com/index.php?s=sb1070

A bunch of lawyers discussing how this is going to end in racial profiling and the like.

[Inspector Fowler]

Regarding the ID thing. In the US, the police can contact you a couple ways.

One is a consensual contact. This happens all the time on the campus but not as much for regular police. This is, say, me walking through a residence hall and just saying hi to people. They can ignore me, flip me off, whatever. Most people choose to talk to me. There is no suspicion of any crime happening and while I can ask people for their ID, they do not have to provide any explanation of who they are or why they are there.

More reasonably, this may happen as the passenger in a car stop. For instance, last week we stopped a car. While my partner was talking to the driver, I approached the passenger (who is free to leave the stop if he wants). I smiled, and said, "Hey, do you have your ID on you?" He said he did not, and I said, "That's okay, man, how do I spell your last name?" The guy was wanted on a warrant. He could have said, "I do not want to tell you that and I want to leave." But because I asked nicely, he told me his name and went to jail on his warrant.

Next there is detention. Let's say I am out walking around campus. I notice some smashed windows at the administration building. I walk up and hear some noises. I find a guy standing around the corner with a length of PVC pipe in his hand. He smiles and puts it down immediately. I am going to detain him while I investigate the possibility that he was smashing those windows with his pipe. He does not have to provide me with a physical ID but he does have to explain to me who he is. If he cannot do that, he may not leave. So in other words, when he gives me a fake name and date of birth that come back "no record" from my dispatcher, he gets to stay until I can verify who he is. A good side note is that you can be handcuffed while you are detained, if there is an officer safety reason for it - two weeks ago we handcuffed a student who was not (yet) under arrest because he felt he did not have to listen to any commands about sitting down. He was still not under arrest despite the handcuffs.

If he did not smash the windows, or if I believe he did but do not have probable cause to arrest him, I will complete my contact with him and let him go about his business. I will obviously continue to investigate the crime, and if evidence later surfaces that he did it (camera footage, witnesses, etc), I can obtain a warrant for his arrest.

The third is an arrest. This is when I have probable cause to believe that a crime was, is being, or is about to be committed by the person I am arresting. Obviously, this person will need to be identified by some means or they will not be released from custody. I have never heard of a legal citizen in my county who simply could not be identified. In rare cases somebody with a very serious out of state warrant will lie about who they are until the fingerprint machine returns their real ID and they get booked on their murder warrant or whatever it is.

So if a carload of people is stopped in Arizona for a traffic violation, only the driver is required to show ID (when driving a car you must have your physical license on you, at least in CO). The passengers may simply say, "Officer we wish to leave." Unless he can articulate a valid safety reason or can articulate reasonable suspicion that all the passengers are involved in a crime, the officer must let them walk away. For his safety, he can certainly direct them to walk a certain distance away or to take a particular path so his back is covered.

Is this system open to abuse? Of course. Cops are not robots. Most of us are really cool, and we want to feel good about putting actual lawbreakers in jail. Making shit up doesn't make you feel good about yourself unless you are deviant.

Are some cops deviant? Obviously. But hopefully those who have a hate-on for all Mexicans will be weeded out by their shitty policework and named publicly. The people who are fine with Mexican immigrants but feel obliged to enforce state law will do good police work and enforce these standards constitutionally.

Everybody thinks of the worst case scenario when it comes to groups they don't like, and that's normal. The far right wing thinks that all illegal immigrants are drug dealers who shoot ranchers and cops on sight before stealing your Social Security number. The far left thinks that all cops are just itching to bust every non-white person they see so their neighborhoods can be clean.

The truth, as always, is in the middle.

My prediction is that if this law is enforced, all that will happen is that illegal immigrants from Arizona will disperse to other states. They won't get deported en-mass, they'll get arrested, do their time for their low-level state crime, and then move to another state when they get out (for most misdemeanors, less than 6 months).

[Vigil80]

Worked for my grandparents. Worked for generations of people.
You're saying that most immigrants - including your grandparents - simply squatted in the U.S. ducking the feds until the government gave up and naturalized them by fiat? Now I know you're using broad strokes.

[J Arcane]

You're saying that most immigrants - including your grandparents - simply squatted in the U.S. ducking the feds until the government gave up and naturalized them by fiat? Now I know you're using broad strokes.
No, I'm saying that the process in those days pretty strongly resembled, in your words, "Free citizenship for anyone, no questions asked, just grab a card off the pile on your way in?"

It's a relatively recent development historically that we demand new citizens go through such an expensive and culturally biased process before they can pass muster.

[Vigil80]

What do you mean by "culturally biased?" Depending on your meaning, I would expect some cultural bias during the process of trying to move to a new culture.

[J Arcane]

What do you mean by "culturally biased?" Depending on your meaning, I would expect some cultural bias during the process of trying to move to a new culture.
I mean in the sense that your success in the process is heavily weighted by the quality of education in their home country, specifically education in English and American culture, which is why some nationalities are more likely to enter illegally than citizens of other countries.

[TrackZero]

I hate - hate - that people make this a race thing. If white French Canadians were storming over the border by the millions, nobody would feel bad at all if we sent them back up to Canada. But like 90% of this country is filled with tons of liberal guilt, and so they feel like it's a race thing. It's not - it's a "please stop breaking the law with almost total impunity" thing.


I don't think anyone disagrees with the law (where they're going back to, never even thought of that before you mentioned it, IMHO irrelevant, honestly), it's simply a question of the breaching of totally innocent peoples civil liberties to stop said crime.

[txshurricane]

Really? And you are OK with that?
Yes, really. I'm okay with what happened and the final result, yes. Small price to pay, and all that. I wasn't arrested, I was detained. Once in cuffs, once without.

Did you commit a crime?

Cause you CANNOT be detained for not having identification on you.
Sure I can. On both occasions I was driving, which actually makes it an arrestable offense - should the officer so choose - but we were able to sort it out.

[ShivaX]

Sure I can. On both occasions I was driving, which actually makes it an arrestable offense - should the officer so choose - but we were able to sort it out.

Thats not remotely the same thing as what people are talking about (ie you committed a crime).

No kidding you have to have your driver's license when driving. How about when you're a passenger?

[Ox]

I have been reading more about this law, and what bothers me the most is that it lowers the search criteria from probable cause to reasonable suspicion, and that it makes any lawful contact with police an opportunity to search and detain people. However, I am also relieved that many constitutional lawyers seem to be assuming that the law will be challenged and overturned before it goes into effect.
The law will certainly be challenged; however, I am skeptical it will be overturned. For one thing, as the good Inspector points out, this does not change the dynamic of reasonable suspicion and probable cause. There have long been laws on the books requiring even natural-born citizens to identify themselves to police on a showing of reasonable suspicion: see Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada) . Some of those have been struck down -- see Kolender v. Lawson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolender_v._Lawson) -- but not on Fourth or Fifth Amendment grounds. Provided the law is clear enough for a reasonable layman to understand and comply with (don't be here illegally, carry one of the specified forms of identification), the law is fine.

It might be challenged based on supremacy grounds, which raises all sorts of interesting issues of federalism. I wonder if anyone who hailed California's bucking of the EPA will also hail Arizona's middle-finger salute to the ICE.

And why is that? I doubt there's a one of us here that doesn't owe their existence in this country to just such a policy.
When, out of curiosity, did the U.S. have an open-borders policy? Your knowledge of history sucks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laws_concerning_immigration_and_natural ization_in_the_United_States). If we owe our existence to an open-borders policy, suddenly the cogito is cast in doubt.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the law (where they're going back to, never even thought of that before you mentioned it, IMHO irrelevant, honestly), it's simply a question of the breaching of totally innocent peoples civil liberties to stop said crime.
This raises a very interesting question: what does it mean to breach someone's civil liberties?

Let's say I'm walking down the street after having a few beers, staggering a little, and a cop decides to come have a conversation with me to make sure I get home okay. While speaking to me, he hears my British accent, notes my school cufflinks, and intelligently concludes I have spent a fair amount of time overseas. He asks me if I'm a American citizen, at which point I throw up on his shoes and pass out.

The officer now has my accent, my educational background, my foppishness, and my love of alcohol as data. From this, it is reasonable to suspect I am a British subject. The cop searches my pockets to see if he can figure out where to drop me off to sleep it off, and he finds no identification of any kind. He is forced to conclude there is a reasonable chance I am an illegal immigrant, and so he arrests me.

As it happens, I was born in New York City. So now we have a conundrum: the officer acted completely reasonably throughout the process. When I wake up in jail, I will agree this was an honest mistake and I would have done the same in the officer's place. Were my civil liberties violated? Doesn't that phrase imply the police did something wrong?

[nnanji]

It might be challenged based on supremacy grounds, which raises all sorts of interesting issues of federalism. I wonder if anyone who hailed California's bucking of the EPA will also hail Arizona's middle-finger salute to the ICE.



It was, in fact, the Supremacy clause that made me think this law will be overturned. The US government has a vested interest in presenting a united front in its foreign policy, and I believe, historically, that the Supreme Court has backed the feds on this issue. I don't think they will allow Arizona to write laws that impact, or appear to impact, our foreign policy. This law will certainly prompt the feeds to do something about this issue though, which is good. Of course, since the parties don't want to alienate Hispanic voters in all 50 states, it will probably be something quite different from this.



This raises a very interesting question: what does it mean to breach someone's civil liberties?

Let's say I'm walking down the street after having a few beers, staggering a little, and a cop decides to come have a conversation with me to make sure I get home okay. While speaking to me, he hears my British accent, notes my school cufflinks, and intelligently concludes I have spent a fair amount of time overseas. He asks me if I'm a American citizen, at which point I throw up on his shoes and pass out.

The officer now has my accent, my educational background, my foppishness, and my love of alcohol as data. From this, it is reasonable to suspect I am a British subject. The cop searches my pockets to see if he can figure out where to drop me off to sleep it off, and he finds no identification of any kind. He is forced to conclude there is a reasonable chance I am an illegal immigrant, and so he arrests me.

As it happens, I was born in New York City. So now we have a conundrum: the officer acted completely reasonably throughout the process. When I wake up in jail, I will agree this was an honest mistake and I would have done the same in the officer's place. Were my civil liberties violated? Doesn't that phrase imply the police did something wrong?

This is a wonderful example. I don't believe that any liberties were broken in this instance since, you know, the cop would have arrested you anyway for drunk and disorderly behavior. That arrest would then allow for identification to proceed, and things would progress from there.

What would happen though if instead of passing out on the cop, you just said No, and kept walking home. Under the AZ law, the cop has made lawful contact, and has a reasonable suspicion (he still has all the data points that you claim make it reasonable for him to suppose that you are a British citizen.) Doesn't the AZ law then require him to detain you and demand identification? Couldn't he, or rather his department, get sued for not ID'ing you? Is it acceptable for US citizens, or anyone, to be detained for walking, even drunk walking? I'd hate to be a college student on campus in Arizona right now.

Sorry if none of this makes sense. I just woke up and haven't had my coffee yet.

[txshurricane]

Sure I can. On both occasions I was driving, which actually makes it an arrestable offense - should the officer so choose - but we were able to sort it out.



Thats not remotely the same thing as what people are talking about (ie you committed a crime).



No kidding you have to have your driver's license when driving. How about when you're a passenger?
Yes, you can be detained as a passenger for not having an ID. You can then be arrested if your details don't check out. 'Course, it rarely happens, but that's due to officer discretion.

Surely this has occurred to you by way of common sense, or at least encouraged you to Google it...

Re: how it's relevant - the new AZ law obligates officers to do what was already allowed at the officers' discretion. How many illegal aliens without licenses do you think identified themselves to an officer and checked out with the DNV?

[DoctorFinger]

Yes, you can be detained as a passenger for not having an ID. You can then be arrested if your details don't check out. 'Course, it rarely happens, but that's due to officer discretion. I know for a fact that there is no law requiring US citizens to carry ID with them in public. The cops cannot detain or arrest you for not having ID and they cannot arrest you for refusing to identify yourself without other probable cause.

The only time a US citizen needs ID on them is if they're actively engaging in some activity which requires it: driving a car, carrying a firearm (in some jurisdictions), getting on an airplane, crossing the national border, etc. If a cop tells you otherwise they're either lying or grossly misinformed.

[nnanji]

Yes, you can be detained as a passenger for not having an ID. You can then be arrested if your details don't check out. 'Course, it rarely happens, but that's due to officer discretion.







So if a carload of people is stopped in Arizona for a traffic violation, only the driver is required to show ID (when driving a car you must have your physical license on you, at least in CO). The passengers may simply say, "Officer we wish to leave." Unless he can articulate a valid safety reason or can articulate reasonable suspicion that all the passengers are involved in a crime, the officer must let them walk away. For his safety, he can certainly direct them to walk a certain distance away or to take a particular path so his back is covered.



There appears to be a difference of interpretation.

[txshurricane]

I know for a fact that there is no law requiring US citizens to carry ID with them in public. The cops cannot detain or arrest you for not having ID and they cannot arrest you for refusing to identify yourself without other probable cause.

The only time a US citizen needs ID on them is if they're actively engaging in some activity which requires it: driving a car, carrying a firearm (in some jurisdictions), getting on an airplane, crossing the national border, etc. If a cop tells you otherwise they're either lying or grossly misinformed.
You're partially right, I'm completely wrong.

Texas is not one of the 24 states with a "Stop and Identify" statute, but they do exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes#States_with_.E2.80.9Cst op_and_identify.E2.80.9D_statutes

In these states, cops have to have probable cause for arrest, but only reasonably suspicion to detain you until you are identified.

[Hemalin]

When, out of curiosity, did the U.S. have an open-borders policy? Your knowledge of history sucks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_laws_concerning_immigration_and_natural ization_in_the_United_States). If we owe our existence to an open-borders policy, suddenly the cogito is cast in doubt.
Looking around, it appears that the first restrictions on immigration weren't put in place until the late 1800s. Was there something before the Chinese Exclusion Act or was that the first immigration act put in place?

[Ultima Thulian]

Alien and Sedition Acts GET!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

It didn't take long folks.

[Ox]

It was, in fact, the Supremacy clause that made me think this law will be overturned. The US government has a vested interest in presenting a united front in its foreign policy, and I believe, historically, that the Supreme Court has backed the feds on this issue. I don't think they will allow Arizona to write laws that impact, or appear to impact, our foreign policy. This law will certainly prompt the feeds to do something about this issue though, which is good. Of course, since the parties don't want to alienate Hispanic voters in all 50 states, it will probably be something quite different from this.
The importance of a unified foreign policy provides a good basis for challenging the Arizona law. On the other hand, it provided a good basis for challenging Texas's disregard of the Vienna Convention in Medellín v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas). But the Supreme Court didn't think that argument flew. There are a lot of differences between Medellín and the Arizona law, so I'm not saying that is controlling precedent. It's just something to chew on.

Is it acceptable for US citizens, or anyone, to be detained for walking, even drunk walking? I'd hate to be a college student on campus in Arizona right now.
I wouldn't be detained for walking, though. You said yourself I would be detained because the officer had reasonable suspicion I was in violation of immigration laws and wanted to investigate further. This happened while I was walking, but the walking isn't the basis for the detention any more than the fact that I am a Gemini was the basis for the detention.
Looking around, it appears that the first restrictions on immigration weren't put in place until the late 1800s. Was there something before the Chinese Exclusion Act or was that the first immigration act put in place?
Actually, the federal government acquired the power to regulate immigration with the ratification of the Constitution, on June 21, 1788 (the Articles of Confederation did not give Congress this power). On March 26, 1790, Congress passed a law (http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=226) restricting naturalization to only free whites "of good character," and their minor children, who had already been residing in the United States for at least two years. Total time it took Congress to exclude the dusky-of-hue: 1 year, 306 days.

[Hemalin]

Actually, the federal government acquired the power to regulate immigration with the ratification of the Constitution, on June 21, 1788 (the Articles of Confederation did not give Congress this power). On March 26, 1790, Congress passed a law (http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=226) restricting naturalization to only free whites "of good character," and their minor children, who had already been residing in the United States for at least two years. Total time it took Congress to exclude the dusky-of-hue: 1 year, 306 days.
I should have been more clear. I was referring the "living here" part and not the "become a citizen part."

[BigJonno]

This raises a very interesting question: what does it mean to breach someone's civil liberties?

Let's say I'm walking down the street after having a few beers, staggering a little, and a cop decides to come have a conversation with me to make sure I get home okay. While speaking to me, he hears my British accent, notes my school cufflinks, and intelligently concludes I have spent a fair amount of time overseas. He asks me if I'm a American citizen, at which point I throw up on his shoes and pass out.

The officer now has my accent, my educational background, my foppishness, and my love of alcohol as data. From this, it is reasonable to suspect I am a British subject. The cop searches my pockets to see if he can figure out where to drop me off to sleep it off, and he finds no identification of any kind. He is forced to conclude there is a reasonable chance I am an illegal immigrant, and so he arrests me.

As it happens, I was born in New York City. So now we have a conundrum: the officer acted completely reasonably throughout the process. When I wake up in jail, I will agree this was an honest mistake and I would have done the same in the officer's place. Were my civil liberties violated? Doesn't that phrase imply the police did something wrong?

What is a reasonable chance? In your scenario he's essentially arresting you on the basis of you not sounding American and not having any ID on you. How likely is it that you're an illegal immigrant and not an American citizen who has spent a large amount of time in England or a British national whose presence in the country is perfectly legal?

[Ox]

I should have been more clear. I was referring the "living here" part and not the "become a citizen part."
Article I, Section 9 prohibited Congress from restricting "migration or importation" before 1808. On January 1, 1808, Congress banned importing slaves.

In terms of free alien residents, Ultima rightly points to the Alien and Sedition Acts, specifically the Aliens Act, which required captains to report any aliens they were bringing into the country and permitted the President to arrest and deport any alien he deemed dangerous to national security. The Naturalization Act of 1798 also required aliens to register with the government.

The Steerage Act of 1819 set limits on how many passengers any ship entering or leaving the United States could have.

In 1862, Congress prohibited the transport of Chinese "coolies" on American ships.

In 1875, Congress for the first time spelled out "undesirable" categories of immigrants, including prostitutes and criminals.

In 1882, with the Chinese Exclusion Act, Congress put a ten-year moratorium on Chinese immigration.

[J Arcane]

That's a brilliant idea.

Until this law is overturned, more of our accent bearing actors and celebrities need to start filming and visiting in Arizona.

As soon as one of them gets unjustly arrested, the uproar and publicity will be glorious.

[Ox]

What is a reasonable chance? In your scenario he's essentially arresting you on the basis of you not sounding American and not having any ID on you. How likely is it that you're an illegal immigrant and not an American citizen who has spent a large amount of time in England or a British national whose presence in the country is perfectly legal?
Probably less than 50%. But the question is whether the officer can articulate specific facts which would cause a reasonable person to suspect a crime might be afoot.

Sure, there are plenty of other explanations for my behavior. That's why I can't be convicted of being an illegal immigrant on that evidence. But it's enough to warrant further investigation. If there's enough evidence to warrant further investigation, police are allowed to detain you to investigate.

To provide some context, here's another example: if a cop sees me pacing back and forth in front of a jewelry store, that's enough to give him reasonable suspicion to detain me. There are a million explanations for why I might be pacing on a public street, but one of those explanations is that I'm casing the joint. And that's all he needs.

Until this law is overturned, more of our accent bearing actors and celebrities need to start filming and visiting in Arizona.

As soon as one of them gets unjustly arrested, the uproar and publicity will be glorious.
"RICH, FAMOUS CELEBRITY BRIEFLY DETAINED BY POLICE; COPS 'WANTED TO SEE SOME ID'"

Yeah, people will be rioting in the streets. Oh, wait, no they didn't (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/bob-dylan-stopped-by-cops_n_260192.html).

[BigJonno]

Probably less than 50%. But the question is whether the officer can articulate specific facts which would cause a reasonable person to suspect a crime might be afoot.

Sure, there are plenty of other explanations for my behavior. That's why I can't be convicted of being an illegal immigrant on that evidence. But it's enough to warrant further investigation. If there's enough evidence to warrant further investigation, police are allowed to detain you to investigate.

To provide some context, here's another example: if a cop sees me pacing back and forth in front of a jewelry store, that's enough to give him reasonable suspicion to detain me. There are a million explanations for why I might be pacing on a public street, but one of those explanations is that I'm casing the joint. And that's all he needs.

Personally, I think that's disgusting, full-on police state material. As you're presenting it, it seems to allow detention on a whim.

[Ox]

Personally, I think that's disgusting, full-on police state material. As you're presenting it, it seems to allow detention on a whim.
And yet, it's far more protection than any other industrialized country provides its citizens. Perhaps we should be more like Europe, after all.

[Hawkzombie]

The way Ox puts it, it seems less like a bad thing and more just a written out reason for police to do what they've already been able to do.

[J Arcane]

The racist hate group behind the Arizona bill. (http://gawker.com/5529320/the-racist-hate-group-behind-arizonas-new-immigration-law)

[Ox]

The racist hate group behind the Arizona bill. (http://gawker.com/5529320/the-racist-hate-group-behind-arizonas-new-immigration-law)
I love you, because you confirm all my worst prejudices.

So the Arizona bill was drafted in part by Mark Hethmon, a lawyer. Nobody says Mr. Hethmon is a racist.

But Mr. Hethmon works for the Immigration Law Reform Institute. They're not racist, either.

But the Immigration Law Reform Institute is affiliated with the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an umbrella group. There's no particular evidence that FAIR is racist, either.

But according to a left-wing advocacy group, some former FAIR employees, including its founder, are racist.

Okay, let's see... that's, uh... three degrees of separation between the racist FAIR employees and the Arizona law. Or is it four? I'm fairly sure I can demonstrate that Kevin Bacon is behind the Arizona bill with the same number of steps.

That's not to dismiss the charges against the FAIR personnel, some of which are serious. Nor is it to say that Mr. Hethmon is completely above suspicion or that guilt-by-association is always an invalid tactic. But given that you've been bandying about rather cavalier accusations of racism throughout this thread and your arguments seem to proceed from the a priori assumption that everyone who disagrees with you does so from base motives, you give the impression that you resort to such tactics because it's easier to hurl rhetorical bombs than it is to actually present an argument grounded in either facts or logic.

And I say that as someone who agrees we should have an open-door policy. But I'm actually embarrassed to admit I agree with you.

As an addendum, let me just point out how terribly weak the argument is that IRLI is actually racist. Apart from its affiliation with an organization that has been affiliated with people who have been affiliated with white supremacist groups, what has IRLI done?

Opposed the use of public services by illegal immigrants

Instructed sheriff's deputies on immigration law


Wow. That's damning right there, especially the second one. How dare a nonprofit law institute instruct law enforcement about immigrants' rights under the law! And it is of course racist to say that illegal immigrants shouldn't benefit from public services. After all, when our Racist-in-Chief got up in front of Congress and announced that illegal immigrants would not get free healthcare, we all stood as one and screamed, "YOU LIE!"

[txshurricane]

I hereby nominate this image:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3147/2806236918_a90ce11ac2.jpg

as J Arcane's avatar.

[Hemalin]

To continue this fun tangent. What does your Twitter feed say about you? (http://gawker.com/5529952/arizona-republican-leader-follows-white-supremacist)

StormfrontWPWW (http://twitter.com/stormfrontwpww) (White Pride Worldwide) is the Twitter account for Stormfront, a racist organization that is the latest project of uber-racist Stephen Donald Black, better known as Don Black. He was a Grand Wizard in the KKK and a member of the American Nazi Party. In 1981 he was convicted and jailed for trying to invade Dominica with a boatload of weapons, in order to set up some kind of utopian state. Stormfront.org (http://www.stormfront.org/forum/), the website he set up on his release from jail, is a hate-filled racist forum (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/stormfront).

[txshurricane]

To continue this fun tangent. What does your Twitter feed say about you? (http://gawker.com/5529952/arizona-republican-leader-follows-white-supremacist)
That's funny, but the senator's Twitter account is following 4,817 people. Does anyone think that a senator - or any one person, really - can actually follow that kind of feed?

Furthermore, he is followed by 4,719 people. That number is awful close to the number of people his account follows, and suggests to me that whoever manages the account simply returns the gesture whenever someone follows.

It all adds up to PR management to me, and I highly doubt that the senator even uses Twitter. Just look at the tweets - they're almost all news links. No doubt either the account manager wasn't paying good enough attention, or someone with access is following unsavory people as a dirty - and possibly defamatory - joke.

[civil]

I have avoided this thread because, as is often the case with many political issues, I see a lot of debating (which is all very valid, I strongly emphasize) from a safe distance without much intimacy involved by either arguing side. Personally I interact daily with legal and illegal immigrants and have known many, many people (including a fair number of my own family) that are/were here illegally. It is an incredibly complex issue.

That said, I received this from a friend who works with many minority people (not just Latinos) on a very personal level (she's a social worker of sorts). I present this as a snapshot of some specific instances, not as a sweeping generalization. But in all the talk about statistics and legalize and whatnot, the day-to-day experiences of a great many people get overlooked.

I just spoke with one of my clients, who's a Mexican immigrant in a suburb of Phoenix. Shit is worse that you could imagine. Cops are checking papers left and right. White people are threatening Latinos to their faces that they're going to turn them in. The racism is so intense people are scared to even leave their homes.

It's so fucked up. I called her to check on some minor thing (FOR WORK RELATED ISSUES), and she just started bawling. My client also told me that she called her neighbor who picked up the phone crying. Turns out she was watching her kids play on their front lawn and two white women walked up and yelled that they better have papers or they were going to call the cops. And she said there's literally checkpoints on some roads. So. Fucked.

You should have heard this woman. She was utterly terrified. And she herself is legal.
Obviously, she feels strongly about this issue. But it also impacts her on a very personal level, both in a professional and personal sense. Granted, she leans left so some would argue she's biased in her interpretation. But I can say that while she is most assuredly passionate, she is not prone to exaggeration, merely frustrated at the turn things have taken.

As I said, a snapshot. No more, no less.

[National Kato]

A snapshot that speaks volumes.

[J Arcane]

A snapshot that speaks volumes.
Indeed. That post is everything I feared about a situation like this.

[Khrymsyn]

I'm sure J is going to call this question/conversational tangent out as racist, but whatever...


My question is this... right now there's a somewhat symbiotic relationship in a LOT of communities in this country between illegals, and cheap, under the table labor. Even as far north as Pennsylvania it's not uncommon to see a "pickup truck of mexicans" on someone's roof doing asphalt and tarring. So my question is... what are some of the OTHER effects of different approaches to illegal immigration right now, and who would support them?


For instance :
A) Open Door Policy. Hand everyone a citzenship card. Now everyone with legal papers has to claim income to IRS, meaning they fall under the minimum wage laws. If they work legally, all is well. However, now some places that WOULD have hired them, either will shy away due to it being somewhat harder to hide under the table legal citizens, meaning less jobs, or will still attempt illegal shenanigans, putting the individual under much tricker legal circumstances (such as tax evasion) which could result in fines and jail time, but since they are citizens, NOT deportation (which would allow them to continue on with life "somewhat" free). Some small businesses may just close up entirely because the whole reason they were hiring illegals under the table was difficulty affording the extra HR paperwork and higher minimum wages.

B) Build a big wall. *warning - offensive joke incoming!* As many comics across the country have said, whos' going to build the wall if we get rid of all the illegals? Being a smartass aside, yeah, building the big wall would help from the standpoint that it'd be short term work for a lot of people, but would it really stop the problem? My vote is emphatically no. There are plenty of walls in the way of getting to this country, economically, politically, etc... They can all be circumvented.

C) Leave as is. Obviously this is not sitting well with some people currently, but no one is examining WHY it isn't sitting well with people. This country has always had an influx of immigration, since the inception of it. Why is it suddenly so important now? I have a couple of theories. Economy, and Nationalism. Basically, the biggest votes to kicking illegals out seem to be from people afraid of the changes to the country (my family had to learn english, and now all the signs have to be in Spanish?!), and because of the impression that jobs are being lost. Oddly enough, Cultural influence and Economic depression are two HUGE reasons racial tensions often exist. It's just that the particulars of the race and the majority change from country to country, timeframe to timeframe (hyperbole : see Germany in 1930s, USA in 1960s).

Does something have to be done? I think so, but I don't think immigration is the problem, I think the problems are actually BEHIND the immigration, but the face of "those damn dirty mexicans" is an easier sell to an already riled up populace.

[RandoM51]

If America lived within her means she'd not only have open door immigration, she'd profit greatly from it.

I can't really blame a state for attempting to treat a symptom while waiting for the federal government to get around to thinking about doing something about the root cause(s). The modifications to the law make it OK as far as I'm concerned. If you get stopped/detained/arrested for something the police can check your immigration status.

Seems to me they should have been doing that all along.

[J Arcane]

Some small businesses may just close up entirely because the whole reason they were hiring illegals under the table was difficulty affording the extra HR paperwork and higher minimum wages.

Sucks to be them.

I have a modicum of sympathy for the handful of companies in my experience that at least tried to be ethical in hiring immigrants, like a former employer who always paid them at least minimum (which ironically, due to them not paying tax, meant they made more than me), because I do think the current restrictions that made them illegal in the first place are unjust.

But beyond that? If your business model is predicated on being able to pay people sub-legal wages for shit work, well, you deserve to fail. Find another way. This is one angle where I and the anti-immigration people may find some common ground, if not for the same reasons. I have nothing against the illegal immigrants themselves, I have great sympathy for those seeking to better their place in life, it's what this country is founded on. But the businesses that enable it, and take advantage of their non-person status to exploit them? Those guys are every bit as responsible for the situation, and deserve what's coming to them when they get caught.

[Generation ABXY]

If America lived within her means she'd not only have open door immigration, she'd profit greatly from it.

I can't really blame a state for attempting to treat a symptom while waiting for the federal government to get around to thinking about doing something about the root cause(s). The modifications to the law make it OK as far as I'm concerned. If you get stopped/detained/arrested for something the police can check your immigration status.

Seems to me they should have been doing that all along.

Indeed. The federal government (and, yes, well before Obama) has been dragging its feet on the issue for far too long. It's hard for me to damn the state for a little self-interest, as well.

If nothing else, maybe it'll help push the issue forward on a national level.

[Ox]

Khrymsyn, it's a good question. I think you understate some of the issues, however.

A) Open Door Policy. Hand everyone a citzenship card. Now everyone with legal papers has to claim income to IRS, meaning they fall under the minimum wage laws. If they work legally, all is well. However, now some places that WOULD have hired them, either will shy away due to it being somewhat harder to hide under the table legal citizens, meaning less jobs, or will still attempt illegal shenanigans, putting the individual under much tricker legal circumstances (such as tax evasion) which could result in fines and jail time, but since they are citizens, NOT deportation (which would allow them to continue on with life "somewhat" free). Some small businesses may just close up entirely because the whole reason they were hiring illegals under the table was difficulty affording the extra HR paperwork and higher minimum wages.
Well, obviously the solution is to abolish the minimum wage. Or at least, say the minimum wage applies after you've been a citizen for, say, three years.

Leaving that aside, I think there are other problems with open-door policy (and remember, I say this as someone who supports open-door policy). First, not everyone coming across the border is looking for work at Home Depot; some of them are criminals of various stripes (see, e.g., the Mariel boatlift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift)) or terrorists. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest there might be negative consequences to a completely indiscriminate immigration policy.

Moreover, mass immigration tends to have effects on countries, and not necessarily for the better. Consider the Paris suburbs: immigrants there have a distinct tendency to riot in the streets and set thousands of cars on fire, not to mention various incidents of anti-Semitic violence. While I don't suspect that Mexican and Guatemalan immigrants to the United States are coming here to beat up Jews, there may be negative consequences to having a large subclass of people who:

Don't speak the language
Are in close physical and telecommunications proximity to their origin countries, and
Mostly come from the same country


These factors all tend to discourage assimilation. What I don't want to see is a repeat of the Irish problem, where Irish immigrants to the United States largely formed a single, often hostile, bloc of voters who identified themselves on ethnic grounds and in opposition to the native population. The fault for the Irish problem was on both sides, of course, but it was a serious problem for many years. The Irish rioted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Draft_Riots) and lynched blacks, fell prey to the Tammany Hall operation, and harbored a distinct sense of grievance (something for which one might argue the Irish are genetically predisposed). My grandfather used to insist that his father couldn't find work due to "No Irish Need Apply" signs, despite the fact that only one such sign has ever been proven to have existed in the United States, and that that sign dates to 1854. It was only in the late 20th century that Irish descendants ceased to be an identifiable voting bloc. I recall reading one economic study (which I can't find right now) which suggested that Irish-Americans' failure to assimilate severely curtailed their economic progress, creating an underclass for several decades that only heightened their sense of alienation from the larger society.

These things have feedback effects and can't be dismissed lightly.

[Khrymsyn]

Khrymsyn, it's a good question. I think you understate some of the issues, however.
I'm sure I do. I just have limited knowledge, and while I try to think of myself as a fairly open and "logical" mind, I know that a large lack of knowledge can absolutely hinder my ability to critically think at times. =)

Don't speak the language
I need to chew through the rest of your post and think on it, but I wanted to touch on this one line...
What language?

I think this is a sore spot in national identity which is making this particular group of immigrants rubbing some of the country raw. There IS no official United States language. While most US born citizens speak and write English (to what level is another argument entirely ;-) ), there is no officially sanctioned language for the United States. I believe this causes some of these ill feelings that hinder the ability to come up with a logical analysis of the immigration "situation", as the politicians use these feelings as fuel to their political fire. Personally, I think we should just declare English as the Official Primary Language, and Spanish as the Official Secondary Language, teach them both from Kindergarden on up, and that would help us have a more unified sense of "what the US is" (plus the added bonus of increasing comminicative abilities with other countries), but I think politically that's too touchy of a subject for most politicians to touch. =(

[Ultima Thulian]

I say granting citizenship should be based on merit. For example, why not let an immigrant earn citizen status by serving in our military for two years? Or allow anyone with skills and/or degrees necessary to work and be tax paying citizens.

It sure as hell has to be better than this goofy, archaic lottery system they have now.

[RandoM51]

Plenty of better systems, how many of them cost less to operate?

[TheEpicOfTyler]

Or allow anyone with skills and/or degrees necessary to work and be tax paying citizens.

It sure as hell has to be better than this goofy, archaic lottery system they have now.

I agree. I work as a janitor currently and one of my co-workers is a natural born citizen, while most of her family is illegal. She related to me that her aunt and uncle have been here for over 20 years and are very well off, they have a large house in the suburbs and their 3 children (who are also illegal) were the top of their classes in high school and are now in prestigious universities around the country. However, if they're ever pulled over or something and found to be illegal, they're deported to Mexico... Even the kids, who are now highly educated and weren't old enough to remember ever living in Mexico.

That rubs me the wrong way.

She also has stories about how her family is danger from drug cartel if they return to Mexico because her brother refused to cooperate with them when he was a bank teller in Mexico and had to flee to the US. There's so much shit going on down there from lack of work opportunities, to the general danger of the place that I don't blame a single one of them for wanting out.

http://www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/illegal-border-crossing-park

This is also very interesting to watch about the subject.

[J Arcane]

Doesn't Canada have a time-based amnesty policy to prevent situations like Tyler's friend's?

I seem to recall being told a couple of times that if you managed to find a job and stay out of trouble with the law for X years in Canada, you're effectively a citizen by proxy and at that point you can just apply and you're basically guaranteed citizenship.

[Hawkzombie]

I know Canada is more open to refugees than the US is. How much more I don't know for sure, however.

Plus, it's like living in America. Just more...frenchy :p

[TheFlyingOrc]

What language?

I think this is a sore spot in national identity which is making this particular group of immigrants rubbing some of the country raw. There IS no official United States language. While most US born citizens speak and write English (to what level is another argument entirely ;-) ), there is no officially sanctioned language for the United States. I believe this causes some of these ill feelings that hinder the ability to come up with a logical analysis of the immigration "situation", as the politicians use these feelings as fuel to their political fire. Personally, I think we should just declare English as the Official Primary Language, and Spanish as the Official Secondary Language, teach them both from Kindergarden on up, and that would help us have a more unified sense of "what the US is" (plus the added bonus of increasing comminicative abilities with other countries), but I think politically that's too touchy of a subject for most politicians to touch. =(

I just want to throw out that moving to a new country and not attempting to learn the language that everyone there speaks is insanely rude and selfish. If I moved to Germany and didn't attempt to learn German most Europeans would look down on me as an arrogant American, not suggest that others were racist for saying I should learn the language.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

I just want to throw out that moving to a new country and not attempting to learn the language that everyone there speaks is insanely rude and selfish. If I moved to Germany and didn't attempt to learn German most Europeans would look down on me as an arrogant American, not suggest that others were racist for saying I should learn the language.

How big of a deal would it be in Germany? My understanding is that English is taught in school at a young age and most Germans speak it very well. Just an honest curiosity.

[ShivaX]

How big of a deal would it be in Germany? My understanding is that English is taught in school at a young age and most Germans speak it very well. Just an honest curiosity.

Well try say France.

Overall most countries aren't all that accomodating to speaking another language. English just happens to be the closest thing in the world to a universal language, so it makes a poor example in a lot of cases.

[baz]

Well try say France.

Overall most countries aren't all that accomodating to speaking another language. English just happens to be the closest thing in the world to a universal language, so it makes a poor example in a lot of cases.

Even being French in France gets you scorn. I have a mate from Marseilles who gets asked in Paris if he'd prefer English. Parisians really do excel at scorn.

In general though I agree with you, most of my friends working in Europe learn the language of the country their in. I've been an immigrant in many countries and never bothered to learn the language past the basics. Largely because:
- I had no long term plans to live there
- You really can get on most places with English and be very lazy (which I often am)

The UK election has just ended, no goverment yet, but I voted LibDems (Liberal Democrats) and agreed with their amnesty policy. Basically they said if you've been here for 10 years, can speak English and have no criminal convictions then you can have citizenship.

I was for this as it seems pragmatic to me. A lot of opponents set up a false dichotomy between giving them amnesty and deporting them, but that's not the choice. The choice is between giving the amnesty and not knowing where they are, who they are, not collecting tax from their incomes.

Unfortunately despite polling well my fellow voters have seemed to turn away from the LibDems at the booths, and it's looking unlikely we'll get the electoral reform I wanted.

[Khrymsyn]

I just want to throw out that moving to a new country and not attempting to learn the language that everyone there speaks is insanely rude and selfish. If I moved to Germany and didn't attempt to learn German most Europeans would look down on me as an arrogant American, not suggest that others were racist for saying I should learn the language.

I wish I had the sources to back this up, but it was a conversation/debate inside my american history classes in school 5 years ago, that basically boiled down to this.

Currently, the Hispanic immigrants are actually learning the English language at a similar rate to other immigrant groups, with one MAJOR difference. While many other groups (Italians, Russians, Japanese, etc) switch over to English almost exclusively over 2-3 generations, Hispanic families tend to learn English, and keep their Spanish speaking heritage at a higher rate than other immigrant groups. This causes the perception that Hispanic immigrants aren't learning English, but that (at least as of 5 years ago) isn't the case.

I wish I had the hard sources to back it up, but I can't remember what books these stats were even in, I'm sorry =(.

[txshurricane]

I wish I had the sources to back this up, but it was a conversation/debate inside my american history classes in school 5 years ago, that basically boiled down to this.

Currently, the Hispanic immigrants are actually learning the English language at a similar rate to other immigrant groups, with one MAJOR difference. While many other groups (Italians, Russians, Japanese, etc) switch over to English almost exclusively over 2-3 generations, Hispanic families tend to learn English, and keep their Spanish speaking heritage at a higher rate than other immigrant groups. This causes the perception that Hispanic immigrants aren't learning English, but that (at least as of 5 years ago) isn't the case.

I wish I had the hard sources to back it up, but I can't remember what books these stats were even in, I'm sorry =(.
I can believe that. The perception is even more skewed, though, by the government offering government-issued IDs and licenses in multiple languages. Pile Spanish Wal-Marts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A1s_Club),other likewise endeavors, and their foreign-language radio and TV advertisements on top of that, and you have yourself a home-grown overexposure.

[ShivaX]

I can believe that. The perception is even more skewed, though, by the government offering government-issued IDs and licenses in multiple languages. Pile Spanish Wal-Marts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A1s_Club),other likewise endeavors, and their foreign-language radio and TV advertisements on top of that, and you have yourself a home-grown overexposure.

Thats where I think a lot of the anger comes from for a lot of people. While Hispanics might be learning English at the same rate, we're still doing things to accomodate them more than other groups as far as speaking Spanish goes.

I mean we can't have everything in every language everywhere. All that said there are a lot of provisions to allow for things like drivers tests and the like in other languages that relates back to business. If someone from Mercedes is coming to check on his factory in Alabama or whatever, he can take a German drivers test to get a license.

[Ink Asylum]

Keep in mind who the "we" is that's doing most of that kind of accomodating. It's largely American businesses that are providing the Spanish Wal-Marts, tv networks, adio, advertisements, etc. They recognize that a growing segment of the population speaks spanish either exclusively or much better than they speak english.

[ShivaX]

Keep in mind who the "we" is that's doing most of that kind of accomodating. It's largely American businesses that are providing the Spanish Wal-Marts, tv networks, adio, advertisements, etc. They recognize that a growing segment of the population speaks spanish either exclusively or much better than they speak english.

Thats true, but theres also a lot on the government side of things.

And most racists aren't going to discriminate between the gov't and business. They just don't want to see Spanish or hear it in 'merica.

[Vigil80]

I had hoped we were past that by now in this particular discussion. Anyway...

It's encouraging to believe statistics like those, Khrymsyn. It's also what I would expect from people who genuinely want to be citizens. A step in the right direction. It's what should really be expected from anyone intending to move to a locale with a different prevailing language.

[txshurricane]

If someone from Mercedes is coming to check on his factory in Alabama or whatever, he can take a German drivers test to get a license.
I don't think that state-issued (and federally recognized) drivers' licenses should be issued to non-citizens, visa or no. It's not that I don't want foreign visitors to drive; I just don't like the idea of visitors receiving what essentially amounts to a citizen's ID card.
I'd love to see a globally recognized driver's license instead. Something like a passport...maybe even an addendum to the passport itself, like a visa page. That would allow Interpol to screen applicants, and would help local U.S. police officers greatly.

So it's not that I have a problem with multi-language driving tests. I have a problem with the test being a gateway to what is essentially a permanent U.S. driver's license/ID.

That's just my personal take. Sorry if that's irrelevant to the discussion.

Keep in mind who the "we" is that's doing most of that kind of accomodating. It's largely American businesses that are providing the Spanish Wal-Marts, tv networks, adio, advertisements, etc. They recognize that a growing segment of the population speaks spanish either exclusively or much better than they speak english.
Oh, yeah. I don't blame the government on that at all. To be honest: that fact that you pointed out really stings, because it kinda betrays my opinion that private business and chains be allowed to do conduct business as they see fit (within the law, of course).

My point is that this kind of business practice is a huge contributor to the festering irritation that Americans have toward immigrants. It's a backdoor for Wal-Mart to continue being a crappy store - Americans shop there less and less because of sub-par service and overabundance of imported goods, thinking that the drop-off in sales will lead to better business practice and ethics...and instead of following the rules of supply-and-demand, Wal-Mart turns and pushes the same service and goods to Spanish-speaking immigrants who don't hold such high standards.

In that sense, our own love of capitalism may be our undoing. At least, until another Sam Walton comes along and builds a reputable company, and doesn't let his wife and kids destroy the whole corporation post-mortem...

[ShivaX]

It's a backdoor for Wal-Mart to continue being a crappy store - Americans shop there less and less because of sub-par service and overabundance of imported goods,

Er... you realize that Wal-Mart has been fucking cleaning house during this recession right?

Americans don't shop there less, they shop there more and more.

[txshurricane]

Er... you realize that Wal-Mart has been fucking cleaning house during this recession right?

Americans don't shop there less, they shop there more and more.
It was a hypothetical scenario.

[Vigil80]

Topic for another thread, but there's other things that Wal-Mart does that other businesses could do to emulate. Masterful supply chain, lots of locations, and 24-hour stores. That's my favorite part, I wish everything were open 24 hours. I like getting a wild hair and doing some shopping at 2 a.m.

[txshurricane]

Topic for another thread, but there's other things that Wal-Mart does that other businesses could do to emulate. Masterful supply chain, lots of locations, and 24-hour stores. That's my favorite part, I wish everything were open 24 hours. I like getting a wild hair and doing some shopping at 2 a.m.
Except that at Wal-Mart they have 28 checkout lanes, and during the daytime you're lucky to see 8 cashiers. At night it's reduced to 2.

[Vigil80]

That's very true. And they close the do-it-yourself lanes at night. Why the hell would you do that? 1 worker can man like 4 of those lanes. Those are the ones that should always be open!

[ShivaX]

It was a hypothetical scenario.

But it doesn't make sense in any way, shape or form.

Wal-Mart makes a Spanish speaking store to pander to a market segment, just like every other company does everything. If I see a black dude in a beer ad, its pandering to the black community, its just the way things work. Its not because white people have said "Fuck Budwieser" and they now have to sell to blacks, its because they want more money and see an untapped or potential market oppertunity.

[nnanji]

I don't think that state-issued (and federally recognized) drivers' licenses should be issued to non-citizens, visa or no. It's not that I don't want foreign visitors to drive; I just don't like the idea of visitors receiving what essentially amounts to a citizen's ID card.
I'd love to see a globally recognized driver's license instead. Something like a passport...maybe even an addendum to the passport itself, like a visa page. That would allow Interpol to screen applicants, and would help local U.S. police officers greatly.



I'm pretty sure they have those. Umm, yep. (http://www.aaa.com/vacation/idpf.html)

[txshurricane]

I'm pretty sure they have those. Umm, yep. (http://www.aaa.com/vacation/idpf.html)
Cool link, but those are issued in the U.S. for travel afar. I'm talking about something that can be issued in their country of origin, like a passport.

[MagGnome]

I almost started the thread several times.

My proposed title: "Die papiere bitte."

I decided against it because I knew we had at least one genuine racist on P&R, and didn't feel like seeing where that thread would go as a result.

My thoughts, in short, are that it violates everything I still believe about what makes this country great. It is an affront to freedom, and to the principles upon which our nation once stood.

This is exactly how I feel. Thanks for summing things up so nicely, J.

The US is a country built on racism, so this law hardly surprises me. It does, however, both sadden and anger me.

[Vigil80]

Built on racism? That's harsh. I suppose I'm not even in a position to say it ain't so, but if that's the case, all civilization is built on racism. That's not really "exactly" how J seems to feel, either, based on that post.

[nnanji]

Cool link, but those are issued in the U.S. for travel afar. I'm talking about something that can be issued in their country of origin, like a passport.

I'm pretty sure that several countries offer these. It's not a Universal ID or a passport, but it does supplement a visitor's government issued License when they are driving in the US.

From the US.gov website:

An International Driving Permit (IDP) translates information contained on your driver's license into 10 languages so that officials in foreign countries are able to interpret your license. An IDP supplements a valid government-issued license--it does not serve as a replacement for a license. If you are stopped by law enforcement, you will most likely be asked to produce both your IDP and your official driver's license. The United States does NOT issue International Driving Permits to foreign visitors, so you will need to obtain this document before traveling to the U.S.

Emphasis mine, but it should be clear that there are provisions for foreign visitors driving in the US that doesn't involve them getting a state Drivers License.

[J Arcane]

Built on racism? That's harsh. I suppose I'm not even in a position to say it ain't so, but if that's the case, all civilization is built on racism. That's not really "exactly" how J seems to feel, either, based on that post.
I do think there is a lot more racism in this country than people are comfortable acknowledging.

And there is the classic argument that this country was founded on "equality" only in so far as that equality extended to straight, white, land-owning males.

[Ox]

I do think there is a lot more racism in this country than people are comfortable acknowledging.
Some people are probably uncomfortable acknowledging how much racism there is. Some people are probably uncomfortable acknowledging how little racism there is. After all, if one's political opponents are not racist, that might mean one would have to engage their arguments on the merits. That's terribly uncomfortable for some people; hence the perennial popularity of accusations of racism.

Calling someone a bigot: it's easier than thinking.™

[txshurricane]

Calling someone a bigot: it's easier than thinking.
That would explain a lot of CoG P&R posts. "Bigot" and "racist" are popular buzzwords here.

[MagGnome]

Built on racism? That's harsh. I suppose I'm not even in a position to say it ain't so, but if that's the case, all civilization is built on racism. That's not really "exactly" how J seems to feel, either, based on that post.

Can you actually say it's not the case? From the taking of Native lands and driving the indigenous population to small reservations, to the enslaving of blacks, to the wave of hysteria over Chinese immigration in the 1800s, to the Japanese internment camps, to the present day fear of Mexican immigrants, this country has a long-standing history of racism.

Hell, few of us would likely be here if the founders of this country hadn't thought themselves so superior to the indigenous population.

[ShivaX]

Some people are probably uncomfortable acknowledging how much racism there is. Some people are probably uncomfortable acknowledging how little racism there is. After all, if one's political opponents are not racist, that might mean one would have to engage their arguments on the merits. That's terribly uncomfortable for some people; hence the perennial popularity of accusations of racism.

Calling someone a bigot: it's easier than thinking.™

Racism is pretty alive and well, though I don't think its overtly colors as many things as people would believe. I know a lot of racists. A LOT. Theres varying degrees of racism and I think a lot of the more subtle vibes carry over into politics pretty well.

And Mags is correct in that our nation would be wildly different if not for the belief in a superiority of the white race. All of our land was more or less taken from non-white people in one fashion or another and our entire economy was all-but based on slavery for quite some time. Most of that is in the past, but it wasn't that long ago that a black man couldn't even vote or use the same restroom as a white man.

[Generation ABXY]

Hell, few of us would likely be here if the founders of this country hadn't thought themselves so superior to the indigenous population.

The Native Americans brought it on themselves, by not winning and all.

[Ox]

Can you actually say it's not the case? From the taking of Native lands and driving the indigenous population to small reservations, to the enslaving of blacks, to the wave of hysteria over Chinese immigration in the 1800s, to the Japanese internment camps, to the present day fear of Mexican immigrants, this country has a long-standing history of racism.
You conflate a lot of stuff there. All of that stuff was partially driven by racism for some of the individuals involved, but that's not to say that it was solely driven by racism. To take one example, the taking of Native lands was to a very large extent driven by simple greed. Unless you want to say the Germans in 1914 were racist against Belgium, I don't think you can reduce all land-grabs to racism.

All of our land was more or less taken from non-white people in one fashion or another and our entire economy was all-but based on slavery for quite some time.
I had no idea there was no economic activity north of the Mason-Dixon line.

[Vigil80]

I'm certainly not saying that those things aren't a part of the nation's history (or similar events throughout the entire world's history). But, they are also not the entire history. Furthermore, you don't have to be white to be racist, and whites aren't immune to the effects. It may not have been as sensational or large-scaled, but everyone can point to a segment of history where their peers got the shaft. From the Irish in New England during the potato famine, to people who were suspected of being German during the World Wars, to the dumb pollock jokes that were in style decades ago.

I have never owned a slave, hired a Mexican immigrant at a substandard wage, or supported the denial of anyone anything based on their ethnicity. Neither did my ancestors. The only relatives I had that were in the country at the time of the civil war were on the union side. I have nothing to be guilty for, and no reparations to pay, in spite of the fact that I'm a white man. And I am not the only one. (Still waiting for the check I get for being a white guy to arrive in the mail, by the way. Do they send those when you register for the draft, or what?)

There are racists everywhere, and always have been. It's part of base human nature to align with the similar, and shy away from the different. Of course, there should be awareness when it truly rears its head. But deconstructing every distasteful bit of debate or legislation with shouts of racism is just cheating everyone involved. Attempting to bathe all of history with white guilt serves no useful purpose, and comparing these modern U.S. issues with what happened to Native Americans is mostly some kind of dark joke. There is no pogrom taking place here. There is an illegal immigration problem, and it would be a problem no matter what color those immigrants are. Whatever measures are necessary to come to a worthy resolution should be applied to every person crossing every border of the country.

[ShivaX]

You conflate a lot of stuff there. All of that stuff was partially driven by racism for some of the individuals involved, but that's not to say that it was solely driven by racism. To take one example, the taking of Native lands was to a very large extent driven by simple greed. Unless you want to say the Germans in 1914 were racist against Belgium, I don't think you can reduce all land-grabs to racism.

Not solely, but it was a very convienent excuse. Natives were savages, blacks weren't men, so you could exploit them without guilt. Even when the natives converted to Christianity you could still exploit them without guilt because they were inferior beings.


I had no idea there was no economic activity north of the Mason-Dixon line.

Well pre-Industrial Revolution the South was the powerhouse. Afterwards things shifted and eventually it became realistic to just abolish slavery without crippling the economy.

[Ox]

Not solely, but it was a very convienent excuse. Natives were savages, blacks weren't men, so you could exploit them without guilt. Even when the natives converted to Christianity you could still exploit them without guilt because they were inferior beings.
While that argument was certainly made and believed by a fraction of the population, the justifications for slavery and expansionism were far more multifaceted and complicated than this. You've taken the absolute crudest justification for those acts and ascribed it to all the people who engaged in those acts.

I'm pretty sure there were some racists who supported almost every act in history on crudely racist grounds, including the Space Race. I suppose I could therefore argument that the Apollo Program was crudely racist, but it would not be a very convincing argument.
Well pre-Industrial Revolution the South was the powerhouse.
This is a very strange statement for which I doubt you have much evidence. Pre-Industrial Revolution, slavery was still in its infancy -- cotton production, the primary cause of the explosion of slavery in the South, was barely economical until after the invention of the cotton gin in 1792. The North had clearly taken the economic lead by the time of the completion of the Erie Canal in 1828.

Take a look at the Census data from 1790 (http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1790a-02.pdf), 1800 (http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1800-return-whole-number-of-persons.pdf), and 1810. Prior to industrialization, population is usually a good proxy for economic power. In 1790, five states had at least 25,000 slaves (I'm including this floor because otherwise New York is going to count as a Southern state): Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland, and Georgia. Counting free people and slaves, those four states had a total of 1.78 million people, including 625,000 slaves. The (relatively) free Northern states, by contrast, had a population of 2.1 million.

By 1800, after the cotton gin was invented, slavery is exploding. The Southern states with significant population (including Maryland and Kentucky, but excluding Tennessee, what is now West Virginia, and the Mississippi Territory which would one day become Mississippi and Alabama) is 2.2 million, with 806,000 slaves. But the Northern states (excluding what is now West Virginia and Ohio) had 2.7 million people.

Okay, let's move to 1810. We haven't really given slavery enough time to explode, after all. Eight years after the invention of the cotton gin? Let's be fair, massive influxes of slaves were going to take a little longer than that to reshape society, they're not like iPods.

Now, we have a problem with 1810. The Census Bureau hasn't put the enumeration online. I blame Obama.

However, they have put up the enumeration of Arts & Manufactures in the Several States. O happy day! We can compare economic output directly!

Now, this (http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1810b-02.pdf) is a huge document. I could parse this stuff 'til the cows come home. But I'm going to limit myself to some quick comparisons to illustrate that, by 1810, just one generation after the Constitution was ratified, the South was clearly outmatched economically.

Total value of cotton and other cloth, including spun or woven goods, from Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, the territory of Orleans, the Mississippi Territory, in dollars: $18,113,710.

Total value of all agriculture and industry of those states, excluding doubtful articles, in dollars: $52,105,978.

Total value of all agriculture and industry in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Ohio, excluding doubtful articles, in dollars: $118,890,999.

Massachusetts and Pennsylvania together outmatched the total economic output of the entire Confederacy by 1810. This is still before Francis Cabot Lowell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Cabot_Lowell_(businessman)) had even come back from England to start the American Industrial Revolution or for Henry Clay to come up with his American System.

[Expugnare]

That's very true. And they close the do-it-yourself lanes at night. Why the hell would you do that? 1 worker can man like 4 of those lanes. Those are the ones that should always be open!

I would suspect that is do to the higher likelihood of theft occurring when the staff is lower. Someone can pretend to checkout at one of the self service stations and slip out the doors pretty easily when no one is patrolling the stations.

[TheManEatingCow]

Arizona in the news again. I'm sure this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/12/AR2010051200329.html) will stir up all the righteous indignation from earlier in the thread.

The bill itself can be found here (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.2281ed_caucus-floor.doc.htm).


Personally, the only problem I can see is in the bill is the vague language regarding classes that "Promote resentment towards a race or class of people". If I have a European History class and teach pure facts about WW2, focusing on the atrocities of the Nazis and actions of collaborators, wouldn't one be able to argue that that class promotes resentment towards the Germanic people?

One man's resentment is another man's facts after all.

[ShivaX]

Arizona in the news again. I'm sure this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/12/AR2010051200329.html) will stir up all the righteous indignation from earlier in the thread.

The bill itself can be found here (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/s.2281ed_caucus-floor.doc.htm).


Personally, the only problem I can see is in the bill is the vague language regarding classes that "Promote resentment towards a race or class of people". If I have a European History class and teach pure facts about WW2, focusing on the atrocities of the Nazis and actions of collaborators, wouldn't one be able to argue that that class promotes resentment towards the Germanic people?

One man's resentment is another man's facts after all.

The White Man totally didn't fuck over the Native populations of America.
The White Man also never did anything bad to any Africans.

For example, in the Mexican-American Studies program, an American history course explores the role of Hispanics in the Vietnam War, and a literature course emphasizes Latino authors.

Horne, a Republican running for attorney general, said the program promotes "ethnic chauvinism" and racial resentment toward whites while segregating students by race. He's been trying to restrict it ever since he learned that Hispanic civil rights activist Dolores Huerta told students in 2006 that "Republicans hate Latinos."


Awesome. That said:

District officials said the program doesn't promote resentment, and they believe it would comply with the new law.

The measure doesn't prohibit classes that teach about the history of a particular ethnic group, as long as the course is open to all students and doesn't promote ethnic solidarity or resentment.


So... the politicians pass a law and say the course promotes resentment. The guys giving the course say the course doesn't promote resentment. Yeah this will end well.

Does this mean you couldn't teach a Bible class out of fear of it producing resentment towards Jews? I mean they killed Jesus after all and a lot of people still resent them for it (to the point that they seem to forget he was one).

[txshurricane]

The main difference being "arrested" and "detained", this is still an interesting note:
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/05/17/boycott-california/

[Hemalin]

Considering some of the big sticklers are "arrested vs. detained," giving local police the authority of federal agents and the ability to sue if you don't think the police are rounding up enough people, the California law looks quite reasonable in comparison and Arizona should have gone for something similar and there may not have been any issue.

[Zero]

The Mayor (of Los Angeles), is a product of the ACLU ,LaRaza and MEChA . These are all subversive Mexican organizations hell bent on turning America into Mexico. These organizations are parallel to Islam and its Jihad fueled hatred.

I got a really good laugh out of the ACLU being Mexican.

[Matthias]

The White Man totally didn't fuck over the Native populations of America.
The White Man also never did anything bad to any Africans.



Awesome. That said:



So... the politicians pass a law and say the course promotes resentment. The guys giving the course say the course doesn't promote resentment. Yeah this will end well.

Does this mean you couldn't teach a Bible class out of fear of it producing resentment towards Jews? I mean they killed Jesus after all and a lot of people still resent them for it (to the point that they seem to forget he was one).

That's something I never quite understood: as a Christian, I'm pretty happy that someone killed Jesus. He had to die to redeem humanity. He also came back to life 3 days later, so what exactly are you guys complaining about? Our whole religion is based off of the fact that Jesus chose to die for our sin, so how can people honestly hate the group that played pawn to that happening?

I'm convinced that's always been the only copout Europeans were ever able to come up with as to why it was okay to hate the Jews. That and the whole "Jews are bankers and I owe the bank money, so clearly Jews are trying to steal all my money."

[TheFlyingOrc]

That's something I never quite understood: as a Christian, I'm pretty happy that someone killed Jesus. He had to die to redeem humanity. He also came back to life 3 days later, so what exactly are you guys complaining about? Our whole religion is based off of the fact that Jesus chose to die for our sin, so how can people honestly hate the group that played pawn to that happening?

I'm convinced that's always been the only copout Europeans were ever able to come up with as to why it was okay to hate the Jews. That and the whole "Jews are bankers and I owe the bank money, so clearly Jews are trying to steal all my money."

You've kinda nailed it on the head. They WANTED to hate them, so they take a random quote from the Bible where a large crowd of jews say "may his blood be upon us and our descendants" (can't remember where at the moment, and I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but TRUST ME) and somehow get to "because some jews who most likely became christians said this thing one time it is totally ok to hate an entire race of people"

It's funny what people will do to justify hatred.

[Matthias]

You've kinda nailed it on the head. They WANTED to hate them, so they take a random quote from the Bible where a large crowd of jews say "may his blood be upon us and our descendants" (can't remember where at the moment, and I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but TRUST ME) and somehow get to "because some jews who most likely became christians said this thing one time it is totally ok to hate an entire race of people"

It's funny what people will do to justify hatred.

Oh yeah, I remember that line. I'm pretty sure it's commonly attributed to some of Jesus' followers (he had many more disciples than just the 12 we talk about a lot).

Of course, considering how much has been written about Jesus' cleansing blood that anoints us and washes our sins away, and the fact that one (the only for a long time) denomination of Christianity believed we drink his blood at Communion to cleanse our souls, maybe they were just blessing everyone!

[Vigil80]

I'm fairly certain the Bible makes it pretty plain that Jews are the chosen people of God. I've talked to a number of other Christians about what exactly that means without coming to a definitive consensus, but personally, I tend to take it as a strong suggestion that I, (even) as a Christian, should be pretty pro-Jew. :)

[roboninja]

I'm fairly certain the Bible makes it pretty plain that Jews are the chosen people of God. I've talked to a number of other Christians about what exactly that means without coming to a definitive consensus, but personally, I tend to take it as a strong suggestion that I, (even) as a Christian, should be pretty pro-Jew. :)

When half of your religious book is their religious book, being at odds seems rather silly.

[Khrymsyn]

When half of your religious book is their religious book, being at odds seems rather silly.


When you all eventually die and rot in the same fashion, a LOT of things with the human race seem rather silly.

[Ox]

I'm fairly certain the Bible makes it pretty plain that Jews are the chosen people of God. I've talked to a number of other Christians about what exactly that means without coming to a definitive consensus, but personally, I tend to take it as a strong suggestion that I, (even) as a Christian, should be pretty pro-Jew. :)
This is an interesting issue: it's the conflict between supersessionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism) and dual-covenant theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-covenant_theology), with dispensationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism) as a sort of wild card. Note that supersessionism need not be anti-Semitic: Augustine, for example, thought the Jews would be welcomed at the Millennium along with Christians, although he is usually regarded as a supersessionist. The Catholic church can probably be fairly described as supersessionist, but it recognizes that Jews occupy a special place in God's order distinct from that of Gentiles and often refers to them as "older brothers" in the faith.

[Ultima Thulian]

The Jewish people simply made excellent scapegoats in an age of anxiety (wars, plagues, fraud, etc). It wasn't necessarily that they "killed Jesus", though that excuse was used, but the real crux of it was that they were a small minority group that was easy to blame and notice.

[MagGnome]

Sort of like the gays.

Yeah, I went there. :p

Edit - Actually, all joking aside, there are a ton of comparisons that can be drawn between the persecution of homosexuals and the persecution of Jews throughout history.

[txshurricane]

Sort of like the gays.

Yeah, I went there. :p

Edit - Actually, all joking aside, there are a ton of comparisons that can be drawn between the persecution of homosexuals and the persecution of Jews throughout history.
Except that gays can be stereotyped as flamboyant, and have been known to attract controversy on purpose - drama queens, if you will. :)

[MagGnome]

Except that gays can be stereotyped as flamboyant, and have been known to attract controversy on purpose - drama queens, if you will. :)

Jews can be stereotyped as evil and money-grubbing. They are also a magnet for controversy. Just look at Israel.

What was your point? :p

[J Arcane]

Jews can be stereotyped as evil and money-grubbing. They are also a magnet for controversy. Just look at Israel.

What was your point? :p

He needs a point to demonstrate his rampant bigotry?

[txshurricane]

Jews can be stereotyped as evil and money-grubbing. They are also a magnet for controversy. Just look at Israel.

What was your point? :p
My point is that one instance is a result of established cultural differences, and the other is a grab at acceptance within an existing culture.

He needs a point to demonstrate his rampant bigotry?
Nah. We'll always have you, Arcane, to spread that ignorance yourself. :)

[Ultima Thulian]

Edit - Actually, all joking aside, there are a ton of comparisons that can be drawn between the persecution of homosexuals and the persecution of Jews throughout history.

Like what?

[MagGnome]

My point is that one instance is a result of established cultural differences, and the other is a grab at acceptance within an existing culture.

What are you talking about? There is an inherent "gay culture" just as much as there is an inherent "Jewish culture". I really don't understand what your point is.

I'm not attacking you by the way, I'm genuinely confused as to what point you are trying to make.


Like what?

Well there's that whole Holocaust thing, for starters.

[txshurricane]

What are you talking about? There is an inherent "gay culture" just as much as there is an inherent "Jewish culture". I really don't understand what your point is.

I'm not attacking you by the way, I'm genuinely confused as to what point you are trying to make.
The gay culture here in American that - I think - you're referring to is actually a subculture. In essence, you're comparing one group of people - American homosexuals - trying to carve their own niche into larger picture, and who are being resisted against...whereas the Jews are a more global presence with a stronger cultural presence, and who are attacked.

Big difference.

And I'm not suggesting that gays aren't unjustly attacked. I'm just saying that you're comparing things like genocide to local politics issues.

For example:
Well there's that whole Holocaust thing, for starters.
In what way has a Holocaust been enacted against homosexuals? Because they can't adopt in most U.S. states? Can't marry in most U.S. states?

There's a big world out there...and there are no Nazis hunting you down.

[Dorkandproudofit]

In what way has a Holocaust been enacted against homosexuals? Because they can't adopt in most U.S. states? Can't marry in most U.S. states?

There's a big world out there...and there are no Nazis hunting you down.

The holocaust wasn't just against Jews. Millions of homosexuals got the exact same treatment by Hitler's machine.

Not to mention the unbelievably gory stuff they did to both parties during the Spanish Inquisition. Ever wonder what it's like to be sawed in half, slowly, from the junk to your heart? Or have a wooden stake/white hot iron shoved up your ass until you died in horrible agony from it?

[MagGnome]

The gay culture here in American that - I think - you're referring to is actually a subculture. In essence, you're comparing one group of people - American homosexuals - trying to carve their own niche into larger picture, and who are being resisted against...whereas the Jews are a more global presence with a stronger cultural presence, and who are attacked.

Big difference.

What? How are homosexuals not a global presence? You do realize that homosexuals exist all over the world, right? They are attacked every single day too, especially in the Middle East.

In fact, there are a lot more gay men and women in the world then there are Jews, and gays are used as scapegoats in many parts of the world just like Jews are, which was my original point.

You can't take the global population of one group and compare it to only the American population of another. Both Jews and homosexuals have sub-cultures in the United States, and both have a large global presence. There are a ton of differences, obviously, but my point was that both groups are common scapegoats and have been throughout history.

And I'm not suggesting that gays aren't unjustly attacked. I'm just saying that you're comparing things like genocide to local politics issues.

For example:

In what way has a Holocaust been enacted against homosexuals? Because they can't adopt in most U.S. states? Can't marry in most U.S. states?

There's a big world out there...and there are no Nazis hunting you down.

I capitalized the word "Holocaust" because I was referring to THE Holocaust. The one involving Hitler and the Nazis.

I thought that was self-explanatory.

[txshurricane]

I've waded in mid-discussion again and bitten off more than I can chew. I'll be over here with my size-11 Skechers in my mouth.

Just attribute it to the new father daze and the lack of sleep that comes with it.

[MagGnome]

I've waded in mid-discussion again and bitten off more than I can chew. I'll be over here with my size-11 Skechers in my mouth.

It's okay. I'm not mad at you or anything. I think you and I are just on two totally different wavelengths. :p

[txshurricane]

It's okay. I'm not mad at you or anything. I think you and I are just on two totally different wavelengths. :p
Imagine that! :D

[Ultima Thulian]

Well there's that whole Holocaust thing, for starters.

Oh okay, nevermind. I thought you drawing parallels between Medieval Jew massacres and homosexual ones, as those tend to get blurry. No argument on the holocaust though.

[MagGnome]

Oh okay, nevermind. I thought you drawing parallels between Medieval Jew massacres and homosexual ones, as those tend to get blurry. No argument on the holocaust though.

Yeah, I must do a poor job of explaining myself, because I seem to confuse a lot of people.

[Ultima Thulian]

Yeah, I must do a poor job of explaining myself, because I seem to confuse a lot of people.

Naw, this one is on me. I was hoping this would somehow lead to a description of European Medieval discussion on sexuality and gender. Very interesting topic. I let my history geek get the best of me! :D

[J Arcane]

Naw, this one is on me. I was hoping this would somehow lead to a description of European Medieval discussion on sexuality and gender. Very interesting topic. I let my history geek get the best of me! :D
It's an interesting subject. We tend to think of only two eras of accepted homosexuality, now, and Greece/Rome. But the truth is that the history of homosexuality in society is a lot more complex than that over the years. There's much hardship and repression, and yet there's some hint that in some ways, our modern furor over the subject is just that, rather modern. There's some evidence of instances where such behaviors were just sort of swept under the rug, or even allowed a kind of local acceptance, just nothing overt.

It's weird. And the fact that it's such a political issue in the modern era makes studying the actual history a minefield.

[Ox]

In fact, there are a lot more gay men and women in the world then there are Jews, and gays are used as scapegoats in many parts of the world just like Jews are, which was my original point.
Weeeeeeeell... if you assume that 3% of the population is homosexual, then the global population is around 200 million gay men and women. The world population of Jews is only 13 million (0.2% of global population), so you are right that there are far more gay men and women than there are Jews.

On the other hand, if you take the Census of David ( 2 Samuel 24:19) as true, the adult male population was 1.3 million, which implies a total population of more than 5 million. If David lived circa 1000 BC, then the world population was around 50 million... i.e., Jews were 10% of the global population. Maybe that's an exaggeration; so let's say the Census of David overestimated the population by a preposterous 10:1. That's still a percentage that would imply there would be nearly 70 million Jews around today, assuming the Jews had roughly the same rate of population growth as the rest of the world.

So where are the missing 57 million (at least) Jews? In the rubble of the Temples of Jerusalem, in the dungeons of the Spanish Inquisition, in the plague-pits of the European ghettos, up the smokestacks of Auschwitz, and on the fields of the Golan Heights.

None of this is to say that homosexuals have not been persecuted and often killed throughout history. Nor is it meant to belittle their plight. But on the other hand, the past 3,000 years have seen a relative reduction of the Jewish share of world population by 98%. I would be very reluctant to draw comparisons between the Jewish experience and anyone else.

[Ultima Thulian]

Well, duh Ox.

Judaism is something that is typically passed on via bloodline. If a jew dies, he can't have more jew heirs. So yea, their population would likely decrease by a great percentage in comparison to homosexuals. Also let us keep in mind that the "gay culture" is mostly a modern one, and homosexuals were, mostly, not a tribal people bound by similar religion and family ties. They are tied, if at all, by a common sexuality. Not to mention numbering Jews is arguably much easier than homosexuals, ESPECIALLY in the context of ages past, as the very idea of homosexuality is wildly different than it was today, or even several decades ago.

Comparing "tragedies" and "death tolls" between these groups is rather asinine at best, with all respect to you and Mags. But I do aunderstand the notion that few groups had it harder than the Jews in the grand scheme of things, I suppose.

edit: Gawd, I comma splice like a fucking dickhead. I apologize.

[Ink Asylum]

That's odd logic, Ox. Can you really extrapolate what the population of any religious group should be after 3000 years?

[Ox]

I think I'm counting Jews as an ethnic group rather than a religious group, although you may be right that the number is artificially decreased by conversion to other faiths. I hadn't considered that effect, but it probably does have some significance.

If you'd prefer, we could just look at the 20th century. Jewish population climbed 30% while world population climbed by about 400%.

[Zero]

Yeah, I must do a poor job of explaining myself, because I seem to confuse a lot of people.

No, it's not that. I think people tend to forget that The Holocaust wasn't a just an exclusive persecution of Jews.

[Ink Asylum]

I think I'm counting Jews as an ethnic group rather than a religious group, although you may be right that the number is artificially decreased by conversion to other faiths. I hadn't considered that effect, but it probably does have some significance.

Especially in the early years. After all, Christianity was started by Jews.

If you'd prefer, we could just look at the 20th century. Jewish population climbed 30% while world population climbed by about 400%.

That's a much more meaningful number, and owes a lot more to persecution, especially the Holocaust.

Of course, you're also comparing a group that's largely hereditary with one that's not. When the Holocaust greatly decreased living Jews it also greatly decreased the next generation of potential Jews. When it decreased living homosexuals it did nothing to decrease the next generation of potential homosexuals. So is killing a hereditary minority inherently more damaging to that group then otherwise?

Personally, I think it's pointless to try to quantify who takes home the gold in the suffering Olympics. Any race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc which is being persecuted to the point of death is equally deserving of sympathy and respect.

[MagGnome]

Comparing "tragedies" and "death tolls" between these groups is rather asinine at best, with all respect to you and Mags. But I do aunderstand the notion that few groups had it harder than the Jews in the grand scheme of things, I suppose.

In my defense I was by no means trying to start a "dick waving" contest between the plight of Jews and the plight of homosexuals throughout history. I didn't say that one was persecuted more than the other. I was simply saying that both groups have been persecuted and scapegoated throughout history. In fact often at the same time.

I have to say that I am constantly amazed at Ox's will to argue about anything. No wonder he became a lawyer! I mean that mostly in jest, of course.

I'd also like to point out that 3% is a low-ball estimate as to the number of homosexuals in the general population. Obviously it is next to impossible to determine an exact number, but I've heard anywhere from 3-10%.


No, it's not that. I think people tend to forget that The Holocaust wasn't a just an exclusive persecution of Jews.

Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, and Roman Catholics, among other groups. The gypsies were nearly wiped out by the Holocaust, in fact.


Personally, I think it's pointless to try to quantify who takes home the gold in the suffering Olympics. Any race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc which is being persecuted to the point of death is equally deserving of sympathy and respect.

Thank you. You said that much more succinctly than I did.

[Ox]

Especially in the early years. After all, Christianity was started by Jews.
I'm not sure, but wasn't the proportion of Jews who converted to Christianity in the early years very small? My understanding is that the early growth was mainly through Gentiles with only a tiny fraction of Jews, but I could very easily be mistaken.

Of course, you're also comparing a group that's largely hereditary with one that's not. When the Holocaust greatly decreased living Jews it also greatly decreased the next generation of potential Jews. When it decreased living homosexuals it did nothing to decrease the next generation of potential homosexuals. So is killing a hereditary minority inherently more damaging to that group then otherwise?
You're assuming that homosexuals don't typically have natural children, which I'm not sure is reliably true, especially in the past. But I think your question is a good one: is killing a hereditary minority inherently more damaging to that group than otherwise? I think you could make an argument that it was. To whatever extent there is a gay culture, that can persist and revive even if gays are severely repressed for a time. But even the survivors among the Sephardi Jews lost their cultural heritage. I'm not going to say that's comparable with even a single untimely death, but it is an additional loss.

Personally, I think it's pointless to try to quantify who takes home the gold in the suffering Olympics. Any race, religion, gender, sexuality, etc which is being persecuted to the point of death is equally deserving of sympathy and respect.
I broadly agree with this (although some of the groups which have been persecuted don't garner my respect). But that was sort of my point: if you say you've been persecuted "just like the Jews/Indians/whathaveyou," it opens the floor for a debate about exactly how your suffering is like or unlike that of the Jews/Indians/whathaveyou. There's no profit in starting that debate. Far better to say, "We've been persecuted." Whether your suffering is identical to or completely unlike that of any other groups is pretty irrelevant.

I have to say that I am constantly amazed at Ox's will to argue about anything. No wonder he became a lawyer! I mean that mostly in jest, of course.
You would be amazed at how often I disagree strongly with something someone says but don't bother arguing about it. I suppose I'm naturally contrarian: whenever I see anyone assert anything with confidence, I immediately assume he's talking out of his ass, and I bristle. If people were animals, some of us would be lions, swans, or chickens. I would clearly be a gadfly.

[txshurricane]

No, it's not that. I think people tend to forget that The Holocaust wasn't a just an exclusive persecution of Jews.
That was my problem. I had forgotten how far the bad hand swept. Sorry, Mag. :(

[MagGnome]

It's alright. The whole issue is very fresh in my mind since I just saw Bent last week, which is a stage play about the Nazi persecution of homosexuals. It was very moving.

[Dorkandproudofit]

Apparently Arizona is threatening to cut off all electrical power to Los Angeles if they don't stop boycotting Arizona over the immigration law. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/arizona-threatens-turn-lights-off-los-angeles-city/story?id=10691844)

That's blackmail, pure and simple. Or is it extortion? I can never remember.

[Ultima Thulian]

Apparently Arizona is threatening to cut off all electrical power to Los Angeles if they don't stop boycotting Arizona over the immigration law. (http://abcnews.go.com/US/arizona-threatens-turn-lights-off-los-angeles-city/story?id=10691844)

That's blackmail, pure and simple. Or is it extortion? I can never remember.



It's neither. LA has boycotted Arizona businesses. So Arizona merely has returned the favor. It's 25% of their electricity. They'll suffer, but live.

However, I don't know why they are on San Diego's back, since they aren't boycotting AZ.

[MagGnome]

Great, so now LA and Arizona are going to war?

Good riddance. :D

[Serapth]

Frankly good on Arizona. LA was playing at political theater and just got fucked because of it.

I dont side with Arizona but I hate this bullshit political grand standing even more. Apparently Austins completely hollow boycott is starting to bite them in the ass too.

Now, if LA still goes along with it, now that they actually have some chips in the game, then good on them. That's said, I expect them to turn and run now.

Regardless, good on Arizona's for showing some teeth, even if they are a bunch of misguided rednecks! ;)

[Ox]

That's blackmail, pure and simple. Or is it extortion? I can never remember.
Paradox! (http://law.jrank.org/pages/569/Blackmail-Extortion-paradox-blackmail.html)

[Generation ABXY]

Yeah, strangely enough, I agree with Serapth.

Is the whole thing sort of petty? Sure, but when you jump in the fray like that, you have to accept that your actions may have consequences...

[johnperkins21]

You're assuming that homosexuals don't typically have natural children, which I'm not sure is reliably true, especially in the past.

I think he was saying that homosexuality is not passed on to the next generation like ethnicity, or even religiosity is. Gay parents don't have gay kids like Jewish parents have Jewish kids, so by killing future Jewish parents, you've effectively decimated a large population of future Jews. If you kill a bunch of gay people, you've not affected the future number of homosexuals disproportionately to the number of future heterosexuals.

Regardless, good on Arizona's for showing some teeth, even if they are a bunch of misguided rednecks! ;)

Sadly, there's a lot of truth to that. There are a ton of misguided rednecks out here, and I would very much like to move, but it's not fiscally viable right now. Though if Joe Arpaio actually ran for governor, and won, I'd be gone within a year.

[Ink Asylum]

I think he was saying that homosexuality is not passed on to the next generation like ethnicity, or even religiosity is. Gay parents don't have gay kids like Jewish parents have Jewish kids, so by killing future Jewish parents, you've effectively decimated a large population of future Jews. If you kill a bunch of gay people, you've not affected the future number of homosexuals disproportionately to the number of future heterosexuals.

Yep. Pretty much.

[txshurricane]

Though if Joe Arpaio actually ran for governor, and won, I'd be gone within a year.
That's very hateful, and I hope that you'd at least wait and what his statewide policies would be. Otherwise, I call BS. Nobody moves because of political ideology, not even Sean Penn.

[MagGnome]

How is that hateful? He said he would move, not that Joe Arpaio should die in a fire.

"Hateful" is a pretty strong word.

[txshurricane]

Yes, it is a strong word, but it's not an uncommon emotion.

It's not taboo, either. Take it from the "racist", courtesy of J Arcane. :)
/plum

[National Kato]

Looks like SB1070 was just the start (http://www.kpho.com/news/23623047/detail.html):

Pearce, R-Mesa, the author of Arizona’s immigration law, has been writing to some of his constituents about what he plans to accomplish next. In e-mails obtained by CBS 5 News, Pearce said he intends to push for a bill that would enable Arizona to no longer grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil. Pearce wrote in one e-mail: "I also intend to push for an Arizona bill that would refuse to accept or issue a birth certificate that recognizes citizenship to those born to illegal aliens, unless one parent is a citizen."

Never mind that pesky 14th Amendment or birthright citizenship law.

[MagGnome]

Apparently he thinks that Arizona is above the Constitution. Yikes!

[Kelegacy]

Next, Hispanics of any kind have to do everyone's chores for free. It's not racist or anything, really.

[Narradisall]

You know, I always thought it was an odd loop hole that being born in a country granted you citizenship. One that no doubt people could/do abuse.

But when I thought a bit more about it, how could you do it any other way?

If you don't grant them citizenship, does the other country take them? Or would you risk creating a generation of citizenless people?!?! You certainly couldn't deport them somewhere, since they'd have no country to speak of to be deported too.

[Kelegacy]

Who the fuck cares? They're sub-human, Narradisall. Shoot them into space and have them relocate on the moon!

[nnanji]

Trust me, you do not want to get caught without your papers on the moon.

[Ox]

You know, I always thought it was an odd loop hole that being born in a country granted you citizenship. One that no doubt people could/do abuse.

But when I thought a bit more about it, how could you do it any other way?
Plenty of countries have. Germany, for example, did not grant birthright citizenship prior to 2000, and still does not grant it unconditionally. Even today, the United Kingdom does not grant birthright citizenship to people born on British soil unless one parent is a British subject, a legal permanent resident, or has lived in the country for a period of years. Indeed, since Ireland revoked automatic birthright citizenship in 2004, not a single European nation grants unrestricted birthright citizenship to people born within its borders (http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/american_quarterly/v060/60.3.mancini.html).

Of course, this is yet one more datum of evidence for a longstanding theory of mine: Europeans are far more racist than Americans.

[baz]

Of course, this is yet one more datum of evidence for a longstanding theory of mine: Europeans are far more racist than Americans.

I'll give you continental europeans, but britain is pretty good. Take the interracial marriage percentage. Two percent (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1090)of the UK's marriages are interracial, the same percentage as in the US. But the UK has a much higher percentage of white citizens (92% to the USAs 80%).

From my black and asian (used in the British sense to cover Indian/Pakistani/Bengali/Sri Lankan people) friends who have lived in both the US and Britain, they've found race in Britain to be less of an issue. Not a non-issue by any means though.

Of course my view might be a bit warped as I live in London, which is quite a bit more mixed than the rest of the country.

A lot of continental european countries are really quite nastily racist though.

[J Arcane]

Of course, on the flipside you could also point to the readership of the Daily Mail and the Sun. ;)

I've never seen a US paper run a story like some of the ones those have run on "gypsies".

[baz]

Of course, on the flipside you could also point to the readership of the Daily Mail and the Sun. ;)

I've never seen a US paper run a story like some of the ones those have run on "gypsies".

Throw News of the World in there as well and you've got the trifecta!

[J Arcane]

Throw News of the World in there as well and you've got the trifecta!
Of course. Can't forget the rest of Murdoch's rags. :D

[Ox]

I'll give you continental europeans, but britain is pretty good. Take the interracial marriage percentage. Two percent (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1090)of the UK's marriages are interracial, the same percentage as in the US. But the UK has a much higher percentage of white citizens (92% to the USAs 80%).
Actually, the US has four times (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/26/AR2010052600499.html?hpid=moreheadlines) the British rate of intermarriage. But nice try.

[baz]

Actually, the US has four times (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/26/AR2010052600499.html?hpid=moreheadlines) the British rate of intermarriage. But nice try.

I was quoting the wrong figure. In both countries, 1% of marriages involving white people include a member of a different race. Figures in your article and mine.

I'm not trying to say that Britain is a shining beacon of racial harmony compared to the US, just defending it from being tagged especially racist. The USA and Britain are probably two of the least racist places in the world. I might chuck my other native country NZ in there, but I'm not sure, and I haven't lived there for 5 years.

[J Arcane]

IME, the picture as to how New Zealand treats and interacts with the native Maori population at least always seemed slightly inconsistent. I know that Australia still has problems with anti-Aboriginal racism quite on the foreground, but I never could quite figure out what the picture was in NZ. On the one hand there seemed to be a fairly strong level of acceptance, and even a sense of national identity tied to Maori culture, but on the other hand there does still seem to be much lingering of the usual native minority issues common in these situations.

[baz]

IME, the picture as to how New Zealand treats and interacts with the native Maori population at least always seemed slightly inconsistent. I know that Australia still has problems with anti-Aboriginal racism quite on the foreground, but I never could quite figure out what the picture was in NZ. On the one hand there seemed to be a fairly strong level of acceptance, and even a sense of national identity tied to Maori culture, but on the other hand there does still seem to be much lingering of the usual native minority issues common in these situations.

I'm not sure as well, and I'm a New Zealander. Well ostensibly a New Zealander, my dad is, and I've lived there at various times in my life. There is a definite pride in Maori culture and it's a huge part of the New Zealand cultural identity. New Zealand sees itself as a Pacific nation rather than a western one.

Relations between Maori and Pakeha are really pretty good for the most part. The intermixing of communities is pretty absolute most of the place. Some old tensions between various pacific peoples like the Tongans and Samoans.

There is still a lot of casual racism, particular towards people of chinese descent. Largely because they are the newest ethnic group to arrive on the scene (Auckland is 20% ethnically chinese now, from almost nothing 20 years ago).

As you travel toward the south there is quite a bit of nasty stereotyping targeted at the maori populace. That's a typical pattern though of there being many less maori people in the south island, I find that prejudices break down through interaction. See where the BNP is successful in the UK, generally it is in electorates that are super white rather than mixed.

Pretty good for the main though. Also we did get the 4th and 12th best places to live (on the quality of life scale) from Mercers recent city rankings, so we're not doing too badly. Not that I'm going to go back there for another 10 years, it's just so far away from anywhere.

[Serapth]

IME, the picture as to how New Zealand treats and interacts with the native Maori population at least always seemed slightly inconsistent. I know that Australia still has problems with anti-Aboriginal racism quite on the foreground, but I never could quite figure out what the picture was in NZ. On the one hand there seemed to be a fairly strong level of acceptance, and even a sense of national identity tied to Maori culture, but on the other hand there does still seem to be much lingering of the usual native minority issues common in these situations.

When Australia looks down at you as a country, you take pride in whatever you can!

[J Arcane]

I sometimes regret that my father never took the job at the new Bright Wood facility that opened there. It really is a gorgeous country.

[johnperkins21]

That's very hateful, and I hope that you'd at least wait and what his statewide policies would be. Otherwise, I call BS. Nobody moves because of political ideology, not even Sean Penn.

You are correct. I hate the man and would celebrate profusely upon news of his death or incarceration. There's a reason The New York Times calls him "America's Worst Sheriff (http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/31/americas-worst-sheriff-joe-arpaio/)."

Some people do move due to political ideology, and I would be one of those people. To be fair though, I don't really like Arizona anyway, it's just too damn hot.

[Narradisall]

Interesting.

So, what happens if you aren't granted citizenship? You're just stuck in a limbo until you find a country that does grant you it? Awesome.

[Ox]

So, what happens if you aren't granted citizenship? You're just stuck in a limbo until you find a country that does grant you it? Awesome.
Various treaties strongly encourage member states to extend protections to stateless persons within their control. If you're not a citizen of any country, and you're in the jurisdiction of a fairly decent country, you are probably going to have a fairly decent suite of legal protections. But stuff like the franchise, state benefits, anti-discrimination rights? Ranges from "if you're very lucky" to "no fucking way."

[Narradisall]

Well, you learn something new everyday.

Anyways, back to the topic!

[ShivaX]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-06-04-altered-mural-arizona-race-debate_N.htm

A group of artists has been asked to lighten the faces of children depicted in a large public mural at a Prescott, Ariz., school.
The project's leader says he was ordered to lighten the skin tone after complaints about the children's ethnicity. But the school's principal says the request was only to fix shading and had nothing to do with political pressure.


R.E. Wall, director of Prescott's Downtown Mural Project, said he and other artists were subjected to slurs from motorists as they worked on the painting at one of the town's most prominent intersections.

"We consistently, for two months, had people shouting racial slander from their cars," Wall said. "We had children painting with us, and here come these yells of (epithet for Blacks) and (epithet for Hispanics)."

Faces in the mural were drawn from photographs of children enrolled at Miller Valley, a K-5 school with 380 students and the highest ethnic mix of any school in Prescott.

[J Arcane]

Apparently, Gov. Brewer's father died fighting the Nazis 10 years after the war ended: http://www.arizonaguardian.com/azg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2101:brewer&catid=937:campaigns-a-elections-fp

[ShivaX]

Apparently, Gov. Brewer's father died fighting the Nazis 10 years after the war ended: http://www.arizonaguardian.com/azg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2101:brewer&catid=937:campaigns-a-elections-fp

You know "died fighting the Nazi regime in Germany" and "died from toxic fumes making shells used against the Nazi regime in Germany" are totally the same things. I mean its basically the same. Ask Richard Blumenthal how serving in Vietnam and serving during Vietnam work out to be the same deal.

[Kelegacy]

His name was Wilford Drinkwine. I guarantee the guy died of alcohol related issues.

[Ink Asylum]

But no, the new laws aren't at all a reaction to racism. Nope. Nuh uh.

[Ox]

But no, the new laws aren't at all a reaction to racism. Nope. Nuh uh.
Question: does it matter?

Let's stipulate for a moment that the law is motivated by racism. But let's also stipulate that the law doesn't violate anyone's rights. Does the first sentence still matter, and if so, how?

I doubt you can find any law in history that was only supported for good and noble reasons. Everyone is evil, and politics is a place where our baser instincts often find satisfaction. I'm genuinely unsure whether that's relevant in evaluating the laws created thereby.

[ShivaX]

Question: does it matter?

Thats actually a kinda intriguing question that I'm not up on my game enough to really answer. My gut says no, but then again I don't like the Arizona law since it does a poor job of defining things which is just asking for trouble. That and when the people who sign it into law effectively say "I dunno what it means," it doesn't make you think it was a good idea.

It does reaffirm the whole "Arizona is full of racists" mindset though. I live in a state thats far from free of racism, but I can't think of many people that would have the balls to scream things from their cars at people at a busy intersection.

[Ink Asylum]

Question: does it matter?

Does it matter legally? No. Does it matter morally? Yes. When you have defenders of the law saying it has nothing to do with racism incidents like this show how much bullshit that is. Arizona is turning into the modern poster state for racist backlash against minorities.

[Ink Asylum]

It does reaffirm the whole "Arizona is full of racists" mindset though. I live in a state thats far from free of racism, but I can't think of many people that would have the balls to scream things from their cars at people at a busy intersection.

Not just people. Children. Children from a school with a strong diversity are painting pictures of themselves and their classmates working together and racist fuckwads scream slurs at them from their cars.

[Ultima Thulian]

It would matter if the so called "foundation" of "rights" and "equality" that people work themselves into a patriotic circlejerk when espousing this country's glory were actually taken seriously.

Of course, it's been a crock of shit since day one, so no, it doesn't matter.

[evilgoodwin]

Apparently, Gov. Brewer's father died fighting the Nazis 10 years after the war ended: http://www.arizonaguardian.com/azg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2101:brewer&catid=937:campaigns-a-elections-fp

Maybe he was fighting nazis in a bar 10 years later. And his lung disease killed him during the bar fight.

[MagGnome]

But no, the new laws aren't at all a reaction to racism. Nope. Nuh uh.

Of course not! Why would you think such a thing? ;)

[National Kato]

Justice Department will sue Arizona over SB1070 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070601928.html?hpid=topnews). [WP]
The lawsuit, which three sources said could be filed as early as Tuesday, will invoke for its main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption," which is based on the Constitution's supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, the sources said.

But the filing is likely to have a civil rights component as well, arguing that the Arizona law would lead to police harassment of U.S. citizens and foreigners, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the government has not announced its plans. President Obama has warned that the law could violate citizens' civil rights, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has expressed concern that it could drive a wedge between police and immigrant communities.

AP link. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jup3stJNgod5yvfvOU1IInU0erAwD9GPKUOO0)

President Barack Obama addressed the Arizona law in a speech on immigration reform last week. He touched on one of the major concerns of federal officials, that other states were poised to follow Arizona by crafting their own immigration enforcement laws.

"As other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country," Obama said. "A patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed."

[AversionFX]

It would matter if the so called "foundation" of "rights" and "equality" that people work themselves into a patriotic circlejerk when espousing this country's glory were actually taken seriously.


Are you suggesting that people sneaking into the country illegally deserve the same rights as you?

[TheFlyingOrc]

Are you suggesting that people sneaking into the country illegally deserve the same rights as you?

Well, the rights discussed in the declaration of independence are considered inalienable regardless of anything about a person.

However, it is not the responsibility of a country to guarantee those rights to those who are not its citizens.

They deserve them, but it is impractical for a government to extend them to those over whom it has no authority, I guess.

[Vigil80]

They deserve them, but it is impractical for a government to extend them to those over whom it has no authority, I guess.
You can be confident in your response, it's totally correct. Loosely stated, the idea that the US should take responsibility for non-citizens seems to be one of the chief complaints about the nation's foreign policy.

[Ultima Thulian]

Are you suggesting that people sneaking into the country illegally deserve the same rights as you?

No. Though I think that we need to completely overhaul the process of becoming a citizen. This archaic lottery shit is for the birds. It needs to resemble more a meritocracy than the random bullshit we got now.

Back to my post though, what I'm saying is that "rights" don't exist. It's a made up notion. Every "right" in this country is at best a temporary privilege. Ask the Cherokee about their "rights." Or the Japanese during WWII. Or blacks prior to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. The list goes on.

edit: In short, these were all examples of actual citizens getting a big red, white, and blue "Fuck you!" from Uncle Sam. If they can't get a square deal, then there ain't a snowball's chance in Hell that an illegal citizen would. Not that they should, mind you, but it shows how this game is played.

As for my direct feelings for Arizona, I do think their law is misguided and possibly racist, BUT I don't blame them for their actions nor should anyone else. If the federal govt didn't dick around for the past 30 years (or more likely than not, enjoy the benefits of a strong, yet cheap, agricultural core that illegal labor allows for) and did something about the situation, then maybe states wouldn't have to do it on their own. And I apologize if my response is somewhat odd...but this thread is old and I don't know where the track of thought that my post originally came from and I'm not re-reading this thread to find out.

[National Kato]

Back to my post though, what I'm saying is that "rights" don't exist. It's a made up notion.

5YGemRd6eG0

[Vigil80]

Back to my post though, what I'm saying is that "rights" don't exist.Oh geez, is it time for another George Carlin clip already? ;)

BUT I don't blame them for their actions nor should anyone else. If the federal govt didn't dick around for the past 30 years...
This is one of the biggest reasons why I say good on you, Arizona. When I read that quote from Obama, all I could think was, you're right, we do need one clear national standard. Care to enforce one?

[ShivaX]

This is one of the biggest reasons why I say good on you, Arizona. When I read that quote from Obama, all I could think was, you're right, we do need one clear national standard. Care to enforce one?

Wouldn't that require Congress to actually do something about it?

I'm foggy on how it all works, but if the executive could just do it by fiat, I would think something would've been done by now. Then again every executive has been afraid of the issue since no matter what you choose you're going to piss off someone anyway.

[Vigil80]

The understood "you" was also a generalized one. :p I assumed Obama was essentially speaking for the executive and legislative branches. But yes, thus far both branches have been content to sandbag or just ignore the issue entirely.

[ShivaX]

The understood "you" was also a generalized one. :p I assumed Obama was essentially speaking for the executive and legislative branches. But yes, thus far both branches have been content to sandbag or just ignore the issue entirely.

Gotcha. It just came off as a "Obama isn't doing his job" kind of vibe, when its more a matter of "the Feds have been dodging this issue forever."

[J Arcane]

Gotcha. It just came off as a "Obama isn't doing his job" kind of vibe, when its more a matter of "the Feds have been dodging this issue forever."
And they've been dodging it because the dirty secret is that our society has become reliant on their non-person status to function as it does.

[ShivaX]

And they've been dodging it because the dirty secret is that our society has become reliant on their non-person status to function as it does.

Well that and both parties want the Hispanic vote and doing nothing doesn't jeopardize that. Increasing enforcement would likely piss off one of the biggest voting blocs of the future, while being lax on enforcement is likely to piss off the biggest voting blocs of the present.

[DoctorFinger]

No. Though I think that we need to completely overhaul the process of becoming a citizen. This archaic lottery shit is for the birds. It needs to resemble more a meritocracy than the random bullshit we got now. In theory our immigration process is a meritocracy. Workers with skills and talents which make them commodities get in with little hassle. Someone with a PhD in aeronautics probably isn't waiting too long for their resident alien card.

The problem is they account for, what, 20% of the immigrant pool, tops. The rest of the potential immigrants are mostly poor, uneducated laborers. Other than allowing only the hot ones in, how do you differentiate between them to make it more merit-based?

[Generation ABXY]

Other than allowing only the hot ones in...

Wait, why is that off the table? I kind of like it...

[ShivaX]

In theory our immigration process is a meritocracy. Workers with skills and talents which make them commodities get in with little hassle. Someone with a PhD in aeronautics probably isn't waiting too long for their resident alien card.

The problem is they account for, what, 20% of the immigrant pool, tops. The rest of the potential immigrants are mostly poor, uneducated laborers. Other than allowing only the hot ones in, how do you differentiate between them to make it more merit-based?

Well that method is pretty much what every other nation uses.
You have a PhD? Welcome to our nation!
You don't have four years of college? You can't come in!

[Voodoo]

German or French naturalization law seems pretty good upon reading...

German citizenship may be acquired by naturalisation by those with permanent residence who have lived in Germany for 8 years. Additional requirements include an adequate command of the German language and an ability to be self-supporting without recourse to welfare.

Applicants for naturalisation are normally expected to prove they have renounced their existing nationality, or will lose this automatically upon naturalisation. An exception applies to those unable to give up their nationality easily (such as refugees).

A person aged 18 or above may apply for French citizenship by naturalisation after five years' habitual and continuous residence in France (if married and with children, then the applicant must be living in France with his/her family). [4] In addition, it is required that the applicant has his/her primary source of income in France during the five year period. Those applying who are not European Union, European Economic Area or Swiss nationals are required to be in possession of a "titre de séjour" (a residence permit).
Exceptions to the residence period include:

A] The residence period is reduced to two years for those who have successfully studied at a French university or grande école for two years [5]

B] The residence period may be completely waived:
B.1] for citizens of countries where French is one of the official languages (if French is their mother tongue or if they have spent at least five years in a school/in education under the medium of French)
B.2] those who used to be French, are no longer French and desire to have their French nationality restored
B.3] those who are refugees
B.4] for those who have served in the French military.

C] Naturalisation will only be successful for those who are judged to have integrated into French society (i.e. by virtue of language skills and understanding of rights and responsibilities of a French citizen, to be demonstrated during an interview at the local prefecture), and who show loyalty to French institutions.

D] Naturalisation through residency is accorded by publication of a decree in the Journal Officiel by decision of the Ministry of Labour, Social Cohesion and Housing. There is an obligatory delay of 18 months from the date of submission before the applicant is notified of the result of his/her naturalisation application.

Sorry, wanted to add Mexico's law as well...

Mexicans by naturalization are:

A] those that obtain from the Secretariat of Foreign Affairs a letter of naturalization; and

B] the man or a woman married with a Mexican national, that reside in Mexican territory and that fulfill all the requirements set forth in the Mexican nationality law, namely to have lived with his or her spouse for two years immediately prior to the date of his or her application.

The Nationality Law establishes also that a foreigner that wishes to naturalize must:

A] present their application to the Secretariat of Foreign Affairs;

B] formulate the renunciation and taking of the oath of nationality once this has been given;
prove that she or he speaks Spanish, knows the history of the country and has integrated to the national culture; and

C] prove that she or he has lived in Mexico for five years immediately prior to the submission of the application, or

C.1] two years of residency if:

C.1.a] she or he is a direct descendant of a Mexican by birth; or

C.1.b] is the mother or father of a Mexican by birth; or

C.1.c] is a national of a Latin American or Iberian country; or

C.1.d] to the judgment of the Secretariat, she or he has performed or created outstanding works in a cultural, social, scientific, technical, artistic, sports or business area that benefit the nation, in which case, the foreigner is not required to have resided in the country for the number of years prescribed in the law; or

C.2] one year of residency if she or he as been adopted by a Mexican national, as well as all minors, who are second generation descendants, and who have been under tutelage of a Mexican national.

[DoctorFinger]

Wait, why is that off the table? I kind of like it...
We live in a world where Snooki is considered hot. My faith in others' ability to judge attractiveness is at low ebb.

Also, I should make a movie called "Let the Hot Ones in"

[Generation ABXY]

We live in a world where Snooki is considered hot.

And here I didn't think anything could drive me to drink. O_o

[ShivaX]

We live in a world where Snooki is considered hot.

Wha? Y... Ahhhh...
That makes me have this response to the world:
pSZ4y1X83oI

[Ultima Thulian]

In theory our immigration process is a meritocracy. Workers with skills and talents which make them commodities get in with little hassle. Someone with a PhD in aeronautics probably isn't waiting too long for their resident alien card.

The problem is they account for, what, 20% of the immigrant pool, tops. The rest of the potential immigrants are mostly poor, uneducated laborers. Other than allowing only the hot ones in, how do you differentiate between them to make it more merit-based?

By making most all outlets for citizenship based on work or merit. I'm telling ya, we could solve so many problems this way. Weakened infrastructure? Work 2 years at min wage to help fix our infrastructure. Meet your end of the bargain and earn you card and maybe a raise. Serve two years in our military? Card. Willing to pick up those shitty agricultural jobs no one else does so our agricultural core doesn't melt? How about 2 years at min wage (which is much better than what most of them are getting)? Card. And that's another thing...we need to enforce the laws we already have in place. The biggest incentive for companies to hire illegals is because they work longer and cheaper. Take that away.

I'm not saying the illegal immigration problem is easy to solve (it's not), but our system is so haphazard and convoluted and archaic. I just wish we could get the Mexico govt to play ball, but they don't do jackshit, which makes the problem for us all the more difficult.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I'm not saying the illegal immigration problem is easy to solve (it's not), but our system is so haphazard and convoluted and archaic. I just wish we could get the Mexico govt to play ball, but they don't do jackshit, which makes the problem for us all the more difficult.

Well, we're a convenient dumping ground for people Mexico doesn't want.

Also Mexico is terrible.

[Ink Asylum]

Yup. Read a very persuasive article recently that talked about how any measures on our side (border patrols, border fences, deportation, etc) are like trying to patch the front of a dam. It may stop leaks here or there but the water will just find other ways to get through. Whatever money and effort we spend trying to plug holes in our border would be much better spent reducing the pressure caused by the horrible economy and crime in Mexico, which is why so many people will try to illegally immigrate in the first place.

[johnperkins21]

Yup. Read a very persuasive article recently that talked about how any measures on our side (border patrols, border fences, deportation, etc) are like trying to patch the front of a dam. It may stop leaks here or there but the water will just find other ways to get through. Whatever money and effort we spend trying to plug holes in our border would be much better spent reducing the pressure caused by the horrible economy and crime in Mexico, which is why so many people will try to illegally immigrate in the first place.

Or we could spend that money increasing the amount of crime and killing the economy here even more so that America is less attractive than Mexico. Or even better, we could start flooding the airwaves in Mexico and border states with ads for how awesome Canada is so that they just skip right over us and emigrate to Canada instead.

[Thanasimos]

Or we could spend that money increasing the amount of crime and killing the economy here even more so that America is less attractive than Mexico. Or even better, we could start flooding the airwaves in Mexico and border states with ads for how awesome Canada is so that they just skip right over us and emigrate to Canada instead.

!!

Idea: Deport all illegal immigrants, regardless of their origin, to Canada. It's not like they'll waste time trying to come back, since at the very least Canadia is a just-as-good place; and with the US economy like it is, more than a few will line up and save us the trouble of finding them. And if Canada tries to deport them to us in revenge, we, uh. . . I haven't thought that through yet.

[Ultima Thulian]

Well, we're a convenient dumping ground for people Mexico doesn't want.

Also Mexico is terrible.

Exactly. And what can we do? We can deport them (which I support), but even that is mostly pointless, as nothing happens to them and they just come back.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Exactly. And what can we do? We can deport them (which I support), but even that is mostly pointless, as nothing happens to them and they just come back.

There's nothing that can be done without Mexican support, and Mexico won't help because

A. There's no benefit for Mexico
B. What are we going to do about it? It's not like we'll declare war on them or even stop trade. The cost of escalating with them isn't worth the benefit.

What they should probably do is make their country livable that would help.

[evilgoodwin]

Deport them... to a different country. Problem solved.

Hey! Problem.... solved!

[Ink Asylum]

Thank heavens for Deportania. Just drop them there.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Thank heavens for Deportania. Just drop them there.

I think you made that place up.

[Ink Asylum]

Ok, fine. Put them in a country that's used to getting undesirable lawbreakers dropped on their shores. Australia.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Ok, fine. Put them in a country that's used to getting undesirable lawbreakers dropped on their shores. Australia.

You know what country has undesirable lawbreakers spillin' over our shores.

'merica.

[MagGnome]

What they should probably do is make their country livable that would help.

You say that like it's an easy thing to do.

[Zero]

Well, we're a convenient dumping ground for people Mexico doesn't want.

Also Mexico is terrible.

Well that's blatantly false. Who are the corrupt government and
the wealthy tycoons supposed to exploit if they all come here?

[AversionFX]

There's nothing that can be done without Mexican support, and Mexico won't help because

A. There's no benefit for Mexico
B. What are we going to do about it? It's not like we'll declare war on them or even stop trade. The cost of escalating with them isn't worth the benefit.

What they should probably do is make their country livable that would help.

The most important reason that Mexico wouldn't help is that they depend on the money sent back home from Mexicans working in the States.