Arizona passes nation's toughest immigration law (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Tim said the same thing about middle-eastern people after 9/11...

How would you know what I said after 9/11? I didn't start posting in the FFA until 2007.

Because you are as transparent as reading glasses.

really? Your assumption is incorrect. I think there is nothing wrong with profiling young Middle Eastern looking men at airports, as these are the most likely to commit the crime of terrorism. I don't believe in political correctness, at least with regard to that issue. Terrorism is a serious concern in America that we need to combat. I don't believe that profiling in this manner is irrational. Obviously I would not target all Middle Eastern people. But it defies common sense not to do this.But the analogy to illegal immigration fails. First, being an illegal immigrant shouldn't be a crime. Though it is one, I do not believe this is a serious crime that the government needs to "protect" us from. Since that is my position, I am opposed to ANY proposal that might even hint at a sacrifice of individual liberties. While I am certainly willing to give up some portion of those liberties to secure us from terrorism and other terrible crimes, I am not willing to give up anything in order to prosecute the undocumented.

 

[bg0546]

How does everyone feel about going through security at airports?Do you feel you are being harassed? Are you going to protest?I mean, they are checking our IDs, searching our stuff, and even doing body scans in some cases. And we are under no suspicion whatsoever that we are doing anything illegal.

Not really the same thing as shaking down short hispanic women who are minding their own business walking home from Wal Mart.

Which, of course, would be illegal under this bill.

 

[bg0546]

I think there is nothing wrong with profiling young Middle Eastern looking men at airports, as these are the most likely to commit the crime of terrorism. I don't believe in political correctness, at least with regard to that issue. Terrorism is a serious concern in America that we need to combat. I don't believe that profiling in this manner is irrational. Obviously I would not target all Middle Eastern people. But it defies common sense not to do this.But the analogy to illegal immigration fails. First, being an illegal immigrant shouldn't be a crime. Though it is one, I do not believe this is a serious crime that the government needs to "protect" us from. Since that is my position, I am opposed to ANY proposal that might even hint at a sacrifice of individual liberties. While I am certainly willing to give up some portion of those liberties to secure us from terrorism and other terrible crimes, I am not willing to give up anything in order to prosecute the undocumented.

Ah, Hypocrisy at it's finest.

 

[timschochet]

I think there is nothing wrong with profiling young Middle Eastern looking men at airports, as these are the most likely to commit the crime of terrorism. I don't believe in political correctness, at least with regard to that issue. Terrorism is a serious concern in America that we need to combat. I don't believe that profiling in this manner is irrational. Obviously I would not target all Middle Eastern people. But it defies common sense not to do this.But the analogy to illegal immigration fails. First, being an illegal immigrant shouldn't be a crime. Though it is one, I do not believe this is a serious crime that the government needs to "protect" us from. Since that is my position, I am opposed to ANY proposal that might even hint at a sacrifice of individual liberties. While I am certainly willing to give up some portion of those liberties to secure us from terrorism and other terrible crimes, I am not willing to give up anything in order to prosecute the undocumented.

Ah, Hypocrisy at it's finest.

I challenge you. Where in my post am I being hypocritical?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Tim said the same thing about middle-eastern people after 9/11...life doesn't seem to be so bad for them here and it's almost like they get profiled LESS at airports than say...my 9 year old daughter or some 80 year old grandfather.

All I know is a lot of people get profiled at airports and nearly everyone is fine with it. I've seen a 70yo grandmother getting a spread eagle patdown. A guy I work with from India who has a green card and owns a home in the US spent hours in a questioning room at LAX. Sometimes I get taken aside to get my backpack swabbed right before getting on the plane, which causes me more difficulty getting to my seat later...I have no issue profiling and inconveniencing people to control our illegal immigration problem.

Isn't what you're describing at airports the opposite of profiling?

 

[tommyGunZ]

I think there is nothing wrong with profiling young Middle Eastern looking men at airports, as these are the most likely to commit the crime of terrorism. I don't believe in political correctness, at least with regard to that issue. Terrorism is a serious concern in America that we need to combat. I don't believe that profiling in this manner is irrational. Obviously I would not target all Middle Eastern people. But it defies common sense not to do this.But the analogy to illegal immigration fails. First, being an illegal immigrant shouldn't be a crime. Though it is one, I do not believe this is a serious crime that the government needs to "protect" us from. Since that is my position, I am opposed to ANY proposal that might even hint at a sacrifice of individual liberties. While I am certainly willing to give up some portion of those liberties to secure us from terrorism and other terrible crimes, I am not willing to give up anything in order to prosecute the undocumented.

Ah, Hypocrisy at it's finest.

I challenge you. Where in my post am I being hypocritical?

You're not against profiling per se, you're just against it when it doesn't fit your agenda.Sorry tim, I'm with you more often than not, but you're wrong here, IMO.

 

[bg0546]

I think there is nothing wrong with profiling young Middle Eastern looking men at airports, as these are the most likely to commit the crime of terrorism. I don't believe in political correctness, at least with regard to that issue. Terrorism is a serious concern in America that we need to combat. I don't believe that profiling in this manner is irrational. Obviously I would not target all Middle Eastern people. But it defies common sense not to do this.But the analogy to illegal immigration fails. First, being an illegal immigrant shouldn't be a crime. Though it is one, I do not believe this is a serious crime that the government needs to "protect" us from. Since that is my position, I am opposed to ANY proposal that might even hint at a sacrifice of individual liberties. While I am certainly willing to give up some portion of those liberties to secure us from terrorism and other terrible crimes, I am not willing to give up anything in order to prosecute the undocumented.

Ah, Hypocrisy at it's finest.

I challenge you. Where in my post am I being hypocritical?

You're hypocritical at the point where YOU get to decide what the appropriate laws are in this country. The country has passed both laws you cite. They're the laws of the land. If you have a problem with one of them you change the law. I'm fine with you being for "comprehensive immigration reform", AKA Amnesty. But when you say you're ok with profiling for one law that YOU happen to agree with, but not ok with profiling for another law that YOU happen to not agree with, then you're being hypocritical. YOU don't get to decide when profiling is allowed or not. Either you support it in all cases or none. Otherwise, you're as big a hypocrite as you called Mexico for having draconian immigration laws while whining about ours.

 

[Bogeys]

...

Tim said the same thing about middle-eastern people after 9/11...life doesn't seem to be so bad for them here and it's almost like they get profiled LESS at airports than say...my 9 year old daughter or some 80 year old grandfather.

I hear this fairly frequently, but I've seen little in my travels to indicate that this is the case.

One component of this is how many 80 years do you see when you travel? Since I would guess that most travel is for business purposes, 80 year olds traveling on an airplane is a very low percentage of travelers.My dad was given a full search, and he needed wheelchair assistance to travel to the gate. NSA gave him the full baton/pat down when he traveled when he traveled back to New Orleans.

ETA: My dad was 82 at the time.

I'm not denying that octogenarians don't get searched from time to time. What I take issue with is the assertion that middle-easterners get profiled less than 80-year-olds and 9-year olds.

I fly about 10 times a year and will get the TSA extra special attention about 8 out of those 10. I am convinced (with absolutely nothing to back it up ) that the reason is that I am 6'4", blonde and blue; I don't fit the "profile" of what people think of as a terrorist so they get me to fill in a non-middle eastern type quota. I have a very common black rollerbag, dress business casual or in shorts depending on the time of year, am not visiting anywhere remotely terrorist related and in no way stand out other than height.I also have no problem with it (other than philisophical) since it really only takes about 5 minutes of my time and I don't enjoy sitting at the gate that much anyway.

 

[bg0546]

You're not against profiling per se, you're just against it when it doesn't fit your agenda.Sorry tim, I'm with you more often than not, but you're wrong here, IMO.

I knew I could have said that in a more concise manner.

 

[tommyGunZ]

...

Tim said the same thing about middle-eastern people after 9/11...life doesn't seem to be so bad for them here and it's almost like they get profiled LESS at airports than say...my 9 year old daughter or some 80 year old grandfather.

I hear this fairly frequently, but I've seen little in my travels to indicate that this is the case.

One component of this is how many 80 years do you see when you travel? Since I would guess that most travel is for business purposes, 80 year olds traveling on an airplane is a very low percentage of travelers.My dad was given a full search, and he needed wheelchair assistance to travel to the gate. NSA gave him the full baton/pat down when he traveled when he traveled back to New Orleans.

ETA: My dad was 82 at the time.

I'm not denying that octogenarians don't get searched from time to time. What I take issue with is the assertion that middle-easterners get profiled less than 80-year-olds and 9-year olds.

I fly about 10 times a year and will get the TSA extra special attention about 8 out of those 10. I am convinced (with absolutely nothing to back it up ) that the reason is that I am 6'4", blonde and blue; I don't fit the "profile" of what people think of as a terrorist so they get me to fill in a non-middle eastern type quota. I have a very common black rollerbag, dress business casual or in shorts depending on the time of year, am not visiting anywhere remotely terrorist related and in no way stand out other than height.I also have no problem with it (other than philisophical) since it really only takes about 5 minutes of my time and I don't enjoy sitting at the gate that much anyway.

 

[timschochet]

You're not against profiling per se, you're just against it when it doesn't fit your agenda.Sorry tim, I'm with you more often than not, but you're wrong here, IMO.

You're perfectly welcome to disagree with me, but that doesn't make me hypocritical. Rather than the phrase, "fitting my agenda", I would argue that I am favor of profiling in extreme instances when security concerns warrant it. Terrorism is such an extreme instance. I'm actually having trouble thinking of others off the top of my head. It would have to be an extreme instance on the level of terrorism to warrant such a thing. But that certainly doesn't mean that I would justify it in all instances.An analogy might be made to torture. As I have expressed before, I am in favor of the use of torture, if necessary, under a "ticking time-bomb" scenario- where that torture will immediately result in the saving of lives. I am not in favor of it under any other circumstances, and I don't think my position excuses what the Bush administration did. I do not believe this is a hypocritical position.

 

[tommyGunZ]

How does everyone feel about going through security at airports?Do you feel you are being harassed? Are you going to protest?I mean, they are checking our IDs, searching our stuff, and even doing body scans in some cases. And we are under no suspicion whatsoever that we are doing anything illegal.

Not really the same thing as shaking down short hispanic women who are minding their own business walking home from Wal Mart.

Which, of course, would be illegal under this bill.

How so?

 

[Christo]

You're not against profiling per se, you're just against it when it doesn't fit your agenda.Sorry tim, I'm with you more often than not, but you're wrong here, IMO.

You're perfectly welcome to disagree with me, but that doesn't make me hypocritical. Rather than the phrase, "fitting my agenda", I would argue that I am favor of profiling in extreme instances when security concerns warrant it. Terrorism is such an extreme instance. I'm actually having trouble thinking of others off the top of my head. It would have to be an extreme instance on the level of terrorism to warrant such a thing. But that certainly doesn't mean that I would justify it in all instances.An analogy might be made to torture. As I have expressed before, I am in favor of the use of torture, if necessary, under a "ticking time-bomb" scenario- where that torture will immediately result in the saving of lives. I am not in favor of it under any other circumstances, and I don't think my position excuses what the Bush administration did. I do not believe this is a hypocritical position.

Everything you say in this thread is tainted with your "agenda"--your belief that illegals shouldn't even be considered illegal.

 

[timschochet]

You're not against profiling per se, you're just against it when it doesn't fit your agenda.Sorry tim, I'm with you more often than not, but you're wrong here, IMO.

You're perfectly welcome to disagree with me, but that doesn't make me hypocritical. Rather than the phrase, "fitting my agenda", I would argue that I am favor of profiling in extreme instances when security concerns warrant it. Terrorism is such an extreme instance. I'm actually having trouble thinking of others off the top of my head. It would have to be an extreme instance on the level of terrorism to warrant such a thing. But that certainly doesn't mean that I would justify it in all instances.An analogy might be made to torture. As I have expressed before, I am in favor of the use of torture, if necessary, under a "ticking time-bomb" scenario- where that torture will immediately result in the saving of lives. I am not in favor of it under any other circumstances, and I don't think my position excuses what the Bush administration did. I do not believe this is a hypocritical position.

Everything you say in this thread is tainted with your "agenda"--your belief that illegals shouldn't even be considered illegal.

Of course. What's your point?

 

[Christo]

How does everyone feel about going through security at airports?Do you feel you are being harassed? Are you going to protest?I mean, they are checking our IDs, searching our stuff, and even doing body scans in some cases. And we are under no suspicion whatsoever that we are doing anything illegal.

Not really the same thing as shaking down short hispanic women who are minding their own business walking home from Wal Mart.

Which, of course, would be illegal under this bill.

How so?

Really? People now have to go back and explain the basics to you? Like the fact that cops can't just walk up to people and ask them if they're here legally.

 

[17seconds]

Tim said the same thing about middle-eastern people after 9/11...life doesn't seem to be so bad for them here and it's almost like they get profiled LESS at airports than say...my 9 year old daughter or some 80 year old grandfather.

All I know is a lot of people get profiled at airports and nearly everyone is fine with it. I've seen a 70yo grandmother getting a spread eagle patdown. A guy I work with from India who has a green card and owns a home in the US spent hours in a questioning room at LAX. Sometimes I get taken aside to get my backpack swabbed right before getting on the plane, which causes me more difficulty getting to my seat later...I have no issue profiling and inconveniencing people to control our illegal immigration problem.

Isn't what you're describing at airports the opposite of profiling?

Yes. But I don't care how they choose to select people, whether it's everyone or some group.A cop can stop me on the road for any reason and ask for my drivers license and I expect that. Why do I care whether it was a random stop or he didn't like the way I look? What matters is whether I broke the law.

 

[Christo]

You're not against profiling per se, you're just against it when it doesn't fit your agenda.Sorry tim, I'm with you more often than not, but you're wrong here, IMO.

You're perfectly welcome to disagree with me, but that doesn't make me hypocritical. Rather than the phrase, "fitting my agenda", I would argue that I am favor of profiling in extreme instances when security concerns warrant it. Terrorism is such an extreme instance. I'm actually having trouble thinking of others off the top of my head. It would have to be an extreme instance on the level of terrorism to warrant such a thing. But that certainly doesn't mean that I would justify it in all instances.An analogy might be made to torture. As I have expressed before, I am in favor of the use of torture, if necessary, under a "ticking time-bomb" scenario- where that torture will immediately result in the saving of lives. I am not in favor of it under any other circumstances, and I don't think my position excuses what the Bush administration did. I do not believe this is a hypocritical position.

Everything you say in this thread is tainted with your "agenda"--your belief that illegals shouldn't even be considered illegal.

Of course. What's your point?

Nevermind. I should have known not to engage you again in this thread.

 

[Rich Conway]

I think there is nothing wrong with profiling young Middle Eastern looking men at airports, as these are the most likely to commit the crime of terrorism. I don't believe in political correctness, at least with regard to that issue. Terrorism is a serious concern in America that we need to combat. I don't believe that profiling in this manner is irrational. Obviously I would not target all Middle Eastern people. But it defies common sense not to do this.

But the analogy to illegal immigration fails. First, being an illegal immigrant shouldn't be a crime. Though it is one, I do not believe this is a serious crime that the government needs to "protect" us from. Since that is my position, I am opposed to ANY proposal that might even hint at a sacrifice of individual liberties. While I am certainly willing to give up some portion of those liberties to secure us from terrorism and other terrible crimes, I am not willing to give up anything in order to prosecute the undocumented.

The bolded portion has no bearing on what laws we should enforce. It's your opinion, and opposite what the law actually is.I feel certain there are those who believe rape shouldn't be a crime, or at the very least, that it's not a "serious crime". Should we investigate and prosecute it less vigorously because some don't believe it's a serious crime?

 

[tommyGunZ]

You're not against profiling per se, you're just against it when it doesn't fit your agenda.Sorry tim, I'm with you more often than not, but you're wrong here, IMO.

You're perfectly welcome to disagree with me, but that doesn't make me hypocritical. Rather than the phrase, "fitting my agenda", I would argue that I am favor of profiling in extreme instances when security concerns warrant it. Terrorism is such an extreme instance. I'm actually having trouble thinking of others off the top of my head. It would have to be an extreme instance on the level of terrorism to warrant such a thing. But that certainly doesn't mean that I would justify it in all instances.An analogy might be made to torture. As I have expressed before, I am in favor of the use of torture, if necessary, under a "ticking time-bomb" scenario- where that torture will immediately result in the saving of lives. I am not in favor of it under any other circumstances, and I don't think my position excuses what the Bush administration did. I do not believe this is a hypocritical position.

Cool, I disagree with you. You're being hypocritical. Just b/c you justify profiling by throwing "extreme circumstances" in there, doesn't make it less hypocritical. I'm sure everyone who advocates profiling believes their problems are extreme.

 

[Saints-Man]

You're not against profiling per se, you're just against it when it doesn't fit your agenda.Sorry tim, I'm with you more often than not, but you're wrong here, IMO.

You're perfectly welcome to disagree with me, but that doesn't make me hypocritical. Rather than the phrase, "fitting my agenda", I would argue that I am favor of profiling in extreme instances when security concerns warrant it. Terrorism is such an extreme instance. I'm actually having trouble thinking of others off the top of my head. It would have to be an extreme instance on the level of terrorism to warrant such a thing. But that certainly doesn't mean that I would justify it in all instances.An analogy might be made to torture. As I have expressed before, I am in favor of the use of torture, if necessary, under a "ticking time-bomb" scenario- where that torture will immediately result in the saving of lives. I am not in favor of it under any other circumstances, and I don't think my position excuses what the Bush administration did. I do not believe this is a hypocritical position.

Cool, I disagree with you. You're being hypocritical. Just b/c you justify profiling by throwing "extreme circumstances" in there, doesn't make it less hypocritical. I'm sure everyone who advocates profiling believes their problems are extreme.

I am in firm agreement with TG on this one. Tim, you are being hypocritical.

 

[Bogeys]

I hear this fairly frequently, but I've seen little in my travels to indicate that this is the case.

One component of this is how many 80 years do you see when you travel? Since I would guess that most travel is for business purposes, 80 year olds traveling on an airplane is a very low percentage of travelers.My dad was given a full search, and he needed wheelchair assistance to travel to the gate. NSA gave him the full baton/pat down when he traveled when he traveled back to New Orleans.

ETA: My dad was 82 at the time.

I'm not denying that octogenarians don't get searched from time to time. What I take issue with is the assertion that middle-easterners get profiled less than 80-year-olds and 9-year olds.

I fly about 10 times a year and will get the TSA extra special attention about 8 out of those 10. I am convinced (with absolutely nothing to back it up ) that the reason is that I am 6'4", blonde and blue; I don't fit the "profile" of what people think of as a terrorist so they get me to fill in a non-middle eastern type quota. I have a very common black rollerbag, dress business casual or in shorts depending on the time of year, am not visiting anywhere remotely terrorist related and in no way stand out other than height.I also have no problem with it (other than philisophical) since it really only takes about 5 minutes of my time and I don't enjoy sitting at the gate that much anyway.

What is ? That I get secondaries on a regular basis? I get them all the time (pretty much everytime in Minneapolis for some reason) and I used to get the secondary bag check at the gate when they were doing those also. Why would you think I would make something like that up, especially when I also said I have no real problem with it?

 

[timschochet]

Nevermind. I should have known not to engage you again in this thread.

You don't need to engage me personally. Of course all of my viewpoints on this subject are biased- I go in with a premise which I know to be unpopular and always will be. That, however, shouldn't matter. Either my arguments are convincing in themselves, WHATEVER my premise, or they aren't. My only regret in you choosing not to engage me is that earlier I asked you to make a prediction about whether or not this law will be upheld- not based upon your personal opinion about whether it SHOULD, but whether it will be. I had hoped that, given your legal expertise you would be able to provide some insightful thoughts on this matter. Despite the fact that I disagree with you often, I really do respect a lot of your commentary, when you choose to make it.

 

[17seconds]

You're not against profiling per se, you're just against it when it doesn't fit your agenda.Sorry tim, I'm with you more often than not, but you're wrong here, IMO.

You're perfectly welcome to disagree with me, but that doesn't make me hypocritical. Rather than the phrase, "fitting my agenda", I would argue that I am favor of profiling in extreme instances when security concerns warrant it. Terrorism is such an extreme instance. I'm actually having trouble thinking of others off the top of my head. It would have to be an extreme instance on the level of terrorism to warrant such a thing. But that certainly doesn't mean that I would justify it in all instances.An analogy might be made to torture. As I have expressed before, I am in favor of the use of torture, if necessary, under a "ticking time-bomb" scenario- where that torture will immediately result in the saving of lives. I am not in favor of it under any other circumstances, and I don't think my position excuses what the Bush administration did. I do not believe this is a hypocritical position.

Everything you say in this thread is tainted with your "agenda"--your belief that illegals shouldn't even be considered illegal.

Of course. What's your point?

Nevermind. I should have known not to engage you again in this thread.

Yeah it's kind of impossible to argue with someone who doesn't believe in the concept of sovereignty.

 

[Rich Conway]

You're not against profiling per se, you're just against it when it doesn't fit your agenda.Sorry tim, I'm with you more often than not, but you're wrong here, IMO.

You're perfectly welcome to disagree with me, but that doesn't make me hypocritical. Rather than the phrase, "fitting my agenda", I would argue that I am favor of profiling in extreme instances when security concerns warrant it. Terrorism is such an extreme instance. I'm actually having trouble thinking of others off the top of my head. It would have to be an extreme instance on the level of terrorism to warrant such a thing. But that certainly doesn't mean that I would justify it in all instances.An analogy might be made to torture. As I have expressed before, I am in favor of the use of torture, if necessary, under a "ticking time-bomb" scenario- where that torture will immediately result in the saving of lives. I am not in favor of it under any other circumstances, and I don't think my position excuses what the Bush administration did. I do not believe this is a hypocritical position.

Cool, I disagree with you. You're being hypocritical. Just b/c you justify profiling by throwing "extreme circumstances" in there, doesn't make it less hypocritical. I'm sure everyone who advocates profiling believes their problems are extreme.

Exactly. I feel certain that many in Arizona consider the flood of illegals an extreme circumstance.Twice in two days I've agreed with tGunz. What have you done with the real tGunz?

 

[timschochet]

Cool, I disagree with you. You're being hypocritical. Just b/c you justify profiling by throwing "extreme circumstances" in there, doesn't make it less hypocritical. I'm sure everyone who advocates profiling believes their problems are extreme.

I believe that extreme measures MAY be applicable under extreme circumstances. I do not believe that extreme measures are ever reasonable under non-extreme circumstances, which happens to be 95%. If you find this to be a hypocritical attitude, then perhaps you're definition of the term is broader than mine is. I can only assure you that there is no deliberate intention of hypocrisy on my part.

 

[Rich Conway]

Cool, I disagree with you. You're being hypocritical. Just b/c you justify profiling by throwing "extreme circumstances" in there, doesn't make it less hypocritical. I'm sure everyone who advocates profiling believes their problems are extreme.

I believe that extreme measures MAY be applicable under extreme circumstances. I do not believe that extreme measures are ever reasonable under non-extreme circumstances, which happens to be 95%. If you find this to be a hypocritical attitude, then perhaps you're definition of the term is broader than mine is. I can only assure you that there is no deliberate intention of hypocrisy on my part.

This is like kaa decrying deficit spending except when Bush did it "heroically" to stave off depression. He wasn't being hypocritical because those extreme circumstances of the economy at the time justified it, right?

 

[timschochet]

I feel certain that many in Arizona consider the flood of illegals an extreme circumstance.

I recognize this. Obviously, I disagree with them. Hence my opposition to this law.BTW, 17 Seconds, I am in favor of sovereignity. I simply don't think that it means preventing free trade of goods on our borders.

 

[Rich Conway]

I feel certain that many in Arizona consider the flood of illegals an extreme circumstance.

I recognize this. Obviously, I disagree with them. Hence my opposition to this law.BTW, 17 Seconds, I am in favor of sovereignity. I simply don't think that it means preventing free trade of goods on our borders.

And that's what makes it hypocritical. You're fine with a certain action by the government, but only when it benefits your agenda.

 

[tommyGunZ]

How does everyone feel about going through security at airports?Do you feel you are being harassed? Are you going to protest?I mean, they are checking our IDs, searching our stuff, and even doing body scans in some cases. And we are under no suspicion whatsoever that we are doing anything illegal.

Not really the same thing as shaking down short hispanic women who are minding their own business walking home from Wal Mart.

Which, of course, would be illegal under this bill.

How so?

Really? People now have to go back and explain the basics to you? Like the fact that cops can't just walk up to people and ask them if they're here legally.

I have no desire to get into a long, annoying argument over how cops will "reasonably suspect" someone is here illegally just by looking at them. Agree to disagree.

 

[timschochet]

Cool, I disagree with you. You're being hypocritical. Just b/c you justify profiling by throwing "extreme circumstances" in there, doesn't make it less hypocritical. I'm sure everyone who advocates profiling believes their problems are extreme.

I believe that extreme measures MAY be applicable under extreme circumstances. I do not believe that extreme measures are ever reasonable under non-extreme circumstances, which happens to be 95%. If you find this to be a hypocritical attitude, then perhaps you're definition of the term is broader than mine is. I can only assure you that there is no deliberate intention of hypocrisy on my part.

This is like kaa decrying deficit spending except when Bush did it "heroically" to stave off depression. He wasn't being hypocritical because those extreme circumstances of the economy at the time justified it, right?

I didn't read kaa so I can't answer that. As for me, if I had written somewhere that I don't believe in racial profiling under any circumstances and here's why, then you would be justified in calling me a hypocrite. But to the best of my knowledge, I have never written that. I have stated that profiling is wrong in this case, and I have stated why. I have also stated my support for it in the case of terrorism. I have done this in the past and now. Another difference is, per your example, kaa is defending something he is normally against because his hero decided to do it- if true, a clear case of hypocrisy. To the best of my knowledge, there is no profiling of young Middle Eastern men at airports- I think there should be. But I certainly cannot be accused of defending some hero of mine, since nobody is actually doing this, can I?

 

[bg0546]

I have no desire to get into a long, annoying argument over how cops will "reasonably suspect" someone is here illegally just by looking at them. Agree to disagree.

There is no argument about that. Even if a cop looks at one and decides he's illegal he can't stop him or investigate him just because he's made that decision. Pretty sure this was covered on page one.

 

[timschochet]

I feel certain that many in Arizona consider the flood of illegals an extreme circumstance.

I recognize this. Obviously, I disagree with them. Hence my opposition to this law.BTW, 17 Seconds, I am in favor of sovereignity. I simply don't think that it means preventing free trade of goods on our borders.

And that's what makes it hypocritical. You're fine with a certain action by the government, but only when it benefits your agenda.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. I was in favor of TARP, because I thought it was necessary. Does this mean I now have to be in favor of every proposed government bailout in the future, otherwise I am a hypocrite?

 

[tommyGunZ]

I fly about 10 times a year and will get the TSA extra special attention about 8 out of those 10. I am convinced (with absolutely nothing to back it up ) that the reason is that I am 6'4", blonde and blue; I don't fit the "profile" of what people think of as a terrorist so they get me to fill in a non-middle eastern type quota. I have a very common black rollerbag, dress business casual or in shorts depending on the time of year, am not visiting anywhere remotely terrorist related and in no way stand out other than height.

I also have no problem with it (other than philisophical) since it really only takes about 5 minutes of my time and I don't enjoy sitting at the gate that much anyway.

What is ? That I get secondaries on a regular basis? I get them all the time (pretty much everytime in Minneapolis for some reason) and I used to get the secondary bag check at the gate when they were doing those also. Why would you think I would make something like that up, especially when I also said I have no real problem with it?

Sorry, but I don't believe you go through heightened security 80% of the time. I found it hard to believe as I read the sentence initially, then decided it was complete BS when you added your tin foil hat theory about the gov't using you to fill up some kind of quota. Nothing personal Bogey, I just don't buy it. I bet if we really ran the numbers, even if you're unluckly, you go through heightened security 1/3 of as often as you think you do.

 

[Rich Conway]

I fly about 10 times a year and will get the TSA extra special attention about 8 out of those 10. I am convinced (with absolutely nothing to back it up ) that the reason is that I am 6'4", blonde and blue; I don't fit the "profile" of what people think of as a terrorist so they get me to fill in a non-middle eastern type quota. I have a very common black rollerbag, dress business casual or in shorts depending on the time of year, am not visiting anywhere remotely terrorist related and in no way stand out other than height.

I also have no problem with it (other than philisophical) since it really only takes about 5 minutes of my time and I don't enjoy sitting at the gate that much anyway.

What is ? That I get secondaries on a regular basis? I get them all the time (pretty much everytime in Minneapolis for some reason) and I used to get the secondary bag check at the gate when they were doing those also. Why would you think I would make something like that up, especially when I also said I have no real problem with it?

Sorry, but I don't believe you go through heightened security 80% of the time. I found it hard to believe as I read the sentence initially, then decided it was complete BS when you added your tin foil hat theory about the gov't using you to fill up some kind of quota. Nothing personal Bogey, I just don't buy it. I bet if we really ran the numbers, even if you're unluckly, you go through heightened security 1/3 of as often as you think you do.

Depending on how he flies, it may well be 80% of the time. When I used to fly significantly for business, it would very frequently be on short shuttle trips (e.g. Houston to Dallas, Boston to New York, etc.), so I would usually have no advance reservation and would be buying a one-way ticket. I got heightened security treatment a large portion of the time, likely because of the way in which I purchased the ticket.

 

[Bogeys]

I fly about 10 times a year and will get the TSA extra special attention about 8 out of those 10. I am convinced (with absolutely nothing to back it up ) that the reason is that I am 6'4", blonde and blue; I don't fit the "profile" of what people think of as a terrorist so they get me to fill in a non-middle eastern type quota. I have a very common black rollerbag, dress business casual or in shorts depending on the time of year, am not visiting anywhere remotely terrorist related and in no way stand out other than height.

I also have no problem with it (other than philisophical) since it really only takes about 5 minutes of my time and I don't enjoy sitting at the gate that much anyway.

What is ? That I get secondaries on a regular basis? I get them all the time (pretty much everytime in Minneapolis for some reason) and I used to get the secondary bag check at the gate when they were doing those also. Why would you think I would make something like that up, especially when I also said I have no real problem with it?

Sorry, but I don't believe you go through heightened security 80% of the time. I found it hard to believe as I read the sentence initially, then decided it was complete BS when you added your tin foil hat theory about the gov't using you to fill up some kind of quota. Nothing personal Bogey, I just don't buy it. I bet if we really ran the numbers, even if you're unluckly, you go through heightened security 1/3 of as often as you think you do.

Depending on how he flies, it may well be 80% of the time. When I used to fly significantly for business, it would very frequently be on short shuttle trips (e.g. Houston to Dallas, Boston to New York, etc.), so I would usually have no advance reservation and would be buying a one-way ticket. I got heightened security treatment a large portion of the time, likely because of the way in which I purchased the ticket.

Actually in Dallas it is because I refuse the nude-o-scope machines so get it automatically, so I guess you may or may not count that since I wouldn't get the secondary if I would submit to that. And yeah, thinking about it since you said that you are probably right about the 80% (although it does feel like it at times) but it would be over 50% of the time. Like I said I have absolutely no proof and there may be something I pack or wear or how I act that causes it, but if so I have no clue what it would be. And sitting at the gate waiting for boarding to start might boredom maybe the cause of the on my part when I fly.

 

[Christo]

Not really the same thing as shaking down short hispanic women who are minding their own business walking home from Wal Mart.

Which, of course, would be illegal under this bill.

How so?

Really? People now have to go back and explain the basics to you? Like the fact that cops can't just walk up to people and ask them if they're here legally.

I have no desire to get into a long, annoying argument over how cops will "reasonably suspect" someone is here illegally just by looking at them. Agree to disagree.

Agree to disagree about what? You apparently still don't understand that cops can't approach someone merely on the suspicion that they are illegal.

 

[Statorama]

I fly about 10 times a year and will get the TSA extra special attention about 8 out of those 10. I am convinced (with absolutely nothing to back it up ) that the reason is that I am 6'4", blonde and blue; I don't fit the "profile" of what people think of as a terrorist so they get me to fill in a non-middle eastern type quota. I have a very common black rollerbag, dress business casual or in shorts depending on the time of year, am not visiting anywhere remotely terrorist related and in no way stand out other than height.

I also have no problem with it (other than philisophical) since it really only takes about 5 minutes of my time and I don't enjoy sitting at the gate that much anyway.

What is ? That I get secondaries on a regular basis? I get them all the time (pretty much everytime in Minneapolis for some reason) and I used to get the secondary bag check at the gate when they were doing those also. Why would you think I would make something like that up, especially when I also said I have no real problem with it?

Sorry, but I don't believe you go through heightened security 80% of the time. I found it hard to believe as I read the sentence initially, then decided it was complete BS when you added your tin foil hat theory about the gov't using you to fill up some kind of quota. Nothing personal Bogey, I just don't buy it. I bet if we really ran the numbers, even if you're unluckly, you go through heightened security 1/3 of as often as you think you do.

Last four times I've flown I've been pulled out of line twice...and I'm as white as Ron Howard.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Hypocritical isn't simply a synonym for wrong or inconsistent.

A hypocrite is not someone who says "X is wrong in some situations but not in others." Rather, a hypocrite is someone who says "X is wrong," but then engages in X himself.

 

[Statorama]

I'm trying to decide which state was the most embarrassing this week. Was it Arizona, for passing this law? Oklahoma, for their anti-abortion laws? Or Alabama, for supporting a gubnatorial candidate who demands that you speak English or get the Hell out?Hard to decide.

Arizona also passed the birther law this week

Are you speaking to the law that reinforces the Presidential eligibility requirement in the Constitution?Kind of odd that states have to pass laws in order to get any kind of enforcement of the single most important document in the land...

hmmmmm.....Obama seems to be just a little bit extra cranky about some legislation that cracks down hard on illegal immigrants....maybe those birthers were on to something.

 

[Running with scissors]

Welcome to Arizona, have a nice day.

 

[cubd8]

If you turn on NBC News or read the NY Times, you'd think that the vast majority of people are against this law.

Interesting that poll after poll has anywhere from 51-59 percent in favor of it, and about 35-40% against it.

I think in Arizona it 60-30 in favor of this law, but you'd never know it by the coverage that the media is giving this.

Interesting.

 

[Neofight]

This needs to be posted in this thread as well:

Machete

Love the timing of the release with the law taking effect in August, the film coming out on September 3rd and then the midterms a few months later. Particularly love De Niro's (Texas Senator) line about illegals dancing across the border being an "overt act of terrorism." It's like art imitating life imitating art. That AZ gubernatorial election is going to be muy picante come November. Let's hope El Machete is not around.

As a bonus, the cast is insanely hot.

 

[perry147]

This needs to be posted in this thread as well:

Machete

Love the timing of the release with the law taking effect in August, the film coming out on September 3rd and then the midterms a few months later. Particularly love De Niro's (Texas Senator) line about illegals dancing across the border being an "overt act of terrorism." It's like art imitating life imitating art. That AZ gubernatorial election is going to be muy picante come November. Let's hope El Machete is not around.

As a bonus, the cast is insanely hot.

 

[bg0546]

Arizona governor not backing down, turns up the heat:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/07/brut...on-immigration/

 

[greenroom]

Lets see how Arizona does when it starts to hit them in the pocketbook from when people stop going to AZ. It has already started and is gaining. I

 

[littletank]

Lets see how Arizona does when it starts to hit them in the pocketbook from when people stop going to AZ. It has already started and is gaining. I

Why would people stop going to a state where it's safer?

 

[Neofight]

Lets see how Arizona does when it starts to hit them in the pocketbook from when people stop going to AZ. It has already started and is gaining. I

Why would people stop going to a state where it's safer?

Safer than where and what?

 

[jonessed]

Arizona governor not backing down, turns up the heat:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/07/brut...on-immigration/

That seems like it would be pretty effective.

 

[videoguy505]

...As it stands now, someone in this country illegally pretty much has to show up at an INS facility with a plane ticket to Veracruz and ask if he can get a ride to the airport to get shipped out of here.

I wasn't joking

The landmark settlement has prompted the Correction Department to dump scores of illegal immigrants on the streets, since federal officials often fail to pick them up within the required two-day window.

Federal immigration agents have office space on Rikers Island, and the city allows them to interview roughly 4,000 inmates each year. They put a hold, or "detainer," on 3,200 of those inmates who they discover are illegals.

But ICE often fails to transfer those detainees within the required 48 hours of their criminal cases being resolved, multiple jail sources said.

"We just release them now," one high-ranking jail supervisor said. "It's ICE's problem to go find these guys."

 

[Thorn]

Interesting article in the ABA Journal detailing lhucks' boy, Sheriff Arpaio's attack on the rule of law, culminating in a lawyers' protest on the courthouse steps after the attempted arrest of a sitting judge who wasn't ruling the way the sheriff wanted. Fairly long article, but suffice it to say that I don't think I'd be trusting this guys opinion on much of anything.

Link

On Dec. 21, in the afternoon sunshine that passes for winter in Phoenix, several hundred well-dressed protesters—most of them lawyers—gathered on the Maricopa County courthouse plaza.

Summoned by an e-mail from a local lawyer, they brought handmade signs that were quaint by protest standards: “Rule of Law!” “Free Judges/Free People.”

Holding handouts, they recited the oath they gave when joining the bar, their voices rising for the last section: “I will not counsel or maintain any suit or proceeding that shall appear to me to be without merit or to be unjust.”

The immediate cause of their concern was a charge of bribery filed against a local superior court judge. Announced in vague terms at a news conference some days earlier, the charge was brought without indictment by the local prosecutor, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas.

But the criminal complaint against Judge Gary Donahoe was the last straw for these Phoenix-area lawyers, who had watched hardball politics overpower Maricopa’s courts.

The day after the protest, Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, whose offices had been drawn into the mess in Maricopa, wrote in the Arizona Republic: “I can no longer sit by quietly and watch from a distance. ... I am conservative and passionately believe in limited government, not the totalitarianism that is spreading before my eyes.”

Alongside Thomas, at the center of all this, is Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the 77-year-old lawman whose caustic and controversial approach to crime and criminals has earned him the moniker “America’s toughest sheriff.” To the glee of Maricopa County voters, “Sheriff Joe” has become nationally famous for his “tent city” jail, chain gang labor and very public inmate marches designed to humiliate—featuring pink handcuffs and pink underwear.