How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Still think the Republican led AZ legisl   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Still think the Republican led AZ legislature isn't racist?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


50 posted 05-04-2010 10:12 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I didn't know you were a fellow Pennsylvanian, Ringo! Where in the state do you live?

You do seem to like to live dangerously! Exceeding the speed limit through a work zone while on your cell phone?!

What did you think of that new PA tax commercial? Kind of freaky isn't it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ybcu2itqvEQ&feature=player_embedded
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


51 posted 05-04-2010 10:12 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I saw the video of the spitting, Denise.  You saw the video of the spitting.  You downgraded the spitting to something on the order of accidental spraying, that is, near as I can tell, an acknowledgement of fluid exchange but a denial of culpability.  Then, if I recall, you suggested that perhaps the Congressman might simply be wiping his face for show.  I thought that was a pretty odd thing to say and decided not to pursue it at the time and, beyond mentioning it now, will let it drop.

     If the reports of the spitter being detained though not arrested, because of the Congressman's refusal to press charges are accurate, there was enough of a case to support at least that action.  I think the Congressman should have pressed charges.  I think it would have been poor politics for him to do so, though, and I can understand why he did not.  I can even sort of understand why you would refuse to consider that the guy who was on tape doing this was not a member of the fringe elements that you and I both recognize inhabit the further reaches of all political movements, yours and mine alike.

     One of the problems with Andrew Breithart's reward is that Andrew Breithard is the judge of whether on not somebody has won it.  This is somewhat on the order of asking the Pope to be the judge of whether somebody has provided a convincing Pro-Choice argument, with the same prize money.  It sounds brave and challenging, but the books are cooked from minute one.  Get somebody that everyone can agree is a neutral judge in there, and I wonder if the offer would still stand.  Perhaps it would.  At any rate, I don't see any moves on Mr. Breithart's part to move in that direction, so I suspect that his dough will always be safe.  

     Heck, you could probably toss an extra hundred thousand in there yourself safely as well, as long as you were the judge for your portion, don't you think?  It's called conflict of interest.

     Police can and do routinely ask people to identify themselves during an encounter.  They have that right.  And people are supposed to respond.  Under certain circumstances, such as when they are in a motor vehicle, when they are exerciusing a privilage rather than a right, then they are by law supposed to present written proof of that identity in the form of a driver's license and registration.  My understanding is that nobody has a right to drive a car.  Driving is a privilage, and hence special identification may be demanded.

     On the street, you may be required to identify yourself, but I do not believe that you have to show identification, nor do you have to have such identification on your person.  In order to demand such identification, I think special circumstances would apply, and would require probable cause of wrongdoing, such as the account of a reliable witness or other such pieces of evidence as set out in the 14th ammendment.

     I certainly would want the advice of an attorney before turning over any papers to a policeman outside a traffic stop, when it would be clear that they had a right to request them.  Police are allowed to lie to you, you know, and they have done so to people on a regular basis.  Being suspected of an infraction is not the same thing as an officer having probable cause worth stopping and detaining you, or arresting you and searching you.

     The difference that ethnicity makes is that the number of  stops and arrests is disproportionately high among people of color, and that people of color, even when arrested for the same crimes, tend to get longer and more severe treatment by the courts.  The justice system is stacked against them.  For that matter, it is also stacked against people who are less well off.  A disproportionately high number of blacks and people of color in General are in jail than is warranted by the number in the population.

     Apparently ethnicity and race have a lot to do with it.

quote:
    

I think the only people worried about this are the ones who have no ID to produce in the event that they get stopped. They have a couple of choices. They can keep their noses clean, legally, so that they don't get stopped, or they can make plans now to return to Mexico or South America, if it is all such a strain on them.



     I don't agree.

     If you've been following the papers, you'll have noticed that a lot of people don't agree.  Including a fair number of police, who are aware that the law makes their job more difficult and more dangerous.  It opens them up to lawsuits from both extremes.  The law is written so that the state has to pay for the law suits on both sides, so it will cost the taxpayers money, and quite possibly a great deal of money in not only lawyers fees and court costs, but in damages and potential punitive damages.  The State, paying for both ends of the litigation, loses no mater who wins.  That means that the taxpayers lose.  You're up for that with your pro-taxpayer stance, of course, right?  What're a few eggs in makling an omlet, as long as it's a right wing Omlet?  

     Witnesses that the police have been able to count on till now, illegals who'vce seen things but who are aware that coming forward won't harm them, are no longer going to come forward.  More lawbreakers go free.  You're fine with that too, right?  You love having extra lawbreakers in the street because people are afraid to come forward.  The police want the witnesses, you could care less.  Teriffic.

     The police want a good relationship with the latin community.  They want to be able to talk with them.  They want to be able to have informants in that community.  Some of them are latins themselves.  Lots of them have latin friends.  How well do you think that's going to continue every time they're forced to make an arrest.  Each time they arrest somebody who's a citizen simply because they look latin, they're going to be throwing away good will.  

     Every time they arrest somebody from out of state who looks like an alien, no matter what the context, it's going to spread ill will about Arizona out of State, and it's going to spread more talk about the racist State of Arizona.  True of not true doesn't particularly matter.  The existence of the law and those arrests will convict the state in the eyes of everybody who listens to or watches the news.  That's not going to help the economics of the state, and the police are going to catch a lot of blame for it, probably unjustified.  They'll catch the blame nevertheless and they know it.  

     It's a racist bill.  It was written by FAIR and lawyers hired by FAIR.  It was sponsored by a State senator who sent out anti-semitic mailings he had to apologise for, and who hangs around with neo-nazis.  

     If you want to deal with immigration, help the US House and Senate put together a Federal bill that's as bipartisan as the two parties can make it.  Talk to the Republican party about why they're saying they want to block a bill, and see if you can get them to help put one together that works.  One that doesn't put the cops in a bad place, and stack the situation in line with the folks in favor of the Eugenics and anti-catholic folks at FAIR.

     Check out FAIR at The Southern Poverty Law Center web site for the flip side of their propaganda, and then start looking for some more or less neutral data on the oprganization.

    
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


52 posted 05-04-2010 10:15 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I saw the video of the spitting, Denise.  You saw the video of the spitting.  You downgraded the spitting to something on the order of accidental spraying, that is, near as I can tell, an acknowledgement of fluid exchange but a denial of culpability.  Then, if I recall, you suggested that perhaps the Congressman might simply be wiping his face for show.  I thought that was a pretty odd thing to say and decided not to pursue it at the time and, beyond mentioning it now, will let it drop.

     If the reports of the spitter being detained though not arrested, because of the Congressman's refusal to press charges are accurate, there was enough of a case to support at least that action.  I think the Congressman should have pressed charges.  I think it would have been poor politics for him to do so, though, and I can understand why he did not.  I can even sort of understand why you would refuse to consider that the guy who was on tape doing this was not a member of the fringe elements that you and I both recognize inhabit the further reaches of all political movements, yours and mine alike.

     One of the problems with Andrew Breithart's reward is that Andrew Breithard is the judge of whether on not somebody has won it.  This is somewhat on the order of asking the Pope to be the judge of whether somebody has provided a convincing Pro-Choice argument, with the same prize money.  It sounds brave and challenging, but the books are cooked from minute one.  Get somebody that everyone can agree is a neutral judge in there, and I wonder if the offer would still stand.  Perhaps it would.  At any rate, I don't see any moves on Mr. Breithart's part to move in that direction, so I suspect that his dough will always be safe.  

     Heck, you could probably toss an extra hundred thousand in there yourself safely as well, as long as you were the judge for your portion, don't you think?  It's called conflict of interest.

     Police can and do routinely ask people to identify themselves during an encounter.  They have that right.  And people are supposed to respond.  Under certain circumstances, such as when they are in a motor vehicle, when they are exercising a privilege rather than a right, then they are by law supposed to present written proof of that identity in the form of a driver's license and registration.  My understanding is that nobody has a right to drive a car.  Driving is a privilege, and hence special identification may be demanded.

     On the street, you may be required to identify yourself, but I do not believe that you have to show identification, nor do you have to have such identification on your person.  In order to demand such identification, I think special circumstances would apply, and would require probable cause of wrongdoing, such as the account of a reliable witness or other such pieces of evidence as set out in the 14th amendment.

     I certainly would want the advice of an attorney before turning over any papers to a policeman outside a traffic stop, when it would be clear that they had a right to request them.  Police are allowed to lie to you, you know, and they have done so to people on a regular basis.  Being suspected of an infraction is not the same thing as an officer having probable cause worth stopping and detaining you, or arresting you and searching you.

     The difference that ethnicity makes is that the number of  stops and arrests is disproportionately high among people of color, and that people of color, even when arrested for the same crimes, tend to get longer and more severe treatment by the courts.  The justice system is stacked against them.  For that matter, it is also stacked against people who are less well off.  A disproportionately high number of blacks and people of color in General are in jail than is warranted by the number in the population.

     Apparently ethnicity and race have a lot to do with it.

quote:
    

I think the only people worried about this are the ones who have no ID to produce in the event that they get stopped. They have a couple of choices. They can keep their noses clean, legally, so that they don't get stopped, or they can make plans now to return to Mexico or South America, if it is all such a strain on them.



     I don't agree.

     If you've been following the papers, you'll have noticed that a lot of people don't agree.  Including a fair number of police, who are aware that the law makes their job more difficult and more dangerous.  It opens them up to lawsuits from both extremes.  The law is written so that the state has to pay for the law suits on both sides, so it will cost the taxpayers money, and quite possibly a great deal of money in not only lawyers fees and court costs, but in damages and potential punitive damages.  The State, paying for both ends of the litigation, loses no mater who wins.  That means that the taxpayers lose.  You're up for that with your pro-taxpayer stance, of course, right?  What're a few eggs in making an omelet, as long as it's a right wing Omelet?  

     Witnesses that the police have been able to count on till now, illegals who've seen things but who are aware that coming forward won't harm them, are no longer going to come forward.  More lawbreakers go free.  You're fine with that too, right?  You love having extra lawbreakers in the street because people are afraid to come forward.  The police want the witnesses, you could care less.  Terrific.

     The police want a good relationship with the latin community.  They want to be able to talk with them.  They want to be able to have informants in that community.  Some of them are Latinos themselves.  Lots of them have latin friends.  How well do you think that's going to continue every time they're forced to make an arrest.  Each time they arrest somebody who's a citizen simply because they look latin, they're going to be throwing away good will.  

     Every time they arrest somebody from out of state who looks like an alien, no matter what the context, it's going to spread ill will about Arizona out of State, and it's going to spread more talk about the racist State of Arizona.  True of not true doesn't particularly matter.  The existence of the law and those arrests will convict the state in the eyes of everybody who listens to or watches the news.  That's not going to help the economics of the state, and the police are going to catch a lot of blame for it, probably unjustified.  They'll catch the blame nevertheless and they know it.  

     It's a racist bill.  It was written by FAIR and lawyers hired by FAIR.  It was sponsored by a State senator who sent out anti-semitic mailings he had to apologize for, and who hangs around with neo-nazis.  

     If you want to deal with immigration, help the US House and Senate put together a Federal bill that's as bipartisan as the two parties can make it.  Talk to the Republican party about why they're saying they want to block a bill, and see if you can get them to help put one together that works.  One that doesn't put the cops in a bad place, and stack the situation in line with the folks in favor of the Eugenics and anti-catholic folks at FAIR.

     Check out FAIR at The Southern Poverty Law Center web site for the flip side of their propaganda, and then start looking for some more or less neutral data on the organization.

    
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


53 posted 05-04-2010 10:31 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

The first thing that Congress, both parties, should do, is allocate funds for sealing the border, and the President should order it. Then they can talk about immigration 'reform'. Until then I'm all for blocking any so-called 'reform', better known as amnesty.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


54 posted 05-04-2010 11:45 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     What, Can't let any of those East Germans get out?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


55 posted 05-05-2010 12:13 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

COngrats, Bob...you have come up with the most incredible comparison ever made in the Alley, which is no mean feat. Do you actually think of what you say before saying it? Doesn't seem so....

FLASH! There's a difference between keeping people out and keeping people in.
nakdthoughts
Member Laureate
since 10-29-2000
Posts 19275
Between the Lines


56 posted 05-05-2010 06:22 AM       View Profile for nakdthoughts   Email nakdthoughts   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for nakdthoughts

Just a note...you have to produce an ID
(drivers license or an ID card  that one can get from the drivers license bureau) when using a debit or credit card or check...and if stopped for whatever reason when driving, a license and proof of insurance and registration...and if not driving some sort of ID...and males use to, but not sure if still,  were to always carry their registration for the service after turning 18...and in the Drs office if using an insurance card ...and when getting a job: proof of a birth certificate and background check etc...etc.... These are all the things that  American citizens must have on them or provide, so why not an ID from someone who enters our country illegally or legally?

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


57 posted 05-05-2010 08:51 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Exactly Maureen.

And yes, Selective Service registration is still in effect, and undocumented males,  along with every other male between the ages of 18 and 25, must register with the Selective Service.
Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


58 posted 05-05-2010 11:25 AM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

I live up in Coal Country, Denise... 1 stop north of Allentown on the NE extension

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "WHAT A RIDE

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


59 posted 05-05-2010 12:01 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Lovely area! Beats living in the city, I'm sure!
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


60 posted 05-05-2010 12:09 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Hilarious quote of the day..

"Hundreds of thousands of [illegal immigrants] now live in Arizona but ... many no longer feel welcome." --CBS anchor Katie Couric
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


61 posted 05-05-2010 05:24 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Maybe you missed the posting where I talked about driving as a privilege.  If you are driving, a special set of rules apply because you're driving.  Driving is not a right.  If you want to apply for a job, yes, you must show proof of residence to get the job.  No, you are not required to carry it with you at all times.  In order to see your draft card, once again, somebody would need to have cause to see it.

     You folks are feeling simply wonderful about tossing the 14th amendment overboard but snarl about tax increases that your representatives vote on.  Perhaps you see no conflict in this.  Is this just one of those rights that you figure is an extra thing you can do without.  You get pretty huffy about the second amendment and the first as I do as well why is it that you figure that you can give up their 14th with a patter of applause?  People in the U.S. used to be proud that they didn't have to go around showing papers to police on the streets.  We used to think it was an example of our freedom and liberty from oppression.  

     As long as it's somebody else whose rights seem to be threatened, the whole thing seems to be fine with you folks.  Wow.  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


62 posted 05-05-2010 05:58 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUmtTa62Vfc
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


63 posted 05-05-2010 10:29 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I carry my driver's license with me at all times, Bob, along with my social security card and two other forms of ID. If I were to be walking down the street, and I was caught up, even innocently, in some melee, like the recent rash of twitter/facebook student flash mobs that have been happening here recently, and the cops were called and rounded everybody aside for questioning, I would have to produce my ID to them upon request, as well as my witness statement of the events.

I could be wrong, but I was always under the impression that in my state everyone has to carry some form of picture ID, whether it be a driver's license, a non-driver's photo ID, student or work ID, to be presented upon request to law enforcement. I heard someone on one of the programs tonight say that 42 states currently have such requirements.
threadbear
Senior Member
since 07-10-2008
Posts 729
Indy


64 posted 05-05-2010 11:16 PM       View Profile for threadbear   Email threadbear   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for threadbear

No, Denise, that is not true.  There are only a handful of states who require picture id's, and that is only in conjunction with voting.
http://www.ncsl.org/LegislaturesElections/ElectionsCampaigns/StateRequirementsforVoterID/tabid/16602/Default.aspx

Now, to use certain governmental services, you may need to verify your identity with a picture id, or to use credit card, but currently there are NO laws on state or federal levels that require picture id's as a general rule.  Arizona would be the first in a non-voting capacity.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


65 posted 05-06-2010 04:31 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     You have been duped into giving up important parts of your fourth amendment rights, Denise.  You do have to give a full and legal name to a police official in the line of duty.  There may be a requirement for identification while driving, because driving is a privilege and not a right, and you may have to show other forms of identification in that context.  If you want to cash a check, your bank can set standards and you can follow them or try another bank.

     Threadbear seems to have something of a handle on this, why not ask him?  A lot of this falls under the unnecessary search and seizure clauses of the fourth amendment.  We give too much away to the government and their agents of enforcement because it is convenient, and we end up giving away our freedoms.  Protection from unnecessary search and seizure is an important protection we need to have from our government.  Mostly they mean well when they try to take it away, but once it's gone, how are you going to get it back from those nice people who say they're trying their best for you, and, most of the time, really are?
nakdthoughts
Member Laureate
since 10-29-2000
Posts 19275
Between the Lines


66 posted 05-06-2010 06:29 AM       View Profile for nakdthoughts   Email nakdthoughts   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for nakdthoughts

Bob, whether illegal or legal  when  registering your child into school you must show proof of residence by a piece of mail or a bill with your name and address on it and some ID showing that is who you are.

There are many reasons for needing an ID...and Denise and I ( may I Denise?) are not saying you must walk around showing it. But must have some way of identifying who you are IF A NEED ARISES.

Why are you taking everything we/she/or anyone says on here to the extremes. It's almost like if I say  that color is black you automatically want to say it's white no matter what. And why do you always have to name someone in your reply as if you know exactly what they mean or how they are feeling on a subject when they are expressing an opinion or some recent knowledge.

I may get myself deleted or warned or expelled, but it is getting to the point where I no longer wish to read  on here when you are so confrontational.

Sorry Ron, I know this is the alley but it gets too personal too many times...and I am just one  reader...wondering how others feel especially those who  seem to always be attacked.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


67 posted 05-06-2010 07:41 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Protection from unnecessary search and seizure is an important protection we need to have from our government.

...and we do have that protection, Bob.


Bravo, Maureen, you are exactly right. The extremes gone to are incredible. On this topic, just because the Arizona government decides to enforce laws that have already been on the books for years, it has become a state where police will be running amok stopping every dark-skinned or foreign-looking person they see and harrassing or arresting them. Tall grass, barking dog, loud music, driving while black...they will look for any reason to commit their dastardly deeds. It will not be safe to walk down the street without a passport for fear of being hauled off to the hoosegow.

It's the weapon they use. Leftists don't want to discuss things reasonably or even logically. They simply want to create fear and sensationalism to paint the blackest picture possible so there will be mindless revolt and violence. It's what they do....
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


68 posted 05-06-2010 08:32 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Denise, if you have links re:liberal racist groups I'd like to see them.  And, you're missing the point -- I'll reiterate - the presence of racism in the Republican party and in the Tea Party doesn't mean that everyone who is either is a racist.  But, the question is -- why are racists attracted to both?

quote:

The first thing that Congress, both parties, should do, is allocate funds for sealing the border, and the President should order it. Then they can talk about immigration 'reform'. Until then I'm all for blocking any so-called 'reform', better known as amnesty.



And if the border was 'sealed' what's to prevent the building of rafts or Coyotes running boats right up the coastline?  You sure are eager to spend taxpayer dollars!

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


69 posted 05-06-2010 08:50 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Hey! Sometimes Reps & Dems prove to be pretty good together at facing down racism.



Regina,

When I was growing up in Tennessee the Dixiecrats had a complete lock on every aspect of government, the State Legislature, the Governorship, The Courts, every local office -- and the Republicans were still the 'Party of Lincoln'.  

I remember when my elder brother was attacked while mowing the lawn by a pick-up truck full of bigots because my father was on the local Republican nominating committee which made us n----r lovers.  

Somehow though -- I think Rockefeller and Eisenhower would still have a hard time winning the state.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


70 posted 05-06-2010 09:00 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

And if the border was 'sealed' what's to prevent the building of rafts or Coyotes running boats right up the coastline?  

In other words, why even try? Interesting concept..
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


71 posted 05-06-2010 09:13 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I've said many other words -- but those weren't them.  The reactionary mind is focused on 'enFORCEment'.  FORCE.  You want to force people to do things.  It never works -- just like the war on drugs.  It's like pushing a rope.

Focus on removing the magnet.  Paths to citizenship for those who are already in AZ -- (you have any idea how much manpower and money it would take to catch 450,000 illegal immigrants and deport them?) -- No place for them to go to work without documentation (Biometric SSI cards), no schools for the kids -- the problem solves itself -- on both sides of the border.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


72 posted 05-06-2010 09:37 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

No place for them to go to work, no schools....I agree. What happened when they tried that in California?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


73 posted 05-06-2010 10:47 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:

Bob, whether illegal or legal  when  registering your child into school you must show proof of residence by a piece of mail or a bill with your name and address on it and some ID showing that is who you are.



     Yes, certainly.

quote:

There are many reasons for needing an ID...and Denise and I ( may I Denise?) are not saying you must walk around showing it. But must have some way of identifying who you are IF A NEED ARISES.



     Also true.

     The question here is "if a need arises for whom?  If the need arises for you, and it is your decision to show identification for your purposes, then why not show identification?  It seems a good idea to show where you live so your child may go to school, or even so you might get an exemption and home school your child.  It serves you, and, as I understand the constitution, it serves the purposes of the constitution of getting you what you need without unnecessary imposition of force by authority.

     But what happens if the need for identification does not serve you and serves only the authorities?

     The constitution says that you have a right not to incriminate yourself by giving information that might get you in Dutch with the authorities.  There's a whole amendment devoted to that one out of the ten in the original bill of rights.  And part of the fourth amendment is clear about unreasonable search and seizure.  That's been whittled back a bit over the years, but there are still things like probable cause to consider before authorities can search you or detain you or get information off you for their purposes and not your own.  You do have to give them your name.

     The fact that the individual is protected in this way suggests that the framers were serious about this sort of thing.

     Now should you wish to hand over any identification or information that you have, that would be your business and it would be your choice.  But it appears that the framers wanted to be very sure that nobody would actually have to do so, and that being forced or pressured to do so would not be very legal.  They wanted to be clear that the authorities would have their hands seriously tied, and that the authorities were not to be given in to easily.

     You may think the policeman is your friend, and sometimes they are your friends, but they are not always working in your interest.  That can depend very much on who you are.  Now that seems to be the attitude embodied in the constitution.  You don't see anywhere in the constitution the phrase, "The policeman is your friend."  The founders were experienced and by and large cynical folks when it came to governmental authority, and they took care to write protections against governmental authority into the constitution.

     Nobody says you need to take them up on those cautions.  But you might consider that they are there for a reason.  When I suggest that those reasons be respected and at least considered seriously, it is not to disrespect you, whom I don't know.  It is to respect the document.
[/quote]

quote:

Why are you taking everything we/she/or anyone says on here to the extremes. It's almost like if I say  that color is black you automatically want to say it's white no matter what. And why do you always have to name someone in your reply as if you know exactly what they mean or how they are feeling on a subject when they are expressing an opinion or some recent knowledge.



     I frequently name folks I address because it's polite.  I don't expect that they are the only folks able to reply to me.  I don't "always" do so.  I haven't done so here, for example, since it seems clear that being named upsets you.  You may have noted other people name me on occasion, and I generally take it well.  If I am denigrated, I don't enjoy that, of course, but I do try to avoid that.

     Why do I take what people say to extremes?

     You'd have to give me an example before I could give you a solid answer to that.  I don't think I do, at least not "everything," as you so flamboyantly suggest.  Everybody has a right to an opinion, and everybody acquires knowledge.  Perhaps you feel that this disqualifies me from having an opinion about theirs and expressing that or from offering other knowledge.  Were that the case, I would need to disagree with you, and would expect that you would feel free to disagree right back.


quote:

I may get myself deleted or warned or expelled, but it is getting to the point where I no longer wish to read  on here when you are so confrontational.



     I would hate to see you sanctioned at all for what seems like a reasonable set of objections.  Nor do I feel that you have been too confrontational; you've simply said what's on your mind, and you've not been insulting about it at all.  Nor do I see it as an attack.

     I have certainly gotten as well or better than I've given over the years, though you may not have noticed, and I frequently find those comments helpful for me, though not always great fun.  I learn from almost everyone I exchange with here, and I generally try to make a point of saying so when that happens.  Thanks for your comments.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


74 posted 05-07-2010 03:26 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



quote:

You're going to force these folks to learn English?  Why?

     Why do you want to force the Cubans and the Haitians to learn English, either?  If all they want to know are other Haitians and Cubans, why are you upset with that?  

Please point out where...
(1) I said anything about forcing anyone to learn English
(2) where I said Cubans and Haitians should be forced to learn English
(3) Where I said I was upset with it.

I;m really interesting in seeing where you came up with these babies.



     It's the seventh and you wrote your posting on the second, Mike.  I'm sorry, I thought I'd written and posted a reply before this.  I looked today and saw it wasn't there.

     I misread you posting, and I made a mistake in my response.  You did not say the things I thought you said and my mouth got into gear before I read your posting thoroughly enough to give a really thoughtful reply.  It was bad work and unthoughtful work on my part, and I'm sorry for having misread you so badly.  Please accept my apologies for the errors in that last posting.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Still think the Republican led AZ legisl   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors