Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Illegal immigration and the state of Arizona

View Poll Results: Do you support Arizona's new immigration law?
Poll Options:
Yes 23 votes (63.89%)
No 13 votes (36.11%)
Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll
Illegal immigration and the state of Arizona (Page 5)
Thread Tools
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2010, 11:44 PM
 
Is the Arizona Immigration issue really Republican voter suppression tactics?

YouTube - Greg Palast - Is the Arizona Immigration issue really Republican voter suppression tactics?

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/arizo...ression-scheme

ELECTION YEAR == CRISIS MODE
( Last edited by hyteckit; Apr 30, 2010 at 12:20 AM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 12:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Dude, why not make fun of my Engrish skills again?

Obviously you and Macrobat need me to repeat what an Anchor Baby is.


Michelle Malkin is NOT AN ANCHOR BABY. She is a US Citizen!
Michelle Malkin is NOT AN ANCHOR BABY. Her parents were here on a work visa legally.

What's next?

Michelle Malkin is NOT AN ANCHOR BABY. Her parents were here legally on vacation when Michelle Malkin was born.

Birth tourism anyone?

Immigration: 'Birth Tourism' Industry Markets U.S. Citizenship Abroad - ABC News

Opposing Views: 'Birth Tourism' Trend Lets Foreign Moms Give Birth to US Citizens


Funny as hell. Hahaha..
Obviously, it's YOU who needs to learn what an anchor baby is - they're CALLED Anchor Babies because they "anchor" their parents in the United States by dint of their default citizenship.

Catch a clue.


Malkin's parents went home, to the Philippines and two years later, pursued a LEGAL path to citizenship in the United States, and returned - their return having NOTHING to do with her supposed Anchor Baby status as her birth is NOT the factor that drove their citizenship.

Their being American citizens actually PROVES that there is a LEGAL way to do it.

Bad choice of example, Loteckit
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 01:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Obviously, it's YOU who needs to learn what an anchor baby is - they're CALLED Anchor Babies because they "anchor" their parents in the United States by dint of their default citizenship.

Catch a clue.


Malkin's parents went home, to the Philippines and two years later, pursued a LEGAL path to citizenship in the United States, and returned - their return having NOTHING to do with her supposed Anchor Baby status as her birth is NOT the factor that drove their citizenship.

Their being American citizens actually PROVES that there is a LEGAL way to do it.

Bad choice of example, Loteckit
Seriously. Get a clue.

Michelle Malkin is an Anchor Baby.

I guess you support 'Birth Tourism', where tourists legally come to the have Anchor Babies.

* “Birth Tourists” – 14th Amendment – “Anchor Babies” Count Us Out

Opposing Views: 'Birth Tourism' Trend Lets Foreign Moms Give Birth to US Citizens

The babies born here are U.S. citizens; they will have the ability to travel freely to and from the United States, have easy access to a U.S. education and have the chance to start a life here. The citizen child could later sponsor the legal immigration of his or her entire family permanently to this country, ABC reports.

The 14th Amendment makes this all perfectly legal. It reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Closing 'anchor baby' loophole (OneNewsNow.com)

Closing 'anchor baby' loophole

An immigration reform think tank is praising a bill introduced in the U.S. House that would close a loophole that allows foreign women who are pregnant to come to the U.S. as "tourists" long enough to have their babies, who are then granted American citizenship automatically.
Michelle Malkin is an Anchor Baby loophole. Haha.. I called Michelle Malkin a loophole.
( Last edited by hyteckit; Apr 30, 2010 at 01:25 AM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 01:13 AM
 
You can keep repeating it, but you have presented NO evidence. You're like one of those dolls with a pull string who spews "Anchor Baby" constantly with NOTHING to back it up.

Also, your "Republican Voter Suppression" talking point is BS:

NEW YORK, April 29 (UPI) -- Seven in 10 U.S. adults support arresting people who can't prove they're in the United States legally, a poll about Arizona's new immigration law indicated.

The Angus Reid Public Opinion poll of 1,002 American adults asked respondents if they'd want four guidelines in Arizona's immigration law enacted in their own state.

The law, the nation's toughest, seeks to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants and gives police broad powers to stop people on suspicion of being in the United States illegally.

Seventy-one percent of poll respondents said they'd support requiring their own police to determine people's U.S. status if there was "reasonable suspicion" the people were illegal immigrants, the poll found.

An equal percentage supported arresting those people if they couldn't prove they were legally in the United States.

Almost two-thirds, or 64 percent, said they believed immigration hurt the United States, with nearly six in 10, or 58 percent, saying illegal immigrants took jobs away from American workers, the poll found.

When asked about solving the status of illegal immigrants, 45 percent said undocumented workers should be required to leave their jobs and be deported, the poll found.

Sixteen percent said those people should be allowed to continue working on a temporary basis and 28 percent supported letting them to stay and apply for U.S. citizenship.

Respondents in the U.S. Midwest were more likely than those in other areas to express a desire to deport illegal immigrants, the poll found

The online poll, taken April 22-23, has a margin of error of 3.1 percent.

It's NOT the Republicans who have a vested interest in suppressing the vote.
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 01:27 AM
 
Macrobat,

I did not provide any evidence?

Wow. I provided have a dozen of links.

Get a f*cking clue!

Not only that. Do some reading and research yourself.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 01:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Hey, if Michelle Malkin supports deporting anchor babies back to their home country, then she should take the lead if she is so adamant about it.

Since she is an anchor baby, she should revoke her US citizenship and take her children back to the Philippines, and wait a few years or a few decades for her to legally immigrate to the US.

I support her cause.
That makes about as much sense as donating to the IRS as a means to getting taxes raised. Is that how all tax increases should be implemented, the president or congressman spearheading it should just donate his own money to the IRS and then call it a day?

Originally Posted by subego View Post
The hypocrisy part.

It would be like Obama raising taxes on himself and not paying them, or a soldier volunteering for a battle and then deserting.
Why, did she already succeed in getting all anchor babyship revoked? Did she declare that she wouldn't obey it if it were passed? Or are you just assuming she wouldn't? (serious question, I'm not familiar with this person I just don't understand the logic of the accusation)
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 02:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
That makes about as much sense as donating to the IRS as a means to getting taxes raised. Is that how all tax increases should be implemented, the president or congressman spearheading it should just donate his own money to the IRS and then call it a day?
What's so hard to understand?

Michelle Malkin is an anchor baby and wants anchor babies deported.

It's like:

Michelle Malkin is a prostitute and wants all prostitutes to be jailed, but refuse to go to jail herself.


Why does she believe it's okay to deport anchor babies when she herself an anchor baby and refuse to revoke her citizenship and be deported by to the Philippines?


Don't see the hypocrisy?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 03:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Why, did she already succeed in getting all anchor babyship revoked? Did she declare that she wouldn't obey it if it were passed? Or are you just assuming she wouldn't? (serious question, I'm not familiar with this person I just don't understand the logic of the accusation)
She derides people who engage in the behavior, with the exception of her parents, who fall into that category as she defines it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 05:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Malkin's parents went home, to the Philippines and two years later...
[citation needed]
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 09:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Macrobat,

I did not provide any evidence?

Wow. I provided have a dozen of links.

Get a f*cking clue!

Not only that. Do some reading and research yourself.
Yeah, a dozen links to www.michellemalkin.com's homepage.


And subego, here's a little factoid for both of you:

From 1898-1946, (Malkin's father - born 1944) the Phillipines was a commonwealth of the United States which means before, during, and after the war, Filipinos were legally American nationals, although not full citizens. Which means that Malkin is NOT an "anchor baby."

Like I said before, bad example to TRY and pick.

At the time, the Philippines were much like areas such as Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are now.
( Last edited by Macrobat; Apr 30, 2010 at 09:28 AM. )
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 10:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
What's so hard to understand?
The bold part, it's unsubstantiated:

Michelle Malkin is a prostitute and wants all prostitutes to be jailed, but refuse to go to jail herself.
How do you know she won't abide by her own solution until it's implemented?

People who want taxes raised wouldn't settle for just one person paying higher taxes (themselves), that wouldn't accomplish the objective (which is enough revenue for the country). They want everyone in the group to pay, only then would they themselves also pay.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
She derides people who engage in the behavior, with the exception of her parents, who fall into that category as she defines it.
So what would you do if your goal was to implement (more) closed borders (eg to keep out terrorists) and your first target was the anchor baby loophole? Firstly, you know that you're not a terrorist. Secondly, you know that you would take the proper method to residency, but if there is currently a legitimate loophole you might as well take it, since you know that you're not a terrorist.

Analogy 1: I work in a secured building, and I'm not supposed to let people follow me in the door without scanning their card ("tailgating"). I don't let people follow me in, but if someone lets me follow them, I take it. Hypocrisy? No, because I know I'm not a terrorist. That doesn't mean I don't support the rule.

Analogy 2: Red states call for ending federal aid that benefits them. Hypocrisy? No, they want to save the federal government money from ALL the states that benefit from it. A token gesture of refusing the aid would not accomplish this, so they might as well use it.

Bottom line, if you want a damaging loophole closed, because you detect a threat of other people using it, then continuing to use it yourself is not on its face hypocritical.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 12:22 PM
 
All those illegals in AZ have been invited by NYC Mayor Bloomingidiot to come there. He even promised health care! I'm sure the rest of the citizens of NYC will likewise open up their wallets and homes to them. California also seems to want them! I wonder why CA is bankrupt? Probably the same failed liberal bleeding heart policies the Obama admin want to force on the rest of us.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 12:41 PM
 
BadK0sh, are you a closet liberal? I mean, it's clear you're very emotion driven, seeing as how you make assertions that aren't based in any factual information (i.e. all the illegals are leaving AZ). And you support policies without regard to cost/spending/deficit implications (comprehensive law enforcement to ensure every last illegal is located and deported). Aren't those things the evil 'liberals' do?

It's usually the closet cases that display the most hate...
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 01:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
And subego, here's a little factoid for both of you:

From 1898-1946, (Malkin's father - born 1944) the Phillipines was a commonwealth of the United States which means before, during, and after the war, Filipinos were legally American nationals, although not full citizens. Which means that Malkin is NOT an "anchor baby."

Like I said before, bad example to TRY and pick.

At the time, the Philippines were much like areas such as Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are now.
Bullshit.

From the Philippine Independence Act:

(1)  For the purposes of the Immigration Act of 1917, the Immigration Act of 1924 [except section 13 (c)], this section, and all other laws of the United States relating to the immigration, exclusion, or expulsion of aliens, citizens of the Philippine Islands who are not citizens of the United States shall be considered as if they were aliens.

Still waiting on your citation.
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 03:14 PM
 
Keep waiting, because it's not BS. Your citation was AFTER the "second" independence declaration by the Philippines on July 4, 1946. The Philippines, in 1964, decided to revert to their "original" Independence Day and many laws were amended accordingly.

Doesn't matter either way, The Maglalangs were present in this country LEGALLY. Her birth is NOT the factor that kept them here, they pursued LEGAL citizenship. and Hyteckit's BS is just that - the FACT that she married an American citizen negates his entire "argument." The citation is not available online, as it is in the foreword of her book "Invasion: how America still welcomes terrorists, criminals, and other foreign menaces to our shores." Go buy your own copy and read it.

Back OT - the AZ law was amended today so lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”
( Last edited by Macrobat; Apr 30, 2010 at 03:21 PM. )
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 04:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Keep waiting, because it's not BS. Your citation was AFTER the "second" independence declaration by the Philippines on July 4, 1946. The Philippines, in 1964, decided to revert to their "original" Independence Day and many laws were amended accordingly.
What I'm citing is US law. How does anything the Philippines declare supersede this?

Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
The citation is not available online, as it is in the foreword of her book "Invasion: how America still welcomes terrorists, criminals, and other foreign menaces to our shores." Go buy your own copy and read it.
You mean "introduction".

I know this because I've got it right here.

I don't see it.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 04:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
BadK0sh, are you a closet liberal? I mean, it's clear you're very emotion driven, seeing as how you make assertions that aren't based in any factual information (i.e. all the illegals are leaving AZ). And you support policies without regard to cost/spending/deficit implications (comprehensive law enforcement to ensure every last illegal is located and deported). Aren't those things the evil 'liberals' do?

It's usually the closet cases that display the most hate...
Actually Bloomturd DID invite the illegals to NYC.
The rest were honest questions you among the rest of the libs here can't or won't answer. The problem is you seem to want to ignore the laws already on the books. Since when did financial details matter to the current Obama admin ort any of the lib dem run states?
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 05:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Actually Bloomturd DID invite the illegals to NYC.
What does this have to do with ANYTHING I mentioned? Quite a lame attempt at misdirection, if you ask me.

The rest were honest questions you among the rest of the libs here can't or won't answer. The problem is you seem to want to ignore the laws already on the books. Since when did financial details matter to the current Obama admin ort any of the lib dem run states?
So I'm right - you're a closet liberal! It's OK for Obama to ignore financial details, so it's OK for you! You're an Obama follower - I knew it!
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 05:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
What does this have to do with ANYTHING I mentioned? Quite a lame attempt at misdirection, if you ask me.



So I'm right - you're a closet liberal! It's OK for Obama to ignore financial details, so it's OK for you! You're an Obama follower - I knew it!
Sorry, not taking your bait. Anything but answer the questions. Talk about misdirection. The comments from Bloomturds comments were concerning the AZ laws DUH! so unless you've been paying attention to REAL news and not your CNN liars you really have no clue. also, WHY must I direct my comments to you? Others are here too.
     
CreepDogg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 06:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Sorry, not taking your bait. Anything but answer the questions. Talk about misdirection.
What question would you like answered? I didn't see any in your recent posts. I just saw a bunch of emotion-driven pontificating and general malaise about 'liberals'. You know, closet liberal-type stuff.

The comments from Bloomturds comments were concerning the AZ laws DUH! so unless you've been paying attention to REAL news and not your CNN liars you really have no clue.
Please educate me, 0 Wise 0ne, where does one go to find 'REAL news'?

also, WHY must I direct my comments to you? Others are here too.
Direct your comments wherever you like. I was responding to one that was pretty clearly posted as a response to me, but with a bunch of irrelevant gobbledygook.
( Last edited by CreepDogg; Apr 30, 2010 at 06:19 PM. Reason: almost forgot the 0's!)
     
DrTacoMD  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 06:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by CreepDogg View Post
Please educate me, 0 Wise 0ne, where does one go to find 'REAL news'?
Hmm, I just checked foxnews.com and searched for "bloomberg arizona", but didn't find anything about this invitation. If Fox News isn't real news, I don't know what is!
Trust me. I'm a Taco.
     
DrTacoMD  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 06:35 PM
 
In all seriousness though, here's the aricle that K0sh was referring to:

How Arizona's law will hurt America: Mayor Michael Bloomberg assails the new immigration statute

It's actually a pretty interesting read. Here's the money quote being referenced:
Originally Posted by Michael Bloomberg
While Arizona may suffer, as long as those visitors and investors still come to America, the country will be fine. In fact, we hope more of them come to New York, where we would welcome them with open arms.
Of course, he didn't say anything about giving them all free health care, but I think we all knew that.
Trust me. I'm a Taco.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 09:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Yeah, a dozen links to www.michellemalkin.com's homepage.


And subego, here's a little factoid for both of you:

From 1898-1946, (Malkin's father - born 1944) the Phillipines was a commonwealth of the United States which means before, during, and after the war, Filipinos were legally American nationals, although not full citizens. Which means that Malkin is NOT an "anchor baby."

Like I said before, bad example to TRY and pick.

At the time, the Philippines were much like areas such as Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are now.
Haha... yet you claim Michelle Malkin's parents had to wait 2 years to immigrate back to the US.

So when did Michelle Malkin's parent go back to Philippines after their visa expired? What were the years? Who took care of little Michelle Malkin while her parents went back to the Philippines?

Michelle Malkin is an Anchor Baby.

Why try to proof you actually know anything?

You already showed us you are clueless when you said Michelle Malkin can't be an Anchor Baby because she is a US citizen.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 30, 2010, 09:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Keep waiting, because it's not BS. Your citation was AFTER the "second" independence declaration by the Philippines on July 4, 1946. The Philippines, in 1964, decided to revert to their "original" Independence Day and many laws were amended accordingly.

Doesn't matter either way, The Maglalangs were present in this country LEGALLY. Her birth is NOT the factor that kept them here, they pursued LEGAL citizenship. and Hyteckit's BS is just that - the FACT that she married an American citizen negates his entire "argument." The citation is not available online, as it is in the foreword of her book "Invasion: how America still welcomes terrorists, criminals, and other foreign menaces to our shores." Go buy your own copy and read it.

Back OT - the AZ law was amended today so lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”
Haha...

The fact that she marry an American citizen means she is not an Anchor Baby?

The fact that she is a US citizen means she is not an Anchor Baby?

Her parents are US nationals but requires a US temporary work visa to work in the US?

Her parents are practically US citizens but had to go back to the Philippines for 2 years and wait for legal immigration?

Wow. What cluelessness.

Trying very hard to dig yourself out of a hole Macrobat.

Just admit you are clueless about what an Anchor Baby is and be done with it.


Her parents were not US citizens when Michelle was born in the US. They were not even US nationals. The national status was rescinded in 1935.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ationality_law

the Philippines (1898 - 1935) (Granted independence in 1946; National status rescinded in 1935; Citizenship never accorded)
( Last edited by hyteckit; Apr 30, 2010 at 09:33 PM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2010, 06:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by DrTacoMD View Post
In all seriousness though, here's the aricle that K0sh was referring to:

How Arizona's law will hurt America: Mayor Michael Bloomberg assails the new immigration statute

It's actually a pretty interesting read. Here's the money quote being referenced:


Of course, he didn't say anything about giving them all free health care, but I think we all knew that.
Except I've heard the actual quote as an audio clip. He did offer health care.
Download Mark Levins 4/29 show to hear it played several times.
Mark Levin
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2010, 09:55 AM
 
It seems our resident Progressive® has offered another sound argument-
Haha.. I called Michelle Malkin a loophole.
Okay... are there any good reasons to oppose a cop asking you for your identification during any contact deemed legitimate as a normal function of being a police officer and enforcing laws? I mean, reasons other than LOOK EVERYBODY, I'M A COMPLETE BASKET-CASE!!!!

I'm afraid "because it offers the possibility of racial profiling" is not going to be good enough at this point. Any country of more than one ethnicity, passing a law of any kind poses the risk of racial profiling. The fact that language was embedded in the law specifically against the use of race as a determinant factor of residency will have to suffice. The only reason those ardently opposed to this legislation believe this is racial profiling is because they're familiar with the demographic that comprises the lion's share of illegal immigrants, but it is not the only demographic, race is not the only determinant factor of suspected non-residency, and of course none of this is the fault of Arizona. Race is of no more concern to Arizona (home of over 30% Hispanic or Latino origin) than it is to you, the only difference is their leadership is tasked with drafting legislation for the well-being of all its citizens. You know... the legal ones; the over 30% Hispanic and Latino included.

hyteckit- if we're going to disregard Federal law in order to perpetuate a slave trade, why not allow child labor perpetuated by countries the commie-lib laughingly insists will take over the US eventually? If we could just get those children under 15 to vote too, the Dems might really have a shot this year right?
( Last edited by ebuddy; May 1, 2010 at 10:53 AM. )
ebuddy
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2010, 12:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
hyteckit- if we're going to disregard Federal law in order to perpetuate a slave trade, why not allow child labor perpetuated by countries the commie-lib laughingly insists will take over the US eventually? If we could just get those children under 15 to vote too, the Dems might really have a shot this year right?
hyteckit is infatuated with Michellle Maklin and has shrine built for her.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2010, 04:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
So what would you do if your goal was to implement (more) closed borders (eg to keep out terrorists) and your first target was the anchor baby loophole? Firstly, you know that you're not a terrorist. Secondly, you know that you would take the proper method to residency, but if there is currently a legitimate loophole you might as well take it, since you know that you're not a terrorist.

Analogy 1: I work in a secured building, and I'm not supposed to let people follow me in the door without scanning their card ("tailgating"). I don't let people follow me in, but if someone lets me follow them, I take it. Hypocrisy? No, because I know I'm not a terrorist. That doesn't mean I don't support the rule.

Analogy 2: Red states call for ending federal aid that benefits them. Hypocrisy? No, they want to save the federal government money from ALL the states that benefit from it. A token gesture of refusing the aid would not accomplish this, so they might as well use it.

Bottom line, if you want a damaging loophole closed, because you detect a threat of other people using it, then continuing to use it yourself is not on its face hypocritical.
You've made an airtight argument that context and motivation are important factors when analyzing any specific instance of hypocrisy, but I don't think those are the sorts of distinctions made by the definition. It's purely a question of your actions matching what you espouse.

She is, of course, free to justify the mismatch. As far as I know, she hasn't acknowledged there is a mismatch.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 1, 2010, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You've made an airtight argument that context and motivation are important factors when analyzing any specific instance of hypocrisy, but I don't think those are the sorts of distinctions made by the definition. It's purely a question of your actions matching what you espouse.

She is, of course, free to justify the mismatch. As far as I know, she hasn't acknowledged there is a mismatch.
So she's guilty until proven innocent? That's the same attitude that made the "birthers" such a smashing success.

I don't know the details (in fact I'm asking for the details), all I'm saying is that the accusation presented against her in this thread doesn't hold water, because making use of a loophole while maintaining that the loophole itself should be closed (or that the closure should be more strongly enforced), is not hypocritical, it would only add to your credibility, as it goes against your immediate self-interest.

Just answer me this: given someone who opposes policy X, is their argument stronger if they do or don't benefit from policy X? If they don't benefit, you would argue that they lack empathy for those who do. If they do benefit, you would argue that they're a hypocrite. They just can't win, can they?
( Last edited by Uncle Skeleton; May 1, 2010 at 05:32 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2010, 01:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
So she's guilty until proven innocent? That's the same attitude that made the "birthers" such a smashing success.
What are you getting mad at me for? Either the actions match what the words espouse, or they don't. It's not like it's a judgement call.

Does the person espouse following the security checkpoint rule? Yes.

Does the person break the checkpoint rule? Yes.

How does this person's credibility stack against someone who espouses following the rule, and then follows the rule?


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I don't know the details (in fact I'm asking for the details)
Her parents came to America on a visa, had a baby (her), and moved to Jersey, later to become US citizens. She's slammed people who come here on visas, have babies, and then become citizens.

Obviously, closing the loophole here would have zero effect on her self-interest. What would go against her self-interest (also adding to her credibility and making her not a hypocrite) would be to tee-off on her parents too. I guess she could claim she'd have no issue with having been thrown out of the country as an infant, but I don't think most people would find that very compelling.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
all I'm saying is that the accusation presented against her in this thread doesn't hold water, because making use of a loophole while maintaining that the loophole itself should be closed (or that the closure should be more strongly enforced), is not hypocritical, it would only add to your credibility, as it goes against your immediate self-interest.
Look. Pretend I'm an idiot here.

This is my Apple widget definition

"[T]he practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense."

You're saying this:

"[M]aking use of a loophole while maintaining that the loophole itself should be closed"

Is not claiming to have a standard to which one's own behavior does not conform?

You're going to have to explain this to me like I'm a dummy, because I just don't see it. Maintaining the loophole should be closed is the standard. Making use of that loophole is behavior which does not conform to that standard.

That should be end of story. Credibility doesn't even enter into it.


Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Just answer me this: given someone who opposes policy X, is their argument stronger if they do or don't benefit from policy X? If they don't benefit, you would argue that they lack empathy for those who do. If they do benefit, you would argue that they're a hypocrite. They just can't win, can they?
If this is the only information available, I'd say the person who benefits has a stronger argument.

The strongest argument would be made by someone who chose not to benefit, even though they could.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2010, 02:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It seems our resident Progressive® has offered another sound argument-


Okay... are there any good reasons to oppose a cop asking you for your identification during any contact deemed legitimate as a normal function of being a police officer and enforcing laws? I mean, reasons other than LOOK EVERYBODY, I'M A COMPLETE BASKET-CASE!!!!

I'm afraid "because it offers the possibility of racial profiling" is not going to be good enough at this point. Any country of more than one ethnicity, passing a law of any kind poses the risk of racial profiling. The fact that language was embedded in the law specifically against the use of race as a determinant factor of residency will have to suffice. The only reason those ardently opposed to this legislation believe this is racial profiling is because they're familiar with the demographic that comprises the lion's share of illegal immigrants, but it is not the only demographic, race is not the only determinant factor of suspected non-residency, and of course none of this is the fault of Arizona. Race is of no more concern to Arizona (home of over 30% Hispanic or Latino origin) than it is to you, the only difference is their leadership is tasked with drafting legislation for the well-being of all its citizens. You know... the legal ones; the over 30% Hispanic and Latino included.

hyteckit- if we're going to disregard Federal law in order to perpetuate a slave trade, why not allow child labor perpetuated by countries the commie-lib laughingly insists will take over the US eventually? If we could just get those children under 15 to vote too, the Dems might really have a shot this year right?
Strawman argument.

I'm attacking the solution. I'm not supporting illegal immigration.

Why not extend the Arizona 'solution' to illegal immigration problem to other crimes like rape and murder.

90% of all rape and murder are committed by men. Mostly white and black men.

Anyone who looks like a rapist, murderer, gangster, drug dealer, terrorist, thief, or whatever should be stop and questioned by police and ask for ID so the cop can do a background check. If unable to provide an ID, the person should be detain and fine up to $2000.

Isn't this what a police state is?

Papers please.
( Last edited by hyteckit; May 2, 2010 at 03:04 AM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2010, 02:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
hyteckit is infatuated with Michellle Maklin and has shrine built for her.
Hoping this shrine would get Michelle Malkin deported.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2010, 02:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
So she's guilty until proven innocent? That's the same attitude that made the "birthers" such a smashing success.
You mean that's the same attitude of this Arizona immigration bill and those who think this bill is a good idea.

Papers please. No papers? Deport Michelle Malkin.

I'm glad you realize how idiotic this law is.
( Last edited by hyteckit; May 2, 2010 at 03:07 AM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2010, 08:00 AM
 
US citizen was arrested and detained for driving while Latino in Arizona!

Driver license and SS # not enough.

Must have birth certificate!

From Fear to Fact: U.S. Citizen Arrested for ‘Driving While Latino’ in Arizona - Lisa Sharon Harper - God's Politics Blog

YouTube - 4409 -- Arrested over Arizona's Real I.D. Paper's Please SB1070 bill


Luckily this guy has a wife to bring his papers.

If not, he would be rotting to jail until deported for being Latino.
( Last edited by hyteckit; May 2, 2010 at 08:07 AM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2010, 09:23 AM
 
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2010, 09:36 AM
 

I always knew ebuddy was a Fascist Nazi who advocates for a police state by justifying it with stories about crimes committed by illegal immigrants or other groups he doesn't like.

I guess you supported Hitler too.

Paper's please.

Do you spend time searching for news about crimes committed by Jews?

Do you spend time searching for news about crimes committed by Blacks?

Who's next?

Justifying putting anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant in jail? Even if they have a driver license and valid SS #?

Oh wait, you just did.

If I'm a commie-lib for being against this fascist Arizona law, then

ebuddy = fascist nazi
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2010, 09:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Strawman argument.

I'm attacking the solution.
That's the problem hyteckit, you've not attacked anything that actually applies to SB1070. In fact, no one has. SB1070 is the exact same thing as already existent Federal legislation. The only difference is its actual enforcement.

I'm not supporting illegal immigration.
If you support legal immigration, you support means of establishing how you're a legal resident. If you fail to differentiate from the two, you cannot say you're opposed to illegal immigration.

Why not extend the Arizona 'solution' to illegal immigration problem to other crimes like rape and murder. 90% of all rape and murder are committed by men. Mostly white and black men.
Right. That's why when a woman reports a rape, the police do not go about looking for potential female rapists. They do not investigate or interrogate other women.

If a cross with 'KKK' were burning in the yard of a minority, the police would be looking for white people. By your reasoning, the fact that the KKK is overwhelmingly white should be overlooked in the interest of racial sensitivity. All should be considered suspect including blacks and latinos.

Anyone who looks like a rapist, murderer, gangster, drug dealer, terrorist, thief, or whatever should be stop and questioned by police and ask for ID so the cop can do a background check. If unable to provide an ID, the person should be detain and fine up to $2000.
If there is any observational evidence of a crime such as rape, murder, gang activity, the police will create a profile of the crime and a profile of potential suspects. Those that fit the criteria of that profile may be questioned, yes. Logic follows of course unless there's a political bend or agenda involved.

Isn't this what a police state is?

Papers please.
Yup. The same police state that asks for your "papers" on the legal ownership of your vehicle and your driver's license as the legal means to establish your right to drive on our roadways. It is intended to set up an internment camp of speeders.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2010, 09:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
I always knew ebuddy was a Fascist Nazi who advocates for a police state by justifying it with stories about crimes committed by illegal immigrants or other groups he doesn't like.

I guess you supported Hitler too.

Paper's please.

Do you spend time searching for news about crimes committed by Jews?

Do you spend time searching for news about crimes committed by Blacks?

Who's next?

Justifying putting anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant in jail? Even if they have a driver license and valid SS #?

Oh wait, you just did.

If I'm a commie-lib for being against this fascist Arizona law, then

ebuddy = fascist nazi
Originally Posted by ebuddy
YAYY! Anecdotes and silliness for as far as the eye can see!
Am I dealing with an unreasonable zealot? Yes. It is now clear I am. Good show as always hyteckit.
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2010, 09:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Yup. The same police state that asks for your "papers" on the legal ownership of your vehicle and your driver's license as the legal means to establish your right to drive on our roadways. It is intended to set up an internment camp of speeders.
Do you carry your Birth Certificate or Citizenship Certificate with you all the time?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2010, 10:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Do you carry your Birth Certificate or Citizenship Certificate with you all the time?
Children born to legal US residents aren't issued a citizenship certificate as proof of legal residency in accordance with Federal law. As you know, the draw for immigration to the US is the prosperity and opportunity it offers people of other countries. This comes at a price. The price is carrying a single piece of paper authenticating your presence here. I can't imagine why this is unreasonable. Your choices? Stay in your country of origin or move to a country of greater prosperity and opportunity and carry two forms of ID at all times.

US citizens are required to present a stamped-certified birth certificate to attain a SS card. I carry my SS card, an employee badge with my name, face, and employee number on it, my driver's license with my face and social security number on it, some cash, and a few credit cards with my name on it, yes. I am in compliance with the laws of the Federal government and the State of Nebraska. I carry these with me at all times.

But then... the business I'm involved in is legal and legitimate and legitimate transactions generally require some type of proof of who the hell I am. I often have to present my ID several times a day. You don't?
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2010, 10:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Am I dealing with an unreasonable zealot? Yes. It is now clear I am. Good show as always hyteckit.
You mean an unreasonable zealot who thinks it's okay for US citizens to be arrested and detained by law enforcement for the sole crime of not carrying their birth certificate and looking like an illegal immigrant?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2010, 10:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
You mean an unreasonable zealot who thinks it's okay for US citizens to be arrested and detained by law enforcement for the sole crime of not carrying their birth certificate and looking like an illegal immigrant?
No. I mean an unreasonable zealot who thinks it's okay to hamstring the prosperity of one of the most ethnically-diverse states in the country because of a disagreement with enforcing laws that already exist; laws they know absolutely nothing about.

Can you show me in SB1070, the language that enables a police officer to arrest and detain someone for not carrying a birth certificate or for looking hispanic? Egadz, with an over 30% Hispanic and Latino population, they'll be a very busy lot in Arizona! I can just picture all the folks at your job, running around looking for extra hard work to do!
ebuddy
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2010, 10:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Children born to legal US residents aren't issued a citizenship certificate as proof of legal residency in accordance with Federal law. As you know, the draw for immigration to the US is the prosperity and opportunity it offers people of other countries. This comes at a price. The price is carrying a single piece of paper authenticating your presence here. I can't imagine why this is unreasonable. Your choices? Stay in your country of origin or move to a country of greater prosperity and opportunity and carry two forms of ID at all times.
Birth Certificate or Citizenship Certificate.

You do understand the use of the word 'or' right? I don't know if you were born here or if you were naturalized as a US citizen, thus the use of the word 'or'.

What federal law requires me to carry two forms of ID at all time?

Oh right. You are a big government conservative. You only love the right to bear arms, but hate the rest of the Constitution.


Under the 4th Amendment, US citizens do not have to carry identification with them.

Just Cause Law Collective�:�Showing Identification



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
US citizens are required to present a stamped-certified birth certificate to attain a SS card. I carry my SS card, an employee badge with my name, face, and employee number on it, my driver's license with my face and social security number on it, some cash, and a few credit cards with my name on it, yes. I am in compliance with the laws of the Federal government and the State of Nebraska. I carry these with me at all times.

But then... the business I'm involved in is legal and legitimate and legitimate transactions generally require some type of proof of who the hell I am. I often have to present my ID several times a day. You don't?

What federal law requires me to carry two forms of ID at all time?

My driver license in CA does not have SS # on it.

Besides, driver license and SS # does not seem enough in the truck driver's case. Truck driver was arrested for not carrying a birth certificate.

Again.

Do you carry your birth certificate?
( Last edited by hyteckit; May 2, 2010 at 10:33 AM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2010, 10:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No. I mean an unreasonable zealot who thinks it's okay to hamstring the prosperity of one of the most ethnically-diverse states in the country because of a disagreement with enforcing laws that already exist; laws they know absolutely nothing about.

Can you show me in SB1070, the language that enables a police officer to arrest and detain someone for not carrying a birth certificate or for looking hispanic? Egadz, with an over 30% Hispanic and Latino population, they'll be a very busy lot in Arizona! I can just picture all the folks at your job, running around looking for extra hard work to do!
Show me the language in SB1070 that prevents a police officer from arresting and detaining someone for not carrying a birth certificate or for looking like an illegal immigrant?

Oh right. It doesn't.

US citizen arrested for looking like an illegal immigrant and for not carrying a birth certificate.

From Fear to Fact: U.S. Citizen Arrested for ‘Driving While Latino’ in Arizona - Lisa Sharon Harper - God's Politics Blog
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2010, 10:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Birth Certificate or Citizenship Certificate.

You do understand the use of the word 'or' right? I don't know if you were born here or you were naturalized as a US citizen, thus the use of the 'or'.

What federal law requires me to carry two forms of ID at all time?
That's not the question. The question is what federal law requires immigrants to carry identification and proof of legal residence? If the answer is "none", you have an argument. Otherwise, this is the red-herring of fear mongers.

Oh right. You are a big government conservative. You only love the right to bear arms, but hate the rest of the Constitution.
Coming from a commie-lib interested only in obfuscating logic for a political agenda to perpetuate the slave trade and garner a few more democratic votes, I'm okay with the indictment.

Under the 4th Amendment, US citizens do not have to carry identification with them.

Just Cause Law Collective�:�Showing Identification
The question is what federal law requires immigrants to carry identification and proof of legal residence? If the answer is "none", you have an argument. Otherwise, this is the red-herring of fear mongers.
ebuddy
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2010, 10:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Look. Pretend I'm an idiot here.

This is my Apple widget definition

"[T]he practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense."

You're saying this:

"[M]aking use of a loophole while maintaining that the loophole itself should be closed"

Is not claiming to have a standard to which one's own behavior does not conform?

You're going to have to explain this to me like I'm a dummy, because I just don't see it. Maintaining the loophole should be closed is the standard. Making use of that loophole is behavior which does not conform to that standard.
Ok, since you asked I'll ignore the minor stuff and cut right to the underlying issue: The person who opens the door is a different person than the person who walks through it. That's the piece of the puzzle you're missing. The standard is "Doors should not be left open," not "Open doors should not be walked through." Do you agree that those two statements are not the same?
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2010, 10:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
That's not the question. The question is what federal law requires immigrants to carry identification and proof of legal residence? If the answer is "none", you have an argument. Otherwise, this is the red-herring of fear mongers.
The question is what federal law requires US citizens to carry identification and proof of legal residence?

I'm a US citizen.

Tell me what right does the government have to arrest and detain me, a US citizen, for looking like an illegal immigrant and not carrying enough identification such as a birth certificate?

The Arizona law basically requires anyone including US citizens, such as the truck driver who was arrested, to carry identification including a birth certificate, if they so happen to look like an illegal immigrant.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2010, 01:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Ok, since you asked I'll ignore the minor stuff and cut right to the underlying issue: The person who opens the door is a different person than the person who walks through it. That's the piece of the puzzle you're missing. The standard is "Doors should not be left open," not "Open doors should not be walked through." Do you agree that those two statements are not the same?
Yes.

Is the person in this scenario only (or mainly) focusing on the opener, and not the walker?

If the person does focus on the walker too, does that make them a hypocrite?
( Last edited by subego; May 2, 2010 at 01:35 PM. )
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2010, 01:36 PM
 
Yes. Does she do that? That's not what's been cited in this thread
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 2, 2010, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Yes. Does she do that? That's not what's been cited in this thread
Wouldn't people who have a baby here on a visa and then become citizens, be the walkers?
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:48 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,