May Day rallies and Arizona Law

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by Justice, May 1, 2010.

  1. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    In a few hours, numerous May Day rallies are going to start around the US. They have been decreasing in recent years, but thanks to Arizona's new illegal immigration law, things have started back up again.

    Expect to see Mexican flags, lots of shouting protesters demanding tings, and lots and LOTS of slurs against America and how evil it is, despite the fact they are trying to live here.

    Interesting the people calling this new law racial profiling don't seem to comment on the fact the extreme majority of protesters today will in fact be Mexican. Kind of hard to make a case against profiling in that respect.

    Again, it's amazing how few people actually know what's in the Arizona law. The Arizona law doesn't differ at all from the current Federal law on illegal immigration passed in 1996, signed by Bill Clinton. However, even President Obama commented on the law, and either he hadn't read the bill, or he was lying, because it said it required immigrants to keep their papers with them.

    Well, it doesn't. That's been a law since 1940 that resident aliens have to have their green card or other documents on them.

    I guess since the president wouldn't read his own 2000 page healthcare bill, he wouldn't take the time to read other, far shorter bills before making stupid comments about it.
     
  2. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Interesting.

    I though the US was founded on Free Speech.

    I though the US had a constitutional law providing for room to protest and revolt against their own gouvernment.

    The protesters don't agree - and they show it. I think that's liberal democracy at its best. You don't have to agree, mind; that's also part of that same liberal democracy.
     
  3. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Yes, it absolutely was.

    100% correct.

    The problem is, this isn't their government. They have the right to protest in their own country to their own government, and they may have the right to assemble here, but they do not have the same rights as legal immigrants and citizens do.

    My point was not that what they are doing is illegal per se, but the tone of the rallies is only going to hurt their cause. Very much like those extremist signs held at Muslim protests, however what you are going to see is a majority holding Mexican flags.

    One should take the time to even consider the Mexican take on illegal immigration, which is far harsher than the US. In Mexico, illegal immigration is a felony. In the US it's a misdemeanor. In Mexico, political speech by foreigners is banned, and illegal immigrants can be arrested if they protest. In the US, immigrants are required to have paperwork on them at all times to identify themselves. Same in Mexico, Mexico’s National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens, exactly what Arizona is doing. In 2008, Mexico even started cracking down on Cuban illegal immigrants and started mass deporting them. Isn't that racial profiling, the very thing they say we are doing?

    Mexico does all these things, either equal to or far harsher than US and Arizona law, but we're the Nazis? If we're Nazis, what does that make them?
     
  4. curunir's bane

    curunir's bane Kwisatch Haderach

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    baton rouge
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0


    So you're saying you have proof that not one of the those protestors is an American Citizen? Please show us the facts.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2010
  5. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Where did I state not one of them is legal? Obviously I am referring to those that are marching that are in fact illegal, and all the immigrants rights groups which have lists of demands for people who are not here legally.
     
  6. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    I have to agree with Justice here. I could illegally move to another country, protest against the resident government, but who says anyone there needs to care what I say? Being an illegal, the weight of my opinion vs that of a citizen will be ranked far lighter.
     
  7. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    The Obama administration is made up of the most incompetent and intellectually dishonest people since, well the Bush administration I guess, and Clinton before him, etc etc.

    US Attorney general Eric Holder, the top legal expert in the US on constitutional law, made many comments against Arizona bill SB1070. They included "the law could lead to racial profiling" and that it could "violate federal civil rights statutes", or that it's unconstitutional, the phrase everyone from Holder to actress Eva Longoria has thrown around (I didn't know she was a constitutional scholar, but she was interviewed anyways).

    Well, while appearing in front of a congressional hearing, Eric Holder was asked if he had read the bill. The bill is only 10 pages long, and certainly a constitutional scholar, and the US attorney General, the lead legal expert Obama hand picked because of his credentials, certainly he read the bill, dissected it piece by piece and outlined the parts he felt violated federal law right?


    Nope. Didn't even take the ten minutes to read the bill. He decided he'd rather jump on the bandwagon and criticize the bill like everyone else has because it's popular, using the same factually devoid talking point everyone has used. The bill is not unconstitutional, it actually copies the federal law and applies it to Arizona. There is no racial profiling in the bill, in 4 different sections it FORBIDS racial profiling.

    The only argument is that cops may act on their own and racially profile, but they can (and do it) right now, but if they are caught they can be punished or fired like they should be. They don't need this law to do that.

    Then we have homeland security secretary Janet Napolitano, the former governor of Arizona. She certainly read the law before commenting on it and making all sorts of recommendations to Barack Obama right?


    "I have not reviewed it in detail, but I know of it Senator."

    The bill is 10 pages long. In the time it would take a person to get dresseed in the morning, they could read it. They could have read it at least once, even if not in hyper detail, looking at all the fine points of it, they could have at least read the bills before commenting on them. They didn't

    This is a joke and a farce I cannot even believe.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2010
  8. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    And yet, nothing in politics really truly stuns me. Disappoints, sure. Disgusts, all the time. But truly surprise? Not often. I don't think today's senate or the Roman senate would be too dissimilar. Humans are still humans.
     
  9. curunir's bane

    curunir's bane Kwisatch Haderach

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    baton rouge
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0
    This is Turuamber's original quote. Your response, Justice, was "this isn't their government" In this case "Their" refering to the protestors's is incorrect because you make the assumption, in your response, that all the protestors are not citizens.

    And if that's not what you were saying then why didn't you repond correctly to Turamber's post? I think it would have been much more fitting to adress the fact that not all protestors are illegal and while the citizens have the right to protest the illegal ones do not. That would have been a much more fitting reponse.
     
  10. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    Come on now, that's splitting hairs. There's a very good chance that most of the protesters are illegals. It seemed a non-PC but probably true assumption to make.

    Or is that racial profiling?
     
  11. curunir's bane

    curunir's bane Kwisatch Haderach

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    baton rouge
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0
    Such is the nature of debating my friend. I've had many a hair split over my statements. That's just the way it goes and that's the way it should be. The fact of the matter is that both Turamber and Justice made incorrect statements that failed to acknowledge the full point. And the result is that they were both corrected. It's nothing personal.


    Anyway, back to the real debate.

    In my opinion, the Arizona Law has kind of been blown out of proportion by the liberal democratic side. It's not giving cops the power to stop people who appear to be illegal immigrants based on their looks. THAT would be racial profiling (I think). It is my understanding that all it does is allow cops to "use their judgement" to check the identification and birth certificates of people, that they have already arrested, who show reasonable suspicion of being illegal (Of course that's not really defined by any sources i've come across).

    On the other hand, in my opinion the republicans aren't really acknowledging the fact that it's a little unreasonable to be required to carry around your birth certificate and other forms of identification other than a DL.

    Unfortunately, I really can't comment fully on this subject yet because I am having a hard time finding real factual information from unbiased sources. Everything I have come across is either slightly liberal or conservative.
     
  12. curunir's bane

    curunir's bane Kwisatch Haderach

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    baton rouge
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0
  13. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    I still fail to see where I was wrong. Given the context of the thread (illegal immigration) and the comments referring to this "not being their government", it is very obvious who I was referring to.

    On this forum in a different thread a while ago I was called prejudiced against hispanic people for my beliefs. Well, just so everyone knows, I'm half Mexican myself. So I guess it's really more of a self hatred thing huh?


    I read the fact check article, and it's decent, but it also makes many suppositions, and in some cases blatantly refers to outdated info to get two sides to the debate. I'm referring to the section on racial profiling. They quote Ediberto Roman as saying, "It’s pretext to try to suggest that there is no discriminatory purpose," he told us. "Given that there is a lack of any other basis in terms of how they’re going to enforce it, it’s pretty clear that we’re looking to focus on a particular target group."

    The article never mentions that over 60% of the people in the US illegally are Mexican, and over 80% are from Latin America entirely according to some US Government estimates, but the exact number is impossible to know. So when nearly 80% of those deported are of hispanic descent, of course the critics will cry racial profiling, even if the number of hispanics deported are exactly in line with the percentage in the country.

    That's really the only argument critics have against the law, that hispancis will be unfairly targeted. However, since they make up 80% or more of the statistics, there's really nothing that can be done about that.