|
Arizona
May 19, 2010 18:34:16 GMT -5
Post by KipEnyan on May 19, 2010 18:34:16 GMT -5
That's just like saying a dedicated criminal is gonna break in my house if they really want to so I might as well not lock my door at night. Of course someone's gonna get you if they really wanna get you, but that doesn't mean you should make it a cake walk for them to do it. No, it's not the same thing, and I don't appreciate hyperbolic analogies that demonstrate YOUR point, but fail to account for the context of the actual situation. Locking your door at night is a guard to your safety and your safety only. Id est: You're keeping bad people out, because bad people are the only people who would be trying to break in to your house in the middle of the night. Another logical flaw is that a lock is non-specific protection. Racial profiling is anything but. In the case of citizenship, there are more GOOD people than bad people who are trying to achieve it. In my opinion, a catch-all safeguard that alienates more good people than it does protect against bad people is a flawed system.
|
|
|
Arizona
May 19, 2010 18:47:33 GMT -5
Post by Johncoyne on May 19, 2010 18:47:33 GMT -5
I was about to post the same thing.
|
|
|
Arizona
May 19, 2010 18:56:36 GMT -5
Post by thequirkyduo on May 19, 2010 18:56:36 GMT -5
I completely agree. I'm opposed to immigration laws regardless, but requiring a person to carry papers with them just because they are of a different ethnic background is disgusting. And forcing legal American citizens to be subjected to that kind of treatment is completely unfair. I mean, imagine how much of an up-roar there would be if the government started requiring white people to carry around papers to prove that they're legal citizens?
|
|
|
Arizona
May 19, 2010 19:16:16 GMT -5
Post by Johncoyne on May 19, 2010 19:16:16 GMT -5
I mean, imagine how much of an up-roar there would be if the government started requiring white people to carry around papers to prove that they're legal citizens? There would be less of an uproar. It wouldn't be racist anymore, it would be normal.
|
|
|
Arizona
May 19, 2010 19:19:21 GMT -5
Post by Insane_Zang on May 19, 2010 19:19:21 GMT -5
I'm just gonna restate this. I think the law is fine. They can only ask for papers if you're doing something wrong (like if a cop pulls you over for speeding). And if you're pulled over, the cop will ask for your license and proof of insurance. Is it THAT hard to keep your legal papers with you too?
|
|
|
Arizona
May 19, 2010 19:46:21 GMT -5
Post by KipEnyan on May 19, 2010 19:46:21 GMT -5
I'm just gonna restate this. I think the law is fine. They can only ask for papers if you're doing something wrong (like if a cop pulls you over for speeding). And if you're pulled over, the cop will ask for your license and proof of insurance. Is it THAT hard to keep your legal papers with you too? Correct me if I'm wrong, and this may have been included in the recent amendment to the law that I have yet to read through, but I believe the original stipulation was any person could be questioned and arrested if they didn't have their papers under "any suspicion of being in the country illegally". Nowhere did I see a stipulation that it must be attached with another crime.
|
|
|
Arizona
May 19, 2010 22:03:05 GMT -5
Post by Insane_Zang on May 19, 2010 22:03:05 GMT -5
I know I heard it somewhere, I just don't remember where >.<
|
|
|
Arizona
May 20, 2010 14:53:48 GMT -5
Post by RandiKthxxx on May 20, 2010 14:53:48 GMT -5
No, it's not the same thing, and I don't appreciate hyperbolic analogies that demonstrate YOUR point, but fail to account for the context of the actual situation. -_- What are you, my mom? Anyway Locking your door at night is a guard to your safety and your safety only. Id est: You're keeping bad people out, because bad people are the only people who would be trying to break in to your house in the middle of the night. Another logical flaw is that a lock is non-specific protection. Racial profiling is anything but. In the case of citizenship, there are more GOOD people than bad people who are trying to achieve it. In my opinion, a catch-all safeguard that alienates more good people than it does protect against bad people is a flawed system. I feel like I'm about to get pwned, but I'm gonna argue anyway. The point is no one's gonna go for that SHIRT. Especially after two attempted terrorist attacks in the past what, 6 months? Now if an attack DOES go down and the bad guys got in through your "easy citizenship" everyone's gonna be like "Why weren't they stopped at our borders?!" just like they are now. Making it easier wouldn't make Homeland Security's jobs any easier. It's just not happening, not now. To be honest, I'd rather keep those people on the waiting list now than to risk more innocent lives because we let terrorists just waltz into our country. Just sayin'.
|
|
|
Arizona
May 20, 2010 22:53:49 GMT -5
Post by stephen5000 on May 20, 2010 22:53:49 GMT -5
I was thinking of this issue recently and the question that came up was: what's the problem with immigration anyway. (The only reason that there are so many illegals is that they can't get there legally easily, so this means that people don't want that many immigrants) So why are Americans (and pretty much all of the rest of the world) opposed to immigration in general? The only reason I can think of is overpopulation, but that's not an issue in many countries.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Arizona
May 20, 2010 23:00:59 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2010 23:00:59 GMT -5
I was thinking of this issue recently and the question that came up was: what's the problem with immigration anyway. (The only reason that there are so many illegals is that they can't get there legally easily, so this means that people don't want that many immigrants) So why are Americans (and pretty much all of the rest of the world) opposed to immigration in general? The only reason I can think of is overpopulation, but that's not an issue in many countries. Two major reasons are because 1: They don't pay taxes 2: They work "Under-The-Table", meaning that instead of going through a whole bunch of economic steps to get their money, they get their money straight cash, tax free. This usually includes lower paychecks. The second is a large problem, especially for my family here in South Carolina. My step-dad is a really good carpenter, but now he's got a shed and trailer full of of tools that he can't use because nobody will hire him. They can easily pay someone half the wage, because the immigrants will work for less. This means he can barely ever find a decent-paying job, and even if he does find one, he'll soon be replaced by an immigrant. *Note: I'm not racist. I'm just saying, it's affected me personally.
|
|
|
Arizona
May 20, 2010 23:09:15 GMT -5
Post by Insane_Zang on May 20, 2010 23:09:15 GMT -5
"They stopped our trade, ceased our ships, blockaded our ports, burned our towns, and spilled our blood!"
|
|
|
Arizona
May 21, 2010 0:58:41 GMT -5
Post by newschooled on May 21, 2010 0:58:41 GMT -5
On the one hand, it's a very selfish, self righteous, and biggoted law in my opinion. On the other, it just seems weird that tax dollars were spent to make something that is illegal...Well, illegal.
|
|
|
Arizona
May 21, 2010 13:23:58 GMT -5
Post by krzych32 on May 21, 2010 13:23:58 GMT -5
@insane_Zang, what? I had no idea they did all of that!
But really, what's the point of having borders anyways, I think that the Europeans got it right, you live where you want and you work where you want and everyone is happy. The way to solve this issue is to just let those people live and work here legally+the west should take a bigger part in economic development and political stability of that area.
|
|
|
Arizona
May 21, 2010 15:59:52 GMT -5
Post by Insane_Zang on May 21, 2010 15:59:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Arizona
May 21, 2010 16:07:29 GMT -5
Post by click3tyclick on May 21, 2010 16:07:29 GMT -5
In the EU, this isn't a problem because there's no need to work "under the table".
|
|
|
Arizona
May 21, 2010 16:17:20 GMT -5
Post by Insane_Zang on May 21, 2010 16:17:20 GMT -5
Ok, but there is here, so it's not comparable.
|
|
|
Arizona
May 21, 2010 16:21:19 GMT -5
Post by click3tyclick on May 21, 2010 16:21:19 GMT -5
Ugh. If I wanted to move so Spain, I could be a legal citizen there without much trouble, so I wouldn't have a reason to hide. I suspect that the mexican immigrants aren't illegal for fun.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Arizona
May 21, 2010 16:35:57 GMT -5
Post by Nakor on May 21, 2010 16:35:57 GMT -5
Rhode Island appears to have come up with a much better solution. RI's bill makes illegal immigration a secondary offence, which means police will NOT be stopping people on suspicion of illegal immigration alone. If someone is pulled over for another, valid reason, and there is "reasonable suspicion," then police are required to make a "reasonable effort" in determining if they are in the country legally. No stopping all foreigners, no forcing people to carry papers. ww.abc6.com/Global/story.asp?S=12515298
|
|
|
Arizona
May 21, 2010 16:37:43 GMT -5
Post by Insane_Zang on May 21, 2010 16:37:43 GMT -5
What everyone's missing is Arizona does this too
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Arizona
May 21, 2010 17:18:20 GMT -5
Post by Nakor on May 21, 2010 17:18:20 GMT -5
Yes, the police haven't been pulling people over on suspicion of II alone, though IIRC they're allowed to. They are required to carry their papers everywhere in AZ, and I'm not really sure whether that's really a terrible thing or not. Depends on what happens if you're caught without them I suppose.
|
|