[tritium]

I don't want to start a new thread on this topic.. so I add a few new developments.

March for Immigrant Rights Through SF



"You People"

I love the "coconut" reference. Brown on the outside, and white on this inside. This refers to Mexican/Americans who support anti-immigration bills.


Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio considering run for governor‎



So now the Racist red necks now have an open platform to spew their hate.

[angler57]

Gunnair Gunnair:

angler57 angler57:

Arizona Law; Here in the US of A we have and hold onto dearly,
what are known as States rights.
That means that D.C. or protestors or even Canada may say or think what they will.
Each State reserves the right to act free of outside influence.

Thanks for the lesson. Shut up already on our gun laws then.

==============================================================
Now that is a SILLY and CHILDISH response.

It is against the law to enter Canada or the USA illegally.

Does it somehow become LEGAL if you happen to be hispanic?

Why is your knowledge or opinion the only one that has the right, in your eyes, to be expressed?

Are we all here assembled to accept that you are the only one present with knowledge of truths not privy to the rest of us?

[Gunnair]

angler57 angler57:

Gunnair Gunnair:

angler57 angler57:

Arizona Law; Here in the US of A we have and hold onto dearly,
what are known as States rights.
That means that D.C. or protestors or even Canada may say or think what they will.
Each State reserves the right to act free of outside influence.

Thanks for the lesson. Shut up already on our gun laws then.

==============================================================
Now that is a SILLY and CHILDISH response.

It is against the law to enter Canada or the USA illegally.

Does it somehow become LEGAL if you happen to be hispanic?

Why is your knowledge or opinion the only one that has the right, in your eyes, to be expressed?

Are we all here assembled to accept that you are the only one present with knowledge of truths not privy to the rest of us?

I'll simplify - you pointed out that Canada and Canadians have no say on states' rights. I simply pointed out that you have no say on Canadian law.

Clear now?

[Trenacker]

andyt andyt:

The law might be applied in a ethnicity based manner, but inherently it's just telling the cops to do what they are already supposed to do.

Constitutionally speaking, the law cannot, in fact, "be applied in a[n] ethnically based manner," although we can argue whether or not it was meant to, and/or will be.

$1:

People act as if illegal immigrants, the vast proportion of whom happen to be Hispanic, have some sort of right to be in the US, that it's racist of the US to want to deport illegal immigrants. That's just bullshit.

I agree that attempts to assert constitutional protections for non-citizens, including illegal immigrants, is misguided. I agree that one can oppose illegal immigration and immigration amnesty without subscribing to a racist ideology.

$1:

But again, if the US, or even this state, were serious about eliminating illegals in the country, they would put all their enforcement efforts (aside from border patrol) into catching and severely punishing the employers of the illegals. That would stop the problem yesterday.

I can agree with that.

Let me also add that there are several valid reasons to oppose illegal immigration and support enhanced surveillance of our borders:

1. Better control of the flow of goods and persons across our international borders makes would enhance national security by making it more difficult to smuggle unwanted cargoes into the United States.

2. Illegal immigrants, lacking the documentation necessary to live and work in the United States, must necessarily do so in sub-standard conditions, driving down wages that would otherwise be paid to citizens, and decreasing property values.

3. Illegal immigrants generally do not pay taxes in spite of being eligible to receive a wide range of social services. While it is certainly valid to extend these services from both a practical and moral standpoint, the burden should not be ignored.

[andyt]

My meaning was that the law itself is not racist, but could be applied in a racist (actually ethnic) based manner. As can pretty well any other law, and often is. Often socio-economic status also comes into play.

Nothing wrong with having an effective border patrol program. But just as with drugs, it will never actually be that effective. The only effective way is to make it economically disadvantageous for employers to hire illegals.

But Americans love benefiting from all that cheap labor. In Canada we accomplish much the same thing by taking in huge numbers of immigrants, whether we need them or not, and allowing pretty well everybody who makes it to our shores to stay by claiming to be a refugee. Just as in the US, this benefits the higher income earners. Just as USA, any opposition to this system is branded as racist.

[Trenacker]

andyt andyt:

My meaning was that the law itself is not racist, but could be applied in a racist (actually ethnic) based manner.

The trouble with the law is that it is virtually an exercise in mental gymnastics to construct a scenario in which an individual could be asked for their identification outside the context of suspicion for some crime other than illegal immigration.

$1:

The only effective way is to make it economically disadvantageous for employers to hire illegals.

I concur, although I doubt that any politician aiming to do that could secure either the requisite critical mass of political will, or the funding that would be necessary to effectively squelch the practice through enforcement.

$1:

Just as in the US, this benefits the higher income earners. Just as USA, any opposition to this system is branded as racist.

I think the perception of racism arises in part from the astonishment of many on the Left who regard the, "Well, is this really so much to ask of people?" argument as shockingly insensitive, which it is for reasons I've described above. Expecting American minorities to trust in a law that can be applied only through employment of profiling, and pretending the it is only isolated individuals who have grounds to be wary of authority figures, is simply insensitive. When I'm pulled over for a moving violation, I don't wonder whether the officer simply doesn't like the color of my skin.

[Bruce_the_vii]

andyt andyt:

But again, if the US, or even this state, were serious about eliminating illegals in the country, they would put all their enforcement efforts (aside from border patrol) into catching and severely punishing the employers of the illegals. That would stop the problem yesterday.

Er, the USA Congress supports illegal immigration. They have a technology called e-verify that allows employers to check if an applicant is a citizen or has a work visa but Congress would not even pass a law requiring employers with federal contracts to use it.

[Pseudonym]

Here's a link to a lawyer who helped draft the bill addressing what he sees as some of the objections to it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opinion/29kobach.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
Also, props to Trenacker for some great posts.

[ManifestDestiny]

Does any one here live in Arizona?

If not we should not speak for them.

[Gunnair]

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

Does any one here live in Arizona?

If not we should not speak for them.

Since you don't live in Canada, you an shut your hole on anything Canadian.

That's how it works, right?

[ManifestDestiny]

Gunnair Gunnair:

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

Does any one here live in Arizona?

If not we should not speak for them.

Since you don't live in Canada, you an shut your hole on anything Canadian.

That's how it works, right?

Well well here you go following me again (told you I would point this out)


As long as you shut your pie hole about anything American.

I dont really talk much about Canada anyway, I just respond to the self righteous hypocrites here that bash the USA for many of the same things Camada does. Didnt Canada deport 15,000 illeagal aliens a few years back?
You guys get all up in arms when the Europeans want to ban your seal hunt!!

Any way 90% of what is talked about on "Canada kicks ass" is American

[Gunnair]

ManifestDestiny wrote

Gunnair Gunnair:

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

Does any one here live in Arizona?

If not we should not speak for them.

Since you don't live in Canada, you an shut your hole on anything Canadian.

That's how it works, right?

$1:

Well well here you go following me again (told you I would point this out)

Go cry to the mods if you don't like responses to your idiotic posts then.

$1:

As long as you shut your pie hole about anything American.

I generally couldn't give much of a fuck about things American unless then affect Canada - hence I hang around on a Canadian forum.

$1:

I dont really talk much about Canada anyway, I just respond to the self righteous hypocrites here that bash the USA for many of the same things Camada does. Didnt Canada deport 15,000 illeagal aliens a few years back?
You guys get all up in arms when the Europeans want to ban your seal hunt!!

I agree - you generally don't do much.

$1:

Any way 90% of what is talked about on "Canada kicks ass" is American

Of course it is... Feel a bit better about yourself now?

[andyt]

Here's 91%. Americans are idiots about this topic (no surprise there). The left is all about political correctness, can't discriminate against those Hispanics, can't even call them illegals, have to call them undocumented. Even the unions support this - they are really out to lunch.

And the right are total hypocrites, pretending to be hardasses about it while giving businesses a free ride to employ the illegals to keep American wages down. All those Sunbelt Republicans employing illegals for anything and everything they can save a buck on.

But as I've said, we do more or less the same thing with our immigration/refugee system.

[Pseudonym]

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

Does any one here live in Arizona?

If not we should not speak for them.

I'm backing Gunnair up on this one. People are free to comment however they like. Certainly Arizonans are entitled to determine their own state laws and such, but that does not thereby preclude others from complimenting or deriding their decisions. Likewise with American laws and Canadian laws and everything under the sun. You are coming off as just trying to shut down discussion, which is almost always the wrong thing.

That said, you could quote statistics on how the large majority of Arizonans and a simple majority of Americans support this law, then refer to their proximity to the situation as their source of authority. It's not a particularly strong argument, but it's something.

[Pseudonym]

Related story that cracks me up:

San Francisco Boycotts Arizona