Proof of Citizenship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The Arizona law stands the US justice system on its head by requiring individuals to prove their innocence rather than having their innocence presumed.

But how does this postition work with the immigration laws already in place? If this is the objection then how does the government enforce immigration laws? Are you suggesting that immegration laws are unconsitutional? At what point would the government request proof of citizenship? By all accounts there are objections at all levels of inquiry except at points of legal entry. This does not work. What then is the solution?

@ Jeff - Federal law requires aliens to carry proof of identity and legal status. AZ just codified the Federal law into state law so the state could enforce it. To represent this as standing the US Justice system on its head is a tad reactionary, not to mention factually incorrect.

And BTW an Arizona id or driver's license is accepted on its face as evidence of legal status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They might be scrubbing the shit out of the toilets in the office building where you work, or picking the organic vegetable crops that are so important to feed our oh so special children, or doing yard work in the neighborhood, and we should all be glad they will do it.

Or killing Chandra Levy.

--The crime thing: thinking back on my youth in this area, I don't recall any gang activity and all that implies, until the immigration problem from south of the border got out of hand.

Your full of it. You will see that your own people will mess this country up. I feel bad for thoses people that think by doing this something good will come of it. Just ask god for forgiveness

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
@ Jeff - Federal law requires aliens to carry proof of identity and legal status. AZ just codified the Federal law into state law so the state could enforce it. To represent this as standing the US Justice system on its head is a tad reactionary, not to mention factually incorrect.

You, of course, ignore the primary issue which is how this law affects legal US citizens. If you are a legal US citizen you are not required by Federal law to carry proof of identity or legal status. In Arizona, US citizens who happen to be brown and speak with accents could be suspected of being illegal. In such cases, they will be detained until they can prove otherwise. This presumption of guilt is the opposite of the American tradition of presumption of innocence. If it is reactionary to point that out, then I am proud to be reactionary.

[Anonymous]

Imagine all those birth certificates and social security cards in pockets and wallets and purses. It's an identity theft paradise. I fully expect Al Qaeda to set up an operation there. They will have hundreds of stolen identities of people with dark hair and skin to use any way they want.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine all those birth certificates and social security cards in pockets and wallets and purses. It's an identity theft paradise. I fully expect Al Qaeda to set up an operation there. They will have hundreds of stolen identities of people with dark hair and skin to use any way they want.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Not only that, if you are illegal, what do you think will be the easiest way to get a birth certificate? Women better start buying purses with steel reinforced straps and padlocks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The statement that the GOP gins up fear of brown people (or has any desire to) is utter utter ignorance and hate.

Different poster.

It may be true that the party doesn't want it, but a lot of the people who make up the party feel that way and the party can't keep it under control, and they don't go out of their way to marginalize this portion of their party.

In any case, this whole thing is a big self-destruct button for the Republican Party. Hispanic Americans are going to be about 30% of the population in the next 40 years. They are already somewhere north of 15%. The high water mark for hispanic support of the republican party will forever be George W. Bush. It's all downhill from here.

You are making my point: the policy choice to allow significant Hispanic immigration is going to substantially change the political culture of this country. No wonder the people who expect to come out on the losing side of political disputes in the future as a result of that policy are opposed to ongoing immigration, as well they should be.

[Anonymous]

As an aside, I think it is pretty sad that it is possible to be sent home from school for wearing the American flag:

http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/265404-five-morgan-hill-students-sent-home-for-wearing-american-flag-t-shirts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As an aside, I think it is pretty sad that it is possible to be sent home from school for wearing the American flag:

http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/265404-five-morgan-hill-students-sent-home-for-wearing-american-flag-t-shirts

Wow! That's got "Ginned-Up Wingnut Controversy of the Day" written all over it!

Ah, turns out they were trying to instigate a riot by dressing up from head to toe in flag paraphernalia on Cinco de Mayo at a high school with a large Mexican-American population. A bit douchebaggy, but not something the vice principal should have put a stop to, in my opinion...

[Anonymous]

From ny daily news:

"Morgan Hill Unified School District released a statement saying it does not agree with how Live Oak High School administrators handled this incident and that the boys would not be suspended."

Yep, sounds about right. But of course, many folks will see this one split-second bad decision by one school's vice principal is a sign of the end of ALL RIGHTS FOR WHITE PEOPLE IN AMERICAAAA!!!1

Get good 'n' frothy wingnuts. End times are night!

[Anonymous]

I'll leave an evaluation of my frothiness to the reader, but I certainly don't feel particularly frothy this morning.

I think it is pretty clear, however, that ongoing large-scale immigration from Mexico is likely to cause some frictions going forward, and perhaps we should take that possibility into account in deciding how much immigration we want, and from where. YMMV, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The statement that the GOP gins up fear of brown people (or has any desire to) is utter utter ignorance and hate.

Different poster.

It may be true that the party doesn't want it, but a lot of the people who make up the party feel that way and the party can't keep it under control, and they don't go out of their way to marginalize this portion of their party.

In any case, this whole thing is a big self-destruct button for the Republican Party. Hispanic Americans are going to be about 30% of the population in the next 40 years. They are already somewhere north of 15%. The high water mark for hispanic support of the republican party will forever be George W. Bush. It's all downhill from here.

You are making my point: the policy choice to allow significant Hispanic immigration is going to substantially change the political culture of this country. No wonder the people who expect to come out on the losing side of political disputes in the future as a result of that policy are opposed to ongoing immigration, as well they should be.

NP here. Yup, I thought George W. was going to really put one over on the Democrats by making a home for Hispanic Americans a few years back in the Republican Party. It was a smart political move in my view, especially since it happened at the time that Hispanics became the biggest minority in the US. It seemed perfect for the Republicans at the time -- bringing in a constituency that laid claim to Christian values (if not generally Protestant, still Christian) and celebrated family connections and outnumbering African-Americans who were massively committed to the Democrats. I think other elements in the Republican Party blew it by allowing what may have been a legitimate criticism of immigration policy to blossom into full-scale fear-driven bigotry. The Republicans lost an important opportunity and I think run the risk of becoming increasingly marginalized in the future.

Remember all those Eastern Europeans who came to our shores by the millions in the late 1800s? They stayed, assimilated, joined political parties. I understand people feeling anxious about cultural and social change in our country (hey I'm a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant -- we built this country y'all!) but I'd learn how to harness these changes rather than just reject them outright. George W., much as I have contempt for him with regards to other issues, recognized the valuable asset that various Hispanic communities could be for the Republican Party. Too bad for him that his party didn't recognize that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The statement that the GOP gins up fear of brown people (or has any desire to) is utter utter ignorance and hate.

Different poster.

It may be true that the party doesn't want it, but a lot of the people who make up the party feel that way and the party can't keep it under control, and they don't go out of their way to marginalize this portion of their party.

In any case, this whole thing is a big self-destruct button for the Republican Party. Hispanic Americans are going to be about 30% of the population in the next 40 years. They are already somewhere north of 15%. The high water mark for hispanic support of the republican party will forever be George W. Bush. It's all downhill from here.

You are making my point: the policy choice to allow significant Hispanic immigration is going to substantially change the political culture of this country. No wonder the people who expect to come out on the losing side of political disputes in the future as a result of that policy are opposed to ongoing immigration, as well they should be.

NP here. Yup, I thought George W. was going to really put one over on the Democrats by making a home for Hispanic Americans a few years back in the Republican Party. It was a smart political move in my view, especially since it happened at the time that Hispanics became the biggest minority in the US. It seemed perfect for the Republicans at the time -- bringing in a constituency that laid claim to Christian values (if not generally Protestant, still Christian) and celebrated family connections and outnumbering African-Americans who were massively committed to the Democrats. I think other elements in the Republican Party blew it by allowing what may have been a legitimate criticism of immigration policy to blossom into full-scale fear-driven bigotry. The Republicans lost an important opportunity and I think run the risk of becoming increasingly marginalized in the future.

Remember all those Eastern Europeans who came to our shores by the millions in the late 1800s? They stayed, assimilated, joined political parties. I understand people feeling anxious about cultural and social change in our country (hey I'm a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant -- we built this country y'all!) but I'd learn how to harness these changes rather than just reject them outright. George W., much as I have contempt for him with regards to other issues, recognized the valuable asset that various Hispanic communities could be for the Republican Party. Too bad for him that his party didn't recognize that.

It's not clear to me that this ever would have worked, given how heavily hispanic voters skew D. As for the "changes" you refer to, they are hardly inevitable -- they are the result of policy choices that have been made, and are now being made. Don't you think we, as a democracy, should have a public debate about whether we want those changes before we commit to them?

[Anonymous]

Not so cut and dried as you describe it, 11:45. Here are some Latino voting trends described in 2008 from http://thelatinojournal.blogspot.com/2008/05/latino-voting-trends.html:

Friday, May 30, 2008
LATINO VOTING TRENDS
Mercury News
Article Launched: 05/29/2008 01:32:48 AM PDT

LATINO VOTING TRENDS

Latinos have cast a declining number of GOP votes in recent years, and their turnout in Democratic primaries has been growing.

Latino votes trending Democratic

1996: Bob Dole (R) receives 21 percent of Latino votes.

2000: George W. Bush (R) wins 35 percent of Latino votes.

2004: Bush wins 40 percent of Latino votes.

2006: In congressional races, Republicans take 30 percent of Latino votes.

2008: In primaries held by both parties, 78 percent of Latino voters participate in Democratic contests.

While this piece focuses on the decline in support for Republicans in recent years, as you can see, George W. was on to something and support for Republicans was growing under his presidency -- at least based on the presidential vote.

Also remember the Hispanic "community" is actually many communities and is quite diverse. Cubans, Salvadorans, Mexicans don't share the same political interests.

[Anonymous]

I'm not saying it is cut and dried -- I'm saying it is an open issue with a lot of uncertainty to it, and it has a major impact on elections at the margin. I can understand why *you* are fine with taking the chance, since you'd probably be more than happy with a structural D majority; those of us on the other side are not so sanguine about that, and for good reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not saying it is cut and dried -- I'm saying it is an open issue with a lot of uncertainty to it, and it has a major impact on elections at the margin. I can understand why *you* are fine with taking the chance, since you'd probably be more than happy with a structural D majority; those of us on the other side are not so sanguine about that, and for good reasons.

Just saying that I think the Republicans blew it. It was a genuine opportunity, not a pipe dream. They should have listened to George W.