http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm
****ing incredible.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10132762.stm
****ing incredible.
Originally posted by truejediI don't see where it mandates any such thing.
This is the second thing you have brought up that seems a little racist. Because policemen will be checking immigration status, you assume they will check based on skin color. Why? Do you think that there are more hispanics who will seem illegal than whites or blacks?
Why do you feel that way? That's quite an assumption based on skin color.
I believe that Policemen will check IDs based on skin color because of the way the discussion has been framed. Despite the careful usage of the word "illegal" to describe immigrants, the implication in every single news story and every single AP report is that these people are hispanic. The law has been passed in response to the large numbers of Mexicans emmigrating. The issue is not with Blacks or Whites. To ignore this seems dishonest, either with yourself or with me.
The other thing was when you tried to say hanging Obama in effigy was racist, but hanging Bush or Palin wasn't. It is changing the rules based on skin color, and it is simply the very definition of racism.
While it is a skillful tactical maneuver, there is not much substance to this idea that seeing racism is itself racist.
There is no attempt to paint you that way, what you are saying stands for itself.
And just so I'm clear, I'm not calling YOU a racist.
I have no doubt that YOU aren't a racist, but you simply don't comprehend that your positions are advocating special treatment based on skin color. I'm not trying to insult you, it is just how I see it.
We aren't talking about search and seizure. We are talking about Identification. This can be asked for, and MUST BE PROVIDED at the request of an officer, at ANY TIME. This is nothing new. I have been asked for my identification by a police officer 5 or 6 times in my life, and never did I start screaming about my consititutional rights, I handed the man my DL.
The fourth amendment's line wherein "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" suggests otherwise. If stopped by a policemen I would recite this nifty little business-card sized script I have, which reads:
Officer, please understand:
I have the right to have an attorney present if you want to question me or conduct any search of my body or personal effects. I am not giving my consent to any type of search.If I am under arrest, I wish to invoke and exercise my Miranda Rights. I want to speak with an attorney now. I do not want my personal property impounded, nor do I consent to any impoundment. I request the opportunity to secure my personal effects.
If I am not under arrest, please tell me immediately so that I may leave.
Its really not. Its not even close. You are either misinterpreting what I'm saying, or you are trying to discredit my entire argument by purposely smearing it.
I don't see how the Federal Government can begin to call a State Law unconstitutional when that very law is already on the books of the federal government.
I believe that it is the inclusion of potentially discriminatory language (that will almost certainly be taken advantage) that has sparked the outrage. The whole dustup is not over the fact that illegals are being targeted, but in response to the threat to civil liberties. (I, like my father, am in favor of language that penalizes businesses for hiring illegals. In fact, I'm not even against raids on known meeting places (like behind Home Depot) of illegals. I simply cannot accept any measure that infringes on the rights of American citizens. What if the "War on Drugs" decided that it required the use of your Dorm Room for a stakeout of potential Meth users? Now that your own freedoms were at stake, would you be so zealous in your drive to catch criminals? I feel that the same issue is in play here.)
Oh, and red, look up "Lawful contact" It is NOT a greeting on the street. It is ONLY when someone has been stopped on suspicion of some other illegal activity (traffic stop, or drug arrest, for instance)
I'm trying to find where I accused RH of being a racist and well, I just can't. However, I CAN find where I accused RH of not knowing what he's talking about and I stand by that belief.
I also wonder what it is that this "RH" character does not know about that he is taking a position? I mean, I (RN) made a mistake regarding one part of the bill, but, luckily, it did not significantly alter the strength of my objection. So I can't fathom where you could find fault with my argument or anyone else's, especially given your demonstrated inability to follow an argument, let alone respond to one.
😆
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
This from the guy that couldn't click back any pages to find TJ posting MSNBC videos. 😬
I wonder, DS, who you think you are talking about? Whom is RH?
I also wonder what it is that this "RH" character does not know about that he is taking a position? I mean, I (RN) made a mistake regarding one part of the bill, but, luckily, it did not significantly alter the strength of my objection. So I can't fathom where you could find fault with my argument or anyone else's, especially given your demonstrated inability to follow an argument, let alone respond to one.
😆 [/B]
You don't have an argument for me to "follow", and whatever you had pretty much died when you accused me of calling you a racist(funny). So again, please don't debate politics on here as you have no clue what you're talking about. Stick to philosophy and.....Just philosophy.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/37259541
And Obama's economists/Bernanke/Keynesians said we were nowhere near a double dip. Morons.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Because the phrase "reasonable suspicion" is left undefined, there is absolutely nothing that will prevent such an action. Because the definition is not present, the officer will be able to judge on any criteria he or she wants.
Okay, we are talking the same language then. Earlier, you said the bill codified racism, which as we have stated isn't true. The law itself doesn't order anyone to be racist. Yes, it leaves room for racist individuals to BE racist, but so does every law.
The reactionary motives of the bill (it was passed in response to illegal hispanic and/or Mexican immigrants) guarantee that Officers will understand and act on the understanding that the bill is intended to alleviate the problem of illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is, statistically, not peopled with humans of Caucasian or African heritage. It is an influx of Latin Americans, not Blacks or Whites that has prompted this bill.
Is this a problem somehow? You absolutely must go where the problem is if you ever hope to fix it.
Because I like you and I think that you like me I will choose not to interpret this as an insulting insinuation and rather an earnest question. This is supposed to be a productive discussion and not an attempt to score points off each other. If my understanding is incorrect please tell me so that I can go into rebuttal mode rather than discussion mode. (There is a lot more "no U!!1"ing in rebuttal mode.)
I think you understood it correctly. I am not trying to insult you. I think you are being overly sensitive to the point of reverse-racism without realizing, however, I understand that your intentions are good.
I believe that Policemen will check IDs based on skin color because of the way the discussion has been framed. Despite the careful usage of the word "illegal" to describe immigrants, the implication in every single news story and every single AP report is that these people are hispanic. The law has been passed in response to the large numbers of Mexicans emmigrating. The issue is not with Blacks or Whites. To ignore this seems dishonest, either with yourself or with me.
Is that wrong? Wouldn't you agree that the largest percentage of illegals ARE hispanics? Therefore, to catch the most illegals, checking hispanics will be necessary. As I said, I have no problem checking EVERYONE, but it will do nothing but slow down the process.
If we are HONEST, we both know the fastest way to get the most immigrants out of the country would be to check only hispanics. If you were going to be given 100 dollars for every illegal alien you could round up in a four hour period, who would you ask?
Here, expediency is being mistaken as racism.
Again, not to make this distinction ignores historical factors leading to the act itself. Hanging Obama, who is an African American, in effigy evokes images of lynch mobs and Jim Crowe Laws. Observing this fact is not racist any more than noticing that there are only two women on the supreme court (well, soon to be three) despite the fact that women consist of roughly half of the population of the United States. It is not racist any more than noting that Obama is the only Black president of the United States in the history of this country is.
Does it really evoke images of lynch mobs or Jim Crowe laws for Americans who didn't live through that period? By continuing to REVISIT those obviously horrible times, we keep them alive. Honestly, I think if the media would just absolutely IGNORE racism, we would breed it out in a single generation or two. Children are not born racist. They have to be taught by someone. The media teaches them that the color of your skin makes you different somehow, by talking about everyone pointing out the difference. Its just a personal theory, but I really think we could fix it if it weren't so alive in everyone's minds all the time.
Its like when I make a valid point(in my opinion) about an obama policy, and instead of listening to my point, the person calls me a racist, and says I only disagree because he is black. That breeds a bit of resentment in me, which is only natural. If he were a white president, they would have had to actually rebutt my point, rather than call me a racist. I feel like I'm mature enough to handle it, but to some people, it could begin to breed racism that wasn't there.
Reverse racism is a real problem in this country.
While it is a skillful tactical maneuver, there is not much substance to this idea that seeing racism is itself racist.
We clearly mean different things by the term "racist." When I say something is racist, I mean that there is an unfair or discriminatory decision being made on the basis of race. For instance, the 'Plessy Vs Fergeson' (sp?) case was racist because it kept blacks enmeshed in an unfair and unequal system. The recent case (whose name I cannot remember) where a white applicant to a college was not accepted in favor of a black applicant was not racist. Before you shriek "doublethink" let me explain: the college was expected to accept a certain number of black students. Because of this law, a percentage of students much closer to the percentage of blacks in the general population (in the way that anything is better than zero) were allowed a formal education. By increasing the overall equality of the system, the law was not racist.
This is very interesting. I just put an example as CLEARLY racist, that you then used to call not racist. I hadn't even read your response. I actually laughed out loud when I got to this part.
You say this is not racist: But to that, I can only say, say that to the student who did NOT get into college based solely on the color of his skin.. Red, that's about as clear a case of racism as I could have asked for, and you volunteered it as NOT racist. All other things being equal, those two students should have been decided by a coin-flip or something, NOT on skin color. Its wrong. Its discriminatory.
Those laws were made to ensure that blacks could NOT be kept out based solely on their skin color, and you have described the exact reverse of that above. I don't understand how you don't see that as racist. I wonder how that white student, informed of the decision and why it was made, can help being a little more racist in the future?
The fourth amendment's line wherein "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" suggests otherwise. If stopped by a policemen I would recite this nifty little business-card sized script I have, which reads:
However, under laws that have been accepted by the Supreme Court (or rather, never challenged by the Supreme Court) you would be taken to jail until you cooperated with the officer. They could get you for obstruction of justice at the very least. If you have a Drivers license, you have also agreed to take an alcholol test at any time. Its part of the agreement you sign when you sign the license paper.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land, but other laws also apply. If the supreme court doesn't decide one overrrules the other, they stand, and they currently stand. You must identify yourself if asked by an officer.
It really is not. i do not fully understand how you reconcile disliking government action and advocating increased government authority in daily life.
This is not an increase of the Federal Government. This is about the Federal Government trying to interfere with state law. Its exactly the kind of thing i'm against. I'm baffled how you see this as a change in my position.
Oh, i'm sorry, i misread/understood what you said.I believe that it is the inclusion of potentially discriminatory language (that will almost certainly be taken advantage) that has sparked the outrage. The whole dustup is not over the fact that illegals are being targeted, but in response to the threat to civil liberties. (I, like my father, am in favor of language that penalizes businesses for hiring illegals. In fact, I'm not even against raids on known meeting places (like behind Home Depot) of illegals. I simply cannot accept any measure that infringes on the rights of American citizens. ? Now that your own freedoms were at stake, would you be so zealous in your drive to catch criminals? I feel that the same issue is in play here.)
I agree with the language to discourage the hiring of illegals as well Red, we agree there. My issue with the outrage over this law is, and always has been simply this: It is a federal law on the books. The federal agents refuse to enforce it. Arizona passes the SAME LAW, almost word for word, so that its police can enforce the law the feds refuse to enforce. The Federal government is now trying to stop them from enforcing a law that is already on the books as a federal law. Its absurd.
This is good to know. I will have to look in to the specifics on "lawful contact" some more. I must've picked up a comment somewhere and thought it was part of the news. 😮
I didn't know either until last night. No worries.