Arizona governor signs immigration bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, if a "customer" enters a bank with a ski mask on, it would be "racial profiling" for any security officer to ask to see his customer card?

well - racial profiling is not needed. behavioral profiling is not needed. any kind of profiling is not needed. Just common sense.

Why don't you go ahead to your bank that you frequent to and wear a mask? :)
 
well - racial profiling is not needed. behavioral profiling is not needed. any kind of profiling is not needed. Just common sense.

Why don't you go ahead to your bank that you frequent to and wear a mask? :)

Point missed as usual. Let me ask you this .... is it a "right" to wear whatever you want to wear in public? If so, is it a right to wear a ski mask into a bank?

If it is a right to wear a ski mask into a bank, then an officer would be "harassing" you if they stopped and detained and questioned you simply for an item of clothing you were wearing. That would be "discrimination" - would it not?

If it is discrimination for an officer to stop, detain and question a person simply for the reason they had an item of clothing on while conducting lawful business - then YOU should wear a ski mask into a bank and get your "payday" in court once you have been harassed.

I will not ... I use common sense. :giggle:

My illustration was also meant to convey yet another point. To those living outside of Arizona, with no understanding of their "culture" - why do they appear to be the "experts" on how Arizona should handle their illegal immigration problem?

Wouldn't it be perfectly logical to assume that a border patrol agent would know the difference between "suspicious" activity and legitimate activity?

Especially since 52% of border patrol agents are Hispanic and completely agree with Arizona's law?

What may not be "obvious" to an ordinary run of the mill political savvy forum poster may be completely obvious to a border patrol agent whom has had training and years of experience dealing with border jumpers.

Just saying ..... :whistle:
 
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Now...

Who said this?
 
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Now...

Who said this?

It was said by someone who wished to enforce immigration laws ;)

the one and same said this as well:

“Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them… ?”

wow .... he really HATED illegal immigration LOL

It was a matter on which [Franklin] had already written in the "Gazette" for 9 May [1751].

As Americanus, he aimed a bitter arrow at the British government, which insisted on exporting felons to the colonies, no matter how the colonies protested. It was, the mother country said, for the "improvement and well peopling" of America. Such parental concern, Americanus thought, called for some kind of filial acknowledgment, and at least the offer of repayment. Americanus had a plan.

"In some of the uninhabited parts of these provinces there are numbers of the venomous reptiles we call rattle-snakes: felons-convict from the beginning of the world. These, whenever we meet with them, we put to death, by virtue of an old law: Thou shalt bruise his head. But as this is a sanguinary law, and may seem too cruel; and as, however mischievous those creatures are with us, they may possibly change their natures if they were to change the climate; I would humbly propose that this general sentence of death be charged for transportation. In the spring of the year, when they first creep out of their holes, they are feeble, heavy, slow, and easily taken; and if a small bounty were allowed per head, some thousands might be collected annually and transported to Britain. There I would propose to have them carefully distributed in St. James Park, in the Spring Gardens and other places of pleasure about London; in the gardens of all the nobility and gentry throughout the nation; but particularly in the gardens of the prime ministers, the lords of trade, and members of Parliament, for to them we are most particularly obliged."

There might be some difficulties in the scheme, but no worse than went with the transporting of felons to America. "Let not private interests obstruct public utility. Our mother knows what is best for us. What is a little housebreaking, shoplifting, or highway robbing; what is a son now and then corrupted and hanged, a daughter debauched and poxed, a wife stabbed or a husband's throat cut, or a child's brains beat out with an axe, compared with this improvement and well peopling of the colonies?"

Whatever damage the rattle-snakes might do might be offset by their good example. "Might not the honest, rough British gentry, by a familiarity with these reptiles, learn to creep and to insinuate and to slaver and to wriggle into place (and perhaps to poison such as stand in their way): qualities of no small advantage to courtiers?"

This would be a just trade as well as gratitude for a favour. "Rattle-snakes seem the most suitable returns for the human serpents sent to us by our mother country. In this, however, as in every other branch of trade, she will have the advantage of us. She will reap equal benefits without equal risk of the inconveniences and dangers. For the rattle-snake gives warning before he attempts his mischief; which the convict does not." (1)

Wit and wisdom? Yes – for all immigration plans, all common (free) market ploys, especially the sort that invite our neighbor's worst to move in on us (illegally), to feed off the fat of the land, and otherwise housebreak, shoplift, rob, rape, beat, corrupt, debauch, and pox (and hand us the bill), are not equal.
 
Wouldn't it be perfectly logical to assume that a border patrol agent would know the difference between "suspicious" activity and legitimate activity

1. Border Patrol agents are Federal Agents - to be more specific - US Customs and Border Protection aka CBP
2. Border Patrols enforce federal immigration law
3. Border Patrols answers to Department of Homeland Security - like... President Obama, not Arizona state government.
4. Border Patrols do not patrol Arizona local towns. They patrol Arizona-Mexico border.

Especially since 52% of border patrol agents are Hispanic and completely agree with Arizona's law?
1. For hundredth times - please re-read Arizona's new immigration law. It's about allowing Arizona police officers to check people currently in Arizona for their immigration status. Border Patrols do not do this. Border Patrols keep illegals OUT or catch them and deport them back.
2. Do you have a source on that part about ALL Hispanic Border Patrols being in complete agreement with this new Arizona law?
 
It was said by someone who wished to enforce immigration laws ;)

the one and same said this as well:

wow .... he really HATED illegal immigration LOL

Actually no. There was no immigration law in that colonial period. There was no border patrol, no immigration agency, nothing. There was no such thing as "illegal immigration" term either in that era.

Ben Franklin believed that no man in America should be a laborer for others (aka slave) but he wanted America to be completely Anglo-Saxon society. He was an elitist.
 
Actually no. There was no immigration law in that colonial period. There was no border patrol, no immigration agency, nothing. There's no such thing as "illegal immigration" term either in that era.

Ben Franklin believed that no man in America should be a laborer for others (aka slave) but he wanted America to be completely Anglo-Saxon society. He was an elitist.

Actually, Ben Franklin used the term "immigration" specifically. So ... your kind of ..... wrong.

Should we invade Korea and expect Koreans to conform to our customs, culture and language?

It would be a wonderful idea, when we enter illegally, we can make Koreans foot the bill, and when they object, we can just claim they are racists ....

Its so full of WIN!

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6977168.html
 
Actually no. There was no immigration law in that colonial period. There was no border patrol, no immigration agency, nothing. There was no such thing as "illegal immigration" term either in that era.

Ben Franklin believed that no man in America should be a laborer for others (aka slave) but he wanted America to be completely Anglo-Saxon society. He was an elitist.

And were Americans Germanized? After.... 250 years?

Still an Anglophone society...
 
Actually, Ben Franklin used the term "immigration" specifically. So ... your kind of ..... wrong.

"kind of"? That's because you are again - wrong. wrong. and wrong. Ben Franklin was not speaking in context of ILLEGAL immigration. He was speaking in context that he wanted America to be completely Anglo-Saxon society.

Again - the concept of "illegal immigration" did not exist in colonial period. Please tell me - was there an immigration agency in 1700's? Was there "passport"? Were there border patrol agents?
 
"kind of"? That's because you are again - wrong. wrong. and wrong. Ben Franklin was not speaking in context of ILLEGAL immigration. He was speaking in context that he wanted America to be completely Anglo-Saxon society.

Again - the concept of "illegal immigration" did not exist in colonial period. Please tell me - was there an immigration agency in 1700's? Was there "passport"? Were there border patrol agents?

quoted for your convenience (again):


Wit and wisdom? Yes – for all immigration plans, all common (free) market ploys, especially the sort that invite our neighbor's worst to move in on us (illegally), to feed off the fat of the land, and otherwise housebreak, shoplift, rob, rape, beat, corrupt, debauch, and pox (and hand us the bill), are not equal.

No concept of legal, illegal immigration? My .... my.

Really, I am being too kind ... here you go, this is just for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
 
quoted for your convenience (again):

No concept of legal, illegal immigration? My .... my.
um... did you even read the whole thing? Franklin was targeting his bitterness to British Empire. "As Americanus, he aimed a bitter arrow at the British government, which insisted on exporting felons to the colonies, no matter how the colonies protested."

so... the quote you posted in your post?
Wit and wisdom? Yes – for all immigration plans, all common (free) market ploys, especially the sort that invite our neighbor's worst to move in on us (illegally), to feed off the fat of the land, and otherwise housebreak, shoplift, rob, rape, beat, corrupt, debauch, and pox (and hand us the bill), are not equal.
Guess who Ben Franklin was talking about. The British felons. Mind you - the 18th century English is different from 21st century so you obviously misunderstood Ben Franklin's letter. the context was different too.

Really, I am being too kind ... here you go, this is just for you:

Naturalization Act of 1790 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so where was the immigration agency? border patrol agents? or "American passport"? I don't see it in your link that such thing existed in 1700's. All I see is that the "white men" would be formally recognized by court as "American citizen".

So is there any more American historical events you would like me to correctly interpret for you? :wave:
 
Wit and wisdom? Yes – for all immigration plans, all common (free) market ploys, especially the sort that invite our neighbor's worst to move in on us (illegally), to feed off the fat of the land, and otherwise housebreak, shoplift, rob, rape, beat, corrupt, debauch, and pox (and hand us the bill), are not equal.

From my interpretation, Franklin was referring to criminals and we know that not all illegal immigrants are criminals. Our Founding Fathers were immigrants weren't they?
 
um... did you even read the whole thing? Franklin was targeting his bitterness to British Empire. "As Americanus, he aimed a bitter arrow at the British government, which insisted on exporting felons to the colonies, no matter how the colonies protested."

so... the quote you posted in your post?

Guess who Ben Franklin was talking about. The British felons. Mind you - the 18th century English is different from 21st century so you obviously misunderstood Ben Franklin's letter. the context was different too.



so where was the immigration agency? border patrol agents? or "American passport"? I don't see it in your link that such thing existed in 1700's. All I see is that the "white men" would be formally recognized by court as "American citizen".

So is there any more American historical events you would like me to correctly interpret for you? :wave:

well first, you need to correctly interpret historical facts for me to explain them to you.

You said, in colonial America, there was no concept of immigration, even illegal immigration.

I gave you the Naturalization Act of 1790 to dispel a notion you had that there was no concept of immigration in colonial America.

Then, I gave you direct quotes from Benjamin Franklin clearly indicating a concept of "illegal immigration" existed in Colonial America.

Do you need any further help in understanding these very foreign concepts? I will be happy to assist.

Also, do you consider the colonists to be immigrants? Or, Brits?
 
Wirelessly posted

Jiro said:
quoted for your convenience (again):

No concept of legal, illegal immigration? My .... my.
um... did you even read the whole thing? Franklin was targeting his bitterness to British Empire. "As Americanus, he aimed a bitter arrow at the British government, which insisted on exporting felons to the colonies, no matter how the colonies protested."

so... the quote you posted in your post?
Wit and wisdom? Yes – for all immigration plans, all common (free) market ploys, especially the sort that invite our neighbor's worst to move in on us (illegally), to feed off the fat of the land, and otherwise housebreak, shoplift, rob, rape, beat, corrupt, debauch, and pox (and hand us the bill), are not equal.
Guess who Ben Franklin was talking about. The British felons. Mind you - the 18th century English is different from 21st century so you obviously misunderstood Ben Franklin's letter. the context was different too.

Really, I am being too kind ... here you go, this is just for you:

Naturalization Act of 1790 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so where was the immigration agency? border patrol agents? or "American passport"? I don't see it in your link that such thing existed in 1700's. All I see is that the "white men" would be formally recognized by court as "American citizen".

So is there any more American historical events you would like me to correctly interpret for you? :wave:

All I see is that anyone that is white is legally allowed to be in the States, but must wait a few years after declaring their intents before being an American citizen with voting rights.

Radical in the sense religions and countries of origins didn't matter to the American government at the time.
 
Wirelessly posted



All I see is that anyone that is white is legally allowed to be in the States, but must wait a few years after declaring their intents before being an American citizen with voting rights.

Radical in the sense religions and countries of origins didn't matter to the American government at the time.

That was 1790. :cool2:

Most Brits were white in 1790. Most Chinese were Asian in 1790 .... and etc.
 
Wirelessly posted

Jefferson and Franklin were obviously referring to royalists, not illegal immigrants.

So quit spinning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top