 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/05/2010 9:37 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldot com> wrote:
>> On 01/05/2010 8:51 PM, Warp wrote:
>>>>> We are talking about America here where everyone looks different from
>>>>> the natives.
>>> People really love to nitpick on my choice of words there, don't they?
>>>
>
>> Yes.
>
>>> How about trying to understand what I*mean* for a chance? It's not that
>>> hard.
>>>
>
>> But we do understand what you mean ;-)
>
> So it *is* intentional nitpicking? What for?
No, not intentional nitpicking.
What for, cause you don't understand what I mean, when I've explained it.
>
>>>>>> > You can call it racism if you want. That will not change the facts.
>>>>> I wouldn't call it racism since it is you but I would call it ill
>>>>> informed and stupid.
>>> Exactly what is ill informed and stupid?
>>>
>
>> You are still young and don???t have the experience of different cultures
>> and societies. So your viewpoint is limited by comparison.
>
> I'm scratching my head here. Does experience of different cultures and
> societies somehow lead to the opinion that law enforcement should be made
> more lenient when dealing with illegal immigration?
>
> Let me ask you a few questions:
>
> 1) Do you agree that it's unfeasible for a country to open its borders
> completely so that anybody can immigrate without any limits, and thus
> immigration laws are a necessity?
>
Yes.
> 2) If yes, do you agree that entering a country without permission is a
> crime?
>
Yes.
> 3) If yes, do you agree that criminals should be arrested and the proper
> punishment applied, such as returning the illegal immigrant to his
> country of origin?
>
Maybe, maybe not.
> 4) Do you agree that police forces have quite limited resources (most of
> which comes from taxpayers' money), and that those resources should be
> used as efficiently as possible, rather than wasted on useless pursuits?
>
Yes, mostly.
> If you answered yes to all those questions, then what exactly is it that
> you are disagreeing with? That's all I am arguing here.
>
The proposition that humans should behave as machines without any sense
of judgment, compassion or taking circumstances into consideration.
Heaven help us if we all got our just deserts.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 4) Do you agree that police forces have quite limited resources (most of
> which comes from taxpayers' money), and that those resources should be
> used as efficiently as possible, rather than wasted on useless pursuits?
You misunderstand. The complaint with this isn't that. The complaint is that
the law specifically says "you get to make people prove their citizenship
without having any reason at all to suspect they might not be citizens."
It's a useless pursuit to hassle *every* mexican-looking American, since
they outnumber non-mexican-looking Americans everywhere people are passing
this law. This law won't make it easier to catch illegal immigrants. We
already have laws for that. What this law says is "you get to go to the
house of someone and wake them up and ask them to prove their citizenship."
I suspect most people in this country couldn't even do that with the papers
they have in their house. Most people don't have passports and most people
don't have birth certificates any more.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-5-2010 23:10, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
> (I know how you will answer to that argument. Something like: "But imagine
> if they were more likely to ask your ID based on your skin color. Wouldn't
> that be discrimination and racism?" My answer: If it was significantly more
> likely that white people commit credit card fraud than others, then it wouldn't
> bother me at all. I would still gladly submit to this security check because
> it also increases my own security.)
Great, a game of trying to predict what another person will say.
...
I'd say he is not going to say that. Possibly something along the line
of the shop owner not going to throw you out of the country if you can
not show an ID.
Or that the shop owner will probably ask everybody, irrespective of skin
color and if he doesn't the mistake he makes is towards the ones he
doesn't ask.
but let's see what the real answer will be...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-5-2010 18:36, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.
Isn't there a problem that if somebody does not have papers you won't
know where to send him/her?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/05/2010 10:18 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 1-5-2010 22:38, Warp wrote:
>> Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>>>> How about explaining it clearly rather than giving some odd hints that
>>>> one must keep guessing?
>>>>
>>
>>> No because if I do you will just argue the point. I???m not into
>>> debating but if, after thinking about it and you still cannot work
>>> out or guess what I meant. I will spell it out.
>>
>> Well, if you are not going to explain yourself, I suppose it's impossible
>> to continue the conversation.
>
> I am not Stephen ;)
True ;-)
> but he might have meant something like:
>
> What you are proposing
> - is not effective
> - is often not possible at all
> - will violate rights of legal citizens
> - will harm trust in the police and the juridical system
> - will increase racial tension
> - could become a factor in racial violence
>
> For these and a number of other reasons legislators all over the world
> have decided it is not a good idea and made it illegal. Although it
> seems a good idea at first sight, if you think a little longer you will
> understand why it will destabilize the society more than it solves
> illegal immigration.
>
> At least something like that would be my best guess.
>
>
Good guess and said better than I could but I just don't want anyone to
live in a Nazi state.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/04/2010 12:28 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> So,
> Anybody got any better suggestions?
I hope your happy ;-)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/05/2010 10:49 PM, Stephen wrote:
>
> I hope your happy ;-)
Ooops! I hope that you are happy (Sp)
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Sat, 01 May 2010 16:45:04 -0400 schrieb Warp:
> That's granting citizenship. There are explicit laws stating how one
> gets citizenship, and that's one of them. In theory the law could be
> different (ie. it doesn't automatically grant citizenship if neither
> parent has).
Actually in germany, you don't get automatic citizenship, if you are born
here and your parents are alien. You can get it (since 2000), if one of
your parents was staying legally in germany for at least 8 years and has
permission to stay forever.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Florian Pesth wrote:
> Actually in germany, you don't get automatic citizenship,
So you have people born in Germany who aren't citizens of *any* country?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Sat, 01 May 2010 15:03:49 -0700 schrieb Darren New:
> Florian Pesth wrote:
>> Actually in germany, you don't get automatic citizenship,
>
> So you have people born in Germany who aren't citizens of *any* country?
Under certain circumstances that can happen indeed. Thanks to
conservative governments still claiming that "we are not an immigration
country" we have some stupid laws. And some people can have even two
citizenships (even though they try to avoid that nowadays, by forcing
people to make a decision until they are 23).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
