1394 replies to this topic

[hblask]

nutzzcase, on Saturday, April 24th, 2010, 8:16 PM, said:

note to self : never enter this part of the forum again

Because open discussion of pressing issues is a bad thing?

[nutzzcase]

hblask, on Sunday, April 25th, 2010, 7:41 AM, said:

Because open discussion of pressing issues is a bad thing?

never said it was a bad thing.I'm just excluding myself from this open discussion. I find it futile to discuss politics. Opposing views will rarely change their minds over an issue.

[Pot Odds RAC]

hblask, on Sunday, April 25th, 2010, 10:39 AM, said:

It should not be America's goal to start acting like all those third world countries where police have unlimited powers. Our goal should be to be a beacon of human rights and freedom.

"Third World"? Go to London. Look at the wrong cop in the wrong way - or commit some minor infraction. Speak with a Non-British accent. Don't have your passport. Have fun.

[Pot Odds RAC]

FCP Bob, on Saturday, April 24th, 2010, 6:58 PM, said:

In Canada nothing.

Like hell.Sorry Bob. Canada isn't the last bastion of personal liberties and open minds in North America as you always try to portray it. Especially when you get outside of Toronto. We've had this discussion before and I've given statistics that demonstrate that Canada in general is remarkably homogeneous - again, especially so when you leave Toronto. Even in Toronto, if for whatever reason I am stopped by the wrong cop on the wrong day and I don't have my Passport, I'm in trouble. These are the same people who fine you $400 for not using the hand-rail on an escalator or trample an American Flag commemorating 911 while celebrating a Hockey win. I love Canada. Really. You're quaint. But don't act like you're some open-armed golden street paved paradise for outsiders. I've tried to work there. I know the restrictions and barriers to entry - all in the name of protection.

[85suited]

HB,For any lawful contact to be made, a lawful stop has to be made first.The African American Community has complained of being pulled over for DWB - driving while black... But that doesn't mean we stop enforcing the traffic laws does it?We try to educate officers about these issues and discipline officers who don't who don't adhere to them.Can the law be abused - sure, but so could ANY lawWhat is you solution to the issue?

[hblask]

85suited, on Sunday, April 25th, 2010, 10:41 AM, said:

HB,For any lawful contact to be made, a lawful stop has to be made first.The African American Community has complained of being pulled over for DWB - driving while black... But that doesn't mean we stop enforcing the traffic laws does it?We try to educate officers about these issues and discipline officers who don't who don't adhere to them.Can the law be abused - sure, but so could ANY lawWhat is you solution to the issue?

It isn't a question of whether this law will be abused, it is a law that invites, possibly *demands* that rights be abused. Need proof? Look at the defense: "We won't use racial profiling." Bullshit. Double and triple bullshit. Are you going to tell me that white people will be stopped and asked to see their papers? What are the odds that a Hispanic person is going to voluntarily help the police now? This should be called "The Harass any Hispanic who speaks Spanish" law, because anyone who is honest knows that that is what this law is about.What is the solution?Step 1 -- end the Insane War on Drugs. 99.99999% of the criminal activity on the border is due to the insane war on drugs. Not drug use, the war on drugs. End the war, end the incentives for people to evade law enforcement.Step 2 -- implement sensible immigration policies. Conservatives/neocons/Republicans claim to understand the law of supply and demand and to acknowledge economic reality. Yet when it comes to the supply of brown labor crossing the border, they start frothing at the mouth and say that they will, by legislative fiat, change the law of supply and demand. It's insanity. It has never worked in history and never can. An immigration policy that creates pent up demand for labor, and forces otherwise honest people to have to decide between providing for their family or breaking an immoral law, is flawed.Having said that, because the law is so flawed, and pent up demand is so high, we've created a transition problem -- how to get from here to there. I think the answer is to pick some sensible number, as indicated by non-racist economists, of how much of an influx we can handle. Then increase that amount by x% each year until equilibrium has been reached. Step 3 -- fix INS so that they can do background checks and give people a legal right to work here in a reasonable amount of time. Right now, 95% of immigrants have NO path to either working here or becoming citizens. Fix that, now. Then honest people will come through the checkpoints, and will go back when the work dries up. Anyone who tries to sneak across will be there for a reason -- they know they could get through basic background checks. So now you have a lot more resources to deal with a much, much smaller problem.You can't fool economics. Supply and demand will meet. Decide to do it in an orderly manner, or decide to do it at a great cost in morality, humanity, law enforcement, and human resources, and human life. More people die each year on the US border than in all the years of the existence of the Berlin Wall. It's pretty hard to express moral outrage at the failings of other countries when we are out-killing the communists.

[strategy]

hblask for president.I'm serious. let's do this.

[LongLiveYorke]

hblask, on Sunday, April 25th, 2010, 12:57 PM, said:

It isn't a question of whether this law will be abused, it is a law that invites, possibly *demands* that rights be abused. Need proof? Look at the defense: "We won't use racial profiling." Bullshit. Double and triple bullshit. Are you going to tell me that white people will be stopped and asked to see their papers? What are the odds that a Hispanic person is going to voluntarily help the police now? This should be called "The Harass any Hispanic who speaks Spanish" law, because anyone who is honest knows that that is what this law is about.What is the solution?Step 1 -- end the Insane War on Drugs. 99.99999% of the criminal activity on the border is due to the insane war on drugs. Not drug use, the war on drugs. End the war, end the incentives for people to evade law enforcement.Step 2 -- implement sensible immigration policies. Conservatives/neocons/Republicans claim to understand the law of supply and demand and to acknowledge economic reality. Yet when it comes to the supply of brown labor crossing the border, they start frothing at the mouth and say that they will, by legislative fiat, change the law of supply and demand. It's insanity. It has never worked in history and never can. An immigration policy that creates pent up demand for labor, and forces otherwise honest people to have to decide between providing for their family or breaking an immoral law, is flawed.Having said that, because the law is so flawed, and pent up demand is so high, we've created a transition problem -- how to get from here to there. I think the answer is to pick some sensible number, as indicated by non-racist economists, of how much of an influx we can handle. Then increase that amount by x% each year until equilibrium has been reached. Step 3 -- fix INS so that they can do background checks and give people a legal right to work here in a reasonable amount of time. Right now, 95% of immigrants have NO path to either working here or becoming citizens. Fix that, now. Then honest people will come through the checkpoints, and will go back when the work dries up. Anyone who tries to sneak across will be there for a reason -- they know they could get through basic background checks. So now you have a lot more resources to deal with a much, much smaller problem.You can't fool economics. Supply and demand will meet. Decide to do it in an orderly manner, or decide to do it at a great cost in morality, humanity, law enforcement, and human resources, and human life. More people die each year on the US border than in all the years of the existence of the Berlin Wall. It's pretty hard to express moral outrage at the failings of other countries when we are out-killing the communists.

Nah, let's just build a wall.

[Southern Buddhist]

strategy, on Sunday, April 25th, 2010, 2:05 PM, said:

hblask for president.I'm serious. let's do this.

I'm in if he'll let me be the Secretary of Health and Human Services and Other Mushy Liberal Crap.Gotta throw in here that those allegedly non-racist freedom-loving Republicans are the same ones who demand that Obama carry his original birth certificate at all times, because they can't quite wrap their minds around the idea that a non-white person could possibly be a "real American."

[Pot Odds RAC]

hblask, on Sunday, April 25th, 2010, 1:57 PM, said:

It isn't a question of whether this law will be abused, it is a law that invites, possibly *demands* that rights be abused. Need proof? Look at the defense: "We won't use racial profiling." Bullshit. Double and triple bullshit. Are you going to tell me that white people will be stopped and asked to see their papers? What are the odds that a Hispanic person is going to voluntarily help the police now? This should be called "The Harass any Hispanic who speaks Spanish" law, because anyone who is honest knows that that is what this law is about.What is the solution?Step 1 -- end the Insane War on Drugs. 99.99999% of the criminal activity on the border is due to the insane war on drugs. Not drug use, the war on drugs. End the war, end the incentives for people to evade law enforcement.Step 2 -- implement sensible immigration policies. Conservatives/neocons/Republicans claim to understand the law of supply and demand and to acknowledge economic reality. Yet when it comes to the supply of brown labor crossing the border, they start frothing at the mouth and say that they will, by legislative fiat, change the law of supply and demand. It's insanity. It has never worked in history and never can. An immigration policy that creates pent up demand for labor, and forces otherwise honest people to have to decide between providing for their family or breaking an immoral law, is flawed.Having said that, because the law is so flawed, and pent up demand is so high, we've created a transition problem -- how to get from here to there. I think the answer is to pick some sensible number, as indicated by non-racist economists, of how much of an influx we can handle. Then increase that amount by x% each year until equilibrium has been reached. Step 3 -- fix INS so that they can do background checks and give people a legal right to work here in a reasonable amount of time. Right now, 95% of immigrants have NO path to either working here or becoming citizens. Fix that, now. Then honest people will come through the checkpoints, and will go back when the work dries up. Anyone who tries to sneak across will be there for a reason -- they know they could get through basic background checks. So now you have a lot more resources to deal with a much, much smaller problem.You can't fool economics. Supply and demand will meet. Decide to do it in an orderly manner, or decide to do it at a great cost in morality, humanity, law enforcement, and human resources, and human life. More people die each year on the US border than in all the years of the existence of the Berlin Wall. It's pretty hard to express moral outrage at the failings of other countries when we are out-killing the communists.

Step 1 - Really? Change the laws because too many people are breaking them? Really?Step 2 - Supply and Demand? The "Supply" in this case is "America", and the demand is from people wanting to tap into that Supply illegally.Step 3 - Gaining US Citizenship isn't supposed to be "Easy", and I don't think there should be some streamlined fast track process to get there. Just because someone wants to come here to work doesn't mean we have some sort of imperative to make that easy or else they HAVE to become criminals. They CHOOSE to become criminals. Again, have you ever tried to go to another country to work? I'm not talking about "third world countries" here. Try the UK or Canada. I can personally attest that it is very difficult to legally enter those countries to work even for a short period of time.

[CaneBrain]

Pot Odds RAC, on Sunday, April 25th, 2010, 3:18 PM, said:

Step 1 - Really? Change the laws because too many people are breaking them? Really?Step 2 - Supply and Demand? The "Supply" in this case is "America", and the demand is from people wanting to tap into that Supply illegally.Step 3 - Gaining US Citizenship isn't supposed to be "Easy", and I don't think there should be some streamlined fast track process to get there. Just because someone wants to come here to work doesn't mean we have some sort of imperative to make that easy or else they HAVE to become criminals. They CHOOSE to become criminals. Again, have you ever tried to go to another country to work? I'm not talking about "third world countries" here. Try the UK or Canada. I can personally attest that it is very difficult to legally enter those countries to work even for a short period of time.

I wont touch Steps 2 and 3.....but step 1 is change a bad law that cant ever work because prohibition never does. If too many people are breaking a law AND it continues over a long period of time....that is actually very much a sign that a law sucks.

[Pot Odds RAC]

CaneBrain, on Sunday, April 25th, 2010, 3:21 PM, said:

If too many people are breaking a law AND it continues over a long period of time....that is actually very much a sign that a law sucks.

I don't completely disagree with that. I've often said the same thing. However that is sort of a smoke-screen in this case. It in this case it isn't that the general population disagrees with the law - there just happens to be a large number of non-citizens that choose to break the law in a violent manner. Many people break speeding and drunk driving laws, few would argue eliminating them.A lot of people hate the Tax Laws, that in itself isn't sufficient to say: "Let's just end the incentives for people to evade the IRS"In Vietnam there is a depressingly large problem in Human Trafficking - including unspeakable abuse of children. But hey, it is all "Supply and Demand" so it is all cool. Americans and other sex tourists going there illegally shouldn't be criminalized.Gary Glitter will be relieved.

[CaneBrain]

Pot Odds RAC, on Sunday, April 25th, 2010, 3:32 PM, said:

I don't completely disagree with that. I've often said the same thing. However that is sort of a smoke-screen in this case. It in this case it isn't that the general population disagrees with the law - there just happens to be a large number of non-citizens that choose to break the law in a violent manner. Many people break speeding and drunk driving laws, few would argue eliminating them.A lot of people hate the Tax Laws, that in itself isn't sufficient to say: "Let's just end the incentives for people to evade the IRS"In Vietnam there is a depressingly large problem in Human Trafficking - including unspeakable abuse of children. But hey, it is all "Supply and Demand" so it is all cool. Americans and other sex tourists going there illegally shouldn't be criminalized.Gary Glitter will be relieved.

It's not about eliminating all laws that people break. A shift in drug policy would end a lot of the border violence that gets blamed on immigration policy. How much has to be gained by eliminating a prohibition law where demand has stayed steady for ages before we just do it already?We are also rapidly approaching the point where certain drugs are almost 50/50 in terms of the general population being in favor of legalization. Marijuana would already be well passed that point if there were not generations old lies still bouncing around out there.

[timwakefield]

LongLiveYorke, on Sunday, April 25th, 2010, 2:17 PM, said:

Nah, let's just build a wall.

It worked in China!

[ahosang]

Pot Odds RAC, on Sunday, April 25th, 2010, 8:32 PM, said:

I don't completely disagree with that. I've often said the same thing. However that is sort of a smoke-screen in this case. It in this case it isn't that the general population disagrees with the law - there just happens to be a large number of non-citizens that choose to break the law in a violent manner. Many people break speeding and drunk driving laws, few would argue eliminating them.A lot of people hate the Tax Laws, that in itself isn't sufficient to say: "Let's just end the incentives for people to evade the IRS"In Vietnam there is a depressingly large problem in Human Trafficking - including unspeakable abuse of children. But hey, it is all "Supply and Demand" so it is all cool. Americans and other sex tourists going there illegally shouldn't be criminalized.Gary Glitter will be relieved.

Good post but I believe you're wrong on this bolded point. The activity that sex tourists would be carrying out is arguably immoral. The point with a lot of illegal immigrants is they want to work, which is arguably a virtue. Those that would trade drugs would be dealt with the same as home-grown traders.Link welfare entitlement to paid tax(apart from blind, disabled etc) and that solves the problems of shirkers(home-grown or otherwise), as well as addressing supply and demand. Immigrants won't try and get in as much if there is no work or welfare for them, and home-grown will have to go and do the work that immigrants are willing to do, or emigrate to greener pastures. The liberal elites failed to foresee the consequences of allowing welfare to become a cradle-to-grave lifestyle rather than a temporary safety net(at least here in the UK).

[AmScray]

Ninjafoo, on Sunday, April 25th, 2010, 12:19 AM, said:

If you're legal you have nothing to worry about, our police (I live in az) have the right to ask for your i.d. no matter who you are for any reason, we are required to carry i.d. no matter how white/brown/black we are, so is this really that different.

Can you cite an actual law that mandates people in Arizona must carry ID with them at all times?Because it's one of those things that (stupid) people tend to believe is a law, but really, it isn't- although in the case of Arizona, nothing would surprise me.

[ahosang]

Pot Odds RAC, on Sunday, April 25th, 2010, 4:59 PM, said:

"Third World"? Go to London. Look at the wrong cop in the wrong way - or commit some minor infraction. Speak with a Non-British accent. Don't have your passport. Have fun.

I'm not picking on you, but i disagree strongly with this post, especially the bolded parts. A very large minority of London is non-indigenous(non-white for those liberals who don't accept there is an indigenous people of Britain), and it is full of people not speaking English(or speak English in a non-British accent).Seriously - wrong city. Maybe you visited 20 years ago or something, but as a London-dweller, I can tell you you're way wrong...

[antistuff]

AmScray, on Sunday, April 25th, 2010, 4:40 PM, said:

Can you cite an actual law that mandates people in Arizona must carry ID with them at all times?Because it's one of those things that (stupid) people tend to believe is a law, but really, it isn't- although in the case of Arizona, nothing would surprise me.

i've been told by cops in new york if you don't have id on you they can take you with them until they can verify who you are. wither this is true or its was just cops being cops i have no idea.

[Pot Odds RAC]

ahosang, on Sunday, April 25th, 2010, 4:44 PM, said:

I'm not picking on you, but i disagree strongly with this post, especially the bolded parts. A very large minority of London is non-indigenous(non-white for those liberals who don't accept there is an indigenous people of Britain), and it is full of people not speaking English(or speak English in a non-British accent).Seriously - wrong city. Maybe you visited 20 years ago or something, but as a London-dweller, I can tell you you're way wrong...

Have spent about a month there already this year. Love the town. Felt that the diversity there was even more a part of the City than probably any town I've ever visited - and I've been around. Go into just about any pub and you WILL hear multiple accents and languages. So you're 100% correct: I overstated it, so let me be more specific. I'm not saying it is a problem of any sort or that there are a bunch of cops looking to deport people in London. I'm saying that it IS a risk and that as a visitor I MUST carry my passport (or copy) at all times or risk being detained or even deported. If I was pulled over for a random traffic stop or other minor issue I'd expect that upon hearing my accent, the officer would request my ID, including my passport. If I failed to do so I'd likely be in trouble. And if I was there illegally it would be worse.

[strategy]

antistuff, on Sunday, April 25th, 2010, 4:05 PM, said:

i've been told by cops in new york if you don't have id on you they can take you with them until they can verify who you are. wither this is true or its was just cops being cops i have no idea.

preface: I don't know if that's true, butcops are completely within the bounds of the law to lie their fucking faces off if it gets a person to incriminate themselves, and they do it often. I don't understand why that's legal.you kinda hinted at this with "cops being cops" but I felt it important to drive this point home.further edification: