View Full Version : Arizona and Immigration
Deogol
05-27-2010, 11:11 AM
You keep saying that but it is nothing more than your own opinion, not something laws should be based on.
Laws are partially based on community opinions on what the standards should be. (See "Adult Business Regulation.")
Deogol
05-27-2010, 11:12 AM
Not everyone has a birth certificate, white, brown, or otherwise.....
Everyone born in the United States can get their birth certificate though.
Kellydancer
05-27-2010, 11:29 AM
yes ... the same is true of many other states. This is also the reason that there are so many pregnant women racing to get across the border before they go into labor ! If their child is born on the north side of the line it is automatically granted citizenship ... which in turn provides a legal route for the illegal parents to secure social welfare benefits and avoid deportation. And even in circumstances where the child is not a US citizen, many states will allow the parents to sign up for social welfare benefits ... either wilfully or by failure to check immigration status.
True. Here's one video where this proves this quite well: .
In the video, this woman says she sneaked through the border illegally so she could get a free birth. Of course she doesn't speak English at all. I would bet taxpayers are now paying for her kid and other kids.
Here's another video: .
They've been here 15 years, speak no English even now, have 10 kids, and both are unemployed! Doesn't take a genius to see taxpayers are paying for these people. Most people know that if you can't afford a large family, don't have one. I hope to have a family with the guy I love, but both of us know we can only support 2-3 kids and that's with both of us working fulltime and decent jobs. Yet for some reason it's always the people who can't afford kids on their own who have large families (my gripe with many who get welfare too).
KS_Stevia
05-27-2010, 03:27 PM
Everyone born in the United States can get their birth certificate though.
What about us naturalized citizens whose birth certificate is not only in a different language, its in a different alphabet that most police/boder patrol cannot read?
Hey look someone can actually pass anti illegal immigration laws that are not racist and make sense, who knew:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/05/mass_senate_pas.html
Melonie
05-29-2010, 12:14 AM
^^^ well, the MA bill isn't law yet ! And despite some of the more 'practical' provisions such as ...
'explicitly deny in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants' ... meaning that illegal immigrants would get to pay the same ( but still subsidized ) out-of-state tuition rate as US citizens from other states.
'would require the state to give legal residents priority for subsidized housing' ... meaning that illegal immigrants would still be eligible for the MA subsidized housing benefit program
'require the state’s public health insurance program to verify residency through the Department of Homeland Security' ... meaning that illegal immigrants would still be technically eligible for the MA medicaid program as long as the have established a 'residence' in MA. Remember that DHS is already on record re Arizona that it, and it alone, will decide whether or not to take action when a state provides information regarding the presence of illegal immigrants in that state.
Even with these gaping 'loopholes', this bill faces major opposition. Both MA's governor and Attorney General are on record taking more 'liberal' positions. The business community also opposes this bill from the opposite end of the spectrum since it creates new burdens and risks for MA businesses who might ( inadvertently ) have illegal immigrants in their employ ( based on fake but seemingly legitimate documentation provided by those workers ).
IMHO there is really only one way to effectively deal with the illegal immigrant problem ... and it is so simple ! Institute a nationwide requirement that legal eligibility to do so be verified at local voting booths - like every other major country ! With that simple requirement in place, if politicians and voters wish to be altruistic toward illegal immigrants then so be it. But this would remove the quid-pro-quo situation of altruistic politicians exchanging social welfare benefits for illegals for the votes of illegals, and eliminate the situation of illegals benefitting from social welfare benefits being able to vote themselves continued benefits !
~
Mr Hyde
05-29-2010, 04:55 PM
I just read the full text of the Arizona law.
There is nothing racist about it.
There is nothing that anyone who is here legally has to worry about it with it.
It does not allow police to stop you "just for being brown" or whatever. If a police officer legally comes in to contact with a person for other reasons, and has reasonable suspicion that they may be illegally in the US, they can arrest them.
How can they have reasonable suspicion?
1-Does the person have legal ID? Anytime a cop has legal contact with you for some reason, they can ask you for ID. If a person doesn't have one, that might be a clue.
2-If no to 1, does the person know anything that a naturalized citizen would know? How many amendments are in the Bill of Rights? Who is the second president? Etc.
If the person doesn't speak English, doesn't have ID, and has no idea what the Declaration of Independence is...well...
Also, Trem...the AZ bill has penalties for those that employ illegals.
If you read that bill, it is not bad at all. It's pretty reasonable, actually, given that AZ is being overrun with illegals.
Mr Hyde
05-29-2010, 05:03 PM
^^^ well, the MA bill isn't law yet ! And despite some of the more 'practical' provisions such as ...
'explicitly deny in-state college tuition for illegal immigrants' ... meaning that illegal immigrants would get to pay the same ( but still subsidized ) out-of-state tuition rate as US citizens from other states.
'would require the state to give legal residents priority for subsidized housing' ... meaning that illegal immigrants would still be eligible for the MA subsidized housing benefit program
'require the state’s public health insurance program to verify residency through the Department of Homeland Security' ... meaning that illegal immigrants would still be technically eligible for the MA medicaid program as long as the have established a 'residence' in MA. Remember that DHS is already on record re Arizona that it, and it alone, will decide whether or not to take action when a state provides information regarding the presence of illegal immigrants in that state.
Even with these gaping 'loopholes', this bill faces major opposition. Both MA's governor and Attorney General are on record taking more 'liberal' positions. The business community also opposes this bill from the opposite end of the spectrum since it creates new burdens and risks for MA businesses who might ( inadvertently ) have illegal immigrants in their employ ( based on fake but seemingly legitimate documentation provided by those workers ).
IMHO there is really only one way to effectively deal with the illegal immigrant problem ... and it is so simple ! Institute a nationwide requirement that legal eligibility to do so be verified at local voting booths - like every other major country ! With that simple requirement in place, if politicians and voters wish to be altruistic toward illegal immigrants then so be it. But this would remove the quid-pro-quo situation of altruistic politicians exchanging social welfare benefits for illegals for the votes of illegals, and eliminate the situation of illegals benefitting from social welfare benefits being able to vote themselves continued benefits !
~
Not sure how that would make a difference. Most illegals aren't here to vote, they're here to either work or get social welfare freebies. The ones who are here legally would vote for the pols that support freebies for illegals.
The best way to deal with this is....
1-Find a way to legal status for the illegals that are here now. NOT amnesty, but a combo guest worker program/path to citizenship.
2-Build a fence
3-Penalize employers that hire illegals.
4-And Mexico has to help itself. There is a reason that people are fleeing that place to come here. We need to do more to help them help themselves. Not aid, but investment would be a good idea. How, where, what...don't know...not an expert. Changing drug laws here to prevent gang violence there would also help.
Getting rid of the ridiculous war on drugs would help make Mexico less of a shit hole also. People crossing the border already risk their lives to get across the desert, i don't think a fence would deter them all that much.
1-Does the person have legal ID? Anytime a cop has legal contact with you for some reason, they can ask you for ID. If a person doesn't have one, that might be a clue.
2-If no to 1, does the person know anything that a naturalized citizen would know? How many amendments are in the Bill of Rights? Who is the second president? Etc.
If the person doesn't speak English, doesn't have ID, and has no idea what the Declaration of Independence is...well...
You are way too optimistic about what regular americans know and don't know about their country. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/Study-Americans-Dont-Know-About-Much-About-History.html
P.S. i do agree that your idea is not racist at all, i just think it is very very naive given that a) americans are not legally require to carry ID with them and b) the average american does not know a lot of stuff you would consider basic info. If that plan went into effect the only ones who would know that kind of info would be the illegal aliens because it would actually benefit them to learn it.
KS_Stevia
05-29-2010, 07:31 PM
You are way too optimistic about what regular americans know and don't know about their country. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/Study-Americans-Dont-Know-About-Much-About-History.html
No kidding! Did you take the quiz? I did, got an 84.85%. Average score 75.9%. And that's for people taking this online after reading the article, likely above average intelligence already.
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx
I remember being asked some of those questions when I was being naturalized, but I was in school and had been studying all that stuff anyway. Not sure what my parents did. I guess they studied...but when you study for a one-time test, how much of that info is actually retained over time...particularly when being grilled by an intimidating police officer.
You did better than me, i got 81.82%. I've had a few drinks though :P.
Melonie
05-30-2010, 07:00 AM
You are way too optimistic about what regular americans know and don't know about their country
And that's for people taking this online after reading the article, likely above average intelligence already
Very true. Even so I missed 2 of the questions !
But the point is very valid ... and a bit scary ... that a large number of Americans don't really understand some of the basic principles that America was founded on ... principles that were inherently different from those of the european countries that early ( legal ) immigrants to America left behind. Nor do they understand why those basic principles were responsible for making America a success story for ~150 years. Nor do they understand that compromising those principles has arguably reversed America's success over the past ~75 years.
ironmint
05-31-2010, 01:47 PM
If they wanted to be serious about stopping illegal immigration they would make the law apply to everyone, not just brown people. Drop the "suspicion of being illegal" racist bullshit and make white people have to carry their birth certificate, i guarantee you the law wouldn't last a day.
The law DOES apply to everyone.
ironmint
05-31-2010, 02:00 PM
If the federal government was doing it's job then Arizona would not have had to enact any immigration laws of their own. But since the Obama administration is useless, Arizona had to do what they had to do. Most people outside of Arizona don't understand the significance of illegal immigration there. Illegal immigrants sneaking across the border throw garbage all over the place, ruin property, and break into houses all the time. People living along the border are scared to leave their homes after dark. Instead of fighting Arizona I think all the other states should join Arizona. There is only one way we are going to get rid of the 12 million illegal aliens in this country and prevent any more from sneaking in here. We need to get tough on illegal immigration. They shoud have started by asking every one of the protestors to prove they were here legally. I guarantee we could have made a dent in the illegal immigration population just by deporting half of the protestors.
ironmint
05-31-2010, 02:06 PM
A driver's license isn't considered proof of citizenship.
Then the simple solution to that is to require proof of citizenship or proof of your legal status in order to obtain a driver's license. Illegal immigrants shouldn't be able to obtain driver's licenses here in the first place.
ironmint
05-31-2010, 02:10 PM
I just read the full text of the Arizona law.
There is nothing racist about it.
There is nothing that anyone who is here legally has to worry about it with it.
It does not allow police to stop you "just for being brown" or whatever. If a police officer legally comes in to contact with a person for other reasons, and has reasonable suspicion that they may be illegally in the US, they can arrest them.
You are right Mr. Hyde, there is nothing racist about it. There is nothing unlawful, unconstitutional, or extreme about it either. It seems that most people who are opposed to the Arizona law are the ones who haven't actually read the Arizona law.
eagle2
05-31-2010, 02:25 PM
Very true. Even so I missed 2 of the questions !
But the point is very valid ... and a bit scary ... that a large number of Americans don't really understand some of the basic principles that America was founded on ... principles that were inherently different from those of the european countries that early ( legal ) immigrants to America left behind. Nor do they understand why those basic principles were responsible for making America a success story for ~150 years. Nor do they understand that compromising those principles has arguably reversed America's success over the past ~75 years.
The principles our country were founded on were basic freedoms, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc., not some far right economic ideology. America has had unprecedented success and prosperity over the past 75 years. A lot more than the previous 75 years before that.
Kellydancer
05-31-2010, 02:33 PM
The principles our country were founded on were basic freedoms, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc., not some far right economic ideology. America has had unprecedented success and prosperity over the past 75 years. A lot more than the previous 75 years before that.
True, but many of the freedoms we were granted are being taken away. Case in point, due to many PC police, freedom of speech is often curtailed. It's gotten to the point where people who have different views are attacked, especially if those views are conservative. I was once kicked out of a singles group because I said I find single dads who never married the mom to be morally inferior. I also was banned from another group because I said Islam is not a pro woman religion in most cases and that the 9/11 killers were Muslim. However this same group allowed people to attack Catholics as "pedophiles" but that's fine. I feel freedom speech goes both ways. If I feel a certain way it's my choice. I shouldn't have to keep my thoughts to myself just so I don't "offend" anyone. I'm not saying it's right to hurl racist comments, but if that is the way someone feels it's their right.
eagle2
05-31-2010, 02:44 PM
Sorry to hear about you being kicked out of certain groups because of your views, but the First Amendment only applies to government. The government can't arrest you and throw you in jail because of those comments you made, but private groups can still exclude you.
Kellydancer
05-31-2010, 02:56 PM
True, they were private, but it's part of PC gone amuck. I've become strongly anti PC because it's really the opposite of freedom of speech. I don't like groups like the KKK or the Nation of Islam but they have the right to say what they think, though I disagree.
True, they were private, but it's part of PC gone amuck. I've become strongly anti PC because it's really the opposite of freedom of speech. I don't like groups like the KKK or the Nation of Islam but they have the right to say what they think, though I disagree.
Once again it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. You haven't lost any freedoms at all. It's your right to feel and say whatever you want too, it is other peoples right not to want to be around you.
Deogol
05-31-2010, 09:50 PM
Getting rid of the ridiculous war on drugs would help make Mexico less of a shit hole also. People crossing the border already risk their lives to get across the desert, i don't think a fence would deter them all that much.
And let those who OD to OD naturally.
And let those who OD to OD naturally.
We should let fat people die of diabetes and forbid smokers from getting any lung cancer treatments also but you know nothing like that is ever going to happen.
rubyredlipsss
06-01-2010, 11:45 AM
^or even those with type 1 diabetes who can't afford insurance because the premiums are too high and the cost of strips are also ridiculously high. my brother has no insurance and type 1 diabetes with no insurance, when he did it was about 600 a month, he has a decent job but can't afford insurance like that or testing strips. but i think the insurance debate is something separate. so i guess he should die naturally too from a disease that can be managed or go on dialysis.
and trem i completely agree about ending the war on drugs.
Melonie
06-01-2010, 02:05 PM
The government can't arrest you and throw you in jail because of those comments you made
Actually, this isn't true anymore due to the enactment of 'hate speech' laws, due to the enactment of limited 'free speech' and 'free assembly' areas at many universities, etc. Thus the voicing of certain opinions can indeed get you thrown in jail ( or at least arrested ) these days.
Kellydancer
06-01-2010, 02:55 PM
Actually, this isn't true anymore due to the enactment of 'hate speech' laws, due to the enactment of limited 'free speech' and 'free assembly' areas at many universities, etc. Thus the voicing of certain opinions can indeed get you thrown in jail ( or at least arrested ) these days.
The whole hate speech laws is in many cases a war against certain people (namely white Christians). If I say I dislike Indians, or Muslims (and I will admit I feel this way to some extent) then that's hate speech, yet if they say they hate white Christians, that of course is fine. If I say I think people with multiple babies out of wedlock are immoral, I must be a redneck, a rightwinger, etc but if they say people who believe babies should be born into a marriage are prudes, that's fine. I dislike groups like the KKK but feel they have as much to free speech as anyone else.
I'd sure love to see some example of those laws.
The whole hate speech laws is in many cases a war against certain people (namely white Christians). If I say I dislike Indians, or Muslims (and I will admit I feel this way to some extent) then that's hate speech, yet if they say they hate white Christians, that of course is fine. If I say I think people with multiple babies out of wedlock are immoral, I must be a redneck, a rightwinger, etc but if they say people who believe babies should be born into a marriage are prudes, that's fine. I dislike groups like the KKK but feel they have as much to free speech as anyone else.
Unless you happen to be posting from jail i would say you are as free as anyone else to express your opinion. Your complaint seems to be that people don't agree with you and this somehow is infringing on your rights.
Kellydancer
06-01-2010, 03:02 PM
Unless you happen to be posting from jail i would say you are as free as anyone else to express your opinion. Your complaint seems to be that people don't agree with you and this somehow is infringing on your rights.
No, my complaint is that those of us with other views are often told we must not "insult" others views. We see this with the fact many companies no longer have Christmas trees so not to insult the Muslims or Atheists, we see this with employers often being forced to allow Muslim workers to dress a certain way, we see this with the fact that government rewards those who keep having babies.
Melonie
06-01-2010, 03:08 PM
start with this 'progenitor' example of hate speech laws in Sweden ...
... then move to this ACLU analysis of 'speech restriction' rules on college campuses ...
... then check out opinion on California's 'hate speech' law ...
(snip)" When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 22 signed California's sweeping new hate speech law, he may have signed on for more than he bargained for.
The law, SB1234, classifies as "hate speech" any public expression that makes certain favored citizens feel "unwelcome" or "intimidated." Anyone found guilty of using such expressions could face six months in prison and a $25,000 fine.
Homosexuals, transsexuals, women, the homeless and assorted minority groups have been given the authority to decide what constitutes "hate speech." It's all based on their emotional response to a speech, a conversation, a book or article, a poster, a radio broadcast--whatever. If it makes them feel uncomfortable, it's hate speech.
The next time Arnold calls his political opponents "girlie men," he'd better watch out.
The next time a movie house or a TV station runs Conan the Barbarian, it had better be carefully edited, or the governor's in trouble. (Conan includes a scene in which the hero clobbers a homosexual man who comes on to him.) Arnold had better be careful about some of his other movies, too. True Lies might be construed as anti-Muslim hate speech, and Red Heat isn't exactly complimentary to inner-city blacks.
Actually, the law's threat to Californians' civil liberties is more serious than that.
With SB1234 in place, what will happen the next time a Christian minister preaches from Romans 1, or a Jewish rabbi from Leviticus 19? These are just two of many Bible passages which say homosexual behavior is a sin. That might make someone in the congregation feel "unwelcome."
How will it be possible to have a public debate on abortion, same-sex "marriage," or publicly funded sex-change operations without the "con" side breaking the law?
What about articles and books, published in other states but available in California, whose writers take positions that make feminists, homosexual activists, or abortion advocates "feel intimidated"? Are these to be banned in California?
Will it be possible for a lawyer to defend California's current marriage laws before the State Supreme Court? What if his arguments offend a journalist covering the hearing, or a stenographer, or even a judge?
It's possible that this absurd law will someday be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. The sooner that happens, the better.
But for the time being, the immediate future of the First and Fourteenth Amendments in California looks bleak indeed. "(snip)
No, my complaint is that those of us with other views are often told we must not "insult" others views. We see this with the fact many companies no longer have Christmas trees so not to insult the Muslims or Atheists, we see this with employers often being forced to allow Muslim workers to dress a certain way, we see this with the fact that government rewards those who keep having babies.
Wow you managed to fit christmas and muslims and welfare all in one completely nonsensical complaint about stuff that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of speech. You are basically just angry people don't agree with your hateful opinions.
start with this 'progenitor' example of hate speech laws in Sweden ...
http://www.vdare.com/taylor/sweden.htm
... then move to this ACLU analysis of 'speech restriction' rules on college campuses ...
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/hate-speech-campus
... then check out opinion on California's 'hate speech' law ...
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/6458/CFI/family/index.htm
(snip)" When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 22 signed California's sweeping new hate speech law, he may have signed on for more than he bargained for.
The law, SB1234, classifies as "hate speech" any public expression that makes certain favored citizens feel "unwelcome" or "intimidated." Anyone found guilty of using such expressions could face six months in prison and a $25,000 fine.
Homosexuals, transsexuals, women, the homeless and assorted minority groups have been given the authority to decide what constitutes "hate speech." It's all based on their emotional response to a speech, a conversation, a book or article, a poster, a radio broadcast--whatever. If it makes them feel uncomfortable, it's hate speech.
The next time Arnold calls his political opponents "girlie men," he'd better watch out.
The next time a movie house or a TV station runs Conan the Barbarian, it had better be carefully edited, or the governor's in trouble. (Conan includes a scene in which the hero clobbers a homosexual man who comes on to him.) Arnold had better be careful about some of his other movies, too. True Lies might be construed as anti-Muslim hate speech, and Red Heat isn't exactly complimentary to inner-city blacks.
Actually, the law's threat to Californians' civil liberties is more serious than that.
With SB1234 in place, what will happen the next time a Christian minister preaches from Romans 1, or a Jewish rabbi from Leviticus 19? These are just two of many Bible passages which say homosexual behavior is a sin. That might make someone in the congregation feel "unwelcome."
How will it be possible to have a public debate on abortion, same-sex "marriage," or publicly funded sex-change operations without the "con" side breaking the law?
What about articles and books, published in other states but available in California, whose writers take positions that make feminists, homosexual activists, or abortion advocates "feel intimidated"? Are these to be banned in California?
Will it be possible for a lawyer to defend California's current marriage laws before the State Supreme Court? What if his arguments offend a journalist covering the hearing, or a stenographer, or even a judge?
It's possible that this absurd law will someday be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. The sooner that happens, the better.
But for the time being, the immediate future of the First and Fourteenth Amendments in California looks bleak indeed. "(snip)
Just because a right wing website claims something doesn't make it true, the bill is about hate crimes not hate speech. And other countries don't have any free speech guarantees so i don't see what Sweeden has to do with this discussion.
Melonie
06-01-2010, 03:39 PM
^^^ Nice Try !!! I merely cited the first links to appear in my Google search. Regardless of the orientation of the website quoting the passage and signing of California's SB 1234 Omnibus Hate Crimes law, it is still the law in the state of California. It still includes provisions, including potential fines and jail time, for people expressing particular opinions which members of 'protected groups' find offensive or intimidating.
Going a step further the US 9th Circuit Court issued this 'interpretation' after SB1234 became law and was 'enforced' ...
(snip)"San Francisco's United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the matter of Good News Employees Association v. Hicks that the municipal employers can completely censor the terms "natural family," "marriage" and "family values" as hate speech. The unpublished "memorandum" by the Court can be found at . . . . The court concluded that municipalities have a right to literally dictate what form an employee's speech may take, even if it is in regard to controversial public issues. Shockingly, the court concluded that the interest of Christian employees in speaking out on the issue of marriage is "vanishingly small" and that the "administrative" interests of a city are more important than speech rights. The court completely failed to address the concerns of the appellants with respect to the fact that the City of Oakland's Gay-Straight Employees Alliance was openly allowed to attack the Bible in widespread city e-mails, to deride Christian values as antiquated, and to refer to Bible-believing Christians as hateful. When the plaintiffs attempted to refute this blatant attack on people of faith, they were threatened with immediate termination by the City of Oakland. The Ninth Circuit did not feel that the threat of immediate termination had any effect on free speech . . . ."(snip)
from
^^^ I cited the first links to appear in my Google search. Regardless of the orientation of the website quoting the passage and signing of California's SB 1234 Omnibus Hate Crimes law, it is still the law. It still includes provisions, including potential fines and jail time, for people expressing particular opinions which members of 'protected groups' find offensive or intimidating.
No, that's what that website said it did. That law is from 1994 and as Fred Phelps likes to constantly remind us it is still perfectly legal to sprout all the hate speech you want. Here we are 16 years after the fact and people can still show up at funerals with "god hates fags" signs, tell me how is that law preventing anything?
Melonie
06-01-2010, 03:48 PM
^^^ nice try but wrong again ... this 9th Circuit ruling is from 2007 ... and this summary comes from the website of attorneys who successfully represented the 'employer' ( as is obvious from the comments praising the fairness of the decision ). However, the basic facts of the ruling are identical to those listed on the earlier Christian affiliated website ...
By my read, this ruling upholds a California public employee's right to freely express his opinion, but also subjects that public employee to potential immediate firing from his job if that opinion is found to be offensive by other employees ! The legal rationale for this court of appeals ruling was that in addition to SB1234 provisions, the right of the state as employer to maintain an orderly work place trumps the individual employee's right to free speech.
~
So we've gone from thrown in jail and arrested to fired? You can get fired for lots of things, i would imagine insulting your coworkers is pretty high up on the list.
Melonie
06-01-2010, 04:34 PM
^^^ feel free to keep spinning, but the facts will prevail nonetheless ...
(snip)"In Oakland, CA, Pastor Walter Hoye, a black pastor, awaits sentencing where he could face up to two years in jail and a $4,000 fine for his peaceful activity outside an abortion clinic. Hoye was holding a sign that said “Jesus Loves You. Can We Help?” when he was suddenly arrested and charged with “harassment.”
California’s 2004 “anti-hate” law SB 1234 has requires that police be trained in "multi-mission criminal extremism." Within this training a new category has been added: "anti-reproductive-rights crimes." This makes peaceful, pro-lifers automatically suspects.
What’s strange about Pastor Hoye's conviction is that no "victim" has testified against him. The only testimony against him was from employees and volunteers, people with a financial or ideological interest in the clinic. No specific incident was ever cited and there was videotape of Hoye standing peacefully holding his sign and materials.” "(snip)
from
Gosh that certainly isn't a biased site at all or anything. This is what actually happened:
Pro-life Pastor Walter Hoye was found guilty of violating “The Bubble Law,” a city law that provides an 8-foot buffer zone between pro-life protesters and women entering the abortion clinics. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail and ordered to stay 100 yards away from the clinic where he was arrested for the next three years
The law he broke had absolutely nothing to do with SB 1234 OR hate speech, all it said is he had to be EIGHT FEET away when sprouting his hateful bullshit. This was obviously too much of a hassle for the good reverend. The fact that the last right wing website you quoted simply made up the whole thing is just not going to deter from continuing to use them as proof is it?
SteveSmith
06-01-2010, 05:03 PM
The whole hate speech laws is in many cases a war against certain people (namely white Christians). If I say I dislike Indians, or Muslims (and I will admit I feel this way to some extent) then that's hate speech, yet if they say they hate white Christians, that of course is fine. If I say I think people with multiple babies out of wedlock are immoral, I must be a redneck, a rightwinger, etc but if they say people who believe babies should be born into a marriage are prudes, that's fine. I dislike groups like the KKK but feel they have as much to free speech as anyone else.
Yep, most of these laws are designed to shut down the freedom of opinion and speech of White people. Anyone who calls White people racists and haters etc. for expressing their opinions are the real racists and haters. They're trying to intimidate White people by name calling. They can go fuck themselves.
Melonie
06-01-2010, 05:39 PM
^^^ thank you for injecting that interpretation. At the very least, laws already in effect such as California SB1234 or the 8ft 'bubble' law or college speech code restrictions or the federal Matthew Shepard Act , as well as bills working their way through legislative bodies that have not yet become law, all seem to share one trait in common. They shield 'protected groups' from the 'offensive' acts / opinions of others not belonging to that 'protected group'. In all cases, white males do not fall under a 'protected group' classification. Arguably, gov't support of certain 'protected groups' borders on official favoritism.
This lengthy detour around the edge of this thread's original topic is not without its relevance, however. The same sort of arguable official gov't favoritism applies in many ways to illegal immigrants originating from Mexico. They are classified differently by the Border Patrol. In many cases they are treated differently by US and state LE after being 'apprehended' than the treatment of US citizens or o.t.m. illegal aliens. Arizona's voters now choose to treat them in the same way as US citizens and o.t.m. illegal aliens are treated via their new law ... provoking widespread criticism from 'liberal' politicians and news media as a result. The true issue is ending (undeserved) preferential treatment and a complete return to 'equal treatment under the law' . The 'trumped up' issue is alleged racism ... which IMHO always seems to rear its ugly head when a particular 'protected group' is in danger of losing some of their preferential treatment !!!
eagle2
06-01-2010, 06:49 PM
^^^ Nice Try !!! I merely cited the first links to appear in my Google search. Regardless of the orientation of the website quoting the passage and signing of California's SB 1234 Omnibus Hate Crimes law, it is still the law in the state of California. It still includes provisions, including potential fines and jail time, for people expressing particular opinions which members of 'protected groups' find offensive or intimidating.
Going a step further the US 9th Circuit Court issued this 'interpretation' after SB1234 became law and was 'enforced' ...
(snip)"San Francisco's United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the matter of Good News Employees Association v. Hicks that the municipal employers can completely censor the terms "natural family," "marriage" and "family values" as hate speech. The unpublished "memorandum" by the Court can be found at www.profamilylawcenter.com/_docs/35.pdf. . . . The court concluded that municipalities have a right to literally dictate what form an employee's speech may take, even if it is in regard to controversial public issues. Shockingly, the court concluded that the interest of Christian employees in speaking out on the issue of marriage is "vanishingly small" and that the "administrative" interests of a city are more important than speech rights. The court completely failed to address the concerns of the appellants with respect to the fact that the City of Oakland's Gay-Straight Employees Alliance was openly allowed to attack the Bible in widespread city e-mails, to deride Christian values as antiquated, and to refer to Bible-believing Christians as hateful. When the plaintiffs attempted to refute this blatant attack on people of faith, they were threatened with immediate termination by the City of Oakland. The Ninth Circuit did not feel that the threat of immediate termination had any effect on free speech . . . ."(snip)
from http://victimsoflaw.net/Religious1.htm
Melonie,
The law does nothing to prevent anyone's free speech on their own time and at their own place. People are free to speak out against homosexuality all they want. They just can't go to their workplace and do it. It's common sense that free speech doesn't carry to the workplace and employer. If an employee working for a company started placing signs all around the company that the company sucks, do you really think that company shouldn't be allowed to fire the employee?
eagle2
06-01-2010, 06:51 PM
The whole hate speech laws is in many cases a war against certain people (namely white Christians). If I say I dislike Indians, or Muslims (and I will admit I feel this way to some extent) then that's hate speech, yet if they say they hate white Christians, that of course is fine. If I say I think people with multiple babies out of wedlock are immoral, I must be a redneck, a rightwinger, etc but if they say people who believe babies should be born into a marriage are prudes, that's fine. I dislike groups like the KKK but feel they have as much to free speech as anyone else.
What about those people who call you a redneck, rightwinger, etc.? Do they have the right to free speech?
Kellydancer
06-01-2010, 07:22 PM
What about those people who call you a redneck, rightwinger, etc.? Do they have the right to free speech?
Yes, everyone should have the right the express how they feel. I often call Indians names (that is to say Indians from India) and I don't feel bad. I also insult the Muslims radicals often on tv and call them towelheads. I make fun of rednecks too (just to prove it's neither a right or left issue) I am expressing free speech just like anyone else.
Yep, most of these laws are designed to shut down the freedom of opinion and speech of White people. Anyone who calls White people racists and haters etc. for expressing their opinions are the real racists and haters. They're trying to intimidate White people by name calling. They can go fuck themselves.
Exactly. We have a local race baiting minister/politician named James Meeks who's always attacking white people. For those who thought Jeremiah Wright was a racist, Meeks is far worse. If a white politician said what he has against black people, that politician would be called a racist, etc but because it's not a white person it makes it ok. The fact is racism cuts across all races and I have been the victim of discrimination for being white. Completely turned me against affirmative action.
eagle2
06-01-2010, 07:34 PM
Yes, everyone should have the right the express how they feel. I often call Indians names (that is to say Indians from India) and I don't feel bad. I also insult the Muslims radicals often on tv and call them towelheads. I make fun of rednecks too (just to prove it's neither a right or left issue) I am expressing free speech just like anyone else.
Then why are you complaining? People who criticize you for whatever statements you make, are exercising free speech just like you are when you criticize certain people. Nobody is stopping you from doing this.
bem401
06-02-2010, 05:52 AM
Yep, most of these laws are designed to shut down the freedom of opinion and speech of White people. Anyone who calls White people racists and haters etc. for expressing their opinions are the real racists and haters. They're trying to intimidate White people by name calling. They can go fuck themselves.
And they do that because they cannot win the argument sticking to the facts and history involved. Its all part of the Left's agenda to divide and conquer, separating by ethnicity and a few other issues to make each of the groups vulnerable. Even the liberal Arthur Schlesinger wrote back in the 1960's that this was how America would be destroyed and we are watching it now.
KS_Stevia
06-02-2010, 02:16 PM
You did better than me, i got 81.82%. I've had a few drinks though :P.
Whoa!
Are you more knowledgeable than the average citizen? The average score for all 2,508 Americans taking the following test was 49%; college educators scored 55%
rubyredlipsss
06-02-2010, 08:01 PM
all this white people talk about being silenced is making my head spin. to put it lightly, all of this ethnocentrism is pretty disgusting.
all this white people talk about being silenced is making my head spin. to put it lightly, all of this ethnocentrism is pretty disgusting.
Stop putting down the poor oppressed white people damnit! they've had it so hard for so long, not easy like everyone else.
Melonie
06-03-2010, 02:13 AM
well, it just so happens that many of these issues may come to a head as a result of an Arizona lawsuit ... honestly, "you can't make this s#!t up folks !"
(snip)"An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Roger Barnett, 64, began rounding up illegal immigrants in 1998 and turning them over to the U.S. Border Patrol, he said, after they destroyed his property, killed his calves and broke into his home.
His Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Ariz., is known by federal and county law enforcement authorities as "the avenue of choice" for immigrants seeking to enter the United States illegally.
Trial continues Monday in the federal lawsuit, which seeks $32 million in actual and punitive damages for civil rights violations, the infliction of emotional distress and other crimes. Also named are Mr. Barnett's wife, Barbara, his brother, Donald, and Larry Dever, sheriff in Cochise County, Ariz., where the Barnetts live. The civil trial is expected to continue until Friday.
The lawsuit is based on a March 7, 2004, incident in a dry wash on the 22,000-acre ranch, when he approached a group of illegal immigrants while carrying a gun and accompanied by a large dog.
Attorneys for the immigrants - five women and 11 men who were trying to cross illegally into the United States - have accused Mr. Barnett of holding the group captive at gunpoint, threatening to turn his dog loose on them and saying he would shoot anyone who tried to escape.
The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."
In the lawsuit, MALDEF said Mr. Barnett approached the group as the immigrants moved through his property, and that he was carrying a pistol and threatening them in English and Spanish. At one point, it said, Mr. Barnett's dog barked at several of the women and he yelled at them in Spanish, "My dog is hungry and he's hungry for buttocks."
The lawsuit said he then called his wife and two Border Patrol agents arrived at the site. It also said Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.
In March, U.S. District Judge John Roll rejected a motion by Mr. Barnett to have the charges dropped, ruling there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to be presented to a jury. Mr. Barnett's attorney, David Hardy, had argued that illegal immigrants did not have the same rights as U.S. citizens.
Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.
Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.
Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their "clients" to keep them running.
He said he carried a pistol during his searches for the immigrants and had a rifle in his truck "for protection" against immigrant and drug smugglers, who often are armed.
A former Cochise County sheriff´s deputy who later was successful in the towing and propane business, Mr. Barnett spent $30,000 on electronic sensors, which he has hidden along established trails on his ranch. He searches the ranch for illegal immigrants in a pickup truck, dressed in a green shirt and camouflage hat, with his handgun and rifle, high-powered binoculars and a walkie-talkie.
His sprawling ranch became an illegal-immigration highway when the Border Patrol diverted its attention to several border towns in an effort to take control of the established ports of entry. That effort moved the illegal immigrants to the remote areas of the border, including the Cross Rail Ranch.
"This is my land. I´m the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back." "(snip)
from
There are so many legal issues involved in this lawsuit that it's downright mind-boggling ...
- are illegal immigrants entitled to the same civil rights as US citizens ?
- what private property protection rights are Americans still allowed to assert ?
- what remains of the right of private citizens to make a 'citizen's arrest' after witnessing a crime being committed ?
- is it still possible for a white male property owner US citizen to assert that he is the 'victim' of non-white non-US citizen illegal immigrants traspassing on and vandalizing his property ?
~