Was the bullshit part the part where I agreed with you?
Oh wait - that was simply your way of admitting that you, in fact, took my post out of context intentionally and therefore its ok because other people do/did it.

From redux's link:

President Obama, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to Face Off Over Immigration at White House
Link
As an aside... What law doesn't have the potential to be discriminatory? You have humans enforcing them.

Read more:

That was less than informative.

Please point to any other law where citizens (not illegals) of one race or ethnicity are far more likely to be subject to being "questioned" about their immigration status than other races, when not in custody for questioning about any other crime.

Again, I am not talking about illegals, but citizens and legal residents who happen to be Hispanic and who will be faced with the potential prospect of be subjected to more scrutiny to determine if they broke the state law of being in the country illegally based solely on undefined "suspicious" behavior.

BTW...I did get a good laugh out of your signature: Support America-Support Arizona

Supporting America means supporting the Arizona law?

Does that mean those who have concerns about the AZ law are UnAmerican or somehow not supporting America?

Damn... and I thought supporting America means supporting the right to dissent.

You are such a hypocrite - You choose to support a boycott and I choose to support the state.

Any law - traffic laws - anything where the police have to use their discretion could be construed as being discriminatory.

Please explain what is hypocritical about my comment. I dont have problem with you supporting the state. I disagree with you, but I never brought support of America into the equation, which iMO, is nonsense.

But correct me if I am wrong...you are the one who suggests or infers that supporting America has some relation to supporting your position.

If I misinterpreted, please explain what supporting America has to do with support a state law as opposed to expressing concern about a state law.

Support the state or boycott the state..that is everyone's right and it has absolutely nothing to with supporting America.



Traffic laws are far more likely to be applied equally to all races (despite "driving while black or brown) than a state law that makes illegal immigration a state crime and thus, by its very nature and objectives, far more likely to be applied more to one race than others

This law has the real potential and likelihood NOT to be applied equally to all citizens and legal residents.

There is no comparison to traffic laws or any other laws.

This is about geography, not discrimination.
What if NY passed the same law, written exactly the same way?

IMO, and the opinion of many legal experts, this law has a greater potential adverse impact on Hispanic citizens and legal residents than other races. That makes it discriminatory. Others disagree, I get that.

Again, that is why the courts should decide.

Particularly, when the law only requires "reasonable suspicion" and does not prohibit considering race as a factor. It only says race cannot be the sole factor for determining reasonable suspicion. When race is A factor (not the sole factor), it borders or crosses the line of being discriminatory.

If you are a Hispanic citizen or legal resident of AZ, you are more likely to face "reasonable suspicion" of being an illegal immigrant and in violation of the state law than Anglos, Blacks, Asians.....I honestly dont see how objective observers can suggest otherwise.

IMO, there would be much less concern with the law being potentially discriminatory if it relied on "probable cause" (a greater burden of proof) rather than "reasonable suspicion".

added:
In case I wasnt clear enough about your NY comparison......any law in any state that uses a standard of "reasonable suspicion" and allows race to be a determining factor in that suspicion (just not the sole factor) raises serious legal questions of being discriminatory.

I can imagine the outrage if NY passed a similar law targeting muslims (or anyone who just looks the part.)

Unarmed Predator drones flying along border
No not the Pakistani borders...
Link

Or Christians. :eek:

Seriously. We're so goddammed petrified of terrorists, but we're worried about those folks who are sneaking over here to clean our hotel rooms.

Target any nationality in New York City, call it part of the war on terror, and there will be serious anger and consequences I don't want to ponder.

You know why? Terrorism and power and money are all related, mostly because we want to lie naked in oil all goddam day. (coughBushcough) The Mexican people have little to no say in anything, because they don't have all the money.

Words of Wisdom

I just got back from Mexico. Apparently they still like my money there. All is well.

Words of partisan bullshit.

I would suggest the "words of wisdom" video is political humor as opposed to the partisan bullshit of the AZ governor who has made unsubstantiated claims about the the so-called increase in violent crime that threatens the safety of AZ citizens (despite the fact that violent crime is down statewide and in border cities/counties)?

Or her false claim that that the federal government has done little or nothing to deport illegal immigrants (despite the fact that federal spending has increased substantially as have deportations and the flow of illegals coming into the country is at its lowest point in 10 years)?

IMO, the law may be good partisan politics for an unelected governor,who until she signed the law, had dismal poll ratings and jumped onto a hot button issue that the majority (ie White AZ) supports....but it is terrible public policy.

It is discriminatory....it will adversely impact community policy and the level of trust between police and the Hispanic community...and it will do absolutely nothing to secure the border.

It may get her elected to a full term...thats the bottom line.

Cite please.
Prove it.

You might be seeing a thinking of a different Arizona, perhaps? The one I live in hardly has a white majority.

According to census figures, AZ is majority white, non-Hispanic:

White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2008 58.4%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2008 (b) 30.1%
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html

Or:
According to the 2005-2007 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, White Americans made up 76.4% of Arizona's population; of which 59.6% were non-Hispanic whites. Blacks or African Americans made up 3.4% of Arizona's population; of which 3.3% were non-Hispanic blacks. American Indians made up 4.5% of the state's population; of which 4.1% were non-Hispanic. Asian Americans made up 2.3% of the state's population. Pacific Islander Americans made up 0.1% of the state's population. Individuals from some other race made up 10.8% of the state's population; of which 0.2% were non-Hispanic. Individuals from two or more races made up 2.4% of the state's population; of which 1.4% were non-Hispanic. In addition, Hispanics and Latinos made up 29.0% of Arizona's population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Arizona

Even factoring in an estimated 1/2 million illegals....it wont change the fact that AZ is majority White, non-Hispanic.

And the polls on the AZ law are equally divided by race.

You first :)

Prove that ALL those constitutional experts, local elected officials and law enforcement officials who oppose the law do so out of political or financial interests, as you stated....and not out of concern about discrimination or concern that the law will not only be ineffective, but counter-productive, creating a greater divide between law enforcement and the Hispanic community.

But as I posted earlier... IMO, any law that allows race to be a factor in determining "reasonable suspicion" is discriminatory...particularly when one race will obviously be targeted more than others....unless of course, you expect AZ cops to be looking for illegal Canadians or Haitians.

I also said, ultimately, the courts should make that legal determination.

Cite please...

And they will.

Are you really that dense or just being an argumentative asshole.

I said In My Opinion.

So why cant you cite a source to support your statement that ALL those who oppose the law are motivated by political or financial interests.

Or why cant you answer the earlier question....what the fuck does supporting America have to do with supporting the AZ law?

Or support your statement with a cite that government data is biased or untrustworthy....of course, unless it supports your position.

added:
I accept that providing crime data on AZ border cities/counties is not enough for you and/or others...or the fact that federal expenditures on border security have increased significantly in recent years....as have deportations....or the fact that the number of illegals coming into the country have been on a decline in recent years.....making the governor's statements less that factual.....and, IMO, political posturing on her part to get herself re-elected.

I believe the law specifically prohibits race from being a factor.
I never asked you to back up your opinion, just the part of the bill where it states that race can be used.

I believe that law does not specifically and totally prohibit race from being a factor.

In fact, in the final version, after sending the bill to the governor, the state did remove the language that race cannot be the sole factor in determining reasonable suspicion in an attempt to affirm that there will not be racial profiling.....but what remains is the language "except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution."

Which still leave many unanswered questions (the Supreme has ruled in the past that profiling is legal under very limited circumstances, after which the Appeals Court for the district of AZ, in another ruling. said it is not legal)...as does the issue of what constitutes reasonable suspicion.

If not race, then what...the fact that a cop may hear someone speaking Spanish? or as one official suggested, by the clothes one wears?

I'm curious...what would you consider to be factors of reasonable suspicion? And what is to prevent the cops from using race...just the fact that the law says they cant?

Do you honestly believe that the cops will be asking Anglos to provide documentation of their citizenship at a level equal to Hispanics...when not being detained for questioning related to another crime?

I said repeated that it was my opinion that the law raises constitutional issues......and I stand by that.

Oh, and as to AZ being majority white....58-59% is a majority where I come from.

So you admit that your post above claiming it was, is in fact, false and misleading.
Thank you.
Why are you so biased against the public servants who have sworn to uphold the laws of our country and protect its citizens?

Fuck you. I didnt claim anything,....I said it was my opinion.

As others have noted here.....you are transparent in twisting what others post.

Why are you so biased against local elected officials and law enforcement officials who oppose the law or have concerns about its constitutionality to suggest that they are ALL politically or financially motivated?

Or on a broader level, why are you so biased against government data...to make your claim that government data is biased and untrustworthy....unless the data supports your opinion.

And I am still curious what supporting America has to do with supporting a state law.

Insult, deny and deflect... well done.

Fuck off....you cant handle the truth. :D

But you are great at accusing others of "insult, deny and deflect" while refusing to respond to similar questions posed to you regarding your posts.

Why do you keep deflecting this question: Why are you so biased against local elected officials and law enforcement officials who oppose the law or have concerns about its constitutionality to suggest that they are ALL politically or financially motivated?

Now go stand in the corner and recite the Pledge of Allegiance to demonstrate what a true American you are.

*Note* Nice edit AGAIN after the reply. I guess anyone responding to you will have to quote your original post in its entirety so that your changes after their reply will be, how did you put it... transparent. You do that quite often.

Show us all the twist - Quote by quote...

ETA Then magically all this appears after being replied to...

Perfect example

Deal with it any way you like, asshole.

It's a bitch, girl!
 

And you've gone too far
But you know it don't matter anyway.
You can rely on your old man's money...

:lol:

I knew I liked Hall & Oates.

Damn! I might even have gone to that game. It's the only stadium i know of that has a pool inside one of the special booths where you can swim and watch the game at the same time. :-)

Found a poll from MSNBC -
Of course not that it means anything.

Support America - Support Karaoke and sing Sara Smile

How about Out of Touch? :D

LOL

This was a online poll....totally unscientific and one which in right wings sites across the net linked to the poll and encouraged supporters to flood the poll.

One example from right wing news

A more interesting (and more scientific) poll is the NBC/WSJ poll....where 64% favor the law and at the same time, 66% believe it will lead to discrimination.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...ds-back-az-law

Senora Smile

Hombre eater

:lol2:

Hey...it solves the immigration problem.

she's watching..she's waiting...she only comes out at night and she'll chew them up.

Oh, so nothing Republicans and conservatives ever do is ever valid because... well, they're Republicans and conservatives, is that it, Redux?

God, your bigotries and your kneejerkery are appalling. But then, what use have you for values so long as you have the Party?

And, from Ruben Navarrette, who's made a business of being "all inmigrantes all the time," weighs in with another of his rather strained columns, viz.,

IOW, the problem was noted and the patch was applied well before the law went into effect. No point for Mr. Navarrette here.

As if that were anything like a realistic option. I'd call this shot a two-cent special. When México has a middle class visible to the naked eye, the immigration problem will dry up. It's an economic problem with an economic solution; it will not be tractable by remedies of law nor of fortification.

And he would -- what? Continue the present ineffectuality? Federal agencies not getting the job done they say should be done, while doing something...? A state is indicting the Fed for not doing something assigned it by the Constitution; of course the Fed deserves to be embarrassed at this. Complaining about it isn't going to help anyone.

And finally, this straining at a gnat while clearly not recognizing he's doing so:

That's the present situation, Ruben carito. What's this "if this goes on" scenario of yours? Oh, right -- this is the kind of strained thinking that's all through your columns any time inmigrantes come up.

This from one who consistently resorts to childish name-calling of democrats,,,and relies on knee jerk libertarian talking points that he cant support with facts?

Pot meet kettle.

Constitutional issues still remain both regarding the question if immigration law is solely the responsibility of the federal government as identified in the Constitution.,..and the question of discrimination based on reasonable suspicion, including racial profiling if it meets the test of the standard set by the Court (and many legal experts across the political spectrum dont think it does)

More on the second issue: Late changes to the Arizona immigration law "lay to rest questions over the possibility of racial profiling." ... not quite

One would think that die hard libertarians like you would be concerned about any potential infringement of civil liberties....but i guess not if it wont impact you directly.


Spending on border security has increased from $6 billion to $10 billion in the last 4=5 years......Deportations are up significantly in those years and the total number of illegals and the number of new illegals coming into the country is at the lowest point in 10 years. And the violent crime issue? Debunked.

Why cant you guys accept any of the above facts.

The fed response has been far from perfect...but ineffectual? Because it hasnt solved the problem completely, despite making significant progress in the last 4-5 years?

As to the effectiveness of the law in dealing with the current illegals....many law enforcement officials have serious doubts, including the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police:

The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police (AACOP) remains in opposition to Senate Bill (SB) 1070. The provisions of the bill remain problematic and will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner...

http://www.leei.us/main/media/AACOP_..._BILL_1070.pdf

A liberal, partisan Democrat organization?

So putting the constitutional issues aside, please, explain how this law will help with border security? Or why you think it wont result in mistrust of police within the Hispanic community. Or why it wont put the cops in a no-win situation with undefined standards of reasonable suspicion?

added:

Ultimately, IMO, the only effective solution...bring them out in the open through a pathway to citizenship...NOT amnesty, as it is falsely characterized by many on the right, but a process of registration, background checks, payments of fines and taxes, English language requirements, and going to the back of the line.

The added benefit....$tens of billions in additional annual tax revenues and probably $billions in savings in law enforcement expenditures.

So they finally are sending a message to the illegals on the border.

Deadly force should be used more often.

Wow - without knowing the specifics, I would say that the death of a 14 year old boy is tragic. Relating this incident to the increase of deadly force for border security is highly questionable.

Poll: More Americans want an Ariz.-style immigration law in their states

Big jump in Latino registration for Democrats

We will see. Never believe the first reports.

I may have posted this before but don't remember. While the state is far from emptying out I have personally seen some evidence that a fair amount of illegals are hitting the road.

1) An adult tournament I always play in cancelled because some of the teams who were registered had to bail out due to lack of players. They are local teams I am familiar with and it was no secret they weren't all legal.

2) One of the soccer clubs I interact with is having serious problems because about half their coaches packed up and left rather than risk the chance of getting caught here.

3) One of the golf courses I know the management at is royally screwed. They are redoing the course from bottom up and the company that won the contract did so based on their access to a 200 person workforce. They've only been able to keep about 30 there regularly and have now resorted to hiring college kids. The management acknowledges that their workforce was primarily daylaborers who have left the area.

There doesn't seem to be any significant effect here, but obviously things are changing a bit.

Its not a solution to the problem....it just shifts it elsewhere....with hard working legal Hispanics leaving as well.

And makes AZ even more majority white.

Perhaps they can go to CA of Wash DC. More states are/will be following AZ lead.
The real issue could be what happens if/when they go back to Mexico (that is where the vast majority are from) to find a country that neither cares, wants nor can provide for them. Perhaps this will will be the impetus for them to take back their country.

I think it is reasonable to assume they will go to neighboring states. The gov of NM doesnt support the law, neither does the gov of CA or the two new candidates for gov in CA, nor does the gov of TX.

It is not a solution. It is pushing the problem, to whatever limited extent, onto some one else.

Why do you think (or do you) more states should follow AZ's lead before they know it the law is constitutional and, if it is, whether or not it is enforceable and effectively addresses the problem.

IMO, for any state to mimic AZ before those issues are resolved, are doing so for political purposes, not for the best public policy. Certainly the other border states are not rushing to follow the AZ lead..and good for them (including the two biggest states, CA and TX, with republican governors and with the biggest problems) for not jumping on the bandwagon despite the clamoring from the right.

Seems like thats whats been happening for years, if not decades. This time however it is being pushed onto those that are responsible for it - The Fed Gov't.
IMO - If the Fed Gov't isn't going to address the issue and uphold its responsibilities, then the states should be able to do so.
This law in general, not specifically, does just that. It has brought this issue to the forefront again and the ball is now clearly in the Fed's court.

Do you really believe it was just coincidence that those 1,200 troops were ordered to be sent to the border and the $500 million??
Or was that simply political pandering on Obama's part? Was it a step in the right direction. IIRC - Bush sent 6000 troops.
5 times more than Obama.
Then let them go there. That shouldn't be a problem for you. According to you, those states don't see it as an issue... or do they? There is so much conflicting information.
Link

There certainly are no easy answers. There is no magic bullet, pill nor potion that will make this just go away. People will be hurt, there is no doubt. It simply must be dealt with and not pushed off as many things are in politics.

The federal government has increased spending on border enforcement from $6 billion to $10 billion since 2006.

The number of deportations has risen significantly in recent years.

And the total number of illegal in the country is at the lowest point in 10 years.

How is that NOT addressing the issue?

There may or may be a direct correlation.....just as with the approval of of the use of drones, something requested for year and which Bush would not pursue.

If you look at Obama's 2011 budget request (from Feb) there are significant increases...and this was before the AZ law was enacted.


Of course they see it as an issue, they just dont see the AZ law as an effective solution.

According to them, not me:

Governor Perry...AZ law not right for Texas

Meg Whitman, republican nominee for governor of CA: critical of AZ immigration law and would veto it.

Again, how is increasing border security funding by more 50% over the last 4-5 years and more aggressively pursuing deportation NOT dealing with? It seems like you expect the feds to have a magic bullet, rather than make steady significant progress.

Do you mean the 1,200 troops that have yet to receive orders to go to the border? I know a number of the senior officers in the AZ NG headquarters and they still haven't heard much about being mobilized so it isn't happening anytime soon.

Honest question: If they are illegal and we have no accurate way of knowing who they are, where they are, or how many there are... how do you know there are fewer now than in the last 10 years?

Fair question....IMO, the best available data is the annual DHS report....unless you know of something better, hopefully not from a partisan interest group that cant support their own numbers.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s...ll_pe_2009.pdf

And I stand corrected, 2009 showed the lowest total number of illegals in the country in the last five years.

so we can count them, we just can't seem to get them back out of the country. weird.

I would frame the questions differently....should we prevent more from coming in. Yes, and the feds have been making progress doing that.

For those 10+ million already here.....should we find a way to round them all up, ensuring that it is constitutional and no legals are caught up in the sweep and toss them out (at a cost of $billions) OR find a way to bring them out from underground, the vast majority of whom are hard working and not creating havoc or committing violent crimes. and put a process in place so that they become contributing taxpayers, after a process of "paying their dues" (and contribute $billions).