 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/04/2010 12:28 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> Anybody got any better suggestions?
Guy Fawkes ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Anybody got any better suggestions?
>
> Emigrate.
Most people seem to go with "denigrate"...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 4/30/2010 11:23 AM, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> scott wrote:
>>>> Anybody got any better suggestions?
>>>
>>> Emigrate.
>>
>> ROFL
>>
> Just don't do so to Arizona. They would hear your English accent and
> immediately have you arrested, then probably deported to Mexico (I don't
> credit these idiots imagining that anyone in the country illegally
> *might* come from some place other than Mexico...). lol
I'm not quite ready to chalk up the Arizona laws to pure racism.
The notion that any nation must permit any person to immigrate is simply
nuts, and does not appear to be the operating principle of any nation on
earth. Mexico's immigration laws, in particular, make even the new
Arizona law seem quite relaxed in comparison. In light of this, I'd say
that the Mexican government "doth protest too much" on the issue of the
new Arizona law.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> They would hear your English accent and immediately have you arrested,
>> then probably deported to Mexico
>
> That's about right, considering they're talking about deporting actual
> US citizens born of illegal immigrants. I have to wonder where they
> think they'd deport them to.
If a man is the sole source of support for his family, and he commits a
crime punishable by prison, the fact that he has a family to support may
be taken into account in his sentencing, but the court may lawfully
sentence to prison anyway. That his family is consequently deprived of
their support is regarded as the fault of that man, and not that of the
court or the law.
The same principle applies here to the immigration law. If you don't
want your children to suffer the indirect consequences of your
lawbreaking, then don't break the law.
Believe it or not, there is no basic right to remain in the country. If
you are here in violation of our laws, you must go. The fact that your
children are lawfully here does not alter this. You have no lawful
recourse but to leave.
You can take your kids with you or you can leave them behind. Sure, it
is not their fault that you broke the law, but if that didn't stop you
from breaking the law, why should it stop us from enforcing it?
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 May 2010 11:48:15 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:
> You can take your kids with you or you can leave them behind. Sure, it
> is not their fault that you broke the law, but if that didn't stop you
> from breaking the law, why should it stop us from enforcing it?
I don't think that this is what Darren was saying, but rather that the
Arizona law opens the potential for someone who *is* a legal citizen but
isn't carrying their papers on them to be deported. But the idea behind
deporting someone to their country of origin is not valid when their
country of origin *is* in fact the US.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 May 2010 11:29:55 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:
> The notion that any nation must permit any person to immigrate is simply
> nuts, and does not appear to be the operating principle of any nation on
> earth.
No, but the notion that you can pick someone up because they *look* like
an illegal immigrant (which BTW violates the 4th amendment right to
protection against unreasonable search/seizure) *is* patently racist.
The law goes further, though, by making it possible for people to sue law
enforcement for *not* enforcing the law - so if someone thinks their
neighbor is an illegal and calls the police, and the police do nothing
about it, then the neighbor can sue the state for failing to take action
(so I understand).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/05/2010 5:39 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 01 May 2010 11:29:55 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:
>
>> The notion that any nation must permit any person to immigrate is simply
>> nuts, and does not appear to be the operating principle of any nation on
>> earth.
>
> No, but the notion that you can pick someone up because they *look* like
> an illegal immigrant (which BTW violates the 4th amendment right to
> protection against unreasonable search/seizure) *is* patently racist.
>
> The law goes further, though, by making it possible for people to sue law
> enforcement for *not* enforcing the law - so if someone thinks their
> neighbor is an illegal and calls the police, and the police do nothing
> about it, then the neighbor can sue the state for failing to take action
> (so I understand).
>
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
No offence folks
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
> No, but the notion that you can pick someone up because they *look* like
> an illegal immigrant (which BTW violates the 4th amendment right to
> protection against unreasonable search/seizure) *is* patently racist.
Why does it have to be racism?
Imagine that a woman is raped, and the police is immediately called,
and they suspect that the rapist is still in the vicinity. The police
ought to start questioning suspects they find. Male suspects.
One could argue that only having males as suspects is discrimination,
that suspects should be equally male and female. But that someone would be
a complete idiot. It's 99.999% probable that the rapist was a male, rather
than a woman who raped a woman and was nevertheless mistaken for a man
(that has probably never happened in the history of mankind). Hence it
makes sense for the police to only suspect males and leave females off
the hook. If the police was stupid enough to start detaining females for
suspicion of raping a woman, they would be wasting valuable resources
which would be better used in searching for the actual rapist. After all,
law enforcement has only very limited resources to solve crimes.
Likewise with illegal immigration: The vast majority of illegal immigrants
don't look like locals. Hence it only makes sense to prioritize the scarce
resources law enforcement has and concentrate on people who don't look like
locals. This is not racism. This is practicality. Questioning people equally
is only going to waste resources, which wastes taxpayers' money, and causes
less crimes to be stopped.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/05/2010 6:13 PM, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> No, but the notion that you can pick someone up because they *look* like
>> an illegal immigrant (which BTW violates the 4th amendment right to
>> protection against unreasonable search/seizure) *is* patently racist.
>
> Why does it have to be racism?
>
...
> Likewise with illegal immigration: The vast majority of illegal immigrants
> don't look like locals. Hence it only makes sense to prioritize the scarce
> resources law enforcement has and concentrate on people who don't look like
> locals. This is not racism. This is practicality. Questioning people equally
> is only going to waste resources, which wastes taxpayers' money, and causes
> less crimes to be stopped.
>
Obviously Finland does not have a large immigrant population, about 1%
excluding Finnish Swedes as far as I can make out.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 01/05/2010 6:13 PM, Warp wrote:
> > Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> No, but the notion that you can pick someone up because they *look* like
> >> an illegal immigrant (which BTW violates the 4th amendment right to
> >> protection against unreasonable search/seizure) *is* patently racist.
> >
> > Why does it have to be racism?
> >
> ...
> > Likewise with illegal immigration: The vast majority of illegal immigrants
> > don't look like locals. Hence it only makes sense to prioritize the scarce
> > resources law enforcement has and concentrate on people who don't look like
> > locals. This is not racism. This is practicality. Questioning people equally
> > is only going to waste resources, which wastes taxpayers' money, and causes
> > less crimes to be stopped.
> >
> Obviously Finland does not have a large immigrant population, about 1%
> excluding Finnish Swedes as far as I can make out.
3%. But I don't understand what that has to do with anything. It still
doesn't change the fact that immigrants typically tend to look distinctively
different from natives. Especially illegal ones (because it's rare for
someone who could pass for a Finn to want to immigrate illegally here).
I'm pretty sure that a significant percentage of illegal immigrants in
the US can be distinguished by their looks. If you saw a Finnish person
there I don't think it would be highest in the list of suspects of illegal
immigration.
You can call it racism if you want. That will not change the facts.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
