Are you really going to fucking argue this case? I'll ask again: are you really, REALLY going tofucking do this?
Really?
That's the same questiondemocrat governorsare asking the administration.
No, Steve, that's not the fucking question. I am asking you whether or not you are actually going to sit in your chair and rally against a law which is patently unconstitutional and racist.
Stop pussyfooting around, building strawmen, and answer my goddamn question.
I have yet to see any evidence that this law is "patently unconstitutional and racist". Please provide.
Main Entry: rac·ism Pronunciation: \ˈrÄÂ-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\ Function: noun Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
The law allows officers to discriminate (defined as "to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit," or "to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences") among the general population by using voice and skin color to assume ethnicity and then allows an officer to search an individual without any other need for suspicion, even so much as probable cause. Such decisions based merely on skin color and other characteristics that lead to questioning an individual's right to be in the United States is virtually the textbook definition of racism.
Such a lack of probable cause or a warrant means that searches for paperwork and documentation violate the Fourth Amendment. It also violates the 14th Amendment To wit: though my father is an American citizen who entered the country on a green card and remained on such up until the moment of naturalization, he can be subjected to stops and searches in Arizona because he is a minority , violating the 14th Amendment's first clause of Equal Protection. It violates the First Amendment; a person who is pulled over and only speaks Spanish can be searched on the grounds that such speech is suspect. In addition, the law flouts the Supremacy Clause, as well (in theory) the Ninth Amendment, which should guarantee a right to safe and unrestricted travel across the nation for all citizens.
I answered yours, you answer mine:
I am asking you whether or not you are actually going to sit in your chair and rally against a law which is patently unconstitutional and racist.
Stop pussyfooting around, building strawmen, and answer my goddamn question.
Police officers already run a check on a person when they stop them to check for outstanding warrants. Checking immigration status is no different.
Would you consider this law racist if it was passed in Hawaii or Alaska? Do you feel that this law will only be used against illegal immigrants who originate from South and Central America?
Do you consider it racist because discretion is given to the officer on the scene to check immigration status? Would it still be racist if everyone were required to be checked?
Police officers already run a check on a person when they stop them to check for outstanding warrants. Checking immigration status is no different.
Yes, Steve, it is. They check everyone's outstanding warrants at stops. As it stands, white individuals will not have their citizenship checked, an inherent inequity. Spend more than a few seconds thinking about this and look past your own willful ignorance, and you will realize that racism is inherent here. If they did check everyone's immigration status, perhaps with an RFID on everyone's driver's license, you would solve the problem of racism, but a multitude of other constitutional issues would remain, the supremacy clause not the least among them.
Would you consider this law racist if it was passed in Hawaii or Alaska?
Yes, because I know the definition of racism. Acting this way in any sample population is a violation of human rights, whether or not offenders are exposed.
Do you feel that this law will only be used against illegal immigrants who originate from South and Central America?
Fallacy of relevance. It doesn't matter what I feel.
Do you consider it racist because discretion is given to the officer on the scene to check immigration status?
It's racist because of the grounds the officer is allowed to use to discern whether or not said status is an issue.
Would it still be racist if everyone were required to be checked?
No. But it would still violate the Supremacy Clause and perhaps the Ninth Amendment, but Nuri would know more about the latter than I. You see, with a law like this, it all boils down to the question of "Is a state allowed to independently police nation borders?" and the Constitution says "No." That's why we have the DHS and Border Patrol, say what you will about their effectiveness. A perceived lack of action does not allow state actions to supersede federal ones.
And yet, you still haven't answered my question. Even boiled down to the fairest possible clauses, this law is unconstitutional. Now, looking at the actual law, it is flagrantly unconstitutional, and yes, racist. I ask myself why you keep declining to answer my question or do further research and instead fire back with irrelevancies, strawmen, and other questions, and the only possible answers are that you actually support an unconstitutional law (something which would very much undermine your political beliefs, as well as your credibility), or you are really just woefully ignorant, making a fool of yourself here and elsewhere as you attempt to hold grandiose debate operating on spoon-fed news and truthiness from your chosen political side. Whatever the case, even as I operate under the greatest degree of the Principle of Charity, you are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I pity you if you can't honestly search out a copy of the Constitution and come to that conclusion for your self. Quite sad.
I like Stephen Colbert's solution to illegal immigration: get a metric-shitton of crotchety old people, move them to the border, and have them tell the illegal immigrants to get off their lawn.
I like Stephen Colbert's solution to illegal immigration: get a metric-shitton of crotchety old people, move them to the border, and have them tell the illegal immigrants to get off their lawn.
I'm sure there is no short supply of such people in Texas, so it's obviously not working all that well.
Police officers already run a check on a person when they stop them to check for outstanding warrants. Checking immigration status is no different.
Yes, Steve, it is. They check everyone's outstanding warrants at stops. As it stands, white individuals will not have their citizenship checked, an inherent inequity. Spend more than a few seconds thinking about this and look past your own willful ignorance, and you will realize that racism is inherent here. If theydidcheck everyone's immigration status, perhaps with an RFID on everyone's driver's license, you would solve the problem of racism, but a multitude of other constitutional issues would remain, the supremacy clause not the least among them.
While I do agree that the law should be amended to check the immigration status of everyone pulled over I do not agree with an RFID chip. However, just because a certain racial group is more prone to be in violation of a law in a given area does not make that law inherently racist. Even along the southern border it is not just hispanics who cross the border illegally.
There are two parts of this section of the law that Bolton and the attorneys debated.
The first prohibits state and local government from restricting law enforcement from enforcing federal immigration law to the fullest extent permitted by federal statute.
Bolton asked ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat and later Department of Justice attorney Edwin Kneedler why the state should not be allowed to require all local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law.
"Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have remained and entered the United States illegally?" the judge asked. "Who am I to stop the state of Arizona?"
But she also held the state's lawyer, John Bouma, to the fire with questions about whether this portion of the state law pre-empts federal law. Bouma said it did not.
"Law-enforcement officers have been enforcing federal immigration laws for years," he said.
Is he talking about Section 287g when he references enforcing federal immigration law for years or something older?
Bolton told Kneedler that he didn't need to bother talking about why the federal government viewed as unconstitutional the provision on not having documents. But she sharply questioned his contention that the state cannot tell its officers they must determine the immigration status of people they stop — which is normally done with a call to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.
Kneedler warned that if every state in the country adopted such a measure, it would create "a huge burden" on the federal agency.
Bouma said the new law merely directs local officers to help the federal government identify illegal immigrants. He contended that the Obama administration doesn't want to enforce much of the existing federal immigration law.
Is Kneedler making the "unfunded mandate" argument in reverse here? Or is he admitting that the feds are incapable of enforcing federal immigration laws? Sounds like a stupid thing for the govt lawyer to say.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton said during a hearing that the provision that makes it a state crime to lack immigration documents apparently conflicts with a Supreme Court ruling that says states cannot create their own immigration registration systems.
I'm not sure I understand this bit. How does requiring immigration documents (federal papers) turn into a state immigration registration system? Is the state trying to issue their own immigration papers? If the state is simply using ICE's system to check on people how is that a state level registration system. There must be some additional context to this part of the law that I have not found in the overnight articles.
I'm seeing the 'inhospitable' quote being quoted differently in different articles. Does anyone know exactly what the judge said? While the quotes are generaly similiar the word 'illegally' is often being dropped and some other words are being added.
The Senate continued the filibuster of the Dream Act. Because as Americans, it is our duty to turn away hard-working, morally upright intellectuals who want nothing more than to contribute to our national knowledge -- All because they're foreigners. Hooray! We've finally reached the point at which our cultural anti-intellectualism and inbred racism explodes into a cacophony of misguided hatred.
In other news: My anger has blackened, hardened, and weighed down my heart to the extent that my pure, unfiltered fury threatens to collapse into a black hole and consume ALL OF CREATION.
I know, it sucks. One only can keep fighting the good fight while going forward. This sucks twice as hard since "The Dream Act" was repelled along with the "Don't ask don't tell". Why would some one be against these two acts is beyond me
In other news: My anger has blackened, hardened, and weighed down my heart to the extent that my pure, unfiltered fury threatens to collapse into a black hole and consume ALL OF CREATION.
You should listen to more black metal. Especially the really noisy post-black stuff. It helps.
This sucks twice as hard since "The Dream Act" was repelled along with the "Don't ask don't tell". Why would some one be against these two acts is beyond me
Well, some people are just horrible homophobic racist douchebag cocksuckers who suck mud fiercely and blow dead donkeys. And apparently some of them have decided to go into politics.
It's a reasonable career choice, when there are so many other horrible homophobic racist douchebag cocksuckers who suck mud fiercely and blow dead donkeys who would be glad to vote for you.
I have a friend in Chicago who's been trying and failing to immigrate for most of his life, and the failure of the DREAM Act is really messing with his chances. He's absolutely brilliant and a very, VERY good community organizer and activist. He also helps run one of the biggest Model UN conferences in the world. He managed to graduate from college in spite of all of this. Now, he's trying to get a Netroots Scholarship to offset the cost of working on gaining citizenship, as well as bringing attention to his cause. If you could take a minute to read his profile and add your name to his petition, it would be awesome; my dad worked for 15 years to get citizenship even with a green card, so seeing this guy succeed would mean a lot to me. Thanks guys.
It's really a shame they do green cards in a lottery. A friend of mine from Turkey just found he won. While I'm happy for him, he hasn't done anything nearly that productive.
Also, good on him for getting The Stig (or at least a Stig).
I have a friend in Chicago who's been trying and failing to immigrate for most of his life, and the failure of the DREAM Act is really messing with his chances. He's absolutely brilliant and a very, VERY good community organizer and activist. He also helps run one of the biggest Model UN conferences in the world. He managed to graduate from college in spite of all of this. Now, he's trying to get a Netroots Scholarship to offset the cost of working on gaining citizenship, as well as bringing attention to his cause. If you could take a minute to read his profile and add your name to his petition, it would be awesome; my dad worked for 15 years to get citizenship even with a green card, so seeing this guy succeed would mean a lot to me. Thanks guys.
Comments
Such a lack of probable cause or a warrant means that searches for paperwork and documentation violate the Fourth Amendment. It also violates the 14th Amendment To wit: though my father is an American citizen who entered the country on a green card and remained on such up until the moment of naturalization, he can be subjected to stops and searches in Arizona because he is a minority , violating the 14th Amendment's first clause of Equal Protection. It violates the First Amendment; a person who is pulled over and only speaks Spanish can be searched on the grounds that such speech is suspect. In addition, the law flouts the Supremacy Clause, as well (in theory) the Ninth Amendment, which should guarantee a right to safe and unrestricted travel across the nation for all citizens.
I answered yours, you answer mine:
Would you consider this law racist if it was passed in Hawaii or Alaska? Do you feel that this law will only be used against illegal immigrants who originate from South and Central America?
Do you consider it racist because discretion is given to the officer on the scene to check immigration status? Would it still be racist if everyone were required to be checked?
And yet, you still haven't answered my question. Even boiled down to the fairest possible clauses, this law is unconstitutional. Now, looking at the actual law, it is flagrantly unconstitutional, and yes, racist. I ask myself why you keep declining to answer my question or do further research and instead fire back with irrelevancies, strawmen, and other questions, and the only possible answers are that you actually support an unconstitutional law (something which would very much undermine your political beliefs, as well as your credibility), or you are really just woefully ignorant, making a fool of yourself here and elsewhere as you attempt to hold grandiose debate operating on spoon-fed news and truthiness from your chosen political side. Whatever the case, even as I operate under the greatest degree of the Principle of Charity, you are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I pity you if you can't honestly search out a copy of the Constitution and come to that conclusion for your self. Quite sad.
Federal judge won't block all of Arizona's immigration law - Good article. Judge sounds good and the three sections mentioned in the article should be removed or amended. Is he talking about Section 287g when he references enforcing federal immigration law for years or something older?
Judge doubts constitutionality of a portion of Arizona's immigration law Is Kneedler making the "unfunded mandate" argument in reverse here? Or is he admitting that the feds are incapable of enforcing federal immigration laws? Sounds like a stupid thing for the govt lawyer to say. I'm not sure I understand this bit. How does requiring immigration documents (federal papers) turn into a state immigration registration system? Is the state trying to issue their own immigration papers? If the state is simply using ICE's system to check on people how is that a state level registration system. There must be some additional context to this part of the law that I have not found in the overnight articles.
In other news: My anger has blackened, hardened, and weighed down my heart to the extent that my pure, unfiltered fury threatens to collapse into a black hole and consume ALL OF CREATION.
This sucks twice as hard since "The Dream Act" was repelled along with the "Don't ask don't tell". Why would some one be against these two acts is beyond me
Also, beer.
On a more serious note, it is disappointing to see America come to this.
I have a friend in Chicago who's been trying and failing to immigrate for most of his life, and the failure of the DREAM Act is really messing with his chances. He's absolutely brilliant and a very, VERY good community organizer and activist. He also helps run one of the biggest Model UN conferences in the world. He managed to graduate from college in spite of all of this. Now, he's trying to get a Netroots Scholarship to offset the cost of working on gaining citizenship, as well as bringing attention to his cause. If you could take a minute to read his profile and add your name to his petition, it would be awesome; my dad worked for 15 years to get citizenship even with a green card, so seeing this guy succeed would mean a lot to me. Thanks guys.
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/netroots_nation_scholarships/1320-chirayu
[Also, I usually hate shameless plugs, but I'll make an exception here.]
Also, good on him for getting The Stig (or at least a Stig).
I signed by the way :P