New Arizona Law called "fundamentally racist."

Post Reply New Topic

Not a big fan of manners, I see. First of all, criminals have absolutely nothing to do with what I said. You're changing the subject.

Second of all, I'll have you know I have a vested interest in what goes on in the United States. I'm probably more knowledgeable than the average citizen, and I daresay I may even be more patriotic. In addition to that, my location does not have any relevance to the value of my opinion. By shutting your ears, you're setting yourself up for failure.

Also, I agree with the spirit of the Arizona law. Unfortunately, unlike you, I do not consider "dressing like a foreigner" and a "foreign accent" to constitute suspicious behavior. You are a shining example of xenophobia at its worst.

A driver's license is sufficient proof in California (Cal. does not give them to illegals). I have been in the habit of carrying some form of ID on me since I was a teenager.

Good luck, Worldtraveler, when the law is found unconstitutional and struck down upon fully hitting the books in the coming months - as have all other attempts to implement such laws in Texas, Oklahoma, and other states. And while you choose to insult myself and others, I would suggest that time would be better served in deeper study on the subjects you wish to try and persuade others on. And you might want to review the fact that the legislation as originally proposed did not require any legal violation or prerequisite suspicion to pull over or question a "possible illegal" in Arizona. The bigoted bill that did pass is less expansive than was sought by those shortsighted individuals in the state legislature.


M.

I guess it really doesn't bother some of you to have your country infested with illegals.
I was talking to a few others about this the other day. We came to the conclusion that if this were 100 or more years ago there'd be better resolve about handing this if it had risen to this extent then. The government (with the blessing of the American people) would have had the army exterminate them as a matter of protecting the nation.

Taking a historical look at the mindset of that time I certainly wouldn't rule out such actions being taken back then.

Can you demonstrate that the driver's licencse issuing authority of every state, district and possession of the United States requires proof of legal presence before issuing a license? I think you will find that this is not, in fact, the case in the majority of US States.

My State Department Driver's License (albeit issued in 1996) certainly required proof of presence, since I had to demonstrate that I was accepted as a foreign diplomat. But my same-sex partner's New York State license required no such demonstration--only the surrender of his Ontario license.

If you are prepared to siphon something in the vicinity of $200bn (yes, billion) out of your national economy, then by all means do so.

Just goes to show that good politics is, in this case, stupid public policy.

Regardless of how I may personally feel about this law (perhaps understandable, but misguided), I find the general lack of civility in this thread disconcerting to say the least. Posters on both sides of this seem to be taking things way too personally, paging through this thread it reads more like warring religious factions calling each other heretics than a reasoned political debate. On the more practical side, I've yet to see anyone persuaded to change their opinion by being called a traitor, a racist or a fascist, so tossing such invective into the mix is not only crude hyperbole at best, but downright counterproductive to the goals of everyone.

Maku,

the AZ is a copy of a fed law on the books for decades. How can it be uncon. if it has never been even challenged before?
Truth is people like you are just trying to give hope to the foreign criminals in USA.

As for loss of GDP. That too is a false argument. After a raid in AZ at a grocery store, all 300 positions were filled with
US citizens in the next few days. Dont forget USA has 20% real unemployment. (the so called U6 rate)

And to Michael_Stuart
Criminals IS the issue. All foreigners in USA with no visa are criminals. Not "undocumented" or any other BS. CRIMINALS!
Do you expect me to be "civil" with criminals that have assalted me many times.
[removed - M.] in Europe.
And when I am in europe, I am an obvious foreigner and have been stopped by the police and checked. Why cant USA have the
same laws and enforcment?

Anyone that helps them is also a criminal in violation of Sec 274 of the INA. Hiding in a church, criminal. Giving a ride to protest, criminal.
Saying they should stay in USA, also a felony-criminal action.

As for the drivers licence issue. It would be best if ALL states required citizenship to get one. Then getting rid of these people
would be much easyer. That is why they fight it so hard. They know it works.

You can keep your personal attacks, WT - I'm not interested in engaging you thusly.

Unfortunately, you refuse to actually read the law or the history behind its' passage. The numerous sections where changes -were- made, and these implementations are criminal in their construction. That the very construction of the law is based on racial profiling and is therefore discriminatory, making anyone who enforces such a law into a criminal themselves under that manner of thought. Expressing one's opinion is not a criminal act, and that you state that you want those who disagree with you charged with a felony is more indicative of your own feelings of insecurity on the subject, in my opinion, than being a legitimate claim.

Focus on the issue, and knock off the personal attacks towards myself and others. You have been warned.


M.

If the US would stop dumping subsidized corn on the Mexican market much of the problem would be solved.

The most militarized border in the world is not impermeable - people crossed the Berlin Wall.

I would tend to agree, Dox. While I may consider the bill being discussed as having aspects of some of those negative qualities you listed, I strive to clear differentiate between my opinions on the idea and the person speaking it. I don't believe anyone has suggested that there is no problem - defining what the problem is, how it is caused, and how to best address it within the scope and confines of the law is where the challenge truly arises.


M.

I'm not worried about possibly losing $200B from the economy. We have enough documented immigrants and enough unemployed citizens to cover the jobs. We will save ourselves some money on social services as well.

Therefore people who are against the proposed law are "moronic libs".
Interesting logic.

Ok then, call me a moronic lib if you like, I am so proud of being a "moronic lib".

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAqOyAWHM1A[/youtube]

What a hypocrite. Has anyone seen what Mexico does on their southern borders? Virtually every nation in the world requires some sort of legal documentation to get into their country.

"Focus on criminalizing migration in this way"

Because it is criminal! If you enter this country without paperwork it is illegal.

"which is a social and economic phenomenon"

It is an economic phenomenon for Mexico because they can literally export all their poverty to our country. I'd imagine most of the people entering illegally aren't even Mexicans. They're mostly from South America nations that Mexico doesn't want to deal with or even have them in their country. I'm not making this up. I knew a legal resident from Mexico who once told me this is exactly what the Mexican government is hoping illegal immigration leads to. He also said there's still pent up anger over losing Texas and California. He says as far as the Mexican government and people are concerned the land still belongs to Mexico. Obviously they can't take them by force but they can own them by "seeding and breeding." I'm sure you don't need me to explain what that means.

"Stepping up efforts to protect the rights of Mexicans."

Why don't you start by accepting responsibility for your nation, and acknowledge that you've let your people down... not the United States. And also start taking care of your citizens so they have a reason to want to stay in your country?

Why is everyone criminalizing the United States for wanting to defend our southern border states? As a sovereign nation we are slowly being invaded. We don't want a European Union style visa program that allows people to freely travel across our borders. We already have something like that: we call them the States. The UNITED States of America.

Oh, Mexico never should have ceded Arizona and California to the United States in the first place.

This is all Mexico's fault.

All that Mexico succeeded in doing was to create one big headache.

A note to everyone.

Maku , a moderator is useing the rules and his/her power to shut up people that maku does not like.
Here is the threat and defamation maku sent me.

"Attacks on individuals or groups on WP will not be tolerated; neither will racist speech. If you need to speak such things, there are other venues available to you or you can even create your own. But it won't be accepted here.


M.

I have not attacked maku personally, I know nothing about maku, and I have used no racists words.
Maku is just making up lies to try and silence those maku does not like.

A note to WorldTraveler:

Anyone can read for themselves your past posts, and the moderation team has been aware of your behavior. No lies, just even enforcement of the rules to preserve the sanctity of a support site. Since I am no longer a moderator, you're Alex's problem now. It doesn't change that you continue to display an unsettling ignorance of the law itself, the potential abuses inherent in its' design, its' violation of constitutional and democratic principles, or the effect that this legislation has outside the intended effects. You've unabashedly ignored the fact that I have said the there is a problem but this is not the solution; apparently because it doesn't jibe with your inaccurate attempts to paint me as something I'm not. So you follow your path, I will follow mine.


M.