General Convention moving...

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by ladygreek

While I applaud the intent behind Alpha Phi Alpha's decision, I have to say I also applaud the intent behind Arizona's law. I am glad they are making reforms to it to clarify it. *minority opinion*

While I don't think anyone agrees with illegal immigration, this law is wrong on so many levels. My understanding of the most recent 'clarification' is that the police can only question immigration status through lawful contact, ie suspected criminal or civil infraction. I thought that was the status quo, but maybe I am wrong. If so, then what was the intent of the law but to muddy the waters and stick the taxpayers of Arizona with the expense of a federal function....?

ETA: Well thought out argument here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randal..._b_559663.html

[ladygreek]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

While I don't think anyone agrees with illegal immigration, this law is wrong on so many levels. My understanding of the most recent 'clarification' is that the police can only question immigration status through lawful contact, ie suspected criminal or civil infraction. I thought that was the status quo, but maybe I am wrong. If so, then what was the intent of the law but to muddy the waters and stick the taxpayers of Arizona with the expense of a federal function....?

ETA: Well thought out argument here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randal..._b_559663.html

Yes it is a well thought our argument and one sided. To be fair I would like to read one from the other side. Seriously, as I have gotten older I have become less likely to jump on a bandwagon especially when I am not directly impacted.

I do not know much about Arizona, and as neither a Dem, nor a Repub I really don't want to make a judgement based on politically, partisan arguments.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by ladygreek

I do not know much about Arizona, and as neither a Dem, nor a Repub I really don't want to make a judgement based on politically, partisan arguments.

I am also neither a Dem nor a Repub and know that all of the naysayers are not making political, partisian arguments.

For instance, discrimination based on outcome and racial profiiling are consequences that I deducted before even reading opinion articles and without even caring about which crazy side of the aisle proposed this new law. My conclusion was based on history and trends and patterns regarding what similar laws and practices have resulted in. That has nothing to do with politics and partisanism, which are both bullcrap as far as I'm concerned. Anyone who can get their head out of the asses of politics can see how a law that makes sense in theory (because, as Soror said, despite the supposed benefits of immigration, most people don't agree with illegal immigration or even an ill-prepared influx of legal immigrants) can be the dumbest thing ever in practice.

ETA: If AZ was just trying to bring attention to the issue and the gov't to act, OKAY. There's a reason why they're making changes to this law. Another example of how intent and outcome are usually completely different.

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by ladygreek

Yes it is a well thought our argument and one sided. To be fair I would like to read one from the other side. Seriously, as I have gotten older I have become less likely to jump on a bandwagon especially when I am not directly impacted.

I do not know much about Arizona, and as neither a Dem, nor a Repub I really don't want to make a judgement based on politically, partisan arguments.

Point taken. I am neither a Repub or a Dem myself. IF I find a well thought out argument from the other side, I will post it. In fact, ANYONE who finds one from the other side, please post! I really would like to see an intellectually defensible argument of support for this law.