Real World Event Discussions

Stand with Arizona

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Sunday, May 16, 2010 21:28
VIEWED: 15979
PAGE 11 of 18

MOMCARP

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 5:42 AM

I'm to the left of center. I've always worked my ass off, but now I work my ass off for less money, and yeah, I resent that.
I do my own yard work, wash my own truck (and my Volvo P 1800), and when I do a remodel, I hire legal subs, and I'll take less money so that they can be paid what they're worth.
Capitalism made this country great, and now it's f'ing it up, big time.
The "righties" love to scream about illegals, while they hold open the back door for their illegal maid.
Some kind of equilibrium needs to be reached, and it's not by opening the border, as the "bleeding hearts" so wish for.

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 6:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
If I say I don't have any easy solutions, does that mean we should automatically jump to the worst "solution"? If memory serves, weren't you of the "do nothing" persuasion when it came to healthcare reform? What was YOUR solution to that issue? Since you didn't have an easy, workable solution, can we assume that you approve fully of the insurance mandate? Or can we deduce that while you might not know what the answer IS, you know what answer you DON'T WANT?

dont you remember, my answer was 'get the government out of the way!', let doctors and patients decide their healthcare. atleast im consistent.. i want the government OUT OF EVERYTHING! it is you people who will not compromise

Quote:
You're offering a false dichotomy, a non-choice. "If you don't like this, then what?" That's rather like telling someone they have terminal cancer, 6 months to live, and then handing them a .45 and telling them if they don't have a better solution, they really should shoot themselves. Now. Sooner would be better, because we need the room and the medicine for people who aren't needlessly wasting oxygen.

no im not, i was actually asking for a solution? the problem is, no one wants to address the wellfare state.. so there are no real clear solutions, as evidenced

Quote:
It's not racist to want an orderly immigration policy. That's where you're conflating the issues. Applying one set of standards TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO COMES INTO THE COUNTRY is not the issue. If it were, there'd be no issue at all. We're talking about this because there's a new law on the books that is NOT treating everyone equally, and is designed from its inception to single out a particular group of people based solely on their appearance.

no, its based on citizenship. look im not advocating rounding up and exporting all non-citizens! i dont think Arizona lawmakers are either. i think they want a policy where if you are stopped, you will be required to prove citizenship. if you are an illegal immigrant from scandavia, that means you too! how is that based on racial profiling of skin color? and again, this isnt my ideal policy. but show me one that addresses the burdens of wellfare/entitlements/business regulation and employment and ill gladly listen. otherwise, what solution is their but a compromise on ideals?

i would rather see enforcement of current law, then support a policy that allows anyone and everyone who comes here to become citizens, just as long as they contribute to the wellfare state; i want to get rid of the wellfare state! i say, get rid of the wellfare state, and we'll talk about letting anyone and everyone in

Quote:
And as I've pointed out before, do you REALLY want to make the case for America by pointing out how bad Mexico is? Really? Pointing out how tough their rules are, as a way to show how tough ours should be, doesn't seem like the smart choice.

Let's take gun ownership, for instance. It's damned near impossible to legally own a gun in Mexico. Should we do that here? Wouldn't it cut down drastically on crime, both here AND there, if guns weren't so easily obtainable here?

[note to Frem: I'm *NOT* arguing that or going down that road; I'm merely using that ludicrous example as being illustrative of the kind of arguments that line of logic can take you through.]

i agree.. i dont neccessarily believe we should measure our laws by those of our neighbors. but if its a 'human right' to come here and live, why isnt it true going the other way across the border? all this sanctimonius outrage.. and none of it is directed at these peoples home countries.. the ones who are the real 'human rights' violators

Quote:

So your logic is that, since we don't have a libertarian paradise, the next closest thing is to have a right-wing fascist police state? If you don't have your libertarian society, how does passing ever-more-intrusive laws regulating who and where people can be move you in any way CLOSER to that libertarian i

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 10:17 AM

Hmm, so to you they're unpersons ? subhuman ?

Careful - your true colors are shining through.

Previous suggestions made here:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=43137
And as expected, the moment they were, POOF, no one wanted to discuss it no more...
(And yet they'll create a new thread where those suggestions aren't around to chew their arguments to shreds, won't they now ?)

And if you wanna talk welfare, let's talk bailouts, lets talk about blood and carnage for little purpose other than propping up the Mil-Industry complex - fuck, for what it takes to feed that beast for a single goddam week, you could cover a million immigrants for a month and still have dosh left over, so as long as were pouring our lifeblood into the war machine for no gain but the well-justified hatred of the world, don't whinge to me about how horrific it would be to spend pennies by comparison in a humanitarian way.

But no, it's all ok to blow pyschotic amounts of dosh on slaughter, you know, killing them "other" folk, but it's such a horror and a crime to spend a damn bit of humanitarian effort on em, yeah, I see how it is...

Fuckin-A, people, why not just quit pretending, go ahead and suggest death camps, it's what you really wanna do anyway, you just don't wanna LOOK bad - but you know, that shit is meaningless to someone who can see right through your paper thin facades, ok ?

-F

KWICKO

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 1:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by momcarp:
I'm to the left of center. I've always worked my ass off, but now I work my ass off for less money, and yeah, I resent that.
I do my own yard work, wash my own truck (and my Volvo P 1800), and when I do a remodel, I hire legal subs, and I'll take less money so that they can be paid what they're worth.
Capitalism made this country great, and now it's f'ing it up, big time.
The "righties" love to scream about illegals, while they hold open the back door for their illegal maid.
Some kind of equilibrium needs to be reached, and it's not by opening the border, as the "bleeding hearts" so wish for.

We're in broad agreement on SOME of your points, but you're flat-out nuts if you think I'm arguing for completely open borders.

I've asked repeatedly in this thread (go back and read it all, and you'll see) HOW y'all plan to close the borders completely and make them airtight. Especially given the hatred of folks like Rappy and Anti to things like, oh, y'know... GOVERNMENT SPENDING!

Show me a way to close the borders that costs not one penny of tax money. Go ahead. I'll wait. Conversely, show me in writing that you'll give the federal government carte blanche to spend whatever it takes to secure our borders, and you'll never, ever bitch about the cost, because it's what you deemed the most important national crisis we've faced since 9/11.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 2:58 PM

Mexiphobia bubble to the surface again. Just give them the forclosed housing developments in AZ, and say, here, start a new colony, and then, sure, give them a bailout. The sooner people get over this sense of justice the better. No one needs to be punished. Let's just collectively try to do the right thing, and watch out very carefully for whose nose might get bumped along the way.

But no, Arizona, it's no skin off your nose. It's a giant state with very few people in it, and 1/3 of them or so are already mexicans, and have been for 1000s of years, long before it was delineated as such and before we were here. It's not a big mexican conspiracy, it's us, having conquered there land, now living in it.

WULFENSTAR

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 3:03 PM

"I've asked repeatedly in this thread (go back and read it all, and you'll see) HOW y'all plan to close the borders completely and make them airtight. Especially given the hatred of folks like Rappy and Anti to things like, oh, y'know... GOVERNMENT SPENDING!

Show me a way to close the borders that costs not one penny of tax money. Go ahead. I'll wait. Conversely, show me in writing that you'll give the federal government carte blanche to spend whatever it takes to secure our borders, and you'll never, ever bitch about the cost, because it's what you deemed the most important national crisis we've faced since 9/11."

Ill take a crack at it.

This, btw, is also a states rights issue. Arizona (and Arizonians sp?) have the right to shut their borders if they feel like it. Remember, we are a collection of States, united.

Now, as to how to pay for it ect.

Isn't the unemployment rate at 10%? Well, right there you have a pool of workers to draw from.

Each state, again, has the right to secure its borders. However, its also one of the few jobs that the federal government was meant for.

So. I propose using the tax money that the federal government spends on "diversity" programs to be used towards this.

We can also cut the billion/trillions sent overseas, and reroute it here.

Not to mention cutting down (but not out) the money spent on the mil-industrial stuff.

Just my 2 cents, but this could easily be payed for, and overseen, without raising any taxes.

MOMCARP

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 3:37 PM

I never said that illegal immigration was our most pressing issue.

Some complete moron found (fabricated) justification for starting a ludicrously expensive, drawn out war that has caused irreparable damage to the world peace process, created 8 million terrorists, and like the Hydra,when the head of one group is cut off, 100 more fringe terrorist organizations spring up, where before, there were a couple thousand guys hanging out in the desert waiting for a cell phone call from some rich guy in Saudi Arabia to set a jihad in motion.

No one knows what the rehabilitation costs will be to try to "fix" untold thousands of soldiers who have been f'd up mentally and/or physically by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. This is the most gut wrenching aspect of this f'd up mess.

The billions that have been thrown at Iraq could have been used to build a fence 100 ft tall completely around the US, the CIA and FBI would have the resources to stay on top of every terrorist group in the world, and every legal citizen of America would have life time health care.

Taxes aren't bad. The revenues that fill up the govs coffers have been abused and corrupted.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 4:07 PM

"Show me a way to close the borders that costs not one penny of tax money. Go ahead. I'll wait."

Hello,

We currently deploy

27k troops in South Korea,
32k troops in Japan,
10k troops in the UK,
1k troops in Spain,
57k troops in Germany,
______
127k troops currently deployed overseas in friendly territories.

Shut down their bases, recall them, and set them up on border patrol.

You'll save money.

Never mind the troops in Iraq.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

HERO

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 6:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Find in there where it says "reasonable suspicion" and a "lawful contact" are enough to search and/or seize someone.

Its in the 14th Amendment. Reasonable suspicion, like its cousin probable cause, is from the "Due Process" family.

Reasonable suspicion is enough to detain someone for limited reasons...such as a traffic stop or to conduct an investigation (such as an OVI investigation). I'm not sure it will be enough in the case of this Arizona law to conduct an immigration check.

More likely they will detain someone for another reason, such as a traffic stop. If the person detained cannot produce an ID then they can be further detained to determine who they are. Once that determination is made (or if it can't be made) then they may have reasonable suspicion to conduct an immigration investigation.

I don't see any scenario that just allows a cop to stop you for the sole purpose of demanding to see certain 'papers' under this law. They will need to have reasonable articulable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances that some crime has been committed. Absent racial profiling, which is expressly barred by statute, I'm note sure what such suspicion will be unless in the context of some other investigation.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

ANTHONYT

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 11:41 PM

Hello Hero,

I hope that the law enforcement officers of Arizona are as unbiased, unsoiled, and unimaginative as you. Then, no matter what law is passed, they will never find ways or cause to abuse them.

I suspect, however, that such an appraisal is overly optimistic.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner