Arizona's New ID (Immigration) Law

[jryan]

Funny, when I get pulled over by a police officer I just remind myself that if someone were shooting at me they would risk their life to protect mine. After that being disrespectful goes from "fight the power!" to being "I'm a dick!".

[ParanoiA]

Interesting piece on the Arizona Immigration law:

 

The heart of the law is this provision: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…"

 

 

Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.

 

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

 

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?

 

Participants held signs and chanted “Boycott Arizona” and “Repeal SB 1070 now!”

 

Frederick Cortes, a junior in political science at ISU, said the bill allows for racial profiling and called it “the most blatantly racist legislation in recent memory.”

 

Cortes read portions of the bill over a microphone and explained possible ramifications for Hispanic people living in Arizona, including wrongful detentions and separation from families.

 

More than 50 people participated in a peaceful protest Friday against Arizona’s new immigration law. The group marched from Iowa State University’s Memorial Union to Parks Library, holding signs and chanting slogans such as “no to racism” and “no to racial profiling.”

 

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?

[jackson33]

This being Arizona, though, that's not going to help, since they just passed the law making concealed weapons legal. [/Quote]

 

swansont; I'll have to admit, I was not aware of that new law and had to look it up. As the bill we're talking about, and concealed weapons law, will take effect at the same time. This would concern me a little more, if in Law Enforcement, which they apparently approved of.

 

By eliminating the permit requirement, the Arizona legislation will allow people 21 or older to forego background checks and classes that are now required. [/Quote]

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/ap_on_re_us/us_xgr_concealed_weapons_arizona

 

 

Yes 'Moon', they will be required to advise any officer, if asked;

 

Under the Arizona legislation, people carrying a concealed weapon will be required to tell a police officer that if asked, and the officer can temporarily take the weapon while communicating with the person. [/Quote]

 

Same link as above...

 

 

But rulings have also found that the 4th amendment allows you to simply walk away, absent probable cause to detain you. i.e. you have the right to not talk to the police, and not talking to the police does not constitute probable cause. [/Quote]

 

swansont; How would a person know if or when 'probable cause' was in play, without actually asking. If asked and the officer said "No, I'm just curious why your trying to open that door at 3AM", then they can walk away, not before. For instance, when those blue or red lights start flashing behind you, I wouldn't think continuing to drive would be advised, or would the officer assume that meant he should cease, probable cause of a crime or not. For all the driver knows, the officer simple wanted to let the driver know his/her license plate was about to fall off. It's all circumstantial, local policy and State law. In Texas, you can be arrested and hauled off to jail, for simply not signing a complaint (ticket), where I don't think this is the case anyplace else.

[ParanoiA]

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

 

Activists believe opposition to the law — which requires authorities to question people about immigration status if there is reason to suspect they're in the country illegally — could be the catalyst to draw crowds similar to those four years ago.

 

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?

[Moontanman]

I've seen police officers handle very rude often abusive individuals, generally they took far more than I would personally.

 

I can't see any reason to be rude to someone who is simply trying to his job, as long as he treats me with a reasonable amount of respect he will get it from me.

 

My politics might generally be liberal but I am also civilized and feel like people do indeed have certain basic rights but so do police officers. They have a difficult job, often enforcing unpopular laws on people who are too stupid to to know holding their tongues and being polite will get you through more check points for things like drugs and alcohol than trying to insure your "rights".

 

(although the idea of a check point pisses me off big time)

 

If the police do get out of hand with me I would be the first insist on a supervisor and then a lawyer but trying to provoke a possibly tired and on his "last nerve" police officer is really stupid.

[swansont]

swansont; How would a person know if or when 'probable cause' was in play, without actually asking. If asked and the officer said "No, I'm just curious why your trying to open that door at 3AM", then they can walk away, not before. For instance, when those blue or red lights start flashing behind you, I wouldn't think continuing to drive would be advised, or would the officer assume that meant he should cease, probable cause of a crime or not. For all the driver knows, the officer simple wanted to let the driver know his/her license plate was about to fall off. It's all circumstantial, local policy and State law. In Texas, you can be arrested and hauled off to jail, for simply not signing a complaint (ticket), where I don't think this is the case anyplace else.

 

You have to ask what their probable cause is. If they turn on the flashy lights, they'd better have a reason for doing so.

[Moontanman]

You have to ask what their probable cause is. If they turn on the flashy lights, they'd better have a reason for doing so.

 

So you ask him WTF does he think he can stop you and he wackes your tail light and says you have a tail light out, please step out of the car. You comply and "hit your head" trying to take his gun, you go to jail and in the position of your word against along time police officer. Hmmmm...

[Mr Skeptic]

No one ever said that standing up for your rights is the safe nor polite thing to do.

[DrDNA]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/ap_on_re_us/us_xgr_concealed_weapons_arizona

 

By eliminating the permit requirement, the Arizona legislation will allow people 21 or older to forego background checks and classes that are now required.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/...eapons_arizona

[/Quote]

 

That is not correct. Federal law requires the everyone purchasing a gun from a dealer undergo a federal background check. A state law cannot change that.

Even the story you cited states:

 

""Federal law requires anyone buying a gun from a licensed dealer to undergo a background check, but that requirement does not apply to sales by individuals who aren't dealers. Arizona's law won't change that.""

 

Undergo, not forego.

 

Gun shows and the like the have always been exempt.

[Pangloss]

No one ever said that standing up for your rights is the safe nor polite thing to do.

 

I guess I'm just wondering what heinous harm is taking place that requires us to challenge local authority at every turn.

 

This strikes me as dangerous for the same reason as people showing up for rallies with weapons, or civilians patrolling the border. I get the point, but all I can say is, be careful what you wish for. When the bullets start flying the Constitution is going to feel a very long way away.

[The Bear's Key]

But defiance runs rich in the romance of our republic, tracing back to our founding.

No it doesn't, it "runs rich" only among a minority who keep up the good fight -- while various others instead sometimes keep up the manufactured fight that works against our rights.

 

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.

Really? Take a look at the antiquated laws in history books. Not many people fought/scratched/clawed/ against laws that prohibited a citizen getting blow jobs by their own wife, for example.

 

However, you don't need look too far back in history. It took a Supreme Court decision in 2003 to get Texas respecting civil liberties on that matter.

 

 

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...

No. They are supposed to protect and serve. I do think it's unwise to antagonize the cops for no reason, or to blame all of the cops for the actions of a few rotten cops, yet I do think it's anyone's right to show an officer disrespect in a non-threatening manner (and without jeopardizing the officer's routine or emergency duties). Also, it can't be something that we're legally prohibited from doing to any other citizen -- such as verbal abuse.

 

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.

Why can't they do both? -- Remain level-headed and perform marvelously in extremely tense situations?

 

I certainly wouldn't trust a driver who hyper-reacts to an oncoming accident or highway pile-up. I'd trust the driver who remains cool, instantly making decisions with a calm hand on the steering wheel and legs flexible enough (to smoothly react) on the pedals.

 

Same with cops on entering a dangerous situation that involves the rescue of my family and I. Really, wouldn't you?

 

 

I don't think it does, but it sure does feel good.

Yes, sometimes it does.

 

 

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.

........

So is there any reason to take the protestors of this law, seriously?

Not if the protesters know those facts yet would keep protesting the very same inaccuracy afterwards.

 

 

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.

You and everyone were just as misinformed, yet no one was dishonest.

 

It could be simple laziness in research by the AP, jumping to conclusions, and/or the normal inaccuracies that pop up when attempting to get the news out too quickly as a business model. Or it could be a political motivation like you implied. But to compare with Fox is just nonsense. It's not like they've mislabeled bad Democrats as "Republicans", eh? (like when Fox mislabeled bad Republicans as Democrats).

 

However, concerning the situation of Arizona's new law, don't go by just my word about how the AP's journalists might have been lax on the research.

 

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0506/1224245992919.html

A WIKIPEDIA hoax by a 22-year-old Dublin student resulted in a fake quote being published in newspaper obituaries around the world.

 

 

I guess I'm just wondering what heinous harm is taking place that requires us to challenge local authority at every turn.

He didn't say challenge local authority at every turn. It was in reference to being able keep walking if the officer hasn't a good reason to search you, or a they don't have the legal grounds to do so.

[swansont]

So you ask him WTF does he think he can stop you and he wackes your tail light and says you have a tail light out, please step out of the car. You comply and "hit your head" trying to take his gun, you go to jail and in the position of your word against along time police officer. Hmmmm...

 

This is one reason why police now have dashboard video cameras.

 

I think when you invoke a scenario of voluntarily waiving your rights because the police are corrupt, the whole discussion of exercising civil rights so we don't become a police state becomes moot.

[ParanoiA]

No it doesn't, it "runs rich" only among a minority who keep up the good fight -- while various others instead sometimes keep up the manufactured fight that works against our rights.

 

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.

 

Really? Take a look at the antiquated laws in history books. Not many people fought/scratched/clawed/ against laws that prohibited a citizen getting blow jobs by their own wife' date=' for example.

 

However, you don't need look too far back in history. It took a Supreme Court decision in 2003 to get Texas respecting civil liberties on that matter. [/quote']

 

Ok...so we don't have to fight, claw and scratch to keep our most basic civil rights? I seem to remember a New Deal president, Mr Roosevelt I believe, that squashed the rights of 120,000 Japanese citizens in opposition to a mere handful of whimpering politicians. I don't think sleeping on the job is good for guarding liberty.

 

No. They are supposed to protect and serve. I do think it's unwise to antagonize the cops for no reason, or to blame all of the cops for the actions of a few rotten cops, yet I do think it's anyone's right to show an officer disrespect in a non-threatening manner (and without jeopardizing the officer's routine or emergency duties). Also, it can't be something that we're legally prohibited from doing to any other citizen -- such as verbal abuse.

 

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.

 

Why can't they do both? -- Remain level-headed and perform marvelously in extremely tense situations?

 

I certainly wouldn't trust a driver who hyper-reacts to an oncoming accident or highway pile-up. I'd trust the driver who remains cool' date=' instantly making decisions with a calm hand on the steering wheel and legs flexible enough (to smoothly react) on the pedals.

 

Same with cops on entering a dangerous situation that involves the rescue of my family and I. Really, wouldn't you? [/quote']

 

Again...I disagree with this how? You're having to split some awfully fine hairs to take issue with my post.

 

I never implied anything even remotely extreme or a lack of balance. I'm implying that police officers should vigorously and passionately play their role. Just as I think politicians should. Just as I think teachers should. And so on. Passionately fulfilling one's duty does not suggest extreme behavior, however it does suggest disappointment at structure that prohibits their duty. That's human. If they're not disappointed in that, they shouldn't be police officers.

 

You and everyone were just as misinformed' date=' yet no one was dishonest.

 

It could be simple laziness in research by the AP, jumping to conclusions, and/or the normal inaccuracies that pop up when attempting to get the news out too quickly as a business model. Or it could be a political motivation like you implied. But to compare with Fox is just nonsense. It's not like they've mislabeled bad Democrats as "Republicans", eh? (like when Fox mislabeled bad Republicans as Democrats).

[/quote']

 

Nah. I prefer consistency. When someone spreads disinformation, they get no stretches of benefit of the doubt such as you've given the AP here. Fox gets trashed for it, and excuses like the above don't fly for them, and shouldn't. I hardly see how it should fly for the AP.

 

They continue to lie and distort the Arizona law. And that is purely manufactured dissent by fraud. As we watch the protests, we can all shake our heads and/or laugh how the media is wagging the dog.

[jackson33]

Doc; You arguing with the choir. First and as stated, this was new to me and only passed on the first article to confirm what 'swansont' had mentioned. Second and as stated, this would WORRY ME MORE, than the Arizona ID Law. Third, the Federal is about as inefficient on this issue (IMO), as any of their regulations and full of loopholes. I'll assume Arizona, backed up Federal Laws, as many States do and will simply discontinue that process.

 

 

In states that agree to serve as POCs for the NICS, the functions performed by the NICS Section are performed by a local or state law enforcement agency which services the FFLs. The FFLs call these local or state agencies, which perform the check, make the decision whether the check indicates an individual is disqualified or not from possessing a firearm, and notify the FFL of the results of the check. [/Quote]

 

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsfact.htm

 

 

 

This is one reason why police now have dashboard video cameras.

 

I think when you invoke a scenario of voluntarily waiving your rights because the police are corrupt, the whole discussion of exercising civil rights so we don't become a police state becomes moot.[/Quote]

 

swansont; Your NOT that young, that you can't recall such incidents in the past. I certainly do and I'm talking into the late 90's, especially for those driving big rigs. Is there a Federal Law, requiring Dash Board Cams, or is the a State/Local policy to back up their officers???

 

As for a 'Police State', many jurisdictions are and have been for years, like 100 or more years, but more often used for acquiring revenue. I don't know of a place or area where people don't drive over the speed limit, use rolling stops at stop signs or break any number of local laws (sometimes unknowingly) when on a casual drive. All the traffic officer needs to see, is one mile over that speed limit, to justifiably stop you, ask questions, check for whatever a REAL reason for the stop might be and either send you on your way, ticket you or follow up on other suspicions. Frankly, I don't oppose the system, believe there should be some leeway to follow up on 'gut feelings', but there is and always will be those that simply go too far. I'll base this on the premise, Local/State/Federal roads are in fact a privilege to use, not the right of individuals.

[swansont]

 

swansont; Your NOT that young, that you can't recall such incidents in the past.

 

No, I'm not. Good thing I didn't claim that such events didn't/don't happen.

[pioneer]

I look at racial profiling as an intelligent way to use the scientific method. Say we were trying to isolate an effect. We know the weeds are causing the plants in the garden to grow slower. The most efficient use of resources and manpower is to focus on weeds.

 

If we someone decided, only looking at weeds, might hurt the weed's feelings; weed profiling, they might decide we need to randomly try all plants in the garden including the one we are trying to protect. This way we don't offend the weeds. This will take much more resources to achieve less results in more time. If the goal was not to achieve results this would be the path one needs to takes. But it is not a rational scientific path. This irrational science is called political science.

 

Here is how political science wants the weed experiment run; they want all the plants randomly offended, even the innocent, to lower the odds the criminal will be caught. The criminal party is sticking up for their fellow criminals and is willing to violate innocent citizens to do so, since this is what criminals do.

[Mr Skeptic]

I guess I'm just wondering what heinous harm is taking place that requires us to challenge local authority at every turn.

 

If people voluntarily surrender their rights out of fear, out of a sense that they must be respectful to the law, because they feel socially obligated to, etc., do they still have these rights? Or just an illusion of them? If most people cooperate in giving away their rights, it becomes much easier for the police to pressure others into doing so as well, such as harassing you with minor traffic violations.

 

This strikes me as dangerous for the same reason as people showing up for rallies with weapons, or civilians patrolling the border. I get the point, but all I can say is, be careful what you wish for. When the bullets start flying the Constitution is going to feel a very long way away.

 

Maybe you didn't notice, but I never said it would be safe nor polite. I'll also add that it might not be cheap either. I would much rather other people do this, lots of other people.

 

Also, it's perfectly possible to respect cops while acting disrespectfully toward them.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I can't see any reason to be rude to someone who is simply trying to his job, as long as he treats me with a reasonable amount of respect he will get it from me.

 

What if he doesn't treat you with a reasonable amount of respect? What if he uses his position of power and authority, social conventions, or deceit, to pressure you into giving up your rights? If cops generally respected people's rights and trust I would have an awful lot more respect for them. It would, of course, make their job much harder -- which is exactly why I would have so much respect for that.

[iNow]

I look at racial profiling as an intelligent way to use the scientific method. Say we were trying to isolate an effect. We know the weeds are causing the plants in the garden to grow slower. The most efficient use of resources and manpower is to focus on weeds.

 

If we someone decided, only looking at weeds, might hurt the weed's feelings; weed profiling, they might decide we need to randomly try all plants in the garden including the one we are trying to protect. This way we don't offend the weeds.

 

What a deeply flawed and inaccurate analogy... one which shows just how profoundly you fail to grasp the reality of the opposition.

 

The issue is that in your attempts to focus on the "weeds," you are going to by default mistake a rather significant portion of the other plants in your garden which are absolutely supposed to be there... as themselves being "weeds." Those plants belong there. You put them there, and yet they too are being treated like weeds... plucked out of the soil, subjected to deeper investigation, harassment, and duress.

 

It's a simple and classic issue of false positives.

 

 

Nobody argues with the notion that something must be done to prevent illegal immigration.

Nobody argues with the notion that more should be done to protect the borders.

Nobody argues with the notion that we need to figure out how to properly handle people in this country who have been here for years contributing, but who did so via a path which was not legal.

Nobody argues with the notion that we need to crack down on employers who are employing people illegally to save a few bucks.

 

 

This isn't about hurting the "weeds" feelings, or making the "weeds" feel offended, and you sound like a damn racist fool for even suggesting such a thing. The argument here is with the law passed in Arizona which will explicitly infringe upon the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the citizens in our country who happen to be a little bit more brown or poor looking.

 

 

The issue here is how such a significant percentage of our own citizens will be so broadly and near-universally lumped into this ignorant Arizona law... basically for not being white.

Edited May 2, 2010 by iNow

[The Bear's Key]

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.

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.

Well, I don't see the population directly around me in a perpetual struggle doing what you claim above. It's a fantasy notion that most people are busy doing so.

 

Yes...we must be vigilant, and not take our liberties for granted, and make sure enough people know their rights (and why). However, what's needed is direct and open transparency in government. A lack of that is what gets corrupt politicians (or their advisors/donators) to hack our rights.

 

If people know (educational depth), and can see it plainly (government transparency), liberty is naturally preserved by a combination of the good fight, exposure of corruption, nipping at the bud, etc.

 

Those who seem to be preocuppied so much with the notion of an everyday (and mighty) fight to preserve liberty, are the ones misled so easily by the cons who exploit that sentiment.

 

Case in point: the "New Deal" era Supreme Court wasn't the first to make the kind of decisions claimed by the Right. But lots of converts viewing the world through enemies-colored glasses sure ate up that revision of history.

 

 

Ok...so we don't have to fight, claw and scratch to keep our most basic civil rights? I seem to remember a New Deal president, Mr Roosevelt I believe, that squashed the rights of 120,000 Japanese citizens in opposition to a mere handful of whimpering politicians.

And that occurred because of no Freedom of Information, secrecy in government, misleading propaganda, and related things.

 

Notice how such an event wouldn't occur today, at least not as easily. Information's the enemy of tyranny...real information -- and the fight then happens naturally where it counts most: at the beginning of abuse, rather than at the end, or middle. Heck, it takes much less fight at that point, and instead merely a healthy dose of it tossed with a more constructive approach of ingenuity, misdeeds exposure, and voting.

 

 

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.

Cops aren't supposed to be walking like they're the enemy or bully-ish. It's what I get from your description. Unless there's some legal paperwork handy you can point to that specifies cops are meant to act like that...

 

 

Nah. I prefer consistency. When someone spreads disinformation, they get no stretches of benefit of the doubt such as you've given the AP here.

Well, you did spread misinformation,* and still get the benefit of doubt. It'd be different if you were doing it consistently and system-wide, doing big things to reinforce the accusation continually/systematically (like you-know-which-network).

 

Fox gets trashed for it, and excuses like the above don't fly for them, and shouldn't.

No, they get trashed for doing such activities beyond a reasonable doubt, in a more severe manner.

 

 

*(by not having facts straight at beginning of thread)

[ParanoiA]

This isn't about hurting the "weeds" feelings' date=' or making the "weeds" feel offended, and you sound like a damn racist fool for even suggesting such a thing. The argument here is with the law passed in Arizona which will explicitly infringe upon the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the citizens in our country who happen to be a little bit more brown or poor looking.

 

 

The issue here is how such a significant percentage of our own citizens will be so broadly and near-universally lumped into this ignorant Arizona law... basically for not being white.[/quote']

 

Show me where in the law this is at. You can't because it doesn't exist. Please stop labeling your countrymen as racists because you can't understand english. Read the law, educate yourself first. You and the AP are behaving like Fox news now. All baseless emotion, no supporting evidence or reason.

 

Such a careless misuse of the race card. You should be ashamed.

 

Well, I don't see the population directly around me in a perpetual struggle doing what you claim above. It's a fantasy notion that most people are busy doing so.

 

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.

 

And that occurred because of no Freedom of Information' date=' secrecy in government, misleading propaganda, and related things.

 

Notice how such an event wouldn't occur today, at least not as easily. Information's the enemy of tyranny...real information -- and the fight then happens naturally where it counts most: at the beginning of abuse, rather than at the end, or middle. Heck, it takes much less fight at that point, and instead merely a healthy dose of it tossed with a more constructive approach of ingenuity, misdeeds exposure, and voting. [/quote']

 

Bullshit. It happened because democrat and republican leaders didn't respect the citizenry's rights more than they feared the Japanese. Just like they don't respect the citizenry's rights today more than they fear economic speed bumps. They didn't fight and claw to keep our most basic rights. They let fear relocate security. And it's happening on a certain level with terror detainees, today.

 

It's the same crap, different day. Using economic fear to rationalize trumping our rights, appealing to some shallow "pragmatic" doom's day argument. That's the problem with strong federal level, centralized power - consolidated power is far more easily corrupted and gauranteed. We already know this, and the framers warned us aplenty, but we just keep on ignoring it in the face of an idealized benevolent government caretaker psychology.

 

Cops aren't supposed to be walking like they're the enemy or bully-ish. It's what I get from your description. Unless there's some legal paperwork handy you can point to that specifies cops are meant to act like that...

 

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.

 

Well, you did spread misinformation,* and still get the benefit of doubt. It'd be different if you were doing it consistently and system-wide, doing big things to reinforce the accusation continually/systematically (like you-know-which-network).

 

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?

Edited May 4, 2010 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

Show me where in the law this is at. You can't because it doesn't exist. Please stop labeling your countrymen as racists because you can't understand english. Read the law, educate yourself first.

He was labeled by me as a racist due to his insinuation that people who have crossed the border illegally are like weeds. I took issue with that insinuation, and when reviewed in context of his posting history here (and elsewhere under the username HydrogenBond) you can see that my disgust is well justified and appropriate.

 

Nothing to do with the wording of the law. My concerns about the wording of the law have been described previously in the thread, and incidentally you agreed with those concerns. This point was in direct response to Pioneer's analogy. Stop flaming me like you do bascule. I didn't open the threads about which you're lambasting me here.

[ParanoiA]

He was labeled by me as a racist due to his insinuation that people who have crossed the border illegally are like weeds. I took issue with that insinuation, and when reviewed in context of his posting history here (and elsewhere under the username HydrogenBond) you can see that my disgust is well justified and appropriate.

 

Nothing to do with the wording of the law. My concerns about the wording of the law have been described previously in the thread, and incidentally you agreed with those concerns. This point was in direct response to Pioneer's analogy. Stop flaming me like you do bascule. I didn't open the threads about which you're lambasting me here.

 

 

It's only "flaming" when the truth is repugnant.

 

Here, let me reacquaint you with your previous post:

 

This isn't about hurting the "weeds" feelings' date=' or making the "weeds" feel offended, and you sound like a damn racist fool for even suggesting such a thing. [b']The argument here is with the law passed in Arizona which will explicitly infringe upon the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the citizens in our country who happen to be a little bit more brown or poor looking.[/b]

 

 

The issue here is how such a significant percentage of our own citizens will be so broadly and near-universally lumped into this ignorant Arizona law... basically for not being white.

 

 

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.

[Pangloss]

Okay, I agree with challenging that assumption-of-racism (playing the race card), but dial it back a notch, please. Everyone has a right to their opinion.

[iNow]

Besides actually seeing someone crawling under/over a fence on the border, please do tell WTF a reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant is. We're now 100 posts into this thread, and despite that question being raised in post #4 it has yet to be addressed.

[Pangloss]

Is that really so hard to imagine?

 

"Well, officer, I was about to hire that guy to tile my roof and I asked him if he could produce his green card, and he could not."

 

"Well, officer, I was about to hire that gentleman to work in my fast food restaurant, but when I asked him for two sources of identification for his W-2, as I am required to do by Federal law, he admitted that he was in the country illegally."

 

"Well, officer, I was about to clear that gentleman to board the airplane but I asked to see his picture ID, like I do for all passengers, but his was clearly a forgery."

 

etc