New Arizona Immigration Law Poll

[North Calaveras]

Who exactly?

This law was written by people who want to undo vital parts of the US Constitution, who do not want a society where all are created equal, and who are willing to use strong-arm tactics of intimidation and abuse by government to impose that kind of control over US citizens.

I totaly agree with you on most of that, but that dosn't mean we should let anyone from anywhere on the planet come here without being checked.

Muravyets has already pointed out this is a false dichotomy, but let's assume it isn't: is having relatively open borders really worse than laws that are racist and violate the U.S. Constitution? What about our nation are you protecting if you jettison our values?

Moreover, it is worth noting that most of the history of the American colonies and the United States involved relatively open borders. It wasn't until after the Civil War that significant restrictions started being imposed on immigration (not surprisingly, primarily on racial grounds.)

What about the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795? They limited naturalization to "free white persons". From what I can tell, pre-Civil War immigration legislation was far more racially restrictive than what we have now.

Also, illegal immigration would have been more difficult in the past as the primary sources of potential immigrants were separated from America by the Atlantic Ocean. The immigration concerns on the past primarily centered around legal immigrants coming in from Eastern and Southern Europe. Illegals didn't become a major concern until after WWII when a trickle of Mexican laborers grew into a flood that continues to this day, and now comes from many nations other than Mexico.

1. You completely and conveniently ignore my first and main point.

2. I specifically mentioned the American colonies, but even the laws you refer to (although racist) are pretty fucking open borders.

3. It is true (as I mentioned originally) that immigration law in the U.S. has often been racist. This doesn't make it any more acceptable than the fact that slavery was acceptable here for so long.

4. I have neither the time nor the patience to explain to you the demographic history of immigration to the U.S. Suffice it to say your summary is both oversimplistic and erroneous.

5. It is telling that you refer to immigrants from Europe as immigrants and immigrants from Mexico as "illegals."

2. Mexicans are not a race, something ive said like a hundred times
3. It was never rascist, it may have judged someone by how they looked and spoke but not by the color of there skin
5. Illegal is illegal no matter where you are from, were talking more specifically latinos and more specifically mexicans.

[Grenartia]

Is it me or could this topic be a perfect issue?

[JJ Place]

Who exactly?

Well, for one example, the authors of the main body of the AZ law, an organization who call themselves FAIR (click to go to their website) and who have a long history of connections to white supremacists and racial segregationists, including direct statements and connections among their own staff, their current head, and their founder who is still on their board of directors, as was recently revealed on the Rachel Maddow Show in an interview with Dan Stein, the current head of FAIR. He denied the allegations vehemently, but here is the Maddow Show's fact check of the issues raised in the interview, and here is an additional fact check and correction of their original fact check.

Here is more video and related material.

Don't just take the word of these links. Follow the links within the links if you want more.

(I hope all that works. My computer started to act up a bit.)

This law was written by people who want to undo vital parts of the US Constitution, who do not want a society where all are created equal, and who are willing to use strong-arm tactics of intimidation and abuse by government to impose that kind of control over US citizens.

I totaly agree with you on most of that, but that dosn't mean we should let anyone from anywhere on the planet come here without being checked.

I agree with most of that; invading armies that are a physical threat to the safety of the society should not be allowed in, and should be stopped by any means necessary. However, immigrants do not wish to destroy the United States, they simply wish to gain entrance to the United States. Many argue that immigrants just suck up our welfare and take our other over-zealous government-provided services; but that's not the issue. If you want to get rid of these programs, which is fine and which I would 100% agree with you, instead of making a quick-fix and shutting down the borders to save a few dollars, work on getting rid of these programs entirely. Some will then actually argue that if a person is legal, they deserve to get the government services, while if they're illegal, they do not. So apparently, Socialism by the legal citizens is alright in these people's minds; but Socialism by those nasty immigrants is blasphemous, and that they are not entitled to anything.

Many who argue against me who are anti-immigration also stumble around when I bring up to them that many legal immigrants, and even natural born citizens abuse the government services such as welfare, they try to make up excuses that the programs are now good apparently. When I bring up the fact that most 'illegal' immigrants are not here to abuse our government's poorly functioning systems, and simply want to be left alone to their own devices, they bring up a list of about.. 10 cases of illegals abusing the systems. Then I'll bring up the fact that illegal immigrants would pay taxes if they where legal, they generally just ignore point and go back to the previous argument about welfare, and they continue to lose ground in the debate.

Others will try to argue that

Finally, some will then argue that 'illegal' immigrants should either 1) Stay in their in there own countries, 2) Ask for political asymlum in the case of their country being a terrible place to live, or 3) Come here the right way. Even though we can change the laws to whatever we like, and we can change them and need to change them to open up our borders; what's truly ironic about many arguing against 'illegal' immigrants is that these people are the 'small government' people who want to 'get government off your back' and make the country more free. You'd think these same people would have a little consitancy in their arguments, wouldn't you?

So lets say we do open our borders to everyone but noticable invaders, I think I can hear thousands of Islamic radicals waiting to board planes and set up shop here.

You don't have to; they get in with or without the restrictions on immigration, every single one of the suicide bombers in 911 was a legal immigrant. Second, we have radicals in this country; if Al Qaeda wants to really get into the United States, they'll recruit people from our country. Third, and most importantly: Nothing, not even a few thousand terrorists, is worth losing our freedom over. Nothing will dramatically affect them, no matter how much of our freedom we lose, and even if it does, they've won if we lose our freedom. Like Jesse Ventura has said for years: "I'd rather take the chance of not being safe, and still live free." And so would I.

Look, if these Mexican illegals want to strike down this bill, then Mexico should have the same immigration policy as the united states.

If the Bob wants to jump off of a cliff, and Sally agrees with him, should you jump off of a cliff with them? No! We can't just conform to the rest of they world's opinions and society; if slavery is legal in every other country on Earth, we need to break that; especially being the United States, the one society that is always supposed to be the land of the free, we need to show to the rest of the world that freedom. We must stand as a free nation, even if other societies chose not to be. We should be the land of the free, but are we brave enough to be the land of the free, the one nation not afraid to be a free society? That is truly the question that needs to be asked.

[North Calaveras]

Who exactly?

Well, for one example, the authors of the main body of the AZ law, an organization who call themselves FAIR (click to go to their website) and who have a long history of connections to white supremacists and racial segregationists, including direct statements and connections among their own staff, their current head, and their founder who is still on their board of directors, as was recently revealed on the Rachel Maddow Show in an interview with Dan Stein, the current head of FAIR. He denied the allegations vehemently, but here is the Maddow Show's fact check of the issues raised in the interview, and here is an additional fact check and correction of their original fact check.

Here is more video and related material.

Don't just take the word of these links. Follow the links within the links if you want more.

(I hope all that works. My computer started to act up a bit.)

This law was written by people who want to undo vital parts of the US Constitution, who do not want a society where all are created equal, and who are willing to use strong-arm tactics of intimidation and abuse by government to impose that kind of control over US citizens.

I totaly agree with you on most of that, but that dosn't mean we should let anyone from anywhere on the planet come here without being checked.

I agree with most of that; invading armies that are a physical threat to the safety of the society should not be allowed in, and should be stopped by any means necessary. However, immigrants do not wish to destroy the United States, they simply wish to gain entrance to the United States. Many argue that immigrants just suck up our welfare and take our other over-zealous government-provided services; but that's not the issue. If you want to get rid of these programs, which is fine and which I would 100% agree with you, instead of making a quick-fix and shutting down the borders to save a few dollars, work on getting rid of these programs entirely. Some will then actually argue that if a person is legal, they deserve to get the government services, while if they're illegal, they do not. So apparently, Socialism by the legal citizens is alright in these people's minds; but Socialism by those nasty immigrants is blasphemous, and that they are not entitled to anything.

Many who argue against me who are anti-immigration also stumble around when I bring up to them that many legal immigrants, and even natural born citizens abuse the government services such as welfare, they try to make up excuses that the programs are now good apparently. When I bring up the fact that most 'illegal' immigrants are not here to abuse our government's poorly functioning systems, and simply want to be left alone to their own devices, they bring up a list of about.. 10 cases of illegals abusing the systems. Then I'll bring up the fact that illegal immigrants would pay taxes if they where legal, they generally just ignore point and go back to the previous argument about welfare, and they continue to lose ground in the debate.

Others will try to argue that

Finally, some will then argue that 'illegal' immigrants should either 1) Stay in their in there own countries, 2) Ask for political asymlum in the case of their country being a terrible place to live, or 3) Come here the right way. Even though we can change the laws to whatever we like, and we can change them and need to change them to open up our borders; what's truly ironic about many arguing against 'illegal' immigrants is that these people are the 'small government' people who want to 'get government off your back' and make the country more free. You'd think these same people would have a little consitancy in their arguments, wouldn't you?

So lets say we do open our borders to everyone but noticable invaders, I think I can hear thousands of Islamic radicals waiting to board planes and set up shop here.

You don't have to; they get in with or without the restrictions on immigration, every single one of the suicide bombers in 911 was a legal immigrant. Second, we have radicals in this country; if Al Qaeda wants to really get into the United States, they'll recruit people from our country. Third, and most importantly: Nothing, not even a few thousand terrorists, is worth losing our freedom over. Nothing will dramatically affect them, no matter how much of our freedom we lose, and even if it does, they've won if we lose our freedom. Like Jesse Ventura has said for years: "I'd rather take the chance of not being safe, and still live free." And so would I.

Look, if these Mexican illegals want to strike down this bill, then Mexico should have the same immigration policy as the united states.

If the Bob wants to jump off of a cliff, and Sally agrees with him, should you jump off of a cliff with them? No! We can't just conform to the rest of they world's opinions and society; if slavery is legal in every other country on Earth, we need to break that; especially being the United States, the one society that is always supposed to be the land of the free, we need to show to the rest of the world that freedom. We must stand as a free nation, even if other societies chose not to be. We should be the land of the free, but are we brave enough to be the land of the free, the one nation not afraid to be a free society? That is truly the question that needs to be asked.

That's like saying " I'm going to leave my doors open to whomever wishes to come over, even if my neighbors are want to kill me! Just because I want to seem like the better guy!"

[JJ Place]

Who exactly?

Well, for one example, the authors of the main body of the AZ law, an organization who call themselves FAIR (click to go to their website) and who have a long history of connections to white supremacists and racial segregationists, including direct statements and connections among their own staff, their current head, and their founder who is still on their board of directors, as was recently revealed on the Rachel Maddow Show in an interview with Dan Stein, the current head of FAIR. He denied the allegations vehemently, but here is the Maddow Show's fact check of the issues raised in the interview, and here is an additional fact check and correction of their original fact check.

Here is more video and related material.

Don't just take the word of these links. Follow the links within the links if you want more.

(I hope all that works. My computer started to act up a bit.)

This law was written by people who want to undo vital parts of the US Constitution, who do not want a society where all are created equal, and who are willing to use strong-arm tactics of intimidation and abuse by government to impose that kind of control over US citizens.

I totaly agree with you on most of that, but that dosn't mean we should let anyone from anywhere on the planet come here without being checked.

I agree with most of that; invading armies that are a physical threat to the safety of the society should not be allowed in, and should be stopped by any means necessary. However, immigrants do not wish to destroy the United States, they simply wish to gain entrance to the United States. Many argue that immigrants just suck up our welfare and take our other over-zealous government-provided services; but that's not the issue. If you want to get rid of these programs, which is fine and which I would 100% agree with you, instead of making a quick-fix and shutting down the borders to save a few dollars, work on getting rid of these programs entirely. Some will then actually argue that if a person is legal, they deserve to get the government services, while if they're illegal, they do not. So apparently, Socialism by the legal citizens is alright in these people's minds; but Socialism by those nasty immigrants is blasphemous, and that they are not entitled to anything.

Many who argue against me who are anti-immigration also stumble around when I bring up to them that many legal immigrants, and even natural born citizens abuse the government services such as welfare, they try to make up excuses that the programs are now good apparently. When I bring up the fact that most 'illegal' immigrants are not here to abuse our government's poorly functioning systems, and simply want to be left alone to their own devices, they bring up a list of about.. 10 cases of illegals abusing the systems. Then I'll bring up the fact that illegal immigrants would pay taxes if they where legal, they generally just ignore point and go back to the previous argument about welfare, and they continue to lose ground in the debate.

Others will try to argue that

Finally, some will then argue that 'illegal' immigrants should either 1) Stay in their in there own countries, 2) Ask for political asymlum in the case of their country being a terrible place to live, or 3) Come here the right way. Even though we can change the laws to whatever we like, and we can change them and need to change them to open up our borders; what's truly ironic about many arguing against 'illegal' immigrants is that these people are the 'small government' people who want to 'get government off your back' and make the country more free. You'd think these same people would have a little consitancy in their arguments, wouldn't you?

So lets say we do open our borders to everyone but noticable invaders, I think I can hear thousands of Islamic radicals waiting to board planes and set up shop here.

You don't have to; they get in with or without the restrictions on immigration, every single one of the suicide bombers in 911 was a legal immigrant. Second, we have radicals in this country; if Al Qaeda wants to really get into the United States, they'll recruit people from our country. Third, and most importantly: Nothing, not even a few thousand terrorists, is worth losing our freedom over. Nothing will dramatically affect them, no matter how much of our freedom we lose, and even if it does, they've won if we lose our freedom. Like Jesse Ventura has said for years: "I'd rather take the chance of not being safe, and still live free." And so would I.

Look, if these Mexican illegals want to strike down this bill, then Mexico should have the same immigration policy as the united states.

If the Bob wants to jump off of a cliff, and Sally agrees with him, should you jump off of a cliff with them? No! We can't just conform to the rest of they world's opinions and society; if slavery is legal in every other country on Earth, we need to break that; especially being the United States, the one society that is always supposed to be the land of the free, we need to show to the rest of the world that freedom. We must stand as a free nation, even if other societies chose not to be. We should be the land of the free, but are we brave enough to be the land of the free, the one nation not afraid to be a free society? That is truly the question that needs to be asked.

That's like saying " I'm going to leave my doors open to whomever wishes to come over, even if my neighbors are want to kill me! Just because I want to seem like the better guy!"

Yeah, because private property and the entire nation are synonyms for one another. Unless of course you own every single piece of property, and every single square inch of land in a certain area (Perhaps a private island) you don't have any rights to block people from entering your society; you can block them from entering your private property, and you should be able to restrict people from entering your place of business if you own the business; however, by no means does anyone entirely own this society; nor will they ever be able to if they take ownership of the society through a consensual means.

[North Calaveras]

Look, you want open borders and everyone to just come in, that sounds fun an all, but then the country collapses, there is no real loyalty anymore to the United States of America, they don't have a respect for it. If every immigrant came here and was illegal but had nothing but patriotism to the American dream and showed loyalty to this nation I would not have a problem with it, but that's a fantasy.

[Muravyets]

Then why do we have this problem in the first place if the existing structure is good enough?

Uh, hello, duh -- because the existing structure has not been used, i.e. enforced. Or did you forget about the past (guesstimating) 30 years or more of businesses deliberately employing illegal immigrants so they could pay them far less than standard US wages and no benefits? Did you miss the years of lobbying against strong immigration enforcement by business interests? Were you unaware that some of the biggest and richest industries in the US -- construction, tourism/hospitality, and the biggest of the bunch, agribusiness -- are almost entirely dependent on under-paid undocumented workers to pad their massive profits? Did you not get the memo updating you on the culmination of all this loveliness, namely George W. Bush making countless speeches about how the US cannot survive without migrant workers from Mexico to come and do "the jobs Americans don't want"?

Way back at the beginning of this thread I criticized Arizona for turning all "Protect Arizona Now" only AFTER they had spent years profiting off the cheap labor of those illegal immigrants and allowing them to practically conga line across the border at will. Yeah, but see, now there are brown people in the White House, so I guess in America, bigotry still beats profits. Makes me wonder why the libertarians and free marketers aren't yelping loudest of all against this law.

This repulsive law is not going to stem the tide of illegal immigration by harassing and abusing every random latino in Arizona -- not as long as business interests still profit off it. It's only going to sow paranoia, distrust, and potential violence more widely in general society.

[Muravyets]

i said Mexican illegals, those that are not from this country that got in here illegally, not Mexicans as a whole, there are Mexicans that come here legally that don't want immigrants coming in illegally

Are you under the impression that only illegal immigrants from Mexico are opposed to this law? I'm a born US citizen, 4th or 5th generation (depending on which side of the family). I'm of mixed European ancestry but none of it Spanish or Latino. And I HATE this law with such a passion, it makes my stomach knot up.

[Arkinesia]

What's interesting is I was watching FOX today and I'm pretty sure this is the first time in history FOX and MSNBC have agreed on something.

Because they're both against this law.

[Muravyets]

So what do we do with the illegals in this country, just give them citizenship, that's clearly what your for then, if they get through the border just give it to them for free cause jumping a fence is all the hard work you will need to put in to share in our wealth. You know what, I wouldn't even care if we let them in as long as they were proud to be American and followed our laws and not wave a damn mexican flag around and call tea party members rascists and talk shit about the united states while burning a american flag in the street. Way to be proud of your country.

And what are you going to do about the tea partiers that ARE racists, and the American citizens (born and bred) that burn flags and talk shit about the US?

I'm betting... nothing.

Which would bring us back to your problem with Mexicans. Whatever that's really about.

Maybe he burned his tongue on a tamale once. Never got over it.

[North Calaveras]

i said Mexican illegals, those that are not from this country that got in here illegally, not Mexicans as a whole, there are Mexicans that come here legally that don't want immigrants coming in illegally

Are you under the impression that only illegal immigrants from Mexico are opposed to this law? I'm a born US citizen, 4th or 5th generation (depending on which side of the family). I'm of mixed European ancestry but none of it Spanish or Latino. And I HATE this law with such a passion, it makes my stomach knot up.

As i said before, if they were patriotic to this nation and would forget about being Mexican and accept that there loyalty is now to the united states and obey our laws and tried to succeed without government paying for them, then yes they are welcome in my book.

[Muravyets]

2. Mexicans are not a race, something ive said like a hundred times
3. It was never rascist, it may have judged someone by how they looked and spoke but not by the color of there skin
5. Illegal is illegal no matter where you are from, were talking more specifically latinos and more specifically mexicans.

Good gods, are you fucking kidding with us? Every time you bring that bullshit up, you are told exactly how and why you are wrong. Cut it out already. Nobody's buying it.

[North Calaveras]

2. Mexicans are not a race, something ive said like a hundred times
3. It was never rascist, it may have judged someone by how they looked and spoke but not by the color of there skin
5. Illegal is illegal no matter where you are from, were talking more specifically latinos and more specifically mexicans.

Good gods, are you fucking kidding with us? Every time you bring that bullshit up, you are told exactly how and why you are wrong. Cut it out already. Nobody's buying it.

nobody is buying that Mexicans are not a race? wow, I must be insane then.

[Muravyets]

What's interesting is I was watching FOX today and I'm pretty sure this is the first time in history FOX and MSNBC have agreed on something.

Because they're both against this law.

Are you serious? FOX is against this law? Wow.

[Arkinesia]

What's interesting is I was watching FOX today and I'm pretty sure this is the first time in history FOX and MSNBC have agreed on something.

Because they're both against this law.

Are you serious? FOX is against this law? Wow.

Unless they're agreeing with a bunch of people who are protesting for shits and giggles, yes, they are against it.

Violates the Constitution and that is the kingpin for FOX unless we're discussing them damn Arabs.

[The Southern Dictators]

Well they have to be called "illegal" immigrants for something.

[Muravyets]

i said Mexican illegals, those that are not from this country that got in here illegally, not Mexicans as a whole, there are Mexicans that come here legally that don't want immigrants coming in illegally

Are you under the impression that only illegal immigrants from Mexico are opposed to this law? I'm a born US citizen, 4th or 5th generation (depending on which side of the family). I'm of mixed European ancestry but none of it Spanish or Latino. And I HATE this law with such a passion, it makes my stomach knot up.

As i said before, if they were patriotic to this nation and would forget about being Mexican and accept that there loyalty is now to the united states and obey our laws and tried to succeed without government paying for them, then yes they are welcome in my book.

Oh, I see, so you're a Know-Nothing nativist and an authoritarian ultra-nationalist, as well as both a class and ethnicity bigot. What a charming combination of attitudes.

Your assumption that everyone who is proud of their ethnic heritage is disloyal to the US was already debunked -- with pics! -- and frankly, it just makes you look even more racist when added to all your other nonsense. Result = your book is one no freedom-loving, right-thinking person should want to be welcome in. You're one of those people who, if they think well of us, that indicates that we're doing something wrong.

[North Calaveras]

Well they have to be called "illegal" immigrants for something.

you mean sneaking into a nation is okay with you?

[Muravyets]

2. Mexicans are not a race, something ive said like a hundred times
3. It was never rascist, it may have judged someone by how they looked and spoke but not by the color of there skin
5. Illegal is illegal no matter where you are from, were talking more specifically latinos and more specifically mexicans.

Good gods, are you fucking kidding with us? Every time you bring that bullshit up, you are told exactly how and why you are wrong. Cut it out already. Nobody's buying it.

nobody is buying that Mexicans are not a race? wow, I must be insane then.

You said it, not me. Perhaps you were too paranoid to fill out your US Census form, because if you had, you'd have seen that Hispanic (and all its variants) most certainly is a race by legal definition according to the US government, and that makes all your anti-hispanic ranting ... wait for it... about race and thus racist. Either deal with the classification or stop verbally attacking that race.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Who exactly?

This law was written by people who want to undo vital parts of the US Constitution, who do not want a society where all are created equal, and who are willing to use strong-arm tactics of intimidation and abuse by government to impose that kind of control over US citizens.

I totaly agree with you on most of that, but that dosn't mean we should let anyone from anywhere on the planet come here without being checked.

Muravyets has already pointed out this is a false dichotomy, but let's assume it isn't: is having relatively open borders really worse than laws that are racist and violate the U.S. Constitution? What about our nation are you protecting if you jettison our values?

Moreover, it is worth noting that most of the history of the American colonies and the United States involved relatively open borders. It wasn't until after the Civil War that significant restrictions started being imposed on immigration (not surprisingly, primarily on racial grounds.)

What about the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795? They limited naturalization to "free white persons". From what I can tell, pre-Civil War immigration legislation was far more racially restrictive than what we have now.

Also, illegal immigration would have been more difficult in the past as the primary sources of potential immigrants were separated from America by the Atlantic Ocean. The immigration concerns on the past primarily centered around legal immigrants coming in from Eastern and Southern Europe. Illegals didn't become a major concern until after WWII when a trickle of Mexican laborers grew into a flood that continues to this day, and now comes from many nations other than Mexico.

1. You completely and conveniently ignore my first and main point.

2. I specifically mentioned the American colonies, but even the laws you refer to (although racist) are pretty fucking open borders.

3. It is true (as I mentioned originally) that immigration law in the U.S. has often been racist. This doesn't make it any more acceptable than the fact that slavery was acceptable here for so long.

4. I have neither the time nor the patience to explain to you the demographic history of immigration to the U.S. Suffice it to say your summary is both oversimplistic and erroneous.

5. It is telling that you refer to immigrants from Europe as immigrants and immigrants from Mexico as "illegals."

2. Mexicans are not a race, something ive said like a hundred times
3. It was never rascist, it may have judged someone by how they looked and spoke but not by the color of there skin
5. Illegal is illegal no matter where you are from, were talking more specifically latinos and more specifically mexicans.

First, I don't see how any of this is responsive to the points I was making.

Second, as Gavlen already pointed out you are playing word games about "race" and "racism." link "[R]acial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life." link So discrimination against, profiling of, or immigration laws oppresssing Mexicans or Latinos are racial discrimination. Forgive us for using the term "racism" as a shorthand."

Third, you've made various statements in this thread about what is and is not a "race" and used terms like "caucausoid" and "mongoloid." These statements have no basis in science. I don't have time to fully explain this, but race is a socio-political construct with little or no basis in biology, anthropology, or genetics:

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n1 ... g1454.html
http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/12/6/844
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n1 ... g1435.html
http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/interes ... imore.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/race.htm
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sci ... gyRace.htm
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... 5GkJnA&key

That said, racism based on the perception of racial constructs remains a very big problem in the U.S. One that won't magically go away.

Fourth, the law in question was/is racist. On it's face, it specified race could be used as part of "reasonable suspicion" on was present unlawfully. Further, as I explained earlier it was written by racists for racist reasons. (And opposed by many in law enforcement because it would lead to racial profiling.) link

Finally, as I noted in another earlier post, so-called "illegals" are usually committing only a civil offense by being present here without proper documentation. link (see #2)

[The Southern Dictators]

Well they have to be called "illegal" immigrants for something.

you mean sneaking into a nation is okay with you?

Sneaking into a nation is not okay.

[North Calaveras]

Well they have to be called "illegal" immigrants for something.

you mean sneaking into a nation is okay with you?

Sneaking into a nation is not okay.

Then how should we punish someone sneaking into a nation?

[Muravyets]

What's interesting is I was watching FOX today and I'm pretty sure this is the first time in history FOX and MSNBC have agreed on something.

Because they're both against this law.

Are you serious? FOX is against this law? Wow.

Unless they're agreeing with a bunch of people who are protesting for shits and giggles, yes, they are against it.

Violates the Constitution and that is the kingpin for FOX unless we're discussing them damn Arabs.

To me, the list of rightwingers who have come out AGAINST this law is a real eye-opener and makes it pretty clear just how wrong this whole mess is. It's like a Who's Who in Liberal Nightmares roster -- Karl Rove, Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, Tom freakin' Tancredo, etc. and now FOX News. I mean, just how far beyond the fringe are these AZ lunatics?

[The Southern Dictators]

Well they have to be called "illegal" immigrants for something.

you mean sneaking into a nation is okay with you?

Sneaking into a nation is not okay.

Then how should we punish someone sneaking into a nation?

If they remain illegal when caught, deport them.

[Blodeuwydd]

The thing about that bill isn't that its aim is to criminalize illegal immigration. That makes sense. And if all it was was a measure which stated that if the cops pull you over for another offense, and ask you to appear in court to prove your citizenship, then we're having a conversation. (Not that I would be 100% for that, but at least its reasonable) However, I can't have you walking over to someone with dark skin and demanding papers at 7-11. Thats Schutzstaffel type stuff. And anyway, how're they determining who is "suspicious" of being eere illegally? Are they darting around street corners, with shifty eyes? Of course not, its racial profiling. Thats ballsy, especially in a state where, quite literally, the US-Mexico border crossed them overnight a hundred years ago. Can't do it