Posts Tagged ‘SB 1070

29
Jul
10

What the Founders Thought of Protest

What the founders thought of protest: Today’s activism would surprise many of the nation’s first leaders. (original here)

Protests may be as American as apple pie, but the founding fathers had little appetite for them.

Though they themselves were activists during the Revolution, many of the nation’s first leaders believed that people should limit their activism to the ballot box.

Yet they played no small role in setting the stage for modern-day activism.

They protected free speech and people’s right to assemble in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson went a step further, saying that people have the obligation to oppose a government that strays from its true purpose.

“We have a republic that was established on a foundation that is activist,” historian Joseph J. Ellis said. Continue reading ‘What the Founders Thought of Protest’

Advertisements
05
Jun
10

Illegal Immigrants Dump Trash on Arizona

Original found here.

Remember Robert Fulghum? He became famous in 1988 with a book called All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. It was a pop-culture hit, a little wise, a little goofy, one of those books that finds its moment, and bam! The whole country knows about it.

I’ve been thinking about Kindergarten lately, and the trash dumped on our borderlands by illegal aliens. The connection isn’t as tenuous as it might seem, and I’ll get to it in a moment, along with a modest proposal to deal with this huge problem.

First, a question: Have you had your holy-smokes moment yet regarding our illegal-immigration crisis? If not, travel to Arizona’s border region, and go off-road to the game trails, mountain passes and grassland flats that make this area so magical.

In many places, the magic is gone, lost beneath piles of garbage.

If such a trip is impossible, look at the pictures accompanying this article. They should provide a jolt, a visual boot to the backside, after which you’ll proclaim, “Holy smokes! I had no idea!”

Most people have no idea. These images should be beamed around the country so everyone can understand Arizona’s crucible.

How much trash has been dropped since this invasion began? Try 24 million pounds, from the Colorado River to the New Mexico line. The federal Bureau of Land Management made that estimate in 2007 and called it conservative. The agency uses a formula of eight pounds of trash dropped per day, per person.

Based on this, we can look at certain federal lands and understand the extent of the pileup. For example, at the peak of traffic in 2004 and 2005, the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge near Sasabe, southwest of Tucson, was getting 2,000 crossings a day, and that translates to 16,000 pounds of trash a day.

In the early 2000s, the Tohono O’odham Reservation was getting 1,500 crossers daily and 12,000 pounds of trash. The tribe now has workers who march out several times a week to do cleanups, says Gary Olson, administrator of the tribe’s solid-waste program. Between September 2004 and December 2008, his workers removed 106 tons.

But aren’t arrest numbers down? Fewer crossers mean less garbage, right?

Yes, although nobody should be jumping for joy. In the 262-mile-wide Tucson sector, the number of crossings has gone from ridiculous to merely intolerable.

In 2005, sector agents made an average of 1,205 arrests a day. Last year, the number was down to 870 daily—which translates to 7,000 pounds of trash.

But remember: Those who get through outnumber arrests by at least 3-to-1. So the real figure is probably closer to 21,000 pounds dropped … every 24 hours.

In the sheer numbers of people, this is a historic migration, far bigger than the 1848 California gold rush—and those grubby, gallant, greedy gold rushers also gave this land a good thrashing.

As the conservation scientist Gary Nabhan tells me, the garbage being left behind today will scar our state’s landscape into the 22nd century.

But there is good news, too. Serious cleanup efforts are underway. In January 2007, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality launched a cleanup campaign targeted at nonfederal lands within 100 kilometers of the border. Since then, working mainly with volunteers, the state’s Undocumented Migrant Waste Program has collected 56 tons of trash, in areas such as those along the Santa Cruz River near Tubac and Tumacacori, on ranches around Arivaca, and on private land near Douglas.

In December, ADEQ joined the Borderlands Management Task Force—a consortium that includes federal land managers, tribes and state agencies—to coordinate a border-wide Arizona cleanup.

Its goals, according to Frank Zadroga, manager of Environmental Quality’s UDM waste program, include launching a Web site, probably by fall, which will serve as a one-stop data hub. It will also collect citizen tips about the location of dumps, which are being found in ever-more remote and sensitive areas.

The Bureau of Land Management has been the major player in picking up garbage on the border since 2003. That year, the agency began its Southern Arizona Project, designed to fix the widespread environmental damage done by illegal aliens and drug smugglers.

The agency doles out taxpayer cash—more than $5 million since 2003—to private and government groups to do this work, and trash collection is part of it. BLM spurs the pickup of about 230,000 pounds a year.

All of this signals hope. Pride of place and home is important, and the emphasis on volunteers brings together people who, even if they agree on nothing else, can agree that our borderlands should be restored to their pre-invasion beauty.

Understand the difficulty of the task. The amount of trash still littering Arizona’s landscape tops by several times the amount that has been picked up, says Kathy Pedrick, who administers BLM’s project.

In addition to being in remote areas, these dumpsites are also high-crime zones. After all, drug smugglers often use the same trails as people smugglers. The best routes into our country are bought, and the cartels don’t like anyone mucking around on land they’ve paid good money to control.

Another problem: ADEQ officials say the sites can be contaminated with bio-hazardous waste. What else might be in these dumps? Are communicable diseases present?

The accompanying photograph to the left shows a site below Diablito Mountain, 5 miles west of Interstate 19 and 21 miles north of Nogales. Illegals reach this wash after emerging from the Tumacacori Mountains, which are also trashed out. The litter at Diablito, on state land, was so solid that you could walk a half-mile without your feet touching the sand. In border-speak, the site is called a layup.

When illegals prepare to meet their pickup rides, they often drop everything to better squeeze into getaway vehicles. They switch from hiking clothes into street clothes, and off they go, to Los Angeles, Fargo, N.D., Lewiston, Maine, and everywhere in between. The majority of the trash is backpacks, clothing, food cans, toothpaste, toys, water bottles.

But the Diablito site, like dozens of others, includes piles of human feces, tampons, medicines, syringes and even used condoms.

“If a sick person discards a medicine bottle, anyone picking it up might be exposing himself,” says veterinarian Gary Thrasher, who travels the borderlands daily in his work. “You see guys joking around, picking up clothes and hats from these dumps and wearing them. I don’t know what they’re thinking. People are coming across from down in southern Mexico, and there are lots of problems you can run into, including cholera.”

The health risk makes land managers leery of using volunteer cleanup crews, says Keith Graves, former Coronado National Forest district ranger in Nogales, and now the border liaison between the forest and the Secure Border Initiative.

“It’s hard to find volunteers we feel comfortable with,” he says. “We have them sign agreements, and that basically makes them federal employees. So if they get injured, we pay for it. We can’t control what they pick up.”

Some blame the Border Patrol for pushing illegals, and therefore trash, farther out into previously undisturbed land. That has happened on national forest land and on Tohono O’odham land, where illegals, because of increased enforcement, spend more time and probably drop more trash.

“The more the cats will play, the more the mice have to hide,” says Olson. “There are a lot more cats now.”

Olson acknowledges the trade-off, but says he’s grateful for Border Patrol help, which—coupled with a declining economy—has brought the number of crossings on the reservation down to an estimated 200 to 300 a day.

Even so, on the reservation and elsewhere, we’re still talking about lots of people and vehicles. Smugglers load trucks with people or drugs and drive into the country, destroying vegetation and natural springs, and causing serious erosion. On some of our borderlands, enforcement has cut down these drive-throughs.

Officials in the Buenos Aires, for example, used to find 100 smuggler vehicles a year on its land. But manager Mike Hawkes says new fencing has cut that number dramatically. “Last year, we had one,” he says. Those vehicles, when abandoned, become a form of litter.

But the problem hasn’t been eliminated, and much damage has already been done—in the introduction of nonnative seeds, especially buffelgrass. (See “State of the Desert,” March 5.) It is widespread in Sonora and enters our country on the wind, on water and on the clothing of the millions of illegals who’ve already passed through our deserts. It also enters on the tires of smuggler vehicles. The seeds drop in the desert, germinate and grow rapidly. Buffelgrass forces native plants to compete for moisture and space, and it has introduced fire as a major player in the Sonoran Desert.

In the past, fires rarely produced big blazes in the desert. But today, if illegals don’t extinguish their cook fire, or they set a fire to distract law enforcement and then abandon it—two common events—the result can be a runaway fire fueled by buffelgrass. These fires kill plants and trees that set up the desert’s entire regeneration process, and the potential impact is huge.

“We have preliminary evidence that fire changes the whole structure of desert habitats,” says Nabhan, now with UA’s Southwest Center. “Once a fire moves through, it knocks back the nurse trees and permanently alters the desert’s capacity to heal itself.

“This isn’t hypothetical. We’re seeing it from Hermosillo, Mexico, north in a million places.”

Prowling these border dumps provides the equivalent of a graduate-level seminar on what illegal immigration really is, and as importantly, what it’s not. No critical national issue attracts more lame thinking, a good example being the woman who told the Douglas Dispatch in January that border trash tells stories of “hardship and hope.” A visitor from Iowa, she ventured out with a church group to help ADEQ in a cleanup.

I admire her civic spirit. But she’s delusional. The hardship is mostly self-imposed, and there is no hope in garbage.

We know the crossers are a religious bunch, because of the Catholic medallions, statues and Bibles they drop, and we know they’re superstitious. The litter almost always includes garlic cloves: Illegals hang them from backpacks in the false belief that the scent will keep rattlesnakes away from their campsites.

Some call illegal aliens “undocumented,” but the truth is they have documents falling out of their pockets, literally. Examine the ground, and you’ll find driver’s licenses, birth certificates and passports, most of them forged.

From the Pokémon backpacks, diapers and infant formula, we know the crossers include children. But their debris is often mixed with tequila bottles and pornography. Another item sure to boil the blood: Spanish-language books advising illegals on their rights in the United States.

Less common—but surprisingly present—is evidence that our border has become an international crossing.

As I’ve reported previously in these pages, we know Arabs are coming, from the discovery of three prayer rugs near Douglas and an Arabic diary inside a backpack in Hereford. In 2004, a rancher west of Fort Huachuca answered his door to greet a female illegal wanting to use the phone. The call was to Libya.

A while back, I got an e-mail about a pair of Russian night-vision goggles found near Sonoita. Best guess? They were probably left by drug smugglers. Anna Magoffin and her husband, Matt, who live east of Douglas, found a scarf marked with the word Kaibil—the name of Guatemala’s special forces. The Border Patrol has found machetes and brass knuckles at border dumps, as well as a bulletproof vest more sophisticated than what our troops in Iraq use. The vest, pictured here, is strong enough to repel multiple rifle shots.

Agents also collect statues and necklaces honoring Mexico’s legendary narco saint, Jesus Malverde. Drug dealers pray to him before bringing their poison into our country. They’re helped by scouts hiding out on mountain tops. At one such lookout, agents found a two-way radio powered by a motorcycle battery, and this, in turn, was rigged to a solar panel the size of a computer screen.

Consider, too, the ugly reality of the rape tree, often found at dump sites. The coyotes who lead groups into the country will sometimes peel a woman out of the group, rape her and hang her panties from a tree as a kind of trophy. The rape tree pictured here was part of a massive dump in the heavily trafficked Altar Valley.

As the Border Patrol’s Mike Scioli says, the underwear is a message to the next coyote coming along—who is, after all, a co-worker of the first one.

“It’s like saying, ‘Look what I did, guys. Now let’s see what you can do,'” says Scioli.

But a site as big as the one pictured might contain anything. This one also had strips of burlap used to wrap marijuana bundles, black masks with holes for the eyes and mouth, and a day planner listing a series of phone numbers, including one for coyote Rosa Lima.

When I ask land managers and ecologists about the impact of this trash on wildlife, on water quality, on our deserts overall, the answers are hedging and elusive, with good reason: Little hard research has been done. “I know everybody is worried about it, but nobody has really studied it,” says Thrasher.

It probably won’t be studied in the near future, either. The reason, in part, says Nabhan, is our government’s emphasis on security, which has made it difficult to actually get to the border. He used to walk from Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, in Southwest Arizona, into Sonora to work.

“If you want to do that now, Homeland Security sends your passport back to Washington,” Nabhan says. “Our ability to work on the border has really been knocked back. Even if you get a permit, it’s dangerous to be out there.”

The agency that would do such studies, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, has not done them because of the danger. “We haven’t looked at these questions directly, mostly because we’re afraid to put our biologists into these areas,” says Gabriel Paz, a law enforcement program manager for Game and Fish. “There are too many border bandits.”

But the silence of the big environmental groups plays a role, too. They should be hollering from tallest buildings about border trash, but they aren’t. Making too much noise might turn off the open-borders liberals they rely on for donations. However, many individual environmentalists have done great work as volunteers, through hiking clubs, hunting clubs and other organizations, to clean up the messes.

So politics and the border war conspire to keep us in the dark on border trash.

But scientists know any omnivore that smells food will poke around in it, which explains why garbage has been found in the stomachs of bears and deer. “We know wildlife is chewing on this stuff, but we don’t know the effects,” says Darrell Tersey, natural resources specialist at Ironwood Forest National Monument, north and west of metro Tucson.

In one case, though, the effects are not in doubt: When a cow ingests a plastic bag, it can clog the stomach, and the animal usually dies in agony. These bags now blow across our borderlands like tumbleweeds.

Last fall, Wendy and Warner Glenn found a sick calf on their ranch near Douglas. It was standing with its forehead against a tree, grinding its teeth in terrible stomach pain. The vet, unsure what was wrong, primarily treated the animal for the pain, after which the Glenns brought it home.

But when they went out to the corral the next morning, the calf was dead. Wendy and Warner butchered the animal to learn the cause and discovered a yellow plastic bag blocking portions of its stomach. “It could’ve been suffering for several days before we found it,” says Wendy.

Cattle also eat clothes. “I’ve seen cattle eating clothing to get the salts, and gone back later and found the cow dead,” says Keith Graves.

The desert tortoise is particularly susceptible to the ill effects of alien trash. These critters live in rocky wash banks heavy with vegetation and shade, the same areas where illegals lay up. And the tortoises are slow to reproduce, meaning any knock-back in its population will take a long time to replenish.

Officials at the Ironwood—where 3,000 pounds of trash a year are removed, some left by local citizens—suspected such a population decline and studied the question in 2002. Results were inconclusive. But the authors cited the observation of a longtime resident who has seen fewer tortoises since illegals began using the area in such big numbers.

This fellow also has encountered aliens carrying desert tortoises, and so have staffers at the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, both in Southwest Arizona. The reason? Probably to cook and eat.

Curt McCasland, manager at the Cabeza, says they’ve also found the shells of five tortoises among the litter at trash dumps. “We don’t know if the trash killed the tortoises, or if the migrants consumed the tortoises,” says McCasland. “We’re not sure what’s happening. We’re too busy monitoring the impacts of illegal immigration on our wilderness areas and haven’t had time or money to study tortoises.”

As for the water supply, it would seem to be especially vulnerable, because these trash dumps are often found at water sources. Some ranchers have reported their wells are contaminated with fecal bacteria, likely the result of so many illegal aliens defecating near water sources. But this issue, too, needs more study.

On national forest land, says Graves, the contamination of wells is less of an issue than the fouling of drinking water for wildlife, such as at open stock tanks. “The contamination there is very high,” he says. Open stock tanks are pits in the ground, usually associated with a stream system. Illegals and animals gather at the tanks and defecate, and when it rains, the waste gets into the tanks, creating sewage-like conditions in summertime.

“If you fill a water bottle at one of these tanks, it has more protein in it than a protein shake because of the animal and human fecal matter,” says Graves.

There’s one additional issue these dumpsites clarify: Illegal immigration into Arizona is just a vast border-area problem, correct?

Not even close. A lot of the trash pickup at the Ironwood takes place on trails threading around Silverbell Mine, 75 miles north of the line. BLM has cleaned alien layups in metro Phoenix and, incredibly, in the Agua Fria National Monument, 40 miles north of central Phoenix.

Illegal alien trash dumps can also be found within the Tucson city limits. Want to see one? Drive east from downtown on Interstate 10, exit at Wilmot Road, and turn left. Follow Wilmot for 1.4 miles; turn left onto the dirt path, park and follow the garbage.

Some of it, on the fringes, is urban trash left by nearby residents. But if you walk back toward the interstate, or west toward the Pima Air and Space Museum, the ground overflows with clothes, backpacks, water bottles and plastic trash bags, which illegals use as raincoats.

When groups hole up here waiting for their pickup rides, they’re aided by locals who make money delivering food and drinks. The evidence is all over the ground, in discarded pizza boxes, Kentucky Fried Chicken tubs and soft-drink containers.

The area looks as if it has been carpet-bombed.

The challenge now is not just to maintain cleanup efforts, but to intensify them. It’s necessary, because the illegals are still coming, and we can even expect the flow to pick up in the future, thanks to two decisions by Democratic leaders in Washington, D.C., regarding the E-Verify program. This Internet system, which checks information from a prospective worker against data from the Social Security Administration, is the fairest, most effective method employers have of ensuring that new hires are legally OK to work in the United States.

But President Obama, who supported E-Verify while campaigning, and the Democrats stripped E-Verify from the stimulus package, meaning companies getting stimulus money aren’t required to use the system.

Funding for E-Verify runs out in September. Anyone want to guess whether the Democrats will reauthorize it? Don’t bet on it.

The message this sends is obvious: If you’re living here illegally now and need work, or are considering jumping the border tomorrow to find work, the gringos are again winking at their own laws. When the economy picks up, expect crossings to pick up, too, with all of the attendant troubles, including more trash.

But restoring our borderlands, our beloved home, is not impossible. It will take work and persistence, as well as an appreciation of one undeniable, timeless and ultimately redemptive premise: If you drop something, you should pick it up.

The Border Patrol has agents keep garbage bags in their vehicles, and after making arrests at a layup, they sometimes hand the bags to the illegals and tell them to get busy. It’s a great idea. But the concept needs an expansion, and that dovetails nicely with my proposal: Every day, near heavily crossed areas, the Border Patrol keeps buses ready to haul away the day’s arrest harvest. The illegals are processed through law-enforcement computers and often pushed back into Mexico. Before doing that, shouldn’t we put them to work? With the buses already there, it wouldn’t require a huge effort to force them to clean up their own mess.

It’s one of the bits of wisdom that made Fulghum’s book a hit: All we need are trash bags, stick-spears and the proper amount of righteous indignation. It’ll make kindergarten teachers everywhere smile.

Verified at TRUTHorFICTION through Minute Man Civil Defense.

20
May
10

Me vs. SB1070

Periodically I get into debates that amuse me. In the last two days I have been debating on Facebook over SB1070. Despite my earlier post saying that I was “against it” (for reasons that are not immediate)… I am debating pro-SB1070. Below is the conversation.

Original Post: Link to “anti bill 1070 art instalation – am i illegal” and says “pro immigration and anti racial profiling art instalation – blood sweat.”

Vickie L. Murph: I think that the law fosters racial profiling.

Estee Arie: and your right vickiei it does. it just doesnt feel right – it feels wrong. thats why i chose to do an art installation about it – i had to do something.

Vickie L. Murph: My cousin lives in Goodyear. That is really scary almost like Hitler.

Estee Arie: its like a page right out of that unfortunate time. i was serious about getting my basement ready – thats scary.

Vickie L. Murph: It really is.

Kyle Huwer: I still don’t see where it fosters any sort of racial profiling.

All it does is allow the police, when they stop you for a primary offense, to confirm your eligibility to be here. If you provide the documentation, then you are legal and may leave.

How is that wrong? Show me in the bill where it promotes what you say it does. Until then, this is all your opinion.

Kyle Huwer: Every time you are stopped, you provide evidence of your legality. Correct?

Randall Richard: true that-she won’t find you proof-because it doesn’t say this-its a opinion – a guess you can say. I think alot people our on some kick right now-Its about a image there trying to represent.
Its not profiling when you need your Id for everything anyway-you can’t drive your car, go to the doctor, drink or anything with out it. Get off the band wagon -I say.

Randon Jenkins: Yeah a drivers license isn’t proof of citizenship, Kyle and Randall when was the last time you were stopped by the police while taking a run in your neighborhood. If you don’t think this immigration law is legal racial profiling, then I ask you to explain what give’s you reasonable suspicion of someone’s illegal citizenship status?

Randon Jenkins: Actually Kyle there is nothing in the law about a primary offense.

Estee Arie: i posted the bill on my page. ill be highlighting it inbetween work , and my cousins graduation – prob over the weekend or so. im not hindering your right to post your opinions – not sure why all the frustration – this is an open forum and im against racial profiling – not giving identification when it is needed – yes – we have to do that anyway and it is by law you have to have ID on you @ all times – that was never the problem??? i have a problem with someone asking for my ID because of how i look or carry myself – that is racial profiling and a violation of my civil rights and i feel i have had enough with my civil rights being stripped more and more every day. now – im going back to work. the bill is down more if you would like to read it.

Kyle Huwer: @Randon: To obtain a Arizona driver’s licence you have to have a SSN. Only a person authorized to be here can have a SSN. So, YES, if you have a Arizona driver’s licence, you have to be legal.

AGAIN I ask you where it says in the bill that we are to be stopped for nothing other than race. I’ll be looking for your highlighting.

Kyle Huwer: @Randon: ARS 11-1051(B), “FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL… A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON”

Seems to certainly suggest a primary offense to me!

Kyle Huwer: @Randon: ARS 11-1051(B), “A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.”

It seems that the bill specifically says that a Arizona DL is proof. And this is in agreement with what I said about the SSNs versus an Arizona DL.

Estee Arie: WHEN PRACTICABLE- thats @ there discretion – they decide. there is no boundaries there, it allows racial profiling if PRACTICABLE to that police officer. there are other points to but im swamped with work – this weekend ill be highlighting it – please keep throwing points out there :)

Estee Arie: identification as i said has never been the problem with the bill for me.

Kyle Huwer: So officers are allowed to operate as they always have… with discretion.

A presumption that individual officers will employ the law in a discriminatory manner is both speculative and irrelevant to the question of Constitutionality.

Kyle Huwer: Estee, have you or anyone you know ever been stopped by an officer… and were clearly breaking the law (i.e. speeding) and were let go… because of the discretion of the officer?

Estee Arie: Ive never been let out of a ticket- i already believe officers profile – i don’t wish to give them a licence to lawfully do so. your not guilty till proven innocent- further more i believe in protecting civil rights no matter how large or small- there ours.
Yesterday at 8:56pm

Randon Jenkins: Kyle you seem to be intelligent, I refuse to believe you are that naive. If you are, stay in that happy little paradise, because there is a world of shit out here that would blow your mind. Estee you were right, deaf ears, cloudy vision, see no evil, hear no evil. I usually don’t go here, but Kyle you need to read what the Jews said about the Nazi’s while they were being murdered, hell read what the World said.

Kyle Huwer: Estee: You only answered half my question. Do you know anyone else? (BTW: If you think that we live in a world where we are “innocent until proven guilty” then you have obviously never dealt with the IRS!)

Randon. Naive in what? Don’t lecture me with opinions… tell me facts. I’ve asked time and time again on this post as well as others – where does this bill specifically encourage or command racial profiling? Furthermore, don’t imply shit with me. If you have something to “school” me on, then say it. Provide me with quotes, language and expert opinions as a true debater would. Don’t set me up with this straw-man argument that I don’t know history. You have no idea what I know.

Estee Arie: i know we live in a world where we are guilty until proven innocent- thats why i want every right i can hold on to – as far as getting deep i have said i will be highlighting later this weekend im working – packing – and dealing with my oral surgery i had this week – so my plate – little full ahahahahaah i answered the part that i care most about – the rest will have to wait – hugyz kyle :)

Estee Arie: randon – we get eachother.

Randon Jenkins: Look dude given the push on the Mexican/US border it is highly likely that they are not looking for European Illegals, next The new bill lets cops go off reasonable suspicion of illegal status, no primary offense, now I ask again how you would determine illegal status, you never answered that? Secondly Kyle, people of color are always prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but you wouldn’t know that, given your naive view that police use discretion, but I guess being of your color I can see how you arrived at that conclusion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/weekinreview/07glater.html

http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_stateratesofincbyraceandethnicity.pdf

Now as far as the Jew comment Its well known that while they were being killed in the most inhumane way most were saying no The Nazi’s wouldn’t do that, I can’t believe it, i.e your position now.

Now Kyle again I ask how would you determine one’s Illegal status.

Also prove this police discretion with minorities?

Jeeze don’t have a token minority friend to explain these things to you.

By the way Kyle I’ve got enough cop family and friends to know they profile, how else would they do their job. Why do you think home grown terrorist fair so well, no one’s looking for them.

Randall Richard: @randon and Estee-you want to know about discrimination-Im a male massage therapist-who really like his job but, can’t seem to find a job because they only hire female-on top of that a black. I get looked at alot.
@randon -I have been pulled over for a lots of b.s. especially for racial profiling in Phx(4) Tempe(1) and Scottsdale(2). The time frame is between the 80’s and now. I also defend my rights when I knw there pulling me over for some b.s. I don’t let them treat me that way. Shoot I know people that our police officer’s. As far as that goes know your rights. If you know your shit they won’t mess with you. The police are simple -they always use the Jedi mind trick on people to make say shit. They always make you repeat words.
The reason blacks alway have a hard time -we always ran from the police. We look guilty all the time. I stand my ground, that the white side of me. So I know all about being profiled.
Kyle is right -you two only see the negative of this bill-your not telling the whole story behind the story. I believe in facts as well-and if you can’t provide me with the facts you shut your pie hole. Thats not my opinion its a fact.

Kyle Huwer: @Randon: So because you BELIEVE that it is “highly likely that they are not looking for European illegals,” this means that they are automatically looking for Mexicans… AND the law is written that way… AND that is how it will be enforced?

If I am reading you correctly, that is your OPINION. I still want to know where this law specifically says to profile!!!

RE: how would I determine illegal status? Well, this law seems to do that. If you get pulled over or stopped for something else, the “LAWFUL CONTACT” as I mentioned before, the PRIMARY OFFENSE as I call it… they have a right to stop you and identify you.

8 U.S.C. § 1304, specifically states for aliens, “Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section”

So guess what, if you wern’t born here (an alien as defined 8 U.S.C § 1101)… US FEDERAL LAW already says that you MUST carry something that identifies that you are here legally.

Furthermore Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) held that suspects had to identify themselves and that them identifying themselves did not violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendments!

I state again on the note of lawful contact… Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) the US SUPREME COURT decided that police are allowed to stop anyone if they have “SPECIFIC AND ARTICULATE FACTS.”

So what does this mean in regards to this law? If a cop stops a Mexican for the fun of it, and finds out that they are illegal and takes them in… what “specific and articulate facts” are they going to write down for the basis of their lawful stop? With this already being a hot topic, you know that lawyers are going to throw this out in defense like a hot soup to a homeless person! So… this means that if a cop pulls someone over, they better damn well have a primary cause… and legality is a secondary.

So simply, to answer your question, if you are stopped, carry your ID or papers. The cop under Hiibel and Terry have the right to know who you are. If you are never stopped, and are illegal, then we never will know. Period.

Kyle Huwer: First off, I don’t appreciate the ad hominem attacks by you. “I guess being of your color I can see how you arrived at that conclusion” is neither constructive or adult in this conversation. Do you care to debate facts or are you going to bring my skin color and/or sex into this debate to try to attack my person, like a racist would?

I am providing you with court cases and laws from the United States Code, as written. I expect the same from you, not just personal attacks on who I am.

Quit judging my beliefs on my skin color. Stop the adhominem attacks. I’ve already asked you twice now…

Kyle Huwer: RE: NY Times article… WHAT ABOUT IT? I hate it when people link articles and don’t tell me what supports them or what evidence they are using from that article to rebut me.

To illustrate my point, here is a website for you. http://www.yahoo.com.

Yeah, rebutt that. I’ll comment on those articles as soon as you give me something to rebut.

Randon Jenkins: What about the second one many references to lots of research on racial disparities in the Justice system. Just answer the question how are you going to pick the illegals from the legals? Answer that and I’ll shut the fuck up, and there is nothing in the law about a primary offense.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Randon Jenkins: Come on dude, I knew you’d pick the weakest article and leave the research alone, that shit scares you doesnt it.

Kyle Huwer: RE: The Germans knew about what was going on in the Holocaust. NO DOUBT. However, how is that in equation to what I believe? Hitler was writing this in the newspaper step by step of what he was doing. He and the Nazi’s were proud of what was going on.

In this case, we are dealing with people that are illegal, BECAUSE THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW. Additionally, this laws is written, and I’ve asked you multiple times where does it say to racially profile. You have provided NO such instances. So, I can only assume that you are talking about “A presumption that individual officers will employ the law in a discriminatory manner is both speculative and irrelevant to the question of Constitutionality.”

RE: “Also prove this police discretion with minorities?” Prove WHAT? That *some* police are more racist than others? That *some* judges are more racist than others?

RE: “Jeeze don’t have a token minority friend to explain these things to you.” LOL. You obviously have *never* hung out with me.

RE: “By the way Kyle I’ve got enough cop family and friends to know they profile, how else would they do their job. Why do you think home grown terrorist fair so well, no one’s looking for them.” You are right, they do profile. They have to some extent. “Breaker breaker, we have a white man, 5’9″ wearing a green shirt, and driving a red car just rob a store.”

Guess what… we are now profiling people in search of someone that meets that description. So the question is… are you against profiling all together or just in cases that suit your argument?

Kyle Huwer: @Randall: This is exactly right. Know your rights and you will be fine. This is a fine example of a citizen knowing their rights and doing their *job* to enforce them when stopped.

How can we complain about our rights being violated when we don’t even know what they are or know how to lawfully stand up for those rights???

Kyle Huwer: A perfect example of this in reagards to the subject matter would be as follows.

Mexican is riding his bike down the street. Cop pulls him over. Mexican asks what he is being pulled over. Cop says because he was riding down the wrong side of the street and asks him for his identification. Mexican does give his ID, as mandated by law and by court case. Cop sees that he is legal but proceeds to ask questions (jedi mind tricks as Randall said to get you to admit stuff).

At this point, you have already provided what is needed. So either the cop has to let you go or detain you. So, you ask him, “am I being detained?” If he says no, then you may leave. If he says yes, then you ask why OR remain silent. At this point the cop needs to formulate his “probable cause” as I mentioned above (1. you are about to commit a crime,
2. you are in the act of committing a crime, 3. or
you have committed a crime). He needs to do this right now or he is in violation of this stop. So, stick around as you are being detained… and wait for him to either ARREST or RELEASE you.

Simple as that. However, most people would keep talking because they think they have to.

Kyle Huwer: @Randon: “What about the second one many references to lots of research on racial disparities in the Justice system.”

Have you ever debated before? In the normal course of a debate if you have something to provide in support of your position then you say, “I believe this and please read this in support of it.” You specifically state what it is you believe and then how the article supports your position.

If you do not do this then how am I supposed to rebut YOUR position?

Kyle Huwer: @Randon: “Just answer the question how are you going to pick the illegals from the legals?”

I;ve already answered this. When they are stopped for a primary offense then the law has the RIGHT to ask who they are and get identification through a “TERRY STOP.” Period. SB1070 allows the person to be detained and/or arrested if they cannot provide that information to the detaining/arresting officer.

So if you are never stopped, then you will never be caught if you are illegal. However, if you are stopped, the police now have the ability to detain you if cannot provide them with documentation. Period.

We never will get ALL the illegals. If that is what you want, then you are asking for an impossibility.

Randon Jenkins: No actually Hitler covered up everything he was doing, he frequently had Statesmen from Many Countries come and visit his camps, on those days things were normal prisoners were just working. Its an equation to your blindness real life and every law is not only what written but also interpretation, and you still did not answer how you would pick the illegals from the legals. Dude there is a guy named Ian Horsley from the UK who has a banking algorithm that pick out UK terrorist with a 99% accuracy. Out of 100 terrorist he can pick out 99 of them and one innocent person gets put through hell. not a problem right as long as your not the one right, But the UK has 50 million adults, so thats 500,000 innocent people put through hell. How many Legal Arizona residents are you going to put through hell. And all black people dont run from the cops, But lets flip that and ask why so many black people run from the cops. Anybody remember car 13 from montgomery alabama.

Randon Jenkins: the law has nothing in it about a primary offense, so get your facts right.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “Come on dude, I knew you’d pick the weakest article and leave the research alone, that shit scares you doesnt it.”

As I recall…
(1) It is ME who is providing the text of SB1070,
(2) It is ME who is providing text of the U.S.C.,
(3) It is me who is providing text from court cases.

What are you providing besides editorials of which you cannot even tell me why you are linking them?

Is it you who is scared of providing some “la carne” to this discussion?

We are debating the legality/Constitutionality of the law, but you cannot hold a single lawful argument against me. so what is it… are we arguing your opinions or this specific law?

Kyle Huwer: RE: “No actually Hitler covered up everything he was doing”

You are wrong. Please read http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/feb/17/johnezard

“The mass of ordinary Germans did know about the evolving terror of Hitler’s Holocaust, according to a new research study. They knew concentration camps were full of Jewish people who were stigmatised as sub-human and race-defilers. They knew that these, like other groups and minorities, were being killed out of hand.

They knew that Adolf Hitler had repeatedly forecast the extermination of every Jew on German soil. They knew these details because they had read about them. They knew because the camps and the measures which led up to them had been prominently and proudly reported step by step in thousands of officially-inspired German media articles and posters according to the study, which is due to be published simultaneously in Britain and the US early next month and which was described as ground-breaking by Oxford University Press yesterday and already hailed by other historians.”

Randon Jenkins: the website to the Arizona state bill from the Arizona state government in PDF form now let me post it a third time, again its in PDF format.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Kyle Huwer: RE: ” the website to the Arizona state bill from the Arizona state government in PDF form now let me post it a third time, again its in PDF format.”

I’ve read it. What are you pointing to?

Randon Jenkins: Really because I’ve got a whole Holocaust museum full of recorded testimonial, microfiche, and video over a timespan of the whole war up until now they are still interviewing up til this day, I invite you to visit. No one knew what they were doing until liberation, ask any US soldier who was was part of the liberation, they will tell you they were shocked.
4 hours ago

Kyle Huwer: RE: “No one knew what they were doing until liberation”

So the Guardian article lies? As well as the Oxford University Press? And their display that was mentioned above?

Randon Jenkins: first hand recounts vs editorials, I thought you were the scholar.

Randon Jenkins: You ever sit down during a historical recording with a holocaust survivor.

Randon Jenkins: You ever read one book from a holocaust survivor?

Randon Jenkins: You ever months of research on Holocaust survivors?

Randon Jenkins: You ever wonder How Bayer originally discovered Aspirin, or the vaccine for typhoid fever, or ciprofloxacin?

Randon Jenkins: dude I’m not gonna spoon feed you you’ll never learn to do it yourself.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “first hand recounts vs editorials, I thought you were the scholar.”

So the articles that were published back in the 1940’s that will be published in Britain and the US… are irrelevant to you?

Just because people don’t recount what was going on doesn’t mean that the articles were not published for people to read, does it?!?!?!

Kyle Huwer: It really doesn’t matter, you are sidetracking the conversation about SB1070 with Nazi Holocause talk.

Back on topic? Or are we going to railroad some more?

Randon Jenkins: Fine show me the part about a Primary offense? If you can’t tell me how you are going to pick the illegals from the legals.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “Fine show me the part about a Primary offense?”

Please read my post from May 19, 6:18pm. I provided it there.

RE: ” If you can’t tell me how you are going to pick the illegals from the legals.”

Do you even know what you are asking? I’ve answered this like 5 times on this thread. Please re-read the post above, pasted below since you seem to have missed it.

“@Randon: “Just answer the question how are you going to pick the illegals from the legals?”

I;ve already answered this. When they are stopped for a primary offense then the law has the RIGHT to ask who they are and get identification through a “TERRY STOP.” Period. SB1070 allows the person to be detained and/or arrested if they cannot provide that information to the detaining/arresting officer.

So if you are never stopped, then you will never be caught if you are illegal. However, if you are stopped, the police now have the ability to detain you if cannot provide them with documentation. Period.

We never will get ALL the illegals. If that is what you want, then you are asking for an impossibility.”

Randon Jenkins: Sorry I’ll always take first hand information and research over an editorial, even if 20 people publish it, its still an editorial.

Randon Jenkins: what primary offense again primary offense is never mention in the bill.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “Sorry I’ll always take first hand information and research over an editorial, even if 20 people publish it, its still an editorial.”

Well, good to see that you discount something in print that will be displayed as being “untrue.” Maybe cut the ego and admit that there are things that are not in your collection/research?

RE: “what primary offense again primary offense is never mention in the bill.”

Please read my post from May 19, 6:18pm. I provided it there.

Randon Jenkins: there is no primary offense to stop them, in thew first place, the bill does not require a primary offense, if it did shit, that their problem, being that you can be stopped just to be asked for ID on suspicion of illegal status bothers me, seeing as how my wife and daughter are part mexican, So here’s the real senario, Jesus is walking to work, cops stop him and ask for ID, why are you asking me for ID Jesus says, cop responds I suspect your an illegal immigrant, Jesus responds well I don’t have ID I’m 16, Officer responds well your coming with me until we can prove your legal. Oh jesus just got fired for not showing up to work for three days.

Randon Jenkins: I cant we arent friends, meany:p

Kyle Huwer: RE: “the bill does not require a primary offense”

Yes it does. It says, “”FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL…” That is a primary stop. If it is NOT, then what does this sentence mean?

Randon Jenkins: Kyle there is more information out there than anyone could possibly know.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “being that you can be stopped just to be asked for ID on suspicion of illegal status bothers me”

And where does it say this in the bill? Please point me since you’ve linked me the bill text.

Randon Jenkins: Now you assume to much, does the bill define lawful contact?

Kyle Huwer: RE: “Jesus is walking to work, cops stop him and ask for ID, why are you asking me for ID Jesus says, cop responds I suspect your an illegal immigrant, Jesus responds well I don’t have ID I’m 16, Officer responds well your coming with me until we can prove your legal. Oh jesus just got fired for not showing up to work for three days.”

If Jesus came across the border, then he will have documentation. Or are we letting people under 18 over the border without documentation these days?

If Jesus was born here, then he will more than likely have a SSN or a birth certificate… If he is working as you have provided, he also has to have documentation, just like everyone else, so he will be verified then too.

Randon Jenkins: What type of bill wouldn’t define such an ambiguous term.
3 hours ago

Randon Jenkins: Every law enforcement officer, plus the media up until this point has told everyone not to carry an SS card or birth certificate for fear of identity theft after robbery, now you say they should be carrying those things on them, come on, hooey.
3 hours ago

Randon Jenkins: the problem isn’t the illegals its the legals, yes if you rounded up everyone you’d catch criminals, would it be lawful, no.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “Now you assume to much, does the bill define lawful contact?”

“Lawful contact” is the things laid forth in a Terry stop which I already posted. A Terry stop must have a “probable cause,” 1. you are about to commit a crime,
2. you are in the act of committing a crime,
3. or you have committed a crime

Kyle Huwer: RE: “What type of bill wouldn’t define such an ambiguous term.”

Since profiling is illegal, I think that a “lawful stop” is a Terry stop that meets one or more of the three points I have provided.

A law doesn’t need to define things outright if a court case has done so already.

Would it be better if it was explicitly defined? Sure.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “Every law enforcement officer, plus the media up until this point has told everyone not to carry an SS card or birth certificate for fear of identity theft after robbery, now you say they should be carrying those things on them, come on, hooey.”

*Sigh* Where did I say that he needs to carry his SSN or birth certificate?

Kyle Huwer: RE: “the problem isn’t the illegals its the legals, yes if you rounded up everyone you’d catch criminals, would it be lawful, no.”

What!?!

Randon Jenkins: Dude this bill shreds the Terry stop, what are you talking about.

The Ohio Court of Appeals allowed the search, but made it clear that such a search was limited to discovering dangerous weapons that could be used against the officer, as Chief Justice Warren noted:
“In this case, for example, the Ohio Court of Appeals stated that ‘we must be careful to distinguish that the “frisk” authorized herein includes only a “frisk” for a dangerous weapon. It by no means authorizes a search for contraband, evidentiary material, or anything else in the absence of reasonable grounds to arrest. Such a search is controlled by the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, and probable cause is essential.’ ” (392 U.S. 1, at 16, Fn 12, quoting State v. Terry, 5 Ohio App. 2d 122, at 130)
Chief Justice Warren later made it clear that this was also the opinion of the Court:
“The sole justification of the search … is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.” (392 U.S. 1, at 29)

Kyle Huwer: RE: “Dude this bill shreds the Terry stop, what are you talking about.”

Terry is a Supreme Court case. So you assume that SB1070 superceeds a Supreme Court case? How so?

RE: “The Ohio Court of Appeals allowed the search, but made it clear that such a search was limited to discovering dangerous weapons that could be used against the officer”

Yes. A Terry stop specifically allows for a frisk. However, it also allows for identification via the “stop and identify” procedure established in Hiibel and codified in ARS 13-2412.

Randon Jenkins: search and reasonable stop are not the same.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “search and reasonable stop are not the same.”

And what are you saying since I’ve already provided the “stop and identify” clause in Arizona law, ARS 13-2412?

Randon Jenkins: the terry stop was about the illegal search not the stop, sorry I missed that earlier, someone pointed it out to me too, so “Lawful contact” still isn’t defined.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “the terry stop was about the illegal search not the stop, sorry I missed that earlier, someone pointed it out to me too, so “Lawful contact” still isn’t defined.”

Man… If there is a law in place (i.e. running a red light) and a cop stops you, would you consider that a “lawful contact” if a police officer stopped you?

Randon Jenkins: As you told me before, what I consider is just my opinion, not fact. “Lawful Contact” is not defined, that law takes the time to define everything else accept, Lawful Contact and Reasonable suspicion, now if the Arizona immigration law did define those terms, no one would be having this conversation. Your trying to define something the writer’s of the bill didn’t, good luck.

Randon Jenkins: Will you at least admit Arizona is obviously sick of their illegal immigrants and we aren’t talking about Canadians. Americans have a long history of discriminating against certain groups of ethnicities and while its happening saying it seemed right at the time, but later turns out to be really bad. Like Asian Americans being thrown into interment camps after Pearl Harbor, or what happened to the Irish at Ellis island, or Middle Easterners now, or black people like forever, or mexicans now, well the list is pretty long.

Kyle Huwer: LOL. Well… then it appears that we have no laws that can be enforced because we don’t have “lawful contact” or “lawful stop” defined explicitly.

In law everything has it’s standard “Webster” definitions, UNLESS it is specifically defined which at that point it loses ALL standard definition and gains only the specific definition the law provides.

Because we have no specific definition here we have to take the common definition. Below I will define things by Webster and then by a law dictionary.

“Lawful contact.”

Lawful (Webster): recognized by or established by law
Lawful (law dictionary): a statute, federal or state constitution, or established legal precedents

Contact (Webster): the state or fact of being in touch, communication, or association
Contact (law dictionary): none, so it holds the same as Webster.

So if we combine the two, a court would interpret “lawful contact” as such…

“The state of being in communication/contact with someone that is recognized by or established by a statute, a federal/state constitution, or by a legal precedent.”

There, it is defined by using the laws of the courts. Have the courts defined the term specifically? Nope. Has the ARS? Nope. Can the courts define and decide whether the initial police stop was “lawful,” ABSOLUTELY!

If you disagree, please rebut me where I’ve messed up in regards to the courtroom rules as well as the way laws are read.

Randon Jenkins: So your defining lawful contact as

“The state of being in communication/contact with someone that is recognized by or established by a statute, a federal/state constitution, or by a legal precedent.”

Thus any cop stopping you is legal?

What? lol

Kyle Huwer: No. Your reading comprehension is poor. If a cop stops you they have to have a reason that is RECOGNIZED BY OR ESTABLISHED BY A STATUTE, A CONSTITUTION, OR BY A LEGAL PRECEDENT.

In other words, they cannot stop you for something that is not established in law.

What is so hard about this my man?

Kyle Huwer: Also, on a separate note, I am still waiting on someone to tell me where in the bill it specifically promotes racism. And remember, “A presumption that individual officers will employ the law in a discriminatory manner is both speculative and irrelevant to the question of Constitutionality.”

Randon Jenkins: “The state of being in communication/contact with someone that is recognized by or established by a statute, a federal/state constitution, or by a legal precedent.”

So cops are not established by a legal statute, a federal/state constitution, or by legal precedent?

You know whats not established reasonable suspicion, or Lawful contact. Shit if all we need is webster why have lawyers, or judges, or supreme courts, no my friend you walked into a corner and your fighting your way out with insults. I’m an ass, I insult people for laughs and giggles, this is the first insult you’ve thrown, my comprehension is better than most of the country I’ve got several papers to back that up, a long with scholarships and my pick of professions, but I’ll bet you will say thats just because I’m black.

Randon Jenkins: lets not play coy, Do you think this law is aimed at illegal Canadians or Europeans? seriously, SERIOUSLY you think they are going to be stopping a British couple on holiday asking for papers, this bill was made for Mexicans crossing the border, and you can’t tell a Mexican from a Puerto Rican who is born a US citizen.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “So cops are not established by a legal statute, a federal/state constitution, or by legal precedent?”

What?

RE: “You know whats not established reasonable suspicion, or Lawful contact.”

You are clearly sidestepping. Reasonable suspicion is suspicion that you have violated a statute, a constitution, or a legal precedent.

RE: “Shit if all we need is webster why have lawyers, or judges, or supreme courts”

Maybe because the laws don’t need to define everything? Do you have any idea how big laws were each law defined everything? This is an inane notion.

RE: “no my friend you walked into a corner and your fighting your way out with insults.”

Again, I must remind you that it is ME who is providing text from SB1070, it is ME who is providing text from the USC, it is ME who is providing text from court cases, and it is now ME who is providing legal procedure.

What have you provided to me factually aside from your assumptions?

RE: “this is the first insult you’ve thrown”

If you think that was an insult, it wasn’t. It was a fact. You are trying to debate me by putting words in my mouth and if that is the case then yes, you do have poor reading comprehension because you did not comprehend what I said.

RE: “but I’ll bet you will say thats just because I’m black.”

I have no idea what color you are nor do I care. If I remember correctly, it was you who first brought skin color into this debate when you said, “I guess being of your color I can see how you arrived at that conclusion.” I had to call you out twice before you stopped. So really… who is the one playing the race card here?

I am debating you as an individual with facts and logic… not my opinion. Why can’t you do the same?

Kyle Huwer: RE: “lets not play coy, Do you think this law is aimed at illegal Canadians or Europeans? seriously, SERIOUSLY you think they are going to be stopping a British couple on holiday asking for papers, this bill was made for Mexicans crossing the border, and you can’t tell a Mexican from a Puerto Rican who is born a US citizen.”

You are saying that this bill is aimed at Hispanics… so prove it. I am asking you to prove this hypothesis. So do it.

Randon Jenkins: Yeah my profile pic doesn’t hide my black skin very well. No you are not debating, because when i bring up the racial tones of this law you want to ignore them, you cant ignore race you confront it, and I’m sorry but to be honest it make me think your full of shit, the loop holes make a law not whats written and the term Lawful contact and reasonable suspicion are huge loop holes, and if you cant see that, why are we talking. So keep playing debate but on the real this is peoples lives being fucked with, and if this was going to affect you, you’d be out protesting too. Race card what race card, this is reality and why i call you naive.

Randon Jenkins: John Mccain openly says this law targets Mexicans, but being that you yourself and most others cant tell a mexican from a puerto rican, yes I will make the jump to say this law target Latinos.

Randon Jenkins: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63T5G220100430

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/john-mccain-immigration-reversal-complete-danged-fence/story?id=10616090

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/protestors-arizona-immigration-bill-urge-boycott-state/story?id=10487582

Arizona Law enforcement disagrees with the law.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “No you are not debating, because when i bring up the racial tones of this law you want to ignore them”

What “racial tones” have you brought forth? I’ve asked this forum REPEATEDLY to provide me with the black and white text that promotes racism. I do not see where you have provided me with that text. Care to show me?

RE: “Race card what race card, this is reality and why i call you naive.”

You first said, “I guess being of your color I can see how you arrived at that conclusion.” So what you really said was “you are white, and you don’t understand. I said, teach me. Show me where the law is racist.

You provided me with nothing. So you have no position in my opinion. You cannot say that this bill is racist without providing me with the text that makes it racist any more than I can call Martha Stewart a child molester without providing evidence.

I am not naive at all. I keep asking you for specific and articulate facts and all you can tell me is that it is racist and that it has racial undertones. OK, so prove it! PROVE IT! Again, you cannot accuse someone or something of being something without pointing directly to the part that makes your statement true! That doesn’t make me naive, that makes me an effective debater that effectively shows that you are not arguing with fact, but rather emotion.

Kyle Huwer: RE: “John Mccain openly says this law targets Mexicans, but being that you yourself and most others cant tell a mexican from a puerto rican, yes I will make the jump to say this law target Latinos.”

Again, what part specifically targets Latinos?

Kyle Huwer: RE: Reuters… “Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris…” says “I don’t really believe that this law is going to do what the vast majority of Americans and Arizonans want, and that is to fix the immigration problem,” he said. “This law … adds new problems for local law enforcement.”

So he said that it will not be effective. Where does he say that it is racist?

RE: ABC news 1… “McCain” says “I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build the g..damned fence if they want it.”

Where does McCain in this article say that he disagrees with SB1070 or says that it is racist?

RE: ABS news 2… “Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik” has “no intention of complying” but provides nothing about why he will not comply. It goes on to list other people’s opinions, but gives no cites to the bill and where it is specifically racist.

Randon Jenkins: Dude you cant even agree this law targets Mexicans, why are we still talking, when the Arizona government is in fact targeting the US mexican border.
10 minutes ago

Kyle Huwer: RE: “Dude you cant even agree this law targets Mexicans, why are we still talking, when the Arizona government is in fact targeting the US mexican border.”

Are you confused or what? When you accuse someone or something of something, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON ***YOU.***

If you cannot provide me where it targets Latinos as you purport, then you have lost the debate Randon!

08
May
10

Media Lies About AZ SB1070

I saw and add for this while on Facebook today. I know I am wishy-washy on the law (more of what it could become than what it is) but this is just a blatant lie!

The Governor of Arizona just signed a bill that requires police to harass or arrest anyone who “appears to be an undocumented immigrant.” The President and Congress need to take action immediately we don’t see this trend spread to other states! (link)

How can people say this? It is so wrong that it actually makes me laugh.

27
Apr
10

Arizona SB 1070 and Why I Cannot Support It

Before you get excited let’s get the facts straight – I do not support illegal immigration, amnesty or anything else of that flavor. A law is a law and in this case it is illegal to cross a border and not be accepted into America without being processed. However, this bill stinks of something far to reaching for the government.

Of course, the intent is to get illegal people out of here and back to where they belong so they can come over here legally. However, this is not how I see it. Any time a new law comes out I always examine it for what it is and what it grants the government. In this case it grants the government to question whoever they want. If you cannot produce what they want, then they are allowed to detain you.

Positively, they will catch some illegal immigrants with this new power. There is no doubt in my mind that this bill will work in this regard. However, what will be the outcome if they happen to stop me? Sure, I have lived in America all my life, but what if they don’t like my Ron Paul sticker, my Gedsen Flag sticker, or even my Deadmau5 sticker on the back of my car? After all, two of them are somewhat equated with “anti-government” ideas (even though I am not anti-government, just anti-bad, intrusive government). What will I produce them to prove who I am? My driver’s licence? My birth certificate? My passport? A urine sample? A letter from my mom? Maybe I could produce all of these and if the police officer still wants to make my day hell, they have every right to do so under this bill (from my understanding).

It most definitely reminds me of the Nazi days (back off haters) where they were allowed to stop you whenever and wherever and check your papers – “Papiere, Bitte!” I can see this going that direction very easily and this is the exact reason that I refuse to support this bill. Maybe that exact language is not in the bill, but once we get used to SB 1070 being law, I can certainly see them “adding to” the bill to allow routine, unwarranted checks to whomever. I don’t want that and neither should you. After all, when have you ever seen the government take an intrusive step into society and then when it is fixed, step back? Me? Never.

Think about it. The issue here is not about racism or anything else, it is about government intervention in our everyday lives.




Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Categories