Teabaggers exposed. No REAL opposition to overreaching government

[Barb]

I support the tea party objective of reining in public spending, yet have no real problem being required to carry my green card. It's a bit of a pain, but that's about it.

But perhaps because I don't have brown skin or speak Spanish my views don't matter. Oh well...

Because if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about, right? Every act is a small step. Every act seems inconsequential at the time.

OK, thanks for reminding me of the classic libertarian justification for doing nothing about anything ever, but you're actually quoting it out of context.

You will doubtless remember that the maxim ends "And then they came for me, and there was nobody left to complain". Well, in this case they have come for me, since I am an immigrant, and I don't think it's a big deal to be required to carry ID. I carry ID anyway. I am as much the focus of this law as a Mexican living in Arizona.

I actually wasn't referencing the "Then they came for me" idea, I was referencing the justification in this country, this century, for the intrusions and restrictions on civil liberty put in place by the arts and crafts departments of homeland insecurity and the US PATRIOT Acts I and II.

And Bob, if you aren't Mexican, even IF you were living in AZ, maybe especially IF, no, you aren't. Not even close.

 

[Barb]

I disagree. Liberals and progressives support government regulation of business (one example) because it is a consumer protection against fraud, pollution, environmental degradation, and unbridled power, and as such is a social good, something that our taxes should support (because in that case our money is spent on OUR benefit). Tell me what social good comes from regressive policies that reduce civil liberty, or intrude because of the religious preferences of some into the ability of others to enjoy equal protection under the law, or because of xenophobia, prevents others from doing the same?

It is a social good to enforce immigration laws, when the object of the law is to protect citizens in their own property. As far as 70 miles north of the US/Mexico border, American citizens are unable to leave their homes unprotected for even a couple hours. Chances are good that when they return, their houses will be occupied by illegals, or at best have only been broken into with their property stolen and destroyed. Where is the equal protection in that situation? Those same citizens whose property rights are being violated interact with people with hispanic physical characteristics every single day whose citizenship they have no reason to question; people whom they regard as friends and citizens. But when strangers in and on their land are arrested in instances of lawbreaking, in whatever manner, it is a bonafide responsibility of government in the capacity of police officers to ask them for identification. If that identification is suspect or fraudulent, and they cannot speak english, then it is reasonable to suspect that they are not American citizens and are here illegally, and further investigation is warranted.

EDIT: Where is the Tea Party crowd? One of the greatest motiviations of the TP people is preservation of property rights from being taken by government either by direct action or from lacking government action in responsibly defending the constitution.

A large percentage of property owners north of the US/Mex border in Arizona have abandoned their properties because it became too dangerous to continue living on it. These large areas have in effect become, unofficially, Mexican territory.

You'll have to post some local news articles to support that. AND, I did post the solution, overwhelmingly and universally ignored, one that would cut the demand for undocumented labor, and consequently stem the supply.

 

[Oddball]

I actually wasn't referencing the "Then they came for me" idea, I was referencing the justification in this country, this century, for the intrusions and restrictions on civil liberty put in place by the arts and crafts departments of homeland insecurity and the US PATRIOT Acts I and II.

And Bob, if you aren't Mexican, even IF you were living in AZ, maybe especially IF, no, you aren't. Not even close.

And guess who came up with the lion's share of the provisions in the USAPATRIOT act...Bubba Clinton and Janet Reno.

BTW, how many democrat Senators voted against passage of USAPATRIOT?....One.

Nope...Not a dime's worth of difference.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The TP claims to be patriots. They scream bloody murder that having to buy health insurance (which all of them already do) is an attack on their freedom

Here we have a direct violation of the fourth amendment. US citizens being stopped and detained to check for proper documentation based on nothing other than their appearance. Where is the TP?

Problem being that nobody is being stopped merely to show ID.

Tell ya what...Next time you get pulled over for having a tail light out and get asked for license, registration and insurance, you scream bloody murder about your civil rights and call the cop a fascist, m'kay?

Hey DUD, you just proved you are a real Jethro...people CAN and WILL be stopped and detained to check for proper documentation based on nothing other than their appearance.

You have evidence of this?

Fact is dumbass, the city of Phoenix has been upholding federal immigration laws for the past two years and not one episode of civil rights violations has been proven.

 

[Truthmatters]

RAARRRRRRRRR!!!

Not at all. Everything I posted is a tenet of the majority of the right, including support for intrusive "security measures," and there has not been a single tea bag protest against the AZ law or republican obstructionism concerning regulation of the financial industry, particularly the latest Goldman Sachs scandal. Not. A. Single. One.

Maybe the repubs are obstructing financial regulation for reasons other than you arbitrarily imagined.

As far as the AZ law is concerned, the added state law is to enforce federal regulations on the books that are being ignored. Maybe the key to having fewer laws and regulations is to fully enforce the ones you already have, eh?

So, which way do you want it here?...P.S. You don't get it both ways either.

OK this post should end forever the MYTH that our little duder is not a republican.

How can anyone defend the republican refusal to act on these issues?

 

[Barb]

Problem being that nobody is being stopped merely to show ID.

Tell ya what...Next time you get pulled over for having a tail light out and get asked for license, registration and insurance, you scream bloody murder about your civil rights and call the cop a fascist, m'kay?

Hey DUD, you just proved you are a real Jethro...people CAN and WILL be stopped and detained to check for proper documentation based on nothing other than their appearance.

Which section of the law says that?...Put up or shut up.

Most police agencies or jails here already check the immigration status of people charged with a crime, in consultation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but the new law would expand that power and allows the police to stop people on the suspicion of being in the country without documents.

Arizona Immigration Bill Divides Law Enforcement - NYTimes.com

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I disagree. Liberals and progressives support government regulation of business (one example) because it is a consumer protection against fraud, pollution, environmental degradation, and unbridled power, and as such is a social good, something that our taxes should support (because in that case our money is spent on OUR benefit). Tell me what social good comes from regressive policies that reduce civil liberty, or intrude because of the religious preferences of some into the ability of others to enjoy equal protection under the law, or because of xenophobia, prevents others from doing the same?

It is a social good to enforce immigration laws, when the object of the law is to protect citizens in their own property. As far as 70 miles north of the US/Mexico border, American citizens are unable to leave their homes unprotected for even a couple hours. Chances are good that when they return, their houses will be occupied by illegals, or at best have only been broken into with their property stolen and destroyed. Where is the equal protection in that situation? Those same citizens whose property rights are being violated interact with people with hispanic physical characteristics every single day whose citizenship they have no reason to question; people whom they regard as friends and citizens. But when strangers in and on their land are arrested in instances of lawbreaking, in whatever manner, it is a bonafide responsibility of government in the capacity of police officers to ask them for identification. If that identification is suspect or fraudulent, and they cannot speak english, then it is reasonable to suspect that they are not American citizens and are here illegally, and further investigation is warranted.

EDIT: Where is the Tea Party crowd? One of the greatest motiviations of the TP people is preservation of property rights from being taken by government either by direct action or from lacking government action in responsibly defending the constitution.

A large percentage of property owners north of the US/Mex border in Arizona have abandoned their properties because it became too dangerous to continue living on it. These large areas have in effect become, unofficially, Mexican territory.

You'll have to post some local news articles to support that. AND, I did post the solution, overwhelmingly and universally ignored, one that would cut the demand for undocumented labor, and consequently stem the supply.

Google Robert Krentz, officer Nick Erfle, officer Brandon Winfield, officer Henry Canales, officer Richard Salter, officer Rodney Johnson, just to name a few.

Immigrations Human Cost

 

[tigerbob]

Because if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about, right? Every act is a small step. Every act seems inconsequential at the time.

OK, thanks for reminding me of the classic libertarian justification for doing nothing about anything ever, but you're actually quoting it out of context.

You will doubtless remember that the maxim ends "And then they came for me, and there was nobody left to complain". Well, in this case they have come for me, since I am an immigrant, and I don't think it's a big deal to be required to carry ID. I carry ID anyway. I am as much the focus of this law as a Mexican living in Arizona.

I actually wasn't referencing the "Then they came for me" idea, I was referencing the justification in this country, this century, for the intrusions and restrictions on civil liberty put in place by the arts and crafts departments of homeland insecurity and the US PATRIOT Acts I and II.

And Bob, if you aren't Mexican, even IF you were living in AZ, maybe especially IF, no, you aren't. Not even close.

So if I were stopped and found to be illegal but not Mexican I'd be OK? Course not.

You're saying, if I'm reading you correctly, that the police et al will stop people based on ethnic origin, thereby making an assumption of possible guilt solely by race - guilty until proven innocent - correct?

 

[Barb]

I actually wasn't referencing the "Then they came for me" idea, I was referencing the justification in this country, this century, for the intrusions and restrictions on civil liberty put in place by the arts and crafts departments of homeland insecurity and the US PATRIOT Acts I and II.

And Bob, if you aren't Mexican, even IF you were living in AZ, maybe especially IF, no, you aren't. Not even close.

And guess who came up with the lion's share of the provisions in the USAPATRIOT act...Bubba Clinton and Janet Reno.

BTW, how many democrat Senators voted against passage of USAPATRIOT?....One.

Nope...Not a dime's worth of difference.

You won't find a word from me anywhere defending craven and pussy democrats more concerned with smears from the Bush administration regarding their "patriotism," or care for their continued employment than doing what was proper at that time. I bitched up a storm about the end run around congress giving that cocksucker the ability to declare military action as well.

 

[Barb]

OK, thanks for reminding me of the classic libertarian justification for doing nothing about anything ever, but you're actually quoting it out of context.

You will doubtless remember that the maxim ends "And then they came for me, and there was nobody left to complain". Well, in this case they have come for me, since I am an immigrant, and I don't think it's a big deal to be required to carry ID. I carry ID anyway. I am as much the focus of this law as a Mexican living in Arizona.

I actually wasn't referencing the "Then they came for me" idea, I was referencing the justification in this country, this century, for the intrusions and restrictions on civil liberty put in place by the arts and crafts departments of homeland insecurity and the US PATRIOT Acts I and II.

And Bob, if you aren't Mexican, even IF you were living in AZ, maybe especially IF, no, you aren't. Not even close.

So if I were stopped and found to be illegal but not Mexican I'd be OK? Course not.

You're saying, if I'm reading you correctly, that the police et al will stop people based on ethnic origin, thereby making an assumption of possible guilt solely by race - guilty until proven innocent - correct?

Are you saying I'm mistaken? Or are you saying that AUTHORITY should be given carte blanche and that the accused should have to prove innocence?

 

[Samson]

I actually wasn't referencing the "Then they came for me" idea, I was referencing the justification in this country, this century, for the intrusions and restrictions on civil liberty put in place by the arts and crafts departments of homeland insecurity and the US PATRIOT Acts I and II.

And Bob, if you aren't Mexican, even IF you were living in AZ, maybe especially IF, no, you aren't. Not even close.

So if I were stopped and found to be illegal but not Mexican I'd be OK? Course not.

You're saying, if I'm reading you correctly, that the police et al will stop people based on ethnic origin, thereby making an assumption of possible guilt solely by race - guilty until proven innocent - correct?

Are you saying I'm mistaken? Or are you saying that AUTHORITY should be given carte blanche and that the accused should have to prove innocence?

No that would be the basis on Napoleonic Law, which is the basis of Mexican Law.

 

[tigerbob]

I actually wasn't referencing the "Then they came for me" idea, I was referencing the justification in this country, this century, for the intrusions and restrictions on civil liberty put in place by the arts and crafts departments of homeland insecurity and the US PATRIOT Acts I and II.

And Bob, if you aren't Mexican, even IF you were living in AZ, maybe especially IF, no, you aren't. Not even close.

So if I were stopped and found to be illegal but not Mexican I'd be OK? Course not.

You're saying, if I'm reading you correctly, that the police et al will stop people based on ethnic origin, thereby making an assumption of possible guilt solely by race - guilty until proven innocent - correct?

Are you saying I'm mistaken? Or are you saying that AUTHORITY should be given carte blanche and that the accused should have to prove innocence?

I'm surprised you couldn't just take an honest, open question at face value.

I was paraphrasing what I believed to be your position so that I could understand it completely, and asking you whether my summary was correct. You appear to have chosen to read some potential hidden agenda that wasn't there.

I guess that answers your question. I hope you'll answer mine.

You're saying, if I'm reading you correctly, that the police et al will stop people based on ethnic origin, thereby making an assumption of possible guilt solely by race - guilty until proven innocent - correct?

 

[Stephanie]

Boy oh boy, these Progressive lefties can't make up their minds on the Tea Party.

First they say the TP are irrelevant, then they claim they are relevant and not doing as the lefties believe they should be doing by joining in their foot stomping, violent protesting of a law on ILLEGAL INVADERS in our country.

you just gotta laugh your ass off.

 

[Barb]

So if I were stopped and found to be illegal but not Mexican I'd be OK? Course not.

You're saying, if I'm reading you correctly, that the police et al will stop people based on ethnic origin, thereby making an assumption of possible guilt solely by race - guilty until proven innocent - correct?

Are you saying I'm mistaken? Or are you saying that AUTHORITY should be given carte blanche and that the accused should have to prove innocence?

I'm surprised you couldn't just take an honest, open question at face value.

I was paraphrasing what I believed to be your position so that I could understand it completely, and asking you whether my summary was correct. You appear to have chosen to read some potential hidden agenda that wasn't there.

I guess that answers your question. I hope you'll answer mine.

You're saying, if I'm reading you correctly, that the police et al will stop people based on ethnic origin, thereby making an assumption of possible guilt solely by race - guilty until proven innocent - correct?

You'll have to be more clear about what you think my position is, and that was the nature of my reply. Do you think 1), that I am wrong in believing the law will be abused or carries the probability of abuse, or 2) do you think that the accused should have to prove bias in order to challenge the application of the new law?

 

[Barb]

So if I were stopped and found to be illegal but not Mexican I'd be OK? Course not.

You're saying, if I'm reading you correctly, that the police et al will stop people based on ethnic origin, thereby making an assumption of possible guilt solely by race - guilty until proven innocent - correct?

Are you saying I'm mistaken? Or are you saying that AUTHORITY should be given carte blanche and that the accused should have to prove innocence?

No that would be the basis on Napoleonic Law, which is the basis of Mexican Law.

So...are you saying that we should be more like Mexico, or that the law as written copied them?

 

[tigerbob]

Are you saying I'm mistaken? Or are you saying that AUTHORITY should be given carte blanche and that the accused should have to prove innocence?

I'm surprised you couldn't just take an honest, open question at face value.

I was paraphrasing what I believed to be your position so that I could understand it completely, and asking you whether my summary was correct. You appear to have chosen to read some potential hidden agenda that wasn't there.

I guess that answers your question. I hope you'll answer mine.

You're saying, if I'm reading you correctly, that the police et al will stop people based on ethnic origin, thereby making an assumption of possible guilt solely by race - guilty until proven innocent - correct?

You'll have to be more clear about what you think my position is, and that was the nature of my reply. Do you think 1), that I am wrong in believing the law will be abused or carries the probability of abuse, or 2) do you think that the accused should have to prove bias in order to challenge the application of the new law?

I think (1).

I don't think that people should have to prove their innocence, but by the same token I don't think that the police should have to prove that they are not racists.

If we say that a law cannot be put in place because we do not trust law officers to apply it legally (i.e. without prejudice), then why are we suddenly giving illegals the benefit of "innocent until guilty" and effectively denying it to police officers?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Teabagger: How a Liberal calls himself a douchebag

 

[Samson]

Are you saying I'm mistaken? Or are you saying that AUTHORITY should be given carte blanche and that the accused should have to prove innocence?

No that would be the basis on Napoleonic Law, which is the basis of Mexican Law.

So...are you saying that we should be more like Mexico, or that the law as written copied them?

I'm sayin' that the US Constitution prevents Napoleonic Code from being US Law, and that its more than a little ridiculous to believe otherwise.

 

[Bfgrn]

Problem being that nobody is being stopped merely to show ID.

Tell ya what...Next time you get pulled over for having a tail light out and get asked for license, registration and insurance, you scream bloody murder about your civil rights and call the cop a fascist, m'kay?

Hey DUD, you just proved you are a real Jethro...people CAN and WILL be stopped and detained to check for proper documentation based on nothing other than their appearance.

Which section of the law says that?...Put up or shut up.

For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.

WOW DUD, how 'Jethro' of me. How could I ever possibly suspect that a beloved and worshiped agent of the government would EVER put 'reasonable suspicion' ahead of 'any lawful contact'...

I guess my naiveté comes from watched too much of The Beverly Hillbillies. I should have been watching Leave it to Beaver and Ozzie & Harriet...

 

[boedicca]

Why would the Tea Party protest the government enforcing immigration laws?