Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I'm not a fan of Arizona's, law, but for me it's a gigantic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
at the people boycotting the state. at the people boycotting the state.
quote:How about a trade -- the federal government stops taking on state powers, and the states will stop taking on federal powers. Deal?
You're right! How dare people object to states taking on federal powers!
quote:Depends. Which ones?
How about a trade -- the federal government stops taking on state powers, and the states will stop taking on federal powers. Deal?
quote:Other than the fact that the Constitution allows one and explicitly bars the other, that is.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I think Arizonians by and large are trying to respond to a situation the federal government has proven inept at handling. It's no different than the federal government stepping in because the state's are not handling a particular situation.
quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I'm not a fan of Arizona's, law, but for me it's a gigantic
quote:Also agreed.
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
While I don't like Arizona's law, I'm also aware of the major problems Arizona has with illegal immigration. I don't have an answer. I just don't think this is it.
quote:We're just going to end up debating the merits of The Necessary and Proper Clause vs the 10th Amendment.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Other than the fact that the Constitution allows one and explicitly bars the other, that is.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I think Arizonians by and large are trying to respond to a situation the federal government has proven inept at handling. It's no different than the federal government stepping in because the state's are not handling a particular situation.
quote:It's possible that many Americans simply haven't considered the implications of the law in terms of racial profiling, and just know it as "the anti illegal immigrant law."
Again having said I disagree with the bill, polls are showing more than 50% of American support the bill. I find it fascinating that I am out of touch with so many people on this matter. I'd like to understand the mind of the opposition a bit better.
quote:You know what that would get reported as? "Hispanics too lazy to show up for work."
I think a more effective boycott would be for Hispanic people to have organized no shows at places where they work.
quote:How about all of them?
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
quote:Depends. Which ones?
How about a trade -- the federal government stops taking on state powers, and the states will stop taking on federal powers. Deal?
quote:I really don't think that's true. If it really was a mass protest, and every Hispanic person in the state, or even just the illegal immigrants, had a sick-out day, and showed the meaningful impact that they have collectively on the economy there, and the integral role they play in the day to day operation of things, it wouldn't be reported as "lazy Hispanics." Even if I think on any regular day the Media might be that stupid, this isn't the case, since it's already a hot button issue, and such a protest would be viewed through that lens.
Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:You know what that would get reported as? "Hispanics too lazy to show up for work."
I think a more effective boycott would be for Hispanic people to have organized no shows at places where they work.
quote:This is what I also hope happens. I'm going to give Arizona's government the benefit of the doubt and say that this bill was a desperate act to take control of a situation that the Federal government has let spin out of control because of partisan bickering and a lack of will to take on a tough issue for fear of political backlash. It was perhaps a well-intentioned fix for a serious problem, but it was executed quite poorly. Hopefully this will prove to Congress that the border states aren't content to wait forever, and it's time to make the hard choices. A compromise needs to be reached, but I suspect that the political calendar makes a solution somewhat unlikely for another couple years.
From daventor:
Hopefully the bill will lead to the federal government itself confronting the issue and actually doing something meaningful.
quote:Mean mean private citizens, how dare they protest.
Originally posted by Lisa:
Mean, mean Arizona. How dare they actually enforce the law.
quote:This, for me, is the crux of it. Plenty of high schoolers are running around with ID that claims they're 21. Is a driver's license going to cut it? Or are we talking about needing birth certificates and visa documents? What's going to constitute proof, anyway?
Originally posted by scholarette:
I may be a US citizen, but if I can't prove it, I can be arrested and detained.
quote:Isn't this true for all races? If you are stopped for jaywalking and given a ticket, don't they ask you for identification? If you cannot provide any identification then I believe it varies from state to state but I think they can detain you.
always carry your papers in case you accidentally jaywalk or miss a garbage can with your gum wrapper -- that other races do not.
quote:No it isn't. This could get ugly very quickly unless it is watched carefully. Stopping every 'dark skinned' person is wrong. After a violation of the law is committed, checking people's identification to make sure they are who they say they are, that there are no outstanding warrants, or other legal issues is right.
God, this is political correctness run amok.
quote:I'll go back to what I said before...why not hold these talks right on the border where people are crossing? Why not have some high profile artists, like Michael Moore, live there for 60 or 90 days?
A good amount of historians involved in the discussion advocated keeping the conference in Phoenix, but reorganizing it to have a social justice focus, with specific panels addressing the immigration issue and the like. Some even talked about going out into parks and giving history lessons with the aim of educating the masses. I personally like that idea. Seems like artists could do the same type of thing.
quote:*shrug* 9/11 got racial profiling, extraordinary rendition, and warrant-less wiretapping going. Pearl Harbour, the Japanese detention camps.
Originally posted by AchillesHeel:
... Its just more nationalist/racist bullying and the fact that many seemingly rational people I know are in support of it worries me.
quote:From the law itself:
Originally posted by scholarette:
The story linked by Chris states that the police are not interpreting a driver's license as sufficient proof. As far as not carrying ID, lots of people who go out jogging don't carry ID. They aren't driving so why should they? There are people who don't have driver's licenses (most of these people have state issued ID). You are supposed to keep your birth certificate in a safe secure location, not on you. When traveling, you are told to put your passport in the hotel safe.
quote:Because your immigration status is checked prior to obtaining an Arizona driver license by the DMV, a driver license is considered acceptable proof of your right to be in the country. However, not all states do an immigration check first so unless the police memorize which states do and which states don't, out-of-state driver licenses are not going to be valid. And of course, there's the consideration you bring up pf situations when you're out walking on the street without any form of ID, or international tourists who may not be always carrying their passports - like my in-laws, who always keep their passports in a safe place in the house.
A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
quote:This has already demonstrably proved false. People have already been pulled over and then had police detain them and demand them to provide their birth certificate, without regard to the presence of a legal commercial driver's licence.
A drivers license, government, state, or local ID are all valid forms of identification. If you have one of those it won't go any further than that.
quote:Have you read the bill? It specifically allows racial profiling to be a consideration. From the legal analysis I linked to above:
Originally posted by Geraine:
Achilles, why would your friend be worried about being pulled over because of the color of his skin? The bill specifically prohibits racial profiling. The bill may actually HELP the friend. Have you read the bill? Its only 16 pages.
quote:The authors - all legal scholars at various universities in Arizona - basically answer that last implicit question with a big fat "Yes" later on in the paper.
What is racial profiling?
We define racial profiling as using race as a factor in an investigation, stop, or arrest, other than where there is a description of a particular suspect's race. This is a common way to define racial profiling, though not the only way. But we think this definition accurately and usefully identifies when race is, or is not, a critical factor in the exercise of police powers. Defining racial profiling in this way does not answer the question of when the use of race in deciding whether to stop, search, examine or arrest a person is legal or illegal.
Does SB 1070 authorize racial profiling?
Yes, the literal text authorizes racial profiling. But the interpretation and application of SB 1070 with regard to race remain uncertain.
Although public officials have stated that the legislation prohibits racial profiling and that profiling is not otherwise legal, these statements are not consistent with the text of the statute or with existing law. The law says that law enforcement officers "may not consider race, color or national origin . . . except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." Decisions by both the United States Supreme Court and the Arizona Supreme Court have identified "ethnic factors" as a relevant consideration in enforcement of immigration laws, and have further determined that the U.S. Constitution allows race to be considered in immigration enforcement.
...
As we will discuss, an equally important question is whether race would influence law enforcement, even if the statute had stated that race may not be a factor in decisions to stop or request information, and even if the statute is interpreted to forbid racial profiling despite its current language. The unavoidable issue is whether race so pervades the underlying determination of immigration status that it will inevitably infect law enforcement decision making,
either explicitly or implicitly.
quote:A big fat yes to following the United States and Arizona Constitutions. So we need to change the US and all states Constitutions because they allow racial profiling? Or we need to change the US and AZ Constitutions to say that racial profiling is allowed in 49 other states but not this one?
The authors - all legal scholars at various universities in Arizona - basically answer that last implicit question with a big fat "Yes" later on in the paper.
quote:
The constitution does not mandate profiling by virtue of not expressly condemning it. In fact, between various clauses of the constitution (including but not limited to the equal protection clause) the Constitution is fairly against the act of profiling in practice, since it represents unequal representation by the law.
quote:
The law says that law enforcement officers "may not consider race, color or national origin . . . except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." Decisions by both the United States Supreme Court and the Arizona Supreme Court have identified "ethnic factors" as a relevant consideration in enforcement of immigration laws, and have further determined that the U.S. Constitution allows race to be considered in immigration enforcement.
quote:
In fact, I believe your question counts as both a red herring and a false dilemma in addition to being tenuous in terms of constitutional application. An impressive feat, but not really productive in terms of making a case for the AZ law. Or racial profiling.
quote:
Decisions by both the United States Supreme Court and the Arizona Supreme Court have identified "ethnic factors" as a relevant consideration in enforcement of immigration laws, and have further determined that the U.S. Constitution allows race to be considered in immigration enforcement.
...
quote:You don't know that, nor have I said that.
I'm glad to know that you are expressly for racial profiling, though.
quote:Then do you want the law to expressly forbid racial profiling, or do you prefer that the police be allowed to profile based on race?
You don't know that, nor have I said that.
quote:By "last implicit question" I meant the last implicit question - i.e. "The unavoidable issue is whether race so pervades the underlying determination of immigration status that it will inevitably infect law enforcement decision making,
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:A big fat yes to following the United States and Arizona Constitutions. So we need to change the US and all states Constitutions because they allow racial profiling? Or we need to change the US and AZ Constitutions to say that racial profiling is allowed in 49 other states but not this one?
The authors - all legal scholars at various universities in Arizona - basically answer that last implicit question with a big fat "Yes" later on in the paper.
quote:There are numerous other scholars that disagree with those against the bill. It is not as simple as that. The bill is air tight. It is so carefully worded that to strike this down as unconstitutional, you would also need to go after all of the federal immigration laws. This will probably happen sooner or later, no doubt sped up by the passage of this bill.
Originally posted by Jhai:
quote:Have you read the bill? It specifically allows racial profiling to be a consideration. From the legal analysis I linked to above:
Originally posted by Geraine:
Achilles, why would your friend be worried about being pulled over because of the color of his skin? The bill specifically prohibits racial profiling. The bill may actually HELP the friend. Have you read the bill? Its only 16 pages.
quote:The authors - all legal scholars at various universities in Arizona - basically answer that last implicit question with a big fat "Yes" later on in the paper.
What is racial profiling?
We define racial profiling as using race as a factor in an investigation, stop, or arrest, other than where there is a description of a particular suspect's race. This is a common way to define racial profiling, though not the only way. But we think this definition accurately and usefully identifies when race is, or is not, a critical factor in the exercise of police powers. Defining racial profiling in this way does not answer the question of when the use of race in deciding whether to stop, search, examine or arrest a person is legal or illegal.
Does SB 1070 authorize racial profiling?
Yes, the literal text authorizes racial profiling. But the interpretation and application of SB 1070 with regard to race remain uncertain.
Although public officials have stated that the legislation prohibits racial profiling and that profiling is not otherwise legal, these statements are not consistent with the text of the statute or with existing law. The law says that law enforcement officers "may not consider race, color or national origin . . . except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." Decisions by both the United States Supreme Court and the Arizona Supreme Court have identified "ethnic factors" as a relevant consideration in enforcement of immigration laws, and have further determined that the U.S. Constitution allows race to be considered in immigration enforcement.
...
As we will discuss, an equally important question is whether race would influence law enforcement, even if the statute had stated that race may not be a factor in decisions to stop or request information, and even if the statute is interpreted to forbid racial profiling despite its current language. The unavoidable issue is whether race so pervades the underlying determination of immigration status that it will inevitably infect law enforcement decision making,
either explicitly or implicitly.
quote:Geraine, I would like to second the suggestion that you read the analysis Jhai linked to - in its entirety. This is addressed specifically.
The bill basically says they are going to fully cooperate and help the federal government where they legally can.
quote:I want the law to state that if you commit a crime and it is determined that you are in the country illegally, then you may be deported. Kind of like most countries around the world do, ie Canada.
Then do you want the law to expressly forbid racial profiling, or do you prefer that the police be allowed to profile based on race?
quote:and neither does the Arizona law.
Also, nothing you quoted there contradicts or even addresses what I said, which was that the constitution does not mandate racial profiling.
quote:So if the law is in accord with the constitutions, what's the problem?
Allowing racial profiling is "a big fat yes to following the constitution," disallowing racial profiling is "a big fat yes to following the constitution" -- since either way, the law is in accord with the constitutions.
quote:Yes, I get you just can't have a civil talk about things and have to be snarky to somehow prove something about yourself. Your comments would have been fine on their own, but you just have to add in a stupid line like "Get it yet, darkknight?". You can't just leave the stupid stuff like that out, can you? I'm not insulting you or anyone else but for some reason you have to keep antagonizing. It really isn't that hard. Jhai is posting some good points without resorting to "Get it yet" tactics to belittle the other person. Look, if you don't want people like me at Hatrack, just say so. There are plenty of other forums out there, and you can big the biggest fish in this particular little pond.
Get it yet, darkknight?
quote:"Constitutional" does not necessarily mean just.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:So if the law is in accord with the constitutions, what's the problem?
Allowing racial profiling is "a big fat yes to following the constitution," disallowing racial profiling is "a big fat yes to following the constitution" -- since either way, the law is in accord with the constitutions.
quote:I keep hoping somebody will come up with something that will convince me that this, which is my reaction as well, is wrong.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
This law is a defacto mandate for everyone to carry documentation on their person proving that they are legal citizens/residents/vistors.
The only reason its tolerated at all is because the right wing white guys, who usually scream bloody murder anytime someone mentions a national ID law, are confident this law only applies to colored people.
quote:Are you going to make the case that if something is not expressly disallowed by the federal and state constitutions, it is automatically a good law with no chance of severe sociopolitical ramifications?
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:So if the law is in accord with the constitutions, what's the problem?
Allowing racial profiling is "a big fat yes to following the constitution," disallowing racial profiling is "a big fat yes to following the constitution" -- since either way, the law is in accord with the constitutions.
quote:Very true which is why I believe the actions of the police should be watched carefully to make sure they do not start stopping people demanding to see their papers.
"Constitutional" does not necessarily mean just.
quote:So... your response is that police abuse of authority against minorities will decrease because they will recieve special training to help them understand racial profiling is wrong... and ofcourse they did not know that before hand, which is the real reason they have been persecuting people for not being white in Arizona... I'm just gonna drop out of this topic.
Originally posted by Geraine:
Achilles, One would hope that since the police are now being trained that racial profiling is frowned upon (I'll put it that way to please Jhai) some of that would stop.
quote:What's your alternate supposition? That it is an old document written by some men who were psychic and would see an era filled with things like the internet?
Originally posted by Geraine:
To them it is just some old document written by some men that had no idea how life would be for us in our day.
quote:No.
Are you going to make the case that if something is not expressly disallowed by the federal and state constitutions, it is automatically a good law with no chance of severe sociopolitical ramifications?
quote:Is Mexican immigration law racist? How about Canadian?
This law is a defacto mandate for everyone to carry documentation on their person proving that they are legal citizens/residents/vistors.
The only reason its tolerated at all is because the right wing white guys, who usually scream bloody murder anytime someone mentions a national ID law, are confident this law only applies to colored people.
quote:Ok then, you've answered, yourself, the pointlessnes of your supposition. There can be problems even when laws are in accord with the constitution! So, it's the height of uselessness to ask "if it's in accord with the constitutions, what's the problem?'
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:No.
Are you going to make the case that if something is not expressly disallowed by the federal and state constitutions, it is automatically a good law with no chance of severe sociopolitical ramifications?
quote:Martyr issues, much? I ask because I genuinely wonder! You have shown very serious and consistent issues with reading comprehension, both to me and others in the past; it greatly increases the need for very simple requests and queries to help others determine where you are along the issue and to what extent you have figured out (or misapprehended) other people's positions.
Yes, I get you just can't have a civil talk about things and have to be snarky to somehow prove something about yourself. Your comments would have been fine on their own, but you just have to add in a stupid line like "Get it yet, darkknight?". You can't just leave the stupid stuff like that out, can you? I'm not insulting you or anyone else but for some reason you have to keep antagonizing. It really isn't that hard. Jhai is posting some good points without resorting to "Get it yet" tactics to belittle the other person. Look, if you don't want people like me at Hatrack, just say so. There are plenty of other forums out there, and you can big the biggest fish in this particular little pond.
quote:Rabbit's point doesn't show that the law is racist, it shows that its supporters are racist.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:Is Mexican immigration law racist? How about Canadian?
This law is a defacto mandate for everyone to carry documentation on their person proving that they are legal citizens/residents/vistors.
The only reason its tolerated at all is because the right wing white guys, who usually scream bloody murder anytime someone mentions a national ID law, are confident this law only applies to colored people.
quote:And just like that you make yourself look like an idiot. You preach that racial profiling is wrong, then profile right white guys at anti national ID. Well played.
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
This law is a defacto mandate for everyone to carry documentation on their person proving that they are legal citizens/residents/vistors.
The only reason its tolerated at all is because the right wing white guys, who usually scream bloody murder anytime someone mentions a national ID law, are confident this law only applies to colored people.
quote:I don't think it shows that either.
Rabbit's point doesn't show that the law is racist, it shows that its supporters are racist.
quote:?????
And just like that you make yourself look like an idiot. You preach that racial profiling is wrong, then profile right white guys at anti national ID.
quote:Well, it's prima facie evidence that they are.
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I don't think it shows that either.
Rabbit's point doesn't show that the law is racist, it shows that its supporters are racist.
quote:What?
Originally posted by Geraine:
And just like that you make yourself look like an idiot. You preach that racial profiling is wrong, then profile right white guys at anti national ID. Well played.
quote:Huh? What about it?
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
How about Canadian?
quote:http://www.bastionlaw.ca/-rights.asp
The driver of a motor vehicle has to produce identification on demand by a police officer, under provincial laws. Otherwise, there is no general right of the police to demand I.D. from someone who is just going about his or her business on the street.
quote:http://www.pekingduck.org/2010/04/james-fallows-china-and-arizona/
Here’s the point of comparison between the impending Arizona situation and China: it’s no fun knowing — as citizen and foreigner alike know in China, and as Hispanic-looking people in Arizona soon will — that you can be asked to show proof of your legality at an official’s whim. But if it’s sobering to think that the closest analogy to a new U.S. legal situation is daily life in Communist China, we should also look on the bright side. With some notable and serious exceptions, I typically did not see Chinese police asking for papers on a whim. Usually something had to happen first. Maybe soon the Chinese State Security apparatus can travel to Arizona and give lectures to local police and sheriffs. They can explain how to avoid going crazy with a new power that so invites abuse. “Civil Liberties: Learning from China” can be the name of the course.
quote:I answered the question:
Ok then, you've answered, yourself, the pointlessnes of your supposition. There can be problems even when laws are in accord with the constitution! So, it's the height of uselessness to ask "if it's in accord with the constitutions, what's the problem?'
quote:No you don't.
Martyr issues, much? I ask because I genuinely wonder!
quote:AKA What I Say Is Smart, and since you don't agree with me, you are stupid.
You have shown very serious and consistent issues with reading comprehension, both to me and others in the past; it greatly increases the need for very simple requests and queries to help others determine where you are along the issue and to what extent you have figured out (or misapprehended) other people's positions.
quote:And your definite intent as evidenced by...
If you want to feel antagonized upon or belittled, that's your choice.
quote:So we have established that you choose deliberately to belittle and antagonize people who do not see, or really agree with, your point of view.
I do, in fact, belittle poor reading and argumentative comprehension, so it's not entirely an unfair claim.
quote:You might want to check up on getting caught committing a crime without proper ID.
Huh? What about it?
We don't have a mandate to carry identification at all times. In fact, in most cases, the police cannot ask for identification.
quote:This is, in and of itself, a perfect example of your reading comprehension issues. If you can take what I actually said and insist on conflating it into this, you massively evidence my original point about requiring to take extra steps with you to make sure that what has actually been said by others is not being hallucinated into entirely different statements in your head.
AKA What I Say Is Smart, and since you don't agree with me, you are stupid.
quote:And here again:
So we have established that you choose deliberately to belittle and antagonize people who do not see, or really agree with, your point of view.
quote:That's cause some of us have lived in Arizona.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Mucus, Arizona law is the same as Canadian law, not Chinese law. Police cannot stop you and ask for ID if you are simply going about your business. It's the assumption of many that the police (of course there is corruption in the police departments, just like there is in Canada too) are lying racists and will be stopping Hispanics without cause to deport them.
quote:No, it's an example of your kind of responses and how you twist things such as your question:
This is, in and of itself, a perfect example of your reading comprehension issues.
quote:You had to know that question was much too ambigious yet you were using it to make your point crystal clear. But you already knew that particular question was not specific enough to pertain to the issue at hand.
Are you going to make the case that if something is not expressly disallowed by the federal and state constitutions, it is automatically a good law with no chance of severe sociopolitical ramifications?
quote:Very serious and consistent issues with reading comprehension? That implies a much lower level of comprehension, which could also be called being stupid. You have not shown how I have a very serious reading comprehension problem. You simply insist that I do, and that I do consistently. Because I do not agree with your side of the arguement does not mean I don't understand, or comprehend, the point you are trying to make. I understand Malanthrop's posts yet I rarely would agree with even a small part of them.
You have shown very serious and consistent issues with reading comprehension, both to me and others in the past
quote:So you do belittle poor reading and argumentative comprehension, not very nice. The comprehension part of the arguement is your specific point of view. Is it possible that someone can comprehend your arguements and believe your arguements are incorrect?
I belittle poor reading and argumentative comprehension'
quote:So why not fight that specific battle? You should easily be able to name the names of all the racist cops in Arizona and have hundreds, if not thousands, of lawsuits filed against them in a very short amount of time. I'm sure the ACLU would love to take on this challenge and it would expose, and eventually remove, the racist police. To be clear, I'm saying police but I mean all officials, like code enforcement, parking authorities, housing inspectors, judges, and so on.
That's cause some of us have lived in Arizona.
quote:I haven't read through to the bottom yet, but I just want to say that if you've paid $5000 in legal fees and visa fees for your wife to get a green card, you've been severely ripped off. We've gone through the same process (with one of the best family immigration attorneys in SF) and only paid about $2,500 - $3000.
Originally posted by Geraine:
I wonder if it has ever ocurred to you that there are plenty of immigrants here in the US that came here legally, paid thousands of dollars to do so, and do not think it is fair that someone just hops the border and comes here without consequence? I've paid over $5000 for my wife so far for her to get everything in order, and she came here legally. My wife is white. She has an accent. She has to carry her green card wherever she goes. Its the law!
quote:
The court documents further assert that, "in [Escobar's] experience as a Law Enforcement Officer, skin color and/or physical features does not provide any race neutral criteria or basis to suspect or identify who is lawfully in the United States." Thus, the provision of the bill requiring police to request identification from anybody they happen to come across who they have "reasonable suspicion" to believe is illegally in the country is nonsensical; it simply pushes law enforcement to use racial profiling as the only means they can think of to guess at undocumented status of any given person.
quote:Hasn't worked on Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio yet, and he's been accused of racial profiling and discrimination for years.
I'm sure the ACLU would love to take on this challenge and it would expose, and eventually remove, the racist police.
quote:This is dangerously naive. You really think that any person's ingrained racial biases are just going to go away because of training? I'm sorry, but this brand of naivety and trust in the moral character of the police is something that only a person privileged by being white (and male, although that applies less to this case) in this country could maintain for long.
Achilles, One would hope that since the police are now being trained that racial profiling is frowned upon (I'll put it that way to please Jhai) some of that would stop.
quote:Have you ever heard of the phrase "driving while black/brown"? It's not some conspiracy theory that racial minorities in the US have - you are systematically treated differently by the justice system depending on your skin tone throughout this country. Not by every police officer, obviously, and the bias isn't equal in every region of the US, but to believe that it doesn't exist is a huge example of white privilege(as much as I generally hate this term, it's apt here).
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:So why not fight that specific battle? You should easily be able to name the names of all the racist cops in Arizona and have hundreds, if not thousands, of lawsuits filed against them in a very short amount of time. I'm sure the ACLU would love to take on this challenge and it would expose, and eventually remove, the racist police. To be clear, I'm saying police but I mean all officials, like code enforcement, parking authorities, housing inspectors, judges, and so on.
That's cause some of us have lived in Arizona.
In Philadelphia a reporter did some investigating reporting and uncovered corrupt police officers shaking down businesses for money. No reason why this can't be done in Arizona.
quote:This is true for much US immigration law, but not for non-citizens marrying citizens. The process there is relatively straight-forward, and relatively cheap - and it's the same process & cost no matter what country a person is from. At most, you can increase the costs by first getting a "fiancée visa" (to bring your fiancée to the US) then applying for parole (to leave the country in an emergency & not have it derail your paperwork) & the right to work while the application for the green card post-marriage goes through. That increases costs some, but not up to $5,000. Lawyer fees could get you that high (lawyers are not required, but I personally recommend them), but only if you're getting ripped off, since there are plenty of excellent lawyers out there for a set fee.
Originally posted by scholarette:
Jhai- immigration law in the US is crazy. Costs are dependent on what country you are immigrating from (which is partially connected to how much those countries charge US citizens for immigration). It also can be highly specific regarding details of your case, what jurisdiction you are in, your educational status etc. Anyone person's experience in immigration is unlikely to match up with anyone else's.
quote:I just caught you in two flat-out examples. Like, you demonstrated it for me promptly after the accusation.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Very serious and consistent issues with reading comprehension? That implies a much lower level of comprehension, which could also be called being stupid. You have not shown how I have a very serious reading comprehension problem.
quote:Thats irrelevant and a red herring.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
You might want to check up on getting caught committing a crime without proper ID.
quote:Sure they can, if they reasonably suspect you of the crime of being an illegal immigrant.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Mucus, Arizona law is the same as Canadian law, not Chinese law. Police cannot stop you and ask for ID if you are simply going about your business.
quote:Meanwhile, in Canada, both foreign passports and PR cards aren't required to be on your person at all times. Ex:
However, for decades federal law has required non-citizens to carry immigration
documents issued to them. 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e). Also, SB 1070 makes possession of acceptable
identification evidence of citizenship, A.R.S. § 11-1051(B), so it is prudent for everyone to carry
identification so status can be proven on the street rather than waiting in jail while records are checked.
quote:So even if you look like an illegal immigrant to a police officer, there's no requirement for the police to check, and no requirement for the non-citizen to show ID.
... the PR card is not a mandatory document within Canada...
quote:Heh. It is if your brains are racist.
Originally posted by Lisa:
It isn't racist to use your brains.
quote:The point is made that making immigrants, legal and otherwise, terrified to talk to police will make the police's job that much harder. And chasing down illegals takes resources away from chasing down crooks.
The FBI numbers show that in the midst of the supposed crime wave, many other cities in the Southwest have had declines in crime similar to Phoenix. El Paso, Texas, just across the Rio Grande from a ferocious drug war in Juarez, where some 5,000 people have been murdered in recent years, saw almost no change in its own crime rate and remains one of the safest cities in the country, with only 12 murders last year. San Antonio saw violent crime drop from 9,699 incidents to 7,844; murders from 116 to 99. Compare that with a city like Detroit, which is a little bigger than El Paso and much smaller than San Antonio—and not exactly a magnet for job-seeking immigrants. Its murder rate went up from 323 in 2008 to 361 in 2009.
quote:Who'd want to receive one? Just sayin'...
I don't give half a s***
quote:PR cards are not the same thing...of course Canada has different rules Mexicans in regards to immigration. Does this imply that Canada is racist towards Hispanics?
Meanwhile, in Canada, both foreign passports and PR cards aren't required to be on your person at all times
quote:
Under Canada’s immigration law, all visitors to Canada require a Temporary Resident Visa, except citizens of countries for which an exemption has been granted under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.
Canada assesses countries against several criteria when deciding whether to impose a visa requirement. Mexico no longer meets all of the criteria for visa exemption. For example, refugee claims from Mexico have almost tripled since 2005, making it the number one source country for claims. In 2008, more than 9,400 claims filed in Canada came from Mexican nationals, representing 25 per cent of all claims received. Of the claims reviewed and finalized in 2008 by the Immigration and Refugee Board, an independent administrative tribunal, only 11 per cent were accepted.
For the past three years, Canada has also seen an increase in immigration violations. This includes Mexican nationals not possessing the proper travel documents or not leaving Canada once their period of stay had expired.
quote:What if the law prohibited the observance of the faith? You'd still want people prosecuted for breaking it? When we believe a law is unjust, we do not want to see that law enforced. We want to see it repealed. Why you insist on this all or nothing approach I have no idea. I suppose you ought to be lobbying for anti-sodomy laws to be enforced more strictly in the states that still have them- clearly homosexuals are *breaking the law*.
Originally posted by Lisa:
Orincoro, I don't give half a s*** about how much melanin a person has in their skin. And if Jews were constantly violating a particular law, I'd expect Jews to be targeted by law enforcement.
quote:Because Canada specifically singles out Mexicans (and Czechs too for what that's worth) for this visa requirement.
Also, what on earth do temporary visa requirements have to do with racial profiling?
quote:First, no it doesn't. If you check the map, there are roughly three billion or more citizens of various countries that require visas to travel to Canada (or the US). Mexicans and Czechs aren't singled out.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Because Canada specifically singles out Mexicans (and Czechs too for what that's worth) for this visa requirement.
quote:Maybe your wife doesn't need to worry, but I would think most Puerto Ricans, being US citizens, wouldn't have to worry either. Yet a Puerto Rican man living in Chicago was recently threatened with deportation despite being a US citizen and producing state-issued identification and a birth certificate.
Originally posted by Geraine:
My wife as been pulled over twice here in Las Vegas they ask to see her drivers license. There must be something in their system that flags her because they ask to see her green card as well. She doesn't have an issue with this at all, because she has nothing to worry about. She is here legally. [/QB]
quote:You seem to be jumping from topic to topic, when did we start talking about deportation issues? The new Arizona law doesn't seem to address deportation.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Toronto activists speaking out against Canadian immigration policies and abuses Canada seems to be having similar deportation issues...
quote:Oooh! Can we have Canadian health care?
Originally posted by Jhai:
And I'm still confused about the apparent moral here of "if Canada does something, it's okay/not bad if the US does it too".
quote:I can answer that for you.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Toronto activists speaking out against Canadian immigration policies and abuses Canada seems to be having similar deportation issues...
quote:I think DK is referring to the fact that Czechs were for a time included in the visa-waiver group for Canada, just as they are currently in the US. However, they were "demoted" to requiring advance visas again because of a significant influx of Roma immigrants settling (mostly illegally) in Canada. So in the sense that the policy was changed specifically for Czechs for that specific reason, Czechs *have* been singled out for this requirement. They are not unique, but the difference is that they have now been specifically denied the access they once had.
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:First, no it doesn't. If you check the map, there are roughly three billion or more citizens of various countries that require visas to travel to Canada (or the US). Mexicans and Czechs aren't singled out.
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Because Canada specifically singles out Mexicans (and Czechs too for what that's worth) for this visa requirement.
Second, visa requirements are determined by citizenship, not by race.
quote:People boycotted AZ because they didn't celebrate the right holidays?
Boycotts also worked when AZ refused to have a MLK Jr day, so there is reason to think they will work again.
quote:I hadn't heard about this before. I think for me it would depend on the motivation behind the refusal to acknowledge the day.
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:People boycotted AZ because they didn't celebrate the right holidays?
Boycotts also worked when AZ refused to have a MLK Jr day, so there is reason to think they will work again.
Let me tell you, that would have caused me to vote against MLK Jr. Day.
quote:Yes, the Super Bowl was moved out of Arizona in response to their refusing to observe MLK day.
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:People boycotted AZ because they didn't celebrate the right holidays?
Boycotts also worked when AZ refused to have a MLK Jr day, so there is reason to think they will work again.
Let me tell you, that would have caused me to vote against MLK Jr. Day.
quote:
Arizona School Demands Black & Latino Students’ Faces On Mural Be Changed To White
Hard to find even the Gallows Humor in this story, so maybe we won’t even try. Maybe it’s time to admit that large chunks of America are in the hands of unreconstructed racists and vulgar idiots, and that the popular election of a black man as president just might’ve pushed these furious, economically doomed old white people into a final rage that is going to end very, very badly. Ready? Here you go: An Arizona elementary school mural featuring the faces of kids who attend the school has been the subject of constant daytime drive-by racist screaming, from adults, as well as a radio talk-show campaign (by an actual city councilman, who has an AM talk-radio show) to remove the black student’s face, and now the school principal has ordered the faces of the Latino and Black students to be changed to Caucasian skin. This is America, in 2010, and there’s a dozen more states and endless white-trash municipalities ready to Officially Adopt this same Official Racist Insanity.
From the Arizona Republic:
A group of artists has been asked to lighten the faces of children depicted in a giant public mural at a Prescott school. The project’s leader says he was ordered to lighten the skin tone after complaints about the children’s ethnicity ….
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).”
The children depicted on the mural, as we mentioned before but feel compelled to repeat, are little kids who go to the school — “a K-5 school with 380 students and the highest ethnic mix of any school in Prescott. Wall said thousands of town residents volunteered or donated to the project.”
And these children, for the past several months as this happy mural encouraging “green transportation” was being painted by local artists, have been treated to the city of Prescott’s finest citizens driving by and yelling “Nigger” and “Spic” at this school wall painted with pictures of the children who attend the school. And this has been encouraged by a city councilman, Steve Blair, who uses his local radio talk show to rile up these people and demand the mural be destroyed.
And now the faces are being painted white, “because of the controversy.”
Remember where you were, when you could still laugh about teabaggers and racists and Arizonans, because funny time is almost over. If the unemployment keeps up — one in five adult white males has no job and will never have a job again — and people keep walking away from their stucco heaps they can’t afford and the states and cities and counties and towns keep passing their aggressive racist laws to rile up the trash even more, shit’s going to very soon become very bad, and whether it’s the National Guard having wars in the Sunbelt Exurbs against armies of crazy old white people who are finally using their hundreds of millions of guns, or whole Latino neighborhoods burned to the ground the way the Klan used to burn down black neighborhoods a century ago, we are in for a long dark night and no light-colored paint is going to fix that.
Read more at Wonkette: " target="_blank">http://wonkette.com/415809/arizona-s...#ixzz0pv3e1wQ3[/quote]
AZ keeps hitting it out of the park these days.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
It isn't racial profiling, it's equal justice.
If you're obviously an American (ie white or black), they will lock you up, print you and find out who you are before you're released. If you lied, you'll be charged with providing false identification to a law enforcement officer.
If you look like you might be illegal, you get better treatment. They don't want to waste tax payer dollars to print a report on another Juan Marinez to come up empty handed. When the print comes back positive, you're charged and fined. No ID, no print match, illegal alien,...gtg......released as an unknown. Err,... just another Juan Martinez. Will the next Juan Martinez pulled over reflect this arrest record? How many Juan Martinez's without IDs are arrested every day, in every state, and released without cause. What about the other Juan Martinez from Texas, without ID, who is a child rapist? The Juan Martinez from Oklahoma, without ID, who has beat his wife five times. What about the Juan Martinez in Nevada who works for slave wages and has never committed a crime? Names are meaningless. In this country, we have ID. I'm an American with a FL ID...if I get pulled over a thousand miles from my home, the police will know exactly who I am. You can't say that about the thousands of Juan Martinez's in this country, unlike me, they don't have ID. Apparently, demanding ID is racist (unless you're a citizen - then it's the law)
The state of Florida has 9 ICE officers. Is that enough for an entire state? Here's a van full of illegals that were let loose because there weren't enough officers:
http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=132980
Here's another link.
Put in a date to see who was arrested. I'm going to ask you to profile by clicking on the really long hispanic names. Nine times out of ten, they were arrested for driving without a license, charged a $250 fine and released. It's difficult to get a license in FL without proof of citizenship. I know, I moved here from WA. WA will give a license to anyone with an electric bill in hand,...and register them to vote at the same time. FL wouldn't accept my WA license until I ordered my birth certificate. FL does this to nine states,,,,states that give licenses to and register people to vote based upon an electric bill and their verbal assurance of their name.
http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/PublicInquiry/ArrestInquiry
[ June 05, 2010, 03:23 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Riiiiight.
Originally posted by Geraine:
Achilles, One would hope that since the police are now being trained that racial profiling is frowned upon (I'll put it that way to please Jhai) some of that would stop.
And Dark Knight, it's useless to try and argue constitutionality with some people here. To them it is just some old document written by some men that had no idea how life would be for us in our day.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Geraine: you're quite right, you get idiots who want to do things like pass unconstitutional laws saying children born in the US aren't citizens, or have census works unconstitutionally not count illegal immigrants.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:It's not just old, a document, and written by men who couldn't possibly foresee our present way of life. But it is all those things.
To them it is just some old document written by some men that had no idea how life would be for us in our day.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
I don't think we've changed so much as human beings that the Founding Fathers couldn't foresee our present way of life.
The Constitution is still relevant. Freedom of speech, religion, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not relevant today?
And unless there's been some miraculous changes over the last 70 years, a government with too much control can turn corrupt and villainous in a heartbeat, even within a nation that considers itself civilized.
Which is why giving that document power while limiting the powers of men (who are easily corrupted) was not only an act of sheer genius, but done by men who, it appears, knew us better than we know ourselves. (And I do mean "us" as in the present us.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Nobody is saying that the constitution is irrelevant.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think that Geraine is saying that some of us DO think that. It's a strawman argument, though. I don't know anyone who actually believes that.
I also think that the ability to change that, and to adapt to modern times is part of why it is still relevant, BTW.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I think the authors of the Constitution were hoping to prevent tyranny, not merely outsource it.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Tyranny comes from government. Without government, there is no tyranny. The authors of the constitution were hoping to prevent tyranny, they wrote a constitution to limit government.
Originally posted by Sterling:
I think the authors of the Constitution were hoping to prevent tyranny, not merely outsource it.
Now liberals use the cover page to bring tyranny. The government should "promote the general welfare"...unfortunately the title page isn't the law. Now we have a government that thinks it can do anything to "promote the general welfare".
Our founders would bring up arms against our current government. They brought up arms against a much less tyranical one.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Please elaborate
Originally posted by malanthrop:
... They brought up arms against a much less tyranical one.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:The Boston Tea Party was over a tax on Tea.
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Please elaborate
Originally posted by malanthrop:
... They brought up arms against a much less tyranical one.
There are many tyranical people in the world...it takes governments to put them in control of the masses.
Communism is great idea, if you have the right leader.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
The Boston Tea Party was over a tax on Tea without representation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, because the federal government can come along and quarter troops inside my home whenever they feel like it, and make laws in which I have no say, and suppress my critical statements about the government, and...
Well, you get the idea, malanthrop. Could we skip to the part where you pretend this part of the argument never happened sooner rather than later?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Who's representing the the top 50% of tax payers in this country? We have a community organizer for a president. His constituency gets tax "credits" and pay nothing in. It only takes 51% to win an election. We're dangerously close to the the majority (51%) paying nothing. Who's the slave and who is being represented?
I work 12 hours a day...I don't have representation. In the minds of many and according to the IRS, I'm fortunate and should pay my fair share.
Taxation without representation doesn't mean the same thing it did a couple hundred years ago. We have voters who don't have an income to tax and voters who have an income but pay no taxes. People pay nothing in but get thousands for a refund. The taxation is on the payer and the representation is for the leach.
The top 10% of income earners pay 90% of the taxes. Who isn't being represented? Who's the victim of taxation without representation? 10% isn't going to win an election.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The poorer you are, the less likely you are to vote, malanthrop. Next nonsense argument, please.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Really? The earliest I came home from work this week was 7pm. People who work and make money have their time occupied. I have less time to vote than a homeless man, picked up by ACORN or SEIU and offered a meal and a pack of smokes to vote for Obama.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
The poorer you are, the less likely you are to vote, malanthrop. Next nonsense argument, please.
Conservatives don't send out buses to pick up voters. Conservatives are too busy working.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
malanthrop, instead of arguing from personal experience, you'd probably do better to continue from your last statement ("The top 10% of income earners pay 90% of the taxes. Who isn't being represented? Who's the victim of taxation without representation? 10% isn't going to win an election.") I think you may have a point there with regard to the tyranny of the majority. Arguing against the facts by stating that homeless people vote more isn't helping your case though.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Thank you sinflower...you are correct. I fear that people are beginning to believe we are a democracy. We aren't a democracy, we're a constitutional republic. Unfortunately, the constitution is laughable to most elected officials. They aren't elected by the constitution.
The government cannot provide anything to people but it can tax people to pay for things. Our nation is getting to a breaking point where the tax payers are a minority and the majority expects government benefits - paid for by a minority. A government that represents the majority, not the tax payers. Taxation without representation isn't the same as it was 200 years ago.
[ June 06, 2010, 02:24 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Even if it were true, this is meaningless without knowing what percentage of the wealth this 10% have.
Originally posted by malanthrop:
The top 10% of income earners pay 90% of the taxes.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
It doesn't really matter does it? Our president has repeatedly set the threshold of acceptable income at $250k per year.
I don't recall any part of the constitution that set a minimum or maximum wage.
The sick truth is, I'm around 100k per year and I work my ass off. People like Obama and Pelosi have millions. It's easy to make the masses hate the 100k a year guy and the multimillionaire's lifestyle isn't impacted by higher taxes. If I made 5 million a year, I wouldn't care either. They aren't attacking the truly rich, they're keeping the regular folks down. Our tax keeps people down. My company offered me 100k for a six month stint in Afghanistan, I turned them down. It wasn't worth it after taxes.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:Wikipedia says 71%. But that's wikipedia so take it with grain of salt.
Even if it were true, this is meaningless without knowing what percentage of the wealth this 10% have.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923085.html
Graph comparing percent income with percent taxes paid.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Sure, why not.
Originally posted by malanthrop:
... The Boston Tea Party was over a tax on Tea.
But let's cut right to it. Would you personally prefer to live under that era's British colonial government or under Obama's government*? (if we held things like technology and medicine the same)
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"The Boston Tea Party was over a tax on Tea."
No, it really wasn't. People are taught that in third grade because its about the extent of what a third grade mind can handle, but saying the Boston Tea Party was over a tax on Tea is kinda like saying American Football is a game about kicking the ball.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
More Arizona Craziness and Racism
People complain about the children depicted in a school mural:
quote:The children depicted attend the school in question.
In a broadcast last month, according to the Daily Courier in Prescott, Blair mistakenly complained that the most prominent child in the painting is African-American, saying: "To depict the biggest picture on the building as a Black person, I would have to ask the question: Why?"
Blair could not be reached for comment Thursday. In audio archives of his radio show, Blair discusses the mural. He insists the controversy isn't about racism but says the mural is intended to create racial controversy where none existed before.
"Personally, I think it's pathetic," he says. "You have changed the ambience of that building to excite some kind of diversity power struggle that doesn't exist in Prescott, Arizona. And I'm ashamed of that."
To me, this ties in as there obviously being signficant racism in Arizona. The principal's willingness to go along with this is evidence that this is not a fringe thing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So, your opinion on the poor voting is really founded on a bunch of tired stereotypes, yes?
Really? The earliest I came home from work this week was 7pm. People who work and make money have their time occupied. I have less time to vote than a homeless man, picked up by ACORN or SEIU and offered a meal and a pack of smokes to vote for Obama.
Conservatives don't send out buses to pick up voters. Conservatives are too busy working.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout#Socio-economic_factors That took about fifteen seconds to find, malanthrop. Do you actually dispute the figures there, or can we again skip to the part where you pretend this part of the discussion never happened?
The poorer you are, the less likely you are to vote. That's a fact, malanthrop. All of your Rush Limbaugh approved talking points won't change that.
quote:Maybe Samprimary (was it you, Samprimary?) could re-post that post you made about how stupid it is to say something like this as self-righteously as malanthrop is saying it? Suffice to say, the United States is both a democracy and a constitutional republic. The two are not mutually exclusive.
We aren't a democracy, we're a constitutional republic.
quote:http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/47-Percent-Dont-Pay-Taxes-No-Big-Deal-3230
The government cannot provide anything to people but it can tax people to pay for things. Our nation is getting to a breaking point where the tax payers are a minority and the majority expects government benefits - paid for by a minority. A government that represents the majority, not the tax payers. Taxation without representation isn't the same as it was 200 years ago.
There's another wrongheaded point of yours, malanthrop. We are nowhere even remotely close to having a majority of the population not paying taxes. Start pretending this part of the conversation (where you were completely, laughably wrong) didn't happen...right now!
quote:I don't think there's anything in the US constitution about the Internet or antibiotics, either. Out with `em!
I don't recall any part of the constitution that set a minimum or maximum wage.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:You have proffered this lie in various forms so many times, and been confronted with its falsehood so many times, I wonder why you think it goes unnoticed.
Originally posted by malanthrop:
My company offered me 100k for a six month stint in Afghanistan, I turned them down. It wasn't worth it after taxes.
Perhaps it was not worth it to you to work in Afghanistan for six months for that kind of money, but the proportion of taxes you would have payed could not possibly have made working for a lower wage more profitable. There are other obligations and expenses that might have made this choice unfavorable (living apart from your family is expensive for other reasons), but taxes aren't it. Yes, you earn more, you pay more tax, but at no point do you lose money simply by earning more. It doesn't work that way.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:YAAY
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Maybe Samprimary (was it you, Samprimary?) could re-post that post you made about how stupid it is to say something like this as self-righteously as malanthrop is saying it? Suffice to say, the United States is both a democracy and a constitutional republic. The two are not mutually exclusive.
We aren't a democracy, we're a constitutional republic.
UNSURPRISINGLY this is now a three chain of correcting malanthrop specifically.
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Hey lemme repost something I already said.
Originally posted by malanthrop:
We aren't a democracy, we're a constitutional republic.
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
When someone says something like "America is a republic, not a democracy!" they don't know what they're talking about. The statement is incorrect.quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:We must reassert that my vehicle is a sedan, not an automobile!
We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracyquote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Cool. Want to know something neat? We're also a democracy.
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Fortunately in America we have a represenatative republic.quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:The statement "the US is a republic" is as correct as "the US is a democracy" — anytime someone says that the US is not a democracy, they're wrong. What the US is not is a direct democracy.
Originally posted by Lisa:
The part about the US being a constitutional republic and not a democracy has merit.quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:You are confusing the general term "democracy" with the specific type of government known as a "direct democracy." You do not have to be a direct democracy in order to be considered a "democracy" or a "democratic nation."
Originally posted by Raventhief:
Samp, could you clarify? Because a democracy is a form of government in which the people legislate directly by vote while a republic is a form of government in which the people elect those who legislate.
The answer to the question "Is the united states a democracy?" is yes.quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
The correct answer to the question "Is America a Democracy?" is "Yes."
The correct answer to the question "Is America a Republic?" is "Yes."
The correct answer to the question "Is America a Democratic Republic?" is "Yes."
If you say that America is not a democracy because it's a republic, or that it's not a democracy because it's not a 'true' (direct) democracy, this is wrong.
You might as well say that my Chevy Silverado is not a truck, because it is an automobile. Strangely enough, it's both, and you're correct to call it either!quote:sooooooooooooo everyone's got this straight now right, no more failing at english language to make a hamfisted political delineation, yeeeessss?
Originally posted by Samprimary:
The answer to the question "Is the United States a democracy?" is yes. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong. The term is not mutually exclusive nor contradictory to our status as a republic. If someone says that 'the United States is not a democracy,' they are strictly incorrect. It's like saying that a Dodge Ram is not an automobile because it is a truck.
The United States is a Democracy. The United States is a Republic. The United States is a Constitutional Republic. The United States is a democratic, constitutional republic. The United States is a representative democracy. Any of these statements is true. One thing that the United States is not is a specific form of democracy known as 'direct democracy.' The United States is not a direct democracy, but this does not make the united states 'not a democracy.'
Thanks for reading this. Totally glad that we have this straight now, yay.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
You don't get it. Mal's argument was "Who represents the top 50% of tax payers."
See. Its not a democracy he's after, because the Republican's did such a great job of turning Liberal into a bad word, they want to do the same to Democracy because it sounds like Democratic. Its not really a Constitutional Republic he's after either.... its a Capitalist Monetacracy. Basically, we should all just be able to vote with our money.
Mal--in this country it shouldn't matter at all how much money you have, how much you spend, or how much you pay in taxes. You still get 1 vote.
Tyranny is not created by the government, its created by people. Al Capone was a tyrant. The war lords in chaotic Somalia are tyrants. The head of the Klu Klux Klan is a tyrant, and yes, the head of many corporations are unabashed and successful tyrants.
The Government is not the only sin in this world. Corruption and stupidity and ignorance rank far higher.
Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2