ParanoiA

Because it matters very little, since it is not a valid reason for lawful contact. Lawful contact must be made first, per the law, then "reasonable suspicion" kicks in for the illegal immigration status. And while I also remain suspicious of what that reasonable suspicion will be, at least it's subtending a violation of law for the detention and ID requirement - it does not impact freedom of movement or make it ok for police officers to randomly inspect private information on a whim. That means all accusations of racism are fabrications of one's own conscience. It's a false appeal made to put those who support enforcing illegal immigration laws on the defensive and to make the accuser look "noble" to his fans. There's not a single instance or example of any such thing, yet here we are fielding invectives of such as if it's the least bit validated. It's offensive, cheap and the same anti-intellectual drivel we get from racial supremacists. Of course. This particular opinion is offensive and has gone unchecked. Members who splatter drive-by racial charges without cause would typically find themselves labeled a troll. I would think it grateful that we actually take such an extreme position seriously enough to critique it. Do we not agree that accusing people of racism should carry a standard that at least requires something in the form of evidence? In a science forum, no less? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged

It's only "flaming" when the truth is repugnant. Here, let me reacquaint you with your previous post: Your charge of racism doesn't have squat to do with the "racist" poster you're so gallantly locked into battle with...it has to do with your interpretation of the law. And that's why I asked where that was in the law. Otherwise, you're concluding "ism" from nothingness. So, again, can you tell us where the law does this? If you're going to use the race card, then it ought to be easy. Otherwise it's a whole 'nother kind of shameful. It's time to face facts, iNow. This was an emotional appeal from the get go, and you appear to be just as duped as I was. Follow through, and hold facts higher than ideological emotion.

This is the most well reasoned post on the subject. It speaks to the reality of the situation, whereas the rest of this thread is about the assumptions and downstream interpretations - a lot of baggage we've added to a simple gesture of respect for their sacrifice. Hey man, if you're going to fight and die for me, then I think I can decorate your grave with whatever symbology you'd like and still not assume or endorse that symbol as a state religion nor suggestion of such, nor would it have ever even crossed my mind. I think we have to be careful to preserve our history while we patrol our government for violations of church and state. Using religion to define marriage and subtending rights might be an example of allowing religion to perverse the state, but crosses on burial grounds and "In God We Trust" on money are examples of historical traditions that perform no function beyond cultural or emotional respect.

I just assumed this was an academic, mental exercise. That's why I had fun with it. I did notice others have been offended, and I'm not sure why. I never took it seriously from the moment I read the title.

I didn't say they were. That is the problem. See, this is what happens when you want to argue with me, but you really don't have an argument. Just a mere centimeter away from your opening sentence contains my quote - "It's always heartening to me to see any scrap of that still alive today. We do have to fiercely fight, claw and scratch to keep our most basic rights." And this is true. Examples where we don't fight and claw for our rights will overload the SFN server. Look at the SC ruling and legislation coming out of the federal government for past 100 years. You don't agree, but that's my opinion. And because the people fell for the "fair master" federal argument in the face of economic woes, we now have an empire trying frantically to be freed from the constitutional shackles and a republic all too ready and willing to accomodate in order to "save" them from the latest fear they're selling. More fabrications from your imagination. I don't remember describing them as they should behave like a bully or the enemy. I do remember saying they should wear sunglasses, strut with some attitude, and don't take any shit from anybody. Aside from my obvious light hearted approach to this description, it should be obvious I'm talking about a strong force of law and legitimacy that does not entertain excuses. Yeah, and when the AP grows a pair and admits when they spread misinformation and does so just as gloriously as they did when they were spreading it, then I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Instead, what we usually get is a correction by the network that carried their blunder, buried where they can avoid the egg on their face. Somehow, I doubt the AP will change their tune no matter how much time goes by, no matter how many times they don't find their own words in the law. Oh yeah, and don't we hold the press to a higher standard than ourselves? I report to me. They report to the people. That's quite a different duty that calls for quite a different set of standards. I still think they are guilty of lying, propaganda and manufacturing dissent as a result of it. New Question...is the AP a real news agency?

No it isn't a minority impulse, it's shared by most. That some are hypocritical about it on the left and right is irrelevant. And I disagree with this how? If you're going to take issue with the particulars of "protect and serve" then you're going to have to do better than just zooming back out and appealing to "protect and serve". Seriously, I'm not sure what you're taking issue with here.

So I guess the Fox news dishonesty bug has spread to the AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100501/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_protests Now that's just dishonest as hell. We all know the law does not say that. They left out the crucial part that takes the wind out of their sails, and makes this entire thing a complete non-issue - lawful contact and reasonable suspicion. Lawful contact means they must be detained for some other legal violation and in addition, there still must be reasonable suspicion to check for immigration status. That's two layers of obligation that the AP just flatly, irresponsibly, left out. It appears they are cooking up stories and issues so they can sell them. Should we propose a moratorium on AP articles?

Oops, I did that. I didn't count my 401K, which would put me over 10K. I was thinking of accessible personal savings.

Interesting piece on the Arizona Immigration law: And the law does read that way. That's the same piece I pulled out of that PDF of the bill. I don't see how there's any legitimate reason to be concerned about this law at all. We have been hoodwinked by the media. Which speaks directly to bascule's post about a moratorium on Newscorp based on the notion they create more invective and less objectivity. That's exactly what's happened here, only it wasn't Newscorp. Curious... So is there any reason to take the protestors of this law, seriously? The law doesn't say any of that. Are these people tea partiers? And will we see more? I think so. This is going to be fun. I can't wait to see the stupid slogans they put on their signs, putting their ignorance on glorious display for us to enjoy. I'm sure the tea party opposition will have no problem with this, right? Right?

The part you're missing is that offshore drilling was part of Obama's energy platform. (sorry, that's about as lame as the person that just has to throw in "and many more..." at the end of the Happy Birthday song isn't it?) I was watching the news last night, and I guess they're slamming the administration for being quick to send out the lawyers, and slow to respond to the clean up. Now the spill is headed for Louisiana and Florida, and once again, Louisiana is screwed by an inactive administration. They're comparing this to Katrina - and I'm not talking about Fox news either. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/us/politics/01obama.html http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64000320100501 http://www.malaysianews.net/story/629734 http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0501/1224269476038.html http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/30/93231/gulf-oil-spill-brings-out-attorneys.html And really, it's starting to sound like the left wants it both ways. The oil spill being a catastrophic event with terrible environmental consequences and loss of life - but not so bad that the administration should be held accountable for *not* acting like it. Of course, the conservatives are criticizing the moratorium on offshore drilling, but that seems entirely practical to me. Until you find out what happened, it's difficult to approve new work. There may be additional requirements for an offshore rig, or a change in design - similar to bascule's comment about nuclear "negative void coefficient" to prevent another Chernobyl.

Yeah, I certainly don't mind and I just assumed it was an open poll. To be honest, all of my life has been paycheck to paycheck, living in debt. I followed the standard debt explosion of financing autos, credit cards, gizmos and hobby equipment..etc. Only recently have we got a handle on our debt psychology and forced ourselves to save, save, save. It's been the best thing to happen to us. I no longer live paycheck to paycheck, we have plenty of cushion for emergencies and I owe nothing to anyone. Not one dime. However, we'll see how long it takes to save up what we need to start another business venture. This is the weakness of savings over borrowing.

I understand your point, really. You're trying to be reasonable and thoughtful about it and that's commendable. But defiance runs rich in the romance of our republic, tracing back to our founding. It's always heartening to me to see any scrap of that still alive today. We do have to fiercely fight, claw and scratch to keep our most basic rights. That said, the defiance I'm getting from some here is really choking me up guys....you make me proud SFN. Well, I don't think that's abuse though, or at least not your example. Personally, I resent many of my interactions with law enforcement and their pushy, bossy, drama method of assessing me or my family. I could tell you a couple of stories since I moved here to Blue Springs, MO and how much I wanted to smack these power tripped idiots and their overall entitlement attitude to authority in all situations. But...a big but here...that's their role. That's what they're supposed to do. To be authoritative pricks. "Bad guys" hate that. And that's what we want them to do. To wear those terminator sunglasses, strut with some attitude, and don't take any shit. I don't want them overly concerned about my rights and being cordial when I have an intruder in my home - I want them to burst right in and gun the f**cker down; I want them to feel entitled to enter my home and deal with it. So, I piss and moan when they treat me badly, but really we need them to push to protect us and themselves as much as possible. Not a total disrespect though. I don't think it does, but it sure does feel good.

Oh yes, I see, so all nuclear accidents are impossible now that we have this "negative void coefficient"... Sorry, I ain't buyin' it. Hell, one terrorist act on a nuclear facility and all the neocons will point and say "told ya so". Real-world examples of accidents are just that...real world examples of accidents.

Jackson, I don't dispute the above. I use the word 'suspicious' because I still don't know of an example of "reasonable suspicion" for the crime of illegal immigration alone. It may well be they don't plan on even attempting to apply reasonable suspicion for illegal immigration, all by itself. But in theory, every crime, including illegal immigration, implicitly carries this "reasonable suspicion" with it.

Yes, because we can point to Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents as "oops, real-world examples of the consequences" when you advocate nuclear power. Until we get solar or biofuels or what not advanced enough to ditch oil, we are going to have to get oil out of the earth. We can either buy it all, from a whole host of enemy states, and further demonstrate our utter dependence or we can do it ourselves. I prefer to do it ourselves.

As an objective observer, it looks like you two are talking right past each other. Skeptic appears to be making a clinical argument of function whereas Pangloss appears to take that as value judgments. Am I close?

Exactly. I'm proud of our immigration laws and our comparitively open atmosphere. The only thing that bugs me about conservatives on this issue, in general, is this appeal to 'importing cultures' and criticizing immigrants for not embracing an "american culture". I really don't get this. I want their culture imported. That is american culture. I'm not calling them bigots, but I do find it offensive to hold that view and overly traditionalist. I used to have an extremely open border position on immigration. That changed once I got in a debate here with a member, Bookworm, if I remember correctly. Bookworm did a thorough job of chopping my arguments to pieces and getting through to my head what true control-free immigration looks like and what it does to economy and standard of living. You think it's the rich that gets displaced? Think again. You think it's the middle class that gets displaced? Think again. It's the already pretty damn poor that get hit hardest by unending surges of ridiculously cheap labor. They don't need it any worse than they already have it. The fact of the matter is, whether you like it or not, controlled flow of immigrants is necessary to balance the ability of the economy to adjust to that flow. Your grass doesn't grow when you flood it with water - it grows when you water it slowly, consistently, in balance with the environment. (this, coming from a man that can only grow weeds in his yard...) The reason everyone wants to come to the US is because of our standard of living and opportunity available - all of which vanishes when you open the flood gates (and yes, that includes white people from Europe). That will definitely stop immigration into the US then, and may start up immigration out of the US instead. We need immigrants and we want immigrants. We are built on it, and we should always be proud of that. I love the notion of bringing us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. I love the whole idea of having more variety of humans here than any place else on the planet. To continue to be that beakon of hope, opportunity and diversity in the world for the future we must preserve it. That means balance, which also means hard reality. That's life. Same here. Although, after reading that bill, I noticed a section about illegal hiring practices - like automobiles stopping in the middle of the road, in traffic, to solicit workers standing on the corner or what not. Since this is illegal, per the bill, then I'm guessing that's probable cause anyway and they could act to identify and all that. But it could be those behaviors that satisfy "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" for illegal immigration, by itself. Honestly, I think we're going to have to see what they do. I don't read anything in the bill that directly suggests 'show me your papers'. I read some things in the bill that make me suspicious of 'show me your papers', so I'll be watching.

You know, I may have to concede and eat some humble pie. I know better than to take reporting for granted, yet I have done just that. Actually, we all know better than that, and here's what I found right at the beginning of the bill: First thing, is "reasonable suspicion" legally equivalent to "probable cause"? That's crucial for this interpretation of the law, I think. And that's crucial for the political conclusion. Now, I'm still asking "what is reasonable suspicion" or "what is probable cause for illegal immigration", but the law does *not* say law enforcement can randomly check for immigration status. The rest of the bill is directed at trafficking and employers and stuff like that and I did not see anything else specifically pointing out law enforcement directives for investigative technique. I'm going to have to relax on all this until I understand the legal distinction between reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Thanks for the link Jackson, I may stand corrected.

Yes, "Carry your papers" but not "let me see your papers". Think about it...when you demand to see these "papers", you do not yet know if this person is a natural born citizen or an immigrant. You can't know if this person is required to carry a green card or not until you identify them - that's the part that's unconstitutional in the Arizona law. Those of us against this law for that reason are demanding probable cause. Skin color and racial distinctions are not probable cause. Natural born citizens look the same as citizens required to carry their papers. So, again, what is the probable cause that allows Arizona to ignore the 4th amendment, at least in terms of the verbiage that authorizes that violation?

Now that's a sig if I ever saw one. Good one.

But see, that introduces another problem we get from Krugman and the left that conservatives have a legitimate complaint against: conflating illegal immigration with general immigration. That article, and the part you quoted, is a perfect example. Even within that quoted argument, which is absolutely otherwise sound, he commits an egregious offense in that last sentence: It's not anti-immigration fever, it's anti-illegal-immigration fever. Duncan is proposing an extremely offensive, tyrannical, despostic action entirely antithetical to american liberty - the kind of thing you spill blood for. That proposal better not get anywhere. The moment we see images of people hauled off to be deported because their parents comitted the crime, is the moment we truly divide as a country. And even as disgusting as Duncan's suggestion is, it's still not anti-immigration - his, albeit flawed, reasoning still hinges on their parents being illegal, and thus drawing the conclusion that they should be illegal as well. America is everything it is expected to be when it comes to immigration laws. We are a very kind, very welcoming country with little demands and punishments compared to our neighbors. If one wants to discuss the merits of immigration control, that's fine, but they should be honest and shift the discussion openly. Conflating the two, is dishonest and it empowers the opponent since it validates their perceptions and thus validates their conclusions. The conservatives, and especially Duncan, are wrong on this. We don't need to make believe they are bigots - they are plenty wrong without all of that.

Ok, so now the conservatives are out waxxing on about those of us who don't like the "show me your papers" part of this law as if we're all objecting to it because of our naive compassion for the plight of an illegal immigrant. Just this morning, I hear Liz Cheney start in with the appeals to law and order too, "We are a nation of laws", and how we need to be able to enforce our laws and blah blah blah. This is so stupid, I can barely coherently bitch about it. Let's review the 4th: Gee, that appears to speak directly to enforcing laws. Way to go, Captain Obvious, if that ridiculous appeal to law enforcement really carries the day for you Liz, then we should cancel the whole freaking amendment shouldn't we? It's always about enforcing laws. That's an empty, shallow argument with no logical component. Hell, murder is worse than illegal immigration - why don't we abandon the 4th with those same, short sighted emotional appeals to enforcing laws to stop child murderers? I mean come on, aren't we not coming clean and admitting we have a problem with murder? Aren't we just dismissing legitimate concern for the problem of murder when we allow the 4th to hold us back? Rush Limbaugh hung himself on the radio too, and I bring this up because I'm sure a lot of conservatives have made the same mistake. He said something to the effect that, liberals were up in arms about the "show me your papers" verbiage in the Arizona law, yet had no problem with "show me your papers" with respect to the health care bill. Well way to go Rush. Yes, how do you and yours work around the affront to freedom with respect to health care, yet have no problems with the affront to freedom with respect to the right to remain anonymous and free from state coersion and harassment in the absence of probable cause? I keep asking, and all I hear are birds and crickets...(well ok, sirens too, I live in KC ya' know) What is probable cause to suspect a person of illegal immigration? I'm sure it exists. But what is it? And does it ever remotely resemble arbitrarily asking for ID? I also keep hearing "well, they aren't racially profiling, they must have a reason to pull them over or detain them" - well then you don't need this stupid law! It's already in the books, folks. That's in the OP sources, BTW. I like to see states get pissed and do something about it, as we've all seen that Obama is more worried about sending "messages" to other countries than protecting his citizens. But to counter with an equally constitutionally offensive action is about as shallow as it gets. Militarize the border. Punish employers. Deport illegals. Do all that. And respect our constitutional restraints as you do it - just like we do with murder.

Cool. Ok, that clears up that part for me. I'm still not sure about people that provide a service. Do we see them as adding "value" as opposed to wealth creation too? Makes sense, if I'm understanding you.

Easy. Sensationalism is justified when the source is right, and not justified when the source is wrong. After all of these years, you're still having a hard time with this. Actually, I think all of this boils down to the same arguments about bias - is it better to advertise the bias and admit it, or is it better to pretend to be as objective as possible while ultimately still being biased. In this case, bascule and others seem to prefer the traditional, tired model of "objective" reporting when there's really no such thing. The newer, progressive model of reporting we're seeing is admiting the bias, giving the viewer or reader a more honest experience.

To me, it's much ado about nothing. Obama is plenty visible. I also like his speeches where he ridicules the press and the finicky mainstream political BS. I know he's also a part of some of that, but I enjoy seeing presidents comfortable being a little more animated and candid. Seems more real to me.