You are not logged in.

Gougai! Gougai!

HOLY SHIT PEOPLE, IT'S NOT BAD ENOUGH WE'RE GETTING AN UTENA EXHIBITION RIGHT NOW

THEY. ARE. MAKING. A. NEW. MUSICAL. NEXT. YEAR. START LOSING YOUR SHIT RIGHT NOW

#151 | Back to Top03-30-2010 07:52:08 PM

KissFromARose
Thorn of Death
From: Austin, Tx
Registered: 09-29-2008
Posts: 506

Re: Politics

Prince_of_Stars wrote:

*Prince's words here*

*big applauds*

However, i understand what satyr says....

I am all PRO-George Washington.... when he said No partys! i hate the two-party system and think its utterly stupid... men should be voted for based on character, not what initial is before their name.


But i could go on for hours...

once again, i don't get too involved.. i get too upset emot-tongue

it didnt submit correctly so i edddididiidididitited it.

Last edited by KissFromARose (03-30-2010 07:53:30 PM)

Offline

 

#152 | Back to Top04-14-2010 12:34:53 AM

Prince_of_Stars
Someday Shiner
From: The Hellsing Organization
Registered: 06-12-2008
Posts: 4165
Website

Re: Politics

Once again, I've read something in the news on Yahoo that has caught my attention. Apparently, the Westboro church in their ignorance has struck again, this time protesting at the funeral of a Marine. Now, whether or not you know it, I've enlisted into the Army, and will be heading off for basic in July. To me, this is a serious insult. I'm all for freedom of expression; if you don't like the war, fine. You hate homosexuality, good on you. But to go and disrespect a dead man because you believe his death is God's way of punishing a trouble ridden U.S.? Overdone, and far too much. Not everyone who joins the military is joining to fight the war, and a lot of people misunderstand that. The reason I joined was not to fight in Iraq, and my MOS has nothing to do with Iraq. A lot of people are just like me; they need money to go to college, and the only way to do it is through the military. I don't agree with the war in Iraq. I don't at all. But this man may have felt differently. It doesn't matter, because he fought with conviction, and he died fighting for what he believed in. He fought for this country, no matter how misguided the fight, he did this for his country. I am angry that the courts have to even debate over this matter. I'm not good at explaining things, so the article is below. What do you think about this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_funeral_p … -container


http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c174/chani_sama/prince-sig.png

Sir Hellsing: Leader of the Feminine Failure Revolution
Faithfully failing at feminine tasks, gender roles, and the conventionality of femininity since 1990.

Offline

 

#153 | Back to Top04-14-2010 01:58:07 AM

KissFromARose
Thorn of Death
From: Austin, Tx
Registered: 09-29-2008
Posts: 506

Re: Politics

Prince, I just got out of the army... have you gone through MEPS and the like? id love to talk to you and give you some advice and pointers before you ship out.

I agree with you though, that church is ridiculous. I wouldn't even call it a church.... i wouldn't even call them christians. emot-frown sad to say. Thanks to those marines and soldiers they have the ability to do and say those things.

Offline

 

#154 | Back to Top04-14-2010 02:04:53 AM

Prince_of_Stars
Someday Shiner
From: The Hellsing Organization
Registered: 06-12-2008
Posts: 4165
Website

Re: Politics

Yep, I've already spent half my life in MEPS going through the initial physical that ok'ed me for basic. A little advice is always a good thing, especially for me.


http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c174/chani_sama/prince-sig.png

Sir Hellsing: Leader of the Feminine Failure Revolution
Faithfully failing at feminine tasks, gender roles, and the conventionality of femininity since 1990.

Offline

 

#155 | Back to Top04-14-2010 11:29:41 AM

minervana
High Tripper
Registered: 10-10-2009
Posts: 246

Re: Politics

DerJakob wrote:

That aside, I'm not sure if any of you keep up on other European politics, (I only do a little because I study German), but in Germany a similar nationalist party has been on the rise. The NPD (Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands / National Democratic Party of German) is a far-right nationalist party that actually succeeded the Deutsche Reichspartei (scary stuff srsly), and has been gaining popularity in certain parts of Germany, namely the former East. Being that the German constitution was modeled rather closely after the American in the late 1940s, freedom of speech is a general tenet. Problem is, because of Germany's tumultuous past, there are laws concerning certain types of speech (namely Nazi phrases, gestures, and Holocaust/Shoah denial) that forbid and have criminalized them.The NPD has thus come under a lot of fire for its racist and almost neo-Nazi rhetoric, and because of the laws (and their semi-vague wording) the NPD has been excluded from all sorts of public forums. I don't on any level support the NPD, although I support its legal right to exist considering freedom of speech, however this whole situation is incredibly problematic mostly because of Germany's very unique and horrible history. Thoughts? Feelings?

I lived in Berlin for awhile, so I know what you're talking about. This was a big story, especially when Thor Steinar stores started popping up in trendy parts of Berlin. Thor Steinar is basically a nazi sympathetic brand, which neo-nazis use as a not-so-coded signal that they agree with National Socialism. Since it's illegal to wear a swastika or an ss symbol they wear coded symbols, like "18" (AH are the first and eighth letters of the alphabet) or "88." Everybody knows what it means, but the police can't do anything about it.

I really wonder what the German police are going to do about this. In 2008 there was a raid on some neo-nazi compound and they had weapons, bomb materials, all sorts of scary stuff. I know that Germany has some outreach programs for "at risk" youths. The only problem is a lot of these Neo-Nazis are just really, really dumb. As in, their shoe size is higher than their IQ dumb. They like having a simple black and white solution as to why their life sucks. Some of them are also probably psychopaths, so I don't know how the government is going to deal with that.

Speaking only from anecdotal experience, i.e. reading the paper, talking to people and seeing signs, stickers etc., I know that the anti-fascist movement seemed a lot stronger than the fascist movement; in 18 months I saw a thousand antifa stickers and maybe three swastikas. Doesn't mean they're not there, they're just less visible.

Honestly, I'm more worried about the influx of Muslim immigrants (to Germany and the rest of Europe) than Neo Nazis. Many people believe that, because all the Muslims they personally know are good or okay people, then there's no problem. But that's usually comes from attributing the characteristics of one person or a few people to an entire group, instead of thinking in probabilities. There really is a culture clash between Islam and secular democracy, and this clash exists regardless of how racist Europeans are. Germany should be especially concerned because some Muslims are very anti-semitic, even to the point of murder. And I find it improbable that a majority of Germans will become neo-nazis , whereas the threat of a terrorist attack or a religious war is very real indeed.

Last edited by minervana (04-14-2010 11:46:40 AM)

Offline

 

#156 | Back to Top04-14-2010 02:42:04 PM

Asfalolh
Knight of Gates
From: Barcelona (Catalonia)
Registered: 10-23-2006
Posts: 2005

Re: Politics

minervana wrote:

Honestly, I'm more worried about the influx of Muslim immigrants (to Germany and the rest of Europe) than Neo Nazis. Many people believe that, because all the Muslims they personally know are good or okay people, then there's no problem. But that's usually comes from attributing the characteristics of one person or a few people to an entire group, instead of thinking in probabilities. There really is a culture clash between Islam and secular democracy, and this clash exists regardless of how racist Europeans are.

I can't say I agree with you. My background: in my hometown (Vic, North-East of Spain, some 40.000 inhab.), around a 15% of the population is Muslim, and half of these are what they'd call first generation immigrants. 1% of the population is neo-Nazi (maximum). 20% of the votes in the last elections went to the far-right, anti-Muslim party; this is closely related to DerJakob's post, because this party grew from 1 representative to 4 out of a chamber of 21 members.

Believe me when I say that the few neo-Nazis around are way more scary and threatening to the liberal democracy I live in than the 15% of Muslim inhabitants. The comparison is outrageous. I concede that it's possible that we need to consider how many newcomers our markets can actually take in successfully (to mention one of the few reasonable topics that the aforementioned far-right party puts on the table). We might also, like in France, want to discuss if there are any 'cultural' features we need to force on everyone so that our country doesn't lose its so-called essence. But looking at them (as a whole) as a threat is in my opinion excessive. They don't have one only ideology; they don't have a secret agenda of world (or European) domination; they aren't radicals nor fanatics nor irrational individuals. A good percentage of them are as Catalan as I am; and of course I share with some of them similar views on a variety of topics.

Germany should be especially concerned because some Muslims are very anti-semitic, even to the point of murder.

Germans should be concerned about anti-Semitism, regardless of what's the religion of each potential criminal. Anecdotally, the only fully anti-Semitic (and other equally despicable adjectives) person I know was actually born in a German family, and I assure you he's not a Muslim (he also hates Muslims, probably right after Jews and gays). On another note, I wonder if it's also usual in other parts of the world that neo-Nazis are also deeply anti-Muslims.

And I find it improbable that a majority of Germans will become neo-nazis , whereas the threat of a terrorist attack or a religious war is very real indeed.

Do you think that the possibility of a terrorist attack or a religious war is actually related to the influx of Muslim immigrants? Really? Please tell me how so. By this token, Vic's criminality indexes should be sky-rocketing, but they are not.

Offline

 

#157 | Back to Top04-15-2010 10:43:33 AM

Arki
Dark Whisperer
From: Croatia
Registered: 10-28-2006
Posts: 1120

Re: Politics

Asfalolh wrote:

Believe me when I say that the few neo-Nazis around are way more scary and threatening to the liberal democracy I live in than the 15% of Muslim inhabitants.

Okay... So I'm not a politically-aware person and I don't know the situation in Vic other than the info you've just outlined, but I'm wondering out loud how true is that. I'd think neo-Nazis would be easier to take care of because there's so few of them and it's clear to the majority of people that they're a bunch of raging lunatics with extremist opinions no one believes to be true but them. It's easy to dismiss someone with such aggressive tactics. "Oh. Never-mind them. They're just crazy." Not to mention they'll probably never get any significant political power.

I think a larger minority would be much more influential. They've successfully integrated themselves into the culture and community of the majority. They've adopted some of the opinions and feelings surrounding it and have become friends with the locals. It's much harder to dislike people like that and sometimes there is no reason to dislike them. But if such a minority would one day feel threatened by the majority for some reason, you bet they would team up. And they'd be difficult to deal with. And some people wouldn't want to deal with them "because they're so nice and friendly and just yesterday used to be my neighbour."

I'm not saying the Muslims are dangerous or suspicious. I have no insight in that and the idealist in me would like to believe we're capable of accepting every good person regardless of cultural background. In an ideal world, we wouldn't be discussing this at all. We'd be defining ourselves simply as 'people', but... It's not a perfect world and people feel very passionate about their own culture, to a point where it comes before the lives and feelings of actual human beings. And for what little I know about history, the minorities have usually been fighting for better recognition of their uniqueness in comparison with the majority, while the majority was concerned how the minority's influence is having a bad effect on the pureness of their own culture.

Offline

 

#158 | Back to Top04-15-2010 12:25:20 PM

Stormcrow
Magical Flying Moron
From: Los Angeles
Registered: 04-24-2007
Posts: 5971
Website

Re: Politics

I'm afraid you defeat your own arguments there Arki. If the large minority that you describe has adopted enough of the majority culture to be accepted, then they become part of the majority culture. Or at least, enough that tensions are manageable. The US is a great example, we have all kinds of ethnic diversity. And yes, we do have problems relating to it, mostly because the majority don't understand that there are issues. But armed insurrection by black people, or Mexican people, or Chinese people? Not going to happen. Instead, we have the give and take of democracy, and the "worst" that happens is that the majority needs to adopt some of the minority's values instead of debasing them. Now, the case of Muslims in Europe has some special problems. I hate to generalize, but a big issue is that over the last forty years Muslims have been marginalized in European cities and countries, making it almost impossible for the integration you describe to occur. Shockingly, this had bred some resentment. And the fact that these minorities can be resentful breeds resentment among the majority as well, which is precisely WHY the right-wing extremists are so threatening.

Just some more numbers here: In the Netherlands, the anti-Muslim PVV party is expected to win 27 of the 150 seets in the Dutch parliament. The anti-Jewish party FN can call up 15-20% of votes in France. In Italy, the anti-immigrant Northern League captured 12.7% of the vote last year. The anti-Gypsy party Jobbik won about 15% of the votes in Hungary. And even in Germany, where people should know better if they know anything at all, the neo-Nazi NPD party is able to poll close to 10% in places. I couldn't find any good info about the far right in Croatia or Spain. emot-wink

Anyway, what all this adds up to is that the number of people that want non-white folk to disappear is alarmingly high in Europe, and getting higher.


"The devil want me as is, but god he want more."
-Truck North
Honorary Hat Mafia Member

Offline

 

#159 | Back to Top04-15-2010 03:08:29 PM

Asfalolh
Knight of Gates
From: Barcelona (Catalonia)
Registered: 10-23-2006
Posts: 2005

Re: Politics

Arki wrote:

Okay... So I'm not a politically-aware person and I don't know the situation in Vic other than the info you've just outlined, but I'm wondering out loud how true is that. I'd think neo-Nazis would be easier to take care of because there's so few of them and it's clear to the majority of people that they're a bunch of raging lunatics with extremist opinions no one believes to be true but them. It's easy to dismiss someone with such aggressive tactics.

Maybe I didn't understand this paragraph well, but your wording seems to imply that you think that we should "take care of" (your words) of Muslims in the same way we "take care of" neo-Nazis. With this comparison, you are saying that one random Muslim is as threatening as a neo-Nazi; that each Muslim is as extremist as a neo-Nazi. In my opinion, this is a simplistic point of view, since it overlooks the fact that not all Muslims share the same ideology, or the same political opinions, or the same views on religion. Being a much larger group (if it's a group at all), Muslims are much more diverse than neo-Nazis, and judging all of them as a whole is quite unfair.

I think a larger minority would be much more influential. They've successfully integrated themselves into the culture and community of the majority. They've adopted some of the opinions and feelings surrounding it and have become friends with the locals. It's much harder to dislike people like that and sometimes there is no reason to dislike them. But if such a minority would one day feel threatened by the majority for some reason, you bet they would team up. And they'd be difficult to deal with. And some people wouldn't want to deal with them "because they're so nice and friendly and just yesterday used to be my neighbour."

The prospective of a country-wide Islamic rebellion is non-existent at the moment, I'd say (irresponsible in-joke: I'll eat up my words the day they ask for the independence of the Islamic Republic of Vic. emot-wink). There's no point in starting to dislike them now just in case at some point they happen to team up and conspire against (how to put this) alabaster-white, Catholic-backgrounded Catalans. They might have some political power and influence, yet statistics right now show that their vote is divided between a few parties (mostly leftist, but not exclusively).

The point is that, as Stormcrow says, this 15% of integrated Muslim inhabitants are as Catalan as anyone else (or, in his example, as American as any other American). If they do get integrated (I don't really like this word, actually) and feel included in our society, in my opinion the only problem comes from those who are not willing to accept them and the potential changes and different values they bring. I'm not saying there aren't any tensions nor that discussion is not necessary (take the French case as an example being carried to the extreme: they started with head-coverings and now are discussing halal food, which is apparently discriminatory). There's a proportional connection between the percentage of Muslim immigrants in a town and the electoral results of far-right parties in that town, and this calls for discussion. It's important to know what triggers this reaction and what can be done. But considering them "forever foreigners" (or incompatible with secular democracy, even) only because of their religion is a mistake.

Stormcrow wrote:

Just some more numbers here: In the Netherlands, the anti-Muslim PVV party is expected to win 27 of the 150 seets in the Dutch parliament. The anti-Jewish party FN can call up 15-20% of votes in France. In Italy, the anti-immigrant Northern League captured 12.7% of the vote last year. The anti-Gypsy party Jobbik won about 15% of the votes in Hungary. And even in Germany, where people should know better if they know anything at all, the neo-Nazi NPD party is able to poll close to 10% in places. I couldn't find any good info about the far right in Croatia or Spain. emot-wink

I accept the (worrying) numbers you provide, but yet, I must point out that not all the votes to the Italian Northern League (for instance) are anti-Muslim votes, since the Lega Nord is also known for their autonomist (call it nationalist if you wish) ideology. Of course, it's also worrying that some North Italy nationalists have nothing against voting such a party in spite of its blatant racism; but it's a little more difficult to tell apart which votes come from actual people who want nothing to do with non-white folk (I'm copying your expression in lack of a better one) and, in their case, nothing to do with Italian southerners either, and which come from people who are asking for a better control on their taxes or a stronger link between Catholic Church and State. I'm sure that this is not the single case.

Just to provide some more information, the far right in Spain is almost non-existent as a party: the right party (Partido Popular or PP, in case someone cares) swallows anything that gets righter than them. This has proven useful to avoid blatantly racist parties at a country level, but instead these far-right parties have appeared at local and regional level. My hometown has the honor (erm, wait) of being the origin of one of these far-right parties, which is just now trying to get some seats in the regional Parliament. The next elections are in a few months (June, I believe), and they expect getting around 4 seats out of 135. I'd say that if this is all they can get, well, it's not much. Fingers crossed: I'm afraid that a good portion of those who are disenchanted with the 'regular' parties (and it's no wonder there are so many of these) might end up voting for these and other extremist options.

Offline

 

#160 | Back to Top04-15-2010 03:19:34 PM

chrisb
Eternal Eschatologist
From: Tx,USA
Registered: 01-18-2010
Posts: 956

Re: Politics

Someone please tell me that not all Republicans are death threat sending tea party maniacs. I hate being partisan but the GOP is starting to really scare me lately.


http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a358/clow987/Christmas2011SSSigGift.png

Offline

 

#161 | Back to Top04-15-2010 04:15:25 PM

Arki
Dark Whisperer
From: Croatia
Registered: 10-28-2006
Posts: 1120

Re: Politics

Asfalolh wrote:

Maybe I didn't understand this paragraph well, but your wording seems to imply that you think that we should "take care of" (your words) of Muslims in the same way we "take care of" neo-Nazis. With this comparison, you are saying that one random Muslim is as threatening as a neo-Nazi; that each Muslim is as extremist as a neo-Nazi. In my opinion, this is a simplistic point of view...

I also think it's simplistic and I have no idea where you got the impression I was saying what you think I was saying. emot-confused I was simply saying that someone who actively throws hate-speech in your face (neo-Nazis) isn't going to be as much of a threat as someone who is wearing gloves and pretending to be your friend as long as it suits them. I'm not saying Muslims are the glove-wearing villains. I'm saying that a large minority that hasn't really integrated or accepted part of the majority's culture (thanks Stormy for pointing the specifics out) will have more influence than a few random skinheads.

Offline

 

#162 | Back to Top04-15-2010 04:32:14 PM

Asfalolh
Knight of Gates
From: Barcelona (Catalonia)
Registered: 10-23-2006
Posts: 2005

Re: Politics

Arki wrote:

I also think it's simplistic and I have no idea where you got the impression I was saying what you think I was saying. emot-confused I was simply saying that someone who actively throws hate-speech in your face (neo-Nazis) isn't going to be as much of a threat as someone who is wearing gloves and pretending to be your friend as long as it suits them. I'm not saying Muslims are the glove-wearing villains. I'm saying that a large minority that hasn't really integrated or accepted part of the majority's culture (thanks Stormy for pointing the specifics out) will have more influence than a few random skinheads.

I see! I don't know where I got the idea either, and I hope I didn't sound too accusatory. What I don't understand (maybe I should wait til tomorrow and re-read...) is who is this minority you talk about.

Offline

 

#163 | Back to Top04-15-2010 04:36:32 PM

Arki
Dark Whisperer
From: Croatia
Registered: 10-28-2006
Posts: 1120

Re: Politics

Actually, it's a hypothetical minority. None in particular. Just a possible one.

Offline

 

#164 | Back to Top04-15-2010 08:52:48 PM

Stormcrow
Magical Flying Moron
From: Los Angeles
Registered: 04-24-2007
Posts: 5971
Website

Re: Politics

I see your point Arki, a substantial minority is more of a concern than a tiny fringe group with no support. Well, except the tiny fringe groups with no support often have genuine monsters in them. You might want to have a look at Timothy McVeigh on wiki some time. emot-frown He's just our own local psycho, I'm sure there are others elsewhere.

And I also see your point asfa, but to me... it seems that if you really don't want people hating other races, there are other parties you could vote for, especially in European countries with dozens of parties to choose from. Voting for the northern league would be a bit like... voting for David Duke for president because you liked his agricultural plan. That's great and all, but the man is still a terrifying bigot.


"The devil want me as is, but god he want more."
-Truck North
Honorary Hat Mafia Member

Offline

 

#165 | Back to Top04-23-2010 08:22:59 PM

Imaginary Bad Bug
Revolutionary
From: Connecticut, USA
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 2168
Website

Re: Politics

Way to go Arizona, you just made racial profiling compulsory for law enforcement!

Law enforcement in AZ now has the green light to ask you to produce "your papers" at any time if they suspect you of looking like an illegal immigrant. This is fabulous news for all non-caucasians (especially those of Mexican or Hispanic heritage) who wish to visit Arizona now. And those that live there. And those who have been US citizens for generations but are of Latino descent.

Got vacation plans for AZ? Are you a citizen of the United States? Don't forget to bring your birth certificate and passport! Everyone in AZ is presumed illegal unless they can prove otherwise, now.

Last edited by Imaginary Bad Bug (04-23-2010 08:24:50 PM)


http://lh5.ggpht.com/_HERdW38xV_c/S5xZ2QVrIwI/AAAAAAAAApg/uNpckSbLgUw/s800/utenaban.jpg

Offline

 

#166 | Back to Top04-23-2010 08:31:20 PM

BioKraze
Faceless Master
From: Yuma, Arizona (USA)
Registered: 11-26-2006
Posts: 8280

Re: Politics

Imaginary Bad Bug wrote:

Way to go Arizona, you just made racial profiling compulsory for law enforcement!

Law enforcement in AZ now has the green light to ask you to produce "your papers" at any time if they suspect you of looking like an illegal immigrant. This is fabulous news for all non-caucasians (especially those of Mexican or Hispanic heritage) who wish to visit Arizona now. And those that live there. And those who have been US citizens for generations but are of Latino descent.

Got vacation plans for AZ? Are you a citizen of the United States? Don't forget to bring your birth certificate and passport! Everyone in AZ is presumed illegal unless they can prove otherwise, now.

Eeeeek. And I live in this state, too. Close enough to the Mexican border that I could take a day trip there if I wanted.

I understand that, as with all things, immigrants from Latin America will bear a few bad apples. But is this sort of draconian regulation really necessary, or has the Southwest (and maybe America in general) just become so painfully paranoid that not even I can comprehend it?

This sort of thing makes me sadface hard. emot-frown


Roses have thorns to stop those who would dare deny their right to live.
Razara's Postulate: For every lover of lesbians out there, there is an equal and opposite attraction to Dippin' Dots.

Offline

 

#167 | Back to Top04-26-2010 05:17:17 PM

minervana
High Tripper
Registered: 10-10-2009
Posts: 246

Re: Politics

Imaginary Bad Bug wrote:

Law enforcement in AZ now has the green light to ask you to produce "your papers" at any time if they suspect you of looking like an illegal immigrant. This is fabulous news for all non-caucasians (especially those of Mexican or Hispanic heritage) who wish to visit Arizona now. And those that live there. And those who have been US citizens for generations but are of Latino descent.

It's not illegal for a police officer to ask you for identification. It's not a human right to break immigration law, even if you've had tough breaks in your life. And most illegal immigrants in Arizona are from Central America. If illegal immigrants were mostly from Sweden, you'd have racial profiling of Swedes, or anyone with fair skin and light hair. If they were Scottish, anyone with a Scottish accent would be under greater scrutiny. Is that fair? No, but neither is life.

I don't think the problem with illegal immigration is violent crime, so much as increased competition for resources and decreased compensation for work, especially blue collar work. Nobody likes seeing their paycheck go down, especially while housing and rental prices go up. And when you're lax on illegal immigration, big businesses (agro business for example) can keep their workers in slave-like conditions, because they know that anyone who complains can be replaced by someone willing to work even harder for even less. It's not as simple as "sweet-natured abuela vs. racist cop."

Offline

 

#168 | Back to Top04-26-2010 07:32:46 PM

Imaginary Bad Bug
Revolutionary
From: Connecticut, USA
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 2168
Website

Re: Politics

minervana wrote:

It's not illegal for a police officer to ask you for identification. It's not a human right to break immigration law, even if you've had tough breaks in your life. And most illegal immigrants in Arizona are from Central America. If illegal immigrants were mostly from Sweden, you'd have racial profiling of Swedes, or anyone with fair skin and light hair. If they were Scottish, anyone with a Scottish accent would be under greater scrutiny. Is that fair? No, but neither is life.

I don't think the problem with illegal immigration is violent crime, so much as increased competition for resources and decreased compensation for work, especially blue collar work. Nobody likes seeing their paycheck go down, especially while housing and rental prices go up. And when you're lax on illegal immigration, big businesses (agro business for example) can keep their workers in slave-like conditions, because they know that anyone who complains can be replaced by someone willing to work even harder for even less. It's not as simple as "sweet-natured abuela vs. racist cop."

I'm not suggesting that police officers are all of a sudden going to go vigilante in Arizona and start asking every person who "looks foreign" to produce their papers. It may unintentionally create a rift between the Latino communities in AZ and their law enforcement, if the former begins to feel unjustly scrutinized by any passing officer. What this law seems to do is force local law enforcement to become immigration officers, when that shouldn't be part of their job. And the only probable cause they need now is "Hey, that person doesn't look like they're from around here." Yes, there is an immigration problem in this country, and yes it needs fixed, but the direction Arizona seems to want to go with it isn't the answer. Legalizing racial profiling and making entire ethnic groups of people who are and always have been natural US citizens for generations feel unwelcome in their own state is not the way to fix immigration.

I don't have a drop of Latino blood in me, and I am clear on the other side of the country, but I find this new law in Arizona to be appalling. I can only shake my head in wonder for those that are defending it. (And just to be clear, that last statement is not meant to be accusatory, it's just a general statement.)


http://lh5.ggpht.com/_HERdW38xV_c/S5xZ2QVrIwI/AAAAAAAAApg/uNpckSbLgUw/s800/utenaban.jpg

Offline

 

#169 | Back to Top04-26-2010 08:11:29 PM

BioKraze
Faceless Master
From: Yuma, Arizona (USA)
Registered: 11-26-2006
Posts: 8280

Re: Politics

minervana and Imaginary Bad Bug wrote:

Stuff about Arizona law enforcement thingy

Okay, I've heard the defenders' side of the argument. What it boils down to, if memory serves, is that the Border Patrol is severely understaffed, underfunded AND underappreciated. If you give the Border Patrol the money they need to do their job and enough manpower in the form of individuals who spend easily 12+ hours in the middle of 110+ degree Fahrenheit conditions just waiting on human and drug smugglers, you just might have brought about immigration reform.

People who work for the Border Patrol are seen as the bad guys by Latino immigrants (both legal and not) because they're challenging the immigrants' right to make a new life for themselves in America. They are seen as the bad guys by non-Latino Americans who either don't live in a place where drug wars are frequent on American soil or think that all people have a right to live however they choose in America as it is often touted as "the land of the free" (this last bulletpoint not directed at anybody on IRG, but I've known a few people from my past who thought along those lines).

Frequently these same people, hired to protect our national borders from such crimes as drug smuggling and human trafficking, are wounded or killed by return fire from the people involved in ensuring said crimes go unpunished. As I am given to understand, a fair number of these criminals happen to be American themselves.

I see no right or wrong in this law and the political situation that surrounds it, as I see no right or wrong in a soldier sent to Iraq or Afghanistan on the orders of a higher ranking official (another kettle of blue and red fish altogether, but I was generally mindful of the ancient code "never discuss race, religion or politics in mixed company" as I've gotten enough angry glares from people in high school before 9/11). All I see is a pitch black sea of dry kindling and tinders. I am not one to envy the position of a Border Patrol officer or an active duty military person. Too often those who fight on the front are scorned for their actions as ordered by others. As a general message, remember well the trials of Vietnam and those who fought for a war they did not believe in (being the son of a man who lived 21 years under the yoke of the military but never lost his civilian identity, and being a very mimicky person will make one say stuff like that).


Roses have thorns to stop those who would dare deny their right to live.
Razara's Postulate: For every lover of lesbians out there, there is an equal and opposite attraction to Dippin' Dots.

Offline

 

#170 | Back to Top04-26-2010 08:42:48 PM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10328
Website

Re: Politics

There are about a dozen different issues with Arizona's law, any one of which ought to be enough to make a reasonable person second-guess it, but instead I'm going to talk about the drug war.

Bio points out, correctly, that a lot of people who think we treat illegal immigrants too harshly have never had the misfortune of living in a place with rampant illegal immigration.  By most accounts the worst part is the gunfire.  The US/Mexico border is where most foreign-made drugs, particularly marijuana, get into the country.  The gunfire happens because addicts are trying to steal pot, drug dealers are trying not to get their pot stolen by addicts, gang members are trying to defend the turf where the drug dealers sell their pot, and SWAT teams are trying to confiscate pot from everyone concerned.  It sounds like a nightmare.  It's a nightmare that's made immigration hotbeds, as well as northern Mexico, into the sites of some of the worst organized crime and gang-related violence since Prohibition.

One of the legitimate goals of immigration reform at all levels of government is to make this violence go away.  From this point of view, immigration is one of the theaters in which the war on drugs is being fought.  I think, though, that we're engaging in wishful thinking when we try to tackle marijuana with harsher laws and tighter borders.  We've been fighting the war on drugs for forty years.  Guess what?  Drugs won.  At a certain point we have to say "if we can't beat 'em, join 'em."

What if we legalized and regulated marijuana for sale over the counter?  Just like that, most of the gang violence falls away.  No one kills each other over a substance they can buy at CVS.  The price of pot goes down, since major distributors simply airlift bushels of pot into the country, instead of pot getting here when criminals risk their lives to run it across the border.  With lower prices, it's not worth the while of criminal syndicates to deal in marijuana.  Fewer syndicates means fewer gangs and fewer smugglers, which means less violence and less illegal immigration.  Meanwhile, we save billions of dollars by not fighting the war on marijuana and by not incurring the enormous expense of locking up tens of thousands of people who have done nothing wrong but possess or sell pot.  The downside?  Probably more people toke up.  To me the cost-benefit analysis is pretty persuasive.  And certainly something we ought to consider before we approve pat-downs of anyone brown in Arizona.

Last edited by satyreyes (04-26-2010 08:47:55 PM)

Offline

 

#171 | Back to Top04-26-2010 09:25:36 PM

Hedgehogey
Framed Landscaper
Registered: 01-30-2008
Posts: 430

Re: Politics

The gunfire happens because addicts are trying to steal pot

Marijuana isn't addictive.

Offline

 

#172 | Back to Top04-26-2010 09:30:07 PM

Hedgehogey
Framed Landscaper
Registered: 01-30-2008
Posts: 430

Re: Politics

They are seen as the bad guys by non-Latino Americans who either don't live in a place where drug wars are frequent on American soil or think that all people have a right to live however they choose in America as it is often touted as "the land of the free" (this last bulletpoint not directed at anybody on IRG, but I've known a few people from my past who thought along those lines).

I believe that the right to peacably immigrate is a human right. I put human needs over little lines drawn in the sand.

I base this opinion on having been to Mexico, being a human rights observer there, and knowing the terrible damage the USA did to the Mexican economy by dropping the bottom out of the peso with NAFTA.

Offline

 

#173 | Back to Top04-26-2010 09:54:24 PM

satyreyes
no, definitely no cons
From: New Orleans, Louisiana
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 10328
Website

Re: Politics

Hedgehogey wrote:

The gunfire happens because addicts are trying to steal pot

Marijuana isn't addictive.

Fair enough.  Opportunists, then.

Offline

 

#174 | Back to Top04-27-2010 06:57:12 AM

Stormcrow
Magical Flying Moron
From: Los Angeles
Registered: 04-24-2007
Posts: 5971
Website

Re: Politics

I have one particular problem with the law. In a free society, police are NOT entitled to demand identification from citizens who are not engaged in anything suspicious. If I were walking down the street and someone, anyone, asked me to identify myself, I'd ask them if they knew me. Otherwise, it's not their business who I am. If an officer wants to search me, and make no mistake, asking for my "papers" is a search, he can get a warrant like any honest officer needs to do before searching a citizen. Our legal system is based on the presumption of innocence, and this law destroys that. To me, this is outrageous, and if it remains in place, it is the end of our free society. Requiring citizens to carry papers identifying themselves to move around is something that happens in police states.

Like Satyr says, lots of other problems, but that's the one that bothers me the most.


"The devil want me as is, but god he want more."
-Truck North
Honorary Hat Mafia Member

Offline

 

#175 | Back to Top04-27-2010 11:32:18 AM

Imaginary Bad Bug
Revolutionary
From: Connecticut, USA
Registered: 10-16-2006
Posts: 2168
Website

Re: Politics

Stormcrow wrote:

Our legal system is based on the presumption of innocence, and this law destroys that. To me, this is outrageous, and if it remains in place, it is the end of our free society. Requiring citizens to carry papers identifying themselves to move around is something that happens in police states.

Like Satyr says, lots of other problems, but that's the one that bothers me the most.

Exactly. In Arizona, everyone is now presumed guilty of being illegal unless they can prove otherwise, and the only probable cause needed for them to ask for your papers is that they think you look like an illegal alien. If you're walking down the street to 7-11 to get a Slurpee, and a police officer decides that something seems odd about the way you're walking, they are permitted to stop you mid-stride and ask for your proof of US residency. You don't need to be engaging in suspicious behavior for them to stop you and ask. That's the most offensive part of the new law.

Last edited by Imaginary Bad Bug (04-27-2010 11:36:18 AM)


http://lh5.ggpht.com/_HERdW38xV_c/S5xZ2QVrIwI/AAAAAAAAApg/uNpckSbLgUw/s800/utenaban.jpg

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB 1.2.23
© Copyright 2002–2008 PunBB
Forum styled and maintained by Giovanna and Yasha
Return to Empty Movement