The Smallest Minority

"Balls" can't be in his court because he doesn't HAVE any.

The SEIU and Trail lawyers have one each, in jars, at their headquarters.

Man, I got to say, I like the cut of the lady's jib. My new governor is decent, and my new AG is really pissing the libs off. It's nice to have someone in the government doing things I like.

Well played. Pokes the Obamateur squarely in a weak spot, and teases the mask loose.

Like it.  I might have said, "Do your damned job..." instead, but maybe that's a bit coarse. 

It would also help if they stopped this damned drug war. That makes it profitable to do these types of activities. And since drugs are illegal, being in the country illegally isn't a big deal.

There's only one problem with this, however...facts.

http://newmexicoindependent.com/53176/crime-immigration-connection-unclear-justice-dept-statistics-suggest

But FBI and U.S. Department of Justice data show that Arizona’s violent crime rate is lower than the U.S. average and has been declining more rapidly than the U.S. average, The Independent found.

http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeStatebyState.cfm


Reports by the nonpartisan Immigration Policy Center and libertarian CATO Institute both indicate crime rates fell in Arizona over the past decade. Census data show that overall, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than U.S.-born people, according to both institutes.

So, while the "ball may be in his court" there are no facts on the other side whatsoever. Nowhere in this video did I see any citations of data. And this is critical thinking? I'm trying to imagine what would happen if I linked to a video like this...hmm...

Not to mention the fact that the problems presented in this video are easily solved: legalize all drugs immediately. And for that, I will say the ball is in President Obama's court.

Yeqh, except that ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS have already committed a crime just by stepping over the border.  And I'm probably on pretty safe ground when I say that the "nonpartisan" Immigration Policy Center didn't bother to include that little problem in their crime statistics.

There's only one problem with this, however...facts.

Well let's see, there are several assertions made:

- Dept. of Justice Dec. 2008 - Mexican gangs are "the biggest organized crime threat to US".

That one should be pretty easy to source, huh?


- In 2009, 316 kidnapping cases, making Phoenix the US kidnapping capital. Nearly all illegal aliens or connected to the drug trade.

That one should be easy to source as well.


- Until 2009, smugglers carrying under 500 lb. were often not prosecuted.

That one may be a little more difficult, I'll grant you.


- Narcotics prosecutions up 202% in 16 mos.

That could just as easily be used to "prove" the problem is being solved as to "prove" the problem is being ignored, but nonetheless it should be easy to show whether or not it is factual.



- 1,080 prosecutions will be refused this year in Tucson sector alone.

That one's more difficult, I always tend to be suspicious of anyone predicting the future. But still, it shouldn't be hard to find out where these assertions came from.


Nowhere in this video did I see any citations of data.

I presume you mean "citations of sources". Nor did I. Nonetheless, just because they don't cite sources doesn't mean those sources can't be found. These are no more likely to be in error than the ones claiming the Amazon rainforest, the Himalayan glaciers and the Arctic ice cap will have all vanished by such-and-such a date.

It's disturbing that someone who claims to teach for a living can't figure out how to do the sourcing the video failed to show. Or can't be bothered, one of the two. Either one is still pretty disturbing.

However, I note that while you imply that the video is fact free, you do nothing whatever to refute any of them.

You use overall crime rates and violent crime rates in an attempt to refute points made concerning kidnapping and the drug trade, and apparently expect no one to notice that you've allowed yourself the entire body of State and Federal law except those two as "wiggle room".

Personally, I'm having trouble figuring out precisely what claim you're trying to make.

Are you claiming that the makers of this video have their facts wrong? If so, why do you do nothing at all to show them to be in error?

Are you claiming that Arizona's border is, in fact, secure, and that cross-border crime in the state is not as urgent a problem as they are making it out to be?

Are you claiming that if all drugs were legalized, the gun-running and human smuggling would cease? Or that if the drugs are legal, the flow of guns and illegals across the border will be okay? That the border would still be porous but it would no longer matter?

And while we're grumbling about a shortage of facts, what about the "arresting people for being Mexican-looking" meme that has been pushed by both President Hussein and yourself? That one is not only not supported by the facts, it is in direct contravention of them, in other words it is a bald-faced deliberate lie. And yet that disconnect between assertion and fact doesn't seem to give you any heartburn. Why is that?

Damn, that was me. I cleared cache/history/etc. and forgot to put everything back.

I'm having trouble figuring out precisely what claim you're trying to make. 

It's very simple: violent crime as gone down in Arizona and it's dropped more signficantly than the national average. The facts to support this are listed above. In fact, I will predict (this is an opinion) that it will go down even more if the new relaxed gun laws pass.

To your questions...

No, I'm claiming that I'd like to see citations and an analysis compared to the data that I have provided above. At the very least, the data from this video is a truth which tells a small part of the story. Where is the evaluation of this data and the synthesis of it with this other data? I should't have to tell you, GOF, that evaluation and synthesis are part of critical thinking. No, I submit this video is just another example of FUD.

Arizona's border is not secure but that's not the problem. The problem is that prohibition doesn't work. I think it's just fine if you call President Obama to the mat on the legalization of all drugs. By not legalizing drugs, he is responsible for this violence. The call to secure the border is ludicrous because it won't solve anything as long as the profit margin is there for illegal drugs. 

Yes. Look at what happened during the prohibition era and what followed. As far as illegal immigration goes, again, you are not looking at the heart of the problem which is the businesses that hire the illegals in the first place to save money. People won't come across the border if there aren't any jobs to be had. And you seriously want to deport all the illegals here? Say hello to increased prices at the grocery store in a barely recovering economy.

The only workable solution I see that makes economic sense is to embrace the people that are already here, get them paying taxes, make it easier for Mexicans and other South Americans to work here and also pay taxes, legalize drugs (and use the insane amount of tax money to pay down our debt) which will, in turn, greatly diminish the violence, and focus on securing the borders in a way that highlights more criminal acitivity such as terrorism as opposed to wasting law enforcement officials on some people that just want a better life for themselves.

And your last paragraph is ludicrous. The law says suspicious activity. Well, how do you define that? I think each law enforcement official will define that differently and that's where the problems will begin. And your support (as well as others here) makes no sense whatsoever when you also scream about "fascist states." My friend Sylvia is a legal immigrant to this country living in Arizona. She now has to take her papers and her children's papers with her when she goes and buys ice cream down the block. All of her friends now live in fear of the state government and completely believe they will be stopped simply for being brown.So, the next time I hear anything about fascism and "tough history coming" you're going to get this "show me your papers, jew" example ad nauseam as a perfect illustration of titanic hypocrisy.

By all means, though, please keep towing this line. It just means less votes in the fall which is hilarious when you consider the very large gains that could be had. Two months ago the Right was riding high on anger, fear and hate over the health care bill. Now you've got purity tests against Bob Bennett and the Latino community up in arms calling for boycotss of the state of Arizona as well as anti-GOP votes. Well done, sir :*

Oh, so you're not running away from this thread yet, Mark?

I'll get to most of the rest later, if GOF doesn't pick up the lower-hanging fruit.

But let me pick the one up off the ground:


By not legalizing drugs, he is responsible for this violence. 

You know, before you lecture us on the government, you really need to sit down and LEARN what the roles and responsibilities of the President of the US are. Obama cannot "legalize drugs", and thus, his responsibility there is not absolute.

I should't have to tell you, GOF, that evaluation and synthesis are part of critical thinking. No, I submit this video is just another example of FUD.

I'm going to re-post my problem with your (and apparently Oxford's) definition of "critical thinking", since it's about to fall off the page and I really want you to address it.

------------------
Critical thinking employs not only logic but broad intellectual criteria such as clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance, and fariness. Generally, that's Oxford's defintion and I agree with it.

The fact that you agree with it is hardly surprising, but that doesn't change the fact that it's inherently and deeply flawed.

such as clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision, relevance, depth, breadth, significance, and fariness.

First off, "such as" translates to "including, but not limited to", in other words those words allow you to change the definition of the concept any time you please by adding criteria that weren't previously stated, only implied. 
 
Next,

clarity, credibility, accuracy, precision

Those aren't too bad, although "credibility" is rather prone to subjective rather than objective judgment. However,

relevance, depth, breadth, significance, and fariness.

as you can see, the criteria get steadily less objective and more subjective as you continue through the sentence, until you reach "fairness", which has no objective definition at all.

You use that criterion often, either unaware what it means or hoping we are unaware what it means. Simply put, it means "personal preference" or "bias".

As I said, I'm hardly surprised to find that this is how you define "critical thinking".

Now, on to your post:

Arizona's border is not secure but that's not the problem. The problem is that prohibition doesn't work.

I'm pretty sure you'll find about a 50/50 split around here on whether The War On Drugs(tm) is/was successful/justified/ethical/worth the trouble/parent of more problems than it solved/etc., and you'd probably find me on the same side as you re: "prohibition doesn't work." However:

Arizona's border is not secure but that's not the problem.

True or False: Mexico's government is so corrupt it makes Chicago or New Orleans look clean by comparison.

True or False: The United States is a wealthy, somewhat decadent country with a porous border, whose culture and government does not naturally lend itself well to close surveillance of its residents, on the border or anywhere else.

True or False: We are currently involved in two wars. Whether you agree with the premise of those wars or not, the fact is that the majority of the people against whom we need to defend ourselves are not uniformed combatants openly serving any given nation. In short, "our side" is fighting a much more conventional war than they are, they are fighting a war of spies and assassins.

I count those statements as true. Given that, it seems insane to suggest that the border between those two countries will not continue to be a haven for gunrunning, human trafficking in one form or another, and conduits for information, material and personnel for the abovementioned spies and assassins.

Apparently either you don't, or you don't care about any of those things.

focus on securing the borders in a way that highlights more criminal acitivity such as terrorism as opposed to wasting law enforcement officials on some people that just want a better life for themselves.

How do you propose to tell the difference between the two, when you dare not ask them for ID even after you've arrested them for something else?

The law says suspicious activity.

No, it does not. The law quite specifically defines it that you already must have probable cause for something wholly unrelated to their immigration status. They have to have already stopped/arrested/detained/whatever the person for something else. And then, if you have reason to believe they are illegal in addition to what you already have them for, you must ask.

So far as I know, that's what it has said from the beginning. But that's not what President Hussein has claimed it as, even since before it was written.

Feel free to post a link to the bill itself and point out where I'm wrong. I can take it.

It just means less votes in the fall which is hilarious when you consider the very large gains that could be had. Two months ago the Right was riding high on anger, fear and hate over the health care bill. Now you've got purity tests against Bob Bennett and the Latino community up in arms calling for boycotss of the state of Arizona as well as anti-GOP votes. Well done, sir

Since when have I ever given a rat's ass about the GOP? Oh, I remember, I don't support Obama/Pelosi/Reid 100%, therefore I must have loved every little bitty thing Chimpy McHitler and Darth Cheney ever did. Sorry, I keep forgetting.

Ah, low hanging fruit..

No, I'm claiming that I'd like to see citations and an analysis compared to the data

We can't get that from you in this forum and this form, where it's easy, and you want it in a 30 second political ad?
Mark, you're cargo-culting again. We cite you for failing to cite, and we analyze that you can't analyze, and so you turn it around and try and use it to bolster your beliefs.  Besides, they cited, Mark.


 the data from this video is a truth which tells a small part of the story.

Yes. Here you come close, but miss.  Ending up missing by a lot. The data is a truth, and it tells a part of the story that Obama is ignoring, but Arizona can't.

Futhermore, it proves that Obama isn't serious about doing the job he's sworn to do, with the duties required of him. Where you keep expecting him to do things that aren't in his job description, this one is.  His tone-deafness on this point is something we tried to explain to you when he was barely in the running for the nomination - he's not that smart, or that good at *actually* listening to people.



 No, I submit this video is just another example of FUD.  

Submission rejected.
Fear, Uncertainly, Doubt? Where does any of that come into play there?  It's making fun of Obama's lack of concern for the job he's sworn to do, and his attacking of people suffering due to his apathetic negligence.

Arizona's border is not secure but that's not the problem. The problem is that prohibition doesn't work. 


Prohibition [of drugs] is only part of the problem. You're trying to tie everything to a strawman, but it doesn't fit.  Girls are trafficked across the border for brothels - you might remember how accomodating ACORN was to the idea! - are you saying that should be legal?

There's always going to be something prohibited.  Changing the drug equation doesn't fix everything else.

I see that makes economic sense is to embrace the people that are already here,

... Those who fail to remember history are doomed to be Markadelphia.

We've done that before.  And both times, it was promised, that it was a 1 time only affair, never again.  Of course, the south-of-the-borderians figure, once a dumb gringo, always a dumb gringo...

Why shouldn't they?  

But what you're doing is showing massive bias towards criminals.  Towards people who scoff at the required laws and regulations.  You punish the law-abiding, the people who sit in lines for years trying to get into the country legally.

No, the economic answer is to crack down on their employment, press charges and enforce very strictly the laws on identity theft (One can tell you've never had yours stolen), and they'll go back home. Then, and only then, do we discuss bringing them into the country via a new system.

And you seriously want to deport all the illegals here? Say hello to increased prices at the grocery store in a barely recovering economy.  

Spare us the histrionics, since you don't have a problem with anything else the Obama crew has done, which has been increasing prices, energy costs, uncertainly (raising prices), in our economy which isn't even at the bottom of the dip yet.

My friend Sylvia is a legal immigrant to this country living in Arizona. She now has to take her papers and her children's papers with her when she goes and buys ice cream down the block. 

Javier's wife?

And I bolded the part where you were wrong/lied.  She now has to do nothing differently.  All the AZ law did was codify that federal requirement of law to state law.  So the state officials can enforce it.
She always had to take her papers, legally.

She's just been a scofflaw until now.

It just means less votes in the fall which is hilarious when you consider the very large gains that could be had. 

No it doesn't.  Now you're in agreement with Karl Rove, and he's an idiot for thinking that. So are you.

There's a reason that the Democrats keep trying to import from south of the border, there's a reason that California hasn't been majority R since the last amnesty.

Hint: Check out the root word of "patronage".  Oh, wait, you don't know how to use a dictionary.

I just can't quite help myself at the moment, so I'm going to throw a bit of red meat on the fire.

Go read this:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/10/obama-targets-ipods-video-games-commencement-address/

Here is the lede, so you'll see what the story is about:

"President Obama -- whose campaign was an online juggernaut and whose love of all things comic book, Star Trek and most recently Avatar is well-documented -- went on a tear against gadgets and gizmos over the weekend, telling a graduating class in Virginia to beware the vice of video games and portable music players."

But here's the set up (and note the added emphasis):

""You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter," Obama said during the commencement address at Hampton University on Sunday. "And with iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation."

And here's the red meat:

"The president has a known addiction to his BlackBerry (a.k.a. BOTUS -- Blackberry of the United States), which he could not and would not part with when he entered the White House, despite security concerns. He admitted "clinging" to it last year -- kind of like voters who "cling" to guns and religion.

"He also owns an iPod, meaning that he knows how to use one -- unless he depends on the Secret Service to hit the shuffle button while he's out jogging.

"He told The Associated Press after Michael Jackson died that "I still have all his stuff on my iPod." During the campaign, he revealed his playlist to Rolling Stone, which at the time included a lot of Jay-Z and Bob Dylan. And he once found the iPod a device befitting royalty. He gave one to Queen Elizabeth II as a gift when he visited London last spring."

Read the whole thing for full flavor, and then reflect on it.  My take is, goddamn, what a lying hypocrite.

Y'see, it's not surprising at all that he lies about the Arizona law. Lying is what he does.

Wow, you're calling him out on his hypocrisy on his ipod? I guess I don't understand why you are seemingly so desperate. For the time being, the right has the Big Mo to take back some seats in the fall. There are so many areas you could criticize but you go for something superflous (ipods and blackberries) and then rip him for an issue that will LOSE you votes in the fall-immigration.

Fellas, it's real simple: figure out another talking point besides FINISH THE FENCE AND GET OUT/FUCK YOU SPICS. This issue is much more complex than that and if you want to actually gain votes this year and anytime in the future (see: fast growing Latino population), you best unfuck yourselves from this dogmatic impasse. This video and your comments here have no practical application in reality.

Here's a thought...Kevin? You are basically a journalist who lives in AZ. Go out and talk to the Mexican American population in the area. Ask them what they think and publish their responses here. I'm certain we'll here things that will surprise me, enrage many of you, and enlighten us all much more so than my small example of my friend Sylvia.

Wow, you're calling him out on his hypocrisy on his ipod?

No, on his OBVIOUS LIES.
Do try and keep up.

I guess I don't understand why you are seemingly so desperate.

It's not desperate. It's an obvious lie. DJ (I presume) thought that it was so obvious EVEN YOU would see the point in demonstrating it. As we know, you don't understand the concept of proving that you're right, or how proof works.

It's proof that Obama will say something that's obviously false. It's proof that you'll lap it up, along with the media you insist is so critical of him, and NOT call him out on lying through his teeth.

Secondly, what was he doing? CLAIMING OTHERS WERE LYING.  That's right, he lied not just that they lied, but WHILE HE WAS TRYING TO EMBELLISH.

A tertiary (That means third, Mark) issue is that he's trying to portray himself as a victim here.

Which is what you respond to, and you can't figure out why we stick to proof and facts and the like.

 then rip him for an issue that will LOSE you votes in the fall-immigration.  

No votes will be lost in the fall, much less for enforcing current law.

Fellas, it's real simple: figure out another talking point besides FINISH THE FENCE AND GET OUT/FUCK YOU SPICS.

That's your strawman, and it speaks volumes to how racist and bigoted you are that you project that onto others.

This issue is much more complex than that and if you want to actually gain votes this year and anytime in the future (see: fast growing Latino population), you best unfuck yourselves from this dogmatic impasse.

See, this is an insight to how you see politics.  It's only about groups, and buying them off.  Not about rules of law, not about true fairness, but about identity politics in totality.

This video and your comments here have no practical application in reality.  

That video's gonna resound to Arizonians. You could disagree with it, but it's a powerful image. It shows the President of the United States laughing at his sworn duty, and sneering at those who would do the job he was sworn to do.

But just like the education thread that you're running away from, the obvious situation is one you will not admit to.  (Stanford failed. Aspire didn't.  You could not even accept or admit that.  That's your failing, not ours.)

than my small example of my friend Sylvia.

Which you've done a Javier on. "Look at my friend Sylvia! I say she disagrees! I win!"  


You never told us what Javier's problem was, what the situation was, but you expected it to be a powerful message. It's not.  Not unless you can explain it.

Sylvia's situation is unchanged. I told you that. You ignored it, because it demolishes your victimology. But it doesn't change the facts. She is now required to carry those papers at all times. Due to Federal Law.  Now.  That's the law.

Obama's laughing at the law. Arizona isn't.  They can't anymore.  The more he laughs, the more you defend him failing to do his job, (and then insist he should be superPresident and do other things) the more these messages will come up, and the more people they'll resonate with.

My friend Sylvia is a legal immigrant to this country living in Arizona. She now has to take her papers and her children's papers with her when she goes and buys ice cream down the block. All of her friends now live in fear of the state government and completely believe they will be stopped simply for being brown.

Jesus Mark, if your'e going to keep using brown people you know as human shields, at least don't plagiarize the fucking President when you do it.  Just slapping a name on it doesn't make it any less of an instant credibility killer.

As a side note, I grew up in Arizona, and I live in another border state.   All factual areas about the content of the law aside, I've spent my entire life in the Southwest.  Not only would the police never have any time at all to do anything else if they used "brown" as a criteria for stopping people, a really huge chunk of the police forces themselves ARE BROWN.  It's a good working-class job with good benefits, why wouldn't they be?

Granted my numbers are 15 years out of date, but I think in the mid 90s New Mexico was 62% either hispanic or one or another tribe. I would expect Arizona to be much the same, across the political and economic spectrum. So in all likelihood, not just a huge chunk. A solid majority of the police, the lawmakers, and the voters.

But of course, Mark knows more about it than people who merely live there, just like he knows more about Katrina than people who have lived in Hurricane Alley all their lives.

"Fellas, it's real simple: figure out another talking point besides FINISH THE FENCE AND GET OUT/FUCK YOU SPICS."

We have. But you're so stuck on your goddamned straw man that you blew right past it even when GrumpyOldFart asked you about it directly:



Marxy: "focus on securing the borders in a way that highlights more criminal acitivity such as terrorism as opposed to wasting law enforcement officials on some people that just want a better life for themselves."

GrumpyOldFart: "How do you propose to tell the difference between the two, when you dare not ask them for ID even after you've arrested them for something else?"


I REALLY want an answer to that question. I have NEVER seen anyone from your side even recognize the existence of that question. (Heck, I want your side to admit there is a difference between L.E.G.A.L. and I.L.L.E.G.A.L. immigration.) How do you keep thieves, murderers, drug runners, gang bangers and terrorists, and the like out when you actively REFUSE to check EVERYONE who crosses our border?

These comments remind me of something that was just written on my blog.

Most Republicans are tribalists and not racists. They will accept members of other ethnicities into the fold as long as they obey the norms of the tribe. But some Republicans are definitely racists, and there are many racists who think the Republicans are far too "liberal" because they let guys like Michael Steele into the party. We can see that the Republicans are far more tribalist than the Democrats. The Democrats tolerate opposing views within the party much more than the Republicans do. It's why it's nonsensical for people to say "the Democrats are in complete control." There is no monolithic central party diktat among the Democrats as there is with the Republicans. For example, there are many Democrats who oppose abortion and are full-fledged members of the party, like Bart Stupak (who is being drummed out of Congress not by fellow Democrats, but by abortion foes). There are many Blue Dog Democrats who cause party leaders no end of trouble.


Because Democrats are all over the map, you get a more centrist policy in the end because they work together to arrive at a reasonable compromise. Whereas with the Republicans, you get tribal dogma that ignores the realities of the situation. And that's why the Democrats have historically controlled Congress more often than the Republicans. They're more centrist and they appeal to a broader cross-section of the country.Republican numbers will go up and down, but because they constantly excommunicate heretics who violate their ever-tightening dogmas, they will ultimately cull their own numbers and condemn themselves to minority status again.

The issue of immigration is the one that could rip the right apart. On the one hand we have the tribalist view illustrated quite nicely here by all of your comments. On the other, we have the businesses who employ illegal immigrants so they can make more money. Which side will dominate the party? So far it seems the triablist side which may end up driving the business wing of the party over to the Democrats who, as we see in the above quote from a commenter on my site, will welcome them with open arms ;)

On the one hand we have the tribalist view illustrated quite nicely here by all of your comments.

And not the comments giving people ethnic names that worry about being brown, and framing the issue as one of "brown people" versus the rest of Southwestern society they are implicitly not part of in the same way as the white people.

Another fun factoid: there are towns in the north of New Mexico that really are, culturally speaking, a group that views themselves as the ones who've been here for five hundred years while the anglos are fucking new guys... as are Mexican nationals, whom they see as even newer.  Being a suspected illegal after dark in some of these areas will get you beaten or worse.

We ain't Michigan.  "Brown" is a completely useless distinction down here. 

GoF: It gets more interesting than that.  Here's the recent data: Census Quickfacts.  At first it looks like there's a heavy white majority- until you read the rest of the data, in which Latinos and hispanics are counted, and then white persons not hispanic are identified.  So far as a lot of the "hispanic origins" are concerned, THEY ARE WHITE.  It distinguishes them from the native Americans and the black people.  "White" as defined by traditional identity politics in more gringo America is a minority in this state.  In Arizona the anglo majority is there but relatively slender.

Go acquaint yourself with enough diversity that you can make cultural and political distinctions based on something other than skin color, then give lectures about tribalism.

This Cenus doesn't count Hispanics as a separate race. Read the form and talk to a Cenus worker, he will confirm it. They are being lumped into any other race on the form, if possible.

"See, this is an insight to how you see politics.  It's only about groups, and buying them off.  Not about rules of law, not about true fairness, but about identity politics in totality."

Indeed Unix.  There are no individuals, just members of groups...and the only thing that matters is the next election.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/in-response-to-critics-arizona-tweaks-new-immigration-law-92495249.html

Now, Arizona lawmakers have made some changes intended to clarify their intent and, perhaps, silence some of the critics.  The changes were first reported by Phoenix television station KNXV, better known as ABC15.
The first concerns the phrase “lawful contact,” which is contained in this controversial portion of the bill: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…”  Although drafters of the law said the intent of “lawful contact” was to specify situations in which police have stopped someone because he or she was suspected of violating some other law — like a traffic stop — critics said it would allow cops to pick anyone out of a crowd and “demand their papers.”

He is, of course, referring to people like you, Mark. And, as it happens, the President.

So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

Don't take my (or his) word for it, read the damn thing for yourself:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.htm
Are you actually not competent to do your own sourcing, or are you just too lazy?

By all means, though, please keep towing this line. It just means less votes in the fall which is hilarious when you consider the very large gains that could be had. Two months ago the Right was riding high on anger, fear and hate over the health care bill. Now you've got purity tests against Bob Bennett and the Latino community up in arms calling for boycotss of the state of Arizona as well as anti-GOP votes. Well done, sir.

This is probably the most telling thing of all about you Mark, and incidentally it's the one I find most personally insulting.

The above is a blanket admission that you personally are willing to trade any Republican for any Democrat, no matter how corrupt, dishonest or criminal, as long as he advances your agenda and not "theirs". Not only that, you blandly assume that the same is true of me, only in reverse. That I'm only in this as a game, that I don't actually care whether or not someone uses government to rape his fellow citizens so long as he's of "my" party.

Sorry, no sale. I don't care about their skin color, their gender, who or what they sleep with, their religion, or any of that. You know, all the things you and the Democrats believe someone has to be "not the Other" to qualify for treatment as a human being.

I care if they're honest.
I care if they have the work ethic to actually do the job I hired them for.
I care if they actually play by the rules they expect to impose on others.
I care if they have the ethical foundation to be responsible with ludicrous amounts of other people's money.

In short, It's the integrity, stupid.

It's depressing, but sadly not surprising, to find that you don't understand that.

GOF:

In short, It's the integrity, stupid.  

In all seriousness, Mark doesn't really know what "integrity" means, and you can see that continually in his arguments. It's a fluid concept to him, and it's all about power, the gaining and wielding of it.  It's a word that to be used to hoax others who believe in it - he knows it's not what he uses it for, but he doesn't grok it enough to understand what it means, or how to really use it.

Two months ago the Right was riding high on anger, fear and hate over the health care bill.

Anger and fear? Yes. Anger because it was being rammed through despite record amounts of opposition, with obvious deceptions and lies.  Fear, because if it's rammed through, what it will result in, or what will happen when people resist it.  Hate? Only on your side, Mark. 

Hate didn't factor into it. It's just a base libel that you use for anybody not agreeing with you.

The Klansman in the (D) caucus?  How does that apply to him, by the way?  The only Klansman in Congress, the one who uses racial epithets all the time?


Now you've got purity tests against Bob Bennett

It wasn't a "purity test". Bennet wasn't respecting his constituants, he wasn't following his promises, and he wasn't a small government conservative in one of the most conservative states in the Union.

That's why you have elections, Mark.

He wasn't doing the job, he was removed. Tada.  But all you can see is power. Buying off groups, because you refuse to see them as individuals.  We're only our skin color and sexual orientation to you, that's all that matters to you.

And then you've got the unmitigated gall to talk about "diversity."

Put that with Integrity in the ever-growing list of words you don't know the meanings of.

Here's a thought...Kevin? You are basically a journalist who lives in AZ. Go out and talk to the Mexican American population in the area. Ask them what they think 

Why just the Mexican-American population? Why not the American and Arizona citizens?

But, per your request for some "on the scene" reporting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVvrKQK_ON8#t=49s

64 police chases in Pinal County. Not a single citizen as a driver.

Care to discuss what the open border means to him?  

Here's some more interesting information:

- %22 of the felonies committed in Arizona are committed by illegal aliens. (Remember Marxaphasia, by definition this does not include LEGAL immigrants.)

- The number of illegal immigrants in Arizona is estimated to be about 10% of the adult population.

For the math challenged, this means that illegal immigrants commit felonies (we're not talking jaywalking here!) at a rate of more than twice the rate of the rest of the population. (Note that LEGAL immigrants count as part of the rest of the population.)

I got this info from here.

BTW, this video includes a clip of Al Sharpton dodging a variation of the question Grumpy and I have both asked Marxy, and which he still appears to be dodging too: (You know, that one that represents our actual position instead of the goddamned straw man that Marxy is using…)

How can we keep murders, rapists, thieves, gang bangers, drug pushers, and terrorists out of our country without checking out everyone who wants to enter our country?

Vanderleun reproduces an IBD editorial cartoon that I think is apropos to the discussion. Scroll to the bottom of this post.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8

The title of his most recent post on his own blog suggests that no, it's not too early:

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/

GOF:

You really shouldn't risk your sanity over there.

But yes, he's running away, and his butt is hurting badly.  Even he knows it, which is why he's attacking with such venom.

I'm actually surprised he came back this quickly after he ran away from the Education thread.


I thought of something as we were pointing out to him how much he didn't seem to know about the state of Education in this country.

What if we school him, and kick his ass so badly even he knows it? After all, he's mortgaged in his own mind to his expertise, how much more he knows there, because we've - as that post demonstrates - regularly "owned" him.

What happens when we demonstrate that we (the supposed ignoramuses) are actually far better informed, and can make our cases far better than he can?

I think he, consciously or not, realized that he was in danger of getting his ass kicked in the only area he could hope to claim expertise (and be credible). So he ran away, and he's not had _much_ involved or put much effort into the threads since, you'll note.

I think Mark knows who's owning who here.

By the way, Mark? When are you going to admit that critical pedagogy failed?  At least in this case?  (Other than it opens up the obvious "So where *does* it work? question.)

Running away, coming back like MacArthur...make up your mind, Unix. Actually, I know that you say the things you do just to get a rise out of me and continue your bizzare obsession with me. For someone who has his "butt burned badly" it seems odd that you must devote so many words to me. If "you've won" why are you repeating yourself and in such large quantities? ;)

I don't think you are an ignoramus. I think you (and many other here) suffer from epistemic closure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/books/28conserv.html

Once again, Jim Manzi (thanks again, juris) tells it like it is. The only thing shocking is that I missed all of the hullabaloo. Too busy...

A classic example of your epistemic closure would be critical pedagogy...now brought up again in another thread. I don't have to admit that it failed because it's not being as widely used as Kevin's appeal to fear fallacy says that it is. Others here agreed with me in that thread and if you were intellectually honest, you would admit it. If you want to seriously examine the problem with instructors today, start  here.

http://www.startribune.com/investigators/93201809.html?elr=KArksUUUoDEy3LGDiO7aiU

In Wayzata, a teacher kept his job despite extensive allegations that he spent most of his class time surfing the Internet.

This is more prevalent than one teacher in Wayzata. In my schooling, nearly all of my instructors told me that one of the biggest problems in education was the inability to fire bad teachers. The reason why children aren't learning what they should is not because of a socialist plot. It's because teachers, like many other people in this country, are lazy.

And, as to why I haven't been posting much of late on here, simply put, I have been enjoying my life. Contrary to what you may think, my world doesn't revolve around the comment threads here at TSM. If the mood stirkes me (and I have time), I post. There's really not anything more to than that. Sorry to disappoint you, dude.

Since this is a thread in immigration, what do all of you think of this idea?

Fourth, we should reconceptualize immigration as recruiting. Assimilating immigrants is a demonstrated core capability of America's political economy — and it is one we should take advantage of. A robust-yet-reasonable amount of immigration is healthy for America. It is a continuing source of vitality — and, in combination with birth rates around the replacement level, creates a sustainable rate of overall ­population growth and age-demographic balance. But unfortunately, the manner in which we have actually handled immigration since the 1970s has yielded large-scale legal and illegal immigration of a low-skilled population from Latin America. It is hard to imagine a more damaging way to expose the fault lines of America's political economy: We have chosen a strategy that provides low-wage gardeners and nannies for the elite, low-cost home improvement and fresh produce for the middle class, and fierce wage competition for the working class.


Instead, we should think of immigration as an opportunity to improve our stock of human capital. Once we have re-established control of our southern border, and as we preserve our commitment to political asylum, we should also set up recruiting offices looking for the best possible talent everywhere: from Mexico City to Beijing to Helsinki to Calcutta. Australia and Canada have demonstrated the practicality of skills-based immigration policies for many years. We should improve upon their example by using testing and other methods to apply a basic tenet of all human capital-intensive organizations managing for the long term: Always pick talent over skill. It would be great for America as a whole to have, say, 500,000 smart, motivated people move here each year with the intention of becoming citizens.

This is Jim Manzi from his great article, Keeping America's Edge. I have to say, once again, I completely agree with him.

"Since this is a thread in [sic] immigration," why can't you answer this question?

"How can we keep murders, rapists, thieves, gang bangers, drug pushers, and terrorists out of our country without checking out everyone who wants to enter our country?"

Running away, coming back like MacArthur...make up your mind, Unix.

I've already told you. Those aren't contradictory.  You're historically idiotic and illiterate. You didn't even manage to bother to read that and realize that you "got your butt burned".

Actually, I know that you say the things you do just to get a rise out of me and continue your bizzare obsession with me.

As usual, you've built a strawman, and failed to set it on fire.  Bizzare? Obsession? Hardly. Don't flatter yourself.

You're the one who comes in here, dumps intellectual dung, and then runs off when he gets his "butt burned", then comes back and claims victory later.
You. Will. Not. Win. By. Default. Not here. This is too valuable of a place.

I will not let you Cargo Cult here, in a place of consideration, reason, and liberty, and allow you to demean science and rational thought by aping it, and hiding amongst people who are thinking, instead of just reacting.

For someone who has his "butt burned badly" it seems odd that you must devote so many words to me.

Not really, I'm usually only referencing the last 2 or 3 really ignorant things you've done, or threads you've run away from. I've only got 5000 characters, and you've run away from so many arguments, you've said so many obviously stupid things, that I can't compact that into the English Language - unless I do like you do, and make up definitions for words.

If "you've won" why are you repeating yourself and in such large quantities?

Because you keep coming here and spreading your lies, your stupidity, the memes you are pushing - the ones that are failed, that are against everything that the Constitution says the Government is limited to.

Because you can't even admit or concede obvious points, much less your deliberate lies and distortions when they're caught out.  At this point, you're a interesting exercise and proof of how Leftist thought happens.  

 I don't have to admit that it failed because it's not being as widely used as Kevin's appeal to fear fallacy says that it is.

THAT WASN'T THE POINT. Stanford was using it, and they failed.

Even if it's not "widely used" it was being used by Stanford, and they failed.  The "Widely used" is your invention to avoid admitting you were wrong.

Which, by the way, I note you also fail to define HOW widely it's spread.  It's certainly widespread in my research.  You learned it. It's required for education majors here. And in Florida. And South Carolina.  And ... 

The burden of proof is on you to prove your assertation.

See, this is how it goes.
Kevin posts something, and says "See, Critical pedagogy failed"
Your rebuttal was "Did not! It's not widespread"

So you didn't address his contention  and you introduced another claim that you've not substantiated.

And you wonder why we laugh at you.

And, as to why I haven't been posting much of late on here, simply put, I have been enjoying my life.

Right. That's why you leave arguments you're getting embarrassed about.

You can comment on them for months. Come back when you want.

We're not stupid, you know. We *are* out of high school, and we're not buying bad excuses.  

Contrary to what you may think, my world doesn't revolve around the comment threads here at TSM. If the mood stirkes me (and I have time), I post. There's really not anything more to than that. Sorry to disappoint you, dude.

You don't disappoint me. But again, IF THIS WAS TRUE, you'd be behaving differently.  You're just trying to justify and lay in advance excuses for "comment shitting" again.

Which won't surprise, or disappoint anybody here.  We're used to it from you.  You just can't admit to your failings.

You'd grow as a person if you did.  And you might learn something.

Now that you're back, are you ready to point out where in the AZ immigration law it gives anyone the right to pull anyone over "for being Mexican looking"? I gave you a link to the actual bill.

And when are you going to get back to the Concealed Carry Thread, where you ran away from numerous assertations, including:


 Guns don't cause violence and he knows this. It's common sense which is what he has been saying all along.

You, you know, kind of left off the proof of how you know what he thinks, or the fact that if it's such common sense, why his activities were so antigun, for so long, and when he changed his mind.


That's not "life" getting in the way, Mark, that's an immature debating tactic where you realize you "got your butt burned".  Because of things you said.

How about you go back, and deal with them.  Hell, how about you finish a debate and at least support your contentions to the finish, rather than getting less specific as you go along?

Hey, "my dog ate my homework" works for Phil Jones, why shouldn' it work for Markadelphia?

Climate change as well now in this thread? Fine by me. Chew on this one:

pgs. 84-88

http://www.defense.gov/QDR/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf

"Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment."

"Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration. While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world. In addition, extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defense support to civil authorities for humanitarian assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas."

I guess the DoD is off their rocker too now.

Unix, I answered your question above regarding CP and.....you say nothing? And then switch the topic to conceal and carry? Hmm....

And yet you've thoroughly ignored mine. You know, the one about Arizona immigration law.

"Ed, did you read the above paragraph?"

Do you mean the two paragraphs you quoted from Jim Manzi?

Sorry, GOF. I put up a comment and it vanished into Echo's netherworld. Let's see if this works again.

With the signing of Arizona House Bill 2162, there has been some improvement on the bill, quoting

"prosecutors would not investigate complaints based on race, color or national origin."

and immigraton arrests wil be limited to

"lawful stop, detention, or arrest."

But, GOF, do you trust that the police will be able to limit themselves to these standards? Some will but some won't and that's the real issue I have with this bill. It's a pathetic attempt to make something black and white that is clearly very gray. Not surprising, considering the minds from which it came. The very nature of the lines "lawful contact" , "reasonable attempt" and "reasonable suspicion" (Sec 2b) are incredibly subjective and, depending upon the person, could mean stopping a Mexican looking woman for getting ice cream with her kids. What if she jay walked with her kids? That is lawful enough reason to stop her. And if she didn't have her papers with her...then what?

Some will but some won't and that's the real issue I have with this bill.

The same issues apply to all laws of any kind wherever found. So what? You're saying that anything short of a perfection that can never be achieved is unacceptable, but a border porous to gunrunners and slavers (and anyone and everyone else) is not that big a deal?

That's a mighty courageous decision to make from 2000+ miles away.

stopping a Mexican looking woman for getting ice cream with her kids. What if she jay walked with her kids? That is lawful enough reason to stop her. And if she didn't have her papers with her...then what?

The exact same thing that would happen with a white woman who jaywalked getting ice cream with her kids, that's what. They'd ask her if she knew her DL number or her social security number, or any of a hundred bits of personal data Americans are routinely identified by, and run her through the system.

So why it something practically every white person in the US does many times a day as a matter of routine when going to the bank, or cashing a check, or etc. etc. etc ad nauseum... why is that such a horrible infringement of liberties on anyone who is "mexican looking"? Why is it so terrible that any number of smugglers, or organized crime members, or who knows what all, can be let through rather than even chance inflicting such a horrible injustice on one person who is "mexican looking"?

And that still dodges the fact that your statements (and President Obama's, and Eric Holder's and etc. etc.'s) to the effect of "a free pass to arrest anyone mexican looking" and "show me your papers, Jew" are either a) casual slander based on assumptions made in total ignorance of the actual bill, or b) deliberate lies.

So which is it for you? I think I know which way to bet on Obama, Holder et al.

And of course there's this:

Not surprising, considering the minds from which it came.

An assumption that you can look into people's hearts and minds and divine their evil intentions, solely by virtue of the fact that their faces are white and/or their politics are conservative.

By the standards you espouse, that's "hate speech" when directed against anyone but a white conservative, isn't it?

But, GOF, do you trust that the police will be able to limit themselves to these standards?

Holy hell. You certainly don't know the definition of "Irony". 

To answer you more seriously than you deserve, yes, I trust that, as much as I trust anything else.  

You've got to have some trust, because the police have had authority vested in them.  What's Ironic, is that you normally trust anybody in government, no matter how badly they've acted in the past, and want to give them MORE power.  Now, suddenly, you're a small government conservative. Which is really odd in this instance, because...

. It's a pathetic attempt to make something black and white that is clearly very gray.

It doesn't make anything. You have been told this. Explained this. It was repeated over, and over, and over. There's no way you can claim to be a reasonably honest debater, when you have failed to address that it "makes" nothing.

It codifies existing FEDERAL law to the STATE level.  That's it. It's not inventing any terms, conditions or requirements.  NOT ONE. Not. A. Single. One.

That "very gray" area is already "black and white" in law.  What it does is allow the state authorities to act on violators.  (As opposed to waiting for the federal, who obviously are apathetic to their jobs and responsibilities.  But they have those standards, and have failed our trust by not acting on them.

Not surprising, considering the minds from which it came.

As I said, this was explained to you before. Your insistence on bigotry is clearly exposed here.

The very nature of the lines "lawful contact" , "reasonable attempt" and "reasonable suspicion" (Sec 2b) are incredibly subjective

To some degree, they are, Mark. 

But you don't have a iota of a problem with that subjectivity in any other fields.  The hypocrisy is on your side. We're not happy with a lot of the subjectivity, we are against it, and we'd like to see there be a lot less of it. But that said, it exists, and it to some degree always will. The alternative is "zero tolerance" policies. There will always be some subjectivity, and it's something we live with on a daily basis.  

Whatever you do, don't try and look up what a "Terry stop" is. You won't bother to learn anything, but if you did, it would make you apologize for that line of argument and your bigoted attack.

and, depending upon the person, could mean stopping a Mexican looking woman

In ARIZONA?

for getting ice cream with her kids. What if she jay walked with her kids? That is lawful enough reason to stop her.

Well, yes, because she broke the law! That's a lawful reason to stop her and cite her and as with any transgression, you have a legal obligation to produce identification.

That's unchanged from the prior law, it's unchanged from Federal law.

And if she didn't have her papers with her...then what?

Then she is in further violation of Federal law that exists on the books today. Now she'd also be in violation of state law, and the state could deal with her crime spree, including showing her children how to break the law.

Just. Like. Yesterday.

Nothing was created, except in your mind.

Yes, there is that.

A fact that you (and Obama, and Holder, and etc. etc.) keep conveniently ignoring in your quest for something to hang your racist fearmongering from, Mark. Well over half of the voters supporting the law, well over half of the politicians enacting the law, and well over half of the police enforcing the law are themselves "Mexican looking". I'd be willing to bet you that somewhere on the close order of 50% of those groups are actually of Hispanic ancestry themselves.

Those are the people you are slandering with your presumption of racism, Mark.

Yes, over half of the voters in this country support the law. How many people in this country supported segregation at the time of Brown?

I think you're going to find out just what the Hispanic groups think in November, dude. You're already finding out now with the financial boycott. At the end of the day, that's what's really going to change this law and/or get the federal government to act. Money talks and if it isn't coming in to the state of Arizona, I think you are going to see a lot of pissed off business owners. Best of luck dealing with them!

Yes, over half of the voters in this country support the law. How many people in this country supported segregation at the time of Brown?

I know you can't do sourcing, but I thought you could at least read.

"Well over half of the voters supporting the law, well over half of the politicians enacting the law, and well over half of the police enforcing the law are themselves "Mexican looking".

That's not a statement about the country, that's a statement about the State of Arizona. You're saying policemen with names like Ruiz and Mondragon are going to be racist against people who are "Mexican looking". It's depressing that I even have to explain to a teacher how idiotic that premise is.

You are absolutely correct, money talks. And because it does, this may turn out to be one of the most expensive shovelfuls of horseshit in the history of mankind. But that doesn't change what it is.

Besides, I thought in most cases you were in favor of sloppy law enforcement, no?

You consider it a feature in tax law.

You consider it a feature in immigration law at the Federal level.

So far as I can tell, you consider it a feature more often than not. What's different this time?

And just to be on record, I want to address this:

...your lack of perception on what it's like not being white in this country is ridiculous.

Two points:

1. When I was 12, my family moved from one of the nicer parts of Los Angeles (Palos Verdes Peninsula) to what was at the time the largest all-white town in the US, Vidor, TX. I seriously doubt you could find a more stark case of culture shock without taking an anthropolgy internship. And because of that, I suspect I have a much more realistic view of what is and is not racism than you do. I've seen it at the sharp end.

About 10 years ago the local KKK staged a march down Main Street. I'm proud to say they got something like 200 supporters, while the counterprotest numbered somewhere around 4,000. These weren't imports either, imports don't come here. They don't want any part of Vidor, and mostly I don't blame them. These were corn fed white rednecks from back in the woods around this town of under 25,000. People from yet smaller towns, places like Jasper, just north of here. If that doesn't ring any bells, go google Jasper TX, I'll wait.

2. No, I don't know what it's like to not be white, but I have seen the other side. You're a history teacher, what would you expect the experiences of a young woman in a small town in flyover country to be like... born in 1931, maiden name Steussy? That was my mother.

Pilgrim, you have no earthly idea.

P.S. The other side of my family is largely Irish. You know, as in "No Irish Need Apply"? That and Scots, who often are mistaken for Irish (which they often consider insulting.) If you seriously think being white is protection against racism, you have no room to accuse anyone else of wearing blinders. It also suggests you have no idea of the conditions in any berthing compartment of any ship in the US Navy during the last 30 years or more. A sad and depressing thing in a history teacher.

An ex girlfriend of mine is 1/4 black, 1/4 hispanic and 1/2 Japanese, and she is making a lot better headway understanding this issue than you are. Go figure.

And Brave Sir Marky's life called again...

GOF, you make some good points as always but I don't think you are looking at this issue with the width of vision that is needed to solve it. I certainly don't have all the answers but I know that it doesn't start yet another right wing edict that will only make matters worse. The illegal immigrants that are already here are a part of our economy. You honestly want them all deported? I'm not certain that our already fragile economy can take the hit.

As far as securing the border goes, as I asked DJ above, how much is that going to cost? And will it actually do any good? Much of the crime on the border is drug related, correct? My solution remains the same: legalize all drugs. Take away the profit motive and watch the crime go down. Embrace the immigrants as human capital and seek out the highest skilled workers. This law is basically a giant "Fuck you, Spic" and "Get Out!" to people who are coming here seeking a better life. Rather than "Papers please, Jew" how about "Here is a one page form to fill out. Take it to the table over here for approval and you have a working permit here. Keep your nose clean for 6 months and we will make it more permanent." That's just a start but I think you get the idea.

I've had 9 days to digest these two comments and have realized that you neither of you have any idea what it's like to not be white in this country.

You've stalled for 9 days, you mean. You haven't digested anything. This is the same pap you peddled 9 days, and 6 weeks and 3 years ago.

You've got a special understanding, nevermind you don't understand the facts, the logic, or the science behind any stance, you "just know the right questions to ask". You know the right people, and ignore any problems with your stances, hypocrisy, or the fact that your "solutions" are what got us to the problem.

You have no idea what my "ideas" are, or even what color I am.
You've got no idea what my background is.

You've called me (and Kevin) Christians multiple times - even thought we'd told you we weren't.

You just have your bigotry and hypocrisy (my "diversity" doesn't matter.)

You have no empathy whatsoever for alternate perceptions on life.

Not even remotely true.

There is only one view: YOURS.

Projecting much?  Several of us here have disagreed strongly with each other on more than one occasion.

Or in the case, the monolithic one shared by many here who views any discussion of racial issues or diversity as being a load of liberal bullshit geared toward further entitlements and the fascist state.

No,not even close.

OF course, since you're advocating an amnesty and extension of redistributed wealth to the amnestied illegal immigrants.... you might want to reconsider... Well, hell. We all know you don't consider, you can't reconsider, and even if you did, you'd implode if you admitted you were the "w" word.

Honestly, it's a terribly inhuman point of view and so incredibly myopic that you will never understand why people are upset about this new law.  

WHAT CHANGED?

You keep avoiding that question. Why? Is it because you know you're wrong? You're lecturing us on being myopic, and you can't even bother to handle the facts that include that the law changed nothing?

You want to talk about "sadly?" 

How about how sad is it you can't admit basic facts in front of your face?

Stanford and your vaunted "diversity" and critical pedagogy failed.
This law didn't change anything other than who was empowered to enforce the law.

Nothing.  If they're upset they're idiots and were unaware of the law.

And I include the President and Attorney General in that. They're idiots, and they're ignorant of the law. (Some scholars. It's a 17 page law, and they can't be bothered to read it.)

Barlett was right about the New Right...just like the left of the 60s...nothing grounded in the real world.


So says the man who can't admit that Stanford failed, and this law changed nothing.

And it tok you "9 days" to fail to answer any of the questions put to you (different rules!), ignore the facts (different rules), and call us names (different rules!).

GOF, you make some good points as always but I don't think you are looking at this issue with the width of vision that is needed to solve it.

Width of vision.  What was that about critical pedagogy "not being widespread?"

Not only is he, it's a known solution. It's a done deal. 

But what you are saying, if the "right" people are breaking the law, let them break it, if they'll vote for Democrats.

I certainly don't have all the answers but I know that it doesn't start yet another right wing edict that will only make matters worse.

Start? It's been the law since the 1950s.  It's been a "edict" since before you were born. And if you don't have the answers, it won't stop you.

The illegal immigrants that are already here are a part of our economy. You honestly want them all deported? I'm not certain that our already fragile economy can take the hit.  

Gee, it's too bad you just now are worried about the economy.  While Obama and the Democratic Congress has been savaging it and future growth, you didn't care.

But yes, our "fragile economy" can more than take "the hit". We'll be better off for it.  And - nothing says you can't allow in that many immigrants to take their places. Nothing.

As far as securing the border goes, as I asked DJ above, how much is that going to cost? And will it actually do any good? Much of the crime on the border is drug related, correct? My solution remains the same: legalize all drugs.

Oh, save us from Mark thinking.

Let's just take the most obvious points here.  Sneaking across the border was illegal.  Yet many people were doing it. Possibly 20 million people currently here now.

Yet people did it.  
And you think you can "solve" it by legalizing drugs. Tada.
Even though the very lawbreaking you want to reward was illegal.  

That - might - stop the drug wars. Not the human capital. Not the trafficing and slavery that you're good with. (After all, the sex slaves don't have MORTGAGES!)

Take away the profit motive and watch the crime go down.

This is true only insofar as you're willing to legalize everything. I'm not. Most people aren't.  And until the border is secure, the things that are illegal will continue to come across the border.  Even if you somehow were magically right, the fact that taxes are about to skyrocket means there's going to be a very thriving black market soon.

Embrace the immigrants as human capital and seek out the highest skilled workers.

You want to talk about a "fuck you?" Go talk to the PhD's in India who can't get in. Or the doctors in England. Or the engineers from Germany. Nurses from Africa.  Political and religious refugees from China.

That's the giant "fuck you" you're sending. "Follow the rules, you're a chump. Break 'em, and get all the rewards."

This law is basically a giant "Fuck you, Spic" and "Get Out!" to people who are coming here seeking a better life.

"coming here illegally", you keep leaving that word out.
The ones who broke the laws. Who steal identities and defy minimum-wage laws that you seem to support.  Who live illegally, drive illegally who.... BREAK THE LAW.

I have no problem telling criminals to get out, they're not wanted here.  That's not in any way to say I don't understand their desires and their attempts.  But amnesty was a failure before, and it's worse now.  Additionally, the new law changes nothing. Nothing.  If you want to keep saying it "says" something, man up, have the sack to tell us, Verbatim Boy what changed in the Arizona law that wasn't in federal law before.

Rather than "Papers please, Jew" how about "Here is a one page form to fill out. Take it to the table over here for approval and you have a working permit here. Keep your nose clean for 6 months and we will make it more permanent." That's just a start but I think you get the idea.


The "idea" is you're totally rewriting all the immigration laws.  Which Arizona didn't do.

So your proposal isn't a discussion of Arizona's law, but instead an unworkable plan requiring magic and miracles, and you moving the goalposts again, trying to stay on a Elementary-school level of discussion of political realities.

...how much is that going to cost? And will it actually do any good? Much of the crime on the border is drug related, correct? My solution remains the same: legalize all drugs. Take away the profit motive and watch the crime go down.

So let's see, in short:

Actual border security? Hell with it, it'll cost too much and won't do enough good.

Any kinds of crime other than drugs? Hell with it, the child prostitution, the gunrunning, nobody cares about that stuff.

Porous border, easy crossing for terrorists or anyone else who wants to be invisible to the legal system? No problem, nobody cares. Besides, people from the Middle East are "Mexican looking" so if you even mention the possibility of terrorists using illegal alien conduits, you're a racist.

And of course, a law in Arizona that perfectly mirrors the Federal law is "Fuck you, Spic!"

As usual, you're willing to ignore, or even actively work to overthrow, the rule of law so long as it serves your political agenda. And you wonder why people blandly assume that any Democrat is lying through his teeth when he makes claims about what any given law will do. They don't read them, and they make it plain from the beginning that they have no intention of enforcing them as written.

Uh oh, looks like we've got some RACISM...

http://patterico.com/2010/05/19/obama-hosts-second-state-dinner/



President and Mrs. Obama are hosting his second State Dinner tonight in honor of Mexican President Felipe Calderón and wife, Margarita Zavala, but there were no gatecrashers this time:

“Some of them were still clutching their embossed invitations, proof that they belonged. They had already been asked their names once, twice, three times to make sure they were actually on the list.
...
How did they manage it? By refusing people who did not have their identification papers:

“Kathryne Mudge, right, and her husband, Arturo A. Valenzuela, assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs, leave a checkpoint after discovering Mudge did not have her identification for the State Dinner at the White House in Washington, Wednesday, May 19, 2010. They returned about an hour later with the ID and were allowed into the affair that President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama held for their Mexican counterparts, Felipe Calderon and his wife, Margarita Zavala.”

Questioning and turning away Mexicans/Americans because they don’t have papers?


...

I'm sure Mark will be denouncing the reign of terror on those "spics" [sic] from his Anointed One in .. three... two.... hey, where'd Mark go?

Ya know Mark, you might actually be able to get immigration reform done if the Democrats didn't always demand that the border remain porous as a condition of it.

Hey folks, check it out!

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4204091/my-mom-doesnt-have-papers

I vote for a TSM field trip with Unix, DJ, Kevin, and a few others sitting down with this young student and explaining your position to her. I'd be more than happy to record it for posteriety.

I'd be more than happy to record it for posteriety.

For you, I'm sure it would be a poster.

Sure, set it up.  In the spirit of reciprocation, I can set you up with some people who's IDs were stolen by illegal immigrants (one of which committed a number of crimes) and you can explain to them why they have to suffer so those criminals can prosper.

And I can get you in touch with a couple of people who've lost loved ones to repeat DUI offenders from South of the Border, who weren't deported after their first, second, or third DUIs...

I've got no problem telling that young lady that her mother is sadly, a criminal, raising her in a criminal lifestyle, and leaving her with little option later, like that girl in CA who's whining that as an illegal, she can't get into the premier University of Cal she wants, having to settle for the local campus (on us.)


Just like the MacArthur comment, that displays how ignorant and stupid you are, it's not a "gotcha" towards us.

Oh, and let's not forget the union workers you can explain why illegals under the table are better, and to students why illegals at less than the minimum wage means they don't have jobs, and heck, you can explain to all of us why our insurance premiums are so high to cover illegals health care...

I think we can make this a very, very fun week.

If you're picking up the tab, Thimblewit, I'm in.

And I can get you in touch with a couple of people who've lost loved ones to repeat DUI offenders from South of the Border, who weren't deported after their first, second, or third DUIs...

Or we can go to L.A. and Mark can explain to the families of murder victims why it's a good thing that 95% of all warrants for murder are for illegals.

Ooh, hey, this'll surprise people:

http://mnsun.com/articles/2010/05/20/hopkins/opinion/ho_ed_mt20volkletter.txt



In 2001, the district [Hopkins] conducted a technology referendum, in which voters approved a fixed levy of $2 million per year for 10 years. Yet, for 2010's property taxes, the board certified a $3,545,759 levy.


Stupid voters! They didn't know what they SHOULD do, let's just ignore 'em!

So apparently Mark, your basic position on all issues is that laws should be enforced to their fullest possible extent, and even extra stuff made up if necessary, to punish anyone who disagrees with your politics. But for anyone who agrees with you and/or can be used to advance your agenda, refusal to obey the law should be rewarded with head of line privileges.

Or in short, "justice" = "a decision in my favor" in the mind of Markadelphia.

Got it. That explains much about your usage of the word "justice" in all its forms.

Union members...families of DUI victims...families of murder victims...there's going to be all kinds of people on this field trip!

Mark:

I have a serious question for you.

Based on what you've said about illegal immigrants and their children, on what (if anything) would you be critical of this guy:

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2010/05/18/ex_harvard_student_accused_of_living_a_lie/?page=1

?