The founding fathers were slave owners

Well the jews had their sondercommandos and nazi sympathizers and we have our uncle toms
who would sellout the race in a new york minute to please whitey


Hotwater

 

As the probability of ever getting everyone to do something is minuscule, that quote of MLK among many similar were but a waste of words. Have you noted that we spend the vast majority of our time defining what we feel are the problems, and very little time searching for acceptable solutions?

 

Well it doesn't need to be everyone, it just needs to be the good deal of people. Stuff like this is hard though, in fact changing anyone's opinion on anything is hard.

Take the immigration bill in Arizona for example. Ask someone who says it's not racist how it could ever be possible to enforce this without being racist, how do you determine with reasonable suspicion who you're going to ask for ID/immigration papers randomly on the street without it being anyone who looks Mexican, like how many blonde hair, fair skin people will be asked for ID. And they can't. But instead of admitting it's racist they'll jump to the "well what do you have against having to show ID" card.

 

I dunno about that.

If someone is talking with a Scandanavian accent, I'm sure they could be asked for ID.

I mean, if there are a higher percentage of hispanic illegals, it's only natural that more hispanics will be asked.

I've always thought profiling is a strange issue.
So far almost all of the attempted plane hijackers this decade were Arabic. Should Arabs not get more attention by air security if they are more likely to be the hijackers?

I don't see how recognizing a correlation is ethnist - I mean, you aren't assuming that the person is illegal - just recognizing that it's more likely that they are.

At the same time, I wouldn't want to be an arab or hispanic on the other side of things.

It's quite a dilemma, in my mind.

I still wouldn't say it's ethnist, but definitely morally ambiguous.

 

The real problem is the law has to be enforced by normal human beings, and police officers in general tend to lean on the conservative side, which raises the main problem of how this bill could ever be enforced without being racist. I mean Hispanic isn't a race, it's a geographic area, what about all the Hispanics who look white, as long as they're not within ear range of a cop they're fine. What about anyone of Portugese, Italian, Greek, ect ancestry who's ancestors came here 100 years ago but they still look dark and have dark hair, especially in Arizona where someone of Mediterranean decent is likely to tan, let's see how many of them get asked for ID vs blonde hair people of Danish ancestry. Back in the south in the day black people with light skin that could pass as say a tanned white person were considered to have good skin, because of the fact they could pass as a white person which meant if you pretended to be one it of course made life that much easier. 50 years later annnnnnnnnnnd, we're back to getting people trying to look as white as possible to avoid harassment.

It comes down to the fact if you look like a brown person you best not leave your front lawn without ID on you.

 

Now here is something I don't get. Of course the law in Arizona has everything to do with hispanics. People fron Sweden are not sneaking across the borders.The hispanics are the people that come here illegally. Why go off on a tangent and accuse the US citizens of being racist about this. I have worked with many hispanics that came here from Mexico to El Salvador.They were hard workers and good guys. I understand why they want to leave their countries,especially Mexico.But isn't there a principle here? I want a number of people that should be allowed to come here without going thru the legal process of becoming a citizen. 10,000,00--20,000,00-50,000,00-100,000,00??? How many? Does it matter?In a perfect world,there would be no borders,every government would respect,help and protect their citizens and everything would be some kind of hunky-dory.I think we all know that's bullshit in many if not most cases. PC horse crap is not going to help anything. Either we invite any and all people around the world to come here or we keep some semblance of order.

 

Exactly, what I'm saying.

You can elevate it to an ethnic issue, but really, it's just standard old-fashion profiling.
It's not wrong to suspect someone more readily because they are in a group like say, teenagers that are more likely to commit crimes - it's wrong to act on that without confirming suspicion (i.e. attack a black teen because he had a mountain dew bottle in his pocket and it could have been a gun)

It would be silly if they checked everyone for ID, people with Texas and New York, and Boston accents, when Hispanics are the main offenders of illegal immigration.

 

It was like checking 80 year old chinese ladie's shoes before they boarded airplanes. In addition , couldn't middle easterners with bad intensions sneak across? I'm sure some have already. Some people are so concerned about being labeled racist that they lose all common sense.

 

Again, Hispanic is not a racial demographic, it's a location demographic, If you're Hispanic but look white thanks to your ancestry, welcome to America.

 

Check out the word Hispanic and Latino on wickipedia. Interesting.

 

Well, bro, notice I've been saying ethnist this whole time? I don't believe in race, so you're not saying much of anything to me =P

The way I see it, race is assuming that humans are divided into species like animals - and we aren't. It's simply our locations that caused our cultural differences, melatonin differences, etc. Only one race, that's the human race, and yada yada.

Really, I don't think any of this crap matters, much. Fuck the borders, fuck the countries -so if it were up to my vote, I'd probably vote against the Id crap. But theoretically, my only problem is like you said, the cops being untrustworthy, and sympathy for the legals that would be hassled.

 

That is the main problem, it's just a way to harass people, like I said what happened if you were of south Italian decent or Greek and lived in Arizona, you probably wouldn't be able to leave your house without your ID either. The irony here is legal Hispanics of any race make up by far the largest single demographic in Arizona, and New Mexico, Texas and southern California, and aside from that these states are quickly going from Catholic plurality to majority. White evangelical people are demanding their voices finally be heard.

 

This case has already been decided by the Supreme Court, circa 1983. It was a famous case called "California Walkman." The police do not have the right to ask for your ID without probable cause, and skin color is not probable cause.

.

 

I'm not familiar with the details and ruling of the case you are referring to, and did not find it in the list of cases with rulings in 1983. Could you cite it more specifically? There are legal means by which most laws can be circumvented, and probably many of us have experienced road blocks where police were doing random license and insurance checks, or is that no longer permitted?
Profiling is a means of reducing the number of suspects the police have to deal with. And as the U.S. is a country made up of citizens of all races, it can play a major role in the apprehension of perpetrators. Race is but one factor in profiling, but no one complains about the use of height, weight, age, hair color, eye color, clothing, or other factors that might be used. If the suspect is white, is it racial profiling to stop only whites? If not, why then should it not be when skin color or race is a major factor in identifying those who may be lawbreakers, concentrating instead on any resulting abuse?
This is quite far from the OP topic, but we have immigration laws, and if the enforcement of laws is ignored they become irrelevant and broken more frequently, as is the case we have here. We talk around the problem constantly, but take no action to solve it. Living abroad, I'm often asked to show my passport and more importantly my current visa. Obviously racial profiling is used as I stand out as being racially different from the population at large. It only takes a minute and I applaud the law enforcement when I hear news that an illegal immigrant has been apprehended and deported or turned over to the authorities they had been fleeing from.
Perhaps we should look at illegal immigrants as consensual slavery, exercising the immigration laws more forcefully in order to eliminate slavery in any form.
Just trying to move back toward the topic.

 

It took a while cause I couldn't remember his name. But...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_C._Lawson
http://edwardlawson.com

from Wikipedia:

This also went to the Supreme Court, don't ask me the case, though, it was also a long time ago, mid to late 70s, I think. The court ruled that roadblocks are legal if they do not target a specific group or neighborhood.

Fair enough. So, you would have no problem if the state and federal governments went from bank to bank and corporation to corporation auditing all of their financial records in search of white collar crime. After all, this type of crime isn't found on the Assembly line, only in the white collar population of our work force.

There is one sure fire way to solve the problem. Arrest and imprison those who hire and prey on illegal aliens. In case you haven't heard the news, with the job market dried up, many are going back home now.

That's all between the government and it's citizens there. You ain't in Kansas any more, Dorothy. Each nation has to be taken in it's totality, and, what works on one might not work in another.

.

 

I'll have to read that thoroughly, but it appears the police had no underlying cause at all in that particular case.

Could I then assume that roadblocks are legal as a means of verifying that those being checked are dutifully bound to provide evidence that they possess the documents required by law to operate a motor vehicle? If so, would it not be within the law to on occasion verify, especially in areas where border penetrations most frequently occur, that those being checked are either citizens, legal immigrants, or tourists possessing valid documents of proof? As such checks need only take a moment, only those who are unable to quickly provide valid proof might have to be scrutinized more closely.

When I worked in a Bank, we were subject to random audits, and corporations also must on occasion submit to audits, not to mention that they hire firms to do such in order to provide stockholders information in their annual reports. The problem I have with what we call corporate crime, is that instead of the individuals who commit the crime bearing full financial responsibility, it is most often the corporation which in the end works out to be the consumers. But should we ignore blue collar crime? White collar crime usually makes news because it is related to a large monetary amount in relation to a single, or small group of individuals. Blue collar crime is not so news worthy although it may be a large monetary amount, but distributed over a large number of persons. Redistribution of wealth maybe?

I agree that those who knowingly hire illegal aliens should be prosecuted, but then there are those with false documentation as well. And just prosecuting those who hire them leaves the illegal aliens where? Do you think they would all just turn around and go home?
The job market that has dried up is in the areas where few illegal aliens find work. It would be interesting to see some facts on what, if any, job losses occurred related to illegal aliens.

No I'm not in, nor have I ever been in Kansas. You might also find application in "what works in one state might not work in another state." Based upon how many seem to view the Federal government today, might it be acceptable to start giving Washington the power to appoint Governors and other high ranking state political positions? That would give Washington the power it needs to remove the final "s" in states, and bring about what would then more appropriately called "The United State of America." The stronger the Federal government is allowed to grow the less sovereignty of the states becomes, and as a result sovereignty of the people as well.

 

To me, this looks the same. The Walkman was a black man walking through white neighborhoods, and, according to the police, this made him suspicious. The police were "trolling for suspects," stopping certain people without any "probable cause" that they had committed a crime.

The new anti-immigration bill will do the same thing, stop people who the police have no reason to believe have committed a crime, except by their appearing to be Hispanic, no "probable cause."

The rub here is not about illegal immigrants, who have no constitutional rights, but against citizens who will be stopped also.

I think the criteria here would be that everyone would be stopped and everyone would be asked to produce proof of citizenship or visa; and that would be limited to the driver. The court seems to have made a clear distinction between driving and other situations, especially since it has ruled driving to be a privilege and not a right.

This new law seems to be designed to so the very thing that The Court ruled unconstitutional, stop and detain a person based only on his/her appearance with no "probable cause" that they had committed a crime. Under this law, a person sitting at a bus stop, "looking Hispanic," could be detained and asked to pl rove citizenship.

In case you've been out of the country too long, nobody here carries "proof of citizenship" papers, in fact, other than a birth certificate that does not prove it's yours, we have no citizenship papers.

Yes, I do.

States rights is a whole nuther issue, but, for this discussion, a black man living in Alabama in the 60s was pretty happy that the federal government had the power to pass the Civil Rights Act and all of the legislation and Court opinions that followed.

.

 

I agree that from what I've read this appears more a case of harassment than any thing else.

There's some truth in what you say, but I'm aware of a good many Asians who are living in the U.S. illegally, for decades, some in California, and quite many in the Atlanta area.
Being Hispanic or Asian is not a crime, but entering the U.S. illegally is. I've been stopped and questioned twice in my lifetime by the police simply because I fell within the description of someone who was being sought in the area I happened to be in.

And what brought about this problem to such proportions in the first place?

Maybe the Health care bill provides a solution. If all citizens are mandated to have Health insurance, police could set up roadblocks and pedestrian blocks to check for proof of Health insurance.

Have you any other solution?

Maybe this makes a case for the need of some positive form of ID for everyone.

I don't, but I'd be willing to give your suggestion a try anyway.

There are areas where the Federal government should intercede where it is not a case of denying rights to anyone but only assuring that rights are extended equally to all, but there are many more areas where the government tries to step in and equalize rights by taking from one sector of society and giving to another which I think crosses the line.
Based on the Constitution, a street bum and a neurosurgeon have the same rights, but that's as far as rights can or should be extended in a free society. If you want human nature to evolve properly, let nature take it's course. A compassionate government reduces, if not eliminates the need of individual human compassion, to the benefit of politicians and strengthening the power of the government. Individual humans are most compassionate when it becomes necessary to be. Reality is the greatest teacher in life and by masking reality we are essentially removing the teacher from the classroom. You can warn a child over and over not to do something as it will hurt them, but sometimes experiencing the pain is the only way they will learn.

 

I agree, but the police were using a law that required a citizen to show his/her identification upon request by a law enforcement officer. This is the law that was struck down in the Walkman case. The Supreme Court ruled, in that case, that law enforcement officers do not have the right to ask a citizen for identification without probable cause, it doesn't matter if you are black, white or brown. Enforcement of this new Arizona law would allow police to demand identification from citizens without probable cause that a crime has been committed much less that they are a suspect.

I think we all know who this bill was written to target.

Touché

Solution to what? I've already stated that my solution to the immigration problem is enforcement at the employer level.

Not enough, and not enough of them are.

.

 

I've always had to show my U.S. passport when entering the U.S. from abroad, and have had to enter via an allowed entry port. Is it lawful for non-citizens to enter where ever they would like? Perhaps all we need is to increase the number of Immigration workers so the entire border of the U.S. can be covered completely? What is the probable cause when I am asked to show my passport? I'm white, shouldn't that be adequate?

Illegal aliens?

After the employer is jailed what happens to the illegal aliens that were employed? Go home or look for other means of support. Drug smuggling, drug sales, or maybe some other criminal activities? After all in the land of plenty there are numerous ways to acquire what one feels is their fair share, aside from working, and with the looming promise of amnesty, remaining might be more rewarding than leaving.

Why should they be? Most have been taught that it is governments duty and responsibility. And government has unlimited access to money.