 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-5-2010 0:03, Darren New wrote:
> Florian Pesth wrote:
>> Actually in germany, you don't get automatic citizenship,
Sort of the same here in the Netherlands.
You can also get it, I think, if you live here 5 years or so legally.
> So you have people born in Germany who aren't citizens of *any* country?
These things can happen, but in most cases citizenship is hereditary, so
you normally get the nationality of your parents.
Citizen rules vary wildly between countries, so it is not impossible to
have none.
You can also loose your citizenship and become stateless in that way.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 May 2010 17:49:19 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> 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
None taken, the law in and of itself is the offensive bit.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 May 2010 13:13:57 -0400, Warp wrote:
> 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?
Because it relies on racial profiling, and not on what has been done.
> 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.
Different circumstances.
> 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.
Except that in Arizona, the vast majority of immigrants (legal and not)
are of hispanic descent. Let's see how many Canadian immigrants get
stopped there because "they don't look like they belong".
> 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.
No, this law *is* a waste of taxpayer money, in fact, several police
departments in Arizona have said that this takes resources away from
*real* crime.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-5-2010 23:47, Stephen wrote:
> On 01/05/2010 10:18 PM, andrel wrote:
> Good guess and said better than I could but I just don't want anyone to
> live in a Nazi state.
>
Does that 'but' imply that I do?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 May 2010 14:43:32 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Stopping crime sometimes means that innocent people are questioned.
There's a difference between questioning someone and detaining them
because they didn't happen to take their birth certificate with them to
prove that they were born here.
Those who are willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 May 2010 17:10:09 -0400, Warp wrote:
> How can you compare asking someone's ID to putting someone in prison?
> Aren't you exaggerating a bit here?
NO! That's the point - if you LOOK like an illegal immigrant, you have
to provide on the spot PROOF that you're not, and if you can't, YOU GO TO
JAIL. That's what the law is all about.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 May 2010 14:58:23 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Why is it so only with immigration? If the suspect of a crime is a
> white
> male, is it racism to question only white males? Wouldn't it be less
> racist to question also black females? You know, for equality.
Wrong. If a suspect in a *specific* crime is a white male, then
naturally you look at people who match the suspect's description.
But this law makes "Being brown and unable to prove you're here legally
when asked" a crime.
Big difference.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 May 2010 14:50:06 -0400, Warp wrote:
> If find your argument that "the police should not be looking for the
> illegal immigrant because doing so might offend someone" even more
> disturbing.
In the US, we're supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
You're starting with a presumption of guilt, which goes against the
ideals under which this law is created.
That's why the law is a problem: It starts with a presumption of guilt
based on skin colour, and requires that the "suspect" prove their
innocence of being an illegal immigrant.
Based. On. Skin. Colour.
Nothing else. If you *look* like an illegal, you are presumed guilty
until you prove otherwise. This could be a daily occurrence IF YOU
HAPPEN TO HAVE THE WRONG COLOUR SKIN.
Hell, it could happen HOURLY.
Wouldn't that piss YOU off if YOU were constantly having to prove that
you were in your country legally?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 May 2010 23:31:13 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 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?
We have that situation already here in the US. Typically people whose
country of origin can't be determined are detained indefinitely.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 01 May 2010 11:10:11 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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.
>
> No. I'm saying that some people want to pass a law to deport someone who
> *is* a legal citizen and who *is* carrying their passport to be deported
> because they were born of illegal immigrants.
OIC, that is also a problem sure.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
