Comments on: Regarding Arizona’s Unfuckingbelievably Racist Law

By: BeckySharper

BeckySharper — Fri, 28 May 2010 15:26:23 +0000

@Common Sense: Thomas Paine called. He says you should get a new commenter name. Also, as an immigrant, he really wants to you STFU.

By: Pilgrim Soul

Pilgrim Soul — Fri, 28 May 2010 14:51:14 +0000

Did we get linked on some kind of Disgruntled White People site or something.

(Which is to say, Common Sense, bye-bye now.)

By: Common Sense

Common Sense — Thu, 27 May 2010 19:08:28 +0000

I have heard far more individuals discussing that the law is Unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause forbids state and local laws that contradict federal laws in matters where the federal government has authority to act.
Once again it only applies in situations exactly where the law contradicts the current law. Arizona’s law requires that State/Local authorities hand over suspect illegals to the proper federal authorities. Maybe you’ve forgetten (since we haven’t enforced these laws) but it is still a crime to enter our country illegally.
But as long as we are talking about Constitutionality let’s talk about the Commerce Clause with the Constitution (Article I, Section 8). This clause prohibits states and localities from passing laws that burden interstate or foreign commerce by, among other things, creating “discriminations favorable or adverse to commerce with particular foreign nations.”
Boycotting Arizona is UNCONSTITUTIONAL so knock it off already. Also to the Arizona government, how about we step up and actually file suit against these cities?

By: PhDork

PhDork — Fri, 14 May 2010 22:24:54 +0000

Hey, Stephanie? A few pointers for your future trolling:

1. “Hispanic” is not a race. It’s not even an ethnicity. It’s a language-group descriptor. My friend’s Madrileno husband: hispanic, and white. European, even!

2. “Mexican” isn’t a race either, but a nationality.

3. And lastly, “illegal” is an adjective, not a noun. These are people you’re talking about.

Gracias.

By: BeckySharper

BeckySharper — Fri, 14 May 2010 22:14:14 +0000

Thanks for sharing, Stephanie. Sorry you’re such a mean-spirited racist.

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Fri, 14 May 2010 21:58:24 +0000

I live in Arizona and what gets me with all of this is the term illegal. When I watch the news, I don’t hear about an illegal murder or an illegal robbery. It’s common sense that it’s illegal so the term doesn’t need to be used. Yet here we’re talking about illegals. Illegal means breaking the law or is that not what it means any longer. Do you have any idea what its like to lose your job so an illegal can be hired? Do you have family, kids, loved ones? Does it hurt you to see them sick or suffering from cancer? Then to make matters worse, you can’t afford health insurance, but you can however foot the bill so an illegal can receive it for free.
Do you know what it’s like to be told you have to learn to speak Spanish to accomodate others who don’t feel like learning English? Do you know what it’s like to receive a phone call from the principal of your childs school to be told she’s being sent home for wearing a Bob Marley t-shirt on Cinco De Mayo. Yet they can wave their Mexican flags with pride, and protest, and wear anti-America shirts and spit in our faces.. but that’s considered freedom of speech.
Do you know what it’s like to have your brother shot and killed by 3 illegals for no other reason than because “he was there”? They’re called illegals for a reason and for the life of me, I will never understand why ppl who don’t live here to know what it’s like are so determined to call us racists over an issue that’s not about racism. It’s about breaking the law. And racial profiling? Hispanics are the race that crosses the Mexican border to come here illegally. That’s not racial profiling, it’s just a fact.
All this mess about how wrong it is to have to carry information with you. In Mexico it’s required by law to always have forms of identification on you, but it shouldn’t be allowed in the US to see who may be breaking the law? I have yet to talk to one hispanic person who lives here legally to have a problem with having proof on them of who they are. Most have said they carry their ID with them everywhere anyway so what’s the big deal. Others who became legal also haven’t had a problem with it. They said they’ve had and carried their information with them at all times long before this so it doesn’t bother them a bit. So if you think you’re somehow standing up for them, you’re actually just cutting them down. The majority of our police department is hispanic as well, so while you may be envisioning a bunch of white cops with cowboy boots running down some poor hispanic kid.. wrong again.
The majority of the people who live here have no problem with this law. It’s not because we’re all a bunch of racists either. It’s because we’re the ones who see the bigger picture of what all of this is about, and we’re the ones who live here to have to deal with issues others don’t to even understand. So everyone can carry on with the name calling, boycotting, and whatever else is next. You’re only hurting the same race you might think you’re trying to defend.

By: BearDownCBears

BearDownCBears — Sun, 02 May 2010 22:32:39 +0000

@Mackey: I don’t see how your analysis of the EU matches this:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-08-098/EN/KS-SF-08-098-EN.PDF

The immigration rates of Poles and Romanians are massive. The biggest destinations are the more prosperous Western European countries. And the intra-union immigration rate outstrips the regular rate, which includes North Africans and citizens of former Soviet states.

By: Pilgrim Soul

Pilgrim Soul — Sun, 02 May 2010 01:52:55 +0000

Thanks Mackey, I lacked the spoons to reply further today. I appreciate your pointing those things out.

By: Mackey

Mackey — Sat, 01 May 2010 23:51:46 +0000

there’s a couple of points made in the conversation that I find a little troubling to me:
* opening borders means more people will come in and compete for jobs
* enforcing a higher wage will decrease immigration

There is no absolute evidence that opening borders means more people will come in and compete for jobs – the European Union is an example of this. Despite having a freedom for all citizens of EU countries to cross borders and be treated similar to citizens in EU nations the evidence in this context isn’t there. This isn’t to say that the movement of people to find work isn’t there, but the wholesale entering of one/two countryies in the EU because of better employment prospects isn’t eviencenced.
There’s also the logistical issues, in particular of travel and accomodation.

I’m not sure that enforcing a higher wage will decrease immigration. For example in Australia in some agricultural sectors no matter what the wage was (and it was higher than the minimum wage of AUD$14.31 per hour) no local wanted to pick the fruit/veges. Instead immigrant workers came to undertake the work. It worked well for the the agriculturalists, the workers, and the local community.

By: FourInchHeels

FourInchHeels — Sat, 01 May 2010 19:18:00 +0000

@PS – Once again, you’re screwing with what I’ve said. Correct, I drew the fugitive connection. The sentence I referred to as being unfair is your comment accusing me of claiming the desire to earn is a criminal act. That, and only that, was what I said is unfair. I didn’t say it was a criminal act (and don’t think it is), and while it doesn’t make me feel bad, it’s just unnecessary and unhelpful.

I’m really unclear on your position with borders. If they matter to you as a means of defense and to protect our jobs, what more are you looking for from me? Are you hoping I say I think they’re golden arches of privilege and purity, or that they don’t matter at all and we should all roam free and breezy? What value are you thinking I’ve ascribed to the border, beyond their place as piece of this equation? I think their main function is to denote the area of care and maintenance for a given group. I haven’t once commented on borders are a function of protecting my job, period. More things you’re making up for me to have said. What DO you think the function of a border is? You’ve attacked what I’ve said, some things I haven’t said, and I still don’t know what you think about the purpose of a border or my original question.

I agreed with 98% of what you’ve said, and I meant to start a “hey, I’m not sure about this one small part, would you clarify/explain so I can learn more of what you think” (because you know far more than I do about this issue) discussion, not a fight where I don’t agree with the role you’ve assigned me. I’m not going to continue engaging in this fight; I respect your opinions, so commented because I wanted to hear more of what you think. If you are willing to have a conversation then I’d like to keep talking. If you’re going to keep attacking without helping me understand, there isn’t much point.