Politcal Correctness (FBI/DOD could have stopped Fort Hood)

[Woodruff]

What is the correct way to find out of a person is a legal resident?

In my personal view...if someone is involved in a crime, a cursory background check is done (looking for prior arrests, etc...)...this is the appropriate time to check residency, as well (I would hope this is already done at this point, but who knows). As well, if someone "blows the whistle" on an employer for hiring illegal immigrants, then when that business is confronted, that is also an appropriate time to check residency. Basically, when there is some reason to do so outside of "whim".

Sounds good to me. May I ask where your opinion differs with Arizona law?

Arizona law does not require that an individual be involved in a crime or have their place of business be under an immigrancy check before they can be required to prove their residency status. Did you really think that wouldn't be my response?

[Phatscotty]

What is the correct way to find out of a person is a legal resident?

In my personal view...if someone is involved in a crime, a cursory background check is done (looking for prior arrests, etc...)...this is the appropriate time to check residency, as well (I would hope this is already done at this point, but who knows). As well, if someone "blows the whistle" on an employer for hiring illegal immigrants, then when that business is confronted, that is also an appropriate time to check residency. Basically, when there is some reason to do so outside of "whim".

Sounds good to me. May I ask where your opinion differs with Arizona law?

Arizona law does not require that an individual be involved in a crime or have their place of business be under an immigrancy check before they can be required to prove their residency status. Did you really think that wouldn't be my response?

it does now. I guess people were right to throw a tissy about it and at least force the state gov't to define SPECIFICALLY when one can be asked. When they are in custody, and one other instance I forget but I know it is a common sense measure so Hopefully Arizona can get it right

[Woodruff]

What is the correct way to find out of a person is a legal resident?

In my personal view...if someone is involved in a crime, a cursory background check is done (looking for prior arrests, etc...)...this is the appropriate time to check residency, as well (I would hope this is already done at this point, but who knows). As well, if someone "blows the whistle" on an employer for hiring illegal immigrants, then when that business is confronted, that is also an appropriate time to check residency. Basically, when there is some reason to do so outside of "whim".

Sounds good to me. May I ask where your opinion differs with Arizona law?

Arizona law does not require that an individual be involved in a crime or have their place of business be under an immigrancy check before they can be required to prove their residency status. Did you really think that wouldn't be my response?

it does now.

If so, that's good. I had looked at the changes that were accepted, and I don't recall seeing that. I remember it specifically stating that racial profiling could not be used, but I don't remember it saying anything about involvement in a crime being necessary for the check. I'm glad to hear it.

[Phatscotty]

I guess people were right to throw a tissy about it and at least force the state gov't to define SPECIFICALLY when one can be asked. When they are in custody, and one other instance I forget but I know it is a common sense measure so Hopefully Arizona can get it right

[Phatscotty]

Edit: Arizona did get it right, and so did Phatscotty.

Another change states that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law. The earlier law had referred to a "contact" with police.

[Phatscotty]

"Painful Conclusion": Senators Say FBI & DOD Could Have Prevented Ft. Hood Shooting

“The fact is that both the FBI and the Army were aware of Major Hasan,” Collins said. “This is not a case where a lone wolf was unknown to the FBI, unknown to the military officials, until he struck – and that is the tragedy of this case

“Although neither DOD nor the FBI had specific information concerning the time, place, or nature of the attack, they collectively had sufficient information to have detected Hasan’s radicalization to violent Islamist extremism but failed both to understand and to act on it,” the senators said in the report. “Our investigation found specific and systemic failures in the government’s handling of the Hasan case and raises additional concerns about what may be broader systemic issues.”

The gov't failed because of political correctness

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/0 ... oting.html

[PLAYER57832]

Edit: Arizona did get it right, and so did Phatscotty.

Another change states that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law. The earlier law had referred to a "contact" with police.

Not really. A police officer does not need much cause to stop someone. If they just "think someone might look like a suspect" , they can stop them. And, of course, thinking someone looks like they are illegal is still very much considered "legitimate reason". Nice try, but you fail.

[PLAYER57832]

"Painful Conclusion": Senators Say FBI & DOD Could Have Prevented Ft. Hood Shooting

“The fact is that both the FBI and the Army were aware of Major Hasan,” Collins said. “This is not a case where a lone wolf was unknown to the FBI, unknown to the military officials, until he struck – and that is the tragedy of this case

“Although neither DOD nor the FBI had specific information concerning the time, place, or nature of the attack, they collectively had sufficient information to have detected Hasan’s radicalization to violent Islamist extremism but failed both to understand and to act on it,” the senators said in the report. “Our investigation found specific and systemic failures in the government’s handling of the Hasan case and raises additional concerns about what may be broader systemic issues.”

The gov't failed because of political correctness

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/0 ... oting.html

This wasn't political correctness, it was stupidity. If those people speant more time actually understanding arabic culture instead of relying upon stereotypes, THEN they would have seen more. This so-called "political correctness" is really administrative laziness, letting people still look at superficialities instead of actually understanding other people. It is laziness and wrong whether the result is denying people something due to race/ethnicity/etc OR giving people something due to race/ethnicity/etc.

[Phatscotty]

Edit: Arizona did get it right, and so did Phatscotty.

Another change states that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law. The earlier law had referred to a "contact" with police.

Not really. A police officer does not need much cause to stop someone. If they just "think someone might look like a suspect" , they can stop them. And, of course, thinking someone looks like they are illegal is still very much considered "legitimate reason". Nice try, but you fail.

That is the most naive thing I have ever heard.

[PLAYER57832]

Edit: Arizona did get it right, and so did Phatscotty.

Another change states that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law. The earlier law had referred to a "contact" with police.

Not really. A police officer does not need much cause to stop someone. If they just "think someone might look like a suspect" , they can stop them. And, of course, thinking someone looks like they are illegal is still very much considered "legitimate reason". Nice try, but you fail.

That is the most naive thing I have ever heard.

You think its naive to say police will use flimsy excuses to stop people?

very cute!

[Phatscotty]

Edit: Arizona did get it right, and so did Phatscotty.

Another change states that immigration-status questions would follow a law enforcement officer's stopping, detaining or arresting a person while enforcing another law. The earlier law had referred to a "contact" with police.

Not really. A police officer does not need much cause to stop someone. If they just "think someone might look like a suspect" , they can stop them. And, of course, thinking someone looks like they are illegal is still very much considered "legitimate reason". Nice try, but you fail.

That is the most naive thing I have ever heard.

You think its naive to say police will use flimsy excuses to stop people?

very cute!

If they have a legitimate reason to stop you, flimsy or not, it's still a legitimate reason.

Your statement that cops pull over people cuz they look illegal, yes, still the most naive thing I have ever heard.

[PLAYER57832]

If they have a legitimate reason to stop you, flimsy or not, it's still a legitimate reason.

Oh PLEASE, You think that cops only stop people for legitimate reasons and try to claim I am the naive one? Get real!

Your statement that cops pull over people cuz they look illegal, yes, still the most naive thing I have ever heard.

No, my statement is that cops can find all sorts of reasons to "think someone looks illegal" ..and that this "change" really isn't one. You, who otherwise claim to be anti-government power, pro personnal freedoms are so biased on this issue you are ignoring the real implications. Not sure why, but "racism" or xenophobia might be a good bet. Oh, I lived in Mississippi long enough to know that racist does not necessarily equal "nasty individual".

[Phatscotty]

so, because I say that cops don't go around pulling people over for no reason, I am a racist?

naive is no longer the correct word to use

[PLAYER57832]

so, because I say that cops don't go around pulling people over for no reason, I am a racist?

naive is no longer the correct word to use

No, because in any other context, you would be among the first to cry "foul" or "government inteference"/"government power", etc. Yet here, you seem myopically unaware of that implication. One reason might be (didn't say it is, just its suspicious) racism or xenophobia specific particularly to Mexicans/latin Americans in general.

In truth, I think the "xenophobia" bit is more applicable.. specifically a distorted idea of why people who come here illegally come, who they are and what they do once they come here.

[Phatscotty]

so, because I say that cops don't go around pulling people over for no reason, I am a racist?

naive is no longer the correct word to use

No, because in any other context, you would be among the first to cry "foul" or "government inteference"/"government power", etc. Yet here, you seem myopically unaware of that implication. One reason might be (didn't say it is, just its suspicious) racism or xenophobia specific particularly to Mexicans/latin Americans in general.

well, that is your opinion of me, and it is not correct. therefore, everything after that is based on incorrect information.

I don't even know what the hell you mean by "gov't power" or how it even pertains to cops pulling people over for no reason.

[PLAYER57832]

so, because I say that cops don't go around pulling people over for no reason, I am a racist?

naive is no longer the correct word to use

No, because in any other context, you would be among the first to cry "foul" or "government inteference"/"government power", etc. Yet here, you seem myopically unaware of that implication. One reason might be (didn't say it is, just its suspicious) racism or xenophobia specific particularly to Mexicans/latin Americans in general.

well, that is your opinion of me, and it is not correct. therefore, everything after that is based on incorrect information.

I don't even know what the hell you mean by "gov't power" or how it even pertains to cops pulling people over for no reason.

Most people consider other people's opinion of them incorrect. Most people understand this, but for some reason you seem ignorant of that.

[Phatscotty]

so, because I say that cops don't go around pulling people over for no reason, I am a racist?

naive is no longer the correct word to use

No, because in any other context, you would be among the first to cry "foul" or "government inteference"/"government power", etc. Yet here, you seem myopically unaware of that implication. One reason might be (didn't say it is, just its suspicious) racism or xenophobia specific particularly to Mexicans/latin Americans in general.

well, that is your opinion of me, and it is not correct. therefore, everything after that is based on incorrect information.

I don't even know what the hell you mean by "gov't power" or how it even pertains to cops pulling people over for no reason.

Most people consider other people's opinion of them incorrect. Most people understand this, but for some reason you seem ignorant of that.

I'm telling you you're wrong. Gov't interference has nothing to do with this, nothing to do with my thoughts here. Race has nothing to do with it either. You are barking up the wrong tree.

Police do not go around pulling people over for no reason. An air freshener that is hanging off your rear-view is a reason. Like I said, it doesn't matter how flimsy it is.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm telling you you're wrong. Gov't interference has nothing to do with this, nothing to do with my thoughts here. Race has nothing to do with it either. You are barking up the wrong tree.

OK, then explain why this is "different" than other examples of government interferance?

Police do not go around pulling people over for no reason. An air freshener that is hanging off your rear-view is a reason. Like I said, it doesn't matter how flimsy it is.

LOL... this is why I say you are utterly and completely naive as well as hypocritical.

Because in other contexts, particular carrying guns, etc you assert essentially the opposite.

[Phatscotty]

I'm telling you you're wrong. Gov't interference has nothing to do with this, nothing to do with my thoughts here. Race has nothing to do with it either. You are barking up the wrong tree.

OK, then explain why this is "different" than other examples of government interferance?

Police do not go around pulling people over for no reason. An air freshener that is hanging off your rear-view is a reason. Like I said, it doesn't matter how flimsy it is.

LOL... this is why I say you are utterly and completely naive as well as hypocritical.

Because in other contexts, particular carrying guns, etc you assert essentially the opposite.

the gov't interference I often rail about is related to business and economic freedom. Where you go wrong is projecting that to think you can use my position on something specific and plug it into a different topic with different circumstances.

and, again, as for my example of the air freshener, I don't see how carrying guns is a related response.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm telling you you're wrong. Gov't interference has nothing to do with this, nothing to do with my thoughts here. Race has nothing to do with it either. You are barking up the wrong tree.

OK, then explain why this is "different" than other examples of government interferance?

Police do not go around pulling people over for no reason. An air freshener that is hanging off your rear-view is a reason. Like I said, it doesn't matter how flimsy it is.

LOL... this is why I say you are utterly and completely naive as well as hypocritical.

Because in other contexts, particular carrying guns, etc you assert essentially the opposite.

the gov't interference I often rail about is related to business and economic freedom. Where you go wrong is projecting that to think you can use my position on something specific and plug it into a different topic with different circumstances.

and, again, as for my example of the air freshener, I don't see how carrying guns is a related response.

Nice artificial "boxes" you like to draw. The connection is that police in other areas use the excuse of guns to crack down on all sorts of people. The threat of gun violance is most often used as a legitimate reason to limit gun ownreship, particularly as put forward by police.

Here, you seem to think that someone having an air freshener deserves to be put in jail if they don't carry their citizenship papers on their person.

And... yes, we are all aware that you support big business over all. Like I did say earlier, that myopia is part of why you find it OK to target hispanics in Arizona. The REAL problem is not people jumping the border, it is businesses that hire those folks. But, becuase the businesses are making money, you decide to target folks who are as much victims of this as the rest of us, not the businesses who create the situation from the start. AND, if you think economic gain has nothing to do with why illegal immigration hasn't ever been seriously countered, then you ARE truly naive... and ignoring facts.

[BigBallinStalin]

PLAYER, the incentives faced by businesses for hiring cheap labor will always be there no matter what laws are passed. This is just an unintended consequence of immigration laws, and it's limited by the inefficiencies and diminishing marginal utility for enforcing such laws.

"It's how it is because that's how it's going to be" is the simplified way of saying that.

To shift the blame on one side (namely corporations) is due to your failure in seeing other influences that are just as important.

[PLAYER57832]

PLAYER, the incentives faced by businesses for hiring cheap labor will always be there no matter what laws are passed. This is just an unintended consequence of immigration laws, and it's limited by the inefficiencies and diminishing marginal utility for enforcing such laws.

LOL. Sorry,but I have spoken with too many of the actual players in this.

Giving illegal aliens amnesty was fully intended as a way to encourage more cheap labor, and the fact that it was passed "initially" (in the modern "wave", anyway) by Mr Ronald Reagan, who came from California, which depended heavily upon illegal immigrant farm labor.. NONE of that was cooincidental.

"It's how it is because that's how it's going to be" is the simplified way of saying that.

To shift the blame on one side (namely corporations) is due to your failure in seeing other influences that are just as important.

No, our respective ages are showing here, I believe. I am old enough to actually have seen it, heard the behind-the scenes arguments, etc. Sorry, but you are just wrong. I am not going on what anyone else is telling me here, I heard and saw it happen for myself. Folks have absolutely claimed otherwise, but I am telling you what REALLY happened, not the pretend truth trotted out for political expedience.

Understand, the impact to corporations was a bit unforseen, though it should not have been. i don't think Mr R quite envisioned the heavy influx we saw into construction trades, for example. However, in other areas, he very much did. And again, I am not "just guessing" there. I may not have known Mr. R well on a personnal basis, but I did hear him speak outside of his given speeches and absolutely talked to people who had direct contact with him.

[BigBallinStalin]

PLAYER, the incentives faced by businesses for hiring cheap labor will always be there no matter what laws are passed. This is just an unintended consequence of immigration laws, and it's limited by the inefficiencies and diminishing marginal utility for enforcing such laws.

LOL. Sorry,but I have spoken with too many of the actual players in this.

Giving illegal aliens amnesty was fully intended as a way to encourage more cheap labor, and the fact that it was passed "initially" (in the modern "wave", anyway) by Mr Ronald Reagan, who came from California, which depended heavily upon illegal immigrant farm labor.. NONE of that was cooincidental.

Hey, just ask if you don't understand what I'm talking about. Judging from your response, it doesn't look like it, so perhaps you could rephrase what I typed in your own words and then see how it matches in relevance to your response.

"It's how it is because that's how it's going to be" is the simplified way of saying that.

To shift the blame on one side (namely corporations) is due to your failure in seeing other influences that are just as important.

No, our respective ages are showing here, I believe. I am old enough to actually have seen it, heard the behind-the scenes arguments, etc. Sorry, but you are just wrong. I am not going on what anyone else is telling me here, I heard and saw it happen for myself. Folks have absolutely claimed otherwise, but I am telling you what REALLY happened, not the pretend truth trotted out for political expedience.

Age has no relevance. It's the arguments themselves that do. Also, just saying that I'm wrong, doesn't really mean that I am--especially since you don't provide anything in support except some one-time vaguely related incident that's not even expanded on coherently (e.g. "I HEARD IT, MAN. I"VE SEEENT IT" to paraphrase).

Understand, the impact to corporations was a bit unforseen, though it should not have been. i don't think Mr R quite envisioned the heavy influx we saw into construction trades, for example. However, in other areas, he very much did. And again, I am not "just guessing" there. I may not have known Mr. R well on a personnal basis, but I did hear him speak outside of his given speeches and absolutely talked to people who had direct contact with him.

You see, what I'm talking about is this comment of yours:
"But, becuase the businesses are making money, you decide to target folks who are as much victims of this as the rest of us, not the businesses who create the situation from the start"


You place blame on the businesses for creating this situation, yet you ignore other factors (like incentives, unintended consequences, failures of the law and enforcement). You've yet to clearly defend your assertion.

[Phatscotty]

your patience with Player is admirable

[PLAYER57832]

[ You see, what I'm talking about is this comment of yours:
"But, becuase the businesses are making money, you decide to target folks who are as much victims of this as the rest of us, not the businesses who create the situation from the start"


You place blame on the businesses for creating this situation, yet you ignore other factors (like incentives, unintended consequences, failures of the law and enforcement). You've yet to clearly defend your assertion.

No. I say that the illegal aliens are as much victims because if the opportunity were here for them to come legally, they would. The jobs are here. In the past, quotas have been expanded to encourage folks who were needed. In this case, the quotas were not changed. A change was not "needed" because the folks were coming here, from Mexico anyway and since they were illegal, it saved first agriculture and then other businesses a lot in pay, conditions, etc. It resulted in a situation that was so negative, a "universal amnesty" was offered. This resulted in several things, among them a nice voting block for Reagan, etc, and even liberal "points" for being "humane".

And, when I say that this change was made to benefit business, its because it was the busines owners, then largely big agriculture, who went behind the scenes lobbying.

Its you who is making assumptions. I am telling you what actually happened.