Boston councilors OK resolution to boycott Arizona

ludahai · May 7, 2010

Pal said:
It encourages and fosters racial profiling and gives police officers unprecedented rights to establish the legality of an individual.

No, ir doesn't. Officers ALWAYS have the right to identify an individual when pulling them over for a suspected offense. What makes this any different? So, you would defend the rights of anyone not to be identified for being pulled over for a speeding ticket? Thanks for admitting to all of us you believe that illegals have the right to walk around unmolested. You know, were I live, law enforcement officials have the right to determine that I live here legally -- regardless of citizenship status (for the record, I am a dual citizen). You think law enforcement officials should NOT have the right to determine if your presense itself does not violate the law if you are stopped for another offense?

Indeed it was, but that doesn't make me wrong.

Doesn't make you right either. New Hampshire, a colony/state long known for toleration, was founded by people fleeing your precious MA for religious freedom after Puritans (who themselves were fleeing religious persecution) turned the tables on others in MA -- including the natives by the way.

I prefer Vermont.

Fine, go there. All of northern New England is beautiful. I like it too.

Explain to me how politics in Massachusetts (one of the richest states in the union with one of highest per capita GDPs, highest literacy rates, best public education system, and home to the greatest universities in the country and some of the greatest in the world) are failed.

Explain to me why so many people from Massachusetts have moved to NH over the past ten years and regularly cross the border to go shopping in NH?

Pal · May 7, 2010

No, ir doesn't. Officers ALWAYS have the right to identify an individual when pulling them over for a suspected offense. What makes this any different? So, you would defend the rights of anyone not to be identified for being pulled over for a speeding ticket? Thanks for admitting to all of us you believe that illegals have the right to walk around unmolested. You know, were I live, law enforcement officials have the right to determine that I live here legally -- regardless of citizenship status (for the record, I am a dual citizen). You think law enforcement officials should NOT have the right to determine if your presense itself does not violate the law if you are stopped for another offense?

I don't think there should be laws that make a person's very presence in a country illegal (at least not in this context), so... yeah.

Doesn't make you right either. New Hampshire, a colony/state long known for toleration, was founded by people fleeing your precious MA for religious freedom after Puritans (who themselves were fleeing religious persecution) turned the tables on others in MA -- including the natives by the way.

You won't hear me defending the Puritans, who I'll say again are in fact gone from the face of the earth. I myself am a Jewish/Catholic atheist, I probably would have been kicked out back then too. However, for all their sins and religious intolerence, the Puritans theories on community and governance shaped the political structure of this state, and eventually its constitution, which the national constitution draws on heavily.

Fine, go there. All of northern New England is beautiful. I like it too.

Something we can agree on.

Explain to me why so many people from Massachusetts have moved to NH over the past ten years and regularly cross the border to go shopping in NH?

I don't know how many people have moved to New Hampshire over the last ten years, probably not as many as you're implying. However, there are plenty of reasons. For all of the things I love about Massachusetts it is very developed, there isn't a lot of nature easily accessible, and the skiing is laughable. I can certainly see people, perhaps retirees, moving up there to escape the hecticness of city life and live somewhere with the same sensibilities, but more trees and less cars.

As for the shopping, people go there because your state specifically designed laws to make goods in New Hampshire cheaper for citizens of Massachusetts to encourage this so they could make money off it. People tend to go out of their way to save money. I even see commercials for the New Hampshire state run liquor store on TV from time to time.

ludahai · May 7, 2010

Pal said:
I don't think there should be laws that make a person's very presence in a country illegal (at least not in this context), so... yeah.

So, you would abolish any and all immigration controls?

You won't hear me defending the Puritans, who I'll say again are in fact gone from the face of the earth. I myself am a Jewish/Catholic atheist, I probably would have been kicked out back then too. However, for all their sins and religious intolerence, the Puritans theories on community and governance shaped the political structure of this state, and eventually its constitution, which the national constitution draws on heavily.

Puritan theories of governance? I believe that would be English theories of governance that influence the Puritans and later on the U.S. Constitution. Most of those theories pre-date the Puritans. When the Puritans had a chance to govern England, they set up a military dictatorship -- hardly the model given in the U.S. Constitution.

Something we can agree on.

Oh, I am sure there is much more we can agree on -- like hatred for the Yankees, Canadiens and Lakers...

I don't know how many people have moved to New Hampshire over the last ten years, probably not as many as you're implying. However, there are plenty of reasons. For all of the things I love about Massachusetts it is very developed, there isn't a lot of nature easily accessible, and the skiing is laughable. I can certainly see people, perhaps retirees, moving up there to escape the hecticness of city life and live somewhere with the same sensibilities, but more trees and less cars.

According to my Mom, who still lives there, quite a lot -- though fortunately for my family, mostly in border commuities like Nashua and Exeter.

I actually like the fact that NH is very livable and prosperous at the same time. It is much more laid back and relaxed with the trees, great education, and good paying jobs.

As for the shopping, people go there because your state specifically designed laws to make goods in New Hampshire cheaper for citizens of Massachusetts to encourage this so they could make money off it. People tend to go out of their way to save money. I even see commercials for the New Hampshire state run liquor store on TV from time to time.

You actually think the government of the State of New Hampshire DELIBERATELY makes things less expensive specifically for citizens of Massachusetts? Are you implying that people from Mass pay LESS for things in NH than citizens of the Granite State do? Please don't tell me you beleive that. It is a result of more sensible taxation policies by the state of NH.

jallman · May 8, 2010

Deuce said:
Conservatives: Supporters of state and local power, except when it disagrees with them.

Liberals: Those who can't distinguish between saying something is a bad idea and making a move to stop a state or local government from doing it.

Why shouldn't Boston be able to do what they want in this case?

They're more than free to do it. And I am more than free to decide to support Arizona by vacationing there this year instead of Boston, refusing to fly through Boston's airports, or do business with Boston based companies.

Pal · May 8, 2010

So, you would abolish any and all immigration controls?

I wouldn't say that precisely. Obviously for actual security reasons people should be checked when entering the country for things like weapons or bombs, but I do favor a much much less strict immigration policy. We should be flattered that people want to live here, and remember that America was founded and made great by immigrants.

Puritan theories of governance? I believe that would be English theories of governance that influence the Puritans and later on the U.S. Constitution. Most of those theories pre-date the Puritans. When the Puritans had a chance to govern England, they set up a military dictatorship -- hardly the model given in the U.S. Constitution.

Not true. All you have to do is look at the UK's recent election and what is happening there to see that we really haven't inherited much political tradition from Britian. The Puritans who governed England for a short period (and I'm drawing on a hazy memory of high school euro history here) didn't have much to do with the ones that decided to come to the New World. When the Puritans designed the government of their colony they actually broke the mold quite a bit, and started the tradition of elected governors in the colonies even well before the revolution.

It's a well documented fact that the Massachusetts constitution (the oldest constitution in the world) provides much of the framework for the American constitution. People around here think it's still better.

Oh, I am sure there is much more we can agree on -- like hatred for the Yankees, Canadiens and Lakers...

Indeed.

According to my Mom, who still lives there, quite a lot -- though fortunately for my family, mostly in border commuities like Nashua and Exeter.

I actually like the fact that NH is very livable and prosperous at the same time. It is much more laid back and relaxed with the trees, great education, and good paying jobs.

You're right, although New Hampshire is personally a little too conservative for me, it is a great state and I didn't mean to bash it. I know that for myself I need to live in a city to be happy, which makes the ultra-developed Massachusetts perfect for me, but New Hampshire and all northern New England is stunning.

You actually think the government of the State of New Hampshire DELIBERATELY makes things less expensive specifically for citizens of Massachusetts? Are you implying that people from Mass pay LESS for things in NH than citizens of the Granite State do? Please don't tell me you beleive that. It is a result of more sensible taxation policies by the state of NH.

No, I just meant that citizens of Mass have to spend less than they would here, not less than NH citizens. That would be rediculous.

texmaster · May 8, 2010

Pal said:
This is something I love about this forum. You post something that you hate, most others agree, and I just find myself swelling with statriotic pride. I'm a Bostonian, born and raised, and I understand why this probably pisses a lot of people off, but since I already found the Arizona law to be racist and a danger to civil liberties this just makes me feel satisfied that my local government is representative of my views and not only that, has the guts to share those views with the rest of the country even if many will hate it.

The stupidity of calling this law racist is truly mind boggling. Unless you are ignorant enough to believe all illegals are one race.

If that is the case, it is you who are the racist.

Illegal immigration hurts all Americans of all races. Many have even died because of it yet its obvious you don't care about that as much as you would like to throw the race card around no matter how laughable it is to do so.

ludahai · May 8, 2010

Pal said:
I wouldn't say that precisely. Obviously for actual security reasons people should be checked when entering the country for things like weapons or bombs, but I do favor a much much less strict immigration policy. We should be flattered that people want to live here, and remember that America was founded and made great by immigrants.

I also support less strict policies as well as a worker program. Taiwan, where I live now, has one and it generally works pretty well, though local business do abuse the system from time to time. However, since there ARE laws on the books, and illegals ARE causing problems in AZ and the central government is doing little to actually deal with the problem, the great State of Arizona has every right to deal with the problem in a rational way. I believe this -- which essentially makes residing in the state a secondary offense like most state seat belt laws -- is a reasonable and rational way of dealing with the problem.

Not true. All you have to do is look at the UK's recent election and what is happening there to see that we really haven't inherited much political tradition from Britian. The Puritans who governed England for a short period (and I'm drawing on a hazy memory of high school euro history here) didn't have much to do with the ones that decided to come to the New World. When the Puritans designed the government of their colony they actually broke the mold quite a bit, and started the tradition of elected governors in the colonies even well before the revolution.

The U.S. evolved a Presidential Republic (some of which evolved from Roman ideas) while the U.K. developed into a Westminster Parliamentary System, however, many of the rights enshrined in the Constitution of the United States derive from numerous British constitutional documents, many of which predate Puritan arrival in the United States.

Puritans did rule England for a short time. While the Puritans in Mass arrived after Cromwell took over England, the groups were most certainly related in terms of their religious ideas and their willingless to impose their religious ideas on others.

It's a well documented fact that the Massachusetts constitution (the oldest constitution in the world) provides much of the framework for the American constitution. People around here think it's still better.

You mean the oldest constitution currently in use. There were older constitutions. But much of that framework and ideas behind it far predate the Puritans in Massachusetts.

You're right, although New Hampshire is personally a little too conservative for me, it is a great state and I didn't mean to bash it. I know that for myself I need to live in a city to be happy, which makes the ultra-developed Massachusetts perfect for me, but New Hampshire and all northern New England is stunning.

And I think Boston is a great city. I love it and enjoy my visits there -- though I wouldn't want to live there. I just think it is a bit liberal for my tastes and I believe it is misguided in this instance.

No, I just meant that citizens of Mass have to spend less than they would here, not less than NH citizens. That would be rediculous.

OK. Just looking for clarification. And thanks for living up to the ideal of people being able to disagree agreeably. This is one New England value that we need to promote and spread because a lot of that has been lost in recent decades...

mike2810 · May 8, 2010

Pal said:
I don't think there should be laws that make a person's very presence in a country illegal (at least not in this context), so... yeah. .

I would like to hear your ideas on the following, since my impression is you think its ok to be here illegally in the US.

- If it was in within your authority, how would you solve the problem of over 1,000 illegals entering into Arizona daily.

- How would you address the issue of over 400,000 illegals in Arizona today?

Its easy to bash a law by misrepresenting it. How about some solutions.

Pal · May 8, 2010

texmaster said:
The stupidity of calling this law racist is truly mind boggling. Unless you are ignorant enough to believe all illegals are one race.

If that is the case, it is you who are the racist.

Illegal immigration hurts all Americans of all races. Many have even died because of it yet its obvious you don't care about that as much as you would like to throw the race card around no matter how laughable it is to do so.

Mhmm. Good job misrepresenting what I said. Not all illegals are of one race, clearly. But the vast majority of immigrants to Arizona are hispanic, and that will be the source of the racial profiling. (And if you really want to get PC then hispanic isn't even a race, but an ethnic group that can be ascribed to members of any race).

When you say people have died because of illegal immigration, I assume you're talking about crimes committed by illegal immigrants. If that's the case, I can easily excuse this by pointing out that people (and let's not forget that they are in fact people) do not committ crimes because they are in a country illegally, and illegals committ crimes for the same reasons that citizens do.

I also support less strict policies as well as a worker program. Taiwan, where I live now, has one and it generally works pretty well, though local business do abuse the system from time to time. However, since there ARE laws on the books, and illegals ARE causing problems in AZ and the central government is doing little to actually deal with the problem, the great State of Arizona has every right to deal with the problem in a rational way. I believe this -- which essentially makes residing in the state a secondary offense like most state seat belt laws -- is a reasonable and rational way of dealing with the problem.

Well, the reason I don't like arguing this with people is because I see it as less of a problem and more of an opportunity. If illegals are causing problems in Arizona, there are better ways of correcting those problems than deportation.

The U.S. evolved a Presidential Republic (some of which evolved from Roman ideas) while the U.K. developed into a Westminster Parliamentary System, however, many of the rights enshrined in the Constitution of the United States derive from numerous British constitutional documents, many of which predate Puritan arrival in the United States.

Puritans did rule England for a short time. While the Puritans in Mass arrived after Cromwell took over England, the groups were most certainly related in terms of their religious ideas and their willingless to impose their religious ideas on others.

I'll concede that we do inherit some things from Britain, and I won't say that the Puritans were the biggest factor in how the country was eventually made up, but they were a factor. And they were a huge factor in how the state was made up.

But it doesn't really matter how original or unoriginal the Puritan's ideas were, my original point was that New England and Massachusetts is the birthplace of the nation. That point stands because regardless of the origins of the Massachusetts Constitution, the same still heavily influenced the national constitution. Also I didn't even mention the fact that many of the injustices that were committed against the colonists occured here (Coercive Acts), the initial violence broke out here (Boston Massacre, Battles of Lexington and Concord) and many of the founding fathers were from here (John Adams, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Benjammin Franklin)

You mean the oldest constitution currently in use. There were older constitutions. But much of that framework and ideas behind it far predate the Puritans in Massachusetts.

Yes I know, I thought that was implied. If I thought what you said I would have said "first constitution", afterall we don't call Athens the oldest democracy as that government died out long ago, we call it the first democracy.

And I think Boston is a great city. I love it and enjoy my visits there -- though I wouldn't want to live there. I just think it is a bit liberal for my tastes and I believe it is misguided in this instance.

Fair enough.

OK. Just looking for clarification. And thanks for living up to the ideal of people being able to disagree agreeably. This is one New England value that we need to promote and spread because a lot of that has been lost in recent decades...

Again, I can't help but agree.

ludahai · May 8, 2010

Pal said:
Mhmm. Good job misrepresenting what I said. Not all illegals are of one race, clearly. But the vast majority of immigrants to Arizona are hispanic, and that will be the source of the racial profiling. (And if you really want to get PC then hispanic isn't even a race, but an ethnic group that can be ascribed to members of any race).

How is it ethnic profiling (and you are right, Hispanic is NOT a race, but most certainly qualifies under most definitions as an ethnic group) in play here when a cop can't just pull someone over because he/she "looks" like an illegal immigrant. There has to be another law-related detainment in order for the responsibility to check the legal status kicks in.

When you say people have died because of illegal immigration, I assume you're talking about crimes committed by illegal immigrants. If that's the case, I can easily excuse this by pointing out that people (and let's not forget that they are in fact people) do not committ crimes because they are in a country illegally, and illegals committ crimes for the same reasons that citizens do.

Again, you think illegals should be allowed to remain in the U.S.? Try telling someone here that illegals should be allowed to remain in Taiwan. They will laugh their butts off.

Well, the reason I don't like arguing this with people is because I see it as less of a problem and more of an opportunity. If illegals are causing problems in Arizona, there are better ways of correcting those problems than deportation.

Once again, defending the "rights" of illegals to remain in the U.S. Illegals should be deported and then encouraged to enter the LEGAL process for entering the U.S. The U.S. is EXTREMELY generous when it comes to legal immigration.

I'll concede that we do inherit some things from Britain, and I won't say that the Puritans were the biggest factor in how the country was eventually made up, but they were a factor. And they were a huge factor in how the state was made up.

Some things? Only some things? You obviously don't know much about the evolution of English constitutional law and how many of those things ended up in the U.S. constitution.

But it doesn't really matter how original or unoriginal the Puritan's ideas were, my original point was that New England and Massachusetts is the birthplace of the nation. That point stands because regardless of the origins of the Massachusetts Constitution, the same still heavily influenced the national constitution. Also I didn't even mention the fact that many of the injustices that were committed against the colonists occured here (Coercive Acts), the initial violence broke out here (Boston Massacre, Battles of Lexington and Concord) and many of the founding fathers were from here (John Adams, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Benjammin Franklin)

Add to that the fact that New Hampshire was the first colony to declare independence and was the ninth state to ratify the Constitution (the vote required by the terms and conditions of ratification to put it into effect).

Yes I know, I thought that was implied. If I thought what you said I would have said "first constitution", afterall we don't call Athens the oldest democracy as that government died out long ago, we call it the first democracy.

Did Athens have a constitution? Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth had a constitution in the 1780s (not sure if it predated Massachusetts, but it did predate the U.S.) but sadly, due to Catherine the Great, it didn't last very long.

Pal · May 8, 2010

mike2810 said:
I would like to hear your ideas on the following, since my impression is you think its ok to be here illegally in the US.

- If it was in within your authority, how would you solve the problem of over 1,000 illegals entering into Arizona daily.

- How would you address the issue of over 400,000 illegals in Arizona today?

Its easy to bash a law by misrepresenting it. How about some solutions.

Gladly.

I wouldn't say that I think it's ok to be here illegally. I would say I don't think it should be illegal for an otherwise law abiding person to be here at all.

Assuming all of your figures are accurate and I had some kind of authority to act on both the state and federal level, I would start by repealing the Arizona law. I would then work on a Federal law that would bring about the policy of amnesty for illegal immigrants in the United States from Latin America.

I would have a public awareness campaign in the border states and wherever it was relevant to assure illegals that they were no longer being hunted down, and I would direct the INS to begin the practice of granting either green cards or some new system of legal residence to former illegals. Citizenship tests would also be offered to those that desired them. Of course all attempts would be made to establish the individual's criminal record or lack thereof before granting any of these things.

Pal · May 8, 2010

How is it ethnic profiling (and you are right, Hispanic is NOT a race, but most certainly qualifies under most definitions as an ethnic group) in play here when a cop can't just pull someone over because he/she "looks" like an illegal immigrant. There has to be another law-related detainment in order for the responsibility to check the legal status kicks in.

The law says that an officer can seek to determine someone's status during any "lawful contact". That doesn't only include detainments.

Again, you think illegals should be allowed to remain in the U.S.? Try telling someone here that illegals should be allowed to remain in Taiwan. They will laugh their butts off.

Well, I don't pretend to know the situation in Taiwan. But that is what I believe with regards to the US. Laugh away if you feel the need to do so.

Once again, defending the "rights" of illegals to remain in the U.S. Illegals should be deported and then encouraged to enter the LEGAL process for entering the U.S. The U.S. is EXTREMELY generous when it comes to legal immigration.

If the US was as generous as you claim there wouldn't be a problem in the First place.

Some things? Only some things? You obviously don't know much about the evolution of English constitutional law and how many of those things ended up in the U.S. constitution.

I think it may be time to put this historical debate to bed. It's become a question of extent, and I don't think we can accurately determine that.

Add to that the fact that New Hampshire was the first colony to declare independence and was the ninth state to ratify the Constitution (the vote required by the terms and conditions of ratification to put it into effect).

Yep.

Did Athens have a constitution? Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth had a constitution in the 1780s (not sure if it predated Massachusetts, but it did predate the U.S.) but sadly, due to Catherine the Great, it didn't last very long.

I didn't mean to imply that Athens had a constitution, I was just offering an example. But rest assured I know there were Constitutions written before the Massachusetts one. It has however stood the test of time and is the oldest one in use in the world today.

texmaster · May 8, 2010

Pal said:
Mhmm. Good job misrepresenting what I said.

I didn't misrepresent a single word you said.

Not all illegals are of one race, clearly.

If you truly recoginize that then your previous statement is null and void.

But the vast majority of immigrants to Arizona are hispanic, and that will be the source of the racial profiling. (And if you really want to get PC then hispanic isn't even a race, but an ethnic group that can be ascribed to members of any race).

Once again we have a far left liberal who hasn't read the law. They cannot stop a person based on race. ITS IN THE LAW.

When you say people have died because of illegal immigration, I assume you're talking about crimes committed by illegal immigrants.

Bingo. You get a cookie.

If that's the case, I can easily excuse this by pointing out that people (and let's not forget that they are in fact people)

Oh yes I totally forgot about that. These idiotic arguments don't help you.

do not committ crimes because they are in a country illegally, and illegals committ crimes for the same reasons that citizens do.

I'm sure you trying to excuse and play down the murders is great comfort to the victim's families.

And of course it doesn't change the fact that they are illegal and should not be here. What part of that is so hard for you to understand?

Spoken like someone living in a northeastern state who doesn't have a clue what its like down here. After all, its only the southwest, what do you care right? Thank you for displaying your ignorance on the subject.

Pal · May 8, 2010

If you truly recoginize that then your previous statement is null and void.

I'll concede that the word racist is technically incorrect, but I've made it clear that I understand the actual definitions of the group at hand. I used the word racist for convenience and because Hispanics are often treated as a distinct race despite not being so. I stand by my statement with that revision.

Once again we have a far left liberal who hasn't read the law. They cannot stop a person based on race. ITS IN THE LAW.

I have read the law, thank you very much. And the only reason I have is because someone with a similar view to you yours challenged my claims in a previous thread, linked the law, and demanded that I highlight the sections that support what I am saying. Which I did, and that required that I read the law.

You're committing a fallacy, just FYI.

Bingo. You get a cookie.

Thank you.

Oh yes I totally forgot about that. These idiotic arguments don't help you.

When I said that I wasn't so much talking about what you were saying, but about this debate in general wherever it takes place. I'm often apalled by the way people refer to the people in question in conversation. It's can get very dehumanizing. But I was not accusing you of this.

I'm sure you trying to excuse and play down the murders is great comfort to the victim's families.

This is also a fallacy. Obviously murder is wrong, but it is not a crime that is exclusive to illegal immigrants, and there is no evidence that illegals account for a disproportionate amount of murders. This issue should be treated like a law enforcement one, not an immigration one. We need to examine the causes of crime, and illegal immigration is not one of them.

And of course it doesn't change the fact that they are illegal and should not be here. What part of that is so hard for you to understand?

It's not hard for me to understand. I simply reject the notion. I refuse to believe that anyone "should not" be here. Based on what do you believe that they should not be here?

Spoken like someone living in a northeastern state who doesn't have a clue what its like down here. After all, its only the southwest, what do you care right? Thank you for displaying your ignorance on the subject.

Ah yes, because clearly I don't understand the hell-scape that you are living in. The virtual no man's land of the southwest which was once peaceful and happy until the illegals started showing up. I couldn't possibily comprehend that you are forced to endure that day after day after day. How do you manage? Would you like me to call the waaaaaambulance?

Jeez, calm down before you post again.

ludahai · May 8, 2010

Pal said:
The law says that an officer can seek to determine someone's status during any "lawful contact". That doesn't only include detainments.

Sorry, when I say detainment, I mean any situation in which an officer "detains" you from going where you intend to go. If I get stopped for speeding, he is in a sense detaining me. What is wrong with the officer attempting to ascertain my identity and in the process my legal status when this is occurs?

Well, I don't pretend to know the situation in Taiwan. But that is what I believe with regards to the US. Laugh away if you feel the need to do so.

Not laughing. I respect the right of people to disagree with me. However, there are laws. I believe those laws should be respected. Illegal immigrants are in the United States in violation of those laws. Do you believe it is ok to simply not enforce or ignore laws you don't like? Work to change them -- I can respect that, but enforce laws on the books.

If the US was as generous as you claim there wouldn't be a problem in the First place.

The U.S. is EXTREMELY generous, but there are people who would still like to get in. More people wish to enter the U.S. than any country in the world, and even with the extremely generous numbers the U.S. allows in, there are always more who want to come in.

I think it may be time to put this historical debate to bed. It's become a question of extent, and I don't think we can accurately determine that.

And frankly, in this context, it is rather pointless.

I didn't mean to imply that Athens had a constitution, I was just offering an example. But rest assured I know there were Constitutions written before the Massachusetts one. It has however stood the test of time and is the oldest one in use in the world today.

I figured as much. Frankly, I am not sure they had a written consituttion or not, but Athens clearly did have a procedure under which they operated. So, you could argue that they had "constitutional" procedures much in the way the British operate under constitutional law even in the absense of a single formal document that can be identified as a constitution.

ludahai · May 8, 2010

Pal said:
It's not hard for me to understand. I simply reject the notion. I refuse to believe that anyone "should not" be here. Based on what do you believe that they should not be here?

Based on the fact that both Federal and State law make it illegal for them to be there. Pretty clear and straightforward.

texmaster · May 8, 2010

Pal said:
I'll concede that the word racist is technically incorrect, but I've made it clear that I understand the actual definitions of the group at hand. I used the word racist for convenience

And that is why you are a liberal. Textbook.

and because Hispanics are often treated as a distinct race despite not being so. I stand by my statement with that revision.

Yet you offer no evidence of this claim, no basis in Arizona police acting based on race against Hispanics yet you are completely comfortable making this kind of outlandish charge. Scary but predictable.

I have read the law, thank you very much.

No you haven't or you wouldn't have made that ridiculous claim.

And the only reason I have is because someone with a similar view to you yours challenged my claims in a previous thread, linked the law, and demanded that I highlight the sections that support what I am saying. Which I did, and that required that I read the law.

And yet you still make the same false charge. Tell me, how do you make the same mistake twice?

You're committing a fallacy, just FYI.

LOL No. I pointed out a fact. You made a charge of racial profiling when the law expressly forbids it. That's no fallacy, that's reality.

When I said that I wasn't so much talking about what you were saying, but about this debate in general wherever it takes place.I'm often apalled by the way people refer to the people in question in conversation. It's can get very dehumanizing. But I was not accusing you of this.

You addressed me. Even quoted what I said previously. You can't fall back on the desperate "I was speaking in generalities" line.

This is also a fallacy. Obviously murder is wrong, but it is not a crime that is exclusive to illegal immigrants, and there is no evidence that illegals account for a disproportionate amount of murders. This issue should be treated like a law enforcement one, not an immigration one. We need to examine the causes of crime, and illegal immigration is not one of them.

How are you missing this? Do you not understand if we tighten laws and enforcement against illegals there would be less illegal immigrant criminals around to kill, steal, and commit other crimes?

Now that is a fallacy. Pretending you can equate criminals who are already here with illegal criminals whom we can deport before their crimes get any more serious.

It's not hard for me to understand. I simply reject the notion.

Then you reject reality.

I refuse to believe that anyone "should not" be here. Based on what do you believe that they should not be here?

The law.

Boy that is some ivory tower you've built for yourself. Not even an emergency exit built on it. You are completely willing to go down with the ship as it were.

You spit on the laws of this nation with your false belief that we have no right to enforce illegal immigration law. It goes back to the fact you don't live down here and have no idea what it is like.

Its easy to judge from afar, spit on the law of the country because it damages your warped version of morality but Phoenix did not become the kidnapping capital of North America because of peace loving hard working illegals.

Pal · May 8, 2010

And that is why you are a liberal. Textbook.

Out of context. Nice try.

Yet you offer no evidence of this claim, no basis in Arizona police acting based on race against Hispanics yet you are completely comfortable making this kind of outlandish charge. Scary but predictable.

This is irrelevant. You're knittpicking on a tiny thing that has nothing to with what I'm saying as a means of distraction.

No you haven't or you wouldn't have made that ridiculous claim.

If you're going to call me a liar than we're done here.

And yet you still make the same false charge. Tell me, how do you make the same mistake twice?

It's not false, as I said, after reading the law I presented quotes from it explaining my positions. I haven't made one mistake.

LOL No. I pointed out a fact. You made a charge of racial profiling when the law expressly forbids it. That's no fallacy, that's reality.

The law may forbid it in one section, but it simply outlines how it will be committed in another.

You addressed me. Even quoted what I said previously. You can't fall back on the desperate "I was speaking in generalities" line.

Actually, I was not addressing you. I said "let's not forget" as in LET US. That's everyone, not just you.

How are you missing this? Do you not understand if we tighten laws and enforcement against illegals there would be less illegal immigrant criminals around to kill, steal, and commit other crimes? Now that is a fallacy. Pretending you can equate criminals who are already here with illegal criminals whom we can deport before their crimes get any more serious.

It doesn't matter. You're portraying illegal immigrants as criminals (please don't say that they are simply by being here, I already know you think that. I mean guilty of crimes that citizens can commit). Crime will not diminish if you simply deport all the illegals (something which is never going to happen by the way so your point is meaningless), if you knew anything about law enforcement you would know that things like this cannot be discussed on an individual basis. You have to examine the causes of crime, which are the same for everyone in similar situations regardless of their legal status!

The law.

Boy that is some ivory tower you've built for yourself. Not even an emergency exit built on it. You are completely willing to go down with the ship as it were.

You spit on the laws of this nation with your false belief that we have no right to enforce illegal immigration law. It goes back to the fact you don't live down here and have no idea what it is like.

Its easy to judge from afar, spit on the law of the country because it damages your warped version of morality but Phoenix did not become the kidnapping capital of North America because of peace loving hard working illegals.

Aaaaaaaaand there it is. I'm done with you. If you can't have respect for the person you are debating with then there is no point in any rational person debating you. You're clearly motivated by blind hatred, chiefly of liberals but it's also clear that you hold prejudiced (There, happy now Mr. I'm-PC-when-it's-convenient?) views of illegal immigrants.

You're all the evidence I need that many on your side of the debate are motivated by prejudice, and I don't care to waste any more time on you. Feel free to respond in whatever incendiary way you like, I won't be reading it.

ludahai · May 8, 2010

Texmaster -- chill down. I agree with most of what you are saying, but you need to tone things down. Civility is a must. I disagree with Pal on this issue, yet we are talking with typical New England civility. I ask you to do the same. You do our side of the argument little credibility in the manner you are debating this issue.

mike2810 · May 8, 2010

So Boston doesn't like what AZ passed as a law. Are we now going National on what is a State issue since the Feds have failed to protect the borders or enforce immigration laws?

Explain to me how what Az has done affects Boston. Guess we now can call to boycott any State that passes a law another State/town does not like.

Come live in AZ for some time. Then decide.

texmaster · May 8, 2010

Pal said:
Out of context. Nice try.

Not out of context. Your direct quote and it explains a lot.

This is irrelevant. You're knittpicking on a tiny thing that has nothing to with what I'm saying as a means of distraction.

It is hardly irrelevant and it certainly isn't nitpicking. You can't go around making accusations of racism then get frustrated when you are challenged on them. Your claim was incendiary and outrageous without any factual backing. You need to learn to avoid such offensive mischaracterizations.

If you're going to call me a liar than we're done here.

Then explain yourself. If you are going to claim you have read the law and still accuse the law of allowing racial profiling even when it is expressly forbidden how do you arrive at that conclusion?

It's not false, as I said, after reading the law I presented quotes from it explaining my positions. I haven't made one mistake.

From the law:

The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race

I ask you again how you can make that charge when it is forbidden in the law? Stop dancing around it and answer the question.

The law may forbid it in one section, but it simply outlines how it will be committed in another.

Then produce that section. I want to see the quote word for word.

Actually, I was not addressing you. I said "let's not forget" as in LET US. That's everyone, not just you.

So who were you talking to that have "forgotten" that these are people? Who has claimed they are not people?

It doesn't matter. You're portraying illegal immigrants as criminals (please don't say that they are simply by being here, I already know you think that.

Because its the law. Why are you so unable to admit they broke the law by coming here illegally?

I mean guilty of crimes that citizens can commit). Crime will not diminish if you simply deport all the illegals (something which is never going to happen by the way so your point is meaningless), if you knew anything about law enforcement you would know that things like this cannot be discussed on an individual basis. You have to examine the causes of crime, which are the same for everyone in similar situations regardless of their legal status!

Oh please for the love of GOD show me the crime statistics that prove your claim crime will not go down with less illegals.

This is the kind of classic ignorance thats makes you so dangerous.

As I said before, Phoenix is the kidnapping captial of north America and second in the entire world behind Mexico City. How do you explain that with regular crime produced by American citizens?

Do you really think Arizona just woke up one day and said lets get rid of all the illegals without their being an overwhelming problem down here?

Once again we separate perception from the northeast with reality in the southwest.

Aaaaaaaaand there it is. I'm done with you. If you can't have respect for the person you are debating with then there is no point in any rational person debating you. You're clearly motivated by blind hatred, chiefly of liberals but it's also clear that you hold prejudiced (There, happy now Mr. I'm-PC-when-it's-convenient?) views of illegal immigrants.

You're all the evidence I need that many on your side of the debate are motivated by prejudice, and I don't care to waste any more time on you. Feel free to respond in whatever incendiary way you like, I won't be reading it.

However you want to justify your incredible lack of knowledge from the law to crime in the southwest and your inability to debate the points that is your choosing.

But nothing is more offensive than someone who makes repeated false accusations on the bill followed by false accusations of racism then tops it off with a denial of crime committed by illegals.

You want to stop debate? Fine. Your offensive false accusations about the bill, racism and crime were tiresome.

You were looking for an out and you found one. But don't think for a second you can make outrageous false charges of racism and expect no one to be angry about it.

texmaster · May 8, 2010

ludahai said:
Texmaster -- chill down. I agree with most of what you are saying, but you need to tone things down. Civility is a must. I disagree with Pal on this issue, yet we are talking with typical New England civility. I ask you to do the same. You do our side of the argument little credibility in the manner you are debating this issue.

Sometimes passion will take over when someone consistently uses the race card no matter how false the charge is to make. Perhaps its because I live down here and know exactly what is going on but the racism accusation is extremely offensive.

hazlnut · May 8, 2010

texmaster said:
Liberals: Want everything for free as long as someone else pays for it.

They can. And they reserve the right to be complete morons.

And that includes the lying newspaper:

, which requires police to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally

Another lie by the liberal media. They fail to mention the police have to be engaged in a lawful action that has nothing to do with immigration before they can ascertain legal status.

Another nice NON-ANSWER from textmaster. Can always count on you to say nothing or avoid addressing the point...

If you support state and local power, then why even open your mouth... or why not have the balls to say, "I disagree with their reasons, but Boston can do business wherever they want..."

How about showing some consistancy, some integrity... and not just foaming at the mouth with rage...

apdst · May 8, 2010

Originally Posted by Pal

It's not hard for me to understand. I simply reject the notion. I refuse to believe that anyone "should not" be here. Based on what do you believe that they should not be here?

I bet if a ****load of illegals piled up in your neighborhood and started collecting welfare, you would be singing a different tune. But, since you live in the whitest state in the country, you seem to think that Arizona is wrong for passing this bill.

texmaster · May 8, 2010

hazlnut said:
Another nice NON-ANSWER from textmaster. Can always count on you to say nothing or avoid addressing the point...

Up to your old lies I see huh hazlnut. Can't say I'm surprised.

It isn't a non answer to point out what they left out of the article and the FACTS of the law.

If you support state and local power, then why even open your mouth... or why not have the balls to say, "I disagree with their reasons, but Boston can do business wherever they want..."

LOL ah Hazle. This is why you are one of my favorites.

Question posed to me on page 1:

Why shouldn't Boston be able to do what they want in this case?

My answer: They can

Thank you for once again displaying your inability to read.

How about showing some consistancy, some integrity... and not just foaming at the mouth with rage...

I can't top your consistency of failing to read carefully or making hysterical accusations you can't possibly support. You are the lord and master

Boston councilors OK resolution to boycott Arizona

Defender of the Faith

Member

Defender of the Faith

Member

Hippie Hater

Defender of the Faith

Member

Defender of the Faith

Member

Member

Hippie Hater

Member

Defender of the Faith

Defender of the Faith

Hippie Hater

Member

Defender of the Faith

Hippie Hater

Hippie Hater

Hippie Hater