Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

focusedfire wrote:Canada would finally fit in and realize their potential as a part of Minnesota.

Fixed your other mistake.

helgrenze wrote:Anyone else here visited Mexico?

Ever had a look at some of their laws?

So you're now looking at Mexico as your comparison? They're not exactly best practice, you know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Ironically many native inhabitants of the USA or UK probably would fail the naturalization test without studying for it first.

Try for yourself here...

http://www.britishexam.com/uktest/index.jsp


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and here...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13442226/

I scored 87.5% on the UK test and 85% on the US test so apparently they would let me in.

I got 20/24 for the UK test and 19/20 for the US test.

I liked that the UK test focused a little more on life in the UK, and less on exactly which amendment did what.

sebster wrote:

helgrenze wrote:Anyone else here visited Mexico?

Ever had a look at some of their laws?

So you're now looking at Mexico as your comparison? They're not exactly best practice, you know.

Mexico is issuing statements, mexican citizens are protesting in Arizona, and there is a general uproar from south of the border concerning what is essessentially an internal issue within the US.
Other countries are allowed to limit immigration but the US must allow foreign nationals to just walk in whenever and where-ever they want?

If the problem is bad enough that Arizona Officials felt they needed a law to cover it, then maybe there is something to the concern expressed by those officials.

And its not like this is the most bizarre law on the books in Arizona, but apparently they also had issues with these...
One must be 18 years old to buy spray paint.
It is unlawful to refuse a person a glass of water.
Hunting camels is prohibited.
There is a possible 25 years in prison for cutting down a cactus.
A class 2 misdemeanor occurs if one places a mark upon a flag which is “likely to provoke physical retaliation”.
In Tucson, it is illegal for women to wear pants.
In Globe, it is illegal to play cards in the street with a Native American.
In Glendale, it is illegal to drive a car in reverse.
In Nogales, it is illegal to wear suspenders.

If the problem is bad enough to require a law..... maybe there is something to the concerns.....

helgrenze, I've probably visited parts of it you have never heard of. A while back there was a call sent out to Natives around North America to go down there to aid various rebellions against the Mexican Government. It promptly fizzeled, due to lack of funding, but I can say that I didn't see anyone carrying any 'Government ID' in any of the villages I saw in the south while I was there.

I did see starvation, oppression, corruption, and drug dealers. But no government ID. I would suggest that in much of Mexico away from tourists, it's rather like the law in Pennsylvania that says you have to stop your car every two miles while driving at night and fire a signal flare.

Edit: since you posted again while I was writing: Sometimes, they make laws just to make laws. Or sometimes the law is driven by ideology rather then any real concern among the citizenry.

helgrenze wrote:

sebster wrote:

helgrenze wrote:Anyone else here visited Mexico?

Ever had a look at some of their laws?

So you're now looking at Mexico as your comparison? They're not exactly best practice, you know.

Mexico is issuing statements, mexican citizens are protesting in Arizona, and there is a general uproar from south of the border concerning what is essessentially an internal issue within the US.
Other countries are allowed to limit immigration but the US must allow foreign nationals to just walk in whenever and where-ever they want?

If the problem is bad enough that Arizona Officials felt they needed a law to cover it, then maybe there is something to the concern expressed by those officials.

And its not like this is the most bizarre law on the books in Arizona, but apparently they also had issues with these...
One must be 18 years old to buy spray paint.
It is unlawful to refuse a person a glass of water.
Hunting camels is prohibited.
There is a possible 25 years in prison for cutting down a cactus.
A class 2 misdemeanor occurs if one places a mark upon a flag which is “likely to provoke physical retaliation”.
In Tucson, it is illegal for women to wear pants.
In Globe, it is illegal to play cards in the street with a Native American.
In Glendale, it is illegal to drive a car in reverse.
In Nogales, it is illegal to wear suspenders.

If the problem is bad enough to require a law..... maybe there is something to the concerns.....

Really? Who the hell makes those things up?

Special interest groups.

My personal favorite from AZ

If you commit a misdemeoner in AZ while wearing a red mask, it becomes a Felony.

A person may not cross state lines with a duck atop his head.

Hmm.....

If you have less then $200 on you in Texas, you can be arrested as a vagrant.

In Tn it is illegal for a woman to drive a car unless there is a man walking/running in front of her with red flags to warn other drivers and pedestrians.

In SC it is perfectly legal to beat your wife on the lawn of the capital building on Sunday.

@helgrenze-I like how your justification for one big horrible law is to show the state has a history of writting smaller crappy laws. Nice way to make your case.


Though not all of these laws are completely unreasonable.

"It is unlawful to refuse a person a glass of water."


This one makes sense in an area that regularly sees 120+ degree days. It is in the same line as the samaritan laws in place all over the country. Basically stating that If you refuse to render aid to someone in a possible life threatening situation then you share in the responsibility of any harm that comes to them from that situation.

By your argument, it may also be construed that you feel saving people from heat prostration is "bizarre".



"There is a possible 25 years in prison for cutting down a cactus."

This has to do with the Saguaro cactus. It is a keystone for the eco-system of the Sonoran Desert.

I will agree that 25 years is very much on the extreme side but this goes back to my point that AZ seems makes a practice of overly harsh laws.

The point was.... There was an issue that was seen as big enough to warrent the passing of a law.

If there was no issue or problem, the law would not have been considered.

The existence of a desire to pass a law is not in itself proof that the law proposed will be just, workable and without undesireable side effects.

Kilkrazy wrote:The existence of a desire to pass a law is not in itself proof that the law proposed will be just, workable and without undesireable side effects.

QFT. Look at Prohibition. Or the original law tax stamp law against weed.

helgrenze wrote:Anyone else here visited Mexico?

Ever had a look at some of their laws?

Yep.

helgrenze wrote:
Mexico apparently wants a one-way door installed at the border.....North only.

And?

helgrenze wrote:
Mexico is issuing statements, mexican citizens are protesting in Arizona, and there is a general uproar from south of the border concerning what is essessentially an internal issue within the US.

Then why are you referencing Mexico here?

helgrenze wrote:
Other countries are allowed to limit immigration but the US must allow foreign nationals to just walk in whenever and where-ever they want?

Hyperbole, no one has made that point.

helgrenze wrote:
If the problem is bad enough to require a law..... maybe there is something to the concerns.....

Maybe, or maybe not.

Is there a problem with Illegal Immigrants in Arizona?

Yes, no one has said otherwise. That's not the argument here. That's simply the line you've taken in order to proffer some sort of moral justification for the law, when there have been few questions about its morality.

So what is the stance against it?
That the law, by and of itself, despite the actual language written into it, is racist and therefore unjust?

helgrenze wrote:So what is the stance against it?
That the law, by and of itself, despite the actual language written into it, is racist and therefore unjust?

The law, as written, is likely to increase the rate of racial profiling. On its face this point cannot be rejected in any serious argument, not unless you can establish unequivocally that reasonable suspicion of illegal status will not include being of Hispanic descent. However, that isn't sufficient to reject the law by necessity, as it is possible to have reasonable levels of racial profiling.

My argument is that this targets the wrong side of the issue. Illegal immigrants in general are far less onerous than drug traffickers, and this particular legislation works to direct attention away from that problem. Furthermore, I cannot see a way that this law will actually work to increase deportation statistics. If police cannot handle arresting illegals in the course of other crimes, how will they be able to manage doing the same with respect to those simply present on public property?

Additionally, because Arizona refuses to bring itself into compliance with real ID law, the entire point is moot. All people in possession of Arizona identification are in violation of Federal law when on Federal property. If this were actually about enforcing Federal law there would be no protest against the Federal laws levied for the purposes of identification and immigration control.

... because we've heard these arguments to justify government's tendency to totalitarianism before. Everything that has been said about this by the parties in favor of it has been this horrific echo of the past.

"We certainly do our best to combat crime of every sort, and our criminal statistics imply that we are fairly successful."

"Frankly, we believe that habitual offenders should not be at large to plague society, so we keep them locked up. Why, for instance, should a sex-offender who has been sentenced three or four times be again set free, to bring lasting sorrow to another decent home? We send all such persons to a detention-camp and keep them there. But I assure you that their surroundings aren't bad. In fact, I know they are better fed, clothed, and lodged than the miners of South Wales."

"Ever seen one of our concentration-camps?"

- Heinrich Himmler, as interviewed by Lothrop Stoddard.

So, the issue isn't what the law actually says, but what you say it means.

I have noticed that almost no-one here has thought to include the situation in Chicago in their discussion of the "coming Police State" arguement.
For those out of that loop....

From AP "Lawmakers: Military could quell Chicago violence. CHICAGO – Two Illinois lawmakers say violence has become so rampant in Chicago that the National Guard must be called in to help.Chicago Democratic Reps. John Fritchey and LaShawn Ford made a public plea to Gov. Pat Quinn on Sunday to deploy troops."

That would constitute Martial Law in Chicago, Third Largest city in this country. And since most of the "Offenders" in Chicago are of African descent, well,... That would be racial profiling, wouldn't it?

helgrenze wrote:So, the issue isn't what the law actually says, but what you say it means.

Not meaning, implication. And no, that isn't the only issue. That's simply the issue you're choosing to focus on.

helgrenze wrote:
I have noticed that almost no-one here has thought to include the situation in Chicago in their discussion of the "coming Police State" arguement.
For those out of that loop....

From AP "Lawmakers: Military could quell Chicago violence. CHICAGO – Two Illinois lawmakers say violence has become so rampant in Chicago that the National Guard must be called in to help.Chicago Democratic Reps. John Fritchey and LaShawn Ford made a public plea to Gov. Pat Quinn on Sunday to deploy troops."

That would constitute Martial Law in Chicago, Third Largest city in this country. And since most of the "Offenders" in Chicago are of African descent, well,... That would be racial profiling, wouldn't it?

1. That doesn't constitute martial law.

2. Its a stupid political stunt, as the rate of violent crime in Chicago has steadily declined since 1990.

3. The act of bringing additional aid from outside is not racial profiling. Though racial profiling in the course of general enforcement has been a significant worry of advocacy groups in Chicago.

Correct me then...
Your stance is:
That the law, by its intent = racial profiling.
That requiring documentation that a person is in this country legally is in defiance of federal regulation, or the Constitution.

Mine is:
The law spells out, in specific terms, under what circumstances documentation may be inquired about.
That the law specifically states that race should not be a contributing factor to inquiry.

As for Chicago.... get an update. Gang on Gang violence is up... especially in the southern regions of the city.
From some reports it is open warfare nearly on par with Chicago in the 1920s-30s.

helgrenze wrote:
The law spells out, in specific terms, under what circumstances documentation may be inquired about.
That the law specifically states that race should not be a contributing factor to inquiry.

Laws preventing Blacks from voting in the South had the same supposed limitations. The practice, however, was a very different story.

helgrenze wrote:
As for Chicago.... get an update. Gang on Gang violence is up... especially in the southern regions of the city.
From some reports it is open warfare nearly on par with Chicago in the 1920s-30s.

Excellent. The FBI now reaps what it has sown. You'll see crime skyrocketing in cities as long as unemployment remains high.

"You will go to the shop, and you'll ask for a job. They'll answer you there with a shake and a nod. Well that's enough to make a man turn out and rob..." - Steeleye Span, Hard times in Old England.

helgrenze wrote:Correct me then...
Your stance is:
That the law, by its intent = racial profiling.

The law by its effect, I never said anything about intent.

helgrenze wrote:
That requiring documentation that a person is in this country legally is in defiance of federal regulation, or the Constitution.

No, that Arizona state law forbids compliance with Federal identification laws, which are themselves of questioned Constitutional standing. Arizona identification cards and driver's licenses are not considered to be acceptable forms of identification by the Federal government, and are not linked to the social security database, nor does one require a social security number to obtain one. This is a massive boon to illegal immigration, and would be a more sensible target for legislation. However, it is not a popular idea, and so it receives no attention.

helgrenze wrote:
The law spells out, in specific terms, under what circumstances documentation may be inquired about.

Yes, under reasonable suspicion of trespassing on public or private property.

helgrenze wrote:
That the law specifically states that race should not be a contributing factor to inquiry.

The law in question does not state that. It is a statement made in other legal documents, but this is not one of them. More to the point, racial discrimination in course of law enforcement is an established issue, so its fairly clear that the specific text of the law is not necessarily sufficient for prevention.

helgrenze wrote:
As for Chicago.... get an update. Gang on Gang violence is up... especially in the southern regions of the city.
From some reports it is open warfare nearly on par with Chicago in the 1920s-30s.

I live in Chicago, and have lived there for most of my life. The rate of violent crime is still well below the level seen in the '90s; projecting this year using the current number of homicides results in a death toll consistent with previous years at 500-650.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:
Excellent. The FBI now reaps what it has sown. You'll see crime skyrocketing in cities as long as unemployment remains high.

The increase in gang violence in Chicago is the direct result of budget cuts made by the city.

How can you Know the effect of a law that is not, as yet, in effect? Anything said on this front is conjecture.

The "Real ID" act you refer to has been restricted in 25 states. 17 of those have statutes opposed to the same. So this arguement falls flat since half the country is also in violation.

Arizona HB2162 (passed Apr 30) Modifies SB1070, more clearly defining the limitations on police and reducing penalties.

As for Chicago.... This is what happens when Unions run a city.

@dogma: I was speaking in general, not Chitown in specific.

The FBI's grand crackdown on 'organized' crime has led to the rise of street gangs and cartels in the US as criminal enterprises, filling the power vacuum left behind by La Cosa Nostra.

Violent crime actually rose 60% in the year following the arrests of many major mafia figures in Youngstown, Ohio, with a 15% rise in bystanders killed. Previously, the mob just bumped one another off. The gangs weren't so polite.


@helgrenze:

If you want to troll about Unions, we could always go back to the near slave labor conditions under Andrew Carnegie. Of course, the massa will only pay in scrpt, but I'm sure your new company shack will make your indentured servitude seem nicer.

If you ever think that the deaths down in the mines were bad now...

Actually, some of the reforms brought about by EARLY union actions helped rebuild this country.

It the more recent events, that have caused unions to be counted as detriments. But that is a discussion for another time.

helgrenze wrote:How can you Know the effect of a law that is not, as yet, in effect? Anything said on this front is conjecture.

Did I state anything about knowledge?

In any case, it is not conjecture, but speculation. Conjecture would require the presence of a faulty assumption, I haven't assumed anything.

helgrenze wrote:
The "Real ID" act you refer to has been restricted in 25 states. 17 of those have statutes opposed to the same. So this arguement falls flat since half the country is also in violation.

No, it really doesn't; especially in a debate regarding the letter of the law, and useful legislation pertaining to immigration.

helgrenze wrote:
Arizona HB2162 (passed Apr 30) Modifies SB1070, more clearly defining the limitations on police and reducing penalties.

By eliminating the provision for trespassing as a crime of reasonable suspicion, the bill has been essentially sterilized.

This really caught my eye though:

G. This section does not implement, authorize or establish and
17 shall not be construed to implement, authorize or establish the REAL ID act
18 of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, division B; 119 Stat. 302), including the use of a
19 radio frequency identification chip.

Hilarious because the bill is essentially an authorization of all the significant elements of REAL ID.

1)Conjecture. The faulty assumption being that it would primarily be enforcable via Racial profiling.

2)Guidelines for establishing identification have existed before this.

3)Only in the eyes of those who would claim racial profiling as a basis for investigation. Loitering is still considered a crime.

4)Without copitulating to the heavy handed requirements of the Real Id.