Travel Ban to Arizona

Cypress said:
Nice! Classic concern trolling. :hand::hand:

We get it, bro’. You support the Arizona law, and you want Hispanic-americans and their white allies to be mean to Mexico instead of shining a light on a republican-inspired state law. I seriously doubt that this is in anyway primarily a function of your concern for poor arizona hotel cleaning ladies.





see above. Jarod and Rstringfield covered this nicely.
Click to expand...
Translation:

I couldn't think of anything to say, so I thought I'd jump in and ad hom, because I believe that attempting to insult somebody is the same as an argument. That I am acting exactly like Topspin doesn't actually hit home at all.

/Cypress
 
quit posing as a gentle budhist and spewing race hate 30 seconds later. I'm all for deportation just not racism for political gain like you and your ilk are for.
 
Topspin said:
quit posing as a gentle budhist and spewing race hate 30 seconds later. I'm all for deportation just not racism for political gain like you and your ilk are for.
Click to expand...
It is apparent that you do not actually comprehend what you read, or more specifically what you read if it is written by me.
 
Okay, then. They should not be seeking their political support on the subject of Az law. Agreed. I don't know if I would say they should stop seeking help on teaching, though, that really sounds like some sort ruse to get a free vacation anyway.

The DPS is not likely to affect much change in Mexico and a boycott would not likely to get any attention here or there.

I also agree with you, that the schools should not be engaged in this sort of political expression. That should be done through a legislative power.
 
RStringfield said:
Okay, then. They should not be seeking their political support on the subject of Az law. Agreed. I don't know if I would say they should stop seeking help on teaching, though, that really sounds like some sort ruse to get a free vacation anyway.

The DPS is not likely to affect much change in Mexico and a boycott would not likely to get any attention here or there.

I also agree with you, that the schools should not be engaged in this sort of political expression. That should be done through a legislative power.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't boycott them for going to Mexico for books in Spanish...

However, in the matter of Boulder they are making it a "priority" for their department heads to find anything at all that has a connection to AZ and stop purchasing it. If such is the case, and they wanted to be even close to consistent, they need to stop purchasing from a State with even more draconian laws that they actively seek to support and to gain support from...

And yeah, we are in agreement in where the power lies and where such a policy should extend from.
 
Topspin said:
I don't support the racist in Az, you do. Nuff said faux budha
Click to expand...
Please link to a post of mine that says I support the AZ law. Once you find out that it doesn't exist, please come back and apologize. I have taken no personal stance on this law.
 
Topspin said:
so are you saying you oppose it, or are you a douchey fence sitter?
Click to expand...
I'm a "douchey" fence-sitter. I'm more intellectually interested in the constitutionality of the law than in support or against the law. Since I do not live in AZ I do not know why they may have found it necessary to pass such a measure, as I understand it they are under assault (as in people actually dying in AZ) due to lax Federal enforcement.

While this is a wedge issue and being selected by both of the parties to underline and push this wedge, I do not have an opinion on whether to support or not such a law.

Now are you going to apologize for your personal attacks; or are you a hypocrite?
 
Topspin said:
no problem lots of dorks are constituionally unaware when blatant racism is going on.
Click to expand...
I reject the premise that immigration, legally or illegally, constitutes a race. If such were the case, none of us would be other than part of the race of "immigrants"... Even Native Americans didn't spring from American soil...
 
Damocles said:
I reject the premise that immigration, legally or illegally, constitutes a race. If such were the case, none of us would be other than part of the race of "immigrants"... Even Native Americans didn't spring from American soil...
Click to expand...


Dude, pretending that race-based enforcement is not the likely result of the law is ridiculous. That's why poll results show that white people like it and non-white people do not.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Dude, pretending that race-based enforcement is not the likely result of the law is ridiculous. That's why poll results show that white people like it and non-white people do not.
Click to expand...
I'm not "pretending" anything of the sort... I actually do not know. If the "legal contact" provision is followed then it will not be race-based enforcement. If it isn't followed correctly it can be and they will be sued successfully; and the law will likely be struck down by courts (if it isn't anyway long before it ever comes into effect.)
 
Damocles said:
I'm not "pretending" anything of the sort... I actually do not know. If the "legal contact" provision is followed then it will not be race-based enforcement. If it isn't followed correctly it can be and they will be sued successfully; and the law will likely be struck down by courts (if it isn't anyway long before it ever comes into effect.)
Click to expand...

The legal contact provision does nothing to cure race-based enforcement in much the same was that race-neutral traffic laws do not cure race-based enforcement of those laws, i.e. driving while black.
 
NigelTufnel said:
The legal contact provision does nothing to cure race-based enforcement in much the same was that race-neutral traffic laws do not cure race-based enforcement of those laws, i.e. driving while black.
Click to expand...
Actually it does, as "legal contact" cannot be made based on race, i.e. lawsuits driven by driving while black. Anyway, until the law is actually in effect there is no provision at all that makes it specifically racist. It is all in how you perceive and predict enforcement would be handled that makes you believe it is "racist", and this is somewhat understandable considering the history of enforcement of laws like traffic laws. It is, however, supposition rather than reality at this point.

The reality is, "immigrant" is not a race, and it is how they may enforce it that we have questions about. Are you saying this law would otherwise be constitutional if it was enforced in the way you want it to be?
 
Damocles said:
Actually it does, as "legal contact" cannot be made based on race.
Click to expand...


I'm not really interested in arguing this point with you. Legal contact cannot be made solely on the basis of race, but an officer can decide whether to make legal contact for minor technical infringements of the law based on race. So, say a cops sees a brown person jaywalk. The cop can legally initiate lawful contact with said brown person even thought the cop would never initiate lawful contact with a white jaywalker.

Take the driving while black issue. Officers cannot pull black people over for being black. However, they can decide to pull a black person over for exceeding the speed limit by 3 mph while not pulling over a white person for the same reason. Now, the speed limit laws are race-neutral but you can have ostensibly legal race-based enforcement of race-neutral laws.



Edit to respond to your edit: In my view the "see your papers" portion of the law is not likely to be ruled facially unconstitutional but will lead to civil rights violations in enforcement of it. The constitutional question doesn't really interest me that much. Lots of bad laws are Constitutional. That doesn't make them good laws.
 
Last edited:
NigelTufnel said:
I'm not really interested in arguing this point with you. Legal contact cannot be made solely on the basis of race, but an officer can decide whether to make legal contact for minor technical infringements of the law based on race. So, say a cops sees a brown person jaywalk. The cop can legally initiate lawful contact with said brown person even thought the cop would never initiate lawful contact with a white jaywalker.

Take the driving while black issue. Officers cannot pull black people over for being black. However, they can decide to pull a black person over for exceeding the speed limit by 3 mph while not pulling over a white person for the same reason. Now, the speed limit laws are race-neutral but you can have ostensibly legal race-based enforcement of race-neutral laws.



Edit to respond to your edit: In my view the "see your papers" portion of the law is not likely to be ruled facially unconstitutional but will lead to civil rights violations in enforcement of it. The constitutional question doesn't really interest me that much. Lots of bad laws are Constitutional. That doesn't make them good laws.
Click to expand...
And what you get are lawsuits, especially if one can prove that people are getting tickets based on race. If, say, the Nortonion County Sheriff's Dept. (I made the place up, if it exists in reality anywhere it isn't my fault they have such a silly name) gave out 100 tickets for driving only 3 over the speed limit, and all 100 tickets were given to those of a certain pigmentation, it could easily be proven, and therefore a lawsuit more than easily won, that they were not making "legal contact".

Legal contact is more restrictive than you think.
 
Damocles said:
I'm a "douchey" fence-sitter. I'm more intellectually interested in the constitutionality of the law than in support or against the law. Since I do not live in AZ I do not know why they may have found it necessary to pass such a measure, as I understand it they are under assault (as in people actually dying in AZ) due to lax Federal enforcement.

While this is a wedge issue and being selected by both of the parties to underline and push this wedge, I do not have an opinion on whether to support or not such a law.
Click to expand...
Damocles said:


Now are you going to apologize for your personal attacks; or are you a hypocrite?
Click to expand...


http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=51473

This was published in 2005 and nothing has changed. Arizona HAD to do something. It's a very serious problem.


 
Damocles said:
And what you get are lawsuits, especially if one can prove that people are getting tickets based on race. If, say, the Nortonion County Sheriff's Dept. (I made the place up, if it exists in reality anywhere it isn't my fault they have such a silly name) gave out 100 tickets for driving only 3 over the speed limit, and all 100 tickets were given to those of a certain pigmentation, it could easily be proven, and therefore a lawsuit more than easily won, that they were not making "legal contact".

Legal contact is more restrictive than you think.
Click to expand...


Legal contact isn't all that restrictive. In fact, the law was changed because it is so lenient. The new language is better but still suffers from the same enforcement problems.

And the remedy of requiring individuals aggrieved of selective race-based enforcement doesn't do all that much for me when it's an asinine law in the first instance.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Edit to respond to your edit: In my view the "see your papers" portion of the law is not likely to be ruled facially unconstitutional but will lead to civil rights violations in enforcement of it. The constitutional question doesn't really interest me that much. Lots of bad laws are Constitutional. That doesn't make them good laws.
Click to expand...
True, solely being a constitutional law doesn't make it a good law. However it does make it so the law can or will not be enforceable as a matter of law. Whether or not it is constitutional will make a huge difference to our actual future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top