Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 57

Thread: Boston councilors OK resolution to boycott Arizona

  1. #31
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Boston councilors OK resolution to boycott Arizona

    Quote Originally Posted by Pal View Post
    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.
    Last edited by texmaster; 05-08-10 at 01:18 AM.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  2. #32
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Boston councilors OK resolution to boycott Arizona

    Quote Originally Posted by Pal View Post
    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...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  3. #33
    Sage
    mike2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    arizona
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    15,030

    Re: Boston councilors OK resolution to boycott Arizona

    Quote Originally Posted by Pal View Post
    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.
    "I can explain it to you but, I can't understand it for you"

  4. #34
    Student Pal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Boston, Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    06-28-10 @ 11:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    211

    Re: Boston councilors OK resolution to boycott Arizona

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    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.

  5. #35
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Boston councilors OK resolution to boycott Arizona

    Quote Originally Posted by Pal View Post
    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.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  6. #36
    Student Pal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Boston, Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    06-28-10 @ 11:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    211

    Re: Boston councilors OK resolution to boycott Arizona

    Quote Originally Posted by mike2810 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Pal; 05-08-10 at 01:57 AM.

  7. #37
    Student Pal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Boston, Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    06-28-10 @ 11:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    211

    Re: Boston councilors OK resolution to boycott Arizona

    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.

  8. #38
    Hippie Hater
    texmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Dallas TEXAS
    Last Seen
    08-20-15 @ 01:17 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,969

    Re: Boston councilors OK resolution to boycott Arizona

    Quote Originally Posted by Pal View Post
    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.
    Last edited by texmaster; 05-08-10 at 02:05 AM.
    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

    John Adams

  9. #39
    Student Pal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Boston, Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    06-28-10 @ 11:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    211

    Re: Boston councilors OK resolution to boycott Arizona

    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.
    Last edited by Pal; 05-08-10 at 02:20 AM.

  10. #40
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Boston councilors OK resolution to boycott Arizona

    Quote Originally Posted by Pal View Post
    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.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •