Boycott AZ...especially its Tea!

[G-spotter]

 

yeah right, like THAT's gonna happen.

 

It won't happen but that's the point. Arizona is flat out calling LA a bunch of pussies, which they are.

 

Like the AZ law or not, LA wants to stick its nose into something that doesn't involve them but doesn't really want to take the moral high ground.

 

 

That's about as meaningful as you calling Chuck Norris a pussy though.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The thing is they're willing to do a lot of work we want done, but the majority of Americans just won't do.

 

So you support exploitation, eh?

 

The reason Americans will "not do the work" is because the pay is shitty and there are no benefits - something you can get away with with slave labor.

 

If Mexican nationals are to work here then there should be a guest workers program that ensures all labor laws are followed, including minimum wage and benefits, and that the workers are taxed.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

There are many, many municipalities and counties that refuse to take on the burden of immigration enforcement, either in practice or by ordnance. I just talked to the San Juan County sheriff last week, who is solidly in that category. They've chosen, instead, to do the jobs they were chartered to do, not do Customs and Immigrations' job for them. In the case of the SJC sheriff, he sees his responsibility as one of holding the community together, not tearing it apart through deportations. He responds to criminal activity. He refuses to waste his non-existent free time sniffing out illegal immigrants who aren't involved in such shinanegans. The state could pass all the laws they want...and he'd keep doing his job the way he's been doing it all along.

[tvashtarkatena]

BTW, states challenging federal law is a hallowed, time honored tradition. It's how much of the social reform in the country gets done. Medical marijuana laws are a direct challenge to federal law, for example.

 

Arizona is not challenging federal law, however, it is stomping on the Constitution, our founding charter, through its racial profiling law. Arizona has decided to put its entire hispanic population under suspicion and harrassment by everyone one of its law enforcement officers. That's everyone's problem, and we all need to stamp that shit out in any way we can. It's just not who we are, and its certainly not who we should become.

Edited May 19, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[summitchaserCJB]

How is enforcing our sovereignty stomping on the Constitution? I mean really. Are you serious? How is it racial profiling? Who do you think lives in Mexico? Africans? I mean people calling this racist are just knee-jerk liberals with nothing better to do.

Edited May 19, 2010 by summitchaserCJB

[tvashtarkatena]

Racial profiling violates the equal protection clause. Enforcing sovereignty is fine, as long as its not done through racial profiling or other unconstitutional means.

Edited May 19, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[summitchaserCJB]

ok...

Man...sometimes laws suck.

[kix]

if a large percentage of the population is brown skinned, its not profiling. its more like probability based on statistical fact.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Round em all up and yer bound ta catch one or two!

[rob]

if a large percentage of the population is brown skinned, its not profiling. its more like probability based on statistical fact.

 

 

this post actually made me dumber.

[tvashtarkatena]

Combine summitchaser and kix and you get half a kevbone.

[Serenity]

Fuck illegal immigrants. Fuck Cascade Climber liberal shit dicks.

[rob]

I hope I can find serenity like yours one day.

[tvashtarkatena]

Fuck illegal immigrants. Fuck Cascade Climber liberal shit dicks.

 

You forgot to add:

 

and fuck liberty.

[billcoe]

I hope I can find serenity like yours one day.

 

You will, rest assure. This comes to us all as we age I believe:-)

[Fairweather]

Rob, we know where you stand vis a vis Arizona's supposed 'flouting' of federal law, but do you apply this same set of principles to municipalities that have declared themselves 'sanctuary cities' in clear violation of the same?

 

So, I've thought about this some more.

 

Actually, I'm OK with so-called "sanctuary cities." Well, actually, it's complicated.

 

I think there is a big difference between deciding not to enforce a law, and deciding to enforce an additional law.

 

For example; I'm totally in support of the City of Seattle deciding not to enforce marijuana laws relating to simple possession. I feel like this sort of "look the other way" allows cities and states to rebel against overreaching federal control.

 

This isn't really the same as enforcing a law in opposition of the federal government which disenfranchises citizens. There seems to be an important distinction there. In the former example, nobody is being oppressed as a result.

 

So, is it OK for states and cities to "flout" federal law? I guess my answer to that is, it depends. What's the effect? Is the flouting of the law protecting civil liberties, or threatening them? Because when it comes down to it, that's more important than "the law."

 

Thanks for the response, but that's some seriously convoluted logic. You spoke of disenfranchising "citizens", but, of course, that's not at all what we're talking about here. The AZ law does nothing that federal law doesn't also provide for--if only those laws were enforced.

[el jefe]

if a large percentage of the population is brown skinned, its not profiling. its more like probability based on statistical fact.

 

 

if you got brown skin, then you is guilty. and that aint racism, neither. just ask nitrox and his fairweather friend...

 

no brains = no headaches

[rob]

Rob, we know where you stand vis a vis Arizona's supposed 'flouting' of federal law, but do you apply this same set of principles to municipalities that have declared themselves 'sanctuary cities' in clear violation of the same?

 

So, I've thought about this some more.

 

Actually, I'm OK with so-called "sanctuary cities." Well, actually, it's complicated.

 

I think there is a big difference between deciding not to enforce a law, and deciding to enforce an additional law.

 

For example; I'm totally in support of the City of Seattle deciding not to enforce marijuana laws relating to simple possession. I feel like this sort of "look the other way" allows cities and states to rebel against overreaching federal control.

 

This isn't really the same as enforcing a law in opposition of the federal government which disenfranchises citizens. There seems to be an important distinction there. In the former example, nobody is being oppressed as a result.

 

So, is it OK for states and cities to "flout" federal law? I guess my answer to that is, it depends. What's the effect? Is the flouting of the law protecting civil liberties, or threatening them? Because when it comes down to it, that's more important than "the law."

 

Thanks for the response, but that's some seriously convoluted logic. You spoke of disenfranchising "citizens", but, of course, that's not at all what we're talking about here. The AZ law does nothing that federal law doesn't also provide for--if only those laws were enforced.

 

I don't think any citizen should have to prove his citizenship to a police officer during a routine matter such as a traffic stop. The Arizona legislation increases that chances of that happening. You don't think that's wrong?

[Fairweather]

Nope. Not at all. Are you suggesting you don't have to show your driver's license when pulled over? Are you suggesting that if a police officer suspects a crime has been committed he should stand down so you can sate some lib version of PC run amok?

[Fairweather]

if a large percentage of the population is brown skinned, its not profiling. its more like probability based on statistical fact.

 

 

if you got brown skin, then you is guilty. and that aint racism, neither. just ask nitrox and his fairweather friend...

 

no brains = no headaches

 

Read the law, dumbass.

[tvashtarkatena]

[video:youtube]JA1wnL7qR4k

[rob]

So, I'm jaywalking, and a cop stops me. Do I need a driver's license? What if I have no ID? Right now, citizens don't NEED to have ID, just to go out, do they? I mean, if they're driving or drinking, sure, but otherwise there is no reason I HAVE to have my ID on me at all times, is there?

 

Now there kinda is, isn't there?

[tvashtarkatena]

Yup, and that's one of the problems. Another is allowing local yocals to fuck up immigration enforcement. Basically, this will result in harassing the hispanic population...just like the 45 border agents on the Olympic Peninsula have been doing so famously for several years now. The law prohibits racial profiling...while sanctioning and encouraging it at the same time.

Edited May 20, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[Fairweather]

So, I'm jaywalking, and a cop stops me. Do I need a driver's license? What if I have no ID? Right now, citizens don't NEED to have ID, just to go out, do they? I mean, if they're driving or drinking, sure, but otherwise there is no reason I HAVE to have my ID on me at all times, is there?

 

Now there kinda is, isn't there?

 

No, but the police would, technically, have a right to hold you while they investigate your background. Are you suggesting you/we have a right to complete anonymity?

[Fairweather]

Yup, and that's one of the problems. Another is allowing local yocals to fuck up immigration enforcement. A third is racial profiling; which the law both requires and prohibits simultaneously.

 

The problem is that there has been NO federal enforcement for a long time.