they're writing a law targeting illegal aliens.

i figure that much is obvious.

So you know their intent?

(Using aliens is an example of dehumanizing, since you were struggling with the concept earlier.)

There...fixed that for you.

Just an oddball question...if they are illegal and undocumented, how do we know then that they make up a high amount of the population?

Let me try this again, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, without me having to screw around with statistics and websites, can you answer the question?

no. i read the law.

aliens is the correct term.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alien

1. a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization

So you don't know their intent either?

And using a "correct term" doesn't make it an "appropriate term."

Dictionaries define a lot of things.

These quotes highlight why I cannot see the push to challenge the 14th amendment as anything other than reactionary racism:
Source

it specifically states illegal or undocumented aliens in the law. so unless it says something else on a magical page that i didn't see, that's who it's intended to target.

appropriate is a matter of perspective. what you think is appropriate might not be what someone else views as appropriate. that doesn't change the fact that it's correct.

I think you are are missing is what's "correct" vs what leaves you with a swollen lip. :cool:

I don't see the word "alien" as being dehumanizing, it is used in the INA and other laws to describe non citizens. How about we use undocumented migrant from now on.?

**snickers**

You specifically challenged DS by saying he didn't know what the lawmakers' intents were. The law they wrote literally only shows the actions. You have no greater an idea of their intent than DS does and his reading is not less valid because you disagree.

Usually you go with what the people in the population prefer, similar with racial, ethnic, gender, sexuality and any other identity oriented language. Just because the dictionary says X doesn't mean that X is a good word to use.

I use "undocumented residents." The term "illegal alien" is uncouth.

I tend to fall on illegal immigrants as it is as close to neutral as I can use without typically getting harassed for *~*ignoring*~* that they're here illegally.

wrong. the fact that the law specifically states illegal aliens, indicates who they're intending to go after. nowhere in the bill does it state anything about race. DS is inferring race. i'm not inferring illegal aliens.

i'm not worried about the feeling of illegal aliens.

if you can't handle a differing opinion without attempting to threaten bodily harm, then you need to thicken your skin and get a better argument..

But you, yourself stated that the highest abounts of illegals in the country and in Az ARE Hispanics.

There is no other state right now that is taking a more aggressive stance against illegal immigrants, WHO ALSO are Hispanic, who ALSO form a large majority of that state than Arizona...I mean Texas has postured, and I believe California has also. Virginia has laws on their books...but do this, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Arizona is not just targeting Hispanic people.

have we heard about them going after illegal Asians, Greeks or Polish people?

No.

What about Cubans, Haitians or Brazialians?

No.


African Americans? ...maybe.

Manybe I have been under a rock all this time but for some reason, every time I hear or see images about the Arizona immigration issue, I see old white lawmakers going after what looks to be Latino people...so I think you have a difficult case in proving for a fact that this law covers ALL illegals and is not singling out one race in particular.

maybe it's just my POV but also after being a victim of profiling I may have a bit of bias with with this law.

BTW, you never did answer my question...I will take that as you don't have an answer.

it's targetting illegal aliens. 5/6 illegal aliens are of hispanic decent. that doesn't mean that it's targettig hispanics. unless you're insinuating that hispanics are all illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal...gal_immigrants

screw with these statistics. that's my answer.

Nope...that's what Arizona is doing.

In other words, YOU PERSONALLY don't have an answer...thanks.

You know you are mad when you try to make someone go to wikipedia.... :)

no, that's what you're doing. don't let your bias cloud your judgement.

if you clicked the link, then you'd realize that that site cites the studies it gets it's numbers from. but strictly for the unmotivated and lazy:


http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s...LL_PE_2005.pdf

windmilling shows how little you actually know.

So stop being unmovitivated and lazy and answer, where do YOU think they got the estimates from...anyone can click a website. I asked YOU to answer the question.

I can go to Pew, I can go to wikipedia, hell I can call my s/o (who works for DHS)on the phone and ask HER to pull stats....I didn't.

I asked YOU for your opinion.

If you are citing websites, at least tell me why you used them...or is that too hard?

oh yeah...BTW it's 'descent'.

and rather than trying to get someone to run around to all of these websites, you should have started right here:

Estimating the size of the unauthorized population living in the United States is challenging because of data limitations. There are no national surveys, administrative data, or other sources of information that directly provide accurate estimates of this population. As a consequence, the unauthorized immigrant population must be estimated by making certain assumptions and by combining data that measure events with those that measure populations.

Me:

Just an oddball question...if they are illegal and undocumented, how do we know then that they make up a high amount of the population?


What your document says:

We are just taking a guess buddy.

So, you don't know what their intent was, you're just assuming that it was nothing more than what was written down.

And that's yet another form of dehumanization.

this is your question

because pew hispanic center said so.

because the dhs said so.

that's all you can go off of. unless you have that magic page that didnt make it to the final bill. or someone told you differently.

No, it's not. You're confusing actions and words with intent.

You also haven't even begun to examine the effects.

MUCH better...that wasn't so hard now was it?

Now...why did you choose those particular websites to prove your point?

What makes them better than say...the Census bureau's website?

well, do you have any additional information as to their intent? or is all we can work with is the bill they wrote?

Do you have any information that disproves the intent that we presently see?

LOL. because i didn't feel like looking for it.

yea, i do. HB2162

do you have any proof that what you "see" if their intent?

How is HB2162 definative proof?

becuase it calls out illegal aliens and not white, black or hispanic.

and it's definitive

if that's the case, then Judge Bolton should not have struck down the key portions of it that more or less allow for profiling then, right?

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/20...-kobach-email/
http://a.imageshack.us/img824/139/ko...ail8174342.jpg
This bill was also followed up by a bill banning ethnic studies and the push for a law that would challenge the 14th amendment.

ETA: As well as a "birther" sponsored bill that would require all candidates to prove citizenship.

she stated that the "racial profiling" argument was speculative and would require that the be in place to prove. she didn't strike anything down. she put it on hold for further litigation.

sooo....cars on blocks = hispanic?

or too many people in a house = hispanic?


btw, i vehemently disagree with the subsequent bills proposed.

True, my mistake...however, for that reasoning alone with the history that the US has with police officers gunning down minorities that 'fit the description' (and getting away with it), I think it's very wise to make sure that Hispanics have a fairer crack at due process than other minorities in the US have had when it comes down to facing law enforcement.



Arizona is not New York.