Thought's on the new immigration law in Arizona?

[Box of Fail]

bullados: How much more do I have to say this? I know we trapped the Japanese in camps, I know we dropped a bomb more than we needed to.

Trapping them in camps may have been racist and stupid, but it was done decades ago by a stupid man. But nowadays, I face practically no hardship at all for my race.

Dropping the Nagasaki bomb after we had basically won by already having dropped one in Hiroshima is something that, had I the decision, I would have done. Killing thousands of innocents seems bad, but when you think about it, celebrating victory over adversaries allows for this. It really showed America's power, and it was a way to pay them back double for Pearl Harbor.

p_f: They shall not be denied the right. They aren't. They simply must do it in private, and should not publically honor their culture. Also, when I said that "A Chinese-American should not honor Chiese culture", I meant not from a legal standpoint, but that they are in disagreement with my opinion

 

[SD PokeMom]

fail: so you don't care if it's someone else's turn to be the country's whipping boy, as long as it's not you and yours?

what's the quotation about how evil can only succeed when good people do nothing...? or the 'they came for 'this group' and i said nothing...and when they came for me, there was no one left to speak up'?

you're in for an unpleasant surprise when you finally DO meet up with 'hardship' because of your race. and trust me, it WILL happen...

'mom

 

[Box of Fail]

^I don't pity a lawbreaker, be the law just or not. Just because a law is morally evil doesn't mean you should be allowed to ignore it.

 

[SD PokeMom]

^I don't pity a lawbreaker, be the law just or not. Just because a law is morally evil doesn't mean you should be allowed to ignore it.

so according to you: the civil rights act should never have been passed, nor the jim crow laws overturned?

after all, it was the LAW that 'those people' couldn't sit at the lunch counter, vote, drink from the drinking fountains, use the restrooms, ride the bus, etc. etc. etc.?

'mom

 

[prodigal_fanboy]

you're in for an unpleasant surprise when you finally DO meet up with 'hardship' because of your race. and trust me, it WILL happen...

There are negative health consequences to living in constant fear of a perceived boogeyman. If he doesn't think it will happen and goes through life like that, his cardiovascular system might be better off for it (although he'll be off guard when it does happen).

And Box -- the issue isn't that the law is immoral, that is in my opinion poor articulation on behalf of the opposition. The issue is that there is a morality encoded within our laws, and this law goes against PRECEDING law and the morality on which it is founded. Morality is in a sense, a bystander of precedent --> there, and effected, but the real issue is that this will, if faced with a challenge, be subjected to (and fail) strict scrutiny because of its treatment of a suspect class.

so according to you: the civil rights act should never have been passed, nor the jim crow laws overturned?

after all, it was the LAW that 'those people' couldn't sit at the lunch counter, vote, drink from the drinking fountains, use the restrooms, ride the bus, etc. etc. etc.?

'mom

No, you could say that changing public opinion of morality brought about the law change. Just like there's hardly anything done for Indians who get crapped on both by sports team mascots, movies, and of course the government not because it's ethical but because they're a small enough and isolated enough minority group for very few people to care.

To say that the law must have a basis in morality strikes me as a rather ignorant statement, to be frankly honest, because beneath the surface it reads that law should have a basis in a morality agreeable to me. Moral codes vary widely across cultures, so unless we only want to admit universal cultural beliefs as sources of law then we will run into issues fast when determining a legal system. If we do not do this and instead choose a moral system based on consensus of beliefs to codify into law, we should drop the pretense of multiculturalism altogether, as we would have already legally shunned it. In some ways we have done this in our society -- age of consent, drinking age, qat, *** marriage, etc., etc.

However, these are legislated laws, not necessarily derivated from a rights-based approach to legal systems. As an example, (to my knowledge) abortion is strongly tied with a right to privacy, which is a constructed human right, Constitutionally-speaking. There is a cultural debate over it, even, and you could argue a flaw in the rights-based approach to legal systems, in that human rights are only conferred to humans, not a fetus or embryo, which is a tricky definition of life issue. However, this too might be addressed through the use of universals: if most cultures recognize as human someone who has been born, then the cross-cultural universal definition of human life would be birth.

Either way, to say that laws should be based on morals and tied to morals strikes an iffy role in my book because then whose morals do we choose to base them on? After all, beating your wife was cool until 1950.

 

[SuperWooper]

I usually avoid these political threads like the plague, but I just wanted to pop in to say that I'm both conservative and disgusted by this bill. It doesn't out-and-out condone racism, but its potential to encourage it is frightening. Matters of immigration ought to be dealt with at the federal level, even if "progress" such as this can never be achieved there.

1) Not being able to speak English is a valid reason to throw someone out of the country, not racism. 2) Anyone can learn English...

Both of those statements are false. First of all (and this has already been touched on by a few other commenters), we have no national language, which means that not being able to speak English is definitively not a valid reason to throw someone out of the country.

Additionally, language is a tough thing for some people to grasp. My Ecuadorian aunt speaks fluent English now, but it took her years to get there. I don't believe we have the right to start the clock on an immigrant, then boot them if they miss that deadline. What about immigrants with mental deficiencies that prohibit them from accessing the part of their brain required to grasp a new language? If you had your way, would they have to carry a card proving that they're incapable of speaking English? Do they have to get special "Hi, I'm allowed to speak my native language!" stamps on the documents they'll already be carrying when visiting Arizona?

I'm a white person adopted by Filipinos. There is plenty of racism towards Asians! You must be living under a rock, lol. Oh wait, you're 13 or something?

Ad hominem, debate guy.

 

[Box of Fail]

I usually avoid these political threads like the plague, but I just wanted to pop in to say that I'm both conservative and disgusted by this bill. It doesn't out-and-out condone racism, but its potential to encourage it is frightening. Matters of immigration ought to be dealt with at the federal level, even if "progress" such as this can never be achieved there.



Both of those statements are false. First of all (and this has already been touched on by a few other commenters), we have no national language, which means that not being able to speak English is definitively not a valid reason to throw someone out of the country.
What if one is pulled over for speeding? Cops shouldn't have to cater to speakers of another language. If the inability to speak English inhibits one's ability to function, they should be thrown out. If not, it's fine, but if you're somehow questioned by police, if you can't answer in English, you should be 'outta here', so to speak.

Additionally, language is a tough thing for some people to grasp. My Ecuadorian aunt speaks fluent English now, but it took her years to get there. I don't believe we have the right to start the clock on an immigrant, then boot them if they miss that deadline. What about immigrants with mental deficiencies that prohibit them from accessing the part of their brain required to grasp a new language? If you had your way, would they have to carry a card proving that they're incapable of speaking English? Do they have to get special "Hi, I'm allowed to speak my native language!" stamps on the documents they'll already be carrying when visiting Arizona?
I have always been of the mind that society should not cater to those with disabilities. We should not integrate wheelchair ramps everywhere for the convenience of the minority. If you are in the minority, it is okay for those in power not to care about your needs. So you must learn English. How you do it is not my problem. If you don't, maybe you should stay where you were until you do learn.


Ad hominem, debate guy.
True, although I can't really say I'm offended by it.

I hope this equals 17 characters.

 

[Gir]

Let's see, box of fail thinks everyone should speak the language he speaks just because it's the majority, laws aren't allowed to be changed or broken even if they are completely unjust, and he doesn't think that certain minorities, like people with disabilities, shouldn't be given things like wheelchair ramps.

So because they don't speak english, they have to learn it or else they should just go away? What about the disabled people? They should learn to walk or they should just go away?

Hmmm...now was it Nazi Germany that just started killing the disabled and old because they wouldn't "get with the program" ? Or am I mistaken? Now I understand that you are not advocating this...but seriously I think there is a similarity there...

 

[bullados]

Aryan race much, BoF?

Yes, I just went Goodwin's Law on you, bro ^_^

 

[Box of Fail]

I'm not 'Aryan', I'm Asian X_X

Hardly becoming of someone you're demonizing as a Nazi

 

[SD PokeMom]

nope, just adds to the existing fail that someone who is part of a group which historically has been persecuted and discriminated against apparently doesn't give a damn when it's a 'different' group receiving the same treatment. those who fail to remember history etc...

'mom

 

[Box of Fail]

'Historically has been persecuted and discriminated against'? If you're talking about Asians, I beg examples. We have recieved little racist treatment. And honestly if someone calls me 'yellow' I don't give a damn. I even make jokes about Asians. Remember, 'sticks and stones can break my bones'. Now finish the sentence

 

[SD PokeMom]

'Historically has been persecuted and discriminated against'? If you're talking about Asians, I beg examples. We have recieved little racist treatment. And honestly if someone calls me 'yellow' I don't give a damn. I even make jokes about Asians. Remember, 'sticks and stones can break my bones'. Now finish the sentence

on my way out to league, so i don't have time to look up moar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act

yeah, yeah, wikipedia...so look at the linked references...

'mom

 

[Box of Fail]

And while racist things are being done to many other races today, you cite a law from '82. As an 'individual of Chinese descent' I can easily tell you that I and all the Asian people I know face very few hardships due to their race.

Besides keeping me out of Ivy League Universities, which is not a big deal, how is my being Chinese going to adversely affect me today?

 

[dogma]

Idiotic law. Sorry, I really don't see how the law, as it stands, can be defended. How did the people of Arizona allow the law to come into affect?

(Note - I agree that the state has a right (duty?) to protect itself and its rightful citizens against illegal immigration. But to do it by infringing upon human rights and allow for the possibility of mass discrimination is not the way to go about it)

Pathetic. Truly pathetic that this has come into statute

 

[Box of Fail]

How exactly does the law infringe upon human rights?

 

[prodigal_fanboy]

How exactly does the law infringe upon human rights?

There is a human right against being treated differently on the basis of race.

UHDR Art. 2:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

UHDR Art. 7:

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

These are iterated as, derivatives of, or in spirit with the equal protection clause of our Constitution, depending on how you wish to speak.

Because you can get pulled over on suspicion of being illegal without a warrant, unless they pull over random white people in proper proportion, then they are guilty of racial profiling if they simply pull over Hispanics. And racial profiling is not permissible under Art. 7 via Art 2. and the Equal Protection Clause. And yes, we ratified the UDHR and so I think we are thus bound by it (I don't know the conditions of our ratification, if any).

 

[Lawman]

Its useless to "argue" with Box...it is obvious he would walk the Trail of Tears barefoot thru winter, get an arm tattoo # like the Jews and be thrown in an Internment Camp all summer long just to prove us wrong. He is too young to "get" what this law means. Not to say he shouldnt have a voice here, you just need to understand this going forward.

Keith

 

[PokeDad]

^I don't pity a lawbreaker, be the law just or not. Just because a law is morally evil doesn't mean you should be allowed to ignore it.

You are ABSOLUTELY 100% wrong. Ihr braunes Hemd stellt dar (your brown shirt is showing).

Over and over, courts have held that following orders is not an excuse or justification for atrocities, for moral wrongs. A "law" requiring that an order be followed can be unlawful by it's very discord with the Constitution which grants equal rights and protections to all - even to brown people in Arizona. Look up Andersonville.

You are so far removed from what an American is. Ameericans broke the laws of the British. We chose to withhold taxes, we kidnapped a tax inspector, we killed the soldiers of our rulers. Americans ignored the laws of Mexico in Texas regarding settling, we broke the laws of Mexico. We killed their soldiers. When we lost in our unlawful skirmish at the Alamo, we made war upon Mexico.

You would have us follow all laws, when America was made breaking all laws. You support following laws should they be morally evil. Soldiers can not do so, at least our soldiers can't. But your view would have put you in good with the Nazis, I'm sure they would have let you wear a brown shirt; what, you aren't blond and blue, not a true Aryan? Oh, well, thanks for agreeing with us, now won't you please step into this shower.

 

[InfiniteMasterEx]

Illegal immigration is illegal, no matter how much you spin it, and that does not include the fact that it is detrimental to the economy, stressing welfare programs, and just plain unfair to the legal immigrant. I am all for increased legal immigration in the form of easier entry requirements, guest-worker programs, and conditional amnesty, but there needs to be something done about the current illegal aliens, especially the criminal ones. If there are better ways of dealing with the current illegal aliens in this country (other than maybe full amnesty), I would like to hear it.

Sure, the police might be on heightened alert when they see a Hispanic person moreso than other types of people, but the police still need some sort of reason to apprehend the person, like running a red light, and not just their skin color. And if they do get pulled over, if they do not have anything suspicious (Twelve people in the trunk or having no registration or driver's license? Come on.) or the person has their "papers" in the dashboard, everything is fine and dandy. And just because there is going to be disproportionately higher apprehension rate of Hispanics does not mean the law is inheritly racist; that is like saying robbery should not be illegal because the majority of robberies are done by African-Americans (No offense.) Statistics do not lie but they do not automatically make you guilty either.

Hispanics will not be the only targets by this law as there are still many Asian, Arabic, etc. illegal immigrants as well. Oh, and Caucasians will not be targeted by this law? Did you know foreign Italians and Russians have weird accents? (No offense, again)

How about we wait for the law to be actually enforced before we start jumping to conclusions that only Hispanics will be singled out.