American Politics mark something something

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

I'm thinking again about Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act. I don't know a great deal about Kentucky politics, but are voters in that state really going to hold Mr. Paul's support for the right of private businesses to discriminate against him? There are probably a good deal of Kentuckians (?) who agree with him, even if they might not be so forward with their opinions.

I don't know. I remember George Allen getting in serious electoral trouble for less than what Rand Paul said, but Virginia is not Kentucky and 2010 is not 2006. I'd be interested to see post-gaffe polling numbers; but pre-gaffe, Rand Paul was 25 points ahead of Democrat Jack Conway.

[Old Nan]

If this is true, someone needs to get a memo to the media. I have heard multiple times that he's named after Ayn Rand.

Well, Ron named him Randall and he named himself Rand. It's a possibility.

[Nymeria Sand]

I'm thinking again about Rand Paul and the Civil Rights Act. I don't know a great deal about Kentucky politics, but are voters in that state really going to hold Mr. Paul's support for the right of private businesses to discriminate against him? There are probably a good deal of Kentuckians (?) who agree with him, even if they might not be so forward with their opinions.

BTW, Rand Paul was incredible on Rachel Maddow. He was spinning like crazy, trying to walk back his support for the right of private businesses to discriminate without utterly abandoning it. During the interview, I learned that Rand Paul absolutely, utterly, completely hates racism.

Is there any such thing as a truly private business anymore?

Hypothetical situation. Let's say Rand gets his way. I own a business and I cater to blacks or women or Mexicans or whatever. Can the utility company down the street refuse to pave my parking lot, or can my garbage disposal company refuse to do business with me simply because I serve minorities? Can my water company shut my water off? Can my suppliers refuse to supply me?

Using the First Amendment is a red herring. So is using gun rights--the Second Amendment. There's a big difference between refusing someone who walks into your business with a weapon and refusing someone based on the color of their skin.

And what I found ironic is the fact that Sarah Palin supports this guy. I can't help but wonder if that was before or after he dissed the Americans with Disabilities Act when he said that people with disabilities should be "allowed."

Allowed to do what, exactly?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So it was worse before and I guess you're sort of right, now they can't use "race" as a factor. So, what does give someone a "suspicion" that they're an illegal immigrant in Arizona?

I think a good example of "reasonable suspicion" would be an inability to communicate in English given that English proficiency is a requirement for naturalization. I'd guess that would be a pretty common one because it would be a natural consequence to a lawful stop. Or maybe you stop a truck coming in from the border with 15 people crammed in the back. Or maybe affiliation with a known or suspected coyote. Other than that, maybe experienced LE or ICE folks would have a better idea.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The law gives cops the justification they need. They don't even have to make it up any more--all they have to say is, "Well, we had reasonable suspicion that he was illegal." And they can still make up why they thought he was illegal to begin with.

You need to read the law. If that's what the cop says, it is a per se violation of the statute. They can only check on immigration states AFTER the person has been lawfully stopped due to a reason OTHER THAN immigration status.

Look, you can support them if you want to, but I've seen this my whole life, with or without justification. Police do not need a reason, no matter what the law says.

If what the law says doesn't matter, why are you so concerned about it?

[Tempra]

So it was worse before and I guess you're sort of right, now they can't use "race" as a factor. So, what does give someone a "suspicion" that they're an illegal immigrant in Arizona?

See FloW's comments.

Keep up your sterling defense the poor, abused, white males, Tempra, its what you do best.

Are ad homs the best you got?

[The Progressive]

We have these brave, courageous, and virtuous individuals called lawyers who have no problem sticking it to the police.

Lol, I am having a hard time trying to recall if there's any attorney on this board who is working for some poorly funded non-profit specializing in immigrantion and civil rights ............ and this board has quite a few attorneys.

I'm glad that you're found your calling after law school. Congrats!

I think a good example of "reasonable suspicion" would be an inability to communicate in English given that English proficiency is a requirement for naturalization.

There're waiver to the English proficiency requirement for naturalization. Furthermore, there are no requirement for English profiency for permanent residents or legal aliens that I'm aware of.

[lokisnow]

No amount of bleating from the left is going to change the fact that this law does not legalize racial profiling. Such conduct is in violation of the Constitution and is actionable against the individual and the state.

no amount of bleating from the right is going to change the fact that this law has a massive chilling effect on the citizens it targets.

If latinos of arizona don't believe that they will be treated fairly and equally they're going to be less likely to report abuses of the law and less likely to bring legal action against the inevitable abuses by the police. This law makes them believe they are second class citizens. It's ironic that we're discussing this the day that Rand wants to roll back the Civil Rights Act because its not necessary anymore.

or, to quote my friend in Arizona the day the law was signed, "Fuck you, governor, you've just made it illegal to look like me in my own state."

And yes, my friend has been regularly harassed by everyday white citizens since the passage of the law, they like to gloat.

[Mad Monkey]

That's shockingly irrelevant.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I don't know. Maybe if we wanted to hump our senators, we'd have a stronger faith in government.

That's probably the most intelligent thing written on this thread, and that's including my own contributions.

[TrackerNeil]

Is there any such thing as a truly private business anymore?

Hypothetical situation. Let's say Rand gets his way. I own a business and I cater to blacks or women or Mexicans or whatever. Can the utility company down the street refuse to pave my parking lot, or can my garbage disposal company refuse to do business with me simply because I serve minorities? Can my water company shut my water off? Can my suppliers refuse to supply me?

The very fact that we are having this discussion shows you just how far to the right the public discourse has shifted. Liberals who want a single-payer health care system, like many other industrialized nations possess, are regarded as extremist and their views really don't have much traction with the public. However, a candidate who voices disagreement with a fundamental piece of civil-rights legislation enacted nearly fifty years ago has a decent chance of being seated in the Senate.

[alguien]

See FloW's comments.

See Pax's response to Flow. However, Flow's response fails to address the unlikelihood of Swedes getting pulled over in Arizona.

Are ad homs the best you got?

If the shoe fits...

[Shryke]

It's not even an ad hominem. We aren't saying your argument is crap because you hold it, we are saying you are crap because you believe in crappy racist policies.

But really how does this law not require you to carry around proof of your citizenship/immigration status everywhere you go?

Having to carry your papers everywhere you go is cool with the American Right now?

[The Progressive]

Looks like the financial regulation bill will be passed soon. Even more interesting, the Senate version is actually tougher than the House version.

And guess who crossed party line and ended the threat of filibuster ........................... Scott Brown! lol

The teabaggers went nut again, check out the comment section, lol:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/05/brown_switches.html?comments=all#addComm

[Tempra]

no amount of bleating from the right is going to change the fact that this law has a massive chilling effect on the citizens it targets.

If latinos of arizona don't believe that they will be treated fairly and equally they're going to be less likely to report abuses of the law and less likely to bring legal action against the inevitable abuses by the police. This law makes them believe they are second class citizens. It's ironic that we're discussing this the day that Rand wants to roll back the Civil Rights Act because its not necessary anymore.

or, to quote my friend in Arizona the day the law was signed, "Fuck you, governor, you've just made it illegal to look like me in my own state."

And yes, my friend has been regularly harassed by everyday white citizens since the passage of the law, they like to gloat.

You're talking about something else completely. The question we have been addressing thus far is what this bill ACTUALLY DOES. It is quite evident that most people do not understand how this bill works. This bill does not make it easier to racially profile. It absolutely does not.

A separate question (which is more to your point) is the effect that bill will have. I think it is quite possible (maybe even likely) that this bill shake the faith Latinos have in the justice system. I think a large part of that has been created by liberal hysteria and general ignorance of the bill (as displayed aptly by this thread). But, yes, I can see why Latinos in general would dislike this bill and are not happy with it being signed into law.

[Ormond]

Well, Ron named him Randall and he named himself Rand. It's a possibility.

Here is a link to Rand Paul's video about his name from his own site:

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2009/05/whats-in-a-name-rand-on-rand/

You will note that in the video he says it was his MOTHER than named him Randall, not Ron. This just makes them a typical American family, where mothers usually have much more to do with name choices than fathers.

[Tempra]

It's not even an ad hominem. We aren't saying your argument is crap because you hold it, we are saying you are crap because you believe in crappy racist policies.

It is quite implicit in the statement that I am racist, sexist, and elitist. None of which makes sense because I only corrected misconceptions about what the bill does and did not pass judgment on the bill itself.

But some people can't help themselves and throw out ad homs because they have no argument, right Shryke?

[Mad Monkey]

That's probably the most intelligent thing written on this thread, and that's including my own contributions.

Attractiveness doesn't really correlate with faith, does it? Is that a real stereotype or misconception that people had, or are you two just making that up. And try not to knock your contributions, Lord Stark -- they're a joy to read.

You will note that in the video he says it was his MOTHER than named him Randall, not Ron. This just makes them a typical American family, where mothers usually have much more to do with name choices than fathers.

Why does any of this matter?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

It's not even an ad hominem. We aren't saying your argument is crap because you hold it, we are saying you are crap because you believe in crappy racist policies.

But really how does this law not require you to carry around proof of your citizenship/immigration status everywhere you go?

Having to carry your papers everywhere you go is cool with the American Right now?

Shryke, do you know that current federal law already requires immigrants to do that, in all 50 states?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

Having to carry your papers everywhere you go is cool with the American Right now?

I don't support it.