Feds to file lawsuit over Arizona immigration law

[starang21]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/20...-kobach-email/




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.

sooo....cars on blocks = hispanic?

or too many people in a house = hispanic?


btw, i vehemently disagree with the subsequent bills proposed.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by starang21

sooo....cars on blocks = hispanic?

or too many people in a house = hispanic?


btw, i vehemently disagree with the subsequent bills proposed.

All those subsequent bills also speak to the intent of these lawmakers as well.

Those items target poor, hispanic, stereotypes and show no indication of being related to illegal immigration as a whole or with a racial-neutral perspective.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

All those subsequent bills also speak to the intent of these lawmakers as well.

Those items target poor, hispanic, stereotypes and show no indication of being related to illegal immigration as a whole or with a racial-neutral perspective.

You know....some laws are like food, just because you don't see it in there doesn't mean that it's not in there.

(also called reading between the lines)

Just because the law doesn't specifically SPELL OUT that it's after certain groups of people doesn't mean it's not.

I think what starang is missing is simply this:

Nobody would be foolish enough to blantantly and in writing say aloud who or what this law is targeting. To me, it's just a common sense thing to figure out that doesn't require a ton of websites and stats to hide behind.

When you cut through the bullshit, it's plain to see that a whole bunch of people are very uncomfortable that the people who live in the same space as they don't look nor sound like them, don't share the same culture and for that matter, the same language...they go to their stores and places of business and they see less and less of themselves and it makes them angry and fearful and now they want to reclaim 'what's theirs.'

But, how do you reclaim something, how do you legalize something without looking like a complete racist asshole?

Make some laws that are vague enough(we are just going after the illegals) yet obvious enough (those illegals are hispanic BTW) to get the job done.

Starang...nobody is foolish enough to think that just because that law doesn't say it, that the lawmakers weren't thinking it.

They just realized that what worked in the 1700's and 1800's doesn't work in the 2000's.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Nobody would be foolish enough to blantantly and in writing say aloud who or what this law is targeting. To me, it's just a common sense thing to figure out that doesn't require a ton of websites and stats to hide behind.

When you cut through the bullshit, it's plain to see that a whole bunch of people are very uncomfortable that the people who live in the same space as they don't look nor sound like them, don't share the same culture and for that matter, the same language...they go to their stores and places of business and they see less and less of themselves and it makes them angry and fearful and now they want to reclaim 'what's theirs.'

But, how do you reclaim something, how do you legalize something without looking like a complete racist asshole?

Make some laws that are vague enough(we are just going after the illegals) yet obvious enough (those illegals are hispanic BTW) to get the job done.

Starang...nobody is foolish enough to think that just because that law doesn't say it, that the lawmakers weren't thinking it.

They just realized that what worked in the 1700's and 1800's doesn't work in the 2000's.

and this entire argument was called speculative at best by a federal judge. you can infer all you want, but the court is where debates end. and how much of your inference is based on your own personal prejudice?

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by starang21

and this entire argument was called speculative at best by a federal judge. you can infer all you want, but the court is where debates end. and how much of your inference is based on your own personal prejudice?

Still trying to decide if you're stating what you personally think or if you're stirring the pot. I'm going with the latter, given your history on GC.

[starang21]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Still trying to decide if you're stating what you personally think or if you're stirring the pot. I'm going with the latter, given your history on GC.

who me? psssshh, i'm an saint.