This is topic Artists to boycott performing in Arizona until immigration law is repealed in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=057151

Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
Linky.

I'm not sure how effective this will be, even if it takes off, but good for them for the effort.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
I should think it logically follows that if Rage Against The Machine is part of the boycott that One Day As A Lion would also be a part. Heck, Audio Slave would also be a logical participator.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
Mean, mean Arizona. How dare they actually enforce the law.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I'm not a fan of Arizona's, law, but for me it's a gigantic [Roll Eyes] at the people boycotting the state.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
You're right! How dare people object to states taking on federal powers! And less than white-looking Americans should be happy to be dragged to jail even if they have proper ID on them if they don't look American enough.

Every Hispanic-looking person in Arizona will now have to be prepared to prove their innocence at all times, which, I dunno, doesn't sound terribly American to me.

I don't know that boycotting the state would make the slightest bit of of difference to the law, but if I wasn't clearly white I sure as hell wouldn't go near the place just because I wouldn't want to take the chance some bored cop might decide to deport me.

The only way this would not be open to discriminatory abuse would be if all Americans were required to carry citizenship papers on them at all times, and that idea never seems to fly very far.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
You're right! How dare people object to states taking on federal powers!
How about a trade -- the federal government stops taking on state powers, and the states will stop taking on federal powers. Deal?
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Adding: 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.

Oddly enough, I kinda liked Bush Jr.'s immigration bill -- about the only thing in his administration I liked -- but naturally that was the one that was completely shot down.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
quote:
How about a trade -- the federal government stops taking on state powers, and the states will stop taking on federal powers. Deal?
Depends. Which ones?

[ June 01, 2010, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
I'm boycotting the state. My husband has been pulled over more than once for "driving while brown" in Indiana and rural Virginia, and the two of us have been hassled by the police for being in an interracial marriage. Given those experiences, I've no interest in going to a state where he could easily be thrown in jail for failing to carry his "official papers" documenting his legal status at all times, and then charged a fee to pay for his jail time before we can show positive proof of his right to be in the US.

That's besides a number of other troubling factors I see in the law (a great legal analysis is available here) - things that would make me protest the law, but not actually boycott the state as a whole. Actually, I think that most of our immigration laws are morally wrong, and am thus opposed to most laws that strengthen the status quo of immigration law & enforcement. We hire (likely) illegal immigrants without a qualm for under-the-table work around our house.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Surprisingly, it was actually my SO who nixed the notion of going to the Grand Canyon after my conference in SLC mostly due to the immigration law although obviously we've been watching much of the coverage together.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
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.

I don't particularly like AZ's response, but they are between a rock and a hard place, and nobody has given them an out.

I think a more effective boycott would be for Hispanic people to have organized no shows at places where they work. I'd need more demographic information, but I am reasonably certain it would send a shock to the Arizonian economy. Of course the current unemployment rate might dull that shock somewhat.

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.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Those in favor say Arizona is just making that which already was a crime into a state crime. The problem is that they chose to take steps which are most likely racist. They are creating two requirements- one for the white folk and one for the brown folks (regarding carrying around proof of citizenship). Unless white citizens are asked for these documents at equivalent rates, which would probably outrage most of the supporters (I can just see someone claiming I am a citizen, born and raise and my parents were citizens, how dare they ask me to prove it), the law is unfair. Also, it turns the head on the whole innocent until proven guilty. I may be a US citizen, but if I can't prove it, I can be arrested and detained. Since when is that acceptable in America? That is why most people I know are outraged over the law. It isn't about open borders or the state enforcing immigration laws, it is about the tactics the state is using to enforce them.

It also is a dang stupid move on Arizona's part. The state can't even pay for kindergarten right now, so they go and do a blockhead move that forces companies to boycott them. My sister works for a big international company in their immigration department. With so many people who would be visiting on visas, they decided that Arizona was simply too risky at this time for their meetings. They do not want to see their employees harassed and so they will go somewhere else for their business meetings. Scheduling in a different state isn't really that big a hassle for them, but potentially dealing with a crazy cop arresting their employees for no good reason is a big deal. Are these companies (who are not boycotting, they are just making a business decision) overreacting? We won't really know for a few months, but no one really wants to be the one to find out what Arizona is going to do.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
quote:
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.

Other than the fact that the Constitution allows one and explicitly bars the other, that is.
 
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I'm not a fan of Arizona's, law, but for me it's a gigantic [Roll Eyes] at the people boycotting the state.

Agreed.

quote:
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.

Also agreed.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
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.

Other than the fact that the Constitution allows one and explicitly bars the other, that is.
We're just going to end up debating the merits of The Necessary and Proper Clause vs the 10th Amendment.

Founding fathers fell on both sides of the issue from the very beginning.
 
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
 
quote:
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.
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."
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
From the people I have heard, sinflower is right on. Every defense I have heard seems to be, we are just doing what the federal government has failed to do. Most also seem to think that complaints mean that you believe in open borders.
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
quote:
I think a more effective boycott would be for Hispanic people to have organized no shows at places where they work.
You know what that would get reported as? "Hispanics too lazy to show up for work."
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
quote:
How about a trade -- the federal government stops taking on state powers, and the states will stop taking on federal powers. Deal?
Depends. Which ones?
How about all of them?
 
Posted by daventor (Member # 11981) on :
 
As with regards to the statement that unless white people are asked at the same rate for their papers then the law is racist/unfair, do we really have to ignore reality to preserve political correctness. If you're an illegal immigrant in America, you're most likely gonna be hispanic; that's not a knock on hispanics, it's a reflection of geographic reality; Arizona is BORDERING Mexico, not Kosovo, not Nigeria, not China, so logically the ethnic makeup of illegal immigrants is going to fall primarily into one group.

On the other hand, there is also the fact that tons of hispanic people are also citizens and as American as I am, and it sucks to get wrongfully harassed, though I wonder how much trouble it is to produce your driver's license for a police officer (or does that not count as enough proof of your citizenship?). I don't have any real personal experience with cop-harassment so I don't know how extensive that kind of a thing would be (btw, I'm pretty sure plenty of Arizona's police force are hispanic themselves).

I admit to a lot of ignorance on different factors of this issue, particularly as to what it's like to be a hispanic citizen in America, but now I lean more and more towards supporting the bill just because I think a lot of the condemnations of it and Arizona are so ridiculous.

Hopefully the bill will lead to the federal government itself confronting the issue and actually doing something meaningful.
 
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
You know, with reports coming through the news that terrorists related to groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia are using the Mexican/American border as a crossing point to enter the United States to do harm, why wouldn't EVERY minority be up for grabs as far as this goes? It's an incredibly short hop to move from concerns about illegal immigration to national security. And now everyone but white people are up for grabs.

In general I don't like this law for most of the reasons stated here. It's an open door to racial profiling, and I think it imposes an unfair double standard. I understand AZ's frustration with the issue. Part of me would almost be happy if AZ really could conduct a mass deportation of all illegals, so they could see just how much of a mess it would create in the labor market. Anyway, I agree that there is a problem, but there has to be a better solution than this.

quote:
Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:
I think a more effective boycott would be for Hispanic people to have organized no shows at places where they work.
You know what that would get reported as? "Hispanics too lazy to show up for work."
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.

As far as boycotting the state goes, it doesn't really apply to me since I don't plan to do anything involving AZ, but I don't really have a problem with it one way or the other. I have a problem with the law. If other people have a problem with the law and want to choose to not spend their money there, that's their choice. A boycott is one of the most basic acts of protest. I don't think it will work, so I don't give them points for effectiveness, but I don't begrudge them their right to choose not to lend support to an apparatus they currently have a problem with.

quote:
From daventor:
Hopefully the bill will lead to the federal government itself confronting the issue and actually doing something meaningful.

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.

Democrats will push ahead of midterms, but Republicans will filibuster. After the midterms, Republicans will come out invigorated and with bigger numbers, but numbers that even will mean even more gridlock. Given the rhetoric both sides are using, though one more than the other in this case, it will be difficult to come to a compromise that doesn't look like a full-on giveaway. Too much time has passed with too many voices framing this as a binary issue. Anti or pro immigration. Anti or pro amnesty. Anti or pro Hispanic. Etc. A real compromise that had both sides giving and taking would require both of them to sign onto evils they've been vilifying for years now, which is exactly why I don't think it will happen. This, by the way, is exactly the sort of thing that Obama has decried in the past, and one of the fundamental problems with the state of political discourse in America where gridlock is concerned.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
Mean, mean Arizona. How dare they actually enforce the law.

Mean mean private citizens, how dare they protest.
 
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
I may be a US citizen, but if I can't prove it, I can be arrested and detained.

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?

But then, I'm still of the crazy idea that if we want to stop illegal immigration from Mexico, we need to improve the economies of the countries just south of Mexico. From what I understand, illegals move into Mexico and take the jobs so the poor in Mexico are under pressure to move here and find the jobs their illegals took in Mexico. Stop illegals from moving into Mexico, stop a lot of illegals from needing to move here to feed their families and move them out of the garbage heap shanties.

If you let your neighbors live in squalor, I'm not sure how much moral ground I think you have to complain about them going through your garbage.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
Would it be fair to adopt the same rules Mexico has for immigration?
How about instead of boycotting Arizona, those bands and artists can go to the border and live there for 60 days to bring awareness to the plight of people crossing the border?
 
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
 
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but my understanding of the way this was being enforced was that a request for identification (and then subsequent citizenship documents if suspicion is aroused) would only be occurring in the event that someone is stopped for another offense (i.e. a traffic stop).
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
True. But that offense can include city ordinances, which gives police a wide range of things to stop people on. And it still means, in practical terms, that one race now has requirements -- always carry your papers in case you accidentally jaywalk or miss a garbage can with your gum wrapper -- that other races do not.

MPH: "How about all of them?"

Nope, I need to hear which powers you're disputing. Some may be better served with state control, some with federal. But a blanket assurance from you (or the government) either way is meaningless.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
Not race. Community. Ethnicity. My sister has a dark complexion. Baltic genes. She could get stopped there as well.

People have to stop this insanity about "racial profiling". If a witness sees a white guy commit a crime, cops will be looking for a white guy. It isn't racist to use your brains. If there's a problem with illegal immigration, then of course you need to check the IDs of people who fit the description.

God, this is political correctness run amok.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
always carry your papers in case you accidentally jaywalk or miss a garbage can with your gum wrapper -- that other races do not.

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.
If you are here on a visa, don't you need to carry your passport at all times according to federal law?
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
God, this is political correctness run amok.
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.
 
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 
The American Society of Environmental Historians recently went through a big hullabaloo over moving their conference site from Phoenix to somewhere else as a result of the immigration bill. They decided not to (as breaking the hotel contract would leave the Society in financial ruin) but quite a few people are still likely going to boycott.

The debate on the listserv was really very articulate. Well educated people who write for a living arguing a contentious issue in a civilized manner is always a welcome site.

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.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
The true problem with this law is that they are targeting innocent citizens due to the color of thier skin, not a nationality or any other level of division. It doesnt matter if you are from Mexico, Paraguay, Cuba, Guam or Puerto Rico because. Here legally or illegally, or even natural born to natural born parents, because if you are brown the police now have the right to persecute you jail you and possibly fine you. Its just more nationalist/racist bullying and the fact that many seemingly rational people I know are in support of it worries me.

The problem is not the people, its the reason they come here. Mexico purposly allows such poor conditions and wrongs to be done to northern Mexico knowing that people will always look for better ways to support thier families, but they oddly patriotic and retain themsevles as Mexicans thus widening the gap between American citizens and the people who wash thier cars. For instance language is truely the biggest hurdle when living in a foriegn country, but much of southern Mexico speaks english even teaching it to school children while northern Mexico remains monolingual and suffer for it when they cant find a job and seek employment in the U.S.

I have lived my entire life in Arizona, raised primarily in Phoenix. Think back to when you were in the fifth grade, about your best friend who lived in the same neighborhood as you and spoke with the same manner as you. Now consider your friend being detained and fined for being detained because his I.D. was in his wifes purse when he was asked about his citizenship status. Thats what Im looking at right here, everyday. The real people who have done nothing wrong and were already hassled by the police for not being white and now have to face the reality that they are targeted for being brown openly with no room to complain or fight back.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
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.
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?
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
People who cross alone often die in the desert, most have a coyote as thier guide and would never be allowed to get near any organization other than one providing free water. It wouldnt be such a bad idea to take cameras and go count all the remains of women and children who starved out there. Y'know, show off just how tough the immigration laws are around here.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
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.

*shrug* 9/11 got racial profiling, extraordinary rendition, and warrant-less wiretapping going. Pearl Harbour, the Japanese detention camps.

I don't think it takes much of a push to get seemingly rational people to embrace policies that mainly affect "other" people as a group.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Lisa- 45% of illegal immigrants legally crossed the border and are overstays. Lots of white folk there. So, yeah, if a cop has a 55% probability of Mexican, 45% of the perp being something else and he is profiling Mexicans, I am going to object. The odds aren't enough in favor to justify it. Also, every 9/11 bomber was here on a visa, with several people there as overstays.

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.

If I was planning a business meeting with lots of internationals, I would pick a different state. One less thing to worry about.
 
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
quote:
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.

From the law itself:

quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Hume (Member # 11457) on :
 
In regards to whether a driver's license is suffient, I noticed that the Governor of Arizona said that driver's license's would not be sufficent to prove citizenship.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/01/arizona-gov-to-obama-well-see-you-in-court/?fbid=97B8wdq2wsU
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Actually, is there a separate clause for passports or something? Passports (or more specifically, tourists who have passports but don't need visas to enter the States (I'm not even 100% sure if a visa counts under 4, but I'm guessing it does)) don't seem to be covered by any of 1 through 4 unless I'm reading 4 wrong.
 
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
A visa would count under #4, since it's issued by the federal US government. You're right that there isn't an explicit clause for passports of citizens of nations that are not required to get visas. Guess that sucks for all those tourists.

Hume, it's a shame that the governor doesn't know her own laws better. To be fair, it's not the initial SB 1070 that has that clause - it's HB 2162(b), which amends SB 1070.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Another thing to consider is reasonable suspicion for police is not what most people would consider reasonable. The newspaper in Texas recently looked into what policeman listed as suspicion for pulling over potential human traffickers (I am not in favor of human trafficking, just using it as an example). The list included: the car was driving too fast, the vehicle was driving too slow, the vehicle was suspiciously driving the exact speed limit. The vehicle was driving low (as though heavy). The vehicle was driving heavy (perhaps efforts were made to compensate the extra weight). The vehicle was (fill in the blank) car brand, a model often used for trafficking (from the list, just about every brand of car is often used in trafficking). The car was (fill in the blank) color, which is known to be used in trafficking. The car was dirty. The car was clean, as though freshly washed. Basically, any detail about your car is reasonable suspicion you are trafficking. And the courts have held up that all these things are reasonable. So, yeah, at least in Texas, tell a cop he just needs reasonable suspicion for something, and he will do it.
 
Posted by Hume (Member # 11457) on :
 
Yes, it is a shame that the governor apparently doesn't know what the law says; however, it is more than that. If she is interpreting the law in that way, then, as the head of Arizona's executive branch, the police are highly likely to enforce the law accordig to her interpretation.

Granted the judical branch would almost certainly rule against her interpretation if it ever went to court, but that means little in the meantime.
 
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
 
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.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/h.sb1070_04-19-10_astransmittedtogovernor.doc.htm

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. If you are actually arrested then immigration status must be determined.

It is utterly irresponsible for the President to say that people have to worry about going to buy their kids ice cream for fear of being asked for their papers. Unless buying ice cream is against the law in Arizona, I think they are okay.

The bill also specifies that it allows law enforcement to act to the extent that federal law allows. It also prohibits racial profiling due to race, color or national origin.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Geraine- the problem is, we already have a case where the driver's license was not sufficient and a governor who is stating that a driver's license is not enough. Also, you can be pulled over for any crime- jaywalking, flipping the bird at someone, whatever. If a cop decides he wants to ask you for proof of citizenship, he can find an excuse (see my earlier post about reasons Texas policeman pull someone over for trafficking suspicion). Based on AZ stellar rep, most of us don't really trust them not to find all sorts of petty excuses, which the law allows. Furthermore, honestly, how many white people do you think are going to be asked to produce proof of citizenship when pulled over for the same crime?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
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.
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.

The first thing you got to do when trying to make the case that something is okay because it 'won't go any further than X' is to check and make sure that there's not already evidence that X is a line that has been documentably crossed. :/
 
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
 
"Furthermore, honestly, how many white people do you think are going to be asked to produce proof of citizenship when pulled over for the same crime?"

Statistically, I'd imagine it's pretty low. Then again, statistically speaking, what percentage of illegal immigrants in Arizona are white?
 
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
quote:
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.

Have you read the bill? It specifically allows racial profiling to be a consideration. From the legal analysis I linked to above:

quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
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.
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?
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
What a strange question that is. 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.

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.

I'm glad to know that you are expressly for racial profiling, though. Have you read "In Defense of Internment?" If you have, I'd like to know your opinion of that idea.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
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:
I'm glad to know that you are expressly for racial profiling, though.
You don't know that, nor have I said that.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
You don't know that, nor have I said that.
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?

Also, nothing you quoted there contradicts or even addresses what I said, which was that the constitution does not mandate racial profiling. You don't have to change the constitutions to do anything you're suggesting in terms of changing the law.
 
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
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.
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?
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,
either explicitly or implicitly."

The big fat yes is pretty obvious from both a legal perspective (what actually happens in the justice system today) and from a basic sociological perspective of current US society. Race/ethnicity has never been disconnected from US society's consideration of immigration. But that doesn't make laws like this one just or good.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
Right. 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.

Get it yet, darkknight?
 
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jhai:
quote:
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.

Have you read the bill? It specifically allows racial profiling to be a consideration. From the legal analysis I linked to above:

quote:
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.

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.

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.

The bill basically says they are going to fully cooperate and help the federal government where they legally can.

The governor has said that police are currently being trained on the law and the prohibition of racial profiling. You cannot blame the police for doing something they haven't done yet. If and when the police start racially profiling anyone and have LEGITIMATE proof, then I will question the Arizona Law. As long as they do not overstep the federal laws, I've no problem with it.
 
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 
I think the law sets the stage for antagonism and harrassment of the legitimate Hispanic/Latino population. While there are certainly numerous individual problems with roots in illegal immigration- drug traffic, human rights concerns of the treatment of the immigrants on both sides of the border, labor issues- this is a scattershot approach that seems designed to appeal to the two least appealing constituencies: the ones that feel that any action, however ill considered, is better than no action at all, and those who approve of creating a hostile environment for Hispanic/Latino people regardless of whether their presence is legitimate or not.

A law that is passed by a majority that won't be negatively affected by it upon a minority that will deserves harsh scrutiny at best.
 
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
Edit: to Geraine
Sooooooooooooo... you were wrong about the racial profiling thing. Whether or not the bill can be struck down as unconstitutional has no bearing on whether or not it specifically allows racial profiling. And legal != right. I don't care if it's legal to do what this bill does - I know that it's wrong and I want no part of a place that has such laws.

Oh, and the bill does not basically say that they (the police?) are going to "fully cooperate and help the federal government where they legally can." It creates a number of new crimes, and expands the role and requirements of the police in Arizona with regards to immigration in a number of ways. Again, I'm kinda doubting that you've actually read the bill, given your apparent misunderstanding of the fairly clear language in it.
 
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
quote:
The bill basically says they are going to fully cooperate and help the federal government where they legally can.
Geraine, I would like to second the suggestion that you read the analysis Jhai linked to - in its entirety. This is addressed specifically.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Not just artists boycotting. Cities and counties are boycotting. Including my own except for contracts already in place.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
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?

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.
quote:
Also, nothing you quoted there contradicts or even addresses what I said, which was that the constitution does not mandate racial profiling.
and neither does the Arizona law.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
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.
So if the law is in accord with the constitutions, what's the problem?
quote:
Get it yet, darkknight?
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.
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
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.
So if the law is in accord with the constitutions, what's the problem?

"Constitutional" does not necessarily mean just.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
I would like to point out that local police can and have been making up reasons to pull people over on a regular basis. Because after ten minutes parked on the side of the road there is no proof that you werent following that car too closely or that you werent swerving. I have had family members picked up by police while walking and held for twenty-four hours for a crime that never happened (fyi she was a long-time drug addict, thats why she didnt do anything about it) simply because they felt like it. In regards to the letter of the law... unless you ask very politely to see the text itself in the book they keep in the car and have given the cop reason to believe that you could successfully make a complaint stick, you get to abide by whatever the officer says is the law.
 
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
 
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 The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
I am not a criminal. I have complied with all the laws and regulations. I should not have to be subjected to such loathsome alternatives in order to use public transportation.

It might be different ... if I actually fit some kind of profile of an illegal immigrant ... But I do not fit any likely illegal immigrant profile, being grey-haired, of European appearance, with an American accent ...
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
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.

I keep hoping somebody will come up with something that will convince me that this, which is my reaction as well, is wrong.

So far, I've got nothing.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
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.
So if the law is in accord with the constitutions, what's the problem?
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?
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
"Constitutional" does not necessarily mean just.
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.
 
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
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?
No.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
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.

Is Mexican immigration law racist? How about Canadian?
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
"Born in East LA"
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
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?
No.
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?'

Also:

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.
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.

If you want to feel antagonized upon or belittled, that's your choice. I do, in fact, belittle poor reading and argumentative comprehension, so it's not entirely an unfair claim.

But in this case "get it yet?" is me asking whether or not you get it. It's not "I hate you, gtfo."
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
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.

Is Mexican immigration law racist? How about Canadian?
Rabbit's point doesn't show that the law is racist, it shows that its supporters are racist.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
They've even polled that.

Spoiler: there's verifiable truth to the statement that the supporters have a large racist underpinning.

But it's, uh, not much of a surprise.
 
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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!

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.

I guess the police are racially profiling my wife. I mean, a 6'1, 150 pound white woman is obviously here illegally.

Honestly what is next? When you get pulled over the police should not ask for any identification for fear of being accused of racial profiling? Maybe they should just take your word for it that you are driving your car legally.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Rabbit's point doesn't show that the law is racist, it shows that its supporters are racist.
I don't think it shows that either.
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
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.
?????

Is it racial profiling to say that liberal black people mostly support Obama?

Anyway, one might want to draw a distinction between stereotyping a racial or political group in an internet forum post, and basing selective law enforcement on a stereotype.

For example, I will agree that the terrorist threat against the United States comes mostly from Middle Eastern people. But I would resist codifying that assumption into the law, or into law enforcement practices.
 
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:
Rabbit's point doesn't show that the law is racist, it shows that its supporters are racist.
I don't think it shows that either.
Well, it's prima facie evidence that they are.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
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.

What?

Disagreeing with a law that empowers and encourages racial profiling in practice is different than noting the observable tendencies of a given demographic (i.e., 'supporters of this law'). It can be done without any hypocrisy or internal contradiction.

Besides, your supposition only strictly makes sense if 'supporters of the az law' is itself a race to profile, and it's really not, soooooo
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
How about Canadian?

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.
Ex:
quote:
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.
http://www.bastionlaw.ca/-rights.asp

On the other hand, China does, so that might be a more appropriate comparison. Like so:
quote:
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.
http://www.pekingduck.org/2010/04/james-fallows-china-and-arizona/
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
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?'
I answered the question:
"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?"
No. I am not making that case as that 'case' is much too ambiguous (ie strawman) to be answered any other way than a simple No. You berate me for reading comprehension yet you should easily be able to see what is very wrong with your question and why in asking it the particular way you did with absolutes and ambiguities that there is no way to answer such a broad question with something other than no.
quote:
Martyr issues, much? I ask because I genuinely wonder!
No you don't.
quote:
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.
AKA What I Say Is Smart, and since you don't agree with me, you are stupid.
quote:
If you want to feel antagonized upon or belittled, that's your choice.
And your definite intent as evidenced by...
quote:
I do, in fact, belittle poor reading and argumentative comprehension, so it's not entirely an unfair claim.
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.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
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.

You might want to check up on getting caught committing a crime without proper ID.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
AKA What I Say Is Smart, and since you don't agree with me, you are stupid.
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.

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.
And here again:

I belittle poor reading and argumentative comprehension'

DOES NOT

in this (or any universe) mean:

'I belittle people who do not agree with my point of view'

It is so unambiguously a fictional retranslation of my words that it is very much so indefensible.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Geraine- when those officers pulled over your wife, was she speeding? running a red light? maybe not signalling or in some other way doing something unsafe? Was it a random alcohol stop or a blockade of some sort? Or was she driving and pulled over at random, for the purpose of asking for her citizenship?
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
quote:
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.

That's cause some of us have lived in Arizona.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
This is, in and of itself, a perfect example of your reading comprehension issues.
No, it's an example of your kind of responses and how you twist things such as your question:
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?
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.

Let's look at what you said exactly here...
quote:
You have shown very serious and consistent issues with reading comprehension, both to me and others in the past
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.
quote:
I belittle poor reading and argumentative comprehension'

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?
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
That's cause some of us have lived in Arizona.
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.
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.
 
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
quote:
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!

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.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Only the real crackpot liberals are against the law.

Oh, and a few police officers. Like this guy. And these guys. And this Chief of Police Association.

I do not believe all, or even most police officers would abuse the law or racially profile. I do believe that enough will, with full justification provided by this law. As mentioned in the court papers of one of the officers challenging 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.

 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
quote:
I'm sure the ACLU would love to take on this challenge and it would expose, and eventually remove, the racist police.
Hasn't worked on Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio yet, and he's been accused of racial profiling and discrimination for years.
 
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
Jha- 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.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
If only 5%, or even 1% of the police force applies the law in a racist way, that still destroys the credibility and trust police need to operate.
 
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote:
That's cause some of us have lived in Arizona.
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.
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.

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).

If you hang out with minorities long enough, and you observe their interactions with others in society, it doesn't take long to notice implicit and explicit racism occurring, both with private citizens and authorities.

For example, my husband and I travel a lot - and I've never been seriously checked while going through airport security. He (a brown South Asian) has been pulled aside and checked at least three or four times on our last ten or so domestic flights. Is this racial profiling that adversely affects minorities? Yes. Is it wrong? Not entirely, IMO - I think, given the low cost to minorities, the optionality of taking a flight, and the high cost of potential terrorism, ethnicity should probably be included as one factor of many, including things like behavior in determining who gets the serious check in the security line.

So, just to make it clear, I don't have a knee-jerk reaction to racial profiling in all cases. But this Arizona law imposes much higher costs to the general non-white public - just for being in the public, to boot - at relatively little gain (compared to keeping a plane from being hijacked).
 
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The time for the application to process, however, is likely country-dependent. There's only anecdotal evidence out there, but what there is suggests that, for instance, a Pakistani will have a longer time (for the background check) then an Indian would.

I truly believe that if more US citizens learned about the immigration process through family or friends' experiences, our laws would change quickly. It's a largely dehumanizing and absurd experience - stupid health checks, silly questionnaires ("Have you ever committed an act of genocide?"), waiting months or years while your spouse hangs in immigration limbo, an inability to travel (for at least a couple of months) if family gets ill abroad (which happened with us - and it was horrible), expensive, etc, etc.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
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.

I just caught you in two flat-out examples. Like, you demonstrated it for me promptly after the accusation.

You don't seem to UNDERSTAND what it is that you're doing, and you tend to start doing it more and more rashly as a disagreement goes on, but that you don't recognize that you twist and completely misunderstand other people's words to an indefensible degree doesn't help your case, it just leaves you unable to personally improve the habit.

here, you claim that I merely 'insist' that you have reading comprehension problems. This comes literally in response to a post where I demonstrated it. That is more than insisting. It is producing examples of it. You can disagree that this is what it shows, but that's different than seeming to miss entirely the fact that there is more going on here than mere insistence. It's yet another point, demonstrated, where you do this thing you do that causes you to get 'talked down to' -- because I realize I have to walk you carefully through any points of serious contention and work hard to correct you at the points where you frequently go astray through wanton mistranslation and personal supposition.

Need I demonstrate any more? There's times in the past where you have responded nonsequitorially to the things that I have said in blatant fashion due to very VERY poor comprehension.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
You might want to check up on getting caught committing a crime without proper ID.

Thats irrelevant and a red herring.
If you're actually convicted of a crime, then in all three jurisdictions you're pretty much hooped if you're not authorized to be in the country.
What we're talking about here is when there is only reasonable suspicion of a crime.

quote:
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.

Sure they can, if they reasonably suspect you of the crime of being an illegal immigrant.

In Jhai's legal brief
quote:
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.

Meanwhile, in Canada, both foreign passports and PR cards aren't required to be on your person at all times. Ex:
quote:
... the PR card is not a mandatory document within Canada...
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.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:

It isn't racist to use your brains.

Heh. It is if your brains are racist.

See for all their blather about "common sense," racists have no notion of what is not only wrong, but harmful about the way they think.

It's sad that you can be so sensitive to antisemitism, and so deeply boneheaded about other ethnic groups. I guess your ancestors suffered those 4,000 plus years so that you could be raised one relatively secure and comfortable generation away from "**** it, arrest the brown people." There's something pathetic about that.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Now, to argue the other side...

I do not believe it is true that any race is predisposed to crime. I do believe that people on the low end of the economic scale -- for whatever reason -- do tend to commit the most violent crimes, and in many cases -- for whatever reasons -- the local poor community is often composed of minorities.

So when you're a cop, and you spend years getting called to catch a murderer wearing a green hat, and arresting spouse-beaters who wear green hats, and green-hatted drug dealers and green-hatted rapists and green-hatted child abusers, and maybe you've been shot or knifed by someone wearing a green hat, or one of your buddies got killed by a green hatter, and you constantly patrol run-down areas rife with crime you're too understaffed to do anything about and damn near everyone is wearing a green hat and they all look at you like they're getting away with something... I can see where you'd tend to start making assumptions about anyone you saw wearing a green hat. Maybe not even deliberate assumptions, maybe just an unconscious paranoia that nonetheless affects how you deal with green-hatted people, no matter how innocent.

Because cops, for the most part, don't deal with many innocent people. And when you're outnumbered and fighting a battle you know you'll never win, it might make sense to become the aggressor.

This doesn't justify racial profiling. It doesn't excuse it. It doesn't make it right. But it does help me understand why someone would do it.

(I'm not talking about those people who consider other races to be less-than-human, mind you. I have no time at all for out-and-out bigots. And yup, plenty of white people commit violent crimes. And there is certainly plenty of crime on every level of the economic scale, but beat cops rarely investigate, say, corporate embezzlement.)

I haven't changed my mind, I still think this is a bad law.

But.

Illegal immigration is a very real problem, it is very bad in Arizona, and there is a need for some sort of relief. I can't fault them for trying something. I just think this is going to cause more trouble.
 
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Having posted that, I now offer you this: some studies, including one by the FBI, seem to indicate that levels of violent crime are lower in high-immigrant cities.
quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
quote:
I don't give half a s***
Who'd want to receive one? Just sayin'...
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
Meanwhile, in Canada, both foreign passports and PR cards aren't required to be on your person at all times
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?
Mexican Visa
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.


 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
More analogous to the Canadian immigration laws would be to look at US immigration laws, which are quite similar with regards to treatment of Mexicans. Which is not what people are complaining about. Is Canada arresting its own citizens because they aren't carrying a birth certificate, though they are carrying a commercial driver's license (which is much harder to get than a normal one)? That's the equivalent and that is what Arizona has already done.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
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.

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*.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
DK: Huh? Same thing as what precisely? In any case, PR cards are immigration documents.

Also, what on earth do temporary visa requirements have to do with racial profiling?

Practically all nations designate visitors from different states as requiring visas while waiving others.
In fact, if you compare, the, US and Canada they are pretty much the same on visa-free travel policy including Mexico. The differences apply mainly where Canada is more permissive toward Ukrainians, a small part of Africa, and islands around Oceania.

But as scholarette points out, this is all a tangent. We're not really discussing immigration laws as they apply to foreigners, we're discussing internal policies of regulating and enforcing immigration laws on citizens.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
quote:
Also, what on earth do temporary visa requirements have to do with racial profiling?
Because Canada specifically singles out Mexicans (and Czechs too for what that's worth) for this visa requirement.
 
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
Toronto activists speaking out against Canadian immigration policies and abuses Canada seems to be having similar deportation issues...
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Because Canada specifically singles out Mexicans (and Czechs too for what that's worth) for this visa requirement.

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.

Second, visa requirements are determined by citizenship, not by race.

Third, visa requirements apply to non-citizens before they arrive in Canada. The topic under discussion is racial profiling of people, citizens or non-citizens after they arrive in Arizona.
 
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
 
quote:
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]

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.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Toronto activists speaking out against Canadian immigration policies and abuses Canada seems to be having similar deportation issues...

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.
 
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
 
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". I don't really care about what Canada does or does not do - Canada, undoubtedly does a lot of things right and some things wrong. So what?

When Abhi & I travel to India, people give us different treatment because I'm white. Sometimes "different treatment" means charging a higher price, sometimes it means getting better service, sometimes it means getting (relatively) outrageous requests for bribes from corrupt police offices and other government officials. And of course, profiling on the basis of caste/skin tone/ethnicity of citizens is a huge issue throughout the country.

So, yeah, India has racial profiling issues - worse than the US, I'd say. But, again, why does that matter in a discussion about an Arizona law?
 
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
quote:
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".

Oooh! Can we have Canadian health care?
 
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Toronto activists speaking out against Canadian immigration policies and abuses Canada seems to be having similar deportation issues...

I can answer that for you.

No, they are not.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
Because Canada specifically singles out Mexicans (and Czechs too for what that's worth) for this visa requirement.

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.

Second, visa requirements are determined by citizenship, not by race.

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.
 
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
 
I think concerned artists would do better to perform in Arizona and donate proceeds to help fight the law (or reform immigration, or to a civil rights organization, etc.).
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
Why? The number of artists you can get involved in a boycott is probably larger than the number you can get to perform for free. A boycott is a more immediate action, and it can have real results if it's big enough- you put a dent in the state's income and rile up its people because they feel cut off and scorned for what their state is doing. Which is what they should feel.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
scifibum- losing tax revenues hurts the state. Considering how bad the state is doing, it hurts bad. In this case, denying the state the money from their visit is the most effective protest. Boycotts also worked when AZ refused to have a MLK Jr day, so there is reason to think they will work again.
 
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
quote:
Boycotts also worked when AZ refused to have a MLK Jr day, so there is reason to think they will work again.
People boycotted AZ because they didn't celebrate the right holidays?

Let me tell you, that would have caused me to vote against MLK Jr. Day.
 
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:
Boycotts also worked when AZ refused to have a MLK Jr day, so there is reason to think they will work again.
People boycotted AZ because they didn't celebrate the right holidays?

Let me tell you, that would have caused me to vote against MLK Jr. Day.

I hadn't heard about this before. I think for me it would depend on the motivation behind the refusal to acknowledge the day.
 
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:
Boycotts also worked when AZ refused to have a MLK Jr day, so there is reason to think they will work again.
People boycotted AZ because they didn't celebrate the right holidays?

Let me tell you, that would have caused me to vote against MLK Jr. Day.

Yes, the Super Bowl was moved out of Arizona in response to their refusing to observe MLK day.

People are already talking about doing it for the 2011 MLB All Star game now.
 
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
 
The MLK JR thing was kinda confusing and weird. The legislature failed to pass the bill to authorize celebrating the holiday, so the governor passed a bill saying AZ would celebrate it. But then people said that was illegal and so there was a ballot initiative. So, the people had to vote on it. To make the vote nice and clear cut, they had a whole bunch of different initiatives on the ballot- add MLK Jr day, eliminate president's day or add MLK jr day eliminate nothing and I think combing president's day and MLK Jr day (this is from my memory- wiki's summary didn't include this info and I don't care enough to look beyond that). Which meant if you voted yes, no, no and someone else voted no, yes, no and a third voted no, no, yes then none of them got 50%-our paper said add up all the yes to one or the other and over 50% did vote for the day, but in combinations that didn't add up to any of the three passing. So, yeah, the MLK Jr day things had a lot of elements beyond race going on. My vague memory of why the legislature initially refused to pass it was financial concerns, but again, that was a long time ago.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
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:
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.

Riiiiight.
 
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:
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.
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.
 
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:
Originally posted by Sterling:
I think the authors of the Constitution were hoping to prevent tyranny, not merely outsource it.

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.

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:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
... They brought up arms against a much less tyranical one.

Please elaborate
 
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
... They brought up arms against a much less tyranical one.

Please elaborate
The Boston Tea Party was over a tax on Tea.

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:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
The poorer you are, the less likely you are to vote, malanthrop. Next nonsense argument, please.

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.
 
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:
Originally posted by malanthrop:


The top 10% of income earners pay 90% of the taxes.

Even if it were true, this is meaningless without knowing what percentage of the wealth this 10% have.
 
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:
Even if it were true, this is meaningless without knowing what percentage of the wealth this 10% have.
Wikipedia says 71%. But that's wikipedia so take it with grain of salt.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923085.html

Graph comparing percent income with percent taxes paid.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
... The Boston Tea Party was over a tax on Tea.

Sure, why not.

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:
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."

The children depicted attend the school in question.

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:
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.

So, your opinion on the poor voting is really founded on a bunch of tired stereotypes, yes?

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:
We aren't a democracy, we're a constitutional republic.
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.

quote:


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.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/47-Percent-Dont-Pay-Taxes-No-Big-Deal-3230

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 recall any part of the constitution that set a minimum or maximum wage.
I don't think there's anything in the US constitution about the Internet or antibiotics, either. Out with `em!
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
We aren't a democracy, we're a constitutional republic.
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.
YAAY

UNSURPRISINGLY this is now a three chain of correcting malanthrop specifically.

quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
We aren't a democracy, we're a constitutional republic.

Hey lemme repost something I already said.

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 America is a republic, not a democracy
We must reassert that my vehicle is a sedan, not an automobile!
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by malanthrop:
Fortunately in America we have a represenatative republic.

Cool. Want to know something neat? We're also a democracy.
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
The part about the US being a constitutional republic and not a democracy has merit.

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.
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
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.

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."

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:
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.

sooooooooooooo everyone's got this straight now right, no more failing at english language to make a hamfisted political delineation, yeeeessss?


 
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