Hispanics flee Arizona ahead of immigration law

Ikari said:

We have laws which properly enforce our boarders, yes, should we choose to efficiently enforce those. However, there are none quite so aggressive as requiring the necessity of people to carry upon their person their papers nor which give such leniency to the government in obtaining these papers. A man has the right to secure his person, papers, property, and effects from unreasonable search and seizure.

Click to expand...

Thus "reasonable suspicion" would be beyond "unreasonable search and seizure"
Eh?

Caine said:

Thus "reasonable suspicion" would be beyond "unreasonable search and seizure"
Eh?

Click to expand...

I'd like to believe that it would be conducted reasonably and within the context of the rightful law of the land. Time will tell on that one.

Dav said:

One more thing. Hispanic is not a race. There are white Mexicans, black Mexicans, American Indian Mexicans, etc. Everyone who claims that this law would cause racial discrimination does not understand what race is.

Click to expand...

And those who've been using the term have been using an inaccurate shorthand for the American Indians of Mexico and Central America who form the majority of migrant laborers to the United States. The majority of the misinformed public does that, not people on one side or the other. But you apparently also don't understand what race is, since you tried to compare the "anti-Semitism" of Helen Thomas to "racism" against blacks, despite the fact that Jews are not a race.

Ikari said:

We have laws which properly enforce our boarders, yes, should we choose to efficiently enforce those. However, there are none quite so aggressive as requiring the necessity of people to carry upon their person their papers nor which give such leniency to the government in obtaining these papers. A man has the right to secure his person, papers, property, and effects from unreasonable search and seizure.

Click to expand...

And the law in Arizona protects from unlawful search and sezure. So I'm not sure what exactly you find in the Arizona bill that's offensive. I don't see a downside is all I'm saying. Those who want to purposefully be ignorant and ignore the facts of the bill while having the capacity to understand the bill, it's intent etc... and focus only on the "what if's" of police abusing said law - that can and does apply to ALL laws. So they must have their own agenda to fulfill. To those who are ignorant because they either don't understand, haven't read, or don't wish to understand the bill - they may also have their own agenda which may be emotionally fed racism -- that cannot be helped and was probably there all their lives. This just happens to tap into that emotional racism.

I say it's a win-win. The illegals, legals, racists, ignoramuses, those with agenda are getting out of the state. The state doesn't necessarily WANT those type of people so they can go to Los Angeles or some neighboring state which will have them. Washington is being put on notice that they're inactivity and inattention to this issue for decades is no longer tolerated and the State is taking matters into their own hands - win. Washington get's to play political games and use this issue as a November political football - win. Those involved get lots of air-time on the 24x7 cable sausage news shows - win. The professional protestors have something to protest about before the bill even goes into effect - win!

I don't see the down side here. I really don't.

Ikari said:

Perchance. And perchance their paranoia is warranted as well. Is it ok to make hostile laws which will affect certain sects of a population and catch up within it a significant number of legal citizens based solely on the excuse that it will get criminals as well? I don't think so. In fact, I find that to be a very dangerous line of thought.

Click to expand...

Your significan number of legal citizens being caught up is not proved since the law has not been enacted yet. I see nothing wrong with the Az law. Legal immigrants who are not yet or going to be naturalized have to carry ID/papers by federal law. As far as US citizens, we don't have to. Yet have we not been asked for an ID when legally contacted by LE for whatever reason. They just want to know you are who you say you are. You could be a witness or heck stopped for a minor traffic violation. If you don't have an ID, many times they just let it go or they do a follow up.

What it boils down to some States like Arizona are tired of the open borders. Fingers can be pointed in many directions on who is a fault. It is time for a reasonalbe solutions. Maybe now the Feds will do something meaningful.

Ockham said:

I don't see the down side here. I really don't.

Click to expand...

We'll see if there's a downside once we can compile data on the effect of the law. What I'm saying is that I'm not going to jump up and down and call this a great law already because a bunch of hispanics, the demographics of which we don't even know, left AZ. If we end up catching up too many innocent people than we'll have to get rid of the law. If lawful citizens feel that they must leave in significant number because of the law, then there's a problem with the law. All this requires the aggregation of more data before we can say anything with certainty; but I for one am holding off judgment till I can see exactly how the dynamics of this law plays out in the system.

Ikari said:

We'll see if there's a downside once we can compile data on the effect of the law. What I'm saying is that I'm not going to jump up and down and call this a great law already because a bunch of hispanics, the demographics of which we don't even know, left AZ. If we end up catching up too many innocent people than we'll have to get rid of the law. If lawful citizens feel that they must leave in significant number because of the law, then there's a problem with the law. All this requires the aggregation of more data before we can say anything with certainty; but I for one am holding off judgment till I can see exactly how the dynamics of this law plays out in the system.

Click to expand...

Negative, if lawful citizens feel they must leave in significant number because of the law, there is not a problem with the law, there is a problem with their FAIL understanding of the law.

Caine said:

Negative, if lawful citizens feel they must leave in significant number because of the law, there is not a problem with the law, there is a problem with their FAIL understanding of the law.

Click to expand...

It would depend on the number which are affected. If it's a small number, then sure; there's reason to claim there was misunderstanding of the law. In which case, it should be clarified. If there is mass exodus of legal citizens due to the law than that can point to bigger problems with the law such as the law itself or the ways in which it is implemented.

Ikari said:

It would depend on the number which are affected. If it's a small number, then sure; there's reason to claim there was misunderstanding of the law. In which case, it should be clarified. If there is mass exodus of legal citizens due to the law than that can point to bigger problems with the law such as the law itself or the ways in which it is implemented.

Click to expand...

The idea that this law is somehow forcing millions of legal citizens to flee the state, even before it is fully implemented, suggests only their own ignorance.

Zyphlin said:

There's a large deal of issues with this...and I'm not going to even touch on the very nature of the bias of your sources particular analysis where they examine only the claims made by those in support of the bill while looking into none of the suggested inaccuracies claimed by those opposing it...but we'll focus on the three things you listed:

Click to expand...

Damn you are wordy...

It actually looks at claims on both sides, and finds neither to be quite right.

This is like passing a law saying we're going to not allow abortions, accept in cases where its deemed constitutional by the courts, and then people coming out going "GRRRR! They're banning abortions!"

Well, yeah, only if you somehow ignore the other half of what it says.

The Supreme court has continually has found that in a direct sense, exercising reasonable suspicion based singularly on the facet of race is unconstituional and thus illegal. You can also look at U.S. v. Montero-Camargo finding that race can't be part of a broader group of reasonings as well. Yes, the Supreme Court has allowed race to be used as a determining factor at times, but this is only when it is a part of a profile of a very specific suspect. For example if a 7-11 was robbed and the person inside stated they saw that it was a 6'5" black man with a hoodie then its not unconstitutional to focus on black individuals. However if they just said "It was a tall guy in a hoodie the cops could not go around focusing only on black people.

If the law is saying "[These factors] can only be used in cases where its constitutionally allowed" then so what? Why should there be a big flap and complaint about the law allowing something...that's allowed by the law!

Click to expand...

The difference is enforcement. Prior to this law, the odds of any one making an active effort where slim to none. Now they have gone up significantly. It has the positive of finding more illegals, but has the negative that, since some profiling can be done, innocents are going to be much more likely to be bothered by the police. The unanswered question at this time is how much.

The other question is whether Hispanic people with a definite accent is enough to be "reasonable suspicion", and that probably will end up before the courts soon.

Ah, gotcha, so because they haven't given specific information out to the media and think tanks obviously that is a good indication that people criticizing the bill by saying its going to do things it legally can't really do are potentially correct. While doing this as well, lets ignore the fact that the state officials and law enforcement have said that they don't plan on racial profiling or implementing strategies to just grab people off the street. They haven't said exactly HOW they're going to go about it yet, so we must assume that they may very well do what they've stated publicly they won't and what the law and courts don't allow.

Do you realize the entire notion above from your source is as asinine as saying that since Barack Obama has SAID he's a citizen but he hasn't actually shown us specifically his most specific form of citizenship then its absolutely reasonable to suggest that it remains to be seen that he's a citizen.

Or to throw a bone to all the "Death panel" hating democrats out there reading this, its like saying that while Democrats said there will be no death panels, and because there's no language clearly laying out death panels, that because critics said there WOULD be death panels and we haven't got all the way through the implementation of the Health Care Bill yet that its reasonable suggest that it remains to be seen whether or not there will be "Death Panels" due to this bill since they haven't explicitely laid out the exact ways they're going to do things in regards to the portions of text people kept pointing at.

Click to expand...

You are reading way too much into the words. It says, quite clearly, that there are unknowns about how officers will be trained to establish "reasonable suspicion". Saying "we dunno" is not implying anything. There are no assumptions from the article, and I made none. We do not know means we do not know. Don't build that strawman. The point in my quoting that part was to show how Hispanics could be some what uneasy about things. Nowhere did I claim that in fact they would be unfairly targeted, nor have I ever said that. It is a question that will have to be answered.

And yet even here, while still not racial profiling, is lacking severe information to make any kind of informed decision since "out of place" is entirely vague and to my knowledge not a legal standard like "reasonable suspicion" and it does not suggest if these factors alone can cause reasonable suspicion or if they may simply be part of a larger picture that leads to having such.

And even then, I'd ask this...

If we are to assume your sources alarm ringing is legit we must assume then that there is legitimate constitutional worry that racial profiling is completely legal (since the notion of saying the Arizona bill allows for it hinges on it being allowable under the courts) and that the federal government urges officers to determine immigration status checks on accents and looking "out of place", then where the hell is the outrage and boycotts towards the federal government then?

Click to expand...

The whole point that many of us have about potential problems with the law hinges on the fact that terms like "vague" and "unclear" can be used in discussing how the law will be handled. That is not a problem with the source, it's a problem with the guidelines. Yes, the federal government's rules suffer the same problem, but let's face it, the federal government really does not enforce immigration laws much, which is why Arizona went down this road.

I think part of the problem is that you misunderstand my position on the law. Whether it is a good law or not is not known yet to my mind. I think we will find out when the details are wrinkled out, and when we see how it is enforced. If Hispanic citizens and those here legally are not bothered by police, then no problem. If that and it reduces the number of illegals in the state, then it's a good law. If Hispanics have issues with being harassed, then it will be a bad law. As things stand now though, I am not against the law, and maybe that neutrality is why I don't see everything as biased one way or another. It's something you have commented on yourself, how bias can very well be in the eye of the beholder.

Caine said:

That is their own stupidity then.

Click to expand...

I disagree that it is stupidity. The legal hispanic residents might be choosing to leave simply because they disagree with the law. Not because they fear it.

If the state passes a law that causes contributing members of society to leave that state by choice, the state has passed a stupid law.

If the people who are leaving are doing so out of fear, and there is nothing to fear, then it's on them.

Redress said:

Damn you are wordy...

Click to expand...

LOL, yep

It actually looks at claims on both sides, and finds neither to be quite right.

Click to expand...

Not from what I saw when reading through real quick. Everything seemed to come from the guise that the law is questionable and people supporting it are lying about what it does.

The difference is enforcement. Prior to this law, the odds of any one making an active effort where slim to none. Now they have gone up significantly. It has the positive of finding more illegals, but has the negative that, since some profiling can be done, innocents are going to be much more likely to be bothered by the police. The unanswered question at this time is how much.

Click to expand...

Profiling in general is legal and completely fine. Racial profiling is not. This law doesn't allow for it any more than any other law. There's no magical right that I know of where someone has a right not to be "bothered" by the police. As long as the police act within both state and federal law, they can bother whoever and however many people they want in my mind and a law should stay on the books if its doing its job in regards to criminals. If the police break state or federal law then deal with them.

How many innocents get "bothered" in no way shape or form proves the notion of racial profiling being made legal in the law.

The other question is whether Hispanic people with a definite accent is enough to be "reasonable suspicion", and that probably will end up before the courts soon.

Click to expand...

Indeed, that said having a "Thick accent" is not "racial profiling" nor does it specify HISPANIC accent in the federal governments guidebook. Even then though, nothing they've shown documents that an accent alone is going to be acceptable as reasonable suspicion nor that its acceptable as such anywhere else in the country, state or federal.

You are reading way too much into the words. It says, quite clearly, that there are unknowns about how officers will be trained to establish "reasonable suspicion". Saying "we dunno" is not implying anything. There are no assumptions from the article, and I made none. We do not know means we do not know. Don't build that strawman. The point in my quoting that part was to show how Hispanics could be some what uneasy about things. Nowhere did I claim that in fact they would be unfairly targeted, nor have I ever said that. It is a question that will have to be answered.

Click to expand...

Gotcha.

You wait for that one to be answered, I'll wait for "Death Panels" to be answered, and we can both keep our "reasons to be concerned" it seems. I mean, since things not being officially laid out in definitive detail means anything could reasonable still happen.

The whole point that many of us have about potential problems with the law hinges on the fact that terms like "vague" and "unclear" can be used in discussing how the law will be handled. That is not a problem with the source, it's a problem with the guidelines. Yes, the federal government's rules suffer the same problem, but let's face it, the federal government really does not enforce immigration laws much, which is why Arizona went down this road.

Click to expand...

However whether or not the federal government enforces it or not doesn't matter in regards to the cries of "UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!" that so many lob around. And it appears, from your own source, that most of the things people scream about being unconstitutional are the vary things found in the Federal law.

Additionally, the only thing I've seen people point out in the law as "vague" every single time I've asked for it is "Reasonable Suspicion". Which, unlike your terms your quoted, is actually less vague then it seems since its a recognized and long standing legal standard that has historical cases of it being used in a plethora of different law enforcement situations and whose constitutionality in regards to the criteria to meet it has been established in numerous various court cases.

The only thing I've seen anyone quote specifically as "vague" is that "reasonable suspicion" MAY allow them to just randomly stop Hispanic people for being Hispanic and ask them for their papers...however that's not "Vague", that's patently untrue and flatly unconstitutional, not to mention no where present in this law.

Is there some vagueness to it? Yes, there is, its meant to be. Just like Probable Cause is "vague", just like "Reasonable Doubt" is vague", just like preponderance of evidence is "vague", just like "mod discretion" is vague, and most other forms of legal code is. They're broad statements that are governed over by far more strict and narrow guidelines and laws that allow the law enforcement officers and those involved in the legal system a level of latitude when acting while providing a strict boundary around that openness. The issue I have is that everyone that complains about its "Vagueness" then proceeds to point to the vagueness supposedly allowing it to do things that are definitively outside of those boundaries.

Please, specifically, you, tell me what you find "Vague" about the law.

I think part of the problem is that you misunderstand my position on the law. Whether it is a good law or not is not known yet to my mind. I think we will find out when the details are wrinkled out, and when we see how it is enforced. If Hispanic citizens and those here legally are not bothered by police, then no problem. If that and it reduces the number of illegals in the state, then it's a good law. If Hispanics have issues with being harassed, then it will be a bad law. As things stand now though, I am not against the law, and maybe that neutrality is why I don't see everything as biased one way or another. It's something you have commented on yourself, how bias can very well be in the eye of the beholder.

Click to expand...

And see, I do not see it necessarily as a "bad law" if it Hispanics have issues with being harassed. That point alone does not prove it is "bad law", but that there is something wrong with regards to it. It COULD be a bad law. It COULD be bad enforcement guildelines. It COULD be individual departments having bad policy. It COULD be individual officers acting incorrectly.

Oh, and its also possible that the claims of "harassment" could end up being relatively hollow and far over reported and over exaggerated or fully not harassment at all but fully justified under the law but we don't hear it the specifics from the media but only the sob stories.

The difference is I'm not going to believe its a "Bad law" simply because a bunch of hispanic citizens in Arizona make claims that they got unfairly harassed. If its found to be systemically problematic with evidence of legitimate harassment then yes. If its found to be unconstitutional somehow at a federal level, then yes. Those would be bad laws. If a bunch of baseless accusations of "harassment" come out, or a handful of legitimate accusations? No, that's not what I'd decree as a "bad law" in and of itself.

Mind you, my issue is a good deal less with your general view of the law as it is with your sources presentation and implication of their own view in the manner at which they come at the story and the majority of people who use the very arguments you're using however don't use them to argue a neutral point but to argue that the law is unjust and must go.

Zyphlin...not going to quote this out again, since it's getting massive long again. Just going to hit on a few points.

First: I am not arguing legality. As best I know, the law is legal, and I suspect that the police will mostly try and stick within the legal framework. We are talking at cross purposes. I am not saying the law might be bad as in it's illegal, only that it might be bad in it's effect.

Second: I never claimed the law made racial profiling legal.

Third: While it does not specify Hispanics, that is who it is going to effect. How many people are in Arizona, legally or illegally, with, for example, thick accents who are not Hispanic.

Fourth: You are again seeing much more in the "not known" comment than is there. It is not some conspiracy or remote long shot that Hispanics might have a concern with how the training turns out. We knows the law allows a certain amount of profiling, and there is some vague language.

Fifth: Vagueness: Source: Senate Bill 1070

I am referring to the highlighted section that says the police cannot consider race, color etc, except as allowed by law. This section is annotated in part with this:

quote]According to the Supreme Court, the U.S. Constitution allows race to be considered in immigration enforcement: “The likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor.” United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 886-87 (1975).

However, there are many open questions. Most of the cases allowing racial profiling involve Border Patrol officers enforcing federal immigration law. It is not clear that the U.S. Supreme Court or Arizona Supreme Court will extend these rulings to state officers enforcing state immigration law, or to state officers who have general law enforcement responsibilities.

In addition, speaking of Southern California, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that there are so many lawful immigrants or visitors and U.S. citizens of Mexican ancestry that racial appearance can no longer be used. United States v. Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The same logic arguably applies to Arizona. [/quote]

So what you have is that just in saying "as allowed by law" leaves real questions, since certain aspects are untested. I consider that "vague".

Sixth: I would take a claim of harassment serious, no matter the race, gender or whatever. I would not automatically assume it is true, but I would consider the possibility,

Areopagitican said:

The idea that this law is somehow forcing millions of legal citizens to flee the state, even before it is fully implemented, suggests only their own ignorance.

Click to expand...

Well I don't know if it's millions right now. But fair point none the less.

Tucker Case said:

I disagree that it is stupidity. The legal hispanic residents might be choosing to leave simply because they disagree with the law. Not because they fear it.

Click to expand...

Then it is still their own stupidity. Spending hundreds or thousands of dollars to move, and having to change jobs, just because you don't like a law that won't even effect you. Stupidity.

Caine said:

Then it is still their own stupidity. Spending hundreds or thousands of dollars to move, and having to change jobs, just because you don't like a law that won't even effect you. Stupidity.

Click to expand...

I call it taking a stand for something you believe in.

Tucker Case said:

I call it taking a stand for something you believe in.

Click to expand...

So they believe in Illegal Immigration.
Good for them.....Not.

Tucker Case said:

I call it taking a stand for something you believe in.

Click to expand...

Ironically, I had just said something relating to this in another thread:

Dav said:

Frankly, people who make deeply personal decisions based on an ideological or political stance are, IMO, deeply troubled and deluded people.

Click to expand...

Of course, in this case, there is nothing to indicate that it is actually happening... and I would bet that it probably isn't.

Ikari said:

People taking responsibility for their actions = taking responsibility for the things we buy and the attitudes and practices we endorse by doing so. If you have such a problem with illegal immigration, then you have to avoid buying things from companies or industries which promote the use of illegal immigrants. Of course, those products tend to be cheaper than other means, and people buy those things regardless.

Click to expand...

Give me a list of these supposed companies or industries that promote the use of illegal immigrants and I'll be glad to avoid them.

I don't think its "stupid" to move if they morally disagree with the law and feel like moving is a form of protest or they do not wish to live in a state with such a law being enforced.

I do think if they're moving because they think that its a unquestionable fact they're going to be harassed by cops for simply walking down the street, before this has even rolled out, that they're somewhat stupid.

Crunch said:

Hispanics flee Arizona ahead of immigration law - USATODAY.com

Looks like the new law is having the desired effect. Now if they would just do the same (enforce our current laws) on a national scale, the problem would be solved. Good job Arizona.

Click to expand...

"Conservative" says it all.
Overused....yes
As an American citizen, I feel that its a compliment that the Mexicans have choosen our nation.
Now that "we" are chasing them out, I feel embarrassed.

Caine said:

So they believe in Illegal Immigration.
Good for them.....Not.

Click to expand...

I doubt that anyone who supports illegal immigrants gives two ****s about your disapproval of their stance. I'm sure some even revel in it.

Dav said:

Ironically, I had just said something relating to this in another thread:


Of course, in this case, there is nothing to indicate that it is actually happening... and I would bet that it probably isn't.

Click to expand...

Wait. Your family came here from Cuba, right?

Think about how your comments relate to their deeply personal decision to GTFO of Cuba. If not their own decision, then think of millions of other Cubans who made the deeply personal decision to leave their homeland for political and ideological reasons after Castro took power.

Your theory sucks.

Tucker Case said:

I doubt that anyone who supports illegal immigrants gives two ****s about your disapproval of their stance. I'm sure some even revel in it.

Click to expand...

Nobody's leaving to take a stand for illegal immigration. But if they were, it would make no sense that they came to the US in the first place, where illegal immigration is just as illegal everywhere as it is in Arizona.

Think about how your comments relate to their deeply personal decision to GTFO of Cuba. If not their own decision, then think of millions of other Cubans who made the deeply personal decision to leave their homeland for political and ideological reasons after Castro took power.

Your theory sucks.

Click to expand...

They left because the country's politics were affecting their personal lives in ways they could no longer tolerate. Not to take a stand or anything stupid like that. In fact, my dad has always stressed that Cuba went wrong when people became unable to separate politics from their personal lives. Actually, my idea probably COMES FROM that situation which you seem to think disproves it.

To be fair, and this goes to me too, towards the federal government...

Sadly there's not been an administration in some time that actually took border enforcement seriously. We all got hoodwinkinked into thinking it was going to happen with the promises of it occuring after amnesty in the 80's and it didn't, and its not going to this time either if we give amnesty first. But because the Federal Government is so derelict in enforcing their own laws that are on the books and so wantonly ignoring criminals, what we have are federal immigration laws that are essentially on par with "Blue Laws" that you see in states and cities now.

You know the type:

• its illegal for a couple to hold hands on a sunday
• its forbidden for a man with a moustache to kiss a woman
• Its prohibited to eat onions between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. while out riding a horse
• its forbidden from buying drinks for more than three people other than himself at any one period during the day
• It is illegal for any member of the Nevada Legislature to conduct official business wearing a penis costume while the legislature is in session.

Those are all from the books of towns in Nevada, or its actual state law.

That's essentially what most Federal immigration laws have became; they've become the equivilent of buying too many women drinks in a day or having a moustache while making out. They're laws that are ignored and found silly and devoid of any real use in either enforcing nor taking the time to remove them. They've become jokes, not just to us that want them enforced but to the people that are enforcing them.

I doubt any citizens going to be bad that there's a law banning kissing if you have a mustache, however if they started enforcing it then that probably changes the situation.

So while I think the cries of "unconstitutional" are bull**** if you're going to scream that at the states when its clear federal law allows it, but I do think its not too unreasonable to be more worried about Arizona then the rest of the country because for the rest of the country illegal immigration is essentially a blue law.

Dav said:

Nobody's leaving to take a stand for illegal immigration.

Click to expand...

Proof?

But if they were, it would make no sense that they came to the US in the first place, where illegal immigration is just as illegal everywhere as it is in Arizona.

Click to expand...

But not every state has the same attitude about illegals as Arizona does. Those who leave are simply moving to one of those states that have a different attitude.

I support Arizona's right to pass these laws, and I support the people's right to GTFO of Arizona if they disagree with those laws. I'd rather see the Federal laws repealed since they only exist as an unsurptation of State Authority on the subject. That's a different thread, though. I started it in the immigration forum if you want to discuss the unconstitutional nature of the Federal immigration laws. Nobody seems to want to explain to me how federalizing Immigration laws, even though they are not an ennumerated power, isn't simply encouraging a nanny-state, judicial activism, and broad, liberal interpretations of the constitution. :shrug:

They left because the country's politics were affecting their personal lives in ways they could no longer tolerate. Not to take a stand or anything stupid like that. In fact, my dad has always stressed that Cuba went wrong when people became unable to separate politics from their personal lives. Actually, my idea probably COMES FROM that situation which you seem to think disproves it.

Click to expand...

Then whyon Earth did he come to the US, which was founded because of personal decisions made using ideology and politcs as their basis?

The whole revolution was about not wanting to pay taxes. It wasn't all that oppresive of a stituation for the founders. But most definitely they made their personal decisions based on ideology and politics.