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  ]
 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124
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 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


100 posted 05-13-2010 12:20 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Bob, I had no intention of saying anything unpleasant about you. I didn't realize it was as serious as you took it. It was, after all, an obvious tongue-in-cheek comment. My apologies if you took it in such a wrong way, although I wonder why it took you so long to be outraged by is, since you have been in the Alley more than once since the comment was made.

MY point was that we seem to live in an age where people take things way too personally. A policeman asks you (figuratively) for and ID and you find it personally offensive. A person cuts you off in traffic and you take it personally. Look at the thousand cases of road rage reported every year. Why are actions or comments performed by complete stranger who don't even know you to be taken personally? Would a person asking you for ID harassing you because you are Bob K? Of course not...so how would you be upset or offended by it? People get so uptight and have such chips on their shoulders that they show outrage at the drop of a hat. I don't understand why...
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


101 posted 05-13-2010 02:27 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




         If yours was an obvious tongue-in-cheek comment, then it was your responsibility to make sure that the first person to whom it was obvious was me.  Otherwise, I regret to say, it was not obvious enough, was it? You may be referencing previous sorties, when I let your comments pass.  

     The point in the discussion suggested by Denise is that only those without ID or lawbreakers will be offended by being asked for identification.  My offense and the possible offense of others proves her wrong.   We object on a number of possible reasons, including possible infringement of the rights to equal protection and due process.  I know I believe I have a decent argument to make, certainly one worth talking over, and I've made it with some care, one place or another.  It certainly was not made by demonstrating in the street, though I believe that demonstrating is perfectly reasonable.  I kept my reasoning reasonably moderate.  I did not use qualifiers such as "always," but used "sometimes" and such less sweeping choices as I could come up with because they avoid histrionics; because they are less dramatic.  These choices were made on purpose, because they avoided the more dramatic responses.  

     Given the restraint in my language use here, your comments seem less that tongue-in-cheek. Nor does open display of distress about violations of their own rights and the rights of their fellows suggest lack of sincerity, nor would it have to be less than worthy of serious consideration than whatever it is that you might define as "real" concern.  Perhaps you may believe that you have the right to establish which methods of expression may carry real and legal weight, but I would find it surprising if the constitution was entirely in agreement with you there.  Rights are not judged by who is Michael Mack and who isn't.


     When you insult those who feel their rights and the rights of others have been violated, the insult does not make those rights vanish.  Treating them as though they meant nothing does not make that a fact.  Nor does it make your position more constitutional than it was before.

     I am willing to talk about how I may well be wrong here, Mike, but I am not willing to allow myself to go along with the use of this sort of "tongue-in-cheek" casual contempt that attempts to attack the person rather than addressing the plusses and minuses of the notions involved.  

     Simply by standing up and saying that, yes,  I have identification papers; and I still find having having the police demand that I show my identification papers under circumstances that I believe to be of questionable necessity or legality is upsetting enough to disprove Denise's assertion.  Not only do I find this upsetting for me, but I find it upsetting when it is demanded of other people as well.  I want less intrusion by the government into my movements, and not more.

     I understand the police mean well.

     While they may mean well, that doesn't mean that their actions turn out well.  Mine don't, much of the time.  I doubt yours do.  Almost everybody thinks of themselves as a good guy and a hero.  The constitution isn't there to protect us against people's best intentions, it's there to protect us against certain sorts of actions that  governments indulge in, often with the best of intentions.

     It's there to protect us, among other things, from police powers gone too far, and to help us understand what they may be.  Telling me that I'm overly dramatic says absolutely nothing about the powers in question.  Among the powers that the constitution tries to protect us against is the government favoring one group over another, in this case white skinned folks over brown skinned folks.

     The Arizona State Government today appears to have passed a law that forbids teaching any sort of minority education in any Schools in the State of Arizona.  This means that what the Schools in Arizona get is essentially White History and Culture, near as I can Tell, with a solid mixture of Christian History and Western European Culture, essentially the same as Schools have gotten for the last couple of hundred years.

     This sounds a lot like Christian Fundamentalism 101, since the largest text book Market is Texas, and those tend to be the lies that are spread.

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


102 posted 05-13-2010 07:59 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Well, I apologized and you continue show how much you're offended so there's not much more that I can say.

The Arizona State Government today appears to have passed a law that forbids teaching any sort of minority education in any Schools in the State of Arizona.

I suggest to study the validity of that statement before presenting it.....in other words, you are incorrect. No, I don't have to show you were it is incorrect at this point. You introduced it so it is up to you to prove that it is valid.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


103 posted 05-13-2010 06:37 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     Okay, Mike, since you didn’t want to comment on this bill for some reason, I’ve included a few references to it.  Since the bill attacks programs that redound to the benefit of minorities and seem to fill the purposes of the much touted No Child Left Behind Bill, I am surprised that you haven’t expressed your approval already.  American History, the way I was taught it at least, was one long White Studies course and I can’t imagine that yours was very much different.  Was it?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ethnic-studies-20100512,0,5313151.story

http://www.articleant.com/gen/79086-new-arizona-law-could-be-detrimental-to-students--according-to-o.html

     Please note in the article quoted above that the research findings mentioned include one finding that tells us that those folks who attend the Tuscon HS classes in Hispanic culture and history not only tend to complete HS, but do so at a level higher than their white counterparts, and that they go on at a higher level to attend college.  Cuts to this program would not seem to be based on how effective it is in helping the students, would they?  On what might they then be based?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/12/AR2010051200329.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/teachers/in-arizona-bad-ethnic-studies.html


     There is some basic information about the bill.

     Perhaps if you wish to provide more and other information about the bill, you would enjoy doing so on your own time and using your own energy.  I would be charmed to learn about the legal ins and outs of this bill, should you care to inform me and the others here.  On the other hand, knowing this much is enough for me to take a hearty dislike to it.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


104 posted 05-13-2010 06:55 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2281p.pdf
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


105 posted 05-13-2010 08:10 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

This is whate your links provided, Bob....


HB 2281 bans schools from teaching classes that are designed for students of a particular ethnic group, promote resentment or advocate ethnic solidarity over treating pupils as individuals. The bill also bans classes that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government.

This is your comment, Bob..

to have passed a law that forbids teaching any sort of minority education in any Schools in the State of Arizona.


Do you claim you both say the same thing?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


106 posted 05-13-2010 08:47 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     Nope.

     I do claim that the programs under attack by the legislation are those programs, though.  Specifically the Hispanic studies program.

     According to Media Matters, a left wing web site, a last minute exemption was placed into the law for programs that studied Native Americans and for Holocaust Studies.  Though you may not like the politics of Media Matters, you may have more problems refuting their information.  If you don't like the information from Media Matters, you could deal with it from the Oregon source I quoted, which is where Media Matters got it from.  

     Native American and for Holocaust Studies programs are apparently Federally protected and may well have brought the New Arizona law under immediate litigation.  By excluding these two glaring exceptions, the framers of this law seem to be hoping to allow the law to skate by despite the fact the the educational research tells us that the programs improve length of education of minorities and the amount of absorption of the education that minorities seem to get overall.

     So, then, why are you in favor of this legislation, Mike?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


107 posted 05-13-2010 08:56 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

to have passed a law that forbids teaching any sort of minority education in any Schools in the State of Arizona.

That's your statement, Bob.....ANY sort of minority education. There is nothing in your links to validate that comment, ergo, my response that you are incorrect.

I have never said I was in favor of it. I simply said your interpretation of it was wrong.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


108 posted 05-13-2010 11:12 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Unfortunately I've burned all of my time catching up -- next time I'm here Bradley I'll reply to your post.

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


109 posted 05-13-2010 11:36 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.. And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.'

Theodore Roosevelt 1907
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


110 posted 05-14-2010 12:08 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Taking a pass on this one, Eh, Mike?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


111 posted 05-14-2010 07:47 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I have never said I was in favor of it. I simply said your interpretation of it was wrong.

Perhaps I should have typed that in a different language so you could understand it better? It's a topic you injected into this thread, not me. If you want to dive into it, begin a thread to discuss it.

So you have no thoughts about Teddy's statement, then? Maybe the old fellow bumped his head with all those charges up San Juan hill?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


112 posted 05-14-2010 09:31 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Holder. who has criticized and attacked the Arizona bill, admitted on tv this morning that he hasn't read it yet....a week after the hooplah began, after Obama's inflaming remarks occurred, after protests began. the Attorney General hasn't read it yet, even while passing judgment on it. It's not like it's a 2000 page health care bill. It's around 16 pages, with a few more for the amendments. That's it. He hasn't bothered to read it yet. I feel confident Obama hadn't read it, either, before his ice cream scenario.

I don't understand why people can't see this whole thing for what it really is. It appears Obama is more than willing to fuel racial fires, allow and encourage protests and condemn an entire state, regardless of economical and even violent consequences....and all for the sake of evading the fact that (1)he has done nothing regarding immigration law and (2) to pander for Spanish votes for the upcoming election.

It's all politics and, when a president will trash an entire state for the sake of votes, he is not even a good representative, much less a guardian, of the republic.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


113 posted 05-14-2010 11:51 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
So you have no thoughts about Teddy's statement, then? Maybe the old fellow bumped his head with all those charges up San Juan hill?

Teddy lived in a different time, Mike. A few thousand years ago he would have been advocating loyalty to a village or a clan.

Today, in my opinion, such sentiments are foolish and archaic. Room for but one sole loyalty to the American people? Doesn't that leave too little room for loyalty to the human race? To the planet? To the principals of doing right over wrong? To whatever you personally see as god?

Nationalism was once a survival mechanism. Today, however, a concept that makes everyone else your enemy is the greatest single threat facing humanity. "Not in my backyard" makes absolutely no sense at all when you realize we're all sharing the same yard.


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


114 posted 05-14-2010 06:18 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Gee, Mike, between my posting at 12 am and your posting at 8;00 am, given the difference in time zones and the occasional need for sleep, you seem to be a bit impatient for a reply, don't ya think?

     No, that's one set of Teddy's comments that I don't go along with, though I do happen to like a lot of what he said.  How about you, do you agree with the statement, including the part about English as the only spoken Language that you seemed to disavow a week or two ago?

     And when did you read the bill?  It seems to me I was asking you to do so not so very long ago when you were doing so holding forth on it.  And did you follow up on FAIR, the folks that helped draft the Bill and their connections with the Eugenics and the neonazi movements?  Have you check out any of that stuff, or are you simply letting it sit there and hoping that it will go away?

     You've alligned yourself with a bunch of fairly odd folks.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


115 posted 05-14-2010 06:42 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Including the part about English as the only spoken Language that you seemed to disavow a week or two ago?

Bob, I'll confess that I write so many things here in the Alley it's hard to keep track of them but I'm lost when it comes to that one. I'm sure it must be accurate or you wouldn't say it but could you point out where I disavowed English as the only spoken language? I'm curious to see where I did it.

Yes, Bob, I read the bill and the amendments attached to it. I even reprinted some of them here, like the part about stops for racial profiling not being allowed. It's interesting that when I point out that Holder and Obama hadn't read it, you come back with asking me if I did. I appreciate your putting me on such a high platform but their non-reading of it, in view of their violent opposition to it, carries a lot more weight than my actions do, don't ya think? The  Attorney General hasn't bothered to read it in over a week with all of the protests and implications it carries. How can you possibly justify that, with the exception of asking me if I read it.

No, I have not checked out FAIR but I'll do so if it makes you happy. If I believe it is a just bill, I wouldn't care who wrote it. You are much more of the "shoot the messenger" type of person than I am, as evidenced by your FOX news comments.

You've aligned yourself with a bunch of fairly odd folks.

If you are speaking of the people here in the Alley, I agree with you 1000%!  
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


116 posted 05-14-2010 06:57 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     In speaking of me alone, that would fit, Mike.  The rest of the folks here seem pretty regular.

     My wife worked for a Discount Brokerage firm which had a wonderful Tee shirt that said, "We Deserve Our Low Reputation."  They've diversified since, so the shirt doesn't work so well any more.

     After you've tried the FAIR Web Site and their various puff pieces, try the Southern Poverty Law Center, which FAIR will try to steer you away from.  Then follow up the SPLC's notes.  Check out some of the Publishers affiliated with FAIR and magazines that the President of FAIR edits or is on the Board of, and check to see which people have resigned from the Board of FAIR and what were the reasons they gave.


quote:

Including the part about English as the only spoken Language that you seemed to disavow a week or two ago?

Bob, I'll confess that I write so many things here in the Alley it's hard to keep track of them but I'm lost when it comes to that one. I'm sure it must be accurate or you wouldn't say it but could you point out where I disavowed English as the only spoken language? I'm curious to see where I did it.



     Well, okay Mike, but remember, this is at your request.  The exchange starts a bit earlier than # 13 in this thread, and it goes a bit further than # 23 in ths thread, but these are the basics, and should you wish to examine them more closely, you should go back and check them yourself.

     I found it an uncomfortable exchange.

13
quote:


That is a very excellent point, grinch. The answer, in many cases, is no. You can come visit me and I'll prove it. We have thousands of Cubans and Haitians who have been here for many years who do not speak English and have shown no desire to integrate into the system at all, with the exception of finding jobs or working with relatives. They have their Spanish communities, Spanish, newspapers and magazines, Spanish  radio and television channels....and they stay within their own communities, with no desire to integrate or learn the language. They can live fine without it.

I read years ago a book about the fall of Rome (no, I can't remember the book) but the main gist of it was that Rome had incorporated so many foreigners into their society, through conquests or whatever, but the foreigners did not incorporate themselves into the system. They pledged allegiance to their own countries and when it came time for Romans to stand together to defend themselves, there were not that many willing to do so, which led to a weakening and, ultimately, the downfall of Rome. Whether that is completely accurate or not I don't know but I can envision it happening.



23

quote:

Bob asks:
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?  

and Mike Replies:

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.



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


117 posted 05-14-2010 11:02 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Aha...I misunderstood, Bob. I thought you were saying that I had advocated English as the only language. That is simply not a feasible action at this point in time. Would it be the right thing in a perfect world? Yes...but we are about as far from perfect as one can get and it's our fault for being here.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


118 posted 05-14-2010 11:03 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Newspaper Websites Ignore or Downplay Pew Poll Showing Americans Largely Approve of Arizona Law

By Ken Shepherd (Bio | Archive)
Thu, 05/13/2010 - 11:45 ET

Yesterday the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press released a poll finding "Broad Approval For New Arizona Immigration Law."

While Republicans were the most supportive, a full 45 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of independents polled supported the law. When broken down to the particulars of the bill, there was even broader support. For example, 65 percent of Democrats and and 73 percent of independents favored "requiring people to produce documents verifying legal status," the portion of the bill that has been derided as allowing the police to demand, "your papers please!"

These poll numbers are absolutely astounding, especially considering the media's non-stop campaign to denounce the law and paint it in an unfavorable light. Yet true to form, the media continue to downplay the results. A search this morning of the Web pages for the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today found no links to articles about the poll numbers.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2010/05/13/newspaper-websites-ignore-pew-poll-showing-americans-largely-approve-a#ixzz0nxkQfYYs

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


119 posted 05-15-2010 01:46 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     The constitution is not a beauty contest, Mike.

     Only The House of Representitives is set up to be at the whim of relatively fast-moving trends that sweep the electorate.  The Constitution added an administrative branch and a deliberative body to the mix following the original experience with the Articles of Confederation, which didn't prove to be all that successful.  Remember?

     Simply because everybody says Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, doesn't mean that you have to go to war with him like everybody else, Michael Mack!  If all of your friends were going to start a nuclear war and wipe out the planet, does that mean you'd press the button, too, Mr. Smarty Pants?

     Never mind.  Forget I asked that last question.  I'm not sure I want to know the answer.

     The constitution is designed to protect unpopular opinions from being buried by groundswells of popular opinion.  This means that George Lincoln Rockwell did get to March through Skokie because it was more important that Freedom of speech be upheld than people go unoffended.  I thought George Lincoln Rockwell stank, by the way, but the court was still right, and I was still wrong for wanting the nazis to be squashed.  I was unhappy, but I was wrong.

     There are all kinds of reasons to approve of showing your papers to the police, many of them good reasons set out by good people in good faith.  I simply don't think any of them happen to trump the equal protections clause, and I think that the law itself is racist in intent, thinly veneered with rationality.  I simply don't go along with that.  All the polls in the world don't change that for me.  If what I needed was consensus, then I'd be a push-over for the Milgram Experiments, wouldn't I?  I need a different moral and ethical center than that.  That's callibrating your morality and ethics to the morality and ethics of the largest number of people around you, and they may have great standards, or you may be hanging around the Nazi Party HQ or The Central Committee.

     That's not a great way to root yourself, in my opinion.

     Perhaps it is in yours, and you want everybody to know what the results of this latest Poll happen to be.  If so, thank you for the information, and what do you think about FAIR?  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


120 posted 05-15-2010 07:43 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Wow, Bob. When you reach the point of calling me Mr. Smarty Pants, you ARE desperate! I'm reminded of a kindergarten student whose greatest rebuttal to an accusation is "Oh, yeah?"

As I said in the other thread, if you are so upset about the Arizona law, you should be equally as livid about the Oklahoma law....but then Obama didn't tell you to be, did he? (only because he wasn't in power at the time).

Why do the polls suggest there is no problem with the Arizona law? They are not sheep. They can think for themselves and they are not buying the veiled accusations and doomsday scenarios from government leaders who haven't even read it and don't have the balls to come out and actually say the law IS bad or unconstitutional.

You keep getting stuck on shooting the messenger, as if that would prove something. I think it is a good law, regardless of who drafted it. Believe it or not, if Obama himself had drafted the law, I would still call it a good one. The interesting this is that, in that case, so would you.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


121 posted 05-15-2010 08:46 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
if Obama himself had drafted the law, I would still call it a good one


I wouldn’t.

As I read it the Oklahoma law is a different kettle of fish though, it doesn’t differentiate or discriminate based on ethnicity – in my opinion if Arizona had followed Oklahoma’s lead they’d have avoided all the criticism.

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


122 posted 05-15-2010 03:50 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

the bill (Oklahoma)has four main topical areas: it deals with identity theft; it terminates public assistance benefits to illegals; it empowers state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws; and it punishes employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens.

I see a great similarity, especially in the point that people are screaming about. You don't? That's nice. Have a good day.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


123 posted 05-15-2010 04:18 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


I’ll see your third party opinion Mike and raise you the actual text of the Oklahoma bill.

quote:
A.  When a person charged with a felony or with driving under the influence pursuant to Section 11-902 of Title 47 of the Oklahoma Statutes is confined, for any period, in the jail of the county, any municipality or a jail operated by a regional jail authority, a reasonable effort shall be made to determine the citizenship status of the person so confined.


Compare that with the Arizona bil.

quote:
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).


Can you see the difference now Mike?

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


124 posted 05-15-2010 04:36 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.

I believe your quote was from the original bill before the adjustments were implemented.

The follow-on legislation approved Thursday also would change the law to specify that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law.
Brewer's spokesman said that makes it clear that police cannnot question people just on the suspicion they're illegal immigrants.


Your comment is (the OK law)doesn’t differentiate or discriminate based on ethnicity
It cuts off all benefits to illegal aliens. It requires employers to report illegals. You don't believe there is any ethnicity there?
 
 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