They’re not going to get every threat, but you’re right, they make mistakes. I don’t care if the government is in charge of it or if it’s in private hands, I like the security scanners.
“Don’t mind the scanners either. It’s worth it to me to know that the odds of someone having a weapon on the plane are reduced.” - bloomj31
What’s wrong with having a weapon on board? I’d wager if more people had weapons on board, there would be fewer security issues. Full body scanners are a tool, it’s who they’re aimed at that’s the issue and what the government always ends up fucking up. Scanning everyone who gets on the plane may or may not make sense in some situations. The point is applying security measures categorically across all situations ignores the fact that certain measures are more effective than others in different situations and should be used appropriately. And I’ll take a few dozen armed citizens over an unaccountable lumpen endomorph with an IQ of 50 and a guaranteed federal check any day of the week.
As for the polls, they speak to a reality few here want to deal with, which is that citizens on the border states have to deal with a lot of undesirable shit from illegals. Not everyone coming to the US is a proud worker, ready to live the capitalist dream. I know for a fact because I work down in AZ and TX and the raw amount of shit flowing over the border in terms of criminals and ne’er do wells is ridiculous. I’ve been in open house hiring situations at plants down there where, when English was spoken, the majority of questions pertained to how employment would help them get government benefits. So as a communications strategy for anyone who is interested in political action I’d strongly recommend against categorizing all supposedly ‘anti-immigration’ types as xenophobes of some sort or another, or inherrently anti latino or anti immigrant. A lot of them are I guess what you could call rationally ignorant of the fact that it’s the compound effect of a myriad of ill advised government programs which has lead to their problems. They just see the rush of immigrants and the unpleasantness to downright criminality some bring and want it dealt with.
“They’re not going to get every threat, but you’re right, they make mistakes. I don’t care if the government is in charge of it or if it’s in private hands, I like the security scanners.”
As long as I don’t have to pay for the charade we can be in agreement…
Here’s my idea: we’re far too strict on our immigration policy. Let people immigrate. Seriously, just let them immigrate. Except for criminals and those with communicable disesases, let them in. Here’s the catch: no benefits from the government until you pay taxes for at least 5 years. This will ease some tension on budgets and make immigration more reasonable.
Also, when someone commits a crime, they need to provide identification. If they can’t prove that they live in this country, then deport them. I don’t see why this is so wrong. If an illegal is in this country and commiting no crimes, then let them be. Only check if you catch the person commiting a crime.
And freaking enforce the borders! It’s at least a security issue. What are we paying taxes for? I’m arguing about practicality, not idealism. Ideally we could have private firms protecting the border, but that’s not happening anytime soon. Protect that damn border already. Keep those criminals OUT!
I basically agree with all this. I think that the law really just says that if they catch a hispanic person committing a crime that they will demand the person provide ID and hold them until they’ve ascertained their legal status. If they turn out to be illegal they’ll deport them right away. The reasonable suspicion thing says something to the effect of “if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the person has committed a crime.” Ambiguous but not that ambiguous. Either way, I agree, protect the damn border.
“Here’s my idea: we’re far too strict on our immigration policy. Let people immigrate. Seriously, just let them immigrate. Except for criminals and those with communicable disesases, let them in. Here’s the catch: no benefits from the government until you pay taxes for at least 5 years. This will ease some tension on budgets and make immigration more reasonable.” - tonyfernandez
It sounds reasonable, but no bill like that would make it through the process. Even if it made it through the begining, once it went to conference it’d be hacked up into a monstrosity, and on the off chance it survived even that stage of development, within five minutes of being signed into law someone will have gotten some judge with his head rammed far enough up his ass to declare those restrictions unconstitutional.
“Also, when someone commits a crime, they need to provide identification. If they can’t prove that they live in this country, then deport them. I don’t see why this is so wrong. If an illegal is in this country and commiting no crimes, then let them be. Only check if you catch the person commiting a crime.”
Sounds reasonable on its face, but it’s not really. You get things like MOAD, Mexican Out After Dark. So far as I know the current legislation allows cops to check for citizenship whenever they stop someone for any other reason, and possibly to detain them indefinitely if they can’t produce proof of citizenship. The detainment part if true is plain fucking evil and never should have passed. However, even the remainder is bad once you realize the sheer number of reasons for which a cop can legally stop you. The reason for the stop becomes a pretext when checking for citizenship is the real goal. The cops I know are fairly free in admitting to doing things like this all the time. Want a warrant for X but have no probable cause? No worries, the guy whose house you want to search probably has broken at least 30 laws over the last week for which you can get that warrant, and then if you just ‘happen’ to find X, well all the better. Want to jail a guy for being a prick to you when you gave him a ticket, well then he’s ‘disturbing the peace.’ All they need to do is make sure the wording on the ticket/arrest report matches the statute, then it’s a wash. Who is the judge going to believe when it hits the court. It’s a power grab and a sneaky one, and it shouldn’t be tolerated.
“And freaking enforce the borders!”
How?
“It’s at least a security issue. What are we paying taxes for? I’m arguing about practicality, not idealism. Ideally we could have private firms protecting the border, but that’s not happening anytime soon. Protect that damn border already. Keep those criminals OUT!”
Again, how? While everyone crossing the border illegally is technically a criminal, it’s kind of like the medical marijuana thing. Even granting it’s a problem, which I don’t think it is, why the hell waste time arresting grandmothers who just don’t want to barf their lungs out while going through chemo? Again, when you pigeon-hole people like this or apply a broad blanket categorization as a mere matter of practicality you end up wasting a lot of time and effort catching and deporting people who were never really a problem anyway. So if you do want to the take the government angle here in terms of trying to make it work, you first need to make sure that the target is at least correct. And all illegals isn’t a good target. How many tens of millions of illegals are here in the US?
When do you want to start the search? It’s not like we’re knocking this out over a month or so. These people are here, they want to remain hidden, they’re good at remaining hidden, and most of them to be honest aren’t causing any problems.
As has been stated before. Immigration (legal or illegal) is not the problem. It is the symptom of another problem. The welfare state, but not because those coming here are looking to get government assitance. They are coming for work. Between public assitance, minimum wage, and unemployment; undesireable work that needs to be done in this country will not be done by american citizens. Why break your back for a lifestyle that you can have by not working? Its common sense when you look at it. Untill the welfare state is gone there will be immigration by those hungry for work.
Also, when discussing the issue of immigration, there is much more to the anti-immigrant sentiment than just they are not paying taxes, using services, etc. Massive immigration changes the culture and identity of where they go. Look at what immigration did to New England in the late 1800’s to early 1900’s. The character of the entire region was changed. There is a natural resistance to this from the existing population.
“As has been stated before. Immigration (legal or illegal) is not the problem. It is the symptom of another problem. The welfare state, but not because those coming here are looking to get government assitance. They are coming for work.” - Southern
And this is a load of shit. My company has plants all over the country and several down in border states, and migrant workers asking about government benefits during the interview process are not just common, it’s the norm. And anyone I’ve networked with who also works on or near the border in a hiring capacity has had the same damn experience. And it’s amazing how often the turnover for employees coincides with their elligibility for unemployment, or how many get injured conveniently out of sight and with no marks on their body to prove it and end up on comp. Just as people lumping all illegal immigrants under the drug runner, welfare sucker banner are wrong and engaging in generalization, people who portray all immigrants as some hard working dedicated newcomer to the free world are also full of shit. People coming here for the expressed purpose of sucking the government teet are a problem. The existence of the welfare state for US citizens is a contributing factor, to pretend that same incentive magically passes over migrant workers who deliberately filch IDs to work here ‘legally’ and get government assistance is a load of crap.
“Also, when discussing the issue of immigration, there is much more to the anti-immigrant sentiment than just they are not paying taxes, using services, etc. Massive immigration changes the culture and identity of where they go. Look at what immigration did to New England in the late 1800’s to early 1900’s. The character of the entire region was changed. There is a natural resistance to this from the existing population.”
As well there should be. Not all aspects of any culture are desirable or maintainable. However people can’t maintain and mix at their discretion because their freedom of association is nonexistant in the US at this point. And when the government is pushing integration on people past the point they want to tolerate it personally, they have every right to get pissed off and oppose it.
Here’s another poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/127598/Americans-Favor-Oppose-Arizona-Immigration-Law.aspx
"More than three-quarters of Americans have heard about the state of Arizona’s new immigration law, and of these, 51% say they favor it and 39% oppose it…
Nationally, 62% of Republicans support the law (including 75% of Republicans who have heard about it). Democrats are more likely to oppose (45%) than favor (27%) the law, and a majority of Democrats familiar with the law (56%) oppose it. Independents are somewhat more likely to favor (37%) than oppose (29%) the law, with half of those who have heard about it in favor."
So it looks like there’s majority support and it’s no surprise that Republicans tend to support it more than Democrats do.
Like Southern said accurately, this law attempts to address the symptom and not the problem.
The problem is very easily fixed. Legalize Drugs, Bring the Troops home, and move the welfare system to the private sector.
I really don’t care if the majority supports the law or not. It’s an unjust law, a piece of paper signed by men in suits.
I understand totally the disgust for people not following the rules. I cringe everytime I see the news videos of people holding signs at rallys stating, “I’m illegal.” On that bare-bones description, it angers me. But, letting emotion cloud judgement is what leads to being a Democrat or Republican zombie.
You don’t have to support it or think it’s just. The way the game works is that if it’s got popular support and it can be legally upheld, it will stay. You can absolutely protest it and you can try to change it through the political process but that’s it.
There isn’t the political will to end the drug war or bring the troops home or end the welfare state so this will have to do for now.
“They’re not going to get every threat, but you’re right, they make mistakes. I don’t care if the government is in charge of it or if it’s in private hands, I like the security scanners.”
Thats the funny thing isn’t it.
Everytime one of these post 9/11 terrorist incidents has occured, they always got on the plane. Wheres the story of TSA actually stopping a terrorist? Of course, its the airline’s responsibility to protect their passengers. The Federal government might try figuring out how to keep weapons and drugs out of its own prisons before it decides take on any more security ventures.
“The problem is very easily fixed. Legalize Drugs, Bring the Troops home, and move the welfare system to the private sector.” - Wibee
True, but kind of abstract to people who are living with this shit right now. The welfare state and the drug war and imperialism are the ultimate causes, but the only thing evident to most people is the proximate causes of their own immediate miseries. As such, that’s why a lot of people support this.
And this is a load of shit. My company has plants all over the country and several down in border states, and migrant workers asking about government benefits during the interview process are not just common, it’s the norm. And anyone I’ve networked with who also works on or near the border in a hiring capacity has had the same damn experience. And it’s amazing how often the turnover for employees coincides with their elligibility for unemployment, or how many get injured conveniently out of sight and with no marks on their body to prove it and end up on comp. Just as people lumping all illegal immigrants under the drug runner, welfare sucker banner are wrong and engaging in generalization, people who portray all immigrants as some hard working dedicated newcomer to the free world are also full of shit. People coming here for the expressed purpose of sucking the government teet are a problem. The existence of the welfare state for US citizens is a contributing factor, to pretend that same incentive magically passes over migrant workers who deliberately filch IDs to work here ‘legally’ and get government assistance is a load of crap.
Immediately along the border may be as you describe. They have friends and family who are citizens and help them navigate the maze of bueracracy to get benefits. However, the vast majority of immigrants dont come from border towns. The come from central Mexico. These guys have no concept of american welfare. They may have heard of it, but most have a hard time believing it. Much less the sophistication to apply for and claim benefits.
Working in the construction industry during the boom, the guys I worked with did not recieve any government assistance. The only ones who did the things that you have described were american citizens. Does what you say happen… Sure. Never said it didnt. But to say that the primary reason people from latin america come to the US is not jobs, well thats just inaccurate. Americans wont do them. Period. There is demand for the work to be done. People come here to do it. And on a side note. Since the housing bubble popped only a handfull of the guys I worked with are still in the US. Most went home to their families.
As well there should be. Not all aspects of any culture are desirable or maintainable. However people can’t maintain and mix at their discretion because their freedom of association is nonexistant in the US at this point. And when the government is pushing integration on people past the point they want to tolerate it personally, they have every right to get pissed off and oppose it.
I agree. However hostile the culture in the US is to small or no government, to the use of force, etc. Mexico and most other latin american countries are much worse.
I’m pretty sick and tired of seeing dark skinned bald men with long white t-shirts and pants around their dicks bringing down my standard of living… Aren’t you??
What about the white skinned bald mean with long white t-shirts and pants around their dicks? Do they bring down your standard of living?
The noble savage of our time. Has no understanding of welfare. Can not comprehend handouts. Charming. 
I’ve been reading the law and I think this is the part everyone is uncomfortable with:
FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
21 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
22 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF
23 THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO
24 IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE
25 MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON,
26 EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY
27 PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED
28 BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED.
These are the things they’ll accept to prove citizenship:
A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
40 IDENTIFICATION.
41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf
"Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the “reasonable person” or “reasonable officer” standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is also sometimes called “arguable suspicion”.[citation needed]
In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and frisked by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada the court further established that a state may require, by law, that a person identify himself or herself to an officer during a stop. An arrest is not permitted based on reasonable suspicion; probable cause is required for an arrest. Further, a person is not required to answer any other questions during a Terry stop, and the detention must be brief. However if the officer’s suspicions were correct and the situation escalates to a point of where the officer has probable cause, the officer can arrest the suspect."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion
To have probable cause: The Supreme Court decision Illinois v. Gates (1983) lowered the threshold of probable cause by ruling that a “substantial chance” or “fair probability” of criminal activity could establish probable cause. A better-than-even chance is not required.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that the police can stop someone committing a crime or who they suspect is illegal and ask them for ID. If they don’t have ID, it seems there’s a better than even chance they’re not legal or at least that they might not be legal in which case they can detain them until they ascertain the person’s legal status.
sorry double post
sorry triple post. Lol, I can’t believe it posted three times. I thought the website ate it.
The noble savage of our time. Has no understanding of welfare. Can not comprehend handouts. Charming.
Come on man. I hope you know what I mean. They dont exist in a state of innocence. But handouts from the government in the size and scope of what wealthy nations like the US and Europe give is unbeleivable in many parts of the world. Even steady work is something that some of them have never experienced in Mexico.