Driving While Black, Flying While Arab, Walking While Latino

[USFREEDOM911]

Yes. There are many Canadians in our country illegally. I would guess there are probably some in Arizona. Do you think Arizona cops will be harassing people with hockey paraphernalia?

Are you trying to say that illlegal mexicans will be walking aroiund wearing soccer paraphernalia??

No. So what? They won't pull over the light skinned ones so that makes it okay?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

Wasn't the point of question one, that all laws are abused or may be potentially abused? You know damn well that suspicion of illegal residence will fall mainly on Hispanics. What other trait would one look for?

Now RS wants all laws banished and no new ones enacted. LOL

No quotas. The only thing that needs to be checked for is disease or a record of violent criminal activity. That will reduce the costs of compliance, which is a major barrier. There should be little reason to deny anyone, that was allowed entry and who has not violated the law while here, citizenship.

When are you going to start lobbying for the US to start flying in everyone who wants to immigrate.
I'm sure whe can absorb 2 or 3 billion immigrants, with no problem. We'll just increase the nanny state, so they have everything they want.

 

[Timshel]

The police will see that a person is Hispanic then find some reason to stop them.


what kind of idiot just makes shit like this up in their premise while arguing a point. Are we really supposed to take this serious?

That's what driving while black and racial profiling are. They don't just pull you over and write in their report that the reason for the stop was that you were black. They find some other reason to pull you over. This happens in driving while black and it also happens in states without primary enforcement of seat belt laws.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

That's what driving while black and racial profiling are. They don't just pull you over and write in their report that the reason for the stop was that you were black. They find some other reason to pull you over. This happens in driving while black and it also happens in states without primary enforcement of seat belt laws.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!!

 

[Timshel]

Are you trying to say that illlegal mexicans will be walking aroiund wearing soccer paraphernalia??

They won't need that to suspect you are Hispanic. The point is, what does an illegal immigrant look like.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

Well then, what is your point, dumbfuck. There are light skinned Hispanics. So?

Now RS wants all laws banished and no new ones enacted. LOL

Nope. I don't want laws that make ethnicity suspicion of a crime.

When are you going to start lobbying for the US to start flying in everyone who wants to immigrate.

Ridiculous non sequitur. Why would I ask for that?

I'm sure whe can absorb 2 or 3 billion immigrants, with no problem. We'll just increase the nanny state, so they have everything they want.

Again, non sequitur.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

i'm fairly confident we are the only country in the world that is so fucking stupid about racial issues

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Are you trying to say that illlegal mexicans will be walking aroiund wearing soccer paraphernalia??



Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight




Now RS wants all laws banished and no new ones enacted. LOL



When are you going to start lobbying for the US to start flying in everyone who wants to immigrate.
I'm sure whe can absorb 2 or 3 billion immigrants, with no problem. We'll just increase the nanny state, so they have everything they want.

DAMN zippy; that negative rep you gave me, really hurt!!

OH-WAIT; no it didn't.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

 

[USFREEDOM911]

They won't need that to suspect you are Hispanic. The point is, what does an illegal immigrant look like.



Well then, what is your point, dumbfuck. There are light skinned Hispanics. So?



Nope. I don't want laws that make ethnicity suspicion of a crime.



Ridiculous non sequitur. Why would I ask for that?



Again, non sequitur.

Well; since you seem to know better then anyone else, what does an illegal immigrant look like??

If were're going to deport them all, shouldn't the light skinned (and Black ones) be forced to carry around a sign designating them as such??

Show me one part, any part, that says anything about "ethnicity" and I'll change sides and support the overturning of the bill.
But if you can't, you probably should just STFU and STFD; because you obviously haven't read the bill and are just pissing down your own leg.

The only reason you refer to the comments as non sequitur, is because they reveal the stupidity of your own comments and agenda.

You truly have no clue what your talking about and that just means it sucks to be you.

 

[Socrtease]

Well, now that you're on a roll, why not actually THINK about what you're saying .... and WHY these things are happening.....

WHO the fuck are the terrorists by about a huge ratio ?
Arabs? Folks from the Middle East ? Muslims ? or Swedes, Polocks, or Jamaicans...

WHO the hell are dealing/selling/using drugs by a large margin in most big cities ?
Could that possibly be African Americans, street gangs. ?

WHO are by far the illegal aliens ?....
Well, holy shit, that might by be Latinos...Mexicans, Guatemalans, Hondurans,
Ecuadorians...etc....

I didn't say all terrorists are Arabs, or all drug dealers/users are AF, or all illegals are Latinos....but god damn dude, get a clue....

When the cops warn the public that a rapists is in your area and are afraid to say its a black rapist, or a white rapist, or a Hispanic rapist, that is pretty damn stupid....why the hell bother giving the warning at all....

What you consider 'profiling' many of us consider good ole common sense....there just ain't that many little old white ladies hijacking airplanes, dealing drugs or entering the US illegally....

Things are the way they are for damn good reasons in most cases....

YOur use of the word Polock when attempting to talk about people of Polish lineage, also better known as Poles, says volumes about you.

 

[Socrtease]

I don't think many people know how many police forces are under DOJ Consent Decrees for Racial Profiling. You should go to http://www.racialprofilinganalysis.neu.edu/legislation/doj.php and look at the number of police departments that have been involved in it.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I don't think many people know how many police forces are under DOJ Consent Decrees for Racial Profiling. You should go to http://www.racialprofilinganalysis.neu.edu/legislation/doj.php and look at the number of police departments that have been involved in it.

that proves nothing

don't forget, O.J. is innocent

 

[Socrtease]

that proves nothing

don't forget, O.J. is innocent

It proves a ton. Cities and states don't enter into consent decrees lightly. They do so only after the DOJ shows them the evidence they have against them. You enter into a consent decree to avoid the evidence being made public bringing on lawsuits. And what the fuck does OJ have to do with this?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It proves a ton. Cities and states don't enter into consent decrees lightly. They do so only after the DOJ shows them the evidence they have against them. You enter into a consent decree to avoid the evidence being made public bringing on lawsuits. And what the fuck does OJ have to do with this?

has everything to do with it

publicity can be like a gun to your head...submit to the decree or be dragged through streets with tar and feather

o.j. because the case was not decided on its merits, it as all about publicity, the very thing you're talking about....it was a racially charged issue and the wrong decision was made because of the publicity...it is not surprising cities and states want to avoid that, because it does great harm to law enforcement activities and virtually no one knows about the decrees

 

[Socrtease]

has everything to do with it

publicity can be like a gun to your head...submit to the decree or be dragged through streets with tar and feather

o.j. because the case was not decided on its merits, it as all about publicity, the very thing you're talking about....it was a racially charged issue and the wrong decision was made because of the publicity...it is not surprising cities and states want to avoid that, because it does great harm to law enforcement activities and virtually no one knows about the decrees

Yes poor old police all over the country are just being maligned. They don't profile. Racism is dead. Lets all follow the yellow brick road to the Emerald City and see the Wizard.

OJ would have been found guilty if the DA in LA had kept the case in it's original district. Instead he moved it to a court in the Rampart district in LA where a few years later it was discovered that several police officers had planted evidence on black defendants and even shot them and then put throw down weapons on them. Black people in that area KNEW the police planted evidence. I don't think they did in OJ's case, but when you live somewhere where the police are corrupt you don't trust them even when they weren't behaving corruptly.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

OTE=Socrtease;663879]Yes poor old police all over the country are just being maligned. They don't profile. Racism is dead. Lets all follow the yellow brick road to the Emerald City and see the Wizard.

well then...hyperdrive to the hyperbole! full speed ahead cap't

OJ would have been found guilty if the DA in LA had kept the case in it's original district. Instead he moved it to a court in the Rampart district in LA where a few years later it was discovered that several police officers had planted evidence on black defendants and even shot them and then put throw down weapons on them. Black people in that area KNEW the police planted evidence. I don't think they did in OJ's case, but when you live somewhere where the police are corrupt you don't trust them even when they weren't behaving corruptly.

thats my point....that is why they take the deals with the feds....better to save lives and take some silly overwatch from the feds....lets not forget lives are stake here, it isn't just politics when dealing with police

 

[Timshel]

Well; since you seem to know better then anyone else, what does an illegal immigrant look like??

They don't LOOK like anything since they come from all over the world. That's the problem. Cops should not be able to harass someone based on some overly subjective standard of what makes someone suspect of a crime. If they witness the crime, something that ties a person to the crime (e.g., an object that was stolen, blood stains, etc.) or the person fits a detailed (not just skin color) description of a witness to the crime cops should investigate further.

It is up to supporters to answer this question, not me. There is no reliable trait that cops can use for suspicion of being illegal. The absence of this means they will be encouraged to use race/ethinicty.

If were're going to deport them all, shouldn't the light skinned (and Black ones) be forced to carry around a sign designating them as such??

Huh? Again, are you saying that because you can't identify the light or dark skinned Hispanics that makes it okay to single out those who fit the general appearance of a Hispanic?

Show me one part, any part, that says anything about "ethnicity" and I'll change sides and support the overturning of the bill.

Show me one part, any part that gives cops something to go on other than race/ethnicity. And you are a fucking liar, because the original version said they could not "SOLELY" use race or ethnicity, meaning they could use that, as a standard for suspicion and you did not support overturning it then and I do not recall even hearing you argue for amendment.

But if you can't, you probably should just STFU and STFD; because you obviously haven't read the bill and are just pissing down your own leg.

I have read the entire bill, several times.

The only reason you refer to the comments as non sequitur, is because they reveal the stupidity of your own comments and agenda.

You truly have no clue what your talking about and that just means it sucks to be you.

No, dumbfuck. It is non-sequitur because it does not follow that wanting to reduce undue legal barriers to immigration means that the state must pay for their travel costs. Why would I support that? You give offer no clue to how you came to that nonsensical conclusion.

It does not follow that reducing barriers will lead to 3 billion immigrants either, since you can combine illegal entry and applications for entry and not come anywhere near that number. It's nothing but absurd hyperbole.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes poor old police all over the country are just being maligned. They don't profile. Racism is dead. Lets all follow the yellow brick road to the Emerald City and see the Wizard.

OJ would have been found guilty if the DA in LA had kept the case in it's original district. Instead he moved it to a court in the Rampart district in LA where a few years later it was discovered that several police officers had planted evidence on black defendants and even shot them and then put throw down weapons on them. Black people in that area KNEW the police planted evidence. I don't think they did in OJ's case, but when you live somewhere where the police are corrupt you don't trust them even when they weren't behaving corruptly.

The entire premise of the argument you and others are making, is invalid and unacceptable in any realm of rational thought. How many times do we have to go through this? You never respond to the counterargument, you just keep on making the same invalid argument over and over. Please tell me, what law is presently on the books, that the police officer can't possibly abuse his authority enforcing? Please tell me, what guarantee we have that all police officers will always act in accordance with the law, and exhibit proper lawful behavior?

You are attempting to reject the Arizona law, based on the premise that an officer COULD POTENTIALLY take an action outside of the law! I mean, WTF? They can do this with EVERY law! The potential exists regardless of what law we pass! What you are saying is, we can't have officers stop people for speeding because they might jerk someone out of their car and beat them to death! We can't have them arrest people for trespassing, because they might handcuff them then blow their brains out! It's just an asinine viewpoint without any rational or logical basis. But you cats continue to espouse your nonsense!

 

[Timshel]

The entire premise of the argument you and others are making, is invalid and unacceptable in any realm of rational thought. How many times do we have to go through this? You never respond to the counterargument, you just keep on making the same invalid argument over and over. Please tell me, what law is presently on the books, that the police officer can't possibly abuse his authority enforcing? Please tell me, what guarantee we have that all police officers will always act in accordance with the law, and exhibit proper lawful behavior?

You are attempting to reject the Arizona law, based on the premise that an officer COULD POTENTIALLY take an action outside of the law! I mean, WTF? They can do this with EVERY law! The potential exists regardless of what law we pass! What you are saying is, we can't have officers stop people for speeding because they might jerk someone out of their car and beat them to death! We can't have them arrest people for trespassing, because they might handcuff them then blow their brains out! It's just an asinine viewpoint without any rational or logical basis. But you cats continue to espouse your nonsense!

Yes, every law can be abused. Not every law leaves one unable to reliably enforce it without abuse.

As the police officer who filed suit over the law, put it...

...there are no "race-neutral criteria or basis to suspect or identify who is lawfully in the United States," including a person's proximity to the Mexican border, linguistic characteristics and capabilities, skin color, clothing worn or the type of vehicle driven.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/29...RSS:+Politics)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Brewer herself cannot answer what criteria might be used.

Asked what criteria will be used to establish reasonable suspicion of someone's legal status, Brewer said, "I don't know. I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/29...RSS:+Politics)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

 

[USFREEDOM911]

They don't LOOK like anything since they come from all over the world. That's the problem. Cops should not be able to harass someone based on some overly subjective standard of what makes someone suspect of a crime. If they witness the crime, something that ties a person to the crime (e.g., an object that was stolen, blood stains, etc.) or the person fits a detailed (not just skin color) description of a witness to the crime cops should investigate further.

It is up to supporters to answer this question, not me. There is no reliable trait that cops can use for suspicion of being illegal. The absence of this means they will be encouraged to use race/ethinicty.

Well, since diriving a car without a liscense, insurance, working headlights, working tail lights, working brake lights, etc, can cause you to have to show up in court; these are considered crimes.
Civil crimes; but crimes non-the-less.

AND: since there is no physical way to identify who is illegal and who isn't, that's why producing a legal ID is the best way; because to have an Arizona Drivers licsense, you must be legal.

Huh? Again, are you saying that because you can't identify the light or dark skinned Hispanics that makes it okay to single out those who fit the general appearance of a Hispanic?

No, I'm saying that your whine is just that.
Nothing more then a whine

Show me one part, any part that gives cops something to go on other than race/ethnicity. And you are a fucking liar, because the original version said they could not "SOLELY" use race or ethnicity, meaning they could use that, as a standard for suspicion and you did not support overturning it then and I do not recall even hearing you argue for amendment.

Nice spin.
Since you couldn't provide anything to support your assertion you now are going on the assertion that since there's nothing else, it has to be that.
OH-WAIT, a legal ID takes that little argument and shoots it down; HUH!!

Since you found the need to reference the "original version"; I take it that you either haven't read the revisions or else you believe they haven't been enacted. Either way, it just proves that you're an idiot.

I have read the entire bill, several times.

And yet you find it necessary to continue to refer to the "original version"
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

No, dumbfuck. It is non-sequitur because it does not follow that wanting to reduce undue legal barriers to immigration means that the state must pay for their travel costs. Why would I support that? You give offer no clue to how you came to that nonsensical conclusion.

How else do you intend to find ways for all those poor impoverished immigrants to come to America.
Or are you only concerned with those contries that border the US, which means that you really don't care about the poor of the world and just want to complain about your newest :rant-du-jour".

It does not follow that reducing barriers will lead to 3 billion immigrants either, since you can combine illegal entry and applications for entry and not come anywhere near that number. It's nothing but absurd hyperbole.

And now you believe that if immigration rules were made extremelly lax, that more people wouldn't try to come to the US.
You are truly a fool.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

GEE, I wonder what Florida is going to do!!

Immigration-driven population growth is taking its toll on Florida, the seventh fastest growing state in the U.S.. In the last ten years, over three million new residents settled in Florida-an increase that is larger than the entire population of the state in 1950. One-third of these new residents were immigrants. This large-scale population growth is bringing traffic, pollution, overcrowded schools, and lack of affordable housing to the state, decreasing quality of life and straining natural resources.

In 1995, then-Governor Lawton Chiles’s Commission for a Sustainable South Florida warned in a unanimous report that “rapid population growth and sprawling development patterns are leading South Florida down a path toward wall-to-wall suburbanization. ” Last year, Governor’s Jeb Bush’s Growth Management Commission agreed that traffic, crowded classrooms, water shortages, and pollution are serious and growing problems in the state.2 Yet Florida continues to add the third largest number of immigrants of any state.

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_focus3cd6_sup

 

[Timshel]

Well, since diriving a car without a liscense, insurance, working headlights, working tail lights, working brake lights, etc, can cause you to have to show up in court; these are considered crimes.
Civil crimes; but crimes non-the-less.

Huh? Most of those are not crimes (without a license is, maybe without insurance), but what's your point? Cops can easily tell if your lights are not working.

AND: since there is no physical way to identify who is illegal and who isn't, that's why producing a legal ID is the best way; because to have an Arizona Drivers licsense, you must be legal.

And to not have an Arizona license you must be illegal, uhhh, no. Due process rights do not allow cops to arrest or harass you unless you can prove your innocence. They have to have a reasonable suspicion to do that. What creates reasonable suspicion of being illegal?

No, I'm saying that your whine is just that.
Nothing more then a whine

And your argument is worthless. You seem to be saying that because not all Hispanics can be identified by skin color it is not possible to discriminate against Hispanics based on skin color or, maybe, at all. Kind of reminiscent of ditzyliberal's argument on discrimination against homosexuals. It is a stupid argument.

Nice spin.
Since you couldn't provide anything to support your assertion you now are going on the assertion that since there's nothing else, it has to be that.
OH-WAIT, a legal ID takes that little argument and shoots it down; HUH!!

It does not. You could have an ID and be illegal (you overstayed) and you could be without an id and not be illegal. The ID does not give any reliable indication that you are illegal. Do you think the cops will arrest white people without a legal ID?

Since you found the need to reference the "original version"; I take it that you either haven't read the revisions or else you believe they haven't been enacted. Either way, it just proves that you're an idiot.

And yet you find it necessary to continue to refer to the "original version"
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Another, non-sequitur. I referenced the original version because I know it has been amended.

You failed to respond to the point, though. You supported the bill when race/ethnicity could be used.

How else do you intend to find ways for all those poor impoverished immigrants to come to America.

I don't. They can get here on there own or if you like you can go pick some of them up. There is no reason my argument leads to any need for the government to pay for their travel costs. That is just another piece of your illogical thought
.

Or are you only concerned with those contries that border the US, which means that you really don't care about the poor of the world and just want to complain about your newest :rant-du-jour".

I don't think we should pay for the travel costs of those who border our nation. You sound like a typical socialist who argues that if we are not forced to help others we are effectively hindering them.

I don't care how they get here. That's their problem. My problem is with those who try to prevent the free movement of peaceful individuals.

I don't think you should be confined to your home (a home, maybe, but not necessarily one home). That does not mean I think the state must provide you with transportation.

Your argument is just illogical nonsense. It's interesting to see how your brain does not work. You leap from one idiotic conclusion to the next, without rhyme or reason.

And now you believe that if immigration rules were made extremelly lax, that more people wouldn't try to come to the US.
You are truly a fool.

Straw man. You even contradicts your nonsense above, where you claim travel costs prevent immigration outside of nations bordering the US.

I would imagine, more would try to come. Not 3 billion, though.