ParanoiA

Besides actually seeing someone crawling under/over a fence on the border, please do tell WTF a reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant is. We're now 100 posts into this thread, and despite that question being raised in post #4 it has yet to be addressed.

Because it matters very little, since it is not a valid reason for lawful contact. Lawful contact must be made first, per the law, then "reasonable suspicion" kicks in for the illegal immigration status.

And while I also remain suspicious of what that reasonable suspicion will be, at least it's subtending a violation of law for the detention and ID requirement - it does not impact freedom of movement or make it ok for police officers to randomly inspect private information on a whim.

That means all accusations of racism are fabrications of one's own conscience. It's a false appeal made to put those who support enforcing illegal immigration laws on the defensive and to make the accuser look "noble" to his fans. There's not a single instance or example of any such thing, yet here we are fielding invectives of such as if it's the least bit validated. It's offensive, cheap and the same anti-intellectual drivel we get from racial supremacists.

Okay, I agree with challenging that assumption-of-racism (playing the race card), but dial it back a notch, please. Everyone has a right to their opinion.

Of course. This particular opinion is offensive and has gone unchecked. Members who splatter drive-by racial charges without cause would typically find themselves labeled a troll. I would think it grateful that we actually take such an extreme position seriously enough to critique it.

Do we not agree that accusing people of racism should carry a standard that at least requires something in the form of evidence? In a science forum, no less?

Merged post follows:

I look at racial profiling as an intelligent way to use the scientific method. Say we were trying to isolate an effect. We know the weeds are causing the plants in the garden to grow slower. The most efficient use of resources and manpower is to focus on weeds.

 

If we someone decided' date=' only looking at weeds, might hurt the weed's feelings; weed profiling, they might decide we need to randomly try all plants in the garden including the one we are trying to protect. This way we don't offend the weeds. This will take much more resources to achieve less results in more time. If the goal was not to achieve results this would be the path one needs to takes. But it is not a rational scientific path. This irrational science is called political science.

 

Here is how political science wants the weed experiment run; they want all the plants randomly offended, even the innocent, to lower the odds the criminal will be caught. The criminal party is sticking up for their fellow criminals and is willing to violate innocent citizens to do so, since this is what criminals do.[/quote']

 

The scientific method is not proper for governing though. Even if we accept your problematic "weeds" analogy, we have to negotiate codes of decency and principle that a scientific method would never respect. You seem to be conflating "offense" with basic 4th amendment protection - that is, if I take your post to be in support of racial profiling. And keep in mind, immigrants are white too, so racial profiling isn't a sound scientific method either, if that was your argument.

 

It's not that Nazi style "show me your papers" wouldn't work, it's that we don't work that way. Even if we could eliminate all crime by surrenduring our basic rights, should we follow through? I say, no way. But then, I don't use problem/solution performance to measure good or bad government.

He was labeled by me as a racist due to his insinuation that people who have crossed the border illegally are like weeds. I took issue with that insinuation, and when reviewed in context of his posting history here (and elsewhere under the username HydrogenBond) you can see that my disgust is well justified and appropriate.

 

Nothing to do with the wording of the law. My concerns about the wording of the law have been described previously in the thread, and incidentally you agreed with those concerns. This point was in direct response to Pioneer's analogy. Stop flaming me like you do bascule. I didn't open the threads about which you're lambasting me here.

It's only "flaming" when the truth is repugnant.

Here, let me reacquaint you with your previous post:

This isn't about hurting the "weeds" feelings' date=' or making the "weeds" feel offended, and you sound like a damn racist fool for even suggesting such a thing. [b']The argument here is with the law passed in Arizona which will explicitly infringe upon the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the citizens in our country who happen to be a little bit more brown or poor looking.[/b]

 

 

The issue here is how such a significant percentage of our own citizens will be so broadly and near-universally lumped into this ignorant Arizona law... basically for not being white.

Your charge of racism doesn't have squat to do with the "racist" poster you're so gallantly locked into battle with...it has to do with your interpretation of the law. And that's why I asked where that was in the law. Otherwise, you're concluding "ism" from nothingness.

So, again, can you tell us where the law does this? If you're going to use the race card, then it ought to be easy. Otherwise it's a whole 'nother kind of shameful.

It's time to face facts, iNow. This was an emotional appeal from the get go, and you appear to be just as duped as I was. Follow through, and hold facts higher than ideological emotion.

Definitely not... These are deceased soldiers who worked for the military. They should be buried of federal land, considering their sacrifice for the country, and allowed to be buried according to their own religious custom.

 

Allowing/forbidding religious symbols on public land isn't an endorsement/rejection of said religion. It's simply recognizing that religion plays an important role in the lives of the vast majority of Americans. Even athiests normally have a cultural connection to a religion. I'm sure not all of those soldiers buried under a cross or star of david would call themselves theists.

 

The point is, banning all religious symbols is usually more about cultural/ protectionism disguised as progressiveness than it is about legal principle.

 

Just look at the religious symbol bans targeted at religious Muslims (and others) in many European countries. This is breeding anger and hostility, not respect, modernity and tolerance.

This is the most well reasoned post on the subject. It speaks to the reality of the situation, whereas the rest of this thread is about the assumptions and downstream interpretations - a lot of baggage we've added to a simple gesture of respect for their sacrifice.

Hey man, if you're going to fight and die for me, then I think I can decorate your grave with whatever symbology you'd like and still not assume or endorse that symbol as a state religion nor suggestion of such, nor would it have ever even crossed my mind.

I think we have to be careful to preserve our history while we patrol our government for violations of church and state. Using religion to define marriage and subtending rights might be an example of allowing religion to perverse the state, but crosses on burial grounds and "In God We Trust" on money are examples of historical traditions that perform no function beyond cultural or emotional respect.

But was the OP even seriously considering the deed? Had anyone even bothered questioning if Genecks was seriously promoting killing the rich? Or was it simply just a mental exercise? In which case Genecks might've posted it under "Ethics" instead of politics. Simpy a mistake. Either way, chill out. Take the example of Mr Skeptic and others who didn't lose it, and instead rationally/calmly explored the OP's apparent fallacies.

I just assumed this was an academic, mental exercise. That's why I had fun with it. I did notice others have been offended, and I'm not sure why. I never took it seriously from the moment I read the title.

This isn't about hurting the "weeds" feelings' date=' or making the "weeds" feel offended, and you sound like a damn racist fool for even suggesting such a thing. The argument here is with the law passed in Arizona which will explicitly infringe upon the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the citizens in our country who happen to be a little bit more brown or poor looking.

 

 

The issue here is how such a significant percentage of our own citizens will be so broadly and near-universally lumped into this ignorant Arizona law... basically for not being white.[/quote']

 

Show me where in the law this is at. You can't because it doesn't exist. Please stop labeling your countrymen as racists because you can't understand english. Read the law, educate yourself first. You and the AP are behaving like Fox news now. All baseless emotion, no supporting evidence or reason.

 

Such a careless misuse of the race card. You should be ashamed.

 

Well, I don't see the population directly around me in a perpetual struggle doing what you claim above. It's a fantasy notion that most people are busy doing so.

 

I didn't say they were. That is the problem.

 

See, this is what happens when you want to argue with me, but you really don't have an argument. Just a mere centimeter away from your opening sentence contains my quote - "It's always heartening to me to see any scrap of that still alive today. We do have to fiercely fight, claw and scratch to keep our most basic rights."

 

And this is true. Examples where we don't fight and claw for our rights will overload the SFN server. Look at the SC ruling and legislation coming out of the federal government for past 100 years. You don't agree, but that's my opinion. And because the people fell for the "fair master" federal argument in the face of economic woes, we now have an empire trying frantically to be freed from the constitutional shackles and a republic all too ready and willing to accomodate in order to "save" them from the latest fear they're selling.

 

And that occurred because of no Freedom of Information' date=' secrecy in government, misleading propaganda, and related things.

 

Notice how such an event wouldn't occur today, at least not as easily. Information's the enemy of tyranny...real information -- and the fight then happens naturally where it counts most: at the beginning of abuse, rather than at the end, or middle. Heck, it takes much less fight at that point, and instead merely a healthy dose of it tossed with a more constructive approach of ingenuity, misdeeds exposure, and voting. [/quote']

 

Bullshit. It happened because democrat and republican leaders didn't respect the citizenry's rights more than they feared the Japanese. Just like they don't respect the citizenry's rights today more than they fear economic speed bumps. They didn't fight and claw to keep our most basic rights. They let fear relocate security. And it's happening on a certain level with terror detainees, today.

 

It's the same crap, different day. Using economic fear to rationalize trumping our rights, appealing to some shallow "pragmatic" doom's day argument. That's the problem with strong federal level, centralized power - consolidated power is far more easily corrupted and gauranteed. We already know this, and the framers warned us aplenty, but we just keep on ignoring it in the face of an idealized benevolent government caretaker psychology.

 

Cops aren't supposed to be walking like they're the enemy or bully-ish. It's what I get from your description. Unless there's some legal paperwork handy you can point to that specifies cops are meant to act like that...

 

More fabrications from your imagination. I don't remember describing them as they should behave like a bully or the enemy. I do remember saying they should wear sunglasses, strut with some attitude, and don't take any shit from anybody. Aside from my obvious light hearted approach to this description, it should be obvious I'm talking about a strong force of law and legitimacy that does not entertain excuses.

 

Well, you did spread misinformation,* and still get the benefit of doubt. It'd be different if you were doing it consistently and system-wide, doing big things to reinforce the accusation continually/systematically (like you-know-which-network).

 

Yeah, and when the AP grows a pair and admits when they spread misinformation and does so just as gloriously as they did when they were spreading it, then I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Instead, what we usually get is a correction by the network that carried their blunder, buried where they can avoid the egg on their face. Somehow, I doubt the AP will change their tune no matter how much time goes by, no matter how many times they don't find their own words in the law.

 

Oh yeah, and don't we hold the press to a higher standard than ourselves? I report to me. They report to the people. That's quite a different duty that calls for quite a different set of standards. I still think they are guilty of lying, propaganda and manufacturing dissent as a result of it.

 

New Question...is the AP a real news agency?

No it doesn't, it "runs rich" only among a minority who keep up the good fight -- while various others instead sometimes keep up the manufactured fight that works against our rights.

No it isn't a minority impulse, it's shared by most. That some are hypocritical about it on the left and right is irrelevant.

Really? Take a look at the antiquated laws in history books. Not many people fought/scratched/clawed/ against laws that prohibited a citizen getting blow jobs by their own wife' date=' for example.

 

However, you don't need look too far back in history. It took a Supreme Court decision in 2003 to get Texas respecting civil liberties on that matter. [/quote']

 

Ok...so we don't have to fight, claw and scratch to keep our most basic civil rights? I seem to remember a New Deal president, Mr Roosevelt I believe, that squashed the rights of 120,000 Japanese citizens in opposition to a mere handful of whimpering politicians. I don't think sleeping on the job is good for guarding liberty.

 

No. They are supposed to protect and serve. I do think it's unwise to antagonize the cops for no reason, or to blame all of the cops for the actions of a few rotten cops, yet I do think it's anyone's right to show an officer disrespect in a non-threatening manner (and without jeopardizing the officer's routine or emergency duties). Also, it can't be something that we're legally prohibited from doing to any other citizen -- such as verbal abuse.

 

And I disagree with this how? If you're going to take issue with the particulars of "protect and serve" then you're going to have to do better than just zooming back out and appealing to "protect and serve". Seriously, I'm not sure what you're taking issue with here.

 

Why can't they do both? -- Remain level-headed and perform marvelously in extremely tense situations?

 

I certainly wouldn't trust a driver who hyper-reacts to an oncoming accident or highway pile-up. I'd trust the driver who remains cool' date=' instantly making decisions with a calm hand on the steering wheel and legs flexible enough (to smoothly react) on the pedals.

 

Same with cops on entering a dangerous situation that involves the rescue of my family and I. Really, wouldn't you? [/quote']

 

Again...I disagree with this how? You're having to split some awfully fine hairs to take issue with my post.

 

I never implied anything even remotely extreme or a lack of balance. I'm implying that police officers should vigorously and passionately play their role. Just as I think politicians should. Just as I think teachers should. And so on. Passionately fulfilling one's duty does not suggest extreme behavior, however it does suggest disappointment at structure that prohibits their duty. That's human. If they're not disappointed in that, they shouldn't be police officers.

 

You and everyone were just as misinformed' date=' yet no one was dishonest.

 

It could be simple laziness in research by the AP, jumping to conclusions, and/or the normal inaccuracies that pop up when attempting to get the news out too quickly as a business model. Or it could be a political motivation like you implied. But to compare with Fox is just nonsense. It's not like they've mislabeled bad Democrats as "Republicans", eh? (like when Fox mislabeled bad Republicans as Democrats).

[/quote']

 

Nah. I prefer consistency. When someone spreads disinformation, they get no stretches of benefit of the doubt such as you've given the AP here. Fox gets trashed for it, and excuses like the above don't fly for them, and shouldn't. I hardly see how it should fly for the AP.

 

They continue to lie and distort the Arizona law. And that is purely manufactured dissent by fraud. As we watch the protests, we can all shake our heads and/or laugh how the media is wagging the dog.

So I guess the Fox news dishonesty bug has spread to the AP:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100501/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_protests

Activists believe opposition to the law — which requires authorities to question people about immigration status if there is reason to suspect they're in the country illegally — could be the catalyst to draw crowds similar to those four years ago.

Now that's just dishonest as hell. We all know the law does not say that. They left out the crucial part that takes the wind out of their sails, and makes this entire thing a complete non-issue - lawful contact and reasonable suspicion.

Lawful contact means they must be detained for some other legal violation and in addition, there still must be reasonable suspicion to check for immigration status. That's two layers of obligation that the AP just flatly, irresponsibly, left out. It appears they are cooking up stories and issues so they can sell them.

Should we propose a moratorium on AP articles?

What surprises me to this point, is Fiscal Conservative and SMALL savings, less than 10k$ which I'd bet most everyone over 40 would/should be well over 10k$, today, or their not counting 401's or other retirement programs, even personal investments.

Oops, I did that. I didn't count my 401K, which would put me over 10K. I was thinking of accessible personal savings.

Interesting piece on the Arizona Immigration law:

The heart of the law is this provision: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…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…"

Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.

 

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

And the law does read that way. That's the same piece I pulled out of that PDF of the bill.

I don't see how there's any legitimate reason to be concerned about this law at all. We have been hoodwinked by the media.

Which speaks directly to bascule's post about a moratorium on Newscorp based on the notion they create more invective and less objectivity. That's exactly what's happened here, only it wasn't Newscorp. Curious...

So is there any reason to take the protestors of this law, seriously?

Participants held signs and chanted “Boycott Arizona” and “Repeal SB 1070 now!”

 

Frederick Cortes, a junior in political science at ISU, said the bill allows for racial profiling and called it “the most blatantly racist legislation in recent memory.”

 

Cortes read portions of the bill over a microphone and explained possible ramifications for Hispanic people living in Arizona, including wrongful detentions and separation from families.

 

More than 50 people participated in a peaceful protest Friday against Arizona’s new immigration law. The group marched from Iowa State University’s Memorial Union to Parks Library, holding signs and chanting slogans such as “no to racism” and “no to racial profiling.”

The law doesn't say any of that. Are these people tea partiers? And will we see more? I think so. This is going to be fun. I can't wait to see the stupid slogans they put on their signs, putting their ignorance on glorious display for us to enjoy.

I'm sure the tea party opposition will have no problem with this, right? Right?

The part you're missing is that offshore drilling was part of Obama's energy platform.

(sorry, that's about as lame as the person that just has to throw in "and many more..." at the end of the Happy Birthday song isn't it?)

I was watching the news last night, and I guess they're slamming the administration for being quick to send out the lawyers, and slow to respond to the clean up. Now the spill is headed for Louisiana and Florida, and once again, Louisiana is screwed by an inactive administration. They're comparing this to Katrina - and I'm not talking about Fox news either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/us/politics/01obama.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64000320100501

http://www.malaysianews.net/story/629734

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0501/1224269476038.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/30/93231/gulf-oil-spill-brings-out-attorneys.html

And really, it's starting to sound like the left wants it both ways. The oil spill being a catastrophic event with terrible environmental consequences and loss of life - but not so bad that the administration should be held accountable for *not* acting like it.

Of course, the conservatives are criticizing the moratorium on offshore drilling, but that seems entirely practical to me. Until you find out what happened, it's difficult to approve new work. There may be additional requirements for an offshore rig, or a change in design - similar to bascule's comment about nuclear "negative void coefficient" to prevent another Chernobyl.

Yeah, I certainly don't mind and I just assumed it was an open poll.

To be honest, all of my life has been paycheck to paycheck, living in debt. I followed the standard debt explosion of financing autos, credit cards, gizmos and hobby equipment..etc. Only recently have we got a handle on our debt psychology and forced ourselves to save, save, save. It's been the best thing to happen to us. I no longer live paycheck to paycheck, we have plenty of cushion for emergencies and I owe nothing to anyone. Not one dime.

However, we'll see how long it takes to save up what we need to start another business venture. This is the weakness of savings over borrowing.

I'm not sure why showing a law enforcement officer some level of respect is allowing him to trample my rights. I treat them the same way I treat anyone else, I expect them to treat me with some respect as well but if i was in a position that called for the officer to suspect me for some reason giving him the finger would seem to be needlessly provocative in any situation.

 

If I really felt he was trampling my rights i would contact a lawyer and we would go to court, doing something disrespectful back to him seems childish and counter productive to me.

I understand your point, really. You're trying to be reasonable and thoughtful about it and that's commendable. But defiance runs rich in the romance of our republic, tracing back to our founding. It's always heartening to me to see any scrap of that still alive today. We do have to fiercely fight, claw and scratch to keep our most basic rights.

That said, the defiance I'm getting from some here is really choking me up guys....you make me proud SFN.

And they can and do abuse said "respect" for the law, by doing such things as implicitly getting your permission to search without a warrant ("I'm going to search your car now, is that OK?" rather than "May I search your car"). People should feel free to disrespect the police, and the police had better not abuse their government-granted powers to limit your free-speech ability to disrespect them. Being provocative is not a crime, nor should a cop pay special attention to see if you do anything wrong and then nail you for it, just because you said something disrespectful to him.

Well, I don't think that's abuse though, or at least not your example. Personally, I resent many of my interactions with law enforcement and their pushy, bossy, drama method of assessing me or my family. I could tell you a couple of stories since I moved here to Blue Springs, MO and how much I wanted to smack these power tripped idiots and their overall entitlement attitude to authority in all situations.

But...a big but here...that's their role. That's what they're supposed to do. To be authoritative pricks. "Bad guys" hate that. And that's what we want them to do. To wear those terminator sunglasses, strut with some attitude, and don't take any shit. I don't want them overly concerned about my rights and being cordial when I have an intruder in my home - I want them to burst right in and gun the f**cker down; I want them to feel entitled to enter my home and deal with it.

So, I piss and moan when they treat me badly, but really we need them to push to protect us and themselves as much as possible. Not a total disrespect though.

How does being rude help you protect your rights, exactly?

I don't think it does, but it sure does feel good.

Oh yes, I see, so all nuclear accidents are impossible now that we have this "negative void coefficient"...

Sorry, I ain't buyin' it.

Hell, one terrorist act on a nuclear facility and all the neocons will point and say "told ya so". Real-world examples of accidents are just that...real world examples of accidents.

Jackson, I don't dispute the above. I use the word 'suspicious' because I still don't know of an example of "reasonable suspicion" for the crime of illegal immigration alone.

It may well be they don't plan on even attempting to apply reasonable suspicion for illegal immigration, all by itself. But in theory, every crime, including illegal immigration, implicitly carries this "reasonable suspicion" with it.

...does the quality of rhetoric presented by the advocates of offshore drilling really demand a more complex response than "oops, real-world examples of the consequences"?

Yes, because we can point to Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents as "oops, real-world examples of the consequences" when you advocate nuclear power.

Until we get solar or biofuels or what not advanced enough to ditch oil, we are going to have to get oil out of the earth. We can either buy it all, from a whole host of enemy states, and further demonstrate our utter dependence or we can do it ourselves. I prefer to do it ourselves.

As an objective observer, it looks like you two are talking right past each other. Skeptic appears to be making a clinical argument of function whereas Pangloss appears to take that as value judgments.

Am I close?

I provided evidence that we are extremely open. You provided evidence that we may not be as open as some underdeveloped nations. I'm not seeing a lot of reason to change my mind here.

Exactly. I'm proud of our immigration laws and our comparitively open atmosphere.

The only thing that bugs me about conservatives on this issue, in general, is this appeal to 'importing cultures' and criticizing immigrants for not embracing an "american culture". I really don't get this. I want their culture imported. That is american culture. I'm not calling them bigots, but I do find it offensive to hold that view and overly traditionalist.

All this is especially ironic because we are a country almost entirely made of immigrants. The natives are a very small minority. And yet, now that we have lived here long enough to consider it our home, we limit the amount of immigration.

I used to have an extremely open border position on immigration. That changed once I got in a debate here with a member, Bookworm, if I remember correctly. Bookworm did a thorough job of chopping my arguments to pieces and getting through to my head what true control-free immigration looks like and what it does to economy and standard of living. You think it's the rich that gets displaced? Think again. You think it's the middle class that gets displaced? Think again. It's the already pretty damn poor that get hit hardest by unending surges of ridiculously cheap labor. They don't need it any worse than they already have it.

The fact of the matter is, whether you like it or not, controlled flow of immigrants is necessary to balance the ability of the economy to adjust to that flow. Your grass doesn't grow when you flood it with water - it grows when you water it slowly, consistently, in balance with the environment. (this, coming from a man that can only grow weeds in his yard...)

The reason everyone wants to come to the US is because of our standard of living and opportunity available - all of which vanishes when you open the flood gates (and yes, that includes white people from Europe). That will definitely stop immigration into the US then, and may start up immigration out of the US instead.

We need immigrants and we want immigrants. We are built on it, and we should always be proud of that. I love the notion of bringing us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses. I love the whole idea of having more variety of humans here than any place else on the planet. To continue to be that beakon of hope, opportunity and diversity in the world for the future we must preserve it. That means balance, which also means hard reality. That's life.

Seriously... it could be nothing else. If it could be something else, I'd welcome someone explaining precisely what that is.

Same here.

Although, after reading that bill, I noticed a section about illegal hiring practices - like automobiles stopping in the middle of the road, in traffic, to solicit workers standing on the corner or what not. Since this is illegal, per the bill, then I'm guessing that's probable cause anyway and they could act to identify and all that. But it could be those behaviors that satisfy "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause" for illegal immigration, by itself.

Honestly, I think we're going to have to see what they do. I don't read anything in the bill that directly suggests 'show me your papers'. I read some things in the bill that make me suspicious of 'show me your papers', so I'll be watching.

You know, I may have to concede and eat some humble pie. I know better than to take reporting for granted, yet I have done just that. Actually, we all know better than that, and here's what I found right at the beginning of the bill:

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,[/b'] 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©.

First thing, is "reasonable suspicion" legally equivalent to "probable cause"? That's crucial for this interpretation of the law, I think. And that's crucial for the political conclusion.

Now, I'm still asking "what is reasonable suspicion" or "what is probable cause for illegal immigration", but the law does *not* say law enforcement can randomly check for immigration status.

The rest of the bill is directed at trafficking and employers and stuff like that and I did not see anything else specifically pointing out law enforcement directives for investigative technique.

I'm going to have to relax on all this until I understand the legal distinction between reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

Thanks for the link Jackson, I may stand corrected.

In US law today, any person in the US and having a legally authorized "Green Card" for any of the reasons they are issued, must carry that green card at ALL times, whether at the beach or walking their dog in the local park. "Carry your papers", Arizona law or NOT, already exist.

Yes, "Carry your papers" but not "let me see your papers". Think about it...when you demand to see these "papers", you do not yet know if this person is a natural born citizen or an immigrant. You can't know if this person is required to carry a green card or not until you identify them - that's the part that's unconstitutional in the Arizona law.

Those of us against this law for that reason are demanding probable cause. Skin color and racial distinctions are not probable cause. Natural born citizens look the same as citizens required to carry their papers.

So, again, what is the probable cause that allows Arizona to ignore the 4th amendment, at least in terms of the verbiage that authorizes that violation?

I may prefer not getting shot than eating lunch, prefer eating lunch to watching fox news, but prefer getting shot to watching Fox news.

Now that's a sig if I ever saw one. Good one.

But see, that introduces another problem we get from Krugman and the left that conservatives have a legitimate complaint against: conflating illegal immigration with general immigration.

That article, and the part you quoted, is a perfect example. Even within that quoted argument, which is absolutely otherwise sound, he commits an egregious offense in that last sentence: It's not anti-immigration fever, it's anti-illegal-immigration fever.

Duncan is proposing an extremely offensive, tyrannical, despostic action entirely antithetical to american liberty - the kind of thing you spill blood for. That proposal better not get anywhere. The moment we see images of people hauled off to be deported because their parents comitted the crime, is the moment we truly divide as a country.

And even as disgusting as Duncan's suggestion is, it's still not anti-immigration - his, albeit flawed, reasoning still hinges on their parents being illegal, and thus drawing the conclusion that they should be illegal as well.

America is everything it is expected to be when it comes to immigration laws. We are a very kind, very welcoming country with little demands and punishments compared to our neighbors. If one wants to discuss the merits of immigration control, that's fine, but they should be honest and shift the discussion openly. Conflating the two, is dishonest and it empowers the opponent since it validates their perceptions and thus validates their conclusions.

The conservatives, and especially Duncan, are wrong on this. We don't need to make believe they are bigots - they are plenty wrong without all of that.

Ok, so now the conservatives are out waxxing on about those of us who don't like the "show me your papers" part of this law as if we're all objecting to it because of our naive compassion for the plight of an illegal immigrant.

Just this morning, I hear Liz Cheney start in with the appeals to law and order too, "We are a nation of laws", and how we need to be able to enforce our laws and blah blah blah.

This is so stupid, I can barely coherently bitch about it. Let's review the 4th:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Gee, that appears to speak directly to enforcing laws. Way to go, Captain Obvious, if that ridiculous appeal to law enforcement really carries the day for you Liz, then we should cancel the whole freaking amendment shouldn't we? It's always about enforcing laws. That's an empty, shallow argument with no logical component.

Hell, murder is worse than illegal immigration - why don't we abandon the 4th with those same, short sighted emotional appeals to enforcing laws to stop child murderers? I mean come on, aren't we not coming clean and admitting we have a problem with murder? Aren't we just dismissing legitimate concern for the problem of murder when we allow the 4th to hold us back?

Rush Limbaugh hung himself on the radio too, and I bring this up because I'm sure a lot of conservatives have made the same mistake. He said something to the effect that, liberals were up in arms about the "show me your papers" verbiage in the Arizona law, yet had no problem with "show me your papers" with respect to the health care bill.

Well way to go Rush. Yes, how do you and yours work around the affront to freedom with respect to health care, yet have no problems with the affront to freedom with respect to the right to remain anonymous and free from state coersion and harassment in the absence of probable cause?

I keep asking, and all I hear are birds and crickets...(well ok, sirens too, I live in KC ya' know) What is probable cause to suspect a person of illegal immigration? I'm sure it exists. But what is it? And does it ever remotely resemble arbitrarily asking for ID?

I also keep hearing "well, they aren't racially profiling, they must have a reason to pull them over or detain them" - well then you don't need this stupid law! It's already in the books, folks. That's in the OP sources, BTW.

I like to see states get pissed and do something about it, as we've all seen that Obama is more worried about sending "messages" to other countries than protecting his citizens. But to counter with an equally constitutionally offensive action is about as shallow as it gets.

Militarize the border. Punish employers. Deport illegals. Do all that. And respect our constitutional restraints as you do it - just like we do with murder.

Cool. Ok, that clears up that part for me.

I'm still not sure about people that provide a service. Do we see them as adding "value" as opposed to wealth creation too? Makes sense, if I'm understanding you.

Glenn Beck' date=' in his Fox News incarnation, is unprecedented. The only thing Glenn Beck can be compared to is the fictional Howard "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" Beale from the film Network. Howard Beale was a deluded and crazy messianic figure and I'm not really sure that's apt with Glenn Beck, as I think what Beck is doing is more of an act than a true mental disease. I did read (and cringe) at his previous CNN columns... the man is cogent, so unless some tumor is causing his behavior, rather than his transition to a network that gives him carte blanche, I don't think Glenn Beck can be considered a "true" Howard Beale. But still, Howard Beale remains the closest thing I can draw a comparison to.

 

Glenn Beck has inspired followers and started a political movement. According to the Gallup Poll I posted in my tea party thread, the #1 thing the tea party agrees on is Glenn Beck, which isn't surprising as Fox has devoted a considerable amount of airtime to the tea parties and actively promoted them via the 9.12 project.

 

Glenn Beck embodies a similar messianic quality as Howard Beale, spreading a similar doom-and-gloom message about the present world situation, and getting people to express that they're mad as hell and they're not going to take this any more, even though they're not really sure why they're mad and aren't really sure what the this that they're not going to take any more really is.[/quote']

 

I still don't get why people are so taken by him. His argumentation is just poorly executed. He isn't convincing in the least. He isn't a libertarian, despite what he claims. His method is just pure pretention and dissonant objection and feigned patriotism apparently oblivious to his pathological hypocrisy. And people lap it up.

 

I listened to him slam libertarian candidate Debra Medina, running for Texas Governor, because she, very casually, would not ridicule the 9/11 Truthers and concern herself if any on her staff believes such a thing - she would not endorse policing other's thoughts, and dismissing their concerns.

 

Meanwhile, he promotes Rick Perry - a mainstream politician, same ole same ole, old school part-of-the-problem republican. Glenn Beck is a political hack.

 

Sorry, I didn't actually add anything worthwhile, I just can't stand the man.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Why does sensationalism seem justified to you just because it's coming from an ideological perspective that you agree with? How can sensationalism ever[/i'] be justified?

 

Easy. Sensationalism is justified when the source is right, and not justified when the source is wrong. After all of these years, you're still having a hard time with this.

 

Actually, I think all of this boils down to the same arguments about bias - is it better to advertise the bias and admit it, or is it better to pretend to be as objective as possible while ultimately still being biased.

 

In this case, bascule and others seem to prefer the traditional, tired model of "objective" reporting when there's really no such thing. The newer, progressive model of reporting we're seeing is admiting the bias, giving the viewer or reader a more honest experience.

To me, it's much ado about nothing. Obama is plenty visible. I also like his speeches where he ridicules the press and the finicky mainstream political BS. I know he's also a part of some of that, but I enjoy seeing presidents comfortable being a little more animated and candid. Seems more real to me.