Arizona's "immagration" law

senojekips said:
I'm damned sure of the fact that i do not understand you. Forget all the padding and extraneous material. You made a statement which I have now quoted THREE times. This statement is quite clear and concise.
I posted two videos showing quite clearly that this statement was incorrect.

I'm not interested in whether the people in the video are having their 4th Amendment Rights violated, I'm not interested in your personal experiences nor am I really interested even if it is true that Hispanics are being targeted, after all the suspected Illegal Immigrants would normally be expected to be Hispanic, which does narrow down the list of suspects.

You clearly implied that it was only Non Caucasians being targeted, (see the quote above) I showed that this statement (nothing else) was not true and that the Authorities were stopping and questioning people without regard to their race. What is it that I have not understood in regard to THIS statement,... nothing else.
Click to expand...

Ok I listened again your video(s), well video because actually it the same one clip. One edited/one not edited.

Which bring me to my first point. If you are going to post a video please don't post heavily edited snippets its very misleading. The Drivers voice was erased in the first video so there was no way of telling that there were in fact TWO people (at least) in the car.

Its not the border I was mistaken on that, but it is a border patrol checkpoint (again lacking the full video made that difficult to figure out). Those are US Border patrol agents not Arizona state police/sheriffs. The law I am referring to refers to local Arizona police not federal agents.

2. The Driver is Caucasian. I didn't hear it the first time because his voice had been edited out, so next time please post the entire original video and not just snippets.

The Passenger (the one holding camera who is asked not to film the agents) is most almost certainly Hispanic, he is speaking with a Spanish accent. I think you want to want to take my word on that as I have been around Hispanic communities much longer than you have. I cant imagine there are too many Hispanics living in Australia so yes my ear for North American accents is better than yours.

3. The driver almost immediately says "what is the reason for this immigration stop?" which actually suggests he thinks being questioned for immigration issues BUT later on, the officers said he being detained for "hiding something" (their words. About 5min). I suspect think they were more thinking about Drugs than illegals.

Once again WAS NOT the basis of my argument. I never said Caucasians where not immune to searches. What I said was that laws that are designed to target specific criminal groups like illegals are always focus at minorities never at caucasians. Which is RACIAL PROFILING. They the BP never accused him ONCE of being an illegal himself, NOR DID NOT ASK HIM to provide them with a Birth Certificate to prove his nationality. Your video has done NOTHING to prove otherwise.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
Once again WAS NOT the basis of my argument. I never said Caucasians where not immune to searches.
Click to expand...
I agree,... you did not say that Caucasians were not immune, you said or implied that they were immune from such searches,.... for the fourth time
mmarsh said:
Its always Caucasians who think such laws are just, because they are NEVER the subject of such laws.
Click to expand...
Does that, or does that not, imply that Caucasians are immune from such laws? I'll answer for you,...YES it clearly and unequivocally implies that Caucasians are not subjected to the same laws as others,... in this case Hispanics.
 
Last edited:
senojekips said:
I agree,... you did not say that Caucasians were not immune, you said or implied that they were immune from such searches,.... for the fourth time Does that, or does that not, imply that Caucasians are immune from such laws?
Click to expand...

Alright, let me rephrase what I said, because I think I am beginning to see common ground.

There is nothing in the laws that officially says "Caucasians are immune to such laws". That is true, I never meant to imply differently.

HOWEVER, the sad reality is there is a major difference between what the law states (or doesn't state) and how the law is applied on the street. The fact is these anti immigrant laws on the street will only to applied to people of a darker complexion. In this regard, Caucasians are "immune" because no cop on the street is going to stop a White, blond haired, blue eyed, person under suspicion of being illegal from Mexico. Which is common sense and is fine as long as guidelines other than a suspects complexion are used otherwise the police could legally round up every brown skinned person they see. This issue is NOT that whites are "immune" but that the law is much too vague about what constitutes a reasonable stop.

For example, I would have a major problem with Federal RICO laws (anti-mafia) if they were targeting all Italian-Americans and not simply those associated with the Italian mafia. The AZ laws as they are written are simply too broad in their interpretation and there is a very serious risk of abuse.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
There is nothing in the laws that say "Caucasians are immune to such laws". That is true, I never meant to imply differently.
Click to expand...
Well, if that is the case, all i can say is that you have a very odd way of presenting your case, as the statement you posted in answer to me clearly implies the opposite to anyone with even a basic understanding of the English language.

Oh,... and the videos are of two distinctly different persons on two different occasions in two different vehicles. (Unless of course he changed the weather, the steering wheel, seat covers and mirror adjuster on the door). and from what I can see of the Inspection station at two different locations and from the differing quality I'd say shot with two different cameras.

One thing really stumps me though. If the audio has been scrubbed in the first video how can you tell that the "second person" allegedly holding the camera has a Hispanic accent? also I how did the first person get the perfect sync to hold the conversation with the officers whilst we can also see and hear them talking. This is an amateur video not a professionally edited movie.

I must admit that have heard stranger "explanations",... but not from anyone who was not completely "bombed" out of their head or over the age of four.
 
senojekips said:
Well, if that is the case, all i can say is that you have a very odd way of presenting your case, as the statement you posted in answer to me clearly implies the opposite to anyone with even a basic understanding of the English language.

Oh,... and the videos are of two distinctly different persons on two different occasions in two different vehicles. (Unless of course he changed the weather, the steering wheel, seat covers and mirror adjuster on the door). and from what I can see of the Inspection station at two different locations and from the differing quality I'd say shot with two different cameras.

One thing really stumps me though. If the audio has been scrubbed in the first video how can you tell that the "second person" allegedly holding the camera has a Hispanic accent? also I how did the first person get the perfect sync to hold the conversation with the officers whilst we can also see and hear them talking. This is an amateur video not a professionally edited movie.

I must admit that have heard stranger "explanations",... but not from anyone who was not completely "bombed" out of their head or over the age of four.
Click to expand...

Very astute and accurate observation.:)
 
senojekips said:
Well, if that is the case, all i can say is that you have a very odd way of presenting your case, as the statement you posted in answer to me clearly implies the opposite to anyone with even a basic understanding of the English language.

Oh,... and the videos are of two distinctly different persons on two different occasions in two different vehicles. (Unless of course he changed the weather, the steering wheel, seat covers and mirror adjuster on the door). and from what I can see of the Inspection station at two different locations and from the differing quality I'd say shot with two different cameras.

One thing really stumps me though. If the audio has been scrubbed in the first video how can you tell that the "second person" allegedly holding the camera has a Hispanic accent? also I how did the first person get the perfect sync to hold the conversation with the officers whilst we can also see and hear them talking. This is an amateur video not a professionally edited movie.

I must admit that have heard stranger "explanations",... but not from anyone who was not completely "bombed" out of their head or over the age of four.
Click to expand...

I think I made more than one reasonable attempt to properly clarify my position, perhaps I wasn't explicit enough, but you didn't make much attempt to listen to what I was saying either. So there is fault on both sides.

Second about the tape, I was wrong. I admit it. I thought it was the same tape because I was tired this morning and was not thinking completely straight, I got the two videos mixed up in my head and thought they were the same. I apologize.

Finally. That last bit was really unnecessary. Maybe I made a honest mistake but there is no reason to get nasty. Whether it was right or wrong there is no need to act like the cockroach above me. One troll here is more than enough. I expect those comments from him, and you are worth alot more than he is. Don't stoop to his level to make your point.

Comment removed by Mod.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That is enough! This thread is about Arizona's new "Immigration" Law. Heated as the argument may get, it WILL be kept civil. Attacking the argument is expected and fine. Attacking the poster is not. This goes for everyone.

Understand?
 
A Can of Man said:
For some reason I find it difficult to believe how illegals have more rights than citizens. Are we conveniently ignoring all the things that are stacked up against them? Granted, being illegally present in the country, they shouldn't be here in the first place but to claim they have it BETTER... I think it might be a bit of a stretch.
Click to expand...
I would have agreed with you until I saw this in the News threads;
US lawmakers seek to strip extremists of citizenship.

We only deport illegal aliens.:smile:

We assassinate US citizens.:-(

So it would seem illegals might not have more rights, but the rights they do have are better.;)

In reading the story it should be noted that in the first paragraph it says:

"US lawmakers unveiled legislation Thursday to strip Americans thought to have joined extremist groups like Al-Qaeda of their citizenship, saying it would make it easier to try or assassinate them."


Notice it says easier to assassinate them(citizens).
Which means all though it has been difficult, we have been assassinating citizens.
So lets make it routine to assassinate those who disagree with the Federal Government.

Before mmarsh blames Bush, read further in the article, here is what earns you the Nobel Peace Prize:

"Taking on critics who say his proposal goes too far, Lieberman pointed to news reports that President Barack Obama signed an order enabling the US military to kill US citizens like radical US-Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki."

Kinda makes the Arizona law look down right friendly.:lol:
 
I apologise if I have incensed anyone's sensibilities, however I feel that the point in question, had to be cleared up, as any further debate on the matter would have been highly skewed had I not got to the bottom of it.

Mmarsh, I accept that you were tired, but I feel that you should realise how frustrating your answers were as they were always focussed at everything other than the point I was trying to make.

Nuff Sed from me.
 
Chukpike said:
I would have agreed with you until I saw this in the News threads;
US lawmakers seek to strip extremists of citizenship.

We only deport illegal aliens.:smile:

We assassinate US citizens.:-(

So it would seem illegals might not have more rights, but the rights they do have are better.;)

In reading the story it should be noted that in the first paragraph it says:

"US lawmakers unveiled legislation Thursday to strip Americans thought to have joined extremist groups like Al-Qaeda of their citizenship, saying it would make it easier to try or assassinate them."


Notice it says easier to assassinate them(citizens).
Which means all though it has been difficult, we have been assassinating citizens.
So lets make it routine to assassinate those who disagree with the Federal Government.

Before mmarsh blames Bush, read further in the article, here is what earns you the Nobel Peace Prize:

"Taking on critics who say his proposal goes too far, Lieberman pointed to news reports that President Barack Obama signed an order enabling the US military to kill US citizens like radical US-Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki."

Kinda makes the Arizona law look down right friendly.:lol:
Click to expand...

Don't seem to see a link to the story. :oops:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ils-strip-citizenship-terror-suspects-abroad/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-citizenship/?iref=allsearch&fbid=NTjr6lsP9Oz

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/06/terrorism.act.change/index.html

Here are 3 links I found in <5 min. None of them talk about "assassination". I suspect that you are looking at an "extremist" blog or newsfeed.

According to Sen Lieberman (I,CT) the bill is aimed at updating the existing law that has been on the books since the 1940's. I agree with him. If you support terrorism, we will revoke your citizenship. Where is the problem?

Chukpike said:
"US lawmakers unveiled legislation Thursday to strip Americans thought to have joined extremist groups like Al-Qaeda of their citizenship, saying it would make it easier to try or assassinate them."
Click to expand...
I have placed emphasis in the quote above.

This quote is as inflammatory as it is stupid. Just because the State Department THINKS you have joined an extremist group does not give them the right to revoke your citizenship. Come on Chuckpike, stop trolling.
 
HokieMSG said:
Don't seem to see a link to the story. :oops:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ils-strip-citizenship-terror-suspects-abroad/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-citizenship/?iref=allsearch&fbid=NTjr6lsP9Oz

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/06/terrorism.act.change/index.html

Here are 3 links I found in <5 min. None of them talk about "assassination". I suspect that you are looking at an "extremist" blog or newsfeed.

According to Sen Lieberman (I,CT) the bill is aimed at updating the existing law that has been on the books since the 1940's. I agree with him. If you support terrorism, we will revoke your citizenship. Where is the problem?


I have placed emphasis in the quote above.

This quote is as inflammatory as it is stupid. Just because the State Department THINKS you have joined an extremist group does not give them the right to revoke your citizenship. Come on Chuckpike, stop trolling.
Click to expand...

I am sorry you took it this way.

I meant it as a joke in comparing illegals rights compared to citizens
in the US.
I did not make this up, the news article is on these forums, the title you will find it under:
US lawmakers seek to strip extremists of citizenship

Here is the link:

http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/us-lawmakers-seek-strip-extremists-t83433.html#post574646

As far as assassination, read the first paragraph in the article. I reserve my comments on the article to that thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top