To answer your first question yes,Millions of white Europeans came to this country and flourished within a generation! A generation! So what the fuck is wrong with these people?!Originally Posted by bu villain
To answer your second question, I'm not a member of the fuckin' low rent, disorganized, redneck Ku Klux Klan
Originally Posted by deondre
how in the world is it only pushing around 300whp with that big as turbo?lol
You're right... I forgot that white people don't transmit diseases, aren't on welfare, and don't commit crimes. God bless (white) America!
A couple of cranks in cabins in Montana is not statistically significant. White Americans don't take PCP and drink and drive a hundred and twenty fuckin' miles an hour (Rodney King). We pull over and trust the law.
how in the world is it only pushing around 300whp with that big as turbo?lol
Will you please shut up. You do not possess the mental prowess for this forum.
this isnt a which race is worse issue. Please dont try and act like the problem is purely race related, IT IS NOT.
It just so happens that in Arizona (and most of the country) the illegal immigration problems lies with LATINOs. Thats not racism thats pure FACT. Thats like saying "most people in africa are black" and then being called a racist LOL.
If youre looking for a person who commited a murder and is WHITE you probably wouldnt look in Harlem first. Right? How is this any different. Habitual offenders are latino, so it makes sense that most of the people they will catch ARE GOING TO BE LATINO.
Thats not saying they wont catch illegal Canadians, Europeans, Muslims, etc. But pure fucking simple math dictates the most of their problem is going to be with spanish people.
Again if you are legal you have NOTHING to worry about.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
^Agreed with everything you said (except people from mexico are mexicans, people from spain are spanish so we don't have a problem with too many illegal spanish people).
Most peoples problem with the law is not with the idea itself, it is in how it COULD be enforced. "Reasonable suspicion" is a very loose term and not everyone in law enforcement would have the same criteria. I'm sure most officers would be very fair but there may be some who abuse that leeway. If the criteria for detaining someone until they produced the proper papers was clear and unambiguous, there would not be such resistance to this law.
^Agreed with everything you said (except people from mexico are mexicans, people from spain are spanish so we don't have a problem with too many illegal spanish people).
Most peoples problem with the law is not with the idea itself, it is in how it COULD be enforced. "Reasonable suspicion" is a very loose term and not everyone in law enforcement would have the same criteria. I'm sure most officers would be very fair but there may be some who abuse that leeway. If the criteria for detaining someone until they produced the proper papers was clear and unambiguous, there would not be such resistance to this law.
You do know that most laws on the books are written in the same manner dont you? The add on legislation makes perfectly clear what was intended with the original law, that no one can be stopped for the purposes of enforcing this law and they can only be asked their status if they are under police control for some other infraction, such as speeding.
Sounds to me like you are opposed to a law that you know nothing about, much like Obama, Holder, and Sec of DHS.
I don't think there is any confusion about what the law says. I am aware that they must be stopped for other purposes first and that many other laws require some level of officer judgement. Additionally I believe the law is well intentioned but that doesn't alleviate the concerns.
Take for example a mexican born (but lawful immigrant) who does not speak english well. This law will practically ensure that he is scrutinized more than say a white person who speaks good english if they were to both be pulled over for speeding. Many people consider this unfair. I don't know why this concern is so hard to grasp.
You can argue that we should be discriminating in such a way because its the best way to stop illegal immigration but that doesn't mean people who disagree don't understand the law.
We agree completely, it isnt fair, but when has life EVER been fair to everyone? Because the problem there centers around the hispanic population it is a given fact that hispanics will be more heavily scrutinized. It isnt that the concern is hard to grasp, it is the fact that no one knows another way to go about it. Do you think that checking the immigration status of a white guy that speaks fluent english in an area that 90% + of illegals are hispanic and speak little to no english is a better solution? This is why profiling works, racial or otherwise. It goes a very long way to narrow a suspect pool. If they try to go further than that based solely on race then you are talking about a completely different issue all together.
We also agree that this law does nothing to fix the underlying problem, which is that our border security is a joke. I truely believe this law has more to do with forcing illegals out of Arizona and forcing the feds to act than it really is about enforcing federal law. I also believe that Brewer will rescind the law if the feds act in a way she feels is appropriate.
How is the law in any way discriminatory? Unless you consider singling out criminals to be discrimination, this law does nothing that can be construed as discriminatory. And yes, everyone that is in this country illegally is a criminal.
lol apparently no one has watched American History X
all i have said on this thread are quotes from that movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120586/quotes
@ the fact no one has, but its not as funny anymore, but iam indeed no racist lol
....should of did this in the whores lounge
how in the world is it only pushing around 300whp with that big as turbo?lol
I hate hearing the "it isn't fair" argument for anything, period. Life isn't fair, people need to get over that crap and put their big boy or girl pants on and deal with this thing called life.
(I'm not attacking you personally, I'm talking in general because I hear that crap all the time)
Sounds like that's more your speed.lol apparently no one has watched American History X
all i have said on this thread are quotes from that movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120586/quotes
....should of did this in the whores lounge
Sounds like we agree on everything except whether the ends justify the means.
Yup I'm with you on this.
I thought your first paragraph was about how it would be discriminatory against hispanics but that was okay because that's what made it effective. Yes people who are in this country illegally are criminals. I am more concerned about the people who are hispanic and are legal. I don't think they should pay the price because they happen to be of the same ethnic heritage as many illegals.
So because life isn't fair, we shouldn't strive for fairness? You can't justify how things should be by how things are. Aren't people upset because illegals are UNFAIRLY taking jobs and putting a burden on society? Unfairness is okay as long as you aren't on the receiving end of it, huh?
I think you're referring to equality more than fairness, that's two different things altogether, but I may be wrong. What do you define as "fairness?" Illegals aren't unfairly taking jobs, they're doing it illegally i.e. against the law. I don't see that as a fairness issue, but a legal issue.
Nothing in my first paragraph had anything to do with discrimination, it had to do with profiling to narrow the suspect pool. It is no different than police immediately interviewing all sex offenders in the area if a child is kidnapped. In my example the criteria was sex offender, in AZ the criteria is race. There is nothing wrong with that other than not being politically correct. It has nothing to do with discrimination or with racism.
If they are hispanic and are legal they have nothing to worry about. In 99% of cases a state issued ID will be enough for cops to drop the issue. Those that dont carry any ID will be the ones that run into issues.
I think its counter productive to argue semantics in this case. No one is debating whether illegal immigrants are breaking the law. The debate is solely about the proper way to address it. This is both a legal and ethical issue.
They aren't "taking" jobs they are just underbidding legal workers on them. Nothing but sound free market principles there. You could have the same jobs the illegals have if you were willing to work for the same pay and working conditions. Just show up at the Home Depot at 5:30am.
Seriously though, nothing is gonna happen to illegal immigration unless we start going after the employers. You think an illegal immigrant gives a shit about all the right-wingers talking tough on IA? Hell no, they are gonna hop that fence and go to work son. If we go after the employers who hire illegals and make the employers keep records of their workers and pay taxes on them the jobs will become harder to get and the immigrants will stop coming.
Seriously, it is not hard to find places that hire illegals. I worked at a restaurant that paid cash under the table to its illegal employees. They had a couple of employees who were legal and they didn't claim the rest. At tax time you compare the size of the business, their profit margins and inventory to the number of employees they claim. If it looks suspicious you go and investigate.
Ok once again I will avoid any semantic argument and I will use profiling instead. Profiling can be an effective tool but the ethics of it are questionable to many. In the example of sex offenders, having been convicted of commiting an especially heinous act, we as a society have agreed that certain freedoms and rights are justifiably lost. Thus we are not concerned with infringing their rights in such a minor way. Of course you can't say ALL latinos have committed a crime so this same justification does not work with them.
Now take the case of profiling for a recently committed crime. A young black male just robbed a liquor store so the police pull over a car in the area with a driver matching the description. This can be a gray area and has caused a lot of uproar in the past as we know. Is simply being of the same skin color enough to justify being pulled over? Is a general car description match also required? This is something we all may draw the line differently on. It depends on how we weigh the rights of the profiled against the desire to capture the criminal.
Additionally, you're right that this law isn't racist, however some people are. Some people fear that some of those racist people might just also be cops in Arizona who will use this law to harass latinos. Police discretion is necessary but there is always a risk when we bestow that power on them.
So lets say a hispanic man with poor english and a black man are both pulled over in Arizona for speeding and both forgot their driver licenses at home. Under this law, will both men be treated equally considering they have committed the same crimes?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
