FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Honest, hardworking AZ man asked for his "papers",





handfleisch
Sounds like a story from some totalitarian country but it's the state of Arizona and their insane new laws demanding everyone carry a birth certificate. US citizen, trucker, just trying to make his living, and he get's handcuffed and hauled away

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8214448

Quote:
PHOENIX – A Valley man says he was pulled over Wednesday morning and questioned when he arrived at a weigh station for his commercial vehicle along Val Vista and the 202 freeway.

Abdon, who did not want to use his last name, says he provided several key pieces of information but what he provided apparently was not what was needed.

He tells 3TV, “I don’t think it’s correct, if I have to take my birth certificate with me all the time.”

3TV caught up with Abdon after he was released from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in central Phoenix. He and his wife, Jackie, are still upset about what happened to him.

Jackie tells 3TV, “It’s still something awful to be targeted. I can’t even imagine what he felt, people watching like he was some type of criminal.”

Abdon was told he did not have enough paperwork on him when he pulled into a weigh station to have his commercial truck checked. He provided his commercial driver’s license and a social security number but ended up handcuffed.
Stubru Freak
Hmm, that's the law in quite a few countries. I don't think it's a bad thing, taking your passport with you isn't that much of a problem, and it helps law enforcers.
Moonspider
handfleisch wrote:
Sounds like a story from some totalitarian country but it's the state of Arizona and their insane new laws demanding everyone carry a birth certificate. US citizen, trucker, just trying to make his living, and he get's handcuffed and hauled away

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8214448


There's little to make an informed opinion on the matter. All we saw in the report from 3TV was one side of the story, without much detail and certainly no questioning from the reporter. I've been checking the 3TV website for a follow-up to the story, and have seen none.

Besides, this has nothing to do with the new law. Whatever the circumstances, law enforcement made their decisions based upon existing law. Furthermore, the new law does not require everyone to carry a birth certificate.

I believe this is just a one-off incident. There's no reason to believe this to be indicative of a greater trend. Because of the free-trade agreement with Mexico, innumerable truckers from both countries cross the border every day. The fact that we do not hear of this very often (this is the first case of which I've heard) indicates to me that a U.S. citizen being run through the ringer for papers is not common.

Respectfully,
M
ocalhoun
If you're going to open the borders -- which I'm in favor of -- do so, but do it the right way.
Implicitly condoning illegal immigration and denying authorities the power to fight it is not the right way.
Stubru Freak
ocalhoun wrote:
If you're going to open the borders -- which I'm in favor of -- do so, but do it the right way.
Implicitly condoning illegal immigration and denying authorities the power to fight it is not the right way.


Indeed! The requirement to carry my passport with me everywhere is a small price for being able to travel all over Europe without any border control.
deanhills
Stubru Freak wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
If you're going to open the borders -- which I'm in favor of -- do so, but do it the right way.
Implicitly condoning illegal immigration and denying authorities the power to fight it is not the right way.


Indeed! The requirement to carry my passport with me everywhere is a small price for being able to travel all over Europe without any border control.
Totally agreed. Besides which, if something should happen to me, at least someone would be able to identify who I am.
liljp617
What is at stake here is of much more concern than the extra 4oz of weight to your pocket...
handfleisch
The latest from the state of Arizona. What the hell is wrong with that place?
http://www.examiner.com/x-33854-Portland-Liberal-Examiner~y2010m4d30-Arizona-now-targeting-teachers-with-accents
Quote:

Arizona now targeting teachers with accents


The Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.

The crackdown applies to classes deemed to have students who are learning English, mostly as a second language. Federal No Child Left Behind regulations call for students to be taught by persons fluent in English. The determination of fluency is left up to individual states.

Arizona seems to think that includes accents. Of course, they are wrong - accents do not by themselves measure fluency. And almost every person who is a native speaker of another language is going to have an accent when speaking English, unless they learned English at a young age.

"This is just one more indication of the incredible anti-immigrant sentiment in the state," said Bruce Merrill, a professor emeritus at Arizona State University who conducts public-opinion research.
Moonspider
handfleisch wrote:
The latest from the state of Arizona. What the hell is wrong with that place?
http://www.examiner.com/x-33854-Portland-Liberal-Examiner~y2010m4d30-Arizona-now-targeting-teachers-with-accents
Quote:

Arizona now targeting teachers with accents


The Arizona Department of Education recently began telling school districts that teachers whose spoken English it deems to be heavily accented or ungrammatical must be removed from classes for students still learning English, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.

The crackdown applies to classes deemed to have students who are learning English, mostly as a second language. Federal No Child Left Behind regulations call for students to be taught by persons fluent in English. The determination of fluency is left up to individual states.

Arizona seems to think that includes accents. Of course, they are wrong - accents do not by themselves measure fluency. And almost every person who is a native speaker of another language is going to have an accent when speaking English, unless they learned English at a young age.

"This is just one more indication of the incredible anti-immigrant sentiment in the state," said Bruce Merrill, a professor emeritus at Arizona State University who conducts public-opinion research.


I don't think there is anything wrong with Arizona. And even if I did, it's none of my business. I'm not a citizen of Arizona.

According to the article in WSJ, there's far more to the evaluation of a teacher's language proficiency than just their accent. With regard to the accent, Adela Santa Cruz, the director of Arizona's education department, stated that the heaviness of the accent is taken into account only if it impacts comprehension.

Polls show that the majority of Americans support Arizona's laws. Like I said, I don't care because I'm not a citizen of Arizona. My state (California) has enough problems to eclipse the other 49 and all of our territitories. The last thing I'm going to worry about is another state's problems. (Tennessee and South Carolina excepted for familial reasons. Smile)

R,
M
deanhills
Agreed with Moonspider on the accent issue. I'm in a multi-cultural environment, and for teaching, there are quite a number of people with foreign accents, and people do pay attention to whether that may impact teaching standards, especially when they want the students to develop good English language comprehension and pronunciation skills.

I wonder whether the preoccupation with racism in the states of those who are pointing their fingers at Arizona has more to do with the problems in their own States than Arizona. I admire Arizona for actually confronting its own issues, and doing something about it.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
Agreed with Moonspider on the accent issue. I'm in a multi-cultural environment, and for teaching, there are quite a number of people with foreign accents, and people do pay attention to whether that may impact teaching standards, especially when they want the students to develop good English language comprehension and pronunciation skills.

I wonder whether the preoccupation with racism in the states of those who are pointing their fingers at Arizona has more to do with the problems in their own States than Arizona. I admire Arizona for actually confronting its own issues, and doing something about it.


The Mexican-American accent is an American accent, people. Get used to it. When I hear about them coming down on thick Southern accents or Irish brogues or British accents then I'll believe it's not bigotry.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Agreed with Moonspider on the accent issue. I'm in a multi-cultural environment, and for teaching, there are quite a number of people with foreign accents, and people do pay attention to whether that may impact teaching standards, especially when they want the students to develop good English language comprehension and pronunciation skills.

I wonder whether the preoccupation with racism in the states of those who are pointing their fingers at Arizona has more to do with the problems in their own States than Arizona. I admire Arizona for actually confronting its own issues, and doing something about it.


The Mexican-American accent is an American accent, people. Get used to it. When I hear about them coming down on thick Southern accents or Irish brogues or British accents then I'll believe it's not bigotry.
Who said anything about Mexicans? I was talking about people in general whose English is difficult to decipher, and yes, that could be someone from Scotland too, or from any of the many other countries of the world. I'm certain that there must be a number of Mexican Americans who are teaching in Arizona, and whose English is excellent, whether with an accent or not. Surely the language prerequisite is not limited to Arizona however. It is a general rule that if you employ someone in a teaching position that it should be easy to understand their English, comprehension being a key ingredient for teaching effectively. Or do you want to apply racism in reverse, by saying that those who are evaluating candidates for teaching positions should go light on Mexicans, rather than allowing them to compete fairly and squarely with everyone else? I'm almost certain that there would be many Mexican teachers who would object to that too.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Agreed with Moonspider on the accent issue. I'm in a multi-cultural environment, and for teaching, there are quite a number of people with foreign accents, and people do pay attention to whether that may impact teaching standards, especially when they want the students to develop good English language comprehension and pronunciation skills.

I wonder whether the preoccupation with racism in the states of those who are pointing their fingers at Arizona has more to do with the problems in their own States than Arizona. I admire Arizona for actually confronting its own issues, and doing something about it.


The Mexican-American accent is an American accent, people. Get used to it. When I hear about them coming down on thick Southern accents or Irish brogues or British accents then I'll believe it's not bigotry.
Who said anything about Mexicans?
Wake up. THis whole thread is about Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, and the context of what's going on in Arizona.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Agreed with Moonspider on the accent issue. I'm in a multi-cultural environment, and for teaching, there are quite a number of people with foreign accents, and people do pay attention to whether that may impact teaching standards, especially when they want the students to develop good English language comprehension and pronunciation skills.

I wonder whether the preoccupation with racism in the states of those who are pointing their fingers at Arizona has more to do with the problems in their own States than Arizona. I admire Arizona for actually confronting its own issues, and doing something about it.


The Mexican-American accent is an American accent, people. Get used to it. When I hear about them coming down on thick Southern accents or Irish brogues or British accents then I'll believe it's not bigotry.
Who said anything about Mexicans?
Wake up. THis whole thread is about Mexicans, Mexican-Americans, and the context of what's going on in Arizona.
I see, so the country's Mexican problem is being projected on Arizona, as a racist issue? And I imagine all other States are totally non-racist in the treatment of their illegal immigrants? They welcome illegal immigrants with open arms?
handfleisch
here's the latest
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/17/nation/la-na-arizona-immigration-20100518
Quote:
ACLU sues to stop Arizona's immigration law
A class-action suit filed by civil rights groups argues that the measure will lead to racial profiling and violates the Constitution.
May 17, 2010|By Nicholas Riccardi, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Denver — Several civil rights organizations filed a lawsuit Monday seeking to halt a controversial new Arizona law that requires local police to enforce federal immigration regulations.

The lawsuit is at least the fourth filed since Republican Gov. Jan Brewer last month signed the law, which makes it a state crime to lack immigration paperwork in Arizona and requires police to determine the status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants. The federal class-action claim contends that the law will lead to widespread racial profiling, infringes on the federal government's ability to set immigration policy and violates the Constitution's 1st and 4th amendments.
Moonspider
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Agreed with Moonspider on the accent issue. I'm in a multi-cultural environment, and for teaching, there are quite a number of people with foreign accents, and people do pay attention to whether that may impact teaching standards, especially when they want the students to develop good English language comprehension and pronunciation skills.

I wonder whether the preoccupation with racism in the states of those who are pointing their fingers at Arizona has more to do with the problems in their own States than Arizona. I admire Arizona for actually confronting its own issues, and doing something about it.


The Mexican-American accent is an American accent, people. Get used to it. When I hear about them coming down on thick Southern accents or Irish brogues or British accents then I'll believe it's not bigotry.


To be honest, if a teacher with one of those accents speaks in such a manner that it impedes student comprehenstion, then that would apply. However you're saying that because there may not be a teacher in Arizona with a heavy Irish brogue, Southern accent, or British accent then any action against someone with a thick Mexican accent is racist? That's like saying I can't pick out an apple that's different from all of the other apples in a basket because there are no oranges in the basket of apples.

Now, if someone does point out an Arizona teacher with an accent so heavy that it impedes comprehenision and that teacher is/was treated differently than a teacher with a Mexican accent that impedes comprehension, then yes, I'll agree with you wholeheartedly. (However I would say that the former should be removed rather than the latter kept.) But until then you can't use a hypothetical situation that does not exist to claim bigotry.

Respectfully,
M
Afaceinthematrix
I disagree that a teacher with an accent should be removed. Just wait until you get to the university level and about half of your courses in mathematics and science are taught by someone with an accent. If you ever work for an international company, then you'll deal with people with accents. If you ever want to make friends with someone not from here, then you'll deal with accents. Learning to deal with these things is important and sheltering kids from it is not a solution.

Furthermore, there are many other ways of communicating a subject than simply talking. It is important for children to learn those too. You'll often (depending on how often your job requires you to work with people) have to communicate with people who don't speak a language you understand. All of these are important skills.

The common response to this will probably be something along the lines that there will be plenty of time for children to learn this and that right now is the time for them to get their education. However, any student who doesn't learn the material and uses their teacher's accent as an excuse truly doesn't care and probably wouldn't learn the material anyways. Any student who truly cares will go to the extra effort to either ask another teacher for help, ask a friend (who understands the teacher) for help, go to the teacher after school and ask them to explain the material slower, etc. I used to be bad with accents but now I can understand almost anyone with no problem. In high school, I had a teacher with a thick Korean accent. But, knowing I had to learn Calculus, I went to him after school and asked him to re-explain a few things. By spending that little extra time communicating with him, not only did I learn the material, I also learned to understand his accent.
handfleisch
Moonspider wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Agreed with Moonspider on the accent issue. I'm in a multi-cultural environment, and for teaching, there are quite a number of people with foreign accents, and people do pay attention to whether that may impact teaching standards, especially when they want the students to develop good English language comprehension and pronunciation skills.

I wonder whether the preoccupation with racism in the states of those who are pointing their fingers at Arizona has more to do with the problems in their own States than Arizona. I admire Arizona for actually confronting its own issues, and doing something about it.


The Mexican-American accent is an American accent, people. Get used to it. When I hear about them coming down on thick Southern accents or Irish brogues or British accents then I'll believe it's not bigotry.


To be honest, if a teacher with one of those accents speaks in such a manner that it impedes student comprehenstion, then that would apply. However you're saying that because there may not be a teacher in Arizona with a heavy Irish brogue, Southern accent, or British accent then any action against someone with a thick Mexican accent is racist? That's like saying I can't pick out an apple that's different from all of the other apples in a basket because there are no oranges in the basket of apples.

Now, if someone does point out an Arizona teacher with an accent so heavy that it impedes comprehenision and that teacher is/was treated differently than a teacher with a Mexican accent that impedes comprehension, then yes, I'll agree with you wholeheartedly. (However I would say that the former should be removed rather than the latter kept.) But until then you can't use a hypothetical situation that does not exist to claim bigotry.

Respectfully,
M


You are skewing the argument, and you seem to be willfully blind on this one. The context is the government of Arizona's recent passage of a broad-reaching law aimed at anyone who can't produce proof of citizenship, a law now being challenged in the courts by those who are concerned with freedom and civil liberties. In that context, this move against teachers with accents is over-the-top. You're missing the forest for the few trees which you are twisting into pretzels anyway.
Alaskacameradude
Ya, I was pulled over for no reason and asked for my ID as well. When I asked why I was pulled over,
the officer couldn't really tell me other than a vague reference to someone 'calling in' and 'reporting
a drunk driver with a car similar to yours'. And I showed him my ID, took his sobriety tests, and
was on my way. Now that I think of it, maybe he was racial profiling.....

Fact is, if you are a law abiding citizen, you have nothing to fear from the cops asking for your ID.
Yeah, it's a pain in the butt, but that's really all it is.....unless you ARE here illegally.
deanhills
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Ya, I was pulled over for no reason and asked for my ID as well. When I asked why I was pulled over,
the officer couldn't really tell me other than a vague reference to someone 'calling in' and 'reporting
a drunk driver with a car similar to yours'. And I showed him my ID, took his sobriety tests, and
was on my way. Now that I think of it, maybe he was racial profiling.....

Fact is, if you are a law abiding citizen, you have nothing to fear from the cops asking for your ID.
Yeah, it's a pain in the butt, but that's really all it is.....unless you ARE here illegally.
I feel so much better when I read a posting like this Alaska. You really need to post more regularly in the forum! I feel the same about this. I can't understand why teachers need to count every head in a class room, and everything gets to be monitored for order, however when it gets to be outside and asking for an ID, it then gets to be racial profiling. Almost a proverbial case of the lady doth protest too much.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Ya, I was pulled over for no reason and asked for my ID as well. When I asked why I was pulled over,
the officer couldn't really tell me other than a vague reference to someone 'calling in' and 'reporting
a drunk driver with a car similar to yours'. And I showed him my ID, took his sobriety tests, and
was on my way. Now that I think of it, maybe he was racial profiling.....

Fact is, if you are a law abiding citizen, you have nothing to fear from the cops asking for your ID.
Yeah, it's a pain in the butt, but that's really all it is.....unless you ARE here illegally.
I feel so much better when I read a posting like this Alaska. You really need to post more regularly in the forum! I feel the same about this. I can't understand why teachers need to count every head in a class room, and everything gets to be monitored for order, however when it gets to be outside and asking for an ID, it then gets to be racial profiling. Almost a proverbial case of the lady doth protest too much.

You're both obviously unaware that the logic "the only people who care are those doing something illegal" can be used to rationalize any invasion of your rights. Cops should be able to search your home without a warrant -- you only care if you're doing something illegal, right? Cops should be able to hold prisoners as long as they want before charging them -- only crooks would care about that, right? And that's how this logic flushes democracy down the toilet. It's a basic tenet of democracy that we have these rights, and to say only criminals care about them is a totally anti-democratic point of view.
Stubru Freak
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Ya, I was pulled over for no reason and asked for my ID as well. When I asked why I was pulled over,
the officer couldn't really tell me other than a vague reference to someone 'calling in' and 'reporting
a drunk driver with a car similar to yours'. And I showed him my ID, took his sobriety tests, and
was on my way. Now that I think of it, maybe he was racial profiling.....

Fact is, if you are a law abiding citizen, you have nothing to fear from the cops asking for your ID.
Yeah, it's a pain in the butt, but that's really all it is.....unless you ARE here illegally.
I feel so much better when I read a posting like this Alaska. You really need to post more regularly in the forum! I feel the same about this. I can't understand why teachers need to count every head in a class room, and everything gets to be monitored for order, however when it gets to be outside and asking for an ID, it then gets to be racial profiling. Almost a proverbial case of the lady doth protest too much.

You're both obviously unaware that the logic "the only people who care are those doing something illegal" can be used to rationalize any invasion of your rights. Cops should be able to search your home without a warrant -- you only care if you're doing something illegal, right? Cops should be able to hold prisoners as long as they want before charging them -- only crooks would care about that, right? And that's how this logic flushes democracy down the toilet. It's a basic tenet of democracy that we have these rights, and to say only criminals care about them is a totally anti-democratic point of view.


No, that's different. Asking for your ID isn't an invasion of any of your rights.

If criminals can be held for as long as the police wants, they can hold innocent people, not only guilty ones. So that's an invasion of your freedom.

But you don't have the right not to be asked for your ID. That would be a silly right. Are you going to block legislation that wants to build a bridge by calling in your right to not have any bridges built nearby?

You don't automatically have some right just because you don't agree with a law.
Bikerman
Well actually.....
If an officer has the power to ask you for ID then that presumes some sanction if you refuse, otherwise you just say MYOB.
If there is a sanction - say being taken to the police station until your identity can be established - then that is, in my book, an infringement of my rights. Basically arrest without due cause...
It is also license to hassle 'normal' targets. We know that police here use Stop and Search laws in a very discriminatory way - this is well established and admitted to even by the Police Federation.....
Stubru Freak
The cause is your denial to show your ID. If there's a law that says cars need headlights (like in most countries), and you drive around without headlights and get arrested, that's not without a cause. Even if you think you should have the right to drive around in any car you want, that doesn't make it true. This is the same.

You should just ask yourself if you think the right to walk around without an ID is a right you really want to have. I don't, I think the right to travel abroad without restrictions is more important. It's a matter of priorities, not a matter of democracy. Not every right you can think of is essential to democracy.
Bikerman
Stubru Freak wrote:
The cause is your denial to show your ID. If there's a law that says cars need headlights (like in most countries), and you drive around without headlights and get arrested, that's not without a cause. Even if you think you should have the right to drive around in any car you want, that doesn't make it true. This is the same.

You should just ask yourself if you think the right to walk around without an ID is a right you really want to have. I don't, I think the right to travel abroad without restrictions is more important. It's a matter of priorities, not a matter of democracy. Not every right you can think of is essential to democracy.

It is in no way analogous. The reason for the headlights is clear - it is a matter of public safety. There is no such reason for the ID. If the officer has cause for suspicion then that should be enough. If he hasn't then why ask for ID?
I already live in a country where I have the right to walk around without an ID card, and I'm quite happy with that.
Moonspider
handfleisch wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Agreed with Moonspider on the accent issue. I'm in a multi-cultural environment, and for teaching, there are quite a number of people with foreign accents, and people do pay attention to whether that may impact teaching standards, especially when they want the students to develop good English language comprehension and pronunciation skills.

I wonder whether the preoccupation with racism in the states of those who are pointing their fingers at Arizona has more to do with the problems in their own States than Arizona. I admire Arizona for actually confronting its own issues, and doing something about it.


The Mexican-American accent is an American accent, people. Get used to it. When I hear about them coming down on thick Southern accents or Irish brogues or British accents then I'll believe it's not bigotry.


To be honest, if a teacher with one of those accents speaks in such a manner that it impedes student comprehenstion, then that would apply. However you're saying that because there may not be a teacher in Arizona with a heavy Irish brogue, Southern accent, or British accent then any action against someone with a thick Mexican accent is racist? That's like saying I can't pick out an apple that's different from all of the other apples in a basket because there are no oranges in the basket of apples.

Now, if someone does point out an Arizona teacher with an accent so heavy that it impedes comprehenision and that teacher is/was treated differently than a teacher with a Mexican accent that impedes comprehension, then yes, I'll agree with you wholeheartedly. (However I would say that the former should be removed rather than the latter kept.) But until then you can't use a hypothetical situation that does not exist to claim bigotry.

Respectfully,
M


You are skewing the argument, and you seem to be willfully blind on this one. The context is the government of Arizona's recent passage of a broad-reaching law aimed at anyone who can't produce proof of citizenship, a law now being challenged in the courts by those who are concerned with freedom and civil liberties. In that context, this move against teachers with accents is over-the-top. You're missing the forest for the few trees which you are twisting into pretzels anyway.


I understand the context perfectly, but respectfully disagree with your assessment.

Those who disagree with the law do so on the hypothetical notion that it is discriminatory. However, the law in and of itself is not, in my opinion. (We'll see how the courts rule in the lawsuits.)

Now, if after the law goes into effect we see American citizens being unduly harassed because of their appearance or accent, then I'll agree with you and side with efforts to alter or abolish the law. Until then however, I see no basis for an argument against the law because I see nothing inherently discriminatory in it's language.

I didn't see it posted earlier, but here is a link to the state's .pdf file of the law:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

handfleisch wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Ya, I was pulled over for no reason and asked for my ID as well. When I asked why I was pulled over,
the officer couldn't really tell me other than a vague reference to someone 'calling in' and 'reporting
a drunk driver with a car similar to yours'. And I showed him my ID, took his sobriety tests, and
was on my way. Now that I think of it, maybe he was racial profiling.....

Fact is, if you are a law abiding citizen, you have nothing to fear from the cops asking for your ID.
Yeah, it's a pain in the butt, but that's really all it is.....unless you ARE here illegally.
I feel so much better when I read a posting like this Alaska. You really need to post more regularly in the forum! I feel the same about this. I can't understand why teachers need to count every head in a class room, and everything gets to be monitored for order, however when it gets to be outside and asking for an ID, it then gets to be racial profiling. Almost a proverbial case of the lady doth protest too much.

You're both obviously unaware that the logic "the only people who care are those doing something illegal" can be used to rationalize any invasion of your rights. Cops should be able to search your home without a warrant -- you only care if you're doing something illegal, right? Cops should be able to hold prisoners as long as they want before charging them -- only crooks would care about that, right? And that's how this logic flushes democracy down the toilet. It's a basic tenet of democracy that we have these rights, and to say only criminals care about them is a totally anti-democratic point of view.


In the example cited by Alaska, however, the police officer did not ask for his ID without a reason. It was and is part of routine procedure during a traffic stop. In the context of the example, the police officer acted appropriately and I agree, in the context of the example, that a law abiding citizen has "nothing to fear from the cops asking for your ID."

I do agree with you, Handfleisch, that officers should not be allowed to stop people willy nilly asking for IDs. And of course, in the United States they are not.

However, getting back to the Arizona law, that law will not allow officers to stop people simply because the officer suspects the person may be here illegally. But if during the routine course of something else, such as a traffic stop, the officer suspects the person is in the United States illegally, the law obligates them to check.

Respectfully,
M
Stubru Freak
Bikerman wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:
The cause is your denial to show your ID. If there's a law that says cars need headlights (like in most countries), and you drive around without headlights and get arrested, that's not without a cause. Even if you think you should have the right to drive around in any car you want, that doesn't make it true. This is the same.

You should just ask yourself if you think the right to walk around without an ID is a right you really want to have. I don't, I think the right to travel abroad without restrictions is more important. It's a matter of priorities, not a matter of democracy. Not every right you can think of is essential to democracy.

It is in no way analogous. The reason for the headlights is clear - it is a matter of public safety. There is no such reason for the ID. If the officer has cause for suspicion then that should be enough. If he hasn't then why ask for ID?
I already live in a country where I have the right to walk around without an ID card, and I'm quite happy with that.


If you're happy with that, that's your opinion. It's not something I care about, as I don't live in the UK. I just think that it's not a matter of democracy, like handfleisch said. It's just a matter of opinion, and neither choice will give you more or less democracy.
Bikerman
Stubru Freak wrote:
If you're happy with that, that's your opinion. It's not something I care about, as I don't live in the UK. I just think that it's not a matter of democracy, like handfleisch said. It's just a matter of opinion, and neither choice will give you more or less democracy.
Err...I disagree.
If the police have the right to stop anyone and demand ID then that is fundamentally undemocratic. I didn't vote for it and I don't know anybody who did, so where do they get the power from ? Not from the majority of the population, so it is by definition undemocratic.

It is also the case that ID cards with routine 'stop and produce' demands, set up a situation where your rights are much easier to attack. If you grant servants of the state the power to harrass citizens quite legally then who is the servant and who is the master? Our limited versions of democracy need at least the appearance of reflecting the public will sometimes, and I see no evidence that the majority of people want an ID card, let alone want to be stopped without due cause.
deanhills
On a lighter note, found this funny YouTube movie Police State Pete:
Stubru Freak
Bikerman wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:
If you're happy with that, that's your opinion. It's not something I care about, as I don't live in the UK. I just think that it's not a matter of democracy, like handfleisch said. It's just a matter of opinion, and neither choice will give you more or less democracy.
Err...I disagree.
If the police have the right to stop anyone and demand ID then that is fundamentally undemocratic. I didn't vote for it and I don't know anybody who did, so where do they get the power from ? Not from the majority of the population, so it is by definition undemocratic.


Yes of course it's undemocratic if nobody voted for it. But if people do vote for it (either directly, or indirectly by voting for a party that supports that law) it is democratic. Where I live, people voted for a government that allows the police to ask for our ID, so there's nothing undemocratic about that. It's fundamentally different from e.g. freedom of speech, which is a right essential to democracy. Even if 50% of the population vote for a law that limits freedom of speech, even if directly by referendum, it's still undemocratic. That's very different from the right not to carry your ID with you.

Quote:
It is also the case that ID cards with routine 'stop and produce' demands, set up a situation where your rights are much easier to attack. If you grant servants of the state the power to harrass citizens quite legally then who is the servant and who is the master? Our limited versions of democracy need at least the appearance of reflecting the public will sometimes, and I see no evidence that the majority of people want an ID card, let alone want to be stopped without due cause.


I agree to the last sentence, if nobody wants an ID card, there shouldn't be one. But, if (and, of course, only if) the citizens voted to allow ID card checks, for example to make it easier to identify illegal immigrants, there's nothing undemocratic about that. The masters are still the citizens, the servants are the police, who get paid by the citizens to find illegal immigrants.

I just don't see how asking for an ID violates any of your democratic rights, or how it, in any way, makes you any less free. Of course, the police shouldn't store your data anywhere, as that would be an invasion of your privacy. But just asking you to show your ID to prove you are here legally, isn't a problem at all.
ocalhoun
I agree that mandatory ID card checks can be democratic, but:
Stubru Freak wrote:

I just don't see how asking for an ID [...] in any way, makes you any less free.

It takes away the freedom to not carry them, and it takes away the freedom to refuse an official's request for it.

'Democratic' and 'Free' are not necessarily the same thing.
Stubru Freak
ocalhoun wrote:
I agree that mandatory ID card checks can be democratic, but:
Stubru Freak wrote:

I just don't see how asking for an ID [...] in any way, makes you any less free.

It takes away the freedom to not carry them, and it takes away the freedom to refuse an official's request for it.

'Democratic' and 'Free' are not necessarily the same thing.


Yes that's true, it takes away a freedom, just not a freedom essential to democracy, that's what I meant. It takes away a small freedom for (arguably) a greater good, just like the requirement to have headlights on a car.
Bikerman
Stubru Freak wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Stubru Freak wrote:
If you're happy with that, that's your opinion. It's not something I care about, as I don't live in the UK. I just think that it's not a matter of democracy, like handfleisch said. It's just a matter of opinion, and neither choice will give you more or less democracy.
Err...I disagree.
If the police have the right to stop anyone and demand ID then that is fundamentally undemocratic. I didn't vote for it and I don't know anybody who did, so where do they get the power from ? Not from the majority of the population, so it is by definition undemocratic.


Yes of course it's undemocratic if nobody voted for it. But if people do vote for it (either directly, or indirectly by voting for a party that supports that law) it is democratic. Where I live, people voted for a government that allows the police to ask for our ID, so there's nothing undemocratic about that. It's fundamentally different from e.g. freedom of speech, which is a right essential to democracy. Even if 50% of the population vote for a law that limits freedom of speech, even if directly by referendum, it's still undemocratic. That's very different from the right not to carry your ID with you.
No it isn't. Well let me qualify - it isn't HERE. You have a constitution which sets out your minimum 'rights', and not even the state can (supposedly) impinge on that EVEN WITH A MAJORITY.
We have no such system. Our system is way more complex, more informal and, I would say, also quite a bit more subtle in some ways. I can see that a country operating a constitutional government need fear less - though I don't buy that argument about voting for it by proxy because the party you picked support it, That argument doesn't stand up. You go figure the attendance figures at regional voting for local councils and you'll probably see 30% ish if you are anything like here. So a minority of those who can vote vote for a party that happens, as number 9 on the policy list, to support ID cards. It promptly introduces them. That is not even worth considering as a genuine test of democracy - The USSR at its worst could do better than that.
a) No party will reflect your opinions on everything.
b) Unless there was a proposal for the card already in play then it is unlikely that the average voter would have a clue about who was in favour and against...unless it made news it wouldn't be news.
c) The tyranny of the majority is one of the costs that you pay for democracy. It beholds you to accept the decision even when opposed, but there is always a framework of personal responsibility - 'it was orders' will not do anymore since Nuremberg. And I confirm Godwin's law merely to draw the general point that a majority can decide, by default, to commit atrocities. Most Germans knew Hitler was a bit 'nationalistic', but they believed he could restore former glories and the rest is history, democratic history...
Now your constitution is a good tool here. But it is conceivable to imagine it failing as well. Voters pretty much do as they are told most of the time, as long as they are allowed to believe they control at least some of their life, they are happy to kid themselves that they could walk out at any time and that they aren't really hooked into the system so deeply that it would take 10 or more years to get close to even...Smile Constitutions can be reinterpreted, rewritten and, if the imperative is sufficient ripped up and thrown away. That is probably where ours scores. It's more of a state of mind with us. Bureaucratic procedures, rather than any special sense of justice, drives most of it. People care, in a non specific sense, about other people. But in the abstract they don't care that much and even in the personal, we are good at kidding ourselves...the civil service, however, operate as civil servants have done for centuries. They will run the country whilst the politicians play nicely with the Americans and pretend they are actually doing something. Hell some of them even think they do run their departments...silly sods....No, our civil service is our big weakness and great strength. It is conservative to the point of stagnation. All change is bad so they do the bare minimum and hold their noses at reorganisations and other emphemora, they are here for their whole working life, the politicians come and go...ours has had about 500 years practice at being just the right amount of inertia to stop the most catastrophic stuff happening, enough integrity to ensure that the business they decide to do is done efficiently, and intelligence to know exactly how important you are in the global picture..
Stubru Freak
Bikerman wrote:
No it isn't. Well let me qualify - it isn't HERE. You have a constitution which sets out your minimum 'rights', and not even the state can (supposedly) impinge on that EVEN WITH A MAJORITY.
We have no such system. Our system is way more complex, more informal and, I would say, also quite a bit more subtle in some ways. I can see that a country operating a constitutional government need fear less - though I don't buy that argument about voting for it by proxy because the party you picked support it, That argument doesn't stand up. You go figure the attendance figures at regional voting for local councils and you'll probably see 30% ish if you are anything like here. So a minority of those who can vote vote for a party that happens, as number 9 on the policy list, to support ID cards. It promptly introduces them. That is not even worth considering as a genuine test of democracy - The USSR at its worst could do better than that.
a) No party will reflect your opinions on everything.
b) Unless there was a proposal for the card already in play then it is unlikely that the average voter would have a clue about who was in favour and against...unless it made news it wouldn't be news.
c) The tyranny of the majority is one of the costs that you pay for democracy. It beholds you to accept the decision even when opposed, but there is always a framework of personal responsibility - 'it was orders' will not do anymore since Nuremberg. And I confirm Godwin's law merely to draw the general point that a majority can decide, by default, to commit atrocities. Most Germans knew Hitler was a bit 'nationalistic', but they believed he could restore former glories and the rest is history, democratic history...


But still, limiting freedom of speech isn't democratic. The majority can do it, even here (the constitution can be changed, though at least two consecutive elected majorities are needed for that), but that doesn't make it democratic. Just like in your example: what Hitler did wasn't democratic, as he misinformed the people and killed the opposition members. Democracy isn't just about who has the majority, it's also about making sure the majority is informed. Obviously, that means no country is perfectly democratic, as you can't guarantee that the people will be informed, like you said. But it's the closest we can get to democracy. At least that's my opinion on what democracy is, like most things political it's not strictly defined of course.

Anyway, I agree that sometimes legislation gets voted without public consent, because of your points a and b. And if that is the case that's not really democratic. But my point is that, if there actually is public consent, like there is here in Belgium (I have met very few people who oppose the right to be asked for your ID), then there's really nothing undemocratic about it.
Bikerman
Well that is the central point. What do we mean by democracy? The answer is actually not much at all.The original greek Athenian example was fully hands-on. Everyone had a say in every major decision (apart from women, slaves and the normal exclusions Smile

Our demoncracy means turning up once every 4-5 years, voting for one of 3 or 5 characters who you don't really know unless you have been unlucky or won something major, and then go home and leave it to the politicians.
I suppose under a really loose definition you could sort of call it democracy - democracy-lite would be closer I think.
You can't *do* athenian democracy in cities of millions - the greeks thought the limit was about 50,000 I think. At least, it has not been possible yet. It is now. technology make it possible, but the voter is unlikely to want it - it means involvement regularly in decision making for no pay. It doesn't actually site that well with capitalism either, truth be told....

PS - just listening to a bbc radio prog on this - I'll link to it when I've got it.
deanhills
I posted a YouTube show that was a cartoon on the topic of this thread, and I now notice it has gone? What happened to it?
Sad
Stubru Freak
It's still there, http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-960358.html#960358. Or do you mean another one?
deanhills
Stubru Freak wrote:
It's still there, http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-960358.html#960358. Or do you mean another one?
Thanks Stubru Freak. And apologies. Someone else's posting got deleted in another thread, so I obviously came to the wrong conclusion. I'm in a time warp here, looks as though there has been a lively discussion while I was sleeping.

I agree with your point of view. What I can't understand is that if an ID document is not required, why is a passport then required? Should Canadians then use what is happening in Arizona as a very good point in why they should not be required to show their passports at the border, when they are crossing regularly into the United States? Ditto the Mexican border? Isn't what is going on here really an extension of immigration control? And if a State should choose to double check whether there are citizens who are illegally in the State, why should it be automatically seen as being discrimination? Sort of does not make sense to me. Also, if a State has made a decision like this, is this not interference of their rights when people are tackling the State about their decision? If Belgium can have something like this, and it is "A" OK, why should it be so unacceptable for Arizona? Unless it is about racial immigration, but possibly more racial immigration in reverse?
Bikerman
Here is that radio4 program I mentioned on democracy and problems with it.
http://bikerman.co.uk/radio4.mp3
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Here is that radio4 program I mentioned on democracy and problems with it.
http://bikerman.co.uk/radio4.mp3
Very interesting programme. Well worth listening to. Good title: "Democracy on Trial".

I liked the reference that was made to "people" in modern day democracy language being more of a phantom, than being truly part of Government decision making and "democracy filtered through representatives" not being a really true democracy of the people.

Bottomline is perhaps that democracy means different things to different people, and the real test of what it means would be when one asks your people in the street. The radio programme discussion was mostly limited to an elite group of theorists and academics. Trying to interpret what they think democracy should be in comparison with its purest Athenian form.

Was also interesting to learn that Plato and Socrates had not been in favour of democracy, referring to it as a dictatorship of "the proletariat".
handfleisch
More context of the Arizona situation:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2010/05/22/20100522arizona-immigration-law-rally-neo-nazis.html
Quote:

Arizona immigration law rally loses group due to neo-Nazi links

A national anti-illegal-immigration group has pulled out of a planned June 5 rally in Phoenix to support Arizona's immigration law because of a key organizer's alleged links to neo-Nazis.

The website for the "Phoenix Rising" Arizona Rally and Freedom March event scheduled for Wesley Bolin Plaza lists as "confirmed" speakers former Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, state Sen. and Senate Bill 1070 sponsor Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, and GOP Senate challenger J.D. Hayworth, although a spokesman said Hayworth won't be participating.
...
But William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee, or ALIPAC, is distancing his group from event organizer Daniel Smeriglio of Hazleton, Pa., over Facebook connections to White supremacists and a European neo-Nazi musical act.

"We have worked diligently behind the scenes to try to resolve this situation with the knowledge that our political opposition does have strong evidence of neo-Nazi supporters being involved with the event still going forward on the 5th," ALIPAC said Thursday in a written statement. "We feel it is completely unacceptable that Dan Smeriglio and Tom Tancredo or anyone else would put the brave activists, lawmakers, candidates, and citizens of Arizona at risk by proceeding with an event that our opponents can use to harm our cause of stopping and reversing illegal immigration."

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2010/05/22/20100522arizona-immigration-law-rally-neo-nazis.html#ixzz0oju3weGL
deanhills
Right, looks as though the plot is thickening: If Los Angeles is going to boycott Arizona economically, then Arizona will renegotiate its power contracts with Los Angeles Smile
Quote:
In the month since it enacted a controversial law intended to reduce illegal immigration, Arizona has faced a steady stream of attacks from opponents ranging from California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to Mexican-American filmmaker Robert Rodriguez. The war of words quickly became a war of wallets as cities across the country voted to boycott the Grand Canyon state. On Wednesday, an Arizona official struck back, threatening to match Los Angeles' boycott with one of his own.

In an open letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Arizona corporation commissioner Gary Pierce points out that power plants in his state supply roughly 25% of the electricity that Los Angeles consumes. "If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation," he threatens in the letter. In a subsequent interview, Pierce expanded: "Los Angeles...ought to be cognizant that, you can't call a boycott on the candy store and then decide to go in and pick and choose candy you really do want."

Source: Daily Finance
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Right, looks as though the plot is thickening: If Los Angeles is going to boycott Arizona economically, then Arizona will renegotiate its power contracts with Los Angeles Smile


If LA boycotted Arizona, but still bought electricity from them, it wouldn't me much of a boycott, would it?
Bikerman
Bikerman wrote:
Here is that radio4 program I mentioned...

I include the other program in this series for completeness
http://bikerman.co.uk/bbc4.flv
Voodoocat
Arizona's law is not new: it is already a Federal crime to enter this country without permission:

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part VIII > § 1324
Prev | Next § 1324. Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001324----000-.html

Additionally, I believe that all sovereign nations have laws banning the illegal entry into their country. Mexico certainly does:

Quote:
Yet, Mexico's law requires local police to check identification, and Mexican police often engage in racial profiling and harassment, immigration activists told USA Today.


Better yet:

Quote:
A National Human Rights Commission report indicates that, from September 2008 through February 2009, at least 9,758 migrants were kidnapped for ransom in Mexico, with 91 incidents involving direct participation by Mexican police, USA Today reported. The commission said other migrants are routinely stopped and strong-armed for bribes.


Source: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/05/26/Activists-Mexicos-immigration-laws-tough/UPI-65801274892569/

Maybe the activists shoud clean up their home first.
Stubru Freak
Voodoocat wrote:
Maybe the activists shoud clean up their home first.


I'm quite sure a lot of them live in the US. Mexico isn't their 'home'.
deanhills
Looks as though the US Federal Government has gone into action mode seeking high-court action, but not on the controversial 2010 legislation. It is asking for action against a 2008 Arizona immigration law that punishes employers for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. The US Federal Government says that this may infringe federal authority and should be examined and possibly struck down.

Quote:
The lone mention of the state's controversial 2010 immigration law, to which the Department of Justice is reportedly drafting a direct legal challenge, was in a footnote stipulating that it "is not at issue in this case."

Yahoo!News
Alaskacameradude
Bikerman wrote:
Well actually.....
If an officer has the power to ask you for ID then that presumes some sanction if you refuse, otherwise you just say MYOB.
If there is a sanction - say being taken to the police station until your identity can be established - then that is, in my book, an infringement of my rights. Basically arrest without due cause...
It is also license to hassle 'normal' targets. We know that police here use Stop and Search laws in a very discriminatory way - this is well established and admitted to even by the Police Federation.....


Well......maybe and maybe not. There was no 'threat' made about what would happen if I
did NOT show my ID. My brother had this happen to him (when walking and NOT driving)
and being the stubborn guy he is, refused to show his ID. The cop 'postured' and made threats
about 'detaining him until his identity could be established' but in the end, did nothing but let my brother go with a 'warning to have your ID with you next time'.....mainly I think because my
brother asked for his badge number and the name of his superior officer. However, another
friend of mine did almost the same thing as my brother, and DID end up being
taken in.....turns out the police were looking for a suspected kidnapper in the area and
had a very general description, and when a my friend refused to show ID, it made them
suspicious. So I would say, there will not necessarily be a sanction if you refuse,
BUT, just so you know, over here in the US, the LAW allows police to 'detain' you for up
to 24 hours WITHOUT charging you, so under our law, it is NOT 'an infringement of your rights'.
So I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, maybe laws in the UK are different?

But beyond that, I'm wondering, what you guys against the Arizona law think about this.
I was pulled over another time for having tinted windows that were too dark (I had bought
the car from someone who drove it up from Las Vegas which has different state laws on
how dark window tint can be from Alaska's state laws). The policeman immediately asked for
my driver's license (presumably to verify that I was LEGALLY allowed to drive). Should
he have been able to do that? (I WAS driving at the time, but had committed NO driving offense,
and ended up just peeling the tint off my windows and he let me go). Does that seem similar
to police asking people to prove that they are legal residents of the country when they are
in a routine traffic stop? Is the objection to this, only because you think certain races would
be 'singled out'?
Bikerman
Alaskacameradude wrote:
But beyond that, I'm wondering, what you guys against the Arizona law think about this.
I was pulled over another time for having tinted windows that were too dark (I had bought
the car from someone who drove it up from Las Vegas which has different state laws on
how dark window tint can be from Alaska's state laws). The policeman immediately asked for
my driver's license (presumably to verify that I was LEGALLY allowed to drive). Should
he have been able to do that? (I WAS driving at the time, but had committed NO driving offense,
and ended up just peeling the tint off my windows and he let me go). Does that seem similar
to police asking people to prove that they are legal residents of the country when they are
in a routine traffic stop? Is the objection to this, only because you think certain races would
be 'singled out'?
Well, here in the UK you WOULD potentially be committing an offence so the officer would have been quite in order to pull you over. We have legislation concerning the specific use of tinted glass in car windscreens (and crash helmet visors).
The objection is to allowing the police to arbitrarily exercise powers, when we absolutely and positively KNOW that they use them in a discriminatory fashion to single out minorities. This is not an opinion, there are volumes of research that I could cite - and will, if you require.
So, if your policement was just looking to hassle some guy then that would be wrong, but if he would normally pull people over for having dangerously tinted glass then no problem at all - doing his job.
Alaskacameradude
Quote:
Well, here in the UK you WOULD potentially be committing an offence so the officer would have been quite in order to pull you over. We have legislation concerning the specific use of tinted glass in car windscreens (and crash helmet visors).
The objection is to allowing the police to arbitrarily exercise powers, when we absolutely and positively KNOW that they use them in a discriminatory fashion to single out minorities. This is not an opinion, there are volumes of research that I could cite - and will, if you require.
So, if your policement was just looking to hassle some guy then that would be wrong, but if he would normally pull people over for having dangerously tinted glass then no problem at all - doing his job.


Ok, so say a policeman pulls over a person in Arizona for something similar..some minor offense.
Is it then OK for him to ask for proof of citizenship.....just doing his job?
Bikerman
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Ok, so say a policeman pulls over a person in Arizona for something similar..some minor offense.
Is it then OK for him to ask for proof of citizenship.....just doing his job?

Yes. I have no problem at all with that being an 'additional'. If there is an offence, or even good reason to suspect one, then my position is that the officer has the right, even the duty, to ask for ID. My problem is when the ID itself becomes the offence/suspicion.
The difference is nicely illustrated here. We have a law commonly known as 'sus', or 'stop and search', which allow the police to demand ID and search a citizen with no reason given. That particular law has been abused widely and is generally regarded with contempt and hatred - and not just amongst minorities. It was, like so many infringements of rights, brought in as part of counter-terrorism laws when the IRA campaign was at a highpoint. Like most such legislation it was never rescinded.
Alaskacameradude
Quote:
Yes. I have no problem at all with that being an 'additional'. If there is an offence, or even good reason to suspect one, then my position is that the officer has the right, even the duty, to ask for ID. My problem is when the ID itself becomes the offence/suspicion.
The difference is nicely illustrated here. We have a law commonly known as 'sus', or 'stop and search', which allow the police to demand ID and search a citizen with no reason given. That particular law has been abused widely and is generally regarded with contempt and hatred - and not just amongst minorities. It was, like so many infringements of rights, brought in as part of counter-terrorism laws when the IRA campaign was at a highpoint. Like most such legislation it was never rescinded.


For the record, I agree with what you said 100%. In theory, this is supposed to be the way
the Arizona law works....however, I think many people suspect that the 'theory' will not be how
the law is enforced, and so oppose it.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:

The difference is nicely illustrated here. We have a law commonly known as 'sus', or 'stop and search', which allow the police to demand ID and search a citizen with no reason given. That particular law has been abused widely and is generally regarded with contempt and hatred - and not just amongst minorities.

(Not a repeat from 1775) ^.^

Though, lately our own constitutional right to not be searched without probable cause has been eroding, by widening the definition of 'probable cause'. In some places in the US, a police officer thinking that you're acting suspicious -- or thinking that he smells an illegal substance -- is considered enough.
handfleisch
Attorney General Holder and the Obama administration are suing to block Arizona from going ahead with their nutty and dangerous immigration law.

The real reason the law was created, as is so common around the world, is to distract people's attention from the incompetence of the right wing state government, the incredible mess that is mainly caused by neocon leadership gone amok and that is keeping taxes so low that the state can't pay for basics.

http://harpers.org/archive/2010/06/hbc-90007237
Quote:
Arizona, I note, is essentially bankrupt; if it were a business it would be declared insolvent and put in receivership. In May, voters approved a ballot measure that temporarily raised the state sales tax to bring in $1 billion. That averted an immediate budget collapse but provided no long-term solution to the crisis.

There are multiple causes for the mess in Arizona, including the fact that the legislature is composed almost entirely of dimwits, racists, and cranks. State lawmakers turned racial profiling into official policy, through a law that requires police to stop suspected illegal immigrants and demand to see their papers. The Senate passed a bill to ban the funding of any ethnic-studies programs at state universities, as well as one to prohibit “intentionally or knowingly creating a human-animal hybrid.”

And as the state’s economy teetered on the brink of collapse earlier this year, lawmakers took time out from their primary pastime — slashing social spending — to reduce what Eagle Scouts paid for fishing license fees, declared a Boy Scout holiday, and granted a constitutional right to vote.

There are a dwindling few voices of reason in the legislature, among them Democratic Senator Rebecca Rios, the assistant minority leader.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ieIdF7Jik4cWzPnhcOlxaYXIjM9Q
Quote:

US government sues Arizona over anti-immigration law

(AFP) – 22 minutes ago

WASHINGTON — The US government on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against Arizona for a controversial immigration law which has been sharply criticized by America's neighbors and by the US administration.

A Justice Department statement said it was challenging the new law in the courts because it hampered the authority of the administration of President Barack Obama to enforce national immigration policy.

It also placed significant "burdens" on federal agencies and law enforcement, the department argued.

Federal laws do not permit the development of a "patchwork of state and local immigration policies," it said.

"Diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country's safety," US Attorney General Eric Holder said in the statement.
...
Meanwhile, Arizona's two US senators issued a joint statement slamming the lawsuit.

"The American people must wonder whether the Obama administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law," Republicans John McCain and Jon Kyl said in a joint statement.
Alaskacameradude
Quote:
The real reason the law was created, as is so common around the world, is to distract people's attention from the incompetence of the right wing state government, the incredible mess that is mainly caused by neocon leadership gone amok and that is keeping taxes so low that the state can't pay for basics.


As opposed to states where taxes are high like California or New York where the government
has no problem paying for services???
handfleisch
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Quote:
The real reason the law was created, as is so common around the world, is to distract people's attention from the incompetence of the right wing state government, the incredible mess that is mainly caused by neocon leadership gone amok and that is keeping taxes so low that the state can't pay for basics.


As opposed to states where taxes are high like California or New York where the government
has no problem paying for services???
CA taxes might appear high on first glance, but if you get past the percentages you see that because of the ridiculously low property taxes (stemming from the disastrous Prop 13 from the 70's) the mega-rich still get an huge, unfair break and that's why revenue is still deficient. The Republican gubernatorial candidate even admitted that last week.
Quote:
GOP's Whitman: California property tax limits led to deficits

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/30/1709021/gops-whitman-california-property.html#ixzz0sudfV3PR

Really, all the CA gov't would need is a tiny 1% tax on the wealthiest 1% of the population, and their deficits would disappear and they could go about the business of running basic services again. They could then even cut taxes and fees that hurt lower income people. But generally we have government by the rich for the rich.

These deficit probs are simply the result of bad distribution of wealth and catastrophically low tax rates on the wealthy. That is the problem is Arizona, and they distract from their right wing economic madness with the oldest trick in the book, changing the subject to/blaming the foreigners.
Alaskacameradude
Quote:
CA taxes might appear high on first glance, but if you get past the percentages you see that because of the ridiculously low property taxes (stemming from the disastrous Prop 13 from the 70's) the mega-rich still get an huge, unfair break and that's why revenue is still deficient. The Republican gubernatorial candidate even admitted that last week.


Well, first, California's taxes ARE high! I don't know about their property tax, but the rest of them
sure are. Second of all, if property taxes ARE low in California, how is that a unfair tax
break to the 'mega-rich'? I can see if you said a unfair tax break to the homeowners, but
surely there are some middle class and even lower income people that own homes as well?

And, reading the story you linked to, I'd have say that the premise of it was that California
should have stopped it's out of control government spending to control the deficit, NOT put
new taxes on people. I'd agree with that assessment.
handfleisch
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Quote:
CA taxes might appear high on first glance, but if you get past the percentages you see that because of the ridiculously low property taxes (stemming from the disastrous Prop 13 from the 70's) the mega-rich still get an huge, unfair break and that's why revenue is still deficient. The Republican gubernatorial candidate even admitted that last week.


Well, first, California's taxes ARE high! I don't know about their property tax, but the rest of them
sure are. Second of all, if property taxes ARE low in California, how is that a unfair tax
break to the 'mega-rich'? I can see if you said a unfair tax break to the homeowners, but
surely there are some middle class and even lower income people that own homes as well?


Given housing prices in CA, and of course the fact that the extremely wealthy own a lot of property and sprawling mansions, then yes low property taxes are generally a benefit for the rich.

Alaskacameradude wrote:
Quote:
CA taxes might appear high on first glance, but if you get past the percentages you see that because of the ridiculously low property taxes (stemming from the disastrous Prop 13 from the 70's) the mega-rich still get an huge, unfair break and that's why revenue is still deficient. The Republican gubernatorial candidate even admitted that last week.


And, reading the story you linked to, I'd have say that the premise of it was that California
should have stopped it's out of control government spending to control the deficit, NOT put
new taxes on people. I'd agree with that assessment.

Obviously that's the Republican party line, which is already having disastrous consequences throughout the state. The point is, the Repubs are admitting that the source of the problem is low property taxes causing insufficient tax revenue (and yet they nonsensically just propose more cuts in spending, when there really is little left to cut. They are cutting fire departments. Get it? That's the Repub solution, to cut back in fire safety.) In Arizona they are doing this kind of stuff and then using illegal immigration to distract everyone and get them riled up. It's sad and ugly right wing politics, good thing Obama's attorney general is suing them.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Really, all the CA gov't would need is a tiny 1% tax on the wealthiest 1% of the population, and their deficits would disappear and they could go about the business of running basic services again.

No, they'd spend that 1% on a bullet train or something, and then be broke again.

There are two ways to reduce a deficit:
A) Reduce spending.
B) Increase revenue.

I find it odd that you focus laser-like on option B...
Alaskacameradude
Quote:
Given housing prices in CA, and of course the fact that the extremely wealthy own a lot of property and sprawling mansions, then yes low property taxes are generally a benefit for the rich.


Because we are ONLY looking at what housing prices are now, it's not like someone could have bought
a house 20 years ago when prices were lower and still own it or anything right? Are you saying that
the vast majority of people who live in California and own property are rich?? Because that
seems like an awfully 'sterotypical' claim to be making.

Quote:
Obviously that's the Republican party line, which is already having disastrous consequences throughout the state. The point is, the Repubs are admitting that the source of the problem is low property taxes causing insufficient tax revenue (and yet they nonsensically just propose more cuts in spending, when there really is little left to cut. They are cutting fire departments. Get it? That's the Repub solution, to cut back in fire safety.) In Arizona they are doing this kind of stuff and then using illegal immigration to distract everyone and get them riled up. It's sad and ugly right wing politics, good thing Obama's attorney general is suing them.


That's ONE opinion. Another would be that the Democratic party line on spending, spending,
and then spending some more is having disastrous consequences on the state. And the Democrats
only solution for this, is to then tax one of the highest taxed states, even more. That's the
Dems solution, to take everyones money and just give it to the state, after all, the state know
best how to spend your money. And then they are trying to interfere in state's rights and
sue Arizona instead of actually taking care of the border problems in Arizona as they should
be.

Quote:
No, they'd spend that 1% on a bullet train or something, and then be broke again.

There are two ways to reduce a deficit:
A) Reduce spending.
B) Increase revenue.

I find it odd that you focus laser-like on option B...


Yup, I'd agree,......well except the part that you find it odd that he focuses laser-like on option B.
That has always been and will alway be the liberal way. I mean, I know of a state with NO
income tax, no state sales tax and it seems to be doing pretty well in the money department.
How in the world could this be?
Bikerman
This is something which is a hot issue in the UK. Specifically - house prices in London are huge. A two bedroomed flat in the centre is anything around £1 million. This means that a lot of low-middle income people in London, who happen to own a house, now have assets worth a substantial amount of money.

They would argue that since any move would cost them just as much, it should not be considered as 'real' money. I have some sympathy with that, but the fact remains that they have realisable assets which make them wealthy, if only on paper.

I don't have a solution, but I do think it is fair to look at this money, since there is no question that they have 'earned' it. I would probably go for a capital gains tax approach...
handfleisch
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Quote:
Given housing prices in CA, and of course the fact that the extremely wealthy own a lot of property and sprawling mansions, then yes low property taxes are generally a benefit for the rich.


Because we are ONLY looking at what housing prices are now, it's not like someone could have bought
a house 20 years ago when prices were lower and still own it or anything right? Are you saying that
the vast majority of people who live in California and own property are rich?? Because that
seems like an awfully 'sterotypical' claim to be making.

That's all beside the point, and surely you're not saying there aren't large numbers of very rich people owning property in California, since that would be "stereotypically ignorant". Maybe you change the subject because you don't have any real answer to the point, that since rich people are taxed only pennies in CA compared to other states, it amounts to their overall taxes being low compared to other states.
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Quote:
Obviously that's the Republican party line, which is already having disastrous consequences throughout the state. The point is, the Repubs are admitting that the source of the problem is low property taxes causing insufficient tax revenue (and yet they nonsensically just propose more cuts in spending, when there really is little left to cut. They are cutting fire departments. Get it? That's the Repub solution, to cut back in fire safety.) In Arizona they are doing this kind of stuff and then using illegal immigration to distract everyone and get them riled up. It's sad and ugly right wing politics, good thing Obama's attorney general is suing them.


That's ONE opinion. Another would be that the Democratic party line on spending, spending,
and then spending some more is having disastrous consequences on the state. And the Democrats
only solution for this, is to then tax one of the highest taxed states, even more. That's the
Dems solution, to take everyones money and just give it to the state, after all, the state know
best how to spend your money. And then they are trying to interfere in state's rights and
sue Arizona instead of actually taking care of the border problems in Arizona as they should
be.
You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own set of facts. You can have the opinion that the earth is flat but that doesn't change the reality of the situation. My point about Repub's solution to low tax revenue is cutting necessary services like fire departments is a fact. Your contention that high spending by Dems is causing the tax revenue problem in California is just baloney. Sounds like you have been listening to too much talk radio, which serves to keep people in the dark about some inconvenient truths (inconvenient to the corporations and megarich).

By the way, the US Constitution give the federal government the power to control immigration, that's another reason why Arizona was clearly in the wrong and why it is right for the feds to take them to court. Of course, some people only like the Constitution when it can be twisted to support their right wing opinions. Again, too much talk radio, not enough truth.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Your contention that high spending by Dems is causing the tax revenue problem in California is just baloney.


How has California’s high-speed rail project survived for 14 years without a plan, a budget, or a single accomplishment?
This high speed rail project has spent $250 million over the course of 14 years, and so far, accomplished nothing... not even basic planning steps.

Though, I suppose you'll tell me that's just an isolated incident. And things like that hardly ever happen. Rolling Eyes
These are the kinds of things that should be cut when the budget is tight, not basic services.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Your contention that high spending by Dems is causing the tax revenue problem in California is just baloney.


How has California’s high-speed rail project survived for 14 years without a plan, a budget, or a single accomplishment?
This high speed rail project has spent $250 million over the course of 14 years, and so far, accomplished nothing... not even basic planning steps.

Though, I suppose you'll tell me that's just an isolated incident. And things like that hardly ever happen. :roll:
These are the kinds of things that should be cut when the budget is tight, not basic services.


If you think California's budget woes are due to this, you're living in a fantasy world. Oh, wait, I forgot...
handfleisch
A victory for the good guys

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/07/28/us/AP-US-ArizonaImmigratio.html?_r=3

Quote:
Judge Blocks Parts of Arizona Immigration Law

PHOENIX (AP) -- A judge has blocked the most controversial sections of Arizona's new immigration law from taking effect Thursday, handing a major legal victory to opponents of the crackdown.

The law will still take effect Thursday, but without many of the provisions that angered opponents -- including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. The judge also put on hold a part of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.


U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton put those controversial sections on hold until the courts resolve the issues.

Opponents say the law will lead to racial profiling and is trumped by federal immigration law.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
A victory for the good guys
So who are the bad buys then specifically? The State of Arizona?

I guess there is nothing like a Federal Government any more in the United States. More like a National Government. States don't have that much power any longer to legislate on a State level? Unless they conform with dictates of the Federal Government?
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
So who are the bad buys then specifically?


And who are the 'good guys'? Illegal aliens? The criminals who prey on them?
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
So who are the bad buys then specifically?


And who are the 'good guys'? Illegal aliens? The criminals who prey on them?


deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
A victory for the good guys
So who are the bad buys then specifically? The State of Arizona?

I guess there is nothing like a Federal Government any more in the United States. More like a National Government. States don't have that much power any longer to legislate on a State level? Unless they conform with dictates of the Federal Government?


The right wingers running the state of Arizona have been incredibly inept even by Republican standards, running the state into the ground and then trying to distract everyone by stirring up xenophobia about illegal immigration. Their race-baiting and fear-mongering is hurting Arizona's economy even more because tourism has gone down as a result of their actions. The Republican governor has actually invented horror stories about headless corpses in the Arizona desert, a lie about as big as Bush's WMD. My friends in Arizona say some people are just afraid to go outside in Arizona in case they get hauled down to the police station for not having their birth certificate with them, and one article I saw quoted a business owner saying business was down because people don't want to leave their houses. Not to mention the Arizona politicians are ignoring the Constitution in all this. So, yeah, I'd say they are the bad guys.
http://www.kpho.com/news/24362212/detail.html
Quote:
Hotel Owners: AZ Politicians Scare Tourists

Rancho de la Osa Guest Ranch is part of Arizona history. Its past is as colorful as its plastered adobe walls. Father Eusebio Kino built it in the late 1600s. Pancho Villa attacked it. President Lyndon Johnson visited it.

Veronica and Richard Schultz have owned the guest ranch for the past 14 years. The operation’s close proximity to the border used to be a selling point for guests. Now, it’s more of a repellent.

“We’ve definitely lost guests and we've had guests call us. We’ve had friends call us from all over the country and say, ‘Hey, are you safe?’” Richard Schultz said.

Between the economy and boycotts related to Arizona’s tough new immigration law, SB 1070, tourism in the state is down 10 percent.

The Shultzes said state politicians are not helping matters. Every day on cable news, anchors and reporters are discussing an invasion at the border, headless bodies in the desert or a rash of kidnappings.

During this election cycle, Arizona politicians are touting the potential dangers of illegal immigration. Gov. Jan Brewer is one of the loudest voices.

She has made several statements to the national media, the validity of which CBS 5 Investigates could not confirm. The governor told one media outlet that almost all illegal immigrants are bringing drugs across the border. U.S. Border Patrol officials said that statement is false.

Brewer also said law enforcement officials have found decapitated bodies in the desert. Calls to all of Arizona’s border county medical examiners revealed no decapitated bodies have been reported to them.

A look at data from the FBI shows crime in Arizona is actually down. Murders in Phoenix have dropped by 50 percent since 2003. The violent crime rate across the state has dropped every year since at least 2004. Even the number of illegal border crossers is down. Border Patrol numbers show they are arresting half as many illegal immigrants as they did in 2004.

U.S. Attorney for Arizona, Dennis Burke, told CBS 5 Investigates, “If you’re not into drug trafficking and you’re not into human smuggling, you’re going to be safe. This is a safe place to live.”

But that message is not getting out, and at the state capitol, there is a real concern that Arizona’s new reputation might be hard to shake.

State Sen. Leah Landrum Taylor, D-Phoenix, told CBS 5 Investigates, “If you’re hearing about beheadings and you’re hearing about things that drastic, would you want to bring your friends and family to Arizona?”

Taylor said a drop in tourism dollars from all of the bad publicity could drastically impact the state’s already ailing budget
.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
So who are the bad buys then specifically?


And who are the 'good guys'? Illegal aliens? The criminals who prey on them?


deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
A victory for the good guys
So who are the bad buys then specifically? The State of Arizona?

I guess there is nothing like a Federal Government any more in the United States. More like a National Government. States don't have that much power any longer to legislate on a State level? Unless they conform with dictates of the Federal Government?


The right wingers running the state of Arizona have been incredibly inept even by Republican standards, running the state into the ground and then trying to distract everyone by stirring up xenophobia about illegal immigration. Their race-baiting and fear-mongering is hurting Arizona's economy even more because tourism has gone down as a result of their actions. The Republican governor has actually invented horror stories about headless corpses in the Arizona desert, a lie about as big as Bush's WMD. My friends in Arizona say some people are just afraid to go outside in Arizona in case they get hauled down to the police station for not having their birth certificate with them, and one article I saw quoted a business owner saying business was down because people don't want to leave their houses. Not to mention the Arizona politicians are ignoring the Constitution in all this. So, yeah, I'd say they are the bad guys.


Ahhhh….. More typical Bush bashing. Must never get old for you people.
It’s interesting that you started this thread with a questionable post from your friends at DU (commonly referred to at the DUmmies) that bleeds “race baiting” and “fear mongering” yet point a finger at others. It’s also interesting that the very ‘Government’ that you put so much faith in to run our healthcare is now portrayed as ‘evil.’ But the hypocrisy is beside the point.

My bias toward immigration is evident as an immigrant to the US (legal, BTW), and I think immigration is a testament to the greatness of the US. But I also believe it should be done legally. Those who break the law have committed a criminal act by definition, and should be prosecuted. If the problem is the law, the law should be changed. Deciding to blatantly ignore the law is not the answer. The Constitutional question isn’t one about whether illegal immigration should be policed, and Obama/Holder’s suit doesn’t raise that question. The fact that illegal immigration is illegal is clear. The question Obama and Holder raised is whether states have the right to police illegal immigration or whether the federal government has the responsibility to do so. The people of Arizona, who overwhelmingly approve of the anti-illegal immigration policy (along with most of the US), have been saddled with the consequences of rampant illegal immigration (stress on social systems, consumption of resources, increased crime, cost to the taxpayers, transient populations, etc.), and decided to take action to enforce the laws already on the books. They even went out of their way to insert language in the law to make sure racial profiling is not used. The federal government has been unwilling to follow its own laws, so the people of Arizona have been forced into this situation. But I don’t blame Obama for this because this has been a long-standing problem, and it won’t be resolved until the borders are secured and penalties (deportment, etc.) are enforced. But I think it’s highly hypocritical for the federal government to stop the states from enforcing their laws and claiming it falls under the federal government’s jurisdiction while ignoring its own responsibilities.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
So who are the bad buys then specifically?


And who are the 'good guys'? Illegal aliens? The criminals who prey on them?


deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
A victory for the good guys
So who are the bad buys then specifically? The State of Arizona?

I guess there is nothing like a Federal Government any more in the United States. More like a National Government. States don't have that much power any longer to legislate on a State level? Unless they conform with dictates of the Federal Government?


The right wingers running the state of Arizona have been incredibly inept even by Republican standards, running the state into the ground and then trying to distract everyone by stirring up xenophobia about illegal immigration. Their race-baiting and fear-mongering is hurting Arizona's economy even more because tourism has gone down as a result of their actions. The Republican governor has actually invented horror stories about headless corpses in the Arizona desert, a lie about as big as Bush's WMD. My friends in Arizona say some people are just afraid to go outside in Arizona in case they get hauled down to the police station for not having their birth certificate with them, and one article I saw quoted a business owner saying business was down because people don't want to leave their houses. Not to mention the Arizona politicians are ignoring the Constitution in all this. So, yeah, I'd say they are the bad guys.


Ahhhh….. More typical Bush bashing. Must never get old for you people.
It’s interesting that you started this thread with a questionable post from your friends at DU (commonly referred to at the DUmmies) that bleeds “race baiting” and “fear mongering” yet point a finger at others. It’s also interesting that the very ‘Government’ that you put so much faith in to run our healthcare is now portrayed as ‘evil.’ But the hypocrisy is beside the point.


"You people"? That would be we the people, and yes, we don't forget the tragedy of the Bush administration, because we live in the mess he made, and we're doing what we can to fix it and make sure it never happens again. We see Republicans like those in Arizona and in Congress who hold onto Bush-type policies and arrogance with their inevitable terrible results. In fact, the Arizona right wingers are worse, because one of the only decent things Bush did was try to cool down the illegal immigration issue, while these Arizonites continue Bush's tax-cuts for the rich and gutting basic services at the same time as using the illegal immigration issue to distract from their mess.

The logic is very fuzzy and confused in your first paragraph, and you attribute the word "evil" to me with quote marks. Nowhere here have I said that, so please stop with the lies (if that's possible for a doctrinaire right winger). Naturally you don't have too much ammunition to use against all that I have shown to be true about the harm that right wing Republicans are doing in Arizona, and you would like to distract from those facts, but try to be more honest in your attempts, at least.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
"You people"? That would be we the people, and yes, we don't forget the tragedy of the Bush administration, because we live in the mess he made, and we're doing what we can to fix it and make sure it never happens again. We see Republicans like those in Arizona and in Congress who hold onto Bush-type policies and arrogance with their inevitable terrible results. In fact, the Arizona right wingers are worse, because one of the only decent things Bush did was try to cool down the illegal immigration issue, while these Arizonites continue Bush's tax-cuts for the rich and gutting basic services at the same time as using the illegal immigration issue to distract from their mess.

More Bush bashing. It seems that’s all the fringe left has at this point. Maybe you weren’t aware of this, but Bush hasn’t been the president for almost two years. And he hasn’t run for any office in six. It would be one thing if you actually had valid arguments, but instead you’re in never-never land. For example your claims that Bush’s tax cuts were for only “the rich” fails to address reality. The tax cuts were across the board, with the largest percentage of tax rate cuts going to lower incomes (15% to 10%). I myself fault Bush for not cutting government spending, and the tax cuts should have been coupled with government cuts, just what is needed now. He missed that opportunity, and while I somewhat understand his reasoning, I don’t necessarily agree with it. But I’m sure you’ll keep trying to raise the specter of Bush while ignoring the fact that things are a lot worse now than they were under Bush. Since Bush’s tenure unemployment is up, deficits are way up, our federal government is on the verge of bankruptcy and taxpayers will be paying huge taxes for decades to come to finance Obama and the Democrats’ pet projects, which have already failed. Nevermind that the start of economic decline corresponds with the Democrats’ takeover of Congress. But keep with the Bush bashing. I’m sure no one is getting tired of it. And I’m sure it will be a winning strategy for Democrats in the fall.





handfleisch wrote:
The logic is very fuzzy and confused in your first paragraph, and you attribute the word "evil" to me with quote marks. Nowhere here have I said that, so please stop with the lies (if that's possible for a doctrinaire right winger). Naturally you don't have too much ammunition to use against all that I have shown to be true about the harm that right wing Republicans are doing in Arizona, and you would like to distract from those facts, but try to be more honest in your attempts, at least.

I know it’s sometimes difficult for you to understand anything that doesn’t fall in a certain fringe-left worldview, but if you read slowly and sound out the letters you may be able to comprehend. Ok, enough of the sarcasm. If you really have something to say against what I wrote about the issue, please let me know. Since you decided to omit the ‘meat’ of my post in your response, here it is again:
jmi256 wrote:
My bias toward immigration is evident as an immigrant to the US (legal, BTW), and I think immigration is a testament to the greatness of the US. But I also believe it should be done legally. Those who break the law have committed a criminal act by definition, and should be prosecuted. If the problem is the law, the law should be changed. Deciding to blatantly ignore the law is not the answer. The Constitutional question isn’t one about whether illegal immigration should be policed, and Obama/Holder’s suit doesn’t raise that question. The fact that illegal immigration is illegal is clear. The question Obama and Holder raised is whether states have the right to police illegal immigration or whether the federal government has the responsibility to do so. The people of Arizona, who overwhelmingly approve of the anti-illegal immigration policy (along with most of the US), have been saddled with the consequences of rampant illegal immigration (stress on social systems, consumption of resources, increased crime, cost to the taxpayers, transient populations, etc.), and decided to take action to enforce the laws already on the books. They even went out of their way to insert language in the law to make sure racial profiling is not used. The federal government has been unwilling to follow its own laws, so the people of Arizona have been forced into this situation. But I don’t blame Obama for this because this has been a long-standing problem, and it won’t be resolved until the borders are secured and penalties (deportment, etc.) are enforced. But I think it’s highly hypocritical for the federal government to stop the states from enforcing their laws and claiming it falls under the federal government’s jurisdiction while ignoring its own responsibilities.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:

handfleisch wrote:
The logic is very fuzzy and confused in your first paragraph, and you attribute the word "evil" to me with quote marks. Nowhere here have I said that, so please stop with the lies (if that's possible for a doctrinaire right winger). Naturally you don't have too much ammunition to use against all that I have shown to be true about the harm that right wing Republicans are doing in Arizona, and you would like to distract from those facts, but try to be more honest in your attempts, at least.

I know it’s sometimes difficult for you to understand anything that doesn’t fall in a certain fringe-left worldview, but if you read slowly and sound out the letters you may be able to comprehend. Ok, enough of the sarcasm. If you really have something to say against what I wrote about the issue, please let me know. Since you decided to omit the ‘meat’ of my post in your response, here it is again:


Feel free to be as sarcastic as you want, it only underscores the obnoxiousness of your message. But I wasn't being sarcastic at all, I really think that right wingers either live in a fantasy world or are fervent, proud liars. Look at the Breitbart case, the liar of the ACORN hit piece and now the liar of the Sherrod hit, an open and unapologetic fabulist. Or look at your past claims on this forum, like your claim that Obama was sending "thugs" to stop town hall meetings -- pure fantasy. Look at how you don't bother owning up to trying to shove words in my mouth with all this "evil" nonsense. In fact, we need look no farther than this statement of yours:

Quote:
the fact that things are a lot worse now than they were under Bush

Now that's hilarious.

All while you have no defense of the Arizona Republicans and their disastrous policies, their Governor's lies about headless corpses in the Arizona desert which is hurting business and causing boycotts in the state. Of course, there is no defense possible, so keep up the distracting blah blah blah.
deanhills
Looks as though Arizona has been implementing the provisions of the controversial new law for a number of years already. Amazing that they should then decide to work on a Bill, which I'm sure they must have known would have created a furore.

Quote:
Lost in the hoopla over Arizona's immigration law is the fact that state and local authorities for years have been doing their own aggressive crackdowns in the busiest illegal gateway into the country.

Nowhere in the U.S. is local enforcement more present than in metropolitan Phoenix, where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio routinely carries out sweeps, some in Hispanic neighborhoods, to arrest illegal immigrants. The tactics have made him the undisputed poster boy for local immigration enforcement and the anger that so many authorities feel about the issue.

Source: Yahoo!News
Alaskacameradude
Quote:
Maybe you change the subject because you don't have any real answer to the point, that since rich people are taxed only pennies in CA compared to other states, it amounts to their overall taxes being low compared to other states.


Please, back this claim up. Please include taxes such as income taxes and sales taxes
and all other taxes BESIDES property taxes and see where California ranks. Here's what I
have found:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/89702927.html

It puts California at number 15 if I read it right. That means 35 states have lower tax burdens.
I would NOT say that means 'rich people are taxed only pennies in CA compared to other states,
and it amounts to their overall taxes being low compared to other states.' And if you look at the
tax burden 'per capita'...you know...when you bring into the tax burden spread over the population,
California rises to the 9th worst tax burden out of 50 states.
handfleisch
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Quote:
Maybe you change the subject because you don't have any real answer to the point, that since rich people are taxed only pennies in CA compared to other states, it amounts to their overall taxes being low compared to other states.


Please, back this claim up. Please include taxes such as income taxes and sales taxes
and all other taxes BESIDES property taxes and see where California ranks. Here's what I
have found:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/89702927.html

It puts California at number 15 if I read it right. That means 35 states have lower tax burdens.
I would NOT say that means 'rich people are taxed only pennies in CA compared to other states,
and it amounts to their overall taxes being low compared to other states.' And if you look at the
tax burden 'per capita'...you know...when you bring into the tax burden spread over the population,
California rises to the 9th worst tax burden out of 50 states.


First I must point out that you are taking my line out of context -- the pennies I referred to was about property taxes, and it's not a matter of argument that California has very low property taxes, which is a break for wealthier people who have millions of dollars in property.

Otherwise, it's a good question. But you can't cite overall tax burden and think that applies to the rich. It has to do with what states have regressive tax systems and which ones have progressive ones.

Here is some of what I was able to dig up:

CA taxes on rich are not high as compared to other states and their property taxes and food sales tax are low to nonexistent:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2009/02/california-tax.html

CA low property taxes
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/PropertyTaxesWhereDoesYourStateRank.aspx

taxing rich as only option to fix CA budget
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2008/0726/p25s34-uspo.html

Higher Taxes on wealthy do not cause them to leave states
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/research_desk_reports_do_milli.html

http://www.itepnet.org/whopays3.pdf
Quote:

The study’s main finding is that nearly every state and local tax system takes a much
greater share of income from middle- and low-income families than from the wealthy. That
is, when all state and local income, sales, excise and property taxes are added up, most state
tax systems are regressive.
Fairness is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. Yet almost anyone would agree that the
best-off families should pay at a tax rate at least equal to what low- and middle-income
families pay. Virtually every state fails this basic test of tax fairness: as this study documents,
only two states require their best-off citizens to pay as much of their incomes in taxes as their
very poorest taxpayers must pay, and only one state taxes its wealthiest individuals at a higher
effective rate than middle-income families have to pay.


I would think this last paragraph would interest you (and everybody). In every state of the USA, some rich people pay less taxes than some middle or low income people, and in many state, they pay much less.

In the end, my point stands. You tried to use California as an example to show that higher taxes on the wealthy in Arizona would not solve budget problems. I have shown that even the Republican candidate for governor admits that CA's very low property taxes (locked in due to Prop.13 from the 1970's) led to today's deficits, and that there is plenty of room to tax the wealthy in California to solve their deficit problems (indeed, this is the only solution, since government services have already been cut to the bone).

This is also true in Arizona (and in fact in every state, because all 50 states have unfair tax systems that force some lower income people to pay a higher percentage of taxes than some wealthy ones). In Arizona the Republicans have been particularly buffoonish in the way they have run the state, and to distract from that, they have introduced the xenophobic immigration law while running around talking about decapitations in the Arizona desert, a total lie. It's a mark of truly undemocratic governance to use emotional arguments about race issues to appeal to the majority race and make them angry and suspicious of a minority race.
Alaskacameradude
Quote:
First I must point out that you are taking my line out of context -- the pennies I referred to was about property taxes, and it's not a matter of argument that California has very low property taxes, which is a break for wealthier people who have millions of dollars in property.

Otherwise, it's a good question. But you can't cite overall tax burden and think that applies to the rich. It has to do with what states have regressive tax systems and which ones have progressive ones.


O, I totally know what it has to do with.....and my contention is (and will continue to be)
that California has one of the most progressive tax systems in the country, contrary to
your claims. So let's examine one of YOUR own links.....the one that you quote the
studies main finding from.... here is a direct quote from that same study from the top of
page 5:

'A state’s tax fairness is only partially determined by the mix of these three broad tax types.
Equally important is how states design the structure of each tax. Some personal income taxes
are far more progressive than others, simply because lawmakers chose to design them that
way. The same is true, to a lesser extent, of property and sales taxes: while any state relying
heavily on these taxes is likely to have a regressive tax structure, lawmakers can take steps to
make these taxes less regressive than other states’ sales and property taxes. The overall
regressivity of a state’s tax system, therefore, ultimately depends both on a state’s reliance on
the different tax sources and on how the state designs each tax.
For example, California’s level of reliance on each of the three major tax types is fairly
typical. But the state income tax is more progressive than most — and this makes California’s
tax system one of the least regressive in the country. '

Hmmmm....what that MEANS is that rich people pay more in California, than almost anywhere in
the country....ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN LINK! I think MY point stands....rich people pay
MORE in California than most other state's, despite your claims to the contrary.....even your own
link backs me up in this.
handfleisch
Actually, the report points out that all states have regressive taxes, just that California a bit less so. It is definitely not the least regressive. Also even the Republican candidate for governor admits the California deficit was caused by the low property taxes locked in by Prop 13. There are other ways that make comparing California to other states difficult, like the lack of sales tax on food, so their caviar binges don't get taxed (ha). Also, this is all just in comparison between states; it doesn't really indicate what is possible or fair in an absolute sense. In the end, these add up to the fact that the rich are not inordinately taxed in California, they in fact pay less taxes percentage-wise than some lower income groups, and the lack of appropriate taxes is the cause of the budget deficit. That is my last word on this, which is all a sidetrack from Arizona.

About the way the Republicans and Tea Party types in Arizona have managed the budget right down the toilet, and why they have to use fear-mongering against immigrants to distract everyone, check this:

Quote:
The general unsightliness of the capitol makes it a fitting home for today's Arizona legislature, which is composed almost entirely of dimwits, racists, and cranks. Collectively they have bankrupted the state through a combination of ideological fanaticism on the Republican right and acquiescence and timidity on the part of G.O.P. moderates and Democrats. Although dozens of states are facing budget crises, the situation in Arizona is arguably the nation's worst, graver even than in California. A horrific budget deficit has been papered over with massive borrowing and accounting gimmickry, and the state may yet have to issue IOUs to employees and vendors. All-day kindergarten has been eliminated statewide, and some districts have adopted a four-day school week. Arizona's state parks, despite bringing in 2 million visitors and $266 million annually, have lost 80 percent of their budget, with up to two thirds of the parks now in danger of closure. The legislature slashed the budget for the Department of Revenue, which required the agency to fire hundreds of state auditors and tax collectors; lawmakers boasted that these measures saved $25 million, but a top official in the department estimated that the state would miss out on $174 million in tax collections as a result.


http://btco.newsvine.com/_news/2010/07/15/4682187-tea-party-in-the-sonora-for-the-future-of-gop-governance-look-to-arizona
Alaskacameradude
Quote:
There are other ways that make comparing California to other states difficult, like the lack of sales tax on food, so their caviar binges don't get taxed (ha)


Did you really just say that? Don't you understand that a lack of sales tax on food is actually
a VERY regressive (better for the poor than the rich) tax? It is the VERY reason many places
do NOT tax food, because EVERYONE has too eat, and it takes a disportunate amount of money
from the poor. Instead, they tax things OTHER than food (things that are more of a luxury instead
of a necessity). You can choose not to buy a new car....but everyone needs food. So exempting
food from a sales tax is a GOOD thing to do from a poor person's point of view.....except maybe
in your strange little world.
deanhills
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Quote:
There are other ways that make comparing California to other states difficult, like the lack of sales tax on food, so their caviar binges don't get taxed (ha)


Did you really just say that? Don't you understand that a lack of sales tax on food is actually
a VERY regressive (better for the poor than the rich) tax? It is the VERY reason many places
do NOT tax food, because EVERYONE has too eat, and it takes a disportunate amount of money
from the poor. Instead, they tax things OTHER than food (things that are more of a luxury instead
of a necessity). You can choose not to buy a new car....but everyone needs food. So exempting
food from a sales tax is a GOOD thing to do from a poor person's point of view.....except maybe
in your strange little world.
I'm curious, is there really no sales tax on caviar? I remember years and years ago in South Africa they used to exempt certain basic foods from sales tax. Fresh vegetables and fruits, bread, milk, etc. But all fancy foods were taxed.
Voodoocat
[quote]Great news! Caviar is tax free in California. Of course you will still have to pay the highest tax of any other State for your other purchases. Laughing

STATE (percentage) Food (1) Drugs Drugs
ALABAMA 4 *
ALASKA none
ARIZONA 5.6 * *
ARKANSAS 6 2% (4) *
CALIFORNIA (3) 8.25 * *

http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/sales.pdf
deanhills
[quote="Voodoocat"]
Quote:
Great news! Caviar is tax free in California. Of course you will still have to pay the highest tax of any other State for your other purchases. Laughing
Wow! OK, I get it. All covered by other sources of tax? Sort of really complicated, has to be a nighmare for most people to work out their taxes. Shocked
Related topics
Something About Wives
The Unofficial Jokes Thread
I will share some joke in this topic
HR Heaven and Hell
do you love jokes?
Man Caught in Restroom After Wacky Chase
why do christians make prophet jesus as a god?
Little Billy and his Candy
Megaman Phoenix
A proposition: equality in taxes.
Things only a Republican could believe
Will i go to heaven?
The Zen of Cat
Banned from sex
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.