Dr Guy Dr Guy

Put your Money where your Mouth is

▼

Put your Money where your Mouth is

Or why Liberals never do

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/28/sanctuary-cities-fight-arizonas-new-immigration-law-offering-sanctuary/
from JoeUser Forums

Arizona is in the news of late.  The passed what amounts to an enforcement law of a federal law - i.e. they passed a law stating they will enforce a federal law.

The law was very carefully written in expectations of being challenged on constitutional grounds.  And of course every liberal from Obama down to Gavin Newsome has both decried the law, and threatened (if standing permitted) to take it to court.  But even liberal constitutional scholars are doubting any will succeed given the law is an enforcement of a federal law.

So, taking another tact, many liberals have called for boycotts of Arizona (some idiots are even trying to boycott Arizona Tea - a soft drink made in New York).  That is their right, and more power to them.  But those self same outraged liberals just cant seem to bring themselves to do anything but jawbone their outrage.

Their feigned indignity is stripped bare by their unwillingness to help those they cry are being hurt by the new law.  San Francisco, a "Sanctuary" city, has done and refuses to do anything for these poor down trodden criminals!  They claim they will give them sanctuary, but then shy away from actually doing anything concrete.  For like most liberals, they love to yell about perceived injustices, but refuse to put up their money to rectify the injustices.

I am sure SF will not allow any of its government staff to plan conventions in Arizona.  You know about conventions, right?  Those are the things liberals condemn when business does, while doing so from their own conventions that are merely non-taxed perks of leeching off the public dole.  So Arizona may lose a few bucks from the fat cats of SF.  But I do not think they will see much of an impact (government conventions are notorious for destructive behaviour and lousy tipping).

So we have just another example of liberals having big mouths, tight wads, and no guts.  Lots of talk, but no walks.

politics
14,607 views 33 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

Furthermore, the law does not allow an officer to 'randomly accost' someone & 'throw them in jail' just because they 'can't prove they are who they say they are'. That's just a load of hogwash, garbage, bullshit; whatever you want to call it, it's not the truth.
End of quote

it is also a non-sequitur since the incident has nothing to do with the law.  It pre-dates the law.

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

The ICE agents said this was all just standard procedure"
End of quote

The rules all change when you get behind the wheel of a comercial vehicle. Sorry dude, but even if this had happened after the law was enacted ... it wouldn't matter at all.

CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

Actually Arty, Just John's response called my attention to something that makes your response non-nonsensical, not non-sequitur.

AZ passed a law that specifically prohibits racial profiling.  So technically the story is about nothing.  But it is more than that.  The story is about ICE, which is federal, not state (it is unaffected by any law passed by AZ).  So what this idiot John Tomasic is really saying with his article is that the AZ law is needed and necessary due to the abuses of the OBAMA regime!

Don't you love it when idiots make fools of themselves?  Even you Arty can appreciate how stupid Tomasic looks when the article is carefully read.

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

Sorry, was away the last couple days. I looked over most of the responses and here is the general consensus I got:

when was the last time you were stopped by a police officer? Don't they always ask for identification? And I don't mean only when driving. Does a company you apply for not ask for identification? Identification is ask for many things and these things can be denied if an identification can not be provided at the time. But let's be realistic here, you are not concerned with the whole "let me see your papers" issue, you are actually concerned with particular people being asked. In the end, this is nothing but a racial issue and another way to pin racism on Republicans and that is the reality
End of quote

Now, this sums it up really well actually (thanks Chuck)

In my example I stated that when I go for a jog I don't carry any ID, just my house keys.

Now, the very correct assertion was made that if I happen to be passing through an area where a crime has just occurred, the police can and would detain me legally. I have no argument with this.

However, in the specific example I was using, there has been no crime. There has been no shooting, or rape, or robbery anywhere in the area. I don't even have to be going for a jog, let's say I'm walking two or three blocks away to pick up some milk from the corner store. There's quite literally nothing going on, other than the fact that I'm taking a casual stroll down the street.

The point I was going for is that under my present circumstances, a police officer -CAN NOT- just randomly stop me without reason and demand I prove my citizenship. If I'm driving a vehicle, that's a different matter. By law I'm required to have my driver's licence on me to prove that I'm not a hazard to society. Even if I do get stopped while driving and I don't have my license on me at the time (or let's say I'm a miscreant who's not actually licenced) I will end up having to pay a fine, perform community service or quite possibly do a month or two in jail. I will not, however, get deported.

Now, this law kind of turns things on it's head. You know that time honored phrase?

Innocent until proven guilty.

That's the whole basis of much of the legal system. The onus must be on the police/prosecutor to prove that you are guilty of something.

Now, however, the onus has been put on the average joe to prove that they are innocent. To prove that you belong, and you are not one of "them"

I find it really fascinating that this law is being championed by much of the right, who supposedly are against "big government" and continually chant that the government should be afraid of the people, not the other way around.

And Chuck is also absolutely right that this is not about race. This law is about keeping the growing underclass fractured and at each other's throats by making it about race.

At the end of the day, deporting millions of the poorest and dis-advantaged folks in your country is not only outright mean, it will not fix anything. It will not fix your economy, with a real unemployment rate creeping up on 20% that is still based entirely on financialized schemes and unsustainable debt. It will not lower the crime rate or 'break' the gangs as domestic groups will simply move in to fill any vacuum (if any) is created.

It -will- polarize your nation even more than it already is, creating even more fractures between the working poor, and keeping their attentions focused on the poor schmuck who breaks his back for minimum wage or less as a criminal simply for being there, and never, ever asking the tough questions about who the REAL criminals are.... like Goldman Sachs and BP, and why what they are doing is causing far more irreparable damage to send your country down the crapper! (no offense)

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

Arty, you're proving that you can't read.  Or comprehend, anyway.  Then again, ignorance (not in the pejorative sense) is sometimes a choice.

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

However, in the specific example I was using, there has been no crime. There has been no shooting, or rape, or robbery anywhere in the area. I don't even have to be going for a jog, let's say I'm walking two or three blocks away to pick up some milk from the corner store. There's quite literally nothing going on, other than the fact that I'm taking a casual stroll down the street.
End of quote

If you read the law, then you all ready answered your own examples question. What don't you understand about the words "lawful contact"? The scenario you described does not constitute lawful contact, so you would be fine with your milk in hand taking your casual stroll, even as an illegal. Next time you drive to get your milk with a busted tail light, be prepared. Just because you (as an illegal) are doing one thing and not another, doesn't mean you are not actively engaged in a crime by being here illegally. 

The point I was going for is that under my present circumstances, a police officer -CAN NOT- just randomly stop me without reason and demand I prove my citizenship.
End of quote

Really? The current Federal Law makes no provision to prevent profiling. The Arizona law does.

I find it really fascinating that this law is being championed by much of the right, who supposedly are against "big government" and continually chant that the government should be afraid of the people, not the other way around.
End of quote

You don't understand the US right then, otherwise you'd know they support a strong defense, internally and externally. Besides the agency's are in place now, just not being used effectively. Less illegals also mean less infrastructure (hospital beds, schools and teachers, regular police, prison guards, etc. If there were no illegals in the country ICE could be much smaller. How is this "Big Government"?

At the end of the day, deporting millions of the poorest and dis-advantaged folks in your country is not only outright mean, it will not fix anything. It will not fix your economy, with a real unemployment rate creeping up on 20% that is still based entirely on finalized schemes and unsustainable debt. It will not lower the crime rate or 'break' the gangs as domestic groups will simply move in to fill any vacuum (if any) is created.
End of quote

So why not let all thieves go free? They are just trying to provide for their families, right? Let me ask you this Arty, would you do something "illegal" that you knew was wrong and you could get caught doing? If your country encouraged you to (Mexico) perhaps you would. Isn't it easier to be a burden on someone else rather than solve your own problems? Mexico illegal immigration laws are much tougher than the US laws. Ever wonder how many Guatemalans were shot by Mexican boarder guards?

You say it will not help the economy. Who pays when an illegal goes to the emergency room (or school, prisons, or uses any other "service")? Here's a hint, it's not their employer. Maybe those employers (who I believe should be fined heavily for each illegal they hire) will need to hire legal residents, who pay federal income tax, and don't send 40% of there income out of the country (billions $$$ annually).

It is a fact that some illegals supplement their "low" wages by dealing drugs or prostitution. How would removing this not reduce crime? Our prisons are full and a large portion of that population are illegals. Also, what about illegals that are robbed or exploited by the people bringing them over?

You can solve the problem by announcing Canada to be a sanctuary for illegals, to further your compassion. They can just pass through the US and go to Canada. I wonder what "free" health care would "cost" if Canada suddenly had 12 million more people to take care of? Is that a price you are willing to pay? It would be cheaper for the US (and safer for illegals) to operate a non-stop train from the Mexican border to the Canadian border. Canada need do nothing but open their loving arms.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top

Now, however, the onus has been put on the average joe to prove that they are innocent. To prove that you belong, and you are not one of "them"
End of quote

Actually, the law does no such thing.  It was carefully written to make sure that you cannot be forced to abrogate your rights.  There is nothing new in the law other than the statement that they will enforce current laws.

And Chuck is also absolutely right that this is not about race. This law is about keeping the growing underclass fractured and at each other's throats by making it about race.
End of quote

That is a bigoted statement (albeit I understand not intentional).  The truth is that the majority of citizens, of all races, are no more affected than you on your daily jog.  There is no threat, desire or intention of keeping anyone down.  There is a threat to maintain the law.  And again the way the law is written, if you are from the UK and here illegally, you are going to get the same treatment as someone from China or El Salvador.

At the end of the day, deporting millions of the poorest and dis-advantaged folks in your country is not only outright mean, it will not fix anything. It will not fix your economy, with a real unemployment rate creeping up on 20% that is still based entirely on financialized schemes and unsustainable debt. It will not lower the crime rate or 'break' the gangs as domestic groups will simply move in to fill any vacuum (if any) is created.
End of quote

YOu seem to imply that there is a nobility in breaking the law.  Yet the US is probably the most tolerant of illegal aliens of any nation on earth.  They are not deprived of anything while here, until such time as their legal status is determined.  Have you read the laws about the non-citizens of the countries you think are being persecuted, even your own?  I think not.  But you have read the disinformation being propagated by race baiters of this country, so you have jumped to an erroneous conclusion.  Let me re-iterate for you that while Canada does have classes (a weak hold over from the fact you are still subject to the crown), America has never and will never have classes.  And the law cares not care if you are Carlos Helu or Ivan Triponovich.  But the race baiters and bigots of this country have made sure that Mr. Helu is grouped with a dirt farmer in Guadalajara, not because of anything rational, but due simply to their own bigotry.

It -will- polarize your nation even more than it already is,
End of quote

No, but what it will do, what it is doing is bring the true racists out of the woodwork.  They are the ones that talk the talk, but when it comes to reality, they are as bigoted as David Dukes.  The only difference is they have a D behind their name, and so have been immunized by the press from such revelations in the past.  The law is exposing the underside of true racism due to their own ignorance

 

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

Really? The current Federal Law makes no provision to prevent profiling. The Arizona law does.
End of quote

Good point!  The law is fixing the federal law.  Arizona is basically stating they will not blindly follow a bad federal law without making sure that it is NOT racist.

You can solve the problem by announcing Canada to be a sanctuary for illegals,
End of quote

Well, unlike Mexico, Canada does not shoot illegals.  But I dare say their treatment is not as well defined as it is in Arizona.  In canada, you have no appeal.  If you are illegal, you get your ass deported fast.