It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Janky Red
I think you are still missing my point.
Originally posted by Janky Red
Which ever "side" can generate enough anger will win in the long run, I am saying it would be in your best interest to learn what does not anger the people who might come in to tip the scale against you.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Angus123
So besides being a coward and hiding behind race.....
Tell us how you really feel?
People should not be prosecuted for their race, color, ethnicity, religion blah blah blah.. but guess what?
THEY SHOULDN'T BE PROTECTED BY IT EITHER!
So... under your astute liberal logic.. because they are brown .. they should not be prosecuted for their crimes.
How the bloody hell does that make sense?
Please..
I am dieing to know. You want to throw the race card out there, then lets talk race and how criminals can hide behind their color to be protected from the law.
Originally posted by Angus123
You can be detained in Arizona for no damn reason other than the cop feels like it until you prove citizenship.
THAT is a government power grab.
Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Originally posted by Angus123
You can be detained in Arizona for no damn reason other than the cop feels like it until you prove citizenship.
THAT is a government power grab.
Is that whats going on? Have they made a law saying they can grab you off the street for no reason and hold you until you produce papers proving your citizenship? And presumably with no trial or other legal assistance?
Because thats not what the law they passed says, even though that is how the propagandists are framing it.
They even amended it to make it VERY clear that they were not going to be randomly stopping people based on race and asking for documentation.
Maybe you could post something that shows that this is going to be them pulling people off the street simply because cops want to and holding them until they prove their citizenship, because thats not how I read it at all.
Although we do already have laws kinda like that in the US. You know, the ones from the Patriot act? Which were surprisingly fine by most people. Just as long as legal American citizens are being snatched and held indefinitely without legal representation thats fine. But for the love of God dont ask people to prove they are here legally or inconvenience illegals in any way.
That would be crazy talk.
Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Originally posted by Janky Red
I think you are still missing my point.
If I am, I think that is because you are dancing around your point rather than stating it. I score very highly in reading comprehension, but I am not psychic.
Originally posted by Janky Red
Which ever "side" can generate enough anger will win in the long run, I am saying it would be in your best interest to learn what does not anger the people who might come in to tip the scale against you.
Actually generating anger, as I see it, is not the determining factor. The determining factor is generating action in terms of politics.
Illegals can get as angry as they want. They dont get a vote. Unless we cave and give them one. If they get really really angry, and break even more laws by rioting or going after legal Americans, it might even work very much against them. So I disagree that he who is the most angry wins.
I think he who can move the most voters wins. And in America, illegals dont get to vote. Americans get to vote.
If you are insinuating that white Americans should behave a certain way to get brown and black Americans on board, I would say you assume they are not already on board.
The media and the illegals are making this a race issue. They are making it a "evil white people discriminating against brown people" issue. It isnt. I know Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, I know all kinds of Americans who are against the flood over our southern border.
The problem is our politicians. Neither side wants to end the flood. Not the Democrats, nor the Republicans. They are part of the reason the media is making it look like a race issue.
The Republicans want the cheap illegal labor. The Democrats want the votes. Both parties are beholden to Corporate interests who have an economic interest in weakening the Constitution (for economic reasons) and our borders, (for North American Union issues) and who would like American labor to be in an even weaker position than it already is.
If you are thinking about the sport and not the game, by all means share a strategy you think would work. For me, dragging the issue back onto the issue is a strategy. Refusing to allow the American people's desire for control of our borders be defined as racism is a strategy.
Loving this country and her people and trying to protect her from those who would use her selfishly, and destroy her Constitution is a strategy. And the people I am referring to there are not just the illegals, but the politicians and their corporate sponsors as well.
America is a nation of people. The people whose interests are being considered the least here are the legal, law abiding American citizens. And in my mind thats a damn shame.
Originally posted by Angus123
Maybe you could post something that says they're not.
"These new statements make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal, and will not be tolerated in Arizona," she said in a statement.
Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word "solely" from the sentence, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin."
Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.
Originally posted by Angus123
If it isn't true then what exactly is new about this law?
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
Originally posted by Angus123
How was enacting it beneficial to authorities in any way?
G. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT A
28 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS:
29 1. A CLASS 3 FELONY IF THE PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION WHILE IN
30 POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
31 (a) A DANGEROUS DRUG AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-3401.
32 (b) PRECURSOR CHEMICALS THAT ARE USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF
33 METHAMPHETAMINE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3404.01.
34 (c) A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION
35 13-105.
36 (d) PROPERTY THAT IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING AN ACT OF
37 TERRORISM AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-2308.01.
38 2. A CLASS 4 FELONY IF THE PERSON EITHER:
39 (a) IS CONVICTED OF A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION.
40 (b) WITHIN SIXTY MONTHS BEFORE THE VIOLATION, HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM
41 THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1229a OR HAS
42 ACCEPTED A VOLUNTARY REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED
43 STATES CODE SECTION 1229c
Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Originally posted by Angus123
Maybe you could post something that says they're not.
Ok, you dont want to read it yourself.
www.abc15.com...
"These new statements make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial profiling is illegal, and will not be tolerated in Arizona," she said in a statement.
Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word "solely" from the sentence, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin."
Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.
Originally posted by Angus123
If it isn't true then what exactly is new about this law?
That might be nice to know if you are going to have an opinion on the issue, huh?
From the Bill itself;
www.azleg.gov...
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
Translation, it requires police when they have stopped people for some reason (not just because they are brown) to determine if they are illegals if they reasonably suspect they are.
Originally posted by Angus123
How was enacting it beneficial to authorities in any way?
Because it created a state law that makes it a state crime to be in Arizona illegally, with a sentence to go with it. Under federal law, you could deport. The new law allowed some jail time too. You know, a punishment for breaking the law.
G. A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS A CLASS 1 MISDEMEANOR, EXCEPT THAT A
28 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION IS:
29 1. A CLASS 3 FELONY IF THE PERSON VIOLATES THIS SECTION WHILE IN
30 POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
31 (a) A DANGEROUS DRUG AS DEFINED IN SECTION 13-3401.
32 (b) PRECURSOR CHEMICALS THAT ARE USED IN THE MANUFACTURING OF
33 METHAMPHETAMINE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 13-3404.01.
34 (c) A DEADLY WEAPON OR A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION
35 13-105.
36 (d) PROPERTY THAT IS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING AN ACT OF
37 TERRORISM AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 13-2308.01.
38 2. A CLASS 4 FELONY IF THE PERSON EITHER:
39 (a) IS CONVICTED OF A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION.
40 (b) WITHIN SIXTY MONTHS BEFORE THE VIOLATION, HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM
41 THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1229a OR HAS
42 ACCEPTED A VOLUNTARY REMOVAL FROM THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED
43 STATES CODE SECTION 1229c
Read the bill. Dont get your education from TV. (or posters here)
Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Angus123
Ohhhh... no .. no .. I get it.. laymens terms:
I'm all for kicking illegals out, except once they are inside we can't prosecute them because if we did we might hurt someones feelings........ and we don't want to hurt anyones feelings...
The message would be simple, you're illegal, but once you get inside the Americans will be to chicken# to do anything about it.
Gotta love that logic.
Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
I loathe it when people, particularly those who have "truth" in their names, play the emotion card but offer absolutely no "truth."
Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Angus123
I can only assume then you agree.. as like all other typical progressive responses .... you fail to have any opinion what so ever in regards to illegal immigration. It's one thing to say "oh I think they should be shipped back home" ... it's quite another to have an actual opinion on what could be done. You've said nothing more than a copout .. "I don't want anyones feelings to get hurt"
Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Originally posted by daskakik
Stop believing the propaganda.
Im not basing my opinion of Mexico on propaganda. I am basing my opinion on Mexico on the fact that millions of its citizens are unhappy enough there to leave and come here illegally together with the propaganda. Not to mention all the people I know who have family in Mexico who tell me what a # hole it is, and how they hate it when they have to go down there to visit.