Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Ready4SomethingFun
Joined: 3/17/2008
Msg: 202
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?Page 9 of 23    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)

There's nothing reasonable about making American
citizens drag their driver's license with them ..


It weighs about an ounce and to listen to this bunch it's being made to sound like it's the world's biggest albatross.

I carry mine everywhere, when I go swimming, when I go to a bar (many bars require it weather you are drinking or not), everywhere!! And it has never caused me any problems whatsoever.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 203
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/15/2010 4:26:07 PM

It weighs about an ounce and to listen to this bunch it's being made to sound like it's the world's biggest albatross.

When it becomes, for a natural born citizen, the difference between freedom of movement and the legal privilege of movement... When it becomes, for a natural born citizen, a necessity to go someplace other than your home, no farther than your church or corner store... When it becomes, for a natural born citizen, a necessity to simply remain in your home (a 'lawn maintenence' complaint is a "lawful contact")... Without fear of indefinite arrest until you prove your "lawful presence"... Then yes, It IS "the world's biggest albatross"...
 HeyJenny
Joined: 11/13/2008
Msg: 204
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/15/2010 5:30:28 PM
You are already wrong not to have ID in both places you mentioned. The bars I go to you have to show ID no matter how old you look and if you don't have it you do not get in the bar.

The neighborhood swimming pool , again, we have to be residents of a certain area to be allowed into it. ID is necessary.

So you are wrong on both counts.

Valid Id is simple AND EXPECTED.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 205
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/15/2010 5:40:55 PM

Valid Id is simple AND EXPECTED.

I wouldn't be surprised if a Gestapo or KGB agent ever said the same damn thing.

To reiterate:

The constitutional issue with requiring citizens to carry papers has nothing to do with your general practices and nothing to do with the weight of an ID.

Simple and normal it may be, but the penalties under this new law are severe-- even for US citizens (for those who just refuse to get that point!!). In fact, just thinking back on one of my own past antics, I might have wound up in police custody under this sort of law rather than being simply kicked (figuratively speaking) out of a Nevada casino-- and with no legal recourse to fall back upon after the fact.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 206
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/15/2010 5:50:19 PM
Boy, you sure went to a lot of trouble to miss the point of MJ's request entirely.

Then please, show what federal law requires natural born citizens to face the possibility of indefinite arrest for "not producing their papers" as the Arizona law does...?

(emphasis added because some seem to need it desperately)
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 207
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/15/2010 6:12:18 PM



So if I'm sitting in a bar (that I walked to) without my driver's license ... sipping a soft drink (which I don't need ID
for when I order ...

What if I walk to the neighborhood public swimming pool ...

You are already wrong not to have ID in both places you mentioned. The bars I go to you have to show ID no matter
how old you look and if you don't have it you do not get in the bar.

I go to a bar that I am known at, sing at on a regular basis and do not need an "ID" in order to get a soft drink.
It's in my neighborhood and it's one of those "Cheers" atmospheres where everybody really knows your name
... and age, and race, and so on.

The neighborhood swimming pool , again, we have to be residents of a certain area to be allowed into it. ID is
necessary.
Not here in Columbus, Ohio.

You walk up, you pay to get in, and you get to swim. The pools run by the city of Columbus do not require an ID to
prove anything. Anyone's money is good at our city parks and recreation centers (outdoor pools are only open in
the summer and those are the ones I go to). There is never a need to show ID. I always walk in (already wearing my
swimsuit) and carrying my towel and hand them the exact change.

So you are wrong on both counts.

No ... actually, you are wrong twice: the answers you gave and for telling me I'm wrong.

Valid Id is simple AND EXPECTED.

It should not be "EXPECTED" or "NEEDED" in order to walk down the street, or stand and talk to a group of your
friends on the street ... should not be "EXPECTED" when I walk to the corner grocery to buy a bag of chips, should
not be "EXPECTED" when I walk one block further to the park and sit on a bench to eat those chips.

And it should not be "EXPECTED" of me either if just by chance someone decides to make my tranquil trip to the
store and the park a combat zone and I end up in the middle of it and somehow it's expected that I show my ID
just to prove I have a right to be there.
 HeyJenny
Joined: 11/13/2008
Msg: 208
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/15/2010 6:40:18 PM
Your pools in Ohio are run quite differently than other public pools I have been to that without fail, you must prove you are a resident and allowed to swim there.At one point if I remember right I even had to have a utility bill with me but that has probably changed.

The bar owners here do not want to take a chance of possibly losing their license,etc. so again, it doesn't matter what you look like or if I know the head of security, I get out my ID and show them.

I have already posted the link to the law that states it is a lawful stop first that happens, you should read it and understand what that means. The link shows all of it in 5 parts. here is another link that explains further "THE LAWFUL STOP"

http://www.federalobserver.com/2010/05/10/mac-donald-praising-arizona/
Part of the article states:
The paper alleges that the “statute requires police officers to stop and question anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant.” False. The law gives an officer the discretion, when practicable, to determine someone’s immigration status only after the officer has otherwise made a lawful stop, detention, or arrest. It does not allow, much less require, fishing expeditions for illegal aliens. But if, say, after having stopped someone for running a red light, an officer discovers that the driver does not have a driver’s license, does not speak English, and has no other government identification on him, the officer may, if practicable, send an inquiry to his dispatcher to check the driver’s status with a federal immigration clearinghouse.

As I understand it, if you do not have a reason for a lawful stop to occur to you than you have nothing to worry about. If I get pulled over for some reason I am expected to have my driver's license , proof of insurance and my registration. I do not go anywhere in my vehicle without them.

In a nutshell, I always have valid ID on me because it is needed for almost everything I do, buying consumer goods, the Gym, bar, driving,etc. The only time it isn't needed is if I was to do something simple like go for a walk or ride my bike but because I am responsible enough to think if I were to be hit by a car,etc. they would want to notify my next of kin. Therefore unless i am stepping out for the newspaper I have some form of valid ID on me.

Again, if you are not involved in a lawful stop, ID will not be asked of you. In your other circumstances that is up to you to take your chances that places will possibly bend the rules to allow you in or to drink, etc.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 209
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/15/2010 8:07:50 PM

Again, if you are not involved in a lawful stop, ID will not be asked of you.
But there are numerous innocent reasons for a "lawful stop" and we (citizens) should not have to be carrying proof
of citizenship in order not to be hauled off to jail.

During a so-called "lawful stop", do you think they would ask my blond-haired, blue-eyed daughters (of an immigrant)
for proof of citizenship (not just a simple ID that is easily faked)? I mean if high school hoods can get fake ID's (driver's
licenses) why would that be considered valid proof that you are a true citizen of the US and should not be hauled off
to jail.

The point is ... one could quite innocently become part of a situation that could be considered a "lawful stop" and
just because Arizona wants to racially profile it's state citizens, everyone who travels through Arizona will have to
start carrying proof of US citizenship.

As an aside, despite my Central European ethnicity, I have dark hair and skin that gets very brown in the summer,
even using sunscreen. I'm sure I could "pass" for Mexican/Latino if push came to shove by late August, most years.

With a good tan, I too could "pass" for Mexican/Latino ... which happens with me by mid-July since one of my favorite
hobbies is working in the garden and I don't wear a burqa while out there pulling weeds and harvesting my crop.

Arizona will lose on this one ... in many ways.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 210
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/16/2010 12:23:32 AM

Here you go


http://law.onecle.com/uscode/8/1304.html

So what... Exactly... Does TITLE 8 (ALIENS AND NATIONALITY), CHAPTER 12 (IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY), SUBCHAPTER II (IMMIGRATION), Part VII (Registration of Aliens), 1304(Forms for registration and fingerprinting)... Have to do with this question...?

Then please, show what federal law requires natural born citizens to face the possibility of indefinite arrest for "not producing their papers" as the Arizona law does...?

That is... Other than squat... bupkus... absolutely nothing...

And neither does this...

and


The legal scholars we spoke with told us to take a close look at two key sections of Title 8 of the U.S. Code. Section 1304e requires that "every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him." Those who fail to comply will be guilty of a misdemeanor and will be fined $100 and can be imprisoned up to 30 days.

Section 1306a says that, "Any alien required to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted in the United States who willfully fails or refuses to make such application or to be fingerprinted, and any parent or legal guardian required to apply for the registration of any alien who willfully fails or refuses to file application for the registration of such alien shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined not to exceed $1,000 or be imprisoned not more than six months, or both."


(emphasis added)
From


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/28/george-will/will-says-arizona-law-merely-echoes-federal-immigr/

Again... NOT an answer to the question... not even close... has NOTHING to do with it...

I don't know where you are getting the indefinite arrest by AZ for not providing papers though, unless they were convicted of something else.
....
The law instructs officers to contact the federal government to determine legal status,...

Ummm... It comes from the law itself... A law which creates an offence of "being unlawfully present", separate from any other offense, which can form the basis for an arrest all on it's own... And the law SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS officers to take into custody natural born citizens under suspicion of "being unlawfully present"... It also SPECIFICALLY STATES that NO-ONE held under suspicion of "being unlawfully present", not even natural born citizens, may be released until the necessary "papers" have been established...

and the law states it defers to the federal law, which allows people to be held up to 30 days (unless convicted of something else).

And where THAT one is being "pulled from" is an even greater mystery... Even your own quotes don't say that (even with the added emphasis)...

Here are the powers of immigration officers


http://law.onecle.com/uscode/8/1357.html


A federal immigration officer can do this


(a) Powers without warrant
Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under
regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power
without warrant -
(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien
as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;

Mmm...Hmmm... And that has WHAT to do with being able to indefinitely arrest a natural born citizen as "unlawfully present" for not producing his "papers"...?
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 211
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/16/2010 3:00:17 AM
Good points Mungojoe..
Beyond that, any subcontractors on the states level for Homeland InSecurity can arbitrarily label someone as a "terrorist" suspect subject to indefinite detention, suspension of due process, and disappeared into the detention industry. Our Gestapo or Stasi agents have considerable latitude.

I note the irony that those who are comfy giving out their IDs to get into pools, country clubs and other enclaves, would have a huge problem with biometric IDs, RFD chip implants, or bar codes tattooed on their foreheads. It's easy to buy a fake driver's license, SS card, or other currently acceptable documentation. http://www.theidshop.com/
Unless you are not of the white majority, in which case any sort of ID can be deemed suspect and a cause for detention. Without the biometric ID, bar code tattoo or chip implant, we cannot effectively uphold THE LAW! Everyone on board for that?
 bucsgirl
Joined: 5/13/2006
Msg: 212
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/16/2010 5:34:46 PM
I think it's simpler than all the blah blah and political pundits are making it about.

I have some legal immigrants who own convenience stores that I patronize and we have talked about this, not in connection directly with this law.

For any law that's written, it's always those that evade the law that make it harder for those who want to abide by it. Case in point, knowing this from being on the site, fees for immigration have gone up exponentially in just the last few years.

Obviously profiling is wrong, doesn't mean it doesn't happen or it's not used for those that can make it politically expedient. This isn't anything new...ugh.

Another complication is those that are hiring and paying, if it weren't for those evading paying the employment taxes, then many of the illegals couldn't afford to stay here. From the little I've read, it does seem that those are the guys with the deep pockets, no wonder they're saving so much money, who have the bucks to buy the politicians.

I'm not that well-read on this topic, I admit that. I do write and research professionally, not about this topic or anything political. I don't think my blood pressure could handle it.
 rustytraveler
Joined: 4/30/2007
Msg: 213
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/17/2010 1:09:34 AM

Likewise, social mobility was often contingent on blood lineage. The pureza de sangre laws contributed to the development of an intricate stratification or system of castas in the Americas that located white Spanish subjects at the top of a social, economic, and political hierarchy and subjects of African heritage at the bottom. This ideological system of stratification was comprised of more than fifty castas defined by their bloodlines...."


Ai Caramba.... those poor Mexican Indios are not only going to be nailed in the USA, but have also been in their own country for hundreds of years... do we need to start another Israel for them too? Hmm... just how does one make a race disappear for the convenience of Europeans?
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 214
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/17/2010 12:35:13 PM

That's because the conservative supporters of this bill are ignoring the difference between "ID" and "proof of citizenship" with as much determination as they are ignoring the Constitutions' prohibition on searches without probable cause


An Arizona driver's license number (or copy of the license) or non-operating identification license number (or copy of the identification license), issued after 10/01/1996 is valid proof of citizenship.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 215
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/17/2010 12:43:44 PM

An Arizona driver's license number (or copy of the license) or non-operating identification license number (or copy of the identification license), issued after 10/01/1996 is valid proof of citizenship.

And... Once again... Since when are natural born citizens required to provide "proof of citizenship", as a matter of course, or face indefinite arrest for failing to do so...?
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 216
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/17/2010 5:31:40 PM

And... Once again... Since when are natural born citizens required to provide "proof of citizenship", as a matter of course, or face indefinite arrest for failing to do so...?


I get that. I've understood that from the very first post. Nobushlover suggested there is a difference between providing ID and providing proof of citizenship indicating he was confused on what the actual law requires. It requires a driver's license, not the spookier sounding "papers".


as a matter of course, or face indefinite arrest for failing to do so...?


As for your own confusion, you keep saying indefinite. It's not indefinite. It's six months. We've been through this and while I appreciate that six months is a long time, it's not indefinte. But indefinite does sound much scarier.

So I'm still wondering what the constitutionally acceptable alternative is to enforcing immigration laws. Targeting employers seems logical, but you're already doing that on a federal level. And when it comes down to it, you still have the same problem, it's never going to be constitutional to ask employees of any kind for their proof of citizenship. You can bust the employers, make their tax lives miserable. But there doesn't seem to be many ways to stop people from breaking immigration laws when all you have to do is say "I'm American. I was born here." and you're free to go. That's my only point. If it's more important to uphold constitutional mandates then f' it. Let everybody in your golden doors.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 217
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/17/2010 6:23:48 PM

As for your own confusion, you keep saying indefinite. It's not indefinite. It's six months. We've been through this and while I appreciate that six months is a long time, it's not indefinte. But indefinite does sound much scarier.

Oh, well... If it's ONLY six months... actually, let's be honest here... It's UP TO six months... "UP TO" sorta seems like the definition of indefinite... Anyway, I digress, back on point...

I mean... If it's ONLY six months... ONLY six months of being arbitrarily stripped of the majority of your constitutionally guaranteed rights as a natural born citizen... ONLY six months of forced confinement... ONLY six months of being a 'non-person'... ONLY six months of being deprived of liberty, property and life as you knew it... Well then, that's different... Who wouldn't want to live with a hallmark of totalitarian rule if it's ONLY for six months at a time...?

Of course, we won't get into the YEARS it may take you to get back your house/car/etc. that has been siezed under a "proceeds of crime" statute... We'll wait and see if that one actually happens (not that there will be much waiting... they typically don't need much excuse to pull that one)...
 cooldude
Joined: 4/26/2004
Msg: 218
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/17/2010 6:58:50 PM

As for your own confusion, you keep saying indefinite. It's not indefinite. It's six months. We've been through this and while I appreciate that six months is a long time, it's not indefinte. But indefinite does sound much scarier.


If it takes six months to prove your immigration status, something is wrong somewhere.


I get that. I've understood that from the very first post. Nobushlover suggested there is a difference between providing ID and providing proof of citizenship indicating he was confused on what the actual law requires. It requires a driver's license, not the spookier sounding "papers".


Or possibly state ID card.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 219
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/17/2010 7:47:06 PM


And... Once again... Since when are natural born citizens required to provide "proof of citizenship", as a matter
of course, or face indefinite arrest for failing to do so...?

Nobushlover suggested there is a difference between providing ID and providing proof of citizenship indicating he
was confused on what the actual law requires. It requires a driver's license, not the spookier sounding "papers".

You don't have to be a "citizen" to have a driver's license ... at least not in Ohio. In fact, if a high school kid can
get a fake driver's license, how easy do you think it would be for someone who is not entitled to one to get one?

As for your own confusion, you keep saying indefinite. It's not indefinite. It's six months. We've been through
this and while I appreciate that six months is a long time, it's not indefinte. But indefinite does sound much scarier.

You can lose your whole life in shorter time. How about if you volunteer to do it and show us all how easy it is.

But there doesn't seem to be many ways to stop people from breaking immigration laws when all
you have to do is say "I'm American. I was born here." and you're free to go.
Free to go without showing ID? Without proving you're a citizen? All a person has to do is say they are an
American and were born here?

My daughters are American citizens and have just as much right to be here as any other citizen, but they cannot say,
"I'm American. I was born here." ... because they weren't born here, but they are Citizens and have just as much
right to be here as any other American citizen.

My daughters have blond hair and blue eyes. I doubt anyone would ever bother to question them in Arizona,
but then again, if they're fraternizing with the "brown kids", I suppose they'd have to be questioned as well ... eh?

Their driver's license isn't worth crap as proof of citizenship. Anyone who can pass the driver's test can get a license.
I mean, ... cripes, they give the test in Somalian here ... so they also have licenses even if they can't read our road
signs (that are in English). How does having a driver's license show proof of citizenship?

If it takes six months to prove your immigration status, something is wrong somewhere.

Not if you have no one to show up at the hearing with your "stuff" ... that proves your status. And if "homeland
security" gets involved, it's not just you that's in jail ... it's your whole family.
 OMG!WTF!
Joined: 12/3/2007
Msg: 220
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/17/2010 8:37:11 PM

Oh, well... If it's ONLY six months... actually, let's be honest here... It's UP TO six months... "UP TO" sorta seems like the definition of indefinite...


Actually "UP TO" is the exact definition of definite. It doesn't "sorta seem" like indefinite in any way shape or form. It means not more than. Up to six months...not longer than six months. You can fill a glass "up to" the top but not more. We clear? But if you want to be honest here, nobody with proper id sitting on the night stand at home would spend six months in jail because they don't have id. I wonder if you gave the cops nothing more than your name, would they be able to enter it into their database and be able to find out if you have a DL and otherwise determine your identity. That would solve a lot of problems. Then it would be purely a philosophical issue with no practical consequences beyond a five minute conversation with a cop. Oh, but that would be like the national id "chip" system that people are equally freaked out about.


You don't have to be a "citizen" to have a driver's license ... at least not in Ohio.


What part of Ohio do you live in?


In order to obtain any Ohio Temporary Instruction Permit Card (TIPIC), Driver License, Commercial Driver License, State of Ohio Identification (ID) card, Motorcycle, Moped license, the customer must present documents to prove all of the following five elements: (1) legal first name, middle name, OR middle initial, and current last name; (2) date of birth; (3) Social Security Number (SSN), if ever assigned; (4) U.S. citizenship OR U.S. legal presence; and (5) resident street address in Ohio.


Everybody has to provide ID to get a driver's license. It's not just a test.


In fact, if a high school kid can get a fake driver's license, how easy do you think it would be for someone who is not entitled to one to get one?


Okay. So you have to have a "valid" DL, not a fake one. Thanks for clearing that up.


All a person has to do is say they are an American and were born here?


Ya. Early in the thread mungojoe said that it's unconstitutional to pursue a line of questions beyond asking the question "Are you a legal citizen?" and getting the answer "Yes, I'm American. I was born here." So it would be like code for illegals. You wouldn't even have to speak any English at all beyond "I'm an American Citizen. I was born here." Just say that and you're done. He's right. According to the constitution, that's all you can do and so you might as well scrap any and all laws that deal with immigration beyond confessions from illegals or catching people with one toe in Mexico and one in the US.


Not if you have no one to show up at the hearing with your "stuff" ... that proves your status. And if "homeland security" gets involved, it's not just you that's in jail ... it's your whole family.


If you actually are a legal immigrant, your name is in a system operated by the federal immigration officials and it usually takes twelve minutes to get yourself straightened out even without id. If you have absolutely no way to prove your id at all, you're not normal. 99% of the people cops pull over have id on them. To not have any at all is weird. That 1% may be the lightning that hits you twice, the meteor that falls on your house etc. Or you could be an illegal immigrant without the ability to get a DL or without any representation in the federal immigration system and without any way to prove you actually exist legally in the US. But there is still that weird possibility that some American citizen gets nabbed and has no id at all with no possibility of getting any id.
 cooldude
Joined: 4/26/2004
Msg: 221
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/17/2010 8:48:48 PM

How does having a driver's license show proof of citizenship?


I believe 46 states require proof of immigration status for drivers licenses. 6 states don't require it. But the real ID act, might make it mandatory in the future.

It originally says "most states--all except six--deny licenses to illegal immigrants" So I am guessing some proof is required, if someone else can add to it.
 Ailliss
Joined: 3/16/2010
Msg: 222
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/17/2010 9:21:44 PM

Brewer just signed the bill into law to prohibit hispanic/latino ethnic studies in schools.

Leftist propaganda statement.
Following is the actual wording of the Bill:


State of Arizona
House of Representatives
Forty-ninth Legislature Second Regular Session
2010 HOUSE BILL 2281
AN ACT AMENDING TITLE 15, CHAPTER 1, ARTICLE 1,
ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTIONS 15-111 AND 15-112; AMENDING SECTION 15-843, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES;H.B. 2281

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: Section 1. Title 15, chapter 1, article 1, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding sections 15-111 and 15-112, to read: 15-111. Declaration of policy

THE LEGISLATURE FINDS AND DECLARES THAT PUBLIC SCHOOL PUPILS SHOULD BE TAUGHT TO TREAT AND VALUE EACH OTHER AS INDIVIDUALS AND NOT BE TAUGHT TO RESENT OR HATE OTHER RACES OR CLASSES OF PEOPLE. 15-112. Prohibited courses and classes; enforcement A.

A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL IN THIS STATE SHALL NOT INCLUDE IN ITS PROGRAM OF INSTRUCTION ANY COURSES OR CLASSES THAT INCLUDE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. PROMOTE THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
2. PROMOTE RESENTMENT TOWARD A RACE OR CLASS OF PEOPLE.
3. ARE DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR PUPILS OF A PARTICULAR ETHNIC GROUP.
4. ADVOCATE ETHNIC SOLIDARITY INSTEAD OF THE TREATMENT OF PUPILS AS INDIVIDUALS.


This Bill seeks to put an end to malicious, racist, anti-American and anti-white persons dangerous, inflammatory trash being taught under the guise of “Ethnic” studies.


Griff Jenkins interviewed radical Marxist-La Raza high school history teacher Ron Gochez from Los Angeles who called for a race revolution in the United States. Back in 2007 Gochez called for war against the imperialist-capitalist white race in an angry speech on the UCLA campus:
“We are revolutionary Mexican organization here. We understand that this is not just about Mexico. It’s about a global struggle against imperialism and capitalism… At the forefront of this revolutionary movement is La Raza (the race). We will no longer fall for these lies called borders. We see America as a northern front of a revolutionary movement… Our enemy is capitalism and imperialism.”
In Griff’s interview Gochez admits, “I am against capitalism.”
Just think of thousands of innocent minds this raging Marxist has polluted over the years.



http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doctype_code=Article&doc_id=1321


We observed that two of the main books for the TUSD program were Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed and Occupied America: A History of Chicanos, by Rodolpho Acuña. Freire’s book, of course, argues that teachers must train students to acquire “critical consciousness” (an understanding that they are oppressed); to give voice to their grievances; and to liberate themselves from the bonds of imposed assimilation. A reviewer of the book for The Nation, wrote, “Wherever education is explicitly involved in struggles for equity and justice, Freire’s ideas and his books, especially Pedagogy of the Oppressed, will live on.”

This revolutionary fervor is even more pronounced in Occupied America, which tells the story of the Southwestern United States from the perspective of Mexican Americans and has been called “the Chicano bible.” The book is sympathetic to Mexico in a reference to the battle at the Alamo. In another place, Acuña wrote:
Gutiérrez attacked the gringo establishment angrily at a press conference and called upon Chicanos to ‘kill the gringo,’ which meant to end white control over Mexicans.
Actually, “kill the gringo” means “kill the gringo.” Jose Angel Gutiérrez, who is referenced here, is the co-founder of the Raza Unida Party, a U.S. political third party.

At a 1995 conference Gutiérrez declared, “We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.” Today Gutiérrez is a professor of political science at the University of Texas at Arlington.



Both the referenced teachers/professors should be arrested and charged with sedition and treason.
 jed456
Joined: 4/26/2005
Msg: 223
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/17/2010 11:41:54 PM
Well... We'll just have to collect all that crap and throw it on a bonfire...[>quote]

Speaking of burning books and literature.......

Christian Johann Heinrich Heine (13 December 1797 – 17 February 1856) was a journalist, essayist, literary critic, and one of the most significant German Romantic poets.

Among the thousands of books burned on Berlin's Opernplatz in 1933, following the Nazi raid on the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, were works by Heinrich Heine. To commemorate the terrible event, one of the most famous lines of Heine's 1821 play "Almansor" was engraved in the ground at the site: "Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen." ("Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people.")

Ver is your papers?

Treason sedition?


 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 224
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/18/2010 12:48:02 AM

Oh, well... If it's ONLY six months... actually, let's be honest here... It's UP TO six months... "UP TO" sorta seems like the definition of indefinite...

...which is extremely twisted when you think of it. Isn't this totally counterproductive to the whole point; that being that illegal aliens are apparently draining the resources of legal citizens, which includes legal aliens. So, here you'll have the potential of holding people for a maximum of 6 months (which is sooo subject to abuse). There's the potential of housing people for up to 6 months and all the costs that entails when, in fact, you could well be housing people who were citizens and weren't a "drain" on the Arizona purse, but were made to be a drain on the Arizona purse. The further drain will come when the law suits start rolling in. Sorry, but it'll look good on the State when it happens if this doesn't get quashed and will create wealthier Mexican Americans - wow, wouldn't that just stick in the craw of the rednecks!
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 225
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/18/2010 4:50:21 AM


Oh, well... If it's ONLY six months... actually, let's be honest here... It's UP TO six months... "UP TO" sorta seems like the definition of indefinite...



Actually "UP TO" is the exact definition of definite. It doesn't "sorta seem" like indefinite in any way shape or form. It means not more than. Up to six months...not longer than six months. You can fill a glass "up to" the top but not more. We clear? But if you want to be honest here, nobody with proper id sitting on the night stand at home would spend six months in jail because they don't have id. I wonder if you gave the cops nothing more than your name, would they be able to enter it into their database and be able to find out if you have a DL and otherwise determine your identity. That would solve a lot of problems. Then it would be purely a philosophical issue with no practical consequences beyond a five minute conversation with a cop.

So it's down to disputing whether detention "up to six months" is "definite" or "indefinite" (even though you don't actually know just how long you will be deprived of your basic rights, a few days to six months)... That's all that's left...? Instead of focussing on "snatching crumbs from the lion's mouth", how about the "meat" of the matter...?

ONLY six months of being arbitrarily stripped of the majority of your constitutionally guaranteed rights as a natural born citizen... ONLY six months of forced confinement... ONLY six months of being a 'non-person'... ONLY six months of being deprived of liberty, property and life as you knew it... Well then, that's different... Who wouldn't want to live with a hallmark of totalitarian rule if it's ONLY for six months at a time...?

Of course, we won't get into the YEARS it may take you to get back your house/car/etc. that has been siezed under a "proceeds of crime" statute... We'll wait and see if that one actually happens (not that there will be much waiting... they typically don't need much excuse to pull that one)...

This isn't a "slippery slope" argument... This is the reality of what the law allows... This is what the gov't, by enacted statute, actually CAN do to natural born citizens who have been "caught without their papers"...
 davidsauvignon
Joined: 2/6/2008
Msg: 226
view profile
History
The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?
Posted: 5/18/2010 7:55:33 AM

Of course, we won't get into the YEARS it may take you to get back your house/car/etc. that has been seized [sic] under a "proceeds of crime" statute... We'll wait and see if that one actually happens (not that there will be much waiting... they typically don't need much excuse to pull that one)

Let’s see exactly what the provisions of that statute are, shall we? Just how much of an “excuse” they need. From Arizona statute 13-2314:

D. Following a determination of liability such orders may include, but are not limited to:
1. Ordering any person to divest himself of any interest, direct or indirect, in any enterprise.
2. Imposing reasonable restrictions on the future activities or investments of any person, including prohibiting any person from engaging in the same type of endeavor as the enterprise engaged in, the activities of which affect the laws of this state, to the extent the constitutions of the United States and this state permit.
3. Ordering dissolution or reorganization of any enterprise.
4. Ordering the payment of treble damages to those persons injured by racketeering as defined by section 13-2301, subsection D, paragraph 4 or a violation of section 13-2312.

So what exactly do they mean by “racketeering”? Well, here is how Arizona statute 13-2301 defines it:

4. "Racketeering" means any act, including any preparatory or completed offense, that is chargeable or indictable under the laws of the state or country in which the act occurred and, if the act occurred in a state or country other than this state, that would be chargeable or indictable under the laws of this state if the act had occurred in this state, and that would be punishable by imprisonment for more than one year under the laws of this state and, if the act occurred in a state or country other than this state, under the laws of the state or country in which the act occurred, regardless of whether the act is charged or indicted, and the act involves either:
(a) Terrorism, animal terrorism or ecological terrorism that results or is intended to result in a risk of serious physical injury or death.
(b) Any of the following acts if committed for financial gain:
(i) Homicide.
(ii) Robbery.
(iii) Kidnapping.
(iv) Forgery.
(v) Theft.
(vi) Bribery.
(vii) Gambling.
(viii) Usury.
(ix) Extortion.
(x) Extortionate extensions of credit.
(xi) Prohibited drugs, marijuana or other prohibited chemicals or substances.
(xii) Trafficking in explosives, weapons or stolen property.
(xiii) Participating in a criminal syndicate.
(xiv) Obstructing or hindering criminal investigations or prosecutions.
(xv) Asserting false claims including, but not limited to, false claims asserted through fraud or arson.
(xvi) Intentional or reckless false statements or publications concerning land for sale or lease or sale of subdivided lands or sale and mortgaging of unsubdivided lands.
(xvii) Resale of realty with intent to defraud.
(xviii) Intentional or reckless fraud in the purchase or sale of securities.
(xix) Intentional or reckless sale of unregistered securities or real property securities.
(xx) A scheme or artifice to defraud.
(xxi) Obscenity.
(xxii) Sexual exploitation of a minor.
(xxiii) Prostitution.
(xxiv) Restraint of trade or commerce in violation of section 34-252.
(xxv) Terrorism.
(xxvi) Money laundering.
(xxvii) Obscene or indecent telephone communications to minors for commercial purposes.
(xxviii) Counterfeiting marks as proscribed in section 44-1453.
(xxix) Animal terrorism or ecological terrorism.
(xxx) Smuggling of human beings.

I believe the Attorney General, when deciding whether or not to pursue proceeds of crime, will be fairly diligent. For if they aren’t:

If the person against whom a racketeering claim has been asserted, including a forfeiture action or lien, prevails on that claim, the person may be awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred in defense of that claim.

So when you state that:

This isn't a "slippery slope" argument... This is the reality of what the law allows... This is what the gov't, by enacted statute, actually CAN do to natural born citizens who have been "caught without their papers"

I read and re-read the 30 specific acts defined above by the statute. For some reason, I just can’t find “caught without papers” being a situation where the proceeds of crime statute applies. Additionally, as I bolded the phrase in the statute which defines “racketeering”, part of the litmus test is that the crime must be severe enough to be punishable by a year imprisonment…which of course, “up to 6 months” doesn’t apply. So yes, I think your argument is in fact, a “slippery slope” one.





~ds~
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The real reasons behind Arizona's Immigration Law?