American Politics mark something something

[alguien]

Do you finally concede that this law does not legalize racial profiling?

I never said it technically did. Because any law that came outright and said that would be stupid. I just said it made it easier for cops to get away with persecuting latinos. Do you concede that is the case? Notice that they took OUT the wording below, because it was basically saying racial profiling is OK as long as you have something else to back it up.

The original bill said that police "may not solely consider race, color, or national origin."

Bolded mine. Exactly, so race was one of the factors to be considered, you just couldn't make it your only one. Awesome. :rolleyes:

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Some guy from the Cato Institute says that Rand Paul was right, and that while the government can and should ban public discrimination, the constitution does not permit the government to ban private discrimination. It seems to me that, at least based on originalist principles, he has this almost exactly backward.

"Private discrimination" was very much on the mind of the framers of the 14th Amendment. The Force Act of 1870 prohibited certain private violations of civil rights, for example. Most of the same legislators who passed it later passed a bill banning private discrimination by public accommodations, which included inns, theaters, public conveyances and other "places of public amusement." El-ahrairah's whites-only steakhouse would presumably qualify as a place of public amusement; even if it did not, the difference is a matter of degree, not of kind. To the Reconstruction Republicans, they had the power to do this under Article V of the Fourteenth Amendment. (The subsequent Supreme Court cases that imposed a substantially narrower interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment were largely written by opponents of Reconstruction.)

Meanwhile, segregated education, although "public discrimination," was permitted by the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Congress that passed the Fourteenth Amendment was at the very same time funding segregated schools in the reconstructed South and the District of Columbia. (This is a problem for constitutional originalists, who end up tearing their originalist principles to mush in order to defend Brown v. Board of Education.)

[Tempra]

I never said it technically did. Because any law that came outright and said that would be stupid. I just said it made it easier for cops to get away with persecuting latinos. Notice that they took OUT the wording below, because it was basically saying racial profiling.

"The point is, the law makes it that much easier to racially profile and have protection from criminal prosecution. Obama is right."

Bolded mine. Exactly, so race was one of the factors to be considered, you just couldn't make it your only one. Awesome.

Yes, under the original wording, race could be a factor (but not the only factor). Now, it can no longer be considered at all, further bolstering my statement that this law does not legalize racial profiling.

[Tempra]

Trempra - You have done nothing to change my point, which is that it's all about what the law does in practice, not what it says on paper. You've actually used the textbook definition of a strawman. If your argument is about the language of the bill, then I'm not interested in debating you. My argument is that it's going to lead to cops being compelled to asign guilt to hispanics, fairly or not. In fact, this is such an obvious position that proponents of the bill like said bill specifically because it will do so.

You have no clue what the law will do in practice. Let's not pretend that you do. And because of the intense criticism of the bill, every tom, dick, and harry is going to be watching the move of EVERY arizona police officer with extreme scrutiny. If this bill survives constitutional scrutiny on preemption grounds, i'd wager that this bill has little effect on the rights of Hispanics.

And if you don't want to debate me, don't jump into my conversation with other people and call me obtuse.

[Shryke]

Trempra - You have done nothing to change my point, which is that it's all about what the law does in practice, not what it says on paper. You've actually used the textbook definition of a strawman. If your argument is about the language of the bill, then I'm not interested in debating you. My argument is that it's going to lead to cops being compelled to asign guilt to hispanics, fairly or not. In fact, this is such an obvious position that proponents of the bill like said bill specifically because it will do so.

Compelled legally in fact since the police can be sued for not enforcing the law strictly enough.

Beyond that, the law is such that the mere suspicion of you being an illegal on the part of the officer automatically makes you guilty unless you can prove otherwise.

Every person in Arizona (resident, tourist, passerby, etc) must now carry identification at all times, less they be stopped by the police and asked to produce the proof that they, in fact, are allowed to be in the USA.

You have no clue what the law will do in practice.

Yes we do. We can apply simple logic actually.

You don't need to stretch at all to see the various effects of this policy.

[sologdin]

And because of the intense criticism of the bill, every tom, dick, and harry is going to be watching the move of EVERY arizona police officer with extreme scrutiny

which is exactly the point of the incessant complaining: protest produces changes in governance.

if that's not agreeable, we can just admit that the US is a police state.

[Shryke]

Yeah, but the people arguing from the other side get to sue the police.

[Tempra]

Yes we do. We can apply simple logic actually.

You don't need to stretch at all to see the various effects of this policy.

Simple logic. :rofl: You have to read the bill (and understand it) before you can apply simple logic.

[Shryke]

Simple logic. :rofl: You have to read the bill (and understand it) before you can apply simple logic.

I'm sorry Tempra, that didn't sound like an answer to my last few questions.

I notice you are carefully avoiding the issue of this law forcing everyone to carry identification. It sounds like you don't actually understand the bill at all, for all your dick waving.

Simple, basic (probably beyond a Republican) logic dictates that at some point a non-illegal will be stopped by the police for something and then will be suspected by said police of being an illegal.

Following this very simple logic train to the next step, this law them compels everyone in the state of Arizona to be able to prove that they are not an illegal at all times.

Was that so hard Tempra?

[Tempra]

And because of the intense criticism of the bill, every tom, dick, and harry is going to be watching the move of EVERY arizona police officer with extreme scrutiny

which is exactly the point of the incessant complaining: protest produces changes in governance.

if that's not agreeable, we can just admit that the US is a police state.

I have no problem with people complaining about the bill. I have a problem with people spreading lies (saying this bill legalizes racial profiling) either out of ignorance or deceit. This is somewhat reminiscent to the right-wingers decrying the death panels to attack Obamacare.

[Tempra]

I'm sorry Tempra, that didn't sound like an answer to my last few questions.

I notice you are carefully avoiding the issue of this law forcing everyone to carry identification. It sounds like you don't actually understand the bill at all, for all your dick waving.

First off, I have little incentive to respond to you after you have twice attacked me personally (on this topic alone!).

Second, I do not care to answer every random hypothetical you can come up with, particularly because I have no confidence that you have read (and understand) the pertinent parts of the bill.

Third, I don't care whether this bill forces everyone to carry a license. The past 4-5 pages have been about whether this bill legalizes racial profiling. I am sure there are many faults with this bill, but legalizing racial profiling is not one of them.

[lokisnow]

I have no problem with people complaining about the bill. I have a problem with people spreading lies (saying this bill legalizes racial profiling) either out of ignorance or deceit. This is somewhat reminiscent to the right-wingers decrying the death panels to attack Obamacare.

ahh, well deathpanels nearly spelled the end of healthcare reform, so it was extraordinarily good lie for republicans. Dems don't have as skilled a liar as Palin, but if misrepresenting the bill is as effective a lie as deathpanels, then it is a lie worth spreading for democrats. republicans have shown recently over and over again that lying is an extremely effective strategy to win the hearts and minds of voters. :)

[alguien]

"The point is, the law makes it that much easier to racially profile and have protection from criminal prosecution. Obama is right."

Yeah. So? It does make it easier to persecute people by racial profiling. I didn't say it made it explicitly made it legal. What the hell is your point?

Yes, under the original wording, race could be a factor (but not the only factor). Now, it can no longer be considered at all, further bolstering my statement that this law does not legalize racial profiling.

Right, so even you admit it was racist, but now apparently you think because they changed the wording, it won't be. Well done.

[alguien]

I have no problem with people complaining about the bill. I have a problem with people spreading lies (saying this bill legalizes racial profiling) either out of ignorance or deceit. This is somewhat reminiscent to the right-wingers decrying the death panels to attack Obamacare.

Yes, sterling work in arguing the language and defending minute strawmen. Too bad no one has said it actually legalizes it. This is what's been happening:

"This bill is very discriminatory and alarming, and in practice will be akin to racial profiling" -most people

"Wait! Nowhere does it explicitly say it allows racial profiling! That's illegal! Quit spreading malicious lies about this precious and much abused bill!" -You

Way to ignore the substance of the debate and focus on pointless rhetorical minutia. You're a real hero.

:rofl: To compare this to death camp healthcare scare is rank idiocy. Which, by the way, I didn't notice you screaming to defend health care against that lie. Keep digging yourself deeper, my friend.

[Shryke]

Second, I do not care to answer every random hypothetical you can come up with, particularly because I have no confidence that you have read (and understand) the pertinent parts of the bill.

It's not random at all. I'm trying in vain to get you to actually think for a second.

I'm using simple common situations to show you the ACTUAL effects of the bill.

One of which is that it gives the police broad powers of detainment against people unless they can immediately show that they are legally allowed to be in the US.

Third, I don't care whether this bill forces everyone to carry a license. The past 4-5 pages have been about whether this bill legalizes racial profiling. I am sure there are many faults with this bill, but legalizing racial profiling is not one of them.

No, SOME of the last few pages have been about that. Large parts have not.

It's good to know you simply don't care about a law that mandates that people carry ID at all times though. Glad to know you are a friend of facism. (Though let's be honest here, we all know you've always secretly yearned for a cold-hearted Republican who’ll cut taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king)

[Shryke]

Rand Paul is a believer .....in the NAFTA superhighway: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/rand_paul_beware_the_nafta_superhighway_video.php?ref=fpa

:rofl:

[TrackerNeil]

Just because every law shouldn't be repealed doesn't mean that no laws should be repealed.

Well, I know we shouldn't be repealing time-tested, effective laws simply on the unfounded, wishful-thinking assumption that people will still continue to behave in the absence of legal requirements and protections.

[Shryke]

Come on man, the US President is Black. That means racism is officially over. No need for Civil Rights legislation no more.

[Lord Mord]

Tempra,

EDIT: On second thought, skip it. I disagree with you, but you've taken plenty of useless personal flak as it is. Thanks for sticking around and staying polite.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Rand Paul is a believer .....in the NAFTA superhighway: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/rand_paul_beware_the_nafta_superhighway_video.php?ref=fpa

Is this really a surprise? He courted far-right militias, he has far-right political views, so of course he believes in far-right conspiracy theories. It's only a matter of time before they uncover a video of him inveighing against the Cloward-Piven strategy or how the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified.