The evil brilliant man ALWAYS wins over the good brilliant man.
An evil man when all else is equal will generate one more weapon that the good man will not create willingly. The final weapon is hate. Where an evil man gets others to hate the good man, to include lying, the good man will not create falsities nor strive to create hate towards the evil man.
The people will always be swayed by emotion, action, and glitz. The good man preaches patience, a virtue with no clear action on the horizon. The patience is accompanied by entreaties of peace and good will, neither of which promise the sweet taste of vengeance and blood.
By the time the blood lust red has cleared from the eyes of the people, they have removed the good man for the evil man through false promises of glory from the dark man. What shall the fate of the people be?
Monday, May 23, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
What cultures should be considered a member of the U.S.A.?
All...because to live together is the common bond of America, a ragtag group of wanderers looking for a home where the government would back off. But every government demands more power out of self interest. And that is counter to the spirit of America. To organize is to socialize? Socialism? I heard socialism was evil...? Stalin style, yes, welfare...?eh.
Ron Paul is a champ in the fight against government intrusions. But all accepting parties of this nation are able to live in peace if they benefit from another and don't endanger another, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, etc.
Ron Paul is a champ in the fight against government intrusions. But all accepting parties of this nation are able to live in peace if they benefit from another and don't endanger another, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, etc.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
What's in a Word? The World, Apparently.
What if there was a word that could shake the foundations of the greatest nation on earth? What if it could bring society to a halt and embroil it it in years of confusion and mire it in identity crisis?
Well there is just a word like that. It is a word that I dare not speak for fear of revealing my own identity as self identity is inextricably tied to this word. So to remain as neutral as possible, I will just take the definition off of dictionary.com:
Nigger- The term nigger is now probably the most offensive word in English. Its degree of offensiveness has increased markedly in recent years, although it has been used in a derogatory manner since at least the Revolutionary War. Definitions 1a, 1b, and 2 represent meanings that are deeply disparaging and are used when the speaker deliberately wishes to cause great offense. Definition 1a, however, is sometimes used among African-Americans in a neutral or familiar way. Definition 3 is not normally considered disparaging—as in “The Irish are the niggers of Europe” from Roddy Doyle's The Commitments —but the other uses are considered contemptuous and hostile.
1. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive .
a. a black person.
b. a member of any dark-skinned people.
2. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive . a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.
3. a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised.
So what is it about this word that is so powerful? How does it move the black community and stymie the white community? And what might it take for America to be freed from the shackles of one word?
Maybe black people and white people should line up in front of eachother and say it or any other slur until it has lost it's power, and be done with it. White people could see that black people aren't monsters and black people could see that white people really don't like to be hateful or to even say the word. And now that word has grown in power until now as it carries the weight of the black/white schism. Everybody holds this word close to the vest as a word of power. Blacks use it because only they can and whites use it when they want a response or to portray intense feelings. Think about the power of something you’re not allowed to say. Or the power of something you're not allowed to have. Human nature would dictate that that thing would be the one thing you'd want. So blacks take pleasure in keeping the word to themselves and use it freely, but claim it brings memories of oppression if a white uses it, and whites are envious and provocative with a word they're not supposed to have, let alone say. So maybe we should just take away the word from the two the way you would take anything away from two parties as they fight for it. Take the power out of the word and take away the power from both groups, it just causes problems. Whites shouldn't want to say it for obvious reasons, and blacks should just want this word to be in the history books only.
Have the day where we just line up across from eachother and get the weight off; a fresh start if you will. This word symbolizes our struggle and it's time to end the struggle, so end the word.
Well there is just a word like that. It is a word that I dare not speak for fear of revealing my own identity as self identity is inextricably tied to this word. So to remain as neutral as possible, I will just take the definition off of dictionary.com:
Nigger- The term nigger is now probably the most offensive word in English. Its degree of offensiveness has increased markedly in recent years, although it has been used in a derogatory manner since at least the Revolutionary War. Definitions 1a, 1b, and 2 represent meanings that are deeply disparaging and are used when the speaker deliberately wishes to cause great offense. Definition 1a, however, is sometimes used among African-Americans in a neutral or familiar way. Definition 3 is not normally considered disparaging—as in “The Irish are the niggers of Europe” from Roddy Doyle's The Commitments —but the other uses are considered contemptuous and hostile.
1. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive .
a. a black person.
b. a member of any dark-skinned people.
2. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive . a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.
3. a victim of prejudice similar to that suffered by blacks; a person who is economically, politically, or socially disenfranchised.
So what is it about this word that is so powerful? How does it move the black community and stymie the white community? And what might it take for America to be freed from the shackles of one word?
Maybe black people and white people should line up in front of eachother and say it or any other slur until it has lost it's power, and be done with it. White people could see that black people aren't monsters and black people could see that white people really don't like to be hateful or to even say the word. And now that word has grown in power until now as it carries the weight of the black/white schism. Everybody holds this word close to the vest as a word of power. Blacks use it because only they can and whites use it when they want a response or to portray intense feelings. Think about the power of something you’re not allowed to say. Or the power of something you're not allowed to have. Human nature would dictate that that thing would be the one thing you'd want. So blacks take pleasure in keeping the word to themselves and use it freely, but claim it brings memories of oppression if a white uses it, and whites are envious and provocative with a word they're not supposed to have, let alone say. So maybe we should just take away the word from the two the way you would take anything away from two parties as they fight for it. Take the power out of the word and take away the power from both groups, it just causes problems. Whites shouldn't want to say it for obvious reasons, and blacks should just want this word to be in the history books only.
Have the day where we just line up across from eachother and get the weight off; a fresh start if you will. This word symbolizes our struggle and it's time to end the struggle, so end the word.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
The Case for Legal Migration. Labor=Happy Market
The Case for Legal Migration:
Many cases have been made against legal migration as opposed to illegal immigration. Let’s examine the effects of legal migration as a labor commodity instead of illegal immigration as a financial burder. Remember, the US currently has 5,000 visas annually for ALL low wage workers. Meanwhile, 400,000 illegal immigrants are chasing jobs illegally. The right doesn’t want them because of traditional xenophobic rhetoric. One only has to look through the history books to see the exact anti-(put race here) movement. The left doesn’t want them because the unions and big government proponents need the labor hold out to work and force the wage levels up. Unions and Dems need the cheap labor to stay away and not ruin their efforts to raise wages for the labor movement.
What is illegal immigration and why. It is the fact that Mexico (or other American country) is a high pressure system where the laborers cannot find equal matches or roles in the market. So these laborers choose the path of the least resistance, as water will from a higher pressure system to the lower pressure system, the US, where the jobs absorb the flow of labor, and the workers are able to find a compatible match in the market. What is this flow of immigrants? How can the principles of the free market guide the discussion on this topic? Is it something to be changed, feared, or planned for? No, it is a natural part of the work cycle of a nation that adheres to the free market, for labor is just another commodity, the same as if goods came off a boat. If we try to create barriers to the flow of workers, then we have interfered with the free market. We have created barriers to free trade, this always leads to higher prices for the consumers at large.
Now Crooks and Liars, a presumed leftist publication, has an article which states that the economy cannot get the low wage jobs filled. There are jobs, but no one is taking them, because they are of such low quality. They go on to state that wages are too low to entice the workers to the jobs and that the logical solution is to raise wages in the middle of a recession to get the jobs filled. Maybe that is NOT the solution however. If the economy is such that employers cannot hire workers at a higher wage, then perhaps they could hire more workers at a lower wage. Is it possible that the higher wages paid out during the economic boon were mirages and easy to stomach in a booming economy? And that since we are now in the bust after the boom then wages are contracting back to a more manageable level? Using the link below, I will be able to demonstrate the general feeling of the left, as well as explain some of their reason in light of the lefts relationship with unions.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/employers-we-just-cant-fill-our-under
In this article, the key point is that higher wages should be maintained while employers are cutting back on their payrolls. Doesn’t this sound eerily like a union argument trying to negotiate from a position of power as the workers, the labor? Does the left think that artificially raising wages while braving an economic storm is the best course of action? But how bad can it be? They say people are dying because they can’t get jobs, then they turn around and justify not getting a job because it does not pay enough! This brings up two points:
1. Why won’t the people work if they’re in such dire straits?
2. Isn’t that an unofficial way of raising minimum wage?
Well, using the free market, why don’t we allow foreign labor (Mexicans, Central and Southern Americans, etc) to fill those low wage jobs, grow the economy, pay taxes, and enable employers to create lower cost goods for society as a whole? In the next post, I hope to refute some of the common arguments regarding illegals, crime, and welfare. Let me put it this way, if illegals could be legal, they would, and if they were here for a short period and only while in good standing with the host country, then we would understand that they might not be the number one candidate for crime or welfare.
Many cases have been made against legal migration as opposed to illegal immigration. Let’s examine the effects of legal migration as a labor commodity instead of illegal immigration as a financial burder. Remember, the US currently has 5,000 visas annually for ALL low wage workers. Meanwhile, 400,000 illegal immigrants are chasing jobs illegally. The right doesn’t want them because of traditional xenophobic rhetoric. One only has to look through the history books to see the exact anti-(put race here) movement. The left doesn’t want them because the unions and big government proponents need the labor hold out to work and force the wage levels up. Unions and Dems need the cheap labor to stay away and not ruin their efforts to raise wages for the labor movement.
What is illegal immigration and why. It is the fact that Mexico (or other American country) is a high pressure system where the laborers cannot find equal matches or roles in the market. So these laborers choose the path of the least resistance, as water will from a higher pressure system to the lower pressure system, the US, where the jobs absorb the flow of labor, and the workers are able to find a compatible match in the market. What is this flow of immigrants? How can the principles of the free market guide the discussion on this topic? Is it something to be changed, feared, or planned for? No, it is a natural part of the work cycle of a nation that adheres to the free market, for labor is just another commodity, the same as if goods came off a boat. If we try to create barriers to the flow of workers, then we have interfered with the free market. We have created barriers to free trade, this always leads to higher prices for the consumers at large.
Now Crooks and Liars, a presumed leftist publication, has an article which states that the economy cannot get the low wage jobs filled. There are jobs, but no one is taking them, because they are of such low quality. They go on to state that wages are too low to entice the workers to the jobs and that the logical solution is to raise wages in the middle of a recession to get the jobs filled. Maybe that is NOT the solution however. If the economy is such that employers cannot hire workers at a higher wage, then perhaps they could hire more workers at a lower wage. Is it possible that the higher wages paid out during the economic boon were mirages and easy to stomach in a booming economy? And that since we are now in the bust after the boom then wages are contracting back to a more manageable level? Using the link below, I will be able to demonstrate the general feeling of the left, as well as explain some of their reason in light of the lefts relationship with unions.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/employers-we-just-cant-fill-our-under
In this article, the key point is that higher wages should be maintained while employers are cutting back on their payrolls. Doesn’t this sound eerily like a union argument trying to negotiate from a position of power as the workers, the labor? Does the left think that artificially raising wages while braving an economic storm is the best course of action? But how bad can it be? They say people are dying because they can’t get jobs, then they turn around and justify not getting a job because it does not pay enough! This brings up two points:
1. Why won’t the people work if they’re in such dire straits?
2. Isn’t that an unofficial way of raising minimum wage?
Well, using the free market, why don’t we allow foreign labor (Mexicans, Central and Southern Americans, etc) to fill those low wage jobs, grow the economy, pay taxes, and enable employers to create lower cost goods for society as a whole? In the next post, I hope to refute some of the common arguments regarding illegals, crime, and welfare. Let me put it this way, if illegals could be legal, they would, and if they were here for a short period and only while in good standing with the host country, then we would understand that they might not be the number one candidate for crime or welfare.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Can States and the Federal government sue eachother?
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-falls-under-supreme-court-jurisdiction.htm
"To understand Supreme Court jurisdiction, it is important to understand a term known as original jurisdiction. This refers to the ability of a court to be the first to hear a case. For example, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any case that involves a dispute in which the US government is a party."
-So the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) has original jurisdiction where the US is involved.
"This includes cases in which the federal government is named as a plaintiff and those that involve the US as a defendant. This is true despite who the opposing party is. The Supreme Court could, therefore, hear a case in which the US is suing a state or one in which a foreign visitor is suing the US."
-So the US CAN sue states, Holder CAN sue AZ for 1070. And, the states CAN sue the fed government for healthcare. SCOTUS will hear the case.
"To understand Supreme Court jurisdiction, it is important to understand a term known as original jurisdiction. This refers to the ability of a court to be the first to hear a case. For example, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any case that involves a dispute in which the US government is a party."
-So the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) has original jurisdiction where the US is involved.
"This includes cases in which the federal government is named as a plaintiff and those that involve the US as a defendant. This is true despite who the opposing party is. The Supreme Court could, therefore, hear a case in which the US is suing a state or one in which a foreign visitor is suing the US."
-So the US CAN sue states, Holder CAN sue AZ for 1070. And, the states CAN sue the fed government for healthcare. SCOTUS will hear the case.
Collectivism and the New Liberal
The Relationship between Socialism, Liberalism, and Democracy.
“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom”, noted Tocqueville, “socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude”.
Why does socialism seek restraint and servitude? In that, we must examine the nature of the relationship between individual and state. A socialist state will attempt to co-opt the functions of the market and industry. It will centrally plan and dictate occupations and income to persons based on merit. The “merit” class is the “in” group. Those who have not submitted individuality to the common good, are left in the “out” group, and receive less. Isn’t this just planned capitalism? Workers and Capitalists? Out group and In group becomes In group and Out group as Socialist group and Individual Liberty group. The Liberty group has not transferred liberty yet in exchange for In group status yet. So isn’t Collectivism/Socialism/Communism just a way to reorganize the wealth within the different classes?
Liberalism seemed to find its way forward during the Enlightenment through Democracy as a way to take the power from the ruling elite and give the power back to the people. Liberalism is known as the ideology for ultimate individual freedom and the abrogation of civil liberties from the state. It is commonly understood as the freedom from coercion, freedom from arbitrary power of other men, and the capricious work of feudal lord from serf servitude.
What are the equalities that each sphere of thought offers? Democracy is the equality in liberty, whereas socialism is the equality of individual abilities in order to have equality in material. That usually means restraint, see John Stuart Mill, Bastiat, or Locke on some different interpretations of the governments role as far as restraining it's people. Equality of liberty is the freedom to explore one's own abilities to their best effort. Equality of Material requires some to be lifted and some to be restrained in order to reach full equality.
Socialism offered economic freedom as the ultimate freedom. This ultimate freedom is to be exchanged for the other, individual freedoms. In order to achieve the economic freedom of socialism, one must relinquish the other individual freedoms. Because a key factor in socialism is the idea of central economic planning. In order to have a successful central planning plan, the economic freedoms of the individual must be subjugated to the greater good of society. Socialism makes the case that economic freedom ultimately leads to other freedoms. In order to offer economic freedom, it must release individuals from responsibility of economic activity. In order to do that, the state must assume all economic activity for the society. Each individual must hand over his economic means and be at the mercy of the state and the common good before his own needs and freedoms are met.
How did socialism become the liberal’s choice ideology to be the one to succeed liberalism? It would appear that international intelligentsia has come to see socialism as the natural evolution of liberalism. How can classic intelligentsia reconcile this idea of relinquishing freedoms with freedom itself? Many liberals assumed that as the original freedoms found under liberalism became realized, then the next freedom should be economic freedom? Did the Intelligentsia feel that economic freedom (socialism) was the successor to liberalism? But shouldn’t socialism and its requiring of individual freedoms be considered the antithesis of liberalism? Can a government have central planning without requiring a single measure of individual sovereignty? It would seem that in order to strive for the common good, then the individual rights must submit to the will of the majority. So then socialism can clearly be defined as the ideology that benefits the common good over the individual.
This does not then equate capitalism to a complete opposite stance, one where it is the individual over the common good. This is not to assume that complete unchecked capitalism is the only alternative. Many people would agree that guidelines are important. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, explains that the role of the government in the free market includes laying the ground work for fair trade and a clean market. In his words, the government is the one to set laws like child labor, working hours, or safe work environments. The dichotomy of absolute free market vs absolute central planning is not inevitable. Some will say that capitalism, in its importance on individual opportunity and social mobility leads directly to the common good, through the invisible hand.
Socialists have offered the freedom from economic hardships, as a way to free people from the hardships of competition. People also have a way to be freed from choices, responsibility, and accountability. Socialism offered economic equality which just amounted to taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots, redistributing the wealth.
What is the key to enforcing true liberalism? I believe it is real liberalism which is real free choice, lawful and out of the reach of the state. So Opportunity, set equally at birth is immediately set upon by difficult circumstances and bad luck. Through natural attributes and good real free decisions, people can overcome any obstacles and bad circumstances, and pursue happiness. When collectivism is involved, real free choice is taken away, and the person may not pursue their happiness and the world will be poorer for it.
“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom”, noted Tocqueville, “socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude”.
Why does socialism seek restraint and servitude? In that, we must examine the nature of the relationship between individual and state. A socialist state will attempt to co-opt the functions of the market and industry. It will centrally plan and dictate occupations and income to persons based on merit. The “merit” class is the “in” group. Those who have not submitted individuality to the common good, are left in the “out” group, and receive less. Isn’t this just planned capitalism? Workers and Capitalists? Out group and In group becomes In group and Out group as Socialist group and Individual Liberty group. The Liberty group has not transferred liberty yet in exchange for In group status yet. So isn’t Collectivism/Socialism/Communism just a way to reorganize the wealth within the different classes?
Liberalism seemed to find its way forward during the Enlightenment through Democracy as a way to take the power from the ruling elite and give the power back to the people. Liberalism is known as the ideology for ultimate individual freedom and the abrogation of civil liberties from the state. It is commonly understood as the freedom from coercion, freedom from arbitrary power of other men, and the capricious work of feudal lord from serf servitude.
What are the equalities that each sphere of thought offers? Democracy is the equality in liberty, whereas socialism is the equality of individual abilities in order to have equality in material. That usually means restraint, see John Stuart Mill, Bastiat, or Locke on some different interpretations of the governments role as far as restraining it's people. Equality of liberty is the freedom to explore one's own abilities to their best effort. Equality of Material requires some to be lifted and some to be restrained in order to reach full equality.
Socialism offered economic freedom as the ultimate freedom. This ultimate freedom is to be exchanged for the other, individual freedoms. In order to achieve the economic freedom of socialism, one must relinquish the other individual freedoms. Because a key factor in socialism is the idea of central economic planning. In order to have a successful central planning plan, the economic freedoms of the individual must be subjugated to the greater good of society. Socialism makes the case that economic freedom ultimately leads to other freedoms. In order to offer economic freedom, it must release individuals from responsibility of economic activity. In order to do that, the state must assume all economic activity for the society. Each individual must hand over his economic means and be at the mercy of the state and the common good before his own needs and freedoms are met.
How did socialism become the liberal’s choice ideology to be the one to succeed liberalism? It would appear that international intelligentsia has come to see socialism as the natural evolution of liberalism. How can classic intelligentsia reconcile this idea of relinquishing freedoms with freedom itself? Many liberals assumed that as the original freedoms found under liberalism became realized, then the next freedom should be economic freedom? Did the Intelligentsia feel that economic freedom (socialism) was the successor to liberalism? But shouldn’t socialism and its requiring of individual freedoms be considered the antithesis of liberalism? Can a government have central planning without requiring a single measure of individual sovereignty? It would seem that in order to strive for the common good, then the individual rights must submit to the will of the majority. So then socialism can clearly be defined as the ideology that benefits the common good over the individual.
This does not then equate capitalism to a complete opposite stance, one where it is the individual over the common good. This is not to assume that complete unchecked capitalism is the only alternative. Many people would agree that guidelines are important. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, explains that the role of the government in the free market includes laying the ground work for fair trade and a clean market. In his words, the government is the one to set laws like child labor, working hours, or safe work environments. The dichotomy of absolute free market vs absolute central planning is not inevitable. Some will say that capitalism, in its importance on individual opportunity and social mobility leads directly to the common good, through the invisible hand.
Socialists have offered the freedom from economic hardships, as a way to free people from the hardships of competition. People also have a way to be freed from choices, responsibility, and accountability. Socialism offered economic equality which just amounted to taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots, redistributing the wealth.
What is the key to enforcing true liberalism? I believe it is real liberalism which is real free choice, lawful and out of the reach of the state. So Opportunity, set equally at birth is immediately set upon by difficult circumstances and bad luck. Through natural attributes and good real free decisions, people can overcome any obstacles and bad circumstances, and pursue happiness. When collectivism is involved, real free choice is taken away, and the person may not pursue their happiness and the world will be poorer for it.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Follow on Bill to AZ 1070...Clarification
Here is the link to the updated version of 1070, also known as 2162.
http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/SB1070-HB2162.PDF
The bold and italicized text is the added text. Here are some of the changes for those who do not want to read the entire bill:
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT (Contact was crossed out for...) STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE (This was added) WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO AND IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION."
The other "controversial" part of the bill where everyone said racial profiling was inevitable looks like this:
"A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY (This was crossed out) CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION."
So there is a brief look at 1070 and the follow on 2162. Soon we will look at AZ 2281, the bill said to be direct assault on ethnic studies, but is it really that cut and dry? Here is the link so you can read it before we discuss it again.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2281h.pdf
To question intolerably is to question righteously.
-FFvsPub
http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/SB1070-HB2162.PDF
The bold and italicized text is the added text. Here are some of the changes for those who do not want to read the entire bill:
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT (Contact was crossed out for...) STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE (This was added) WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO AND IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION."
The other "controversial" part of the bill where everyone said racial profiling was inevitable looks like this:
"A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY (This was crossed out) CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION."
So there is a brief look at 1070 and the follow on 2162. Soon we will look at AZ 2281, the bill said to be direct assault on ethnic studies, but is it really that cut and dry? Here is the link so you can read it before we discuss it again.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2281h.pdf
To question intolerably is to question righteously.
-FFvsPub
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
