Arizona's anti-imigration law...
- Thread starter Lue C Fur
- Start date
UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)
Well-Known Member
Taxman Ted would like his slice of the pie.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
Los Angeles Students to Be Taught That Arizona Immigration Law Is Un-American
By Jana Winter
The Los Angeles Unified School District school board wants all public school students in the city to be taught that Arizona’s new immigration law is un-American.
The school board president made the announcement Tuesday night after the district’s Board of Education passed a resolution to oppose the controversial law, which gives law enforcement officials in Arizona the power to question and detain people they suspect are in the U.S. illegally when they are stopped in relation to a crime or infractio
By Jana Winter
The Los Angeles Unified School District school board wants all public school students in the city to be taught that Arizona’s new immigration law is un-American.
The school board president made the announcement Tuesday night after the district’s Board of Education passed a resolution to oppose the controversial law, which gives law enforcement officials in Arizona the power to question and detain people they suspect are in the U.S. illegally when they are stopped in relation to a crime or infractio
trplnkl
555
[FONT="]Addressing your post #906[/FONT]
[FONT="]Race:[/FONT] (for definition purposes; people belonging to a specific ethnicity such as : Hispanic friend, relating to, or being a person of Latin American descent (living in the United States
especially : one of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin).
When you added the line “living in the United States) made the definition of Race incorrect. A person’s race/ethnicity does not change with where they live.
You said:
You’re wrong, there’s no such thing as Mexican Hispanics, or Argentinean Hispanics, or Chilean Hispanics. If you’re Hispanic you’re Hispanic, and that’s it. And read at the bottom where I’ve written about the jurisdictional rights for illegal Mexicans before you respond.
You couldn’t be more wrong, you are still confused on the difference in Nationality and Race/Ethnicity. Mexico, Argentina and Chile are nations, the citizens living there and from there are Mexicans, Argentinean or Chilean respectively, that is their nationality. If their heritage is Hispanic then they are Mexican Hispanics, etc. If their heritage is not Hispanic, they are of another race. A person’s race is not determined by where they live.
Jurisdictional rights of illegal Mexicans has nothing to do with their race.
Your following diatribe makes little sense, but I will try to decipher it the best I can.
Hey, what happened with the definition I gave you? Discrimination: treating people differently through prejudice: unfair treatment of one person or group, usually because of prejudice about race, ethnicity, age, religion, or gender. OK, if you want me to read sentence by sentence leaving the idea of the others behind: “Discrimination against illegals from Mexico is not racism” - Discrimination (You could discriminate others because of race, discrimination includes that, I hope it’s clear, and I hope you understand why the word religion appeared here) against ilegals from Mexico (Illegal Mexicans are Hispanic, too!) They have an Ethnicity (And according to the United Nations, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination, just so you know.)
They’re included in terms of law, they have the rights because they‘re living under a jurisdiction of the United States of America, or how you think they would fill the Census Form? Do you consider yourself: 1)White 2)Black 3)Illegal Allien from Mexico 4)Illegal Alien from El Salvador 5)….. NO! is not racism. (It can include racism, age, religion or gender, for GOD’s sake! Or the energy of the universe‘s sake or whatever, I don‘t care you religious beliefs) Now, what’s discrimination for you? Not accepting a taco offered by an illegal Mexican immigrant? Or not saying “bless you” when an illegal Mexican sneezes? You can’t express the difference between race and nationality in that sentence, because it’s absurd.
[FONT="]I did miss word my statement [/FONT]“Discrimination against illegals from Mexico is not racism”. [FONT="]To coincide with my thoughts, I should have typed, “the law is not racism against illegals from Mexico”. My apologies for the miss wording.[/FONT]
[FONT="]I agree that race can be used as bases for discrimination and I’ve never said it was right to do so.
[/FONT][FONT="]You use the words “can/could” to the twist on the definition of discrimination. Of course race CAN be used to discriminate, however simply because it CAN or COULD does not meant that it WILL be used. The LEOs could target anyone driving a blue Ford, but I don’t think it is going to happen either.
[/FONT][FONT="]I agree that SOME illegal immigrants from Mexico are Hispanic, but not all are. To assume so would be illogical and incorrect.
[/FONT][FONT="]Although I could not care less what the UN has to say on most topics, I do agree that there is no difference in ethnic and racial discrimination. In fact, I have stated more than once that race=ethnicity.
[/FONT] [FONT="]My contention is and has been, SB1070 is not discriminatory as signed into law. As I read the law, it targets illegal immigrants/aliens regardless of their country of origin, their race/ethnicity. If you really think it is discriminatory, please tell me exactly what part of the law you are concerned about.[/FONT]
Oh and BTW, thanks for calling me Cowboy. Did someone tell you that is my second favorite nickname?
[FONT="]Race:[/FONT] (for definition purposes; people belonging to a specific ethnicity such as : Hispanic friend, relating to, or being a person of Latin American descent (living in the United States
especially : one of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin).When you added the line “living in the United States) made the definition of Race incorrect. A person’s race/ethnicity does not change with where they live.
You said:
You’re wrong, there’s no such thing as Mexican Hispanics, or Argentinean Hispanics, or Chilean Hispanics. If you’re Hispanic you’re Hispanic, and that’s it. And read at the bottom where I’ve written about the jurisdictional rights for illegal Mexicans before you respond.
You couldn’t be more wrong, you are still confused on the difference in Nationality and Race/Ethnicity. Mexico, Argentina and Chile are nations, the citizens living there and from there are Mexicans, Argentinean or Chilean respectively, that is their nationality. If their heritage is Hispanic then they are Mexican Hispanics, etc. If their heritage is not Hispanic, they are of another race. A person’s race is not determined by where they live.
Jurisdictional rights of illegal Mexicans has nothing to do with their race.
Your following diatribe makes little sense, but I will try to decipher it the best I can.
Hey, what happened with the definition I gave you? Discrimination: treating people differently through prejudice: unfair treatment of one person or group, usually because of prejudice about race, ethnicity, age, religion, or gender. OK, if you want me to read sentence by sentence leaving the idea of the others behind: “Discrimination against illegals from Mexico is not racism” - Discrimination (You could discriminate others because of race, discrimination includes that, I hope it’s clear, and I hope you understand why the word religion appeared here) against ilegals from Mexico (Illegal Mexicans are Hispanic, too!) They have an Ethnicity (And according to the United Nations, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination, just so you know.)
They’re included in terms of law, they have the rights because they‘re living under a jurisdiction of the United States of America, or how you think they would fill the Census Form? Do you consider yourself: 1)White 2)Black 3)Illegal Allien from Mexico 4)Illegal Alien from El Salvador 5)….. NO! is not racism. (It can include racism, age, religion or gender, for GOD’s sake! Or the energy of the universe‘s sake or whatever, I don‘t care you religious beliefs) Now, what’s discrimination for you? Not accepting a taco offered by an illegal Mexican immigrant? Or not saying “bless you” when an illegal Mexican sneezes? You can’t express the difference between race and nationality in that sentence, because it’s absurd.
[FONT="]I did miss word my statement [/FONT]“Discrimination against illegals from Mexico is not racism”. [FONT="]To coincide with my thoughts, I should have typed, “the law is not racism against illegals from Mexico”. My apologies for the miss wording.[/FONT]
[FONT="]I agree that race can be used as bases for discrimination and I’ve never said it was right to do so.
[/FONT][FONT="]You use the words “can/could” to the twist on the definition of discrimination. Of course race CAN be used to discriminate, however simply because it CAN or COULD does not meant that it WILL be used. The LEOs could target anyone driving a blue Ford, but I don’t think it is going to happen either.
[/FONT][FONT="]I agree that SOME illegal immigrants from Mexico are Hispanic, but not all are. To assume so would be illogical and incorrect.
[/FONT][FONT="]Although I could not care less what the UN has to say on most topics, I do agree that there is no difference in ethnic and racial discrimination. In fact, I have stated more than once that race=ethnicity.
[/FONT] [FONT="]My contention is and has been, SB1070 is not discriminatory as signed into law. As I read the law, it targets illegal immigrants/aliens regardless of their country of origin, their race/ethnicity. If you really think it is discriminatory, please tell me exactly what part of the law you are concerned about.[/FONT]
Oh and BTW, thanks for calling me Cowboy. Did someone tell you that is my second favorite nickname?
Lue C Fur
Evil member
Again the Liberals play the "Race Card":
Congresswoman: White Supremacist Groups Behind Arizona Immigration Law
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...red-arizonas-immigration-law/?test=latestnews
Congresswoman: White Supremacist Groups Behind Arizona Immigration Law
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...red-arizonas-immigration-law/?test=latestnews
trplnkl
555
Seriously, what does my gender matter? But here's a hint, P.Allen Smith nor you would not be my choice of a date.
klein
Für Meno :)
Besides, Kingofbrown, the name says it all (trplnkl).
Thats short for trinkel pinkle... not a Gusher !
trplnkl
555
Besides, Kingofbrown, the name says it all (trplnkl).
Thats short for trinkel pinkle... not a Gusher !
LOL, what on earth is a trinkel? or a pinkle? Are those Canadian term for you?
KingofBrown
Well-Known Member
[FONT="]Addressing your post #906[/FONT]
[FONT="]Race:[/FONT] (for definition purposes; people belonging to a specific ethnicity such as : Hispanic friend, relating to, or being a person of Latin American descent (living in the United Statesespecially : one of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin).
When you added the line “living in the United States) made the definition of Race incorrect. A person’s race/ethnicity does not change with where they live. I didn’t add anything, Cowboy. Go back and read your definition, that’s just how you got it from the Websters whatever dictionary, I’m not employed by them. But, they’re right, anyway
You said:
You’re wrong, there’s no such thing as Mexican Hispanics, or Argentinean Hispanics, or Chilean Hispanics. If you’re Hispanic you’re Hispanic, and that’s it. And read at the bottom where I’ve written about the jurisdictional rights for illegal Mexicans before you respond.
You couldn’t be more wrong, you are still confused on the difference in Nationality and Race/Ethnicity. I’m not Mexico, Argentina and Chile are nations, the citizens living there (Good) and from there (“horn sound.” If they’re from there but live in the US, they could be considered Hispanic) are Mexicans, Argentinean or Chilean respectively, Yes they are. that is their nationality Of course. If their heritage is Hispanic then they are Mexican Hispanics, etc. You’re wrong, Texan. If an illegal immigrant being white or black, or another race, Mexican considers himself Hispanic, he’s just Hispanic, he’s not a Mexican Hispanic for law definitions here in the United States If their heritage is not Hispanic, they are of another race. A person’s race is not determined by where they live. Here in the US, for definition purposes, like filling the Census Form, it is, Cowboy. Because a white Mexican with Hispanic or Latino heritage has the option: “Do you consider yourself of Hispanic/Latino Ethnicity.” And he/she can answer Yes or No. And thus, that’s why they define race and ethnicity something similar in terms of law. That’s why they placed that “living in the United States.” in your Websters definition. I didn’t add it. If laws ran by your thoughts the Census form would be something like this: Do you consider yourself: 1)White 2)Black 3)Illegal Allien from Mexico 4)Illegal Alien from El Salvador 5)Illegal Alien from Uruguay 6)Illegal Alien from Chile… 20)Native American… And then in another question: Are you from Spanish/Latino/ or Hispanic origin?
Of course, Texan, if they’re living in Mexico they won’t need to fill the United States Census Form. And thus Mexico is their nation, but if they’re living here, their nationality doesn’t matter if they’re discriminated because of race. Jurisdictional rights of illegal Mexicans has nothing to do with their race. Oh, yes it has Cowboy. With these rights they have the ability to defend themselves or file lawsuits against discrimination and other law issues, just like any other person living under any jurisdiction.
Your following diatribe makes little sense, but I will try to decipher it the best I can.
Hey, what happened with the definition I gave you? Discrimination: treating people differently through prejudice: unfair treatment of one person or group, usually because of prejudice about race, ethnicity, age, religion, or gender. OK, if you want me to read sentence by sentence leaving the idea of the others behind: “Discrimination against illegals from Mexico is not racism” - Discrimination (You could discriminate others because of race, discrimination includes that, I hope it’s clear, and I hope you understand why the word religion appeared here) against ilegals from Mexico (Illegal Mexicans are Hispanic, too!) They have an Ethnicity (And according to the United Nations, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination, just so you know.)
They’re included in terms of law, they have the rights because they‘re living under a jurisdiction of the United States of America, or how you think they would fill the Census Form? Do you consider yourself: 1)White 2)Black 3)Illegal Allien from Mexico 4)Illegal Alien from El Salvador 5)….. NO! is not racism. (It can include racism, age, religion or gender, for GOD’s sake! Or the energy of the universe‘s sake or whatever, I don‘t care you religious beliefs) Now, what’s discrimination for you? Not accepting a taco offered by an illegal Mexican immigrant? Or not saying “bless you” when an illegal Mexican sneezes? You can’t express the difference between race and nationality in that sentence, because it’s absurd.
KingofBrown
Well-Known Member
[FONT="]I did miss word my statement [/FONT]“Discrimination against illegals from Mexico is not racism”. [FONT="]To coincide with my thoughts, I should have typed, “the[FONT="]law is not racism against illegals from Mexico”. My apologies for the miss wording. [/FONT][FONT="]That sentence sounds more logical for expressing a complete sentence. (Oops, sorry, here again lecturing about sentence structure, that’s cherry). Because [/FONT][FONT="]“Discrimination against illegals from Mexico is not racism[/FONT][FONT="].” is an absurd thought. But the debate for your new sentence is still open in this thread. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT="]I agree that race can be used as bases for discrimination and I’ve never said it was right to do so. [FONT="]The absurdity of the blue sentence doesn’t reflect this implication. But, it’s good to know you’re not racist.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT="]You use the words “can/could” to the twist on the definition of discrimination. [/FONT][FONT="]Oh, no, Texan, I use the words can/could because that’s how it is, and the definition is not twisted in any way.[FONT="] Of course race CAN be used to discriminate, however simply because it CAN or COULD does not meant that it WILL be used. The LEOs could target anyone driving a blue Ford, but I don’t think it is going to happen either. [/FONT][FONT="]Depends on how suspicious the driver looks, Cowboy. Remember, it’s not the color, the look or the sound of the truck, but of the driver.
[FONT="]I agree that SOME illegal immigrants from Mexico are Hispanic, but not all are. To assume so would be illogical and incorrect. [/FONT][FONT="]Of course it would be illogical, Texan. Mexico has lots of different groups and communities.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Although I could not care less what the UN has to say on most topics, I do agree that there is no difference in ethnic and racial discrimination. In fact, I have stated more than once that race=ethnicity.[/FONT][FONT="] I think you came up with the word Ethnicity when I mentioned it, but it doesn’t matter, now.[FONT="]You should care, Texan, you might learn what rights you have when visiting or vacationing in another country, who knows you might have a free lunch for your first visit, one never knows. Learning something new everyday doesn’t harm, Cowboy. Well, depends on what you learn.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT="]My contention is and has been, SB1070 is not discriminatory as signed into law. As I read the law, it targets illegal immigrants/aliens regardless of their country of origin, their race/ethnicity. If you really think it is discriminatory, please tell me exactly what part of the law you are concerned about[/FONT][FONT="]. [FONT="]I’m not concerned, Cowboy, but my interest and attention is on the roots of the law. From who wrote it, who proposed it, who’s accredited for it, who signed it; and of course about the writing of the bill: How it started, why it has been modified (These are statements, not questions). And that this bill has brought and will bring more problems than solutions. And to add to all of this they’re touching my Bill of Rights. I’ve already talked about it, Texan. Remember you just left it open, and didn’t want to look it up. And as I’ve said before, if something (like this law) started stupid it’ll end stupid.[/FONT][/FONT]
Oh and BTW, thanks for calling me Cowboy. Did someone tell you that is my second favorite nickname? Cool. And no, no, Texan, nobody told me nothing. I just came up with it by chance. Now, that you’re mentioning your personal life, what’s your most favorite one? If we can know. Don’t tell me it’s Texan, please..
KingofBrown
Well-Known Member
It does matter, Texan, how come will I call a girl "Cowboy?" I would get a big slap in the face. And I wouldn't be able to do nothing about it, because I don't hit any woman. And more less, if I was the one who made such an awful blooper.
KingofBrown
Well-Known Member
Is this Joe the Sheriff? When he didn't cost the state millions and millions of Tax Dollars?
klein
Für Meno :)
If it's that easy, why don't you become Joe illegal. Work under the table, and apply for welfare and food stamps ?
Not hard for you to pretend your an illegal Canadian. (how would they know ?, just destroy your US papers).
Joe illegal , doesn't get a penny here on welfare or can send his illegal kids to school.
In order to recieve welfare here, you must prove you are legally eligable to work in the country, or have citizenship !
Why not just change that, then ?
But really, if it's that easy, next trip to the US, I will go to the welfare office there, and ask for a cheque, telling them I live there, illegally !
(Yes, right , NOT !!!!)
Not hard for you to pretend your an illegal Canadian. (how would they know ?, just destroy your US papers).
Joe illegal , doesn't get a penny here on welfare or can send his illegal kids to school.
In order to recieve welfare here, you must prove you are legally eligable to work in the country, or have citizenship !
Why not just change that, then ?
But really, if it's that easy, next trip to the US, I will go to the welfare office there, and ask for a cheque, telling them I live there, illegally !
(Yes, right , NOT !!!!)
KingofBrown
Well-Known Member
Bad example Texan. Although I don't like violence, I don't think you'd be able to knock me out, unless you're like a Rocky Balboa in Rocky 6 and I have two broken hands, feel a stomachache, and we're filming in the desert with no water.
moreluck
golden ticket member
Just as I expected, whimpy didn't do anything.......I hope Jan Brewer gets lots of help from the people from AZ. because the prez. is too busy scheduling a tee time. IDIOT !
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/03/arizona-governor-gets-results-meeting-obama/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/03/arizona-governor-gets-results-meeting-obama/
KingofBrown
Well-Known Member
Damn! This video is really funny. "I get in the movies for free with these baby blues." LOL.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-26-2010/law---border
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-26-2010/law---border
Last edited:
Don't ya just love Jon Stewart? Not particularly nice to Obama, but that's ok.
